tritium wrote: » Given all that’s been seen are a few screen grabs how exactly are the failings obvious. And are those obvious failings insurmountable or could an update address them? Whether it’s practical is another matter (I think the app is somewhat impractical) but is there any reason other functionality couldn’t be brought in? Is there any flaw that doesn’t already exist with the current approaches? Tbh it’s a bit rich to claim they don’t understand consent when what they’ve actually created is an app that takes the first step to asking someone to confirm consent - may be a bit creepy but frankly they’ve shown that consent should be established, what exactly do you think they should have done for step 1? Or to put it another way - is it good to establish consent? Is it inherently wrong to have a record of that?
seamus wrote: » 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.
Woman who lied about rape showed 'vindictiveness I can't even fathom', says judge A woman who made a false rape claim has lost her bid for final name suppression, as a judge decides she should feel the "same sort of emotional outcomes" as her victim. Dannielle Terese Weir, 28, has been convicted of making a false statement to police after claiming she was pulled into a car and raped while walking home alone in February last year. She applied for final name suppression, arguing publication could affect her family and her mental health. Weir reported the rape on February 19, and agreed to a medical examination, telling the doctor she had not had sex for about 10 days before the alleged attack, a police summary of facts said. Weir described leaving a bar about midnight, and walking home along Weld St when a black Holden Commodore pulled up beside her. She claimed a man opened the back door, pulled her into the back seat and raped her, while another man drove south. She said she was pushed out of the car near Hospital Rd. Six investigators were put on the case, making extensive inquiries in the area. But several people came forward saying Weir had consensual sex with a man on the night she claimed she was raped, and lied about it to police, which Weir later admitted. She must have known the medical examination would lead investigators to that man, police said. Police said they had wasted "significant hours" on the investigation, and other "valid and legitimate" cases were put on hold. Weir, also known as Dani Livingstone, admitted a charge of making a false rape complaint in September, and appeared for sentencing at the Blenheim District Court on Monday. Her lawyer Laurie Murdoch said Weir met with the man for a restorative justice meeting, promising not to seek final name suppression, which she back-tracked on after seeing a psychologist. Judge Ruth said publication would "relieve the victim's hardship" and clear his name after months of suspicion. "He has had some threats because of the allegation against him, endangering his safety," Judge Ruth said. "This is a situation where a completely innocent person has had the suspicion of false charges on them. If some people hadn't come forward in the investigation, we might be sitting in front of a jury right now." The false allegation added to the difficulties faced by genuine rape victims coming forward, he said. "It undermines the whole process. People will point to you and say, 'why should we take genuine victims seriously' when there are cases like yours, when you put a man through severe hardship through some vindictiveness I can't even fathom," Judge Ruth said. He accepted publication would affect Weir's mental health, but said it was a normal consequence of offending, and not "extreme hardship". "Those same sort of emotional outcomes have been visited upon your victim," Judge Ruth said. "It may well be that there are repercussions for you and your family but I'm frankly of the view it would be quite irresponsible of me to suppress your name." He convicted and discharged Weir, and refused final name suppression.
riffmongous wrote: » So there was a story earlier today about someone wanting to develop a 'consent app' at UCD.. mass email.. outrage.. yadda yadda yadda. Anyway would you use one? You make some digital signature or something indicating you are up for it, and then get down to business. I can see a hell of a lot of problems with it anyway, who owns the data? The privacy implications! What if you're drunk? Consent can be withdrawn at any time. What if you agree and the hot blonde who started chatting to you back at the bar calls in Bubba?
suicide_circus wrote: » i seem to remember spontaneity and animalistic passion being important parts of lustful romance
Grayson wrote: » By failings I mean the failings in the concept, not the application. I've done software development in college and trust me, I'm the last person who should be criticising anyone developing an android app. I was useless at mobile app development I meant the concept of an app for consent is inherently flawed. Consent isn't something that's given once and that's it. It's ongoing. At any point it can be withdrawn. Plus consent for what exactly? Sex isn't a single uniform experience. it covers a range of different activities and it's up to a person to say "I don't like doing that" and for the other to accept it. Consent is really about being fully aware of your partner and what they are comfortable with.
tritium wrote: » 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
Mad_maxx wrote: » Yes but the feminist academics felt left out, plotted their revenge and this is where we are today
riffmongous wrote: » I can see a hell of a lot of problems with it anyway, who owns the data? The privacy implications! What if you're drunk? Consent can be withdrawn at any time. What if you agree and the hot blonde who started chatting to you back at the bar calls in Bubba?
Succubus_ wrote: » As far as I'm concerned trying to enthusiastically get each other's clothes off is a good enough sign of consent for me. As long as neither is absolutely off their faces out of it.
KikiLaRue wrote: » 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.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » I might be wrong but would there not have to be some acknowledgment in law that this is a viable way to prove consent was in fact given as some point pre the act taking place?
