I think it solves as good evidence that the sex you had was consensual.
I've heard people want privacy. Then why can't you print out 2 forms in the privacy of your home?
Why are people so against consent forms?
Posts
Total:
14
-->
@TheUnderdog
I would say that anybody you fear enough to want a form out of shouldn't be someone you engage in intimate relations with, but I've also said marriage contracts should be explicit and legally binding. If there is trust then being held to it wouldn't be a problem.
It would have to be a little more complicated than you describe to be actually useful.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Not to mention not all sexual partners have opposable thumbs so it's actually discriminatory to require consent forms.
What happens if consent is withdrawn during sex?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I would say that anybody you fear enough to want a form out of shouldn't be someone you engage in intimate relations with
If that's the case, then you are talking about trusting someone with my life, where they can turn me in to the cops claiming I raped them (with DNA "evidence"). I can claim it was consensual, but then I don't think I would get off easy. I am not trusting someone with so much power.
but I've also said marriage contracts should be explicit and legally binding
Marital rape shouldn't be legal and it should be punishable with death.
It would have to be a little more complicated than you describe to be actually useful.
How so?
I don't want to give anybody any power over me if they decide to put me in jail over a rape charge that was consensual sex.
-->
@WyIted
How? Do you have sex with monkeys? If so, then monkeys don't deserve the same rights as humans. I don't think it should be a felony to kill and rape a monkey.
-->
@Best.Korea
Then you have to stop legally speaking.
-->
@TheUnderdog
@WyIted
[WyIted] Not to mention not all sexual partners have opposable thumbs so it's actually discriminatory to require consent forms.
Look whose back. Now remember those pills are for your own good.
[WyIted] Not to mention not all sexual partners have opposable thumbs so it's actually discriminatory to require consent forms.[TheUnderdog] How? Do you have sex with monkeys? If so, then monkeys don't deserve the same rights as humans. I don't think it should be a felony to kill and rape a monkey.
rofl, this is why maybe it's worth it to be on this site from time to time. Abnormal mentalities interact in such 'interesting' ways. Straight monkey murder-rape, which I guess is also necrophilia if you intended to suggest that order.
[ADOL] I would say that anybody you fear enough to want a form out of shouldn't be someone you engage in intimate relations with[TheUnderdog] If that's the case, then you are talking about trusting someone with my life, where they can turn me in to the cops claiming I raped them (with DNA "evidence").
No, you're right. That kind of trust is possible, but it's a pretty high bar to pass just to have sex or even get married so I see your point.
[ADOL] but I've also said marriage contracts should be explicit and legally binding[TheUnderdog] Marital rape shouldn't be legal and it should be punishable with death.
Jeez you are bringing up death a lot. Testosterone supplements aren't always the answer you know.
I was referring to fidelity among other things, but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.
[ADOL] It would have to be a little more complicated than you describe to be actually useful.[TheUnderdog] How so?
Well to craft useful legal structures (contracts and laws) you need to game out the different kinds of actors (game theory). This is something people who want to ban guns really fail to do.
There are plenty of people who want to have sex but there are finite number contexts where a rape might occur. In the worst case it's premeditated and carefully planned. It's often followed by murder to eliminate witnesses (singular in this case). If these consent forms are taken seriously by courts they become a new way to commit rape that doesn't require murder afterward, which might actually be a benefit overall.
Best.Korea had an unusually insightful question that cuts to the heart of the matter. If you sign the form, can you say no? Because after you sign the form you're essentially going to have no chance to convince a rational jury. Now it's hardly a slam dunk without a form, it's probably still he said/she said, but in order to catch on it's got to give assurances to both parties.
A man almost certainly already has a huge physical advantage and society will side against him at the drop of a hat (because of his strength and also because it's undeniable that men are much more rapey than women). The form is a big advantage for a man be his intentions good or ill. Why would a woman sign? If you think it's to get the man she wants, maybe but she doesn't need it just to have sex with a man. Rule #1 of reproduction on Earth since the Cambrian has been that there is always a male willing to take the risk.
Now I have a few times suggested using ring encryption to solve the problem of record keeping without sacrificing privacy. Basically you record everything with video and audio, the data is encrypted in such a way that it takes two of three keys to access:
Key 1: Participant A
Key 2: Participant B
Key 3: A judicial authority
I guess you would need more keys if it's an orgy but the point would be that nobody could distribute the recording without either the consent of everyone involved or the consent of one person and a judge, the judge would presumably be reviewing it and it could be used in court if there is merit to the claim of rape or misconduct.
This solves the withdrawn consent problem and therefore gives women a motivator for agreeing to this, after all unlike the form this would actually discourage rape.
