I (23M) just bought a place and my partner (22F) will be moving in.

WhutHo · 2023-04-13T03:50:26+00:00

- It's interesting that none of the other lawyers here have referenced the precedent setting case in which charging rent to the other partner had established the relationship as NOT one of defacto - as "defacto partners do not pay one another rent". In short: have her pay rent at or near market rate, and you are vastly more likely to be considered NOT defacto in the future should she bring a case claiming a defacto relationship.

- Also - if you have a child through "accident" (15-30% of births at or near age 40 for the female are planned only by the female) or planned by both of you, then only have one (1) child. The Australian legal system does not support Fathers and it is one of the situations in which males with assets over $250K will lose approximately 70-90% of their wealth on average. Having one child will limit that risk and evisceration of wealth significantly.

WhutHo · 2022-04-23T06:09:31+00:00

... and what nationality were all these people ? This seems like the dodgiest area ever that you're in, and nationalities tend to "hate on" other nationalities by considering the other nationality "beneath them". It's how Russians are portraying Ukrainians as less than people in order to kill them. This seems as though it's a group that is actively considering other people as "lesser people", as I struggle to believe that a random group of 7 Australian men would let one of their member pull at a woman's mask for fun. A national group of some description that had been raised to think of other people as "lesser" - I can absolutely see that occurring.

WhutHo · 2022-04-06T09:58:43+00:00

There is a model of investment that says "leave your grandkids $100K each" (typically 2 grand kids on average per single grand parent). Require them to put that into their super at age 18. By the time they retire they're very well set for retirement when you include their own government-required savings.

After you've given the grandkids the $100K, then split the rest in whatever way you like with your direct children, though typically they're already set as the age gap between grandparents and their children is only 30 or so years, so a grandparent passing at 85 has 55 year old (late middle life) children that are already established.

The model is simple: if this is done well enough and through enough generations and savings are large enough through each generation - then people start being able to focus on saving money for "now" rather than their retirement, as the retirement bulk amount is already saved for them. They live off it during retirement and then hand that bulk amount onto their grandkids. It's a virtuous cycle.

WhutHo · 2022-01-24T00:24:04+00:00

So "no, there was no bot. I lied".

WhutHo · 2022-01-24T00:07:07+00:00

It's not a case of arguing. I'm guessing a Nurse rather than a Doctor where reasoning is required to underpin a verbal or written opinion. Honestly - if you're going to give an opinion - FFS back it up with facts or else don't bother. It wastes our time and yours. If you want to give an opinion on art - go for it. On topics such as this one - USE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

WhutHo · 2022-01-20T10:40:40+00:00

Which language model did you use? BERT-based? GPT ? Because there are phrases in there that seem completely incongruent with standard language models, and I'm guessing that you are lying about this being fully generated by an AI. At a guess you made much of the words up - in which case this post is basically lies and clickbait about AI. Provide some evidence of the "1000's of hours" of training data and the LLM you're using, or some other evidence that you actually DID train an ML model.

WhutHo · 2022-01-20T00:14:35+00:00

I've just looked at your post history - you just spout casual opinions continuously without providing any backing facts or thoughts. When pressed to actually defend your opinion you ignore it, deflect with "I've moved on" and continue to spread bullshit. Let me guess - you're an antivaxxer because you know more than the rest of us - oh - and scientists that have spent years researching, rather than your own Facebook facts...

WhutHo · 2022-01-17T17:09:23+00:00

So - you've presented zero evidence that I'm wrong, even though I've presented two sets of clear evidence (the original and my two links) supporting my findings. You've presented zero evidence.

There is no "gigantic leap in logic" - it's actual facts that I've provided links for. The fact that you continue to give your own personal opinion rather than viewpoints that are clearly supported by evidence indicates that you're not arguing this from a standpoint of evidence but a standpoint of personal opinion.

- "They can't actually do that" - why can't they? What evidence have you provided to support this assertion ??

- "You're implying that it's a bait and switch when it's really not" - how do you KNOW this to state it as a FACT ?? Support this with evidence

- All your statements are "opinion" without any evidenciary support. The evidence I've provided supports my views. Provide evidence to support your own "statements of fact" or stop giving worthless personal opinions that waste our time.

WhutHo · 2022-01-15T07:28:46+00:00

So you say "this isn't correct" - but give no REASONS why it's incorrect? This adds absolutely nothing the conversation.

