EP

[@Tarukeys]

Thank you for your work for men. This is interesting.

[@josephneuberger4166]

Thank you.

[@nogmeerjan]

I had a relation where the sign was lighting a certain candle. Can you imagine in court: "She asked for it because the candle was burning."

[@josephneuberger4166]

Love that!!! Romantic.

[@natashakaschke8991]

The first 19 seconds… gold!

[@josephneuberger4166]

Thank you for viewing

[@jimdandy8996]

I would argue that biting could indeed imply consent.

[@dualfluidreactor]

i thought this would be about the "consent of the governed" which would be a mistaken belief

[@TheIrishdriven]

Same here

[@t.mcintyre7770]

how come you are not covering the Pat King trial, what the h is up with our laws1

[@paccawacca4069]

This is the issue with treating sex like it's a contract law. If she signals that she wants it, then..... That is consent. Consent means to permit it to happen. If you permit it to happen, and give communication that implies you want it, you consented. You're internal evnironment is irrelevant. Whether or not you wanted is irrelevant. It's whether about you gave consent.

[@BackAlleyBiker]

This is clearly a male biased law and needs to be drastically altered or altogether removed. Men can be charged with sexual assault for touching a woman, but a woman can touch a man’s junk and it’s totally fine. This is a total outrage.

[@josephneuberger4166]

I have yet to see a female charged although we did get a case withdrawn where we alleged he was sexually assaulted and had evidence of him messaging to say do not touch me.

[@paccawacca4069]

If the mistaken belief in consent was sensible and would have been made by most people, it's not mistaken belief in consent. Consent was just actually given. Consent isn't about wanting it or not.