New York State Assemblywoman Rebecca Seawright introduced a bill that would redefine consent, something progressives have been doing for the past decade on college campuses, resulting in numerous acts being considered sexual assault that previously were not nor should be.
Seawright’s bill would add a definition of consent that states:
“Consent” means freely given knowledgeable and informed agreement; such agreement must be obtained without the use of malice such as forcible compulsion, duress, coercion, deception, fraud, concealment or artifice.
Defense attorney Scott Greenfield wrote that this wording would have damaging effects “in the real world, not just the myopic world of the writer who is focused on what words are needed to fix her problem.” Greenfield then explained how Seawright’s definition would work in this real world:
The inclusion of the phrase “without use of malice” is bizarre and inexplicable. What difference does it make if a person is malicious or just horny, or lonely, or motivated by other purposes than malice? Why this phrase is included is unclear, but if it should remain and the definition is enacted, it will be nearly impossible to prove anyone had “malice,” as opposed to a desire for sex, in their heart.
But the deeper problem with this proposal is the final four words: deception, fraud, concealment or artifice.
…
On the most shallow level, who would argue that consent obtained by deception, fraud, concealment or artifice should be valid? But then it comes to distinguishing romance from rape, these words are fraught with problems. If a guy puffs his occupation and income, it’s deception. If a woman wears spanx and false eyelashes, it’s deception. If a guy claims to be single when he’s married but separated, it’s deception. If a woman had breast augmentation surgery, or reduction surgery for that matter, it’s deception. And, of course, there’s the classic, “will you love me forever?”
Which artifice gives rise to criminal prosecution for rape? The universe of lies, large and small, we tell in the course of obtaining consent to sex has few limits, and both men and women engage in artifice to get what they desire. Is this just the normal game of romance, putting on one’s best look to attract someone with whom you want to have sex, or is this rape?
A broadening of the definition of consent has already led to problems on college campuses in New York, which adopted the “affirmative consent” rule for college students (but not the politicians who came up with the law). As I have previously reported, there simply is no way for an accused student to prove they obtained affirmative consent under current, draconian policies. This is because the law states that even if a person shows consent through words and/or actions, this is negated if they have been drinking or using drugs (the level of incapacity is not defined).