I wonder how much VC money you could raise for a block chain based consent app. Basically, it allows two or people to agree on consent for specific acts then at the end of the encounter everybody can verify nothing nonconsensual occurred. If anybody disagrees, it automatically calls the police so everything can get sorted out while evidence and memories are fresh. Everything is saved to the block chain so it cannot be modified.
That sounds like a social nightmare. Complete dissolution of the concept of trust in society. And there is that much bureaucratic steps to get it on, it really may become an activity that's more trouble than its worth (vs the current worries of STDs and accidental preganancies).
This is not a great idea. It doesn't solve any of the actual problems around sexual assault. Also, adding a Blockchain in this case doesn't actually accomplish anything.
No VC would invest in this. Beyond it not being monetizable, this is a bad idea for a variety of reasons, but nonetheless, such apps do actually already exist!
These apps are pointless because, legally speaking, sex is actually not contractual (& prostitution is illegal, so no contract enforcement there either). People can, do, and are legally permitted to change their minds about what they do and do not consent to during the course of sexual activity. We may agree to sex, but we all can change our minds at any time for any reason. No matter how we felt 10 minutes ago, we are all allowed to decide actually we don't feel like it, your sheets are too gross or what one partner thought was sexy, the other thought was demeaning, or whatever--no matter what we agreed on beforehand.
TLDR: evidence of prior consent is not a trump card.
What this whole thing about consent issues tells me is that the promise of the sexual revolution and free no consequence sex is bullocks.
Is it sexual harassment when someone gets someone to have sex with them by taking advantage of another's vulnerable state, or giving false promises, or has un-consented anal or other sex acts when only vaginal sex is consented to. How clear does a woman have to express lack of consent when in the heat of the moment?
These are not questions with easy answers and their inherent vagueness encourages jilted women to make these claims, horny men to act in ways that encourage these claims, and leaves administrators and officials straining to effectively and fairly evaluate these claims.
The way Western culture and Western sexuality and the expectations surrounding it are set up is pretty much geared for these sorts of sexual harassment cases to come up.
Is it sexual harassment when someone gets someone to have sex with them by taking advantage of another's vulnerable state, or giving false promises, or has un-consented anal or other sex acts when only vaginal sex is consented to.
The unconsented acts would not be harassment, they would be assault.
Shortly after I graduated, I was taking a couple of CS courses at a local college that was affiliated with one of the mainstream Protestant churches. I discovered that 1) There was a $50 fine for walking on the grass and 2) If two people were caught having sex on campus, it was an automatic expulsion, even if the two people were married. (I didn't discover this by getting fined or kicked out.)
A few years later, at a southern state university, I had the experience of having my driver's license taken by the RA before I could visit with a friend in her women-only dorm room. It was like the rest of the world was a man library, and my card was being filed away like a book in a 1980's library.
Speaking of the 1980s: in the mid 1980s I had a girlfriend at Wellesley. Someone pulled the fire alarm in her dorm in the middle of one night, and among the evacuated crowd was a significant number of men wrapped in towels or womens' bathrobes.
Sounds like that theoretically would not happen today -- but I have a hard time believing that's the case.
17 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 39.9 ms ] threadFunny how paternalist is pejorative, when mothers can be just as controlling, especially about sex.
I can't imagine what hard forking or a 51% attack would do to the "community."
Diaspora?
These apps are pointless because, legally speaking, sex is actually not contractual (& prostitution is illegal, so no contract enforcement there either). People can, do, and are legally permitted to change their minds about what they do and do not consent to during the course of sexual activity. We may agree to sex, but we all can change our minds at any time for any reason. No matter how we felt 10 minutes ago, we are all allowed to decide actually we don't feel like it, your sheets are too gross or what one partner thought was sexy, the other thought was demeaning, or whatever--no matter what we agreed on beforehand.
TLDR: evidence of prior consent is not a trump card.
Is it sexual harassment when someone gets someone to have sex with them by taking advantage of another's vulnerable state, or giving false promises, or has un-consented anal or other sex acts when only vaginal sex is consented to. How clear does a woman have to express lack of consent when in the heat of the moment?
These are not questions with easy answers and their inherent vagueness encourages jilted women to make these claims, horny men to act in ways that encourage these claims, and leaves administrators and officials straining to effectively and fairly evaluate these claims.
The way Western culture and Western sexuality and the expectations surrounding it are set up is pretty much geared for these sorts of sexual harassment cases to come up.
The unconsented acts would not be harassment, they would be assault.
A few years later, at a southern state university, I had the experience of having my driver's license taken by the RA before I could visit with a friend in her women-only dorm room. It was like the rest of the world was a man library, and my card was being filed away like a book in a 1980's library.
Sounds like that theoretically would not happen today -- but I have a hard time believing that's the case.