Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WE LIVE IN a litigious society: a society in which the scales between men and women are significantly unbalanced when it comes to matters of sexual misconduct.
A society that will either promote the ‘believe all women’ rhetoric or on the contrary, perpetuate the idea that all victims of sexual harassment were ‘asking for it’, which completely polarises the issue and doesn’t treat it with the critical thinking or delicacy it requires.
A society where there is an overwhelming degree of uncertainty about how men and women should navigate sexual relationships because the most fundamental practice of what makes sex safe, healthy and legal, seems to be missing: consent.
A mutual agreement
Consent is a mutual agreement between two individuals before sex. To put it simply, when a person gives consent, it means they have freely given someone permission to engage in sexual activity without any feelings of obligation or pressure.
They do so willingly, enthusiastically and not forcibly. Simple, right? Not always.
Following the #MeToo movement and the global impact this campaign is having on empowering women and other victims of sexual assault to speak about their experiences, a number of consent apps have come to surface. Although consent apps such as SaiSie and WeConsent have been around for quite a while, some of the newer and upcoming apps enter realms that provide legal options such as setting sexual boundaries or sending a cease-and-desist order.
While the options you get are contingent on the app a person decides to use, the premise in which they exist are the same.
A digital contract
Consent apps allow adults to electronically sign for legal consent prior to engaging in sexual activity. A consent app is essentially a digital contract that turns sex into a business transaction instead of the fun and intimate activity it should be.
I personally find the idea of a consent app ludicrous, and whether it holds up in court or not is a different story entirely. But the mere fact that these apps exist speak to a bigger issue.
It speaks to how much uncertainty lies between men and women about giving and receiving affirmative consent. We exist in a sexual culture that’s been predicated on non-verbal cues and ‘implied’ consent for so long that the dialogue surrounding what constitutes as consent or what falls under the umbrella of sexual misconduct is becoming more and more unclear.
A grey area
There is a common misconception among men that the absence of a ‘no’ means ‘yes’ or that sexual interest is equal to sexual consent. While each case is situational, and in some cases the latter might be true. In today’s world, it is not enough to rely on social cues because we are operating in a grey area in an era that is still unsure about what consent is.
It’s quite saddening to me that we as a society have come to a stage where we would rather treat matters of unexplored sexual territory like a business transaction instead of communicating with one another.
I ran two polls on Instagram recently to address these questions. In the first poll, I asked whether participants would use an app to give legal consent before sex. The majority of yes votes were men (20%) and the majority of women voted no (80%).
I did another poll where I asked whether or not people think it is sexy for a man to verbally ask for consent. This time 63% of women voted yes and 37% of men said no. While the sample size was not huge, I think there is a lot to be said for how differently male and female respondents answered.
Healthy discourse
Do men have a problem with verbally asking for consent or do women have a problem asserting a ‘no’? Have we as a society created a landscape in which men and women are so uncomfortable with having a healthy discourse about consent that we would rather risk entering uncharted territory that can cost us a lifetime?
How could something that is so simple in theory can be so difficult is practice? And lastly, is an app even necessary? And if it is, does it fix the root problem?
No matter how you spin it, the hook up culture has a major problem to address, and as a society, we need to address it before things get out of hand – if they haven’t already. We need to unlearn potentially dangerous behaviours that we have become so accustomed to overtime and reframe the terms upon we want to have sex by giving affirmative consent and most importantly, making it sexy.
Make it sexy
The current climate of sexual culture is one that troubles me deeply and until we as a society make a collective effort to understand that in this ever-changing society, the things that were deemed acceptable previously are no longer okay now, the ship will sink deeper.
There is a lot of grey area in how men and women interact in the modern world, but something as important as consent shouldn’t be one of them.
Word to the wise, if it’s not a clear ‘yes’ then it’s a ‘no’ and in regards to the tech side of it, if someone requires an app to prove legal consent before jumping into the sac with them then you shouldn’t be having sex with that person to begin with.
We need to make consent sexy.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Also a integral part of the Cologne story were the illegal immigrants who abused the German women.
@Kevin Dillon: Not according to police in Cologne who described it as an ordinary New year’s celebration. The accusations only came to light in late January after being published by media following posts on Facebook and other social media platforms.
@Kevin Dillon: They seem to have no compassion for these vulnerable women that were victimised. That’s the reason the Cologne incident epitomised the issues many people have with the far left. It showed them up to be the hypocrites they are. And this report walked headfirst into this. In the era when ISIS were at the top of their power, we were letting millions of unvetted migrants into Europe whilst serious crime and terrorist attacks were being carried out by migrants and children of migrants. You’d be insane not to question this. But apparently such common sense makes you racist. It doesn’t matter that you recognise that it’s not all migrants.
After criticising Australias border stance yesterday, I get your viewpoint, but labeling all criticism about the crisis as far right is just as labeling as those that supposedly call all migrants terrorists. There is a problem, but not all came from warzones for asylum, and chanced their arm without taking the legal route. They can move if they have the paperwork done.