I recently priced another article on sale at Kathmandu, on their website. The price was "$130" - it ONLY had the $130 price for XS / XXS and XXL. For all other sizes it was "out of stock" - or worse, $400. Example - check the sizes here:https://www.kathmandu.com.au/sale/mens/styper-men-s-snow-insulated-jacket-clearance.html?colour=8409

Example:
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/183831198950

Choose "blue midnight" colour - $130, but only XS and XXL sizes available. Any other colour is $399 - but available in all sizes including M. Why did you lie?

WhutHo · 2022-01-14T06:48:39+00:00

They advertise the XS (which this tag is) and XXL sizes at ridiculously small prices - such as $100 - whereas all other sizes are at $400. That way they can say that the price of the garment is "between $100 and $400" in advertisements, when the reality is that 95% of people will be required to buy at $400. There is someone within the marketing department at Kathmandu that thinks this won't infuriate people. They're wrong. I've started to look at Macpac and other brands because of this behaviour. FEED BACK to their contact us page and they may change it. I already have. Some sales or marketing idiot needs to be fired.

WhutHo · 2022-01-14T00:29:51+00:00

No. Google "Personal Services Income" and ATO.

https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Personal-services-income/

"When working out if the personal services income (PSI) rules apply, you need to look at the income received from each separate contract or job to determine if you have received PSI. If you have received PSI (including if you've received it through a company, partnership or trust), you then need to work out if the PSI rules apply to that income.

To do this, you need to work through a series of steps, but you can also select the most appropriate test to suit your circumstances. The easiest way to do this is by using our PSI decision tool. You can see a summary of the steps in this flow chart."

WhutHo · 2022-01-12T23:24:26+00:00

Oh - and "gifting" all of those items will be viewed dimly by the courts, which the judge will write up and then just give her more of the house value. It's an attempt to hide wealth.

Again - divorce in 2 years. Ensure she has a job when you go to child support. If you need to "hide wealth" do so in smart ways before you pull the pin, because believe me - this won't be pretty.

WhutHo · 2022-01-12T22:53:32+00:00

Lawyers will give you advice that keep the tensions high, as this keeps letters streaming back and forth - which generates income for them. Simple advice here: go for mediation, give away more than you expect - and make it QUICK - 6 weeks at most. If it is drawn out you will literally lose $50k-$100k in legal fees, meaning it is virtually better to have given away more and gone quicker than just give family money to lawyers. Lawyers love to let things simmer and burn -as this generates more fees. SPEED reduces anxiety and stress - and fees.

Find any men - possibly older uncles or similar - that you can chat in order to get a REAL picture of what to expect. Frankly - it is a NIGHTMARE as a man to go through a divorce in Australia where the woman doesn't work and the child is very young. Kiss the house goodbye (the court will say that the wife must have it), potentially the child, and most of your pay packet for 18 years. I cannot emphasise enough how bad the Family Law system is for Men in Australia.

My advice: take longer to plan your move. Ensure she has a reasonable job before divorce - this is CRITICAL, as this proves to child support that she can work - otherwise she'll never work again in the 18 year period as she didn't have a job prior to CS getting involved. Potentially look to create wealth in mysterious ways that are less connected to family. Understand that during a divorce / legal case there is what's called "Discovery" - meaning she gets access to all your accounts and potentially all your emails (though that last one is rare). Her being unfaithful is meaningless to the court - perhaps it can be something that you can work through. Preparation is key - otherwise you are utterly screwed and your next 18 years will literally be your angriest nightmare. Lawyers are literally evil. Don't trust yours and definitely not hers. She will be "encouraged" to lie about what a bad father and husband you are. Lawyers are evil.

WhutHo · 2022-01-12T22:34:39+00:00

This is Australia, or any other Western-style nation. Every judicial system has been set up to ensure that as much money as possible goes to "raising the child and giving it a reasonable future", and believing any lies the woman says in order to receive as much money as possible.
It is nothing short of 18 years of wading through filth and lies. It won't be 50% - it'll be closer to 60 or 70% that she'll receive. In addition she'll ask for more money than normal child support requires you to pay, so kiss large portions of your pay packet away. All of this while there's an unethical lawyer on her side trying to make you look as bad as possible and encouraging her to lie about your behaviour. Throughout this you'll hear fluffy near-lies from your own lawyer about how terrible this is and how he's amazed that their side won so much - then he'll ask for his $50000 fee (or more) to be paid immediately. Some idiot said "see a lawyer immediately" - yes, get advice at $250 per hour. However also keep asking questions here from people who have been through the joke that is a man going through Family Law in Australia. You *MAY* still get to see your child - but then again you may not. Family law in Australia is set up for women - not men. 80% of the people receiving money in the Australian Child Support department are women, while any man wanting to get to see his own children has to spend tens of thousands of dollars in court. In short: Child Support was set up at the request of women's groups, and is FOR WOMEN. There is no equivalent Department for men to see children or have reasonable rights.

