A Consent App. Thanks Modern Feminism!

A ‘sexual consent’ app is being designed which claims to be a binding agreement which would stand up in court.

But lawyers are sceptical, with one calling it “offensive” and its validity meaningless.

Legal Fling is an app which allows partners to note down their dos and don’ts before having sex.

A person can choose ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for different categories, including photo and video, use condom, STD-free, explicit language and BDSM.

A request is then sent to the phone of their chosen partner through WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger or text, who can agree or disagree to the terms.

There’s also the fact that the other person can simply claim they were forced to say yes on the app.

[…]The app uses blockchain technology, a form of public record also used for bitcoin, which cannot be digitally changed after submitting.

Obviously everyone has the right to change their mind, and no always means no – but it is unclear how this fits in to the premise of the app.

The app’s website also claims it can be used as a safeguard if you need “further down the road”.

Obviously, this app is aimed at men who think that with every sexual encounter there’s a good chance of ending up arrested the next day on false rape charges. But how did these men end up thinking like this? Modern feminists.

Read more »


Two simple but effective analogies explaining consent

Read more »


Labour’s rape law plans will destroy your civil rights

Labour is hell bent on changing rape laws to put the onus on the accused to prove consent.

The Labour Party’s plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent — a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.

But Labour’s justice spokesman Andrew Little said the current system is broken and in need of a major shake-up. The party favours an inquisitorial system, where a judge interviewed the alleged victim after conferring with prosecution and defence lawyers.

The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.

“The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent,” Mr Little said.

He said the issue of proof would only apply where allegations of rape had been raised.

“It is pretty radical thing to say that ‘all sex is rape’ unless you prove consent. The reality is that in 99.9 per cent of cases, no one is being asked to prove consent.”

Andrew Little is showing just how much of an idiot and book learning lawyer he is.

There would be a massive increase in rape convictions…the courts would be overflowing as this device was used by partners to get revenge.? Read more »

Does Jamie Whyte play banjo?

Jamie Whyte has had his Colin Craig moment and suggested that the state has no business in regulating the sex lives of adults even if they are relatives.

Perhaps he has sought cross party support from the two senior MPs in the House who are currently f*cking their cousins.

The Herald reports:

New Act Leader Jamie Whyte is standing by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be “intellectually corrupt” of him not to be honest when asked such questions.

In an article published on?The Ruminator?website, former philosophy lecturer Dr Whyte was asked whether the state should intervene if adult siblings wanted to marry each other.

“Well personally, I don’t think they [the State] should”, he replied, adding it was “a matter of almost no significance because it just doesn’t happen”.

Dr Whyte told the Herald his response was based on his belief that: “I don’t think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here – consensual and adult”. ? Read more »

PC Brigade say don’t make your kids kiss granny

Britain once again shows the stupidity of giving taxpayers money to idiots with degrees to inform us how to live.

Time for the poms to go on a Quango hunt.

Getting a reluctant child to give an elderly relative a kiss often requires some gentle persuasion.

But parents who force their sons and daughters to give granny a peck on the cheek may be doing them harm, it was claimed yesterday.

For instead of helping a child learn about showing affection, it may blur the boundaries of what is acceptable when it comes to physical contact, according to Lucy Emmerson, co-ordinator of the Sex Education Forum.

She even claims that encouraging a youngster to blow a kiss, high-five or wave to a relative instead will help them avoid future sexual exploitation.

Children need to learn from the start about the importance of consent and that ?their bodies are their own?, she says. ? Read more »

Christchurch consent delays a National issue

Policy Parrot says:

The Government?s warning shot across the bow of the Christchurch Council this week regarding consent processing is an issue that is due wider consideration and conveniently poses the opportunity to raise the flag about this ongoing problem to New Zealand.

Christchurch City Council has not processed consents within the statutory 20 working day time-line despite Mayor Parker saying that 80% of consents are processed within the 20 working day time frame. Of course his Council are telling porkies.

Parker?s comments are the same as what we heard here in Auckland recently with Mayor Brown saying that Auckland Council processes 95% of all consents within the statutory 20 working daytime frame. A spectacular lie.

No Council actually processes a Resource Consent or a Building Consent inside the true definition of ?20 working days? and they play a game of smoke and mirrors when reporting how they perform.

So what is ?20 working days??

When we ? the residents and professionals of this world think of 20 working days we automatically assume that to mean four consecutive weeks with five working days per week. Lets call that one month to be general.

Councils however have a different view. A council consent process is counted in actual working days spent on the application. Whilst that sounds similar it is not. Councils routinely use a term called ?stop the clock? that refers to periods of time during the consent process that councils are not processing the consent.

Most of the time one does not know when a ?stop the clock? has occurred because Council does not notify an applicant of this. The few times an applicant will know about it is when a Section 92 request is made ? which is a request for further information. That is a mechanism used by Councils to buy time. A Section 92 will almost inevitably be sent by post and take up to a week to be received. But the stop the clock time starts from the time that the Council initiated the s92 request. On returning the supplying the information requested the clock starts again. ? Read more »