Hacker News Reader

Comment by CocaKoala | Hacker News Reader

> after each incident the most you can do to prevent another one, is to analyse what more you could have done, or you could do in the future.

Sure. Which is why, in addition to telling people to wear seat belts, we also make people take Driver's Ed so that they can demonstrate that they at least nominally know the rules of the road and can drive safely.

What's the Driver's Ed version of teaching people not to commit rape or sexual assault? When I was in college, there was a freshman orientation activity that talked about consent, but it wasn't mandatory, not all colleges have it, and not all people go to college. Who's teaching high schoolers about the nuances of consent and what it means to sexually assault somebody?

View on HN

Maybe, although I think those do more harm than good. Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent" and those that suggest it don't really explain what should happen if two people just have sex (i.e. who should go to jail - most would default to the man but that's just sexist and what about lesbians?). But in any case, that's just a small proportion of alleged rape cases, all of which are much more easily and uncontroversially resolved by urging women/victims to say "no" loud and clear. The rest of the cases (i.e when someone wants to rape), I don't think can be resolved by courses or such, just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal".

> just like you don't resolve robberies by "teaching criminals not to steal"

Do you tell banks that they shouldn't have kept so much money in the vaults if they didn't want to get robbed?

Pretty much, yes, if they are careless.

Well, it becomes a meme of some sort, with everybody making fun of the bank. For example: there is over a million dollars in cash, the bank is near multiple good escape routes, the bank's cameras and alarms are broken, the "vault" has a hollow interior door, etc.

Banks are responsible to keep my money safe - by moving it to a safer place, deploying guards, alarms and mechanisms, insuring it...

> Personally, I don't like the idea of requiring "explicit verbal consent"

Why not? When two people don't have the presumption of consent, what's the harm in checking to make sure "hey, is this something you want to do?"

Besides the problem I outlined above, saying "no explicit consent is rape" would mean I'm accusing all my ex lovers to be rapists, which I will definitely never do.

The goal of "get an enthusiastic yes" is not to criminalize sex without explicit consent, but rather to normalize the idea that if you _don't_ have explicit consent, then you shouldn't have sex.

Yeah I agree with “enthusiastic consent” - that’s how sex should be (although IMO it doesn’t need to be verbal). We just need to ensure it won’t be used in court, like “what was she wearing” shouldn’t be. Combine that with encouraging women/people to say “no” and we’re very close to a solution!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com