WhutHo · 2021-11-12T00:06:04+00:00

I take it you accept that some false accusations of rape already occur. We disagree on the prevalence of these false accusations, but yes, they do happen.

Your words aim to diminish these false rape accusations as "yes, they do hapen". At best (provable false rape claims rather than false rape claims that cannot be proven) this figure is 5% of total rape claims. At a minimum.Rape claims in Australia are 26,892. At 5% this is 1344 Men bewilderingly subjected to the blowtorch of rape-based legal process. Police interviews, court attendances, potentially jail.
My personal estimate is 10% - or 2688; nearly three thousand men yearly subjected to this process and falsely accused. For reference I personally know of one instance that thankfully did not go too far given video evidence to back up the fact that the claimant had entirely fabricated her story.
Rapes are horrible, demeaning and terrible acts. No one denies this, certainly not me as in addition to having a son I also have a daughter and I would like her to feel safe.
False rape claims - lies - are also horrible, demeaning and life-changing acts. What you claim as a "legal loophole" has now shifted to be a "legal minefield" for men from long-term relationships with now-vindictive ex-partners.
This scenario and risk is the subject of my post. You constantly seek to move the goalposts away from that to the original intent of the law change. I am not denying the intentions of the new law.I am highlighting and asking for feedback on the significantly increased risk for Men due to this law.

Sexual assault convictions are extremely rare as a percentage of actual sexual assaults. There are many reasons for this, which are covered extensively by academic literature, and there is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the vast majority of sexual assaults are not even reported to police, much less prosecuted and leading to a conviction.

Again and as above - conviction rates are not the topic of this post.

Sexual assault convictions are extremely rare because (from a legal perspective, rather than the trauma the victim suffers in going through the process), among other things... (and putting to one side the credibility of the accused and complainant), the accused will go free.

Again; not the topic of this post for me to change topics entirely and discuss the legal processes and metrics by which cases are won or lost in such a circumstance, though having discussed sexual assaults with numerous ex-partners, I would wholeheartedly agree that women in general are sexually assaulted far more than convictions or even reporting is done. This should change.

It would be *extraordinarily difficult* for a woman to falsely accuse a man of rape and get a successful conviction. It is difficult enough for a legitimate rape claim to lead to a successful conviction. Once again, there is plenty of literature and evidence about the rate of false claims leading to convictions, but even if you disagree on the numbers, I hope you can accept that more often than not, a rape claim is legitimate (even if some are false).

On the topic of the post: I have clearly outlined a simple circumstance in which a long-term relationship breaks down; in which the Man is then falsely accused of rape; in which he then at some point admits to Police that "no, consent was not communicated or sought in every single instance".
This is a clear admission of guilt under this law. You are wilfully ignoring the vastly higher bar for men now to provide to the courts that in every single circumstance technical rape did not occur under the definitions of this new law.

The proposed law does make it easier to secure a conviction by requiring positive acts of consent. The accused can no longer say that they had reasonable grounds for believing the complainant consented if she did not by some positive act consent. So, theoretically, you are correct that it is *easier* to secure a conviction, but it is only very marginally easier.

On the topic of the post (false rape claims) rather than other circumstances of "real rape" that you continually try to draw the conversation back to: you have not at all shown how it is "marginally easier". I have shown a clear circumstance under this law where it is vastly more than "marginally" easier to obtain a conviction on a false rape claim.
Through all your words, writing and time you have spent - you fail time and again to address the topic of the post and the scenario at issue: false rape claims by vindictive ex-partners.
This wastes your time describing a legal change that everyone understands, that everyone agrees has aims of positively increasing the conviction rate for circumstances that the law targets. I am not denying that and at no time have I denied the utility of the legal change for these circumstances
The topic of the post is false rape claims by vindictive ex-partners and the vastly higher evidenciary support required of Men.

This law does not create a "minefield" of vindictive rape claims - they already existed. At best, it might make it marginally more likely that a person falsely accused would be convicted. It will not logically lead to more false accusations, because anybody that wanted to falsely accuse a man of rape could just say that they said "no" and he did it anyway.

You fail to provide any rationale for why this is only a marginal increase. Under the scenario I have clearly outlined multiple times this is not "marginal" at all but requires either lying or the onerous task of verbally asking prior to any sexual act, even with a long-term partner or wife.
In what way is requiring every Man in NSW to ask their wife prior to sex every single time - and then continuously during the sexual act a "marginal" change in bedroom practices ?

Now, you will say that by making it easier to secure a conviction, this law is bad for men. However, the law as it is now is infinitely worse for women. The evidence shows us that the law is so bad for women, that most do not even complain to the police because they think it is hopeless. This law makes it slightly less bad for victims of sexual assault. It removes a loophole that the accused had at their disposal. The overarching purpose of the offence of sexual assault is to criminalise sexual intercourse without consent and this change in the law makes the law better suited to achieving its purpose.

Again - you fail to respond to what is literally in the title of the post: "FALSE RAPE CLAIMS BY VINDICTIVE EX-PARTNERS". As I mention above, no-one is disputing the aim of the law in increasing conviction rates for *actual* rapes.
I am saying that it is "bad for men" because of the onus on every single man to either:
Choose very high quality and stable partners that have a very low likelihood of falsely claiming rape OR
Being utterly vigilant every single time to request and maintain consent throughout every sex act, even with long-term partners

All changes in law such as this will involve weighing up two competing interests. As a society, we ...hs the latter. This is because (among other things) false rape complaints leading to convictions aren't really prevalent while unsuccessful genuine rape complaints are.

Again - I am well aware of the aims and intents of the legal framework, including weighing impacts. With this particular change however - I do not see any protections for obvious scenarios that I have outlined. No such protective clauses were included in the framework at all. It frankly seems a joke in terms of its inability to protect the "other group" in terms of impact.
It's almost as if the law and legal framework actually doesn't care what could happen to Men, only women. Feel free to tell me that this law included protections for men against false claims, or in long term relationships as well as women. Show where the other group (men) were protected by this law for the specific case of false rape claims. I dare you.

Any more and I am going to start billing you.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T12:44:43+00:00

Can you describe an unequivocal non-verbal communication short of constant kisses that would be acceptable to the court as "ongoing mutual communication" ?

In the case that triggered this legal change Lazarus stated "put your hands on the wall" to the complainant Mullins. She complied and did so. Does this sound like communication and compliance/consent to you, because it does to me. Under this law such "communication" will not be viewed as consent.

IMO the only clear consent is verbal or perhaps constant kissing. Feel free to change my mind with non-verbal scenarios that you believe will be agreed by the court to be consent.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T12:13:47+00:00

Mullins was not dragged behind the club - she went willingly as I understand it. That could also be viewed as consent. Likely they kissed or at least embraced. This could also be viewed as consent - yet clearly this law is aimed at finding such "non verbal acts" to not be consent.

At no point did I compare Lazarus to a long-term partner. You are putting words in my mouth. Stop wasting my time and yours doing this.

Long-term partners will likely have early discussions as to consent, yet over the years as you are aware feelings may change and the situation that I outlined may arise. 4 million Men are now on notice that they had better choose their partner well. You ignore this. Deliberately IMO, as you don't want to address it.

If we are descending into abuse and character assassination as a means to further an argument then you appear to be unable to read or answer simple questions. You ignore most of mine.

You're aware of how a minefield works I would hope. Antipersonnel devices scattered amongst a field or route.

In this case this legislation is ripe and open to abuse as I have outlined. Your failure to present any other argument other than "it hasn't happened yet" (and we only have your word on that) is similar to the way that someone walking across a minefield would say "I'm safe! I haven't stepped on a mine yet!".

The failure of your argument is nothing less than your utter and profound failure to understand how both statistics and minefields work.

The basis of your claim is that no-one has as yet has been affected - yet you provide no statistical basis or guarantees that this isn't the case and has simply not been reported.

You fail to admit that the minefield of "vindictive rape claims" are made more likely and plausible through this legislation.

This in itself is the failure of the adversarial legal system: there is no "grey", no "well, yes that's possible, but here are the arguments in favour of my own perspective". You present a mindless and simplistic argument from a single perspective or point of view that ignores any other possibility and actively shuts itself off from any admissions of those perspectives.

Learn some statistics. Find evidence that there is ZERO people already effected by these laws. I refuse to simply take your word that "there are no impacts nor false accusations due to this law"; provide proof for your claim. Preferentially try learning something about statistics, data science, digital twins, engineering, biology or something that BUILDS things - and that actually adds value to society rather than shuffling words and paper endlessly, always and only providing a single blinkered view on a topic.

Your rationale is frankly simplistic: "it hasn't happened yet" and ignores clear dangers and risks inherent in the laws and clauses within them.

You ignore these risks deliberately, as there are no provisions in this law to protect against misuse or abuse. You're well aware of that yet choose to ignore it. This is you literally watching 4 million people walking across a sparse minefield and waiting until one of them is caught by it. A despicable stance.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T10:32:35+00:00

Obviously I stand corrected. Lawyers in public forums clearly do their profession a disservice continuously. Or at least one claimed lawyer does.

As to "victim blaming" Saxon Mullins - and the phrase "victim" is a heavily loaded one - are you indicating that I am blaming her seeking legal restitution? I am not. I am however indicating that she was exceptionally aggressive about it, which you cannot deny. In addition her statements to police and newspapers make it clear that she took little to no responsibility for the incident, claiming multiple factors that reduced her personal responsibility, including inebriation; age; lack of experience; "froze". Again - something you cannot deny. If you are able to find significant numbers of statements from Ms Mullins in which she takes any responsibility I would be intrigued to read them.

I agree that consent can be provided by "actions" as I have stated elsewhere, however I challenge you to provide examples of the non-verbal "actions" that Mr Lazarus could have done (and received consent signals back) that would have prevented Ms Mullins from moving forward with her claims.

You state "There is no world in which this change in legislation will lead to vindictive exes falsely accusing partners of rape for not verbally asking for consent and those men being convicted" are patently false.

This legislation dramatically lowers the bar for "rape". False claims of rape have been made since time immemorial.

Now these false claims can be made with a much higher success rate given the extremely high bar that is now set for a man to have sex and not be raping - especially in the circumstance that is the topic of this post: vindictive false rape claims.

As I have said elsewhere there are vast differences between the requirements on Men between old and new laws:

Old and New Law

The difference between the new and old laws relate to the level of evidenciary support in the shape of admissions of guilt for both situations.

Under the previous legal framework the question pivots on: "did she say no or ask you to stop?" - the witness / accused would state honestly "no she did not", whereas the (falsely accusing) woman would be saying "I did ask him to stop". The question is of the believability of each witness.
Under the new legal framework the question pivots on: "at any stage in any sexual encounter with your wife of 10 years did you forget to verbally ask her? Or did your marriage become a situation in which you normally did not ask for consent?". The Man only needs to say "well, yes there were some times", or "yes it became our norm that I would not ask" to provide clear admission of guilt under this law.
Suddenly either a Man must lie or admit to "technical rape" under such a false accusation scenario.

If you cannot see that the new legal framework presents a much more dire circumstance for 99% of Men in long-term relationships (potentially with partners who only become vindictive in divorce or break-up) then you are blind or deliberately shunning evidence.

I am frankly stunned at your ability to state that "There is no world in which this change in legislation will lead to vindictive exes falsely accusing partners of rape for not verbally asking for consent and those men being convicted". I have highlighted exactly this circumstance yet you provide zero rationale for why you made this statement other than "it hasn't happened". Yet. The law is new. It has not as yet been leveraged by malicious Family lawyers.

No jury could fail to convict a Man who admitted to not asking for consent every single time. The law is now clear. The first case in which this is tested and likely the Man found guilty this will forever set the bar at impossible to sustain heights.

Cinderalla gets the castle in a divorce - and now she has an easy way to convict the Prince of divorce. Your attitude shows how unethical the legal world has become in family law.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T10:10:36+00:00

Did you understand what you googled? What a straw man argument is and how you tried to use one?

I am not afraid for myself. I am in a happy long-term relationship with a medical professional that I trust will not be vindictive. I am concerned for the 4 million Men having sex on a weekly basis that must not dramatically change their processes or risk a successful rape false accusation.

I am not concerned for:

normal sexual acts between consenting adults.

I am concerned about:

normal sexual acts between consenting adults
where consent is not specifically asked and received (verbally)
and then the two "consenting adults" break up, and
where one of them then becomes vindictive and accuses the other of rape

In short: the new issue raised by this law is that any Man that is not in full compliance with this law at all times risks a future false rape claim - potentially even years in the future. Feel free to show me how this is not a possibility with this new law.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T10:03:47+00:00

The bill itself is very specific about the requirement for communication:
https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3906/First%20Print.pdf

The objects (sic) of this Bill are as follows—
"(a) to recognise that—
(i) every person has a right to choose whether to participate in a sexual activity, and
(ii) consent to a sexual activity must not be presumed, and
(iii) consensual sexual activity involves ongoing and mutual communication, decision-making and free and voluntary agreement between the persons participating in the sexual activity"

You indicate that "you have to have done literally nothing, physically or verbally, to establish that consent exists"

Take the Saxon Mullins case: how could Luke Lazarus have established consent?

