What next a pre-sex contract?

**Feckless** · 18th-August-2008

What next, a pre-sex contract?

No wonder laws that ignore the messy facts of our emotional lives are being ignored

Josie Appleton

div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited { color:#06c; } DID THE Sexual Offences Act 2003 change your sex life? Probably not — and, according to the Home Office, that’s just the problem. An official awareness campaign begins tomorrow telling men to make sure that their partner has consented to sex, or they could risk being accused of rape. The £500,000 campaign will kick off with radio adverts and move on next week to magazine ads, posters in men’s toilets and stickers on condom machines.
The Home Office is concerned that the public is confused about the Sexual Offences Act. In a nutshell, the Act says that the defendant in a rape trial must show that he took reasonable steps to ensure that the woman gave consent. The onus is on him to prove that she agreed to sex. As a Home Office spokeswoman put it last week: “Giving consent is active not passive, and it’s up to everyone to make sure that their partner agrees to sexual activity.” Another implication of the law is that a person must have the freedom and capacity to consent to sex, raising the question of whether women can really consent while drunk.
Three years on, nothing seems to have changed. Men haven’t understood that they need to make an effort to check for consent and women continue to get drunk and end up in strangers’ bedrooms.
The Home Office wants to raise awareness about a “clear definition” of consent. The trouble is, that’s just not how sex works. In real life consent is worked out through tacit signs and signals, and often involves conflicting desires. It’s emotional, not rational. People may have sex against their better judgment, or when they are not really in the mood.

Yet the Government apparently wants us to treat sexual consent as a legal contract, rather like signing a mortgage agreement. Indeed, some have even called for consent forms to be put in packets of condoms. This is pillow talk of a different language: “I, being of sound mind and body, do hereby declare . . .” Such stern standards have been adopted on some US college campuses. One college’s guidelines state that “each new level of sexual activity” requires explicit consent using “agreed upon forms of communication” (“body movements” or “moans” don’t count).
British adults are apparently more difficult to educate than US college students, hence the ad campaign. But in reality it is the Government that is confused: the laws bear little relationship to the way we conduct our intimate lives. New Labour is the aficionado of unworldly laws, produced by bureaucratic brainstorming rather than public need. Laws used to express accepted ways of doing things and brought transgressors into line; new Labour uses laws to “send a message” about how things should be done differently.
The Sexual Offences Act risks poisoning personal relations, suggesting that partners need protection against each other and that rape is just one end on the spectrum of heterosex. The low view of men is obvious: all men are seen as potential rapists who need to prove their innocence each time they step into the bedroom. But these laws strike no blows for women’s lib either. They treat women as feeble creatures who need to be asked for their consent (as if we are not capable of making our views on the matter quite clear). After a few glasses of wine, we apparently lose all capacity to make choices and need to be tucked up in bed, alone. Behind this are some pretty old-fashioned assumptions, with the State standing in as chaperone to make sure we aren’t getting into anything we can’t handle. How does this fit with today’s liberated young women, who march around city centres matching men for drinks and forthrightness?
These sex laws effectively shift the presumption of innocence, placing the burden of proof on the accused, with dangerous implications for legal rights. Rape is a serious crime that carries a deservedly heavy sentence; it is important that it is proven “beyond all reasonable doubt”.
In cases of rape, there should be little confusion between the parties about the fact that a crime is being committed. These laws appear to be less about crime as traditionally defined than establishing correct forms of sexual behaviour. Setting the Boundaries, the consultation document that informed the Sexual Offences Act, argued that “it is important for society as a whole for sexual relationships to be based on mutual respect and understanding”. Bad behaviour — insensitivity, persuasion or opportunism — becomes defined as criminal. Rape gets mixed up with everyday, messy sex: sex that is regretted, or sex that you didn’t feel like but went along with.
As if things weren’t complicated enough, the Government is considering new sex laws. Last November a high-profile rape case collapsed after the woman admitted she was too drunk to remember whether she had given consent or not. The accused appears to have behaved badly, but there is a difference between immorality and a crime that can be proven in court. If a woman (as the only witness) can’t remember whether she consented or not, or even whether she had sex, then there is little option but to drop the case. Yet Mike O’Brien, the Solicitor- General, says that the law “may need some clarification”, enabling juries to decide whether a woman was too drunk to consent. How exactly? Pre-sex Breathalyser tests?
These laws are demeaning. Women are being treated as children who speak only when spoken to, rather than as adults capable of managing our own affairs.
The author writes for spiked-online.com

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...icle740435.ece

How is the situation in England atm?

**6ame** · 18th-August-2008

Men haven’t understood that they need to make an effort to check for consent and women continue to get drunk and end up in strangers’ bedrooms.

Doesn't this also apply the other way around? Women don't make an effort to check for consent, and men get drunk and end up in a stranger's bedroom.

**Marx** · 18th-August-2008

Quote from 6ame

Doesn't this also apply the other way around? Women don't make an effort to check for consent, and men get drunk and end up in a stranger's bedroom.

