so i will see if i follow. You talk about a presumption of non-consent e.g. for theft; but I do not think this is right. In practice, you will need to swear a statement that the money was taken from you without your consent.

The issue is whether you are believed by the jury, and this is surely a much simpler issue. If you accuse a random person of mugging you, and taking money, and there is evidence that money changed hands; then what possible reason would you have to give this person money ?

Likewise, you are assaulted by X, you have to swear to this. Juries tend to believe you, mostly because being assaulted is unpleasant, and most people would have little reason to ask someone to assault them.

There is a difference with sex. Apparently, some people have sex because it is enjoyable, and they want to have sex. So when Z says, “I had sex but it wasn’t consensual”, there is actually a reason why Z might have had sex, which is mutually consensual fun.

That is presumably the reason that stranger rapes, or rapes with violence, show relatively good conviction rapes. Being beaten up is unpleasant, and most people do not want that to happen to them.

So I think that there is no legal principle here, since non-consent has to be established in evidence. What is at stake is how the jury evaluates that evidence.

have i followed ?

Second: no, I haven’t always asked for permission. And I’m fully aware that even under the current system that leaves me open to accusations of rape. I aver that I am not a rapist because nobody I’ve slept with has accused me of rape. They could have done, and they still could do, and boy, wouldn’t I wish I had that permission to wave around in court! But I’ll repeat myself: that’s not what I said.

So let’s try this one more time: it is a facet of our legal system that, in all other cases except rape, the court presumes non-consent. Now, if the criminal act in question never took place, this is a non-issue. But if an action took place in circumstances wherein absence of consent makes that action a criminal one (e.g. sex is not a criminal act except in the absence of consent), the same legal principle should apply: non-consent should be presumed. The question of consent only affects the outcome of the trial if the defendant wishes to use the consent of the plaintiff as a defence, that his/her action was not criminal – in which case he/she has to prove that consent was present. That is neither (a) suggesting criminalising the act of sex unless there is a statement of consent, nor (b) mandating a system of formal sexual permissions. fin.

it looks to me like you are suggesting criminalising the act of sex, unless there is a statement that it is consensual. That looks to me like a system for formal permissions. However, if I have misunderstood, do explain.

“so tell me; do you explicitly ask for permission every time ? in that case, why are you not a rapist ?”
“And no, I’m not a rapist.”
Given your suggestion that all sex is non-consensual, unless otherwise stated, i asked if you have always sought permission from your partner. You replied you were not a rapist, and I took that to mean you have always asked for permission. Do you mean that you have not always asked permission ?

You are making a suggestion; surely it is reasonable to explore if you have, or would, adhere to this suggestion ?

If you forgot to ask permission, would you be happy about subsequently facing a rape allegation that you couldn’t defend ?

Anyway, cheer up: none of my ‘proposals’ will ever come to pass, because people like you misrepresent them in defence of your inalienable right to prong whenever and wherever possible without let.

The only slight problem is that it makes the whole population into criminals- well, currently the half who can be accused of being rapists.

“And no, I’m not a rapist.”
Can I register my incredulity ? If you have ever been in a relationship, man or woman, and formally asked for “permission” every time; well, suffice it to say i do not believe you.

And this is the issue; I don’t believe you would sign a contract, or give a formal permission every time you have sex. You are proposing a law based on a standard of behaviour which is unrealistic.

And how is that different from now, exactly?

My point about presumed non-consent is that it should simply be brought into line with the rest of the legal corpus; in every other circumstance, if the defendant wishes to use consent as a defence, he/she has to prove that consent existed. Nobody has yet come up with a good reason why this should not be the case in questions of rape, too – and yet it is not the case: in rape, consent is assumed to have existed unless the plaintiff can prove otherwise. No contracts or clauses or disclosures are necessary. This would not change sex as we know it. All it would mean is that if a rape case went to court, the defendant would have to show evidence of consent if he wished to use that as a defence.

not sure this is realistic. in this area, disclosure could result in lost jobs, relationships, and other serious consequences. Moreover, one might understand that this behaviour is fairly common.

“And no, I’m not a rapist.”
we only have your word for it :-)
According to your scheme, anyone who has had sex with you could simply claim you raped them. In fact, even having sex probably isn’t required; simply being in a room alone will do for a claim.

how would you deal with that, other than full written contracts ?

actually, those contracts would be a bitch to write. How many would you need to carry with you ? would they all cover every, err, eventuality ?

just imagine if your left your contracts lying about at work :-(

why not have a legally binding, written contract, each time everyone has sex ?

oh; so that legally binding, written contract might be profoundly embarrassing for all concerned ? Oh ! what a surprise !

“You mean you don’t?”
so tell me; do you explicitly ask for permission every time ? in that case, why are you not a rapist ?