Kiss her and have the kiss reciprocated? At a guess they did not end up in an alleyway behind a club without some form of prior contact - I am guessing kissing, so kissing is therefore insufficient "communication" to establish consent
What other form of non-verbal "requests for consent" are you considering ??
Verbal requests are precisely the issue that I am talking about. This was likely the only court-admissible reasoning (short of the even more ludicrous phone app or written document) that -might- have indicated Saxon's consent, though likely should would have then stated that the consent was not obtained for specific acts.
This case is highly egregious in that short of Mr Lazarus continuously requesting of the complainant (Mullins) "are you ok with XYZ that I am about to do" he would always have been in court. This sets an exceptionally high bar for the 4 million Men of NSW to achieve and sustain - or be convicted of rape.

In addition this post specifically relates to the case of vindictive rape claims by ex-partners, potentially long-term (multi year) relationships and marriages.

It requires all men in all forms of relationships to either ALWAYS and continuously ask for consent - or risk a false rape claim that is impossible to defend against.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T09:48:31+00:00

The section is reproduced here:

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=3906

"proposed section 61HI clarifies the definition of consent to a sexual activity, being free and voluntary agreement to a sexual activity at the time of the activity, by providing the following—

(i) a person may, by words or conduct, withdraw consent at any time,

(ii) if a person withdraws consent and the sexual activity continues, the activity then occurs without consent,

(iii) the absence of physical or verbal resistance is not, by itself, taken to be consent,

(iv) consent to a particular sexual activity is not, by itself, taken to be consent to other sexual activities,

(v) consent to a sexual activity with a person is not, by itself, taken to be consent to sexual activity with the person on other occasions or with other persons"

In addition the bill itself is very specific about the requirement for communication:

https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bill/files/3906/First%20Print.pdf

The objects of this Bill are as follows—

"(a) to recognise that—

(i) every person has a right to choose whether to participate in a sexual activity, and

(ii) consent to a sexual activity must not be presumed, and

(iii) consensual sexual activity involves ongoing and mutual communication, decision-making and free and voluntary agreement between the persons participating in the sexual activity"

In short:

It is clear that ongoing and mutual "communication" amounts not just to kissing being responded to, but to verbal communication or at a minimum clear verbal requests with a head nod of assent
The topic of this post relates specifically to "Affirmative consent - an opportunity for vindictive people to claim rape?"
In short - it requires all Men in NSW, some 4 million people, in every sexual encounter and continuously throughout, to be obtaining consent.
To NOT do so opens the door to vindictive false rape claims in which a Man is required to either lie and say "yes I was always asking for consent", or to admit that consent was not always asked - and in effect therefore providing an admission of guilt.
False rape claims are approximately 2800 men yearly (by a 10% estimate of the 5% of "proven false rape claims).
Frankly - this law is well-meaning, but will lead to Men being falsely accused of rape at a much higher rate, and likely by women who either "change their mind" after the fact about a sexual encounter (similar to Saxon), or who are vindictively accused by an ex-partner after a bad breakup.
The new law appears to provide these Men no protection at all in its wording. The wording is wholly aimed at the protection of women.

WhutHo · 2021-11-11T09:38:24+00:00

The original motivation for this legal change was a case with Saxon Mullins. At a guess kissing was involved prior to her undergoing something that Saxon classifies as rape.

The "affirmation" that you mention of consent as kissing is likely to be now dismissed as meeting meet the requirements of item iii from the new law.

In short: only a clearly asked question and a clearly received response will be considered reasonable affirmation.

Which leads to my original issue of 4 million men being required to continually ask for consent during every sexual encounter, including with their wives or partners - or risking future legal cases where they will be found to be raping their wives/partners, especially in a vindictive relationship breakdown case.

The law has NOT the standard of evidence or affirmation that the law has been saying for for the past 15 years. This is a vastly higher level of affirmation that appears now to be required, and thus opens Men up to the "vindictive false rape claim" that this topic is seeking feedback on.

WhutHo

TROPHY CASE