Don't be silly.

Even if a woman used a whopping great big strapon or cheese grater on your genitals, she is still innocent. Feminists tell us so.

**Percy** · 18th-August-2008

What are they going to call the new Law? The Fucking Bigotry Act.

Men should demand a $10,000 consentee bond before they seek to rent out their dick to a demanding consenter.

**outdoors** · 18th-August-2008

are women held responsible for drinking and driving-YES.so i guess they CAN make decisions and be held accountable when they are drinking??????????????????

Fuckin' hypocrites'

**Rothzael** · 18th-August-2008

I'm considering resorting to masturbation. It's the only safe way.

**Jake8** · 18th-August-2008

This is such a bunch of bullshit. There are so many flaws in this insistence on proof of consent. To begin with, how do you prove consent? Shall we have our women sign a letter of consent before every sex act? (Hell, even then they could claim they were too drunk to make a rational decision and so the consent letter is invalid). Second, as noted in the article, a girl who afterwards regrets having had sex can retroactively decide that she did not give consent. Wouldn't she have to prove that? Apparently not; the burden of proof seems to be only on the male. Third, what ever happend to the art of secuction as a part of the lovemaking ritual? Seduction might be described as the art (or is it a science?) of getting a girl "in the mood." Both mental and physical stratagems can be employed---but it is essentially persuasion, NOT rape!. Fourth, the situation is even more perplexing in the case of a husband being accused of raping his wife. Isn't sexual intercourse an understood part of the marriage contract? I'm not talking about an occasional night, but I don't think a wife has the right to refuse sex to her husband on any long term basis. If he demands it, I don't call it rape.
The whole movement to label sexual intercourse as rape has been pushed by the feminist lesbians those hatred of men conitinues as their primary motivation.

**brian44** · 18th-August-2008

Look, I've been sarcastically joking about pre-sex contracts for years, but really, the only safe thing to do is not sleep with drunk English women, especially strangers. It's like Russian roulette.

**brian44** · 18th-August-2008

Rape gets mixed up with everyday, messy sex: sex that is regretted, or sex that you didn’t feel like but went along with.

If that worked for men, then I would have been raped several times myself.

**Feckless** · 18th-August-2008

Quote from Jake8

but I don't think a wife has the right to refuse sex to her husband on any long term basis.

I don´t have the article here but this is a form of abuse.

Ah wait *hugs google*

Here it is listed as form of emotional abuse:
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/a...onal_abuse.htm

Here is the explanation:
http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/a...olding-Sex.htm

Why withhold sex as punishment?

Withholding sex is about control. It's a passive/aggressive way of expressing anger. Someone who withholds sex will imply by their actions that they have a lot to give. They are, by all outward indication sincere in their love for their spouse. They hook you in with sincerity and then they cut you off. They feel in control if they have the upper hand sexually. You are put in the position of being the one who initiates sex. Your spouse doesn't have to do anything in the relationship except show up. All the work that needed to develop and maintain a sexual bond is up to you. They don't have to take responsibility for any problems in the marriage, and if the marriage ends they can point a finger at you for being the problem.
What are the consequences of withholding sex?

Sexual rejection, especially by someone who vowed to "love, honor and cleave unto" you is devastating. It leaves you feeling unattractive and undesirable. You may internalize his rejection and blame yourself by thinking you are not pretty enough; sexy enough, thin enough, smart enough. His actions will give root to unhealthy beliefs about yourself and your value as a person. There is the danger of depression, loss of hope, you may feel old before your time and there is certainly a sense of shame. Shame over the fact that your own spouse does not desire you. This shame keeps you from sharing your problems with someone else. You find yourself with no support system and the growing belief that there must be something terribly wrong with you.
Surviving a sexless marriage.

The only way to survive it is to run from it. I rarely tell people that divorce is their only option. In this case, my experience has taught me that there is little hope for change. Take your damaged self-image, your shame and any unhealthy beliefs you have come to feel about yourself and get out. Once you've done that, find a qualified therapist that can help you take back the power your spouse had to cause you to feel such negative emotions. The damage will die-hard and may be slow to repair but with time and work, you will once again feel sexually desirable and attractive.

**Percy** · 18th-August-2008

She missed out a bit there, Feck:

"You are put in the position of being the one who initiates sex, instead of your husband, and its HIS responsibility. Your spouse doesn't have to do anything in the relationship except show up, which is your right, not his.

**Percy** · 18th-August-2008

If you have lemons, make lemonade.

Can these Guvcunt harpies not see the possibilites for a likely lad?

I can.

I can just see teenage boys, who are constantly suffering rejection during their teen years, following the 'New Romance' steps.

1. Get a hot and sweaty girl that he has spent his pocket money on for six months to at last sign a consent form.

2. Tell her to bugger off.

3. Pass copies of the consent form around his mates as a trophy.

4. Pass copies to all her girlfriends.

5. Keep several copies for her future boyfriends.

6. What the heck. Post one to her mum.

Watch those consent forms die a death !