So complete is our moral collapse that we now have an app for consent

The smart phone has well and truly colonised the dating game. First it was apps like Plenty of Fish, which brought long-standing websites on to the mobile platform.

Then, it was Tinder, the app that lets you decide whether you like or dislike some-one based only on a photo (a fine basis for an introduction). Its developers boldly claim: “It’s like real life, but better.” I certainly hope that’s not true.

Then came Happen, the dating app that lets you see who was near you at a particular time, and how many times you crossed paths. If that sounds freakish, it’s probably because it is.

All this technology has made the dating scene, in my view, a truly unpleasant one. The idea that people now find their dates by clicking a button to indicate approval of a photograph is every bit as shallow as it sounds.

The idea that people start to feel rejected and inadequate if their photo doesn’t get plenty of hits is a real one, where once they would have been happy to meet a nice person in a social setting and enjoy their company throughout the evening.

Yet the smart phone has not only revolutionised dating, it is now set to become the arbitrator in the bedroom.

Arbitrator of what? Believe it or not, the arbitrator of whether or not a sexual act was consensual. Yep, that’s right: there’s no need to worry about assault and sexual violence anymore because, when it comes to determining consent, there’s an app for that.

We-Consent is an app that allows 2 individuals to make a 20-second recording, in which they state that they are going to have sex, and must name the person with whom the act will take place. Only if the camera detects both faces will the app allow the recording to be made. It will, according to reports, either tell you that it’s best not to have sex or, if consent is confirmed, will advise you to “Have fun.”

So, that’s it. That’s all there is to it. It is absolutely astonishing that sexual assault has been so simplified, in order that we can use our favourite little gadgets to affirm our own safety.

Campaign groups are, quite rightly, outraged, pointing out the erroneous nature of the idea that rape arises out of misunderstanding. It doesn’t.

Rape is an act of violence. The app is clearly targeted at the so-called ‘grey area’ rapes, where one party’s consent (nearly always the woman) is questionable.

Cases like that of footballer Ched Evans throw up the question of grey area rapes, and the common factor is alcohol. If the girl goes back to the hotel, and both parties are intoxicated, can we legitimately claim that she has been raped if either she appeared very willing indeed to have sex, or both parties were equally drunk? 

These cases often go nowhere, but sometimes the man is convicted of rape. For some, this is exactly what he deserves; others argue that, if she said yes at the time, he is guilty of nothing more than not being much of a gentleman and, in the circumstances, the law shouldn’t unduly favour the woman’s cry of rape over his protest of innocence.

Are we really to believe, though, that We-Consent offers us any kind of solution to this moral quandary? If 2 drunk people are capable of indicating a sexual interest in each other which they may have forgotten in the morning, surely they’re also both capable of making a 20-second video on a smart phone?

Does some-one watch the clips role in and decide that the clip is sufficient? Is there some-one who’ll notice the red flags, like her shaking hand with the phone, or his slurred speech, for example?

Will they issue a no? Will the amorous couple listen anyway? Or is it simply a piece of evidence that will be used if this ends up another needlessly life-shattering case where an evening of excessive drinking has gone horribly wrong?

And this is before I’ve even mentioned the fact that sexual violence can occur even once consent has been given, where some-one’s boundaries or wish to stop are ignored.

IT is hopelessly dangerous to develop products that will actually just encourage feckless and irresponsible behaviour, and further complicate already impossibly tricky legal cases. Instead, we need a couple of things.
Firstly, we need a clarification, in law, of who is assumed to be responsible where it can be proven beyond all reasonable doubt that intoxicating quantities of alcohol had been consumed by both parties, and where, therefore, neither party was of sound enough judgement to consent or correctly judge that adequate consent had not been given.

Though the finer points would need exploring, I am broadly very comfortable with that burden falling to men, because most sexual violence is directed to women.

Some will say this is unfair, that it allows a woman to cry rape and apportions blame more to one person in a situation where both have probably been equally stupid. They would have a point, but it is already the case that the allegation of rape nearly always comes from the woman in these situations anyway, so men already have to be extra careful.

A woman will be more affected by the same quantity of alcohol, yet women are keeping up with men when it comes to how much they’re drinking. That makes them vulnerable.

It is not unreasonable to more rigorously insist that men should be held responsible for the consequences of the choice to drink beyond the point where they are in control of their actions. After all, women are always rightly reminded of the need to take responsibility for their own safety. This might hopefully encourage everyone to act more responsibly and show restraint when drinking.

No one who is drunk should be having sex. Stop making these grey cases and hold someone to account for it.

Second, we need a societal shift in attitudes to sex. Isn’t the really sad part of all this, that we are having to develop technological solutions to make a contractual agreement to enjoy a sexual act, because it is now so widespread to have sex with people one doesn’t even know well enough to be confident that one trusts them?

Did anyone really envision a world where near-strangers would have a discussion about giving each other a form of legal insurance before getting down to business, in the swinging 60s at the birth of the era of sexual liberation?

It is desperately sad that, so little importance is given to the act that we once believed cemented husband and wife in a binding sacred union before God, that we don’t even fight to restore its position to the preserve, if not of the marriage, than of the stable, committed relationship.

Instead, we make apps, and congratulate ourselves on yet another advancement of technology’s vital role in our lives today.

We just apathetically accept that this is how it is, and just leave it to the small numbers of campaigners for whom dealing with sexual violence is their bread and butter, to say that our enabling of the tide of promiscuity has gone much too far.