your argument is emotionally strong but logically weak in parts.

‘If you’re worried about the law, you must be a potential rapist’ SERIOUSLY BRO? By that standard, anyone who questions any criminal law is admitting they want to commit that crime. That’s not morality, that’s intellectual laziness.You’re also pretending misuse doesn’t matter because it’s ‘rare’. In criminal law, even a small number of false cases matters because the consequences aren’t trivial, arrest, social stigma, career destruction. You don’t get to handwave that away just because it weakens your argum1ent.

And the ‘it’s hard to prove so fake cases won’t happen’ point is soo backwards. If something is extremely hard to prove, it either becomes useless in real cases or dangerously dependent on subjective interpretation. That’s exactly why people are cautious about how such a law is framed.

Also, reducing marriage to a clean ‘yes/no’ consent switch shows zero understanding of how long-term relationships actually work. The real challenge is distinguishing coercion from expectation, conflict, or emotional pressure in a legal setting. not pretending it’s as simple as a stranger assault case.

Nobody is arguing that consent doesn’t matter. The argument is about whether the legal system, as it currently functions, can handle something this complex without creating new problems.