It also bypasses a host of other problems with paper forms such as the fact that if you give someone a form once they can try to duplicate your signature or copy it with different dates. Those things aren't as hard to fake as you might think. In fact it opens the door to completely fabricated forms for people who never once consented.
I don't want to give anybody any power over me if they decide to put me in jail over a rape charge that was consensual sex.
It's more of a rich and/or orange person problem, but again I see your point and I don't know how much it is factoring into these younger generations decision making. My generation had plenty of sex at a young age and nobody was really afraid of that, but things change. I can see the culture becoming twisted and neurotic. It's possible people are more willing to rape and more willing to lie (or delude themselves). I mean I saw a rape statistic that included a young man misreading cues and trying to kiss. There are definitely people with agendas.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
rofl, this is why maybe it's worth it to be on this site from time to time. Abnormal mentalities interact in such 'interesting' ways. Straight monkey murder-rape, which I guess is also necrophilia if you intended to suggest that order.
That's 'Murica! The freedom to have butt sex with monkeys if you want too.
Jeez you are bringing up death a lot.
Hey man; we can't have prisoners getting free healthcare. Seems kindof socialist, don't you think?
but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.
If you want to divorce, it's a free country.
It's often followed by murder to eliminate witnesses (singular in this case).
I think a minority of rapists are murderers as well.
If you sign the form, can you say no? Because after you sign the form you're essentially going to have no chance to convince a rational jury.
If you don't want to sign the form, then don't. You shouldn't be forced too.
The form is a big advantage for a man be his intentions good or ill.
Yes. This is why as a guy, I want the form. If the woman doesn't want to sign, then she doesn't sign it.
Why would a woman sign? If you think it's to get the man she wants, maybe but she doesn't need it just to have sex with a man.
The man can only agree to have sex if the form is signed by both parties.
Rule #1 of reproduction on Earth since the Cambrian has been that there is always a male willing to take the risk.
Alright.
Now I have a few times suggested using ring encryption to solve the problem of record keeping without sacrificing privacy. Basically you record everything with video and audio, the data is encrypted in such a way that it takes two of three keys to access:Key 1: Participant AKey 2: Participant BKey 3: A judicial authority
So basically, a camera on a ring? I thought people would find that creepy. I would be fine with it as evidence. Others might not be. If it was a lanyard encryption (rings hurt my fingers and cost thousands of dollars; I prefer the lanyard), I would like that.
This solves the withdrawn consent problem and therefore gives women a motivator for agreeing to this, after all unlike the form this would actually discourage rape.
I would support Lanyard encription.
It also bypasses a host of other problems with paper forms such as the fact that if you give someone a form once they can try to duplicate your signature or copy it with different dates. Those things aren't as hard to fake as you might think. In fact it opens the door to completely fabricated forms for people who never once consented.
I prefer your idea to mine.
-->
@TheUnderdog
rofl, this is why maybe it's worth it to be on this site from time to time. Abnormal mentalities interact in such 'interesting' ways. Straight monkey murder-rape, which I guess is also necrophilia if you intended to suggest that order.That's 'Murica! The freedom to have butt sex with monkeys if you want too.
Afraid not, that along with being able to build a house without begging permission and copying mega-developers is not legal.
Jeez you are bringing up death a lot.Hey man; we can't have prisoners getting free healthcare. Seems kindof socialist, don't you think?
I think we could look into having them work or maybe exile before going straight to executions.
but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.If you want to divorce, it's a free country.
People shouldn't be free of their own promises.
but if one were to actually sit down and game it out I'm sure lack of sex would be an exit condition.If you want to divorce, it's a free country.
So you'd force them to sign or else sex is illegal. Now I'm seeing why there was some opposition.
Now I have a few times suggested using ring encryption to solve the problem of record keeping without sacrificing privacy. Basically you record everything with video and audio, the data is encrypted in such a way that it takes two of three keys to access:Key 1: Participant AKey 2: Participant BKey 3: A judicial authoritySo basically, a camera on a ring?
Uh, "on a ring" no? The camera can be where ever. It would have to be a special kind of camera of course.
I thought people would find that creepy.
They might, but it would be objectively not a privacy problem so people could get used to it.
I mean compared to you trying to force people to sign forms it's a lot more likely to catch on.
If it was a lanyard encryption (rings hurt my fingers and cost thousands of dollars; I prefer the lanyard), I would like that.
You say these things that make me wonder if I'm talking to a machine or a non-native English speaker. "ring encryption". It's a strategy for encrypting information that takes multiple keys (passwords) to unlock. It has nothing to do with lanyards or finger rings.
P.S. I wasn't using quite the right word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_cryptosystem is the precise phrase.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Look whose back. Now remember those pills are for your own good.