@neilo: Correct me if I’m wrong but I had thought one of the attacks came through the Mediterranean route. The others were first generation. But the fact that they were first generation goes to show that integration may not be working (these guys grew up in a cultural enclave in Brussels) which is a serious concern as we could have more attacks in 20/30 years from european citizens as a result of todays policy.
@neilo: yeah I agree. But the issue is how do we stop this form of terrorism and will it only get worse as a result of todays policy?
The IRA had a clear objective and peace was reached because compromise was found. With these radicals there’s no compromise, they’re ideologically against everything the west stands for. I agree destabilising the middle east gives strength to these radicals but they don’t have an express view we can meet them halfway on.
@neilo: Merkel did!! She said all the Syrians were welcome, that’s a fact! And of the 1:6 million of them who did get to Germany, only 2:9% of them are employed! That’s a fact as well.
A recent report from Greece said they had a sizable amount of Caribbean”refugees”. They got on a plane to fly to Turkey then paid smugglers to get to Greece. Get informed. Europe is full!!
@neilo: it’s not an open border policy but a policy of mass immigration (as opposed to safe zones and support in home countries/neighbouring countries). Also the policy of ferrying people who are a few miles off the coast of Libya to Europe only encourages people to make the journey, supports traffickers, and results in more tragedies occurring at sea.
@neilo: sorry I should probably be clearer. When I say policy I don’t mean an express government policy (I don’t really know what express policies are in place). I’m going off how they are operating. From what I see there is a complacency in settling millions of people without sufficient background checks from areas which are war torn and not war torn. The Dublin convention also appears to be being ignored.
To be honest I’m surprised the % of refugees from. Third world countries is not higher. But being from a third world country is not sufficient to get asylum and is totally unsustainable.
Regaridng the boats I agree it’s complicated, but the best system may be one similar to Australia as they successfully managed to stop the boats and deaths at sea.
@neilo: The thing is, if you don’t have an express ‘closed borders’ policy, it will be interpreted as ‘open borders’.
@neilo: yeah hopefully they can get some form of process set up in North Africa.
I don’t know if it’s true that the majority of applicants in Ireland or the EU are rejected and the people deported. As far as I know most applicants who are rejected stay for in excess of 10 years (in ireland anyway) while they go through appeal after appeal. Also I just had a look at http://www.asylumineurope.org and on 2017 there were 2,910 applications and 90 were rejected. However I know many of these are still pending.
I don’t even think it’s a problem in Ireland. I’m more talking about the EU as a whole and countries such as Germany and Sweden.
@neilo: thanks Neilo. Maybe it is getting better and things will be done better for all involved in the coming years.
@neilo: “and the applicants deported,as in the case in most EU countries” You must know very well that that is totally untrue.
Can we not have a sensible discussion on immigration. Not labeling those with legitimate concerns as far right and not labelling those that want us to show compassion as lefties. It is possible to want both.
@Philip Morgan: no you can’t. We’re all intolerant & racist for even wanting to have a rational discussion on such a topic. I feel a good dose of cultural enrichment is just what Dr Varadkar ordered.
@Philip Morgan: Yes let’s have that. I’m open to sensible suggestions.
What do you have in mind?
@Lou Sypher: Speak for yourself anonymous one.
I want a chat with him.
As a result of the obvious bias in favor of uncontrolled immigration. I have become extremely sceptical of stories in the media reporting on it. I suppose that makes me “far right”, so be it.
Far right AKA citizens concerned about unvetted mass immigration
Hardly ground-breaking, cutting-edge nor original research!
Thats a no brainer , If something is topical in the news it’s obvious it will become topical on twitter an example the journal during the casey debates , stories supporting casey and polls here were getting exaggerated support to what he actually got at the polls.
Plenty of alt right bots right here in the journal comments section, mostly English, attempting to give a skewed view regarding immigration to Ireland.
@European Bob: too early for leftys
anyway yeserday was dole day
poor lads and laseys need a ly in
after the beer day
@Flippermac: Why do you write your comments like they’re a poem? It’s like I’m reading Seamus Heaney if he had just suffered massive brain trauma.
@WilliamMorris: well that’s one good thing I did to day
would you like a pain killer
poor thing
@European Bob: Dont be silly ” alt right bots”. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the VOX party on its historic election in Spain. Democracy only works if everyones voice is heard.
@Graham Light: rubbish
Between this and their “report” on “hate speech” DCU are on a role. I don’t see science here only judgment based on their far left leanings, and that’s coming from someone on the left. If you don’t fully agree with them and have nuanced opinions on complicated topics you’re “far-right”. You just get lumped in with some lad that said “rapefugee” on Twitter. How could DCU be wrong. Their views are backed up by a report! Do you have a report?
Etat nye pravda!
Wouldn’t the far right be better off joining a union if they want to be financially better off and job security.
Ah, ‘framing’, the crime that is not a crime when we do it.
have your say