The Dutch people that I know (and I’ll admit its only a handful) can be very very direct in conversation. That includes areas around sex and relationships. Before rushing to judgment, this _might_ be more culturally-alligned to it’s home country than e.g. the UK or US.
A blockchain-based sexual consent app sounds like what Silicon Valley would come up with. Surprisingly these people are in The Netherlands. http://www.legalthings.io/
I'm going to hold off on this to find out if it actually holds up in court. I can just see the defense: "But your honor, she tapped 'yes' on an app before we had sex!"
They even go out of their way to explain how their app doesn't actually solve that problem in the FAQ.
IMO they come close to something interesting with the "sexual preferences" matching bit - I'd imagine if they focused more on that aspect of the product they could eventually come up with something that maybe Tinder or Grindr etc could buy.
Taking that further: assuming good faith on the part of your sexual partner, perhaps this also has a role in forcing you to have an upfront conversation about your preferences and what you enjoy.
The whole sign-here-to-consent-to-sex thing doesn’t seem like a workable thing in and of itself to me either.
Or activate the microphone, and send the recording to a speech-interpreting API to see if the user has correctly recited "I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a pheasant plucker's son, and I'm only plucking pheasants until the pheasant plucker comes"?
This site is either a good joke or poor attempt to go viral with mixed technical and socio buzzwords. Either way, I don't see how that actually might work and hold in court ("oh, I thought it was just a joke", "I pressed this button while I was drunk" etc.)
I guess this might work with celebrities or so, but according to the continental law system this app should not hold up in court.
If it did work in court, that would be a dangerous experience.
I would be crazy to write this, but I can't imagine how in the middle of intercourse someone would be able to stop it if they already signed their consent.
> While you're protected by law, litigating any offenses through court is nearly impossible in reality. LegalFling creates a legally binding agreement, which means any offense is a breach of contract.
Supposedly this isn’t just about recording consent in some irrevocable(?) manner, it’s about making it easier to sue people by putting what you consent to in a contract.
It’s not clear that this would make the problem of one-persons-word-against
-the-other go away, which is so problematic in current rape prosecutions.
From the FAQ:
> Can I still change my mind?> Absolutely. "No" means "no" at any time. Being passed out means "no" at any time. This is explicitly described in the agreement. Additionally you can withdraw consent going forward through the LegalFling app with a single click.
Then what's the point?
This makes getting the consent through this app meaningless. The partner can still claim "I said No after I consent in the app" or "I passed out after I clicked consent in the App" or "I was too drunk when I clicked consent in the App".
All using this App does to me is it give the other side one more evidence that I had sex with her. So now her "I was rape" has more weight.
No still means no, regardless of whether this app was used, so what exactly does it do?
Also they say this is “legally binding”, but in reality it’s just a contract that could be fought in court like any other contract (including a drunkenly written note on a napkin), and not one that has been fought many times and has an accepted resolution (like copyright or a mortgage).
35 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 75.8 ms ] threadFor example, Sweden plans to put verbal consent into law sometime this year: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/20/sweden-to-move...
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/jwmvxd/chappelle-s-show-love-c...
IMO they come close to something interesting with the "sexual preferences" matching bit - I'd imagine if they focused more on that aspect of the product they could eventually come up with something that maybe Tinder or Grindr etc could buy.
The whole sign-here-to-consent-to-sex thing doesn’t seem like a workable thing in and of itself to me either.
It's good that we're thinking through these issues, but this app is not The Answer.
If it did work in court, that would be a dangerous experience.
I would be crazy to write this, but I can't imagine how in the middle of intercourse someone would be able to stop it if they already signed their consent.
Supposedly this isn’t just about recording consent in some irrevocable(?) manner, it’s about making it easier to sue people by putting what you consent to in a contract.
It’s not clear that this would make the problem of one-persons-word-against -the-other go away, which is so problematic in current rape prosecutions.
Then what's the point? This makes getting the consent through this app meaningless. The partner can still claim "I said No after I consent in the app" or "I passed out after I clicked consent in the App" or "I was too drunk when I clicked consent in the App".
All using this App does to me is it give the other side one more evidence that I had sex with her. So now her "I was rape" has more weight.
Also they say this is “legally binding”, but in reality it’s just a contract that could be fought in court like any other contract (including a drunkenly written note on a napkin), and not one that has been fought many times and has an accepted resolution (like copyright or a mortgage).