I don't think it has to be an inevitable development tbh, I think if young people are encouraged to have frank and honest discussions about sex, if they're all taught how to give consent or how to object effectively, how to acknowledge consent or how to react when it's not forthcoming, and that sex is a mutual experience between two people not a transactional exchange between two people where one person allows the other to touch them but rather where they both want to be there. I've spoken before about the idea that even use of the phrase consent alludes to the fact that it's a scenario in which one person is trying to get something from the other, when in practice (IME anyway) sex is not like that, it is, or should be at least a mutually enjoyable experience and it's not something women allow men to do to them (or men to other men, or women to other women or men to women, just to cover all bases) it's something people should want to do together.
It's a long time since I had a sex ed class but it was very much focused on the consequenses of sex rather then the experience, be that physical or emotional. Humans are animals that copulate for fun like, our education on the subject should acknowledge that, and prepare kids properly for it. That's what I feel we should be aiming for more rather than developing apps for this kind of stuff, and as I said, there's not a hope in hell I would ever consent via an app or a signed doc, I just wouldn't. If I want to be there it will be obvious, if I don't it will be equally as obvious!
Muir wrote: » I don't see it posted here yet but UCD have issued an apology because of this https://www.98fm.com/news/consent-app-ucd-836697
tritium wrote: » And no one has disputed that. All this app seems to do at present is establish initial consent. It’s a clunky approach and I’m not sure it could be refined to be more ahem elegant, but it’s a first step in establishing consent.Doesn’t mean someone can’t change their mind, can’t be incapable of consent etc. - all of those things exist with or without an app. What it does do, which I’d suggest is a very good thing, is get people actively asking about consent. Given the awkwardness that often goes with sex I don’t think that’s a negative. It also reinforces the idea that consent is given, and may help people be more comfortable with telling their partner when it’s been revoked etc. that’s a pretty big step up from the current scenario where people seem to be incapable of discussing it and everyone (male and female) assumes that because they’re thinking it it must be obvious to everyone else. Though I do think they’re missing 50% of their customers by focusing on men using it. Tbh both parties should be establishing consent of their partner- oddly the critics of the app seem to have missed that.
riffmongous wrote: » Yeah I didn't want to make the UCD thing really a part of the thread, even though it was the inspiration, because I was more curious about hearing people's views on the topic itself, rather than the specifics of the UCD incident (which would have probably just been a load of people complaining about feminists :rolleyes:)
jackwigan wrote: » Demolition Man predicted this kind of thing...
Muir wrote: » Yeah, that's a fair point. I think their reaction is the right one though. Consent is a continuous thing, not just one moment of consent and then do what you like after you have it. What are you actually consenting to? Would there be checkboxes so you could detail yes to oral, but no to anal, cool with handcuffs, hate blindfolds - and let's be honest, that checklist could really go on forever. Consent is an important thing, and it's important to be aware of it. But there's so much scaremongering about it now that it's just absolutely insane. I think it's gotten really difficult for young people, particularly males. I can understand where people start to feel like they need a legal written contract before they do anything, but also such a contract would actually show a rather poor understanding of consent anyway. I think the issue of consent is handled badly in the media. It makes false rape claims appear more common than they are. I'm not disputing that they happen, they do. They shouldn't, and there should be serious consequences for anyone proven guilty of making a false claim. However, people also get hit by cars crossing the street, it doesn't mean you stop crossing the street. You just do so as sensibly as you reasonably can, which in the case of consent means knowing what it is and that you have it. There are always a few outliers on either side of things, those who think they should be able to give/get detailed consent for every step, and those who think it's their right to have sex with whoever they want regardless of consent. But the vast majority of us fall in the sensible middle ground, even if the media would have you believe otherwise.
Grayson wrote: » For me personally it's saying something along the lines of "I'm going to get a condom" or "where are the condoms" or "should I get a condom" or I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this (no, I don't say that ). There are ways to make sure your partner is ok with it. And I have been in situations back in college where we just fooled around without intercourse. It's not a given that because you're naked and in bed together that it's going to progress.
lainey_d_123 wrote: » As a woman, I personally think this entire 'consent' thing has totally backfired. The kind of men who would push women into sex and disregard boundaries think it doesn't apply to them, and the decent men are so terrified of being accused of rape that they daren't make a move. I was out on a third date with a guy the other night and he hadn't made a single move, despite me giving him 'signals' (light brush on the knee, touch on the arm). I had my hand sitting on my own knee, right next to his and he didn't take it. I had honestly started to think he just wasn't interested in me, and was for some reason just interested in hanging out as friends. Finally, at the end of the night, after walking me home, he went in for the kiss and it was lovely. I asked him why he hadn't gone for it sooner and he said he was scared of making a move, and only when I started to be ridiculously forward, he realised I was interested and it was OK. This is the problem. It's harder than ever now to date. The rapey guys haven't learned a thing and the nice guys are afraid of being rapey.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
