- cross-posted to:
- positive_news@lemmy.ca
- positivenews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- positive_news@lemmy.ca
- positivenews@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Er… What was it before?
The article says it: some sort of violence or threats were required to bring charges.
Implicit consent. I think now you need explicit verbal or written consent
You can’t prove verbal anyway. If you have a penis, you should always have a written contract, particularly for casual encounters.
But this change I believe was more about no longer needing a threat of violence for rape to be considered rape. No longer on the victim to prove that there was a threat of violence.
LMAO that would be meaningless as consent can be withdrawn at any time.
It’s really not difficult to continually affirm consent. You’re making up demons that don’t exist.
Oh yeah, it’s notoriously easy to prove nonexistence of something.
Just have her sign a Love Contract.
Kobe!
This is why this law needed to exist
