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.