Why consent matters in sexual assault cases #deepdivepodcast

Key Concepts:

• Theft vs. Negligence: The distinction between someone's negligence (leaving a door open) and another person's criminal act (theft).
• Consent in Sexual Assault: The principle that prior actions or circumstances do not imply consent for sexual activity.
• Victim Blaming: The fallacy of attributing blame to the victim of a crime based on their actions or circumstances.

Theft and Negligence: The Open Door Analogy

The speaker begins by addressing a common misconception: that leaving one's door open mitigates the guilt of a burglar. The core argument is that even if someone is negligent (e.g., leaving a door open), it does not excuse or justify theft. The act of entering the house and stealing goods is still a crime because the burglar has no right to the property. The speaker emphasizes that the burglar was "not invited into the house," reinforcing the idea that the victim's negligence does not negate the burglar's criminal intent and action.

Consent and Sexual Assault: Extending the Analogy

The speaker extends the open door analogy to the context of sexual assault, specifically addressing scenarios where a victim may have engaged in behaviors that some might perceive as increasing their risk. The example given is a woman who "callously allowed herself to get excessively drunk at a bar" and then "follows a man back to his room."

The Irrelevance of Prior Actions to Consent

The central point is that even if a woman engages in these actions (getting drunk, going to a man's room), it does not automatically imply consent for sexual activity. The speaker explicitly states that if she "still says no or she falls asleep cuz she's drunk," she has not given consent.

The Absence of Consent Equates to Assault

The speaker argues that there is "no excuse or no way to read the fact that she decided to meet him because of through Tinder or because she decided to get drunk at the bar and because she followed him back to the room" as evidence of consent. The speaker is directly refuting the idea that these prior actions can be interpreted as implicit consent. The absence of explicit, informed, and ongoing consent constitutes sexual assault, regardless of the circumstances leading up to the encounter.

Conclusion:

The speaker uses the analogy of theft and an open door to illustrate that a victim's actions or perceived negligence do not excuse or justify criminal behavior. In the context of sexual assault, the speaker emphasizes that prior actions, such as getting drunk or going to someone's room, do not imply consent. The absence of clear and affirmative consent means that any sexual act is considered assault, regardless of the circumstances. The core message is a rejection of victim-blaming and a reinforcement of the importance of consent in all sexual interactions.