You sent me to this rabbithole and here’s the relevant issue for those who are also interested github

TLDR: devs are on board, PR is being actively developed and reviewed. ETA is unclear but is sooner rather then never later

Slowly spiraling into depression realizing that BPD is going to finish my marriage.

Meanwhile my spouse simply doesn’t care about it, so overall it’s lonely and sad experience

1. Risk is inherent to human communication: risk of miscommunication, risk of someone dropping you midsentence, risk of violence if you unknowingly and deeply offended the opponent, etc
2. When adding extra layer bureaucracy over human interaction we must ask ourselves “will it actually solve the problem?”

3. Malicious agents don’t care about consent

For better or worse, in personal relationships people rely on vibes. There’s a reason for that: not everyone (in fact Idk who actually) has the capacity to solve moralistic riddles every time there’s communication ambiguity.

4. Theory of consent is assuming that morality can be objectified
   Well, bad news, morality is not objective. So if you force your own moral vision as objective one, governing body actually not respecting consent of people.

5. Lastly, this theory is only an idea. There’s no real implementation structure as of now, there’s no clarity how it supposed to work and what will be the actual result. Once it progresses let’s talk about that particular implementation.

Now, fast and loose:

Is that risk acceptable to you? If so, why?

I am responsible for my own actions and ready to defend those actions according to state’s law

Would you be ok with that risk if you were the physically smaller/less strong person in the interaction? Assuming you’re a straight man, would you be ok with a gay man using your approach to consent with you?

This person is also responsible for his own actions and legally we’re on similar grounds regardless of weight. In fact, usually physically smaller person has legal upper hand: he’s risking by years in prison while I am (the victim) risking by half an hour of humiliating experience. Yes, it could be traumatizing experience but it’s nowhere near as traumatizing as post-con life

That’s moral stance of the author, I wish them the best of luck applying it in reality

I mean the guide is helpful for someone who views this all in theory but in real life consent is slippery and intangible. It’s own can of worms once dig into it

Many women take certain joy from playing hard to get and then get very offended they’re left alone. They’ll blame the guy for being not passionate enough, not decisive enough etc. Even more confusingly they might decided and straight up lie about consent in the past basically creating blackmail (criminal charge) out of thin air.

For both parties such bad agents erode the value of consent but in my experience it’s quite common. Not because of ill intend but simply because it’s fun for the girl.

Moreover, asking for consent from a person who’s not ready to engage in the whole consent game is confusing to both parties.

In live in a society where so much stuff relies on people not giving explicit consent it’s baffling when audio player asks you “would you like to listen the next track after this one?”. In my experience, for the people not introduced to consent, asking for one looks like some special kink or disorder.

Also if you take consent as a serious issue then it’s a show stopper for shy and introverted people. They are simply not be confident enough to engage with consent even if they want to. Should they be left alone or is there any framework for them in the consent theory?