I have informed the doctor I just take red pills, no lithium for me as hard as they may try.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I think we could look into having them work or maybe exile before going straight to executions.
Then they could escape and do more rape and murdering. Plus all the "Rapist and Murderer Lives Matter" activists on the left would claim it's slavery (which it is, but I prefer it to taxpayers taking care of them and treating them better for how much they produce to society than teachers). Those precious murderers man.
But they could escape, so I'd rather kill murderers and rapists in the name of fiscal conservatism.
maybe exile
To where? Canada? Then Treadeau can say, "When America sends it's people, they aren't sending their best (you know the rest)."
People shouldn't be free of their own promises.
Consent can be withdrawn at any time. You wouldn't like it if your wife forcibly sucked your dick so hard that she bit it off. Consent matters.
You say these things that make me wonder if I'm talking to a machine or a non-native English speaker. "ring encryption". It's a strategy for encrypting information that takes multiple keys (passwords) to unlock. It has nothing to do with lanyards or finger rings.
You are talking to a native English speaker, but you are also talking to someone with autism. When you said, "ring encryption", I thought you met an actual ring camera hybrid.
But what if the camera gets destroyed by the rapist? Then your evidence is gone.
-->
@TheUnderdog
But they could escape, so I'd rather kill murderers and rapists in the name of fiscal conservatism.
All fun and games till they accuse you of rape. Then you might think that it would be good if they would keep you alive so evidence or appeals might release you some day.
maybe exileTo where? Canada? Then Treadeau can say, "When America sends it's people, they aren't sending their best (you know the rest)."
Doesn't bother the Mexicans and it wouldn't bother us.
People shouldn't be free of their own promises.Consent can be withdrawn at any time.
That morally depends on whether you made a promise.
You wouldn't like it if your wife forcibly sucked your dick so hard that she bit it off. Consent matters.
There is a considerable margin of safety between sucking and castration, regardless I wouldn't have to withdraw consent to have my dick bitten off because I would never give it.
But what if the camera gets destroyed by the rapist? Then your evidence is gone.
Well you can and should have it transmit live to a secure server but think about the truth table compared to the paper.
So you sign the paper and then the rapist is like "muwhahhaha now I can do whatever I want to you".
Or you don't trust the rapist so you don't sign the paper but he/she rapes you anyway (because he/she is obviously in control of the situation if cameras can be destroyed at will), what's your evidence of the rape? In your scenario sex without the paper is illegal, so all you have to do is go to the police, get the rape kit; and voila the rapist is charged with being nasty without the proper paperwork.
Well just replace the paper with the recording. If the rapist destroys the recording, and you are legally required to have a recording, it works the same way. Sex without a recording? Bang jail!
It's still a terrible idea to make it mandatory. Anything both mandatory and private will just not be followed. It's not like any part of this is bullet proof.
Rapist don't only attack at the time and place where you're expecting to have sex. The easiest way to not be recorded is to not attack your victim in front of a camera. You can avoid leaving behind a bunch of DNA with condoms and gloves. You can prevent reports to the police with murder.
Just like someone can claim that they withdrew consent after signing the paper, they can claim there was rape after the sex on the recording.
The only way to have absolutely verified consensual sex is in a controlled environment like some futurist brothel where everything is recorded from entry to exit. Now that people would find creepy.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All fun and games till they accuse you of rape.
If I get accused of rape, then I go through the trial and I get proven innocent or not guilty.
Besides, if we shouldn't offer free healthcare for undocumented/illegal immigrants who don't have a rape charge, we shouldn't do that for American Citizens who do have a rape charge. Convicted rapists on average are worse than undocumented/illegal immigrants and are less worthy of government money.
I am more fiscally conservative than I am pro-convict.
Then you might think that it would be good if they would keep you alive so evidence or appeals might release you some day.
For personal reasons, I would. Would I expect random people to care about me? No; and I would understand my execution.
Cutting taxes has it's costs; something libertarians seem to not understand.
That morally depends on whether you made a promise.
Marriage is a promise that you don't cheat; not that you are a sex slave.
There is a considerable margin of safety between sucking and castration, regardless I wouldn't have to withdraw consent to have my dick bitten off because I would never give it.
Weren't you arguing though that marriage is permanent consent?
Well you can and should have it transmit live to a secure server but think about the truth table compared to the paper.
So a government cloud? Alright. I agree with that.
Just like someone can claim that they withdrew consent after signing the paper, they can claim there was rape after the sex on the recording.
If the recording is 24/7, this wouldn't be true..
You can avoid leaving behind a bunch of DNA with condoms and gloves. You can prevent reports to the police with murder.
You can't eliminate 100% of your DNA from a scene.