A Helpful Article for Those Unclear on the Concept of Consent

I’d like to draw your attention to this excellent article, written by a law professor, explaining consent with a series of scenarios that should be suitable for even dudebro-levels of reading comprehension. One thing becomes clear by the time you are finished reading it:

There’s really no excuse for being unclear on the concept of consent.

So please, send this one to those folks you encounter who, when faced with sexual situations, waffle about what consent is. Are you arguing with a person over whether drunk women can consent to sex? Have them read this article. Are you trying to get through to someone that prior consent to a sexual act or activity is not ongoing consent, and that consent may be revoked at any time? Send them this article. For any person who claims that consent is murky in any given sexual situation, have them read this article.

And then, if they still claim that consent is unclear, you can take that as their having given you consent to borrow their car whenever the fuck you please.

I’m pretty sure they’ll be crystal clear on the concept of consent the first time you take their keys.

Image shows a young woman with black hair, sitting in a gray car, grinning and holding the keys out the window.
“Hey, dudebro! Thanks for letting me have your car whenever I want, forever and ever!” Image courtesy State Farm (CC BY 2.0).
{advertisement}
A Helpful Article for Those Unclear on the Concept of Consent
{advertisement}

10 thoughts on “A Helpful Article for Those Unclear on the Concept of Consent

  1. rq
    1

    I have to find the right person not understanding consent. Someone with, say, a nice Lamborghini or Porsche… something like that. It’ll be great!

  2. 6

    This is a really awful analogy – borrowing someone’s car doesn’t require the same kind of consent as having sex with someone. Unlawful use of a motor vehicle usually has as an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the owner would have consented. See e.g. Model Penal Code 223.9. Theft would be even worse since it requires that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of their property (i.e. non-consensual borrowing isn’t theft).

    The last scenario is actually a pretty difficult hypothetical as stated, and the author is showing their disconnect from actual legal practice if they think consent is straightforward and easy in tort or contract law.

  3. 8

    borrowing someone’s car doesn’t require the same kind of consent as having sex with someone. Unlawful use of a motor vehicle usually has as an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the owner would have consented.

    Whoa, qwints just went from kind of annoying to super creepy.

  4. rq
    9

    Yeah, this part especially: “an affirmative defense that the defendant reasonably believed the owner would have consented”. Ummm… Defense, maybe. Viable defense? Ummm… Obviously, the consent was lacking if it’s being discussed in court (for example). So much wrong with that would have consented part. Because that means there wasn’t any actual consent given… Yikes.

  5. 10

    I was actually thinking about this about a week ago while working out- most people put more onus on someone who wants to borrow a car than they do a predator looking to rape. If someone used a car without the owner’s permission, no one would believe an unrelated stranger actually knew better than the car’s owner if the defendant had the owner’s permission. And yet, when a survivor insists the sex was without his/her consent, the general public insists that everyone else knows better if the victim actually consented. Is there any other crime where it’s assumed someone wanted the act done when the victim is claiming it was unwanted?

Comments are closed.