Would you use a consent app?

I expect designated government run motels where participating parties have to physically sign consent forms before doing the deed in the coming years...

God this story was some pile of sanctimonious ****e and agenda pushing

-idea that consent needs to be formally and explicitly obtained is verbalized
- someone looks to create an (admittedly flawed) application to ensure this happens
-groups who originally verbalized this lose their **** and attack the developer as the spawn of the patriarchy

Erm, they’re running with your original premise my dear. Maybe you could actually be constructive with your idea.

One tool bag actually had the ironic cheek to describe this as “toxic masculinity” just had to shoehorn that in I guess- I guess obtaining consent isn’t relevant for women so.

Makes me wonder if some groups might not have a different agenda than they actually let on.

tritium wrote: »

Put simply it wouldn’t. Even if you had contracts signed in blood you’d still have cases where alcohol or drugs or differences in understood intention or some other random variable meant what the two parties believe happened differs significantly.

That’s the nature of the messy stuff that is human interactions. Just going with #Ibelieveher (or indeed #Ibeleievhim) won’t change that, all it does is pretend there are no grey areas.

That said I do think the real reason certain groups lost their **** here is that reasonable doubt becomes a much lower bar if someone can be shown to have freely signed something like this.thats not by the way stating it as right or wrong, good or bad, it’s just a fact. Unfortunately even with something like this you’ll still have some rapists walking free, some false accusers and a big pile of people in the middle where the truth is much less certain.

Good points, well made

KikiLaRue wrote: »

"Wanna f*ck?"
"Does that feel good?"
"I really want you - are you ready for this?"

I answered yes to all of these but it was because I felt under duress. Which also applies to the app.

seamus wrote: »

To be fair, it would never have become known except that the guy who sent the email included that he wanted to create the app to protect men from being sued post-coitus.

That was his entire reason for the app.

It was never about ensuring that consent is properly obtained or recorded, but about the boogeywoman waiting in the bushes to have sex with men and then cry rape the next day.

Except you’re treating the two as distinct when they’re not. If the reasoning is to prevent men being sued when they have consent then they have consent- actively sought consent, the exact thing that we’ve been hearing is needed. Now when someone actually goes off and creates something to make that happen they’re the devil incarnate and a tool of the patriarchy while the goalposts shift.

Tbh I’m not really sure how, at it’s heart an app like this could ever be for anything but the stated reason. You can dress it up all you like but someone refuses to click yes then they’re not consenting. No ambiguity there. A rapist won’t care about that so the app doesn’t protect them. The clicker already knows if they consent so the apps not for them either. The only person who gets tangible benefit is the one ensuring they have consent. If it makes you feel better you can say they want to know and record it for the good of others rather than self interest but ultimately for a non-rapist self interest in a pretty big part of it

No one disputes that consent can be withdrawn or consent may be limited in scope or capability. However it generally good practice to answer part a of the exam question (I.e. get consent initially) before trying to solve the trickier related parts b and c. That’s to say, maybe it’s detactors should try seeing it as part of the solution and work on the bugs rather than take the opportunity for outrage

tritium wrote: »

Tbh I’m not really sure how, at it’s heart an app like this could ever be for anything but the stated reason. You can dress it up all you like but someone refuses to click yes then they’re not consenting. No ambiguity there. A rapist won’t care about that so the app doesn’t protect them. The clicker already knows if they consent so the apps not for them either. The only person who gets tangible benefit is the one ensuring they have consent.

What about people who don't have this app then? What if they don't want to use or can't afford the technology? Do they need to get a hand written form in order to consent so it can be swiped on the app on the other persons phone? Does a solicitor need be present instead of the absent app? Or are they out the game until they co-operate and get this app? How is this sort of wollix going to work in fairness

Richard Hillman wrote: »

"ah f**k, I have to delete an app for the space. Er...I need that. Need that one. Gwan I'll go for the Pornhub app"

There's a pornhub app?

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don't know why establishing consent has to be so legalistic and decidedly unsexy.

"Wanna f*ck?"
"Does that feel good?"
"I really want you - are you ready for this?"

There's loads of perfectly good ways within the confines of a normal conversation leading up to sex to be totally sure you've got consent.

Obviously if you're tearing the clothes off each other, it's not necessary - but if you sense hesitance or reluctance it's absolutely no harm to make sure instead of ploughing ahead.

I'm 30 now, and my recent experience with men is that they are perfectly well able to cope with a 'No' if that's what happens when it comes down to it. But when I was 19 or 20, that wasn't the case. Lads would keep trying to convince or persuade you in a manner I'd imagine they would classify as 'persistent' but could actually be quite intimidating.

They really did make you feel like they were hard done by if you changed your mind or didn't want to go all the way.

Maybe I've got better taste in men now, but I think it's just a youth thing to a large degree.

This is largely my experience too, one of the many reasons I wouldn't like to be that young again.

There's not a chance I'd use a consent app, in fact there's probably no more sure way to get me up out of the bed and back into my clothes than asking me to.

Would it even be legally enforceable? under our laws you generally can't sign away your rights, in the same way a pre-nup isn't legally binding in Irish law, such an app in order to be admissible in a court case would have to be legislated for which is unlikely.

God, the culture is gone so creepy and weird.

Let the cool kids back in charge please.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

This is largely my experience too, one of the many reasons I wouldn't like to be that young again.

There's not a chance I'd use a consent app, in fact there's probably no more sure way to get me up out of the bed and back into my clothes than asking me to.

Would it even be legally enforceable? under our laws you generally can't sign away your rights, in the same way a pre-nup isn't legally binding in Irish law, such an app in order to be admissible in a court case would have to be legislated for which is unlikely.

While I think an app like this is an unfortunate development it is somewhat inevitable. I don’t see how it could be taken as signing away a right though- at best it could be taken as further evidence that consent was in fact in place at that point. Wouldn’t preclude withdrawing consent or indeed a challenge to the circumstances under which it was obtained. While in practice it’s too clunky a concept to ever catch on I can’t see how it’s much of a move from just plain old up front asking if someone consents - which we’re told is the way to go

To answer the question would I use such an app:

If I got a divorce and if Penelope Cruz, insisted I click OK then yes, yes I'd use it.