Mistress’s New Law No.4

With thanks to Kenneth Clarke for the inspiration.

Following on from his white guy patriarchal misogynistic rape apologist comments, we have Mistress’s New law No. 4.

Given that the current definition of consent seems to cause so much confusion (‘well, she didn’t cut my cock off, so she must’ve been OK with it’), Law N0.4 will bring some much needed clarity to the area.  Henceforth, a woman’s consent to any sexual act is to be defined in accordance with the principles put forward in Hole’s Asking for It.

Thus, in the event of any dispute as to whether valid consent was in fact given, the following questions will be posed:

Was she asking for it?

Was she asking nice?

If she was asking for it,

Did she ask you twice?

Subsequent to these requirements, anyone accused of rape or sexual assault must provide evidence that not only did the woman positively consent to the act in a happily enthusiastic fashion, she positively reiterated that consent a second time, just to make sure there would be no misunderstanding.  Failure to provide such evidence will lead to a presumption of no consent.

And yes, I realise this tips the current notion of consent on its head – silence will not be enough, I’m afraid, my ‘date’ raping friends – and it will lead to some written contract probably becoming normalised prior to any consensual sexual interaction, but this is a fucking revolution, my friends.  Change is kind of what it’s all about.


About MistressofBoogie

Feminist. Loud-mouth. Sometimes those two are linked. Sometimes not. View all posts by MistressofBoogie

2 responses to “Mistress’s New Law No.4

  • TMae

    I took a public health class many years ago at a Fancy United States University. Said University was full of Very Intelligent Students. One day we had a discussion in class about STI transmission – specifically HPV. The wearing of condoms came up, and these Very Intelligent Students said they couldn’t possible *discuss* condoms, or STI status, because, “That’s a total mood killer.” And I just about died. Because if you can’t talk about sex with someone YOU’RE ABOUT TO HAVE IT with…well, then, we’re all fucked.

    And I think the idea of not being able to talk about sex, in any meaningful capacity with a potential partner goes very well with this notion of explicitness as the only consent. Because you’re damn straight, unless I ASK YOU TO TOUCH ME, I’ll thank you to keep your hands off of me. It’s very simple.

  • mistressofboogie

    I’m thinking that in due time we’d actually come up with some kind of standardised contract, that people would take to carrying about with them as a matter of course…
    It’s funny, isn’t it, that people keep insisting that ‘consent’ is a ‘thorny’ issue. Seems pretty simple to me. And I’m not that bright.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: