It’s a great example of why teaching people about consent is important. Some of the men on trial claim they thought it was a consensual kinky game played between husband and wife, and that they were unaware they were raping anybody.
I don’t expect they will have much success with this argument in court. But it’s the kind of shit one might fall for if one has not received the training to know with immediate certainty that consent is only established by an active yes, never by the lack of a no, and that it needs to be personally gathered by anyone involved in the act. And that without consent, it’s rape.
It’s fucking obvious, but I can totally see how some people could buy into their claim of good faith and act as if it means something. Not necessarily because they’re bad people, but because they lack the training to understand what consent means and why it’s important.
It’s a great example of why teaching people about consent is important. Some of the men on trial claim they thought it was a consensual kinky game played between husband and wife, and that they were unaware they were raping anybody.
I don’t expect they will have much success with this argument in court. But it’s the kind of shit one might fall for if one has not received the training to know with immediate certainty that consent is only established by an active yes, never by the lack of a no, and that it needs to be personally gathered by anyone involved in the act. And that without consent, it’s rape.
It’s fucking obvious, but I can totally see how some people could buy into their claim of good faith and act as if it means something. Not necessarily because they’re bad people, but because they lack the training to understand what consent means and why it’s important.