Are you an aspiring rapist? Or do you just occasionally like to fap fap fap to non-consensual-ish videos of women being sexually assaulted? Maybe none of these describe you, but you just like the fact that we live in a society of patriarchal values that consistently undervalues women as sexual commodity. High five, bra!
If you fit any one of these descriptors, son, have I got some great news for you! But before you read any further, rapists, et. al. quickly pack all your belongings from that hole in your mother's basement wherever you live and arrange bus fare to St. Louis. Go ahead, I'll wait...
All set? Ok good. Here's the big news (and laydeez you should really listen up too because this craze is sure to start sweepin' the nation!)
It's called "implied consent," and we have a St. Louis jury to thank for setting it as a new precedent for dudes cravin' themselves a little sexual commodity ever now and then, with a 'lil profit exploitation on the side. Yes indeed, the rape culture enthusiasts of St. Louis have had a very vindicating week, which they enthusiastically celebrated with a Slut-Shame-A-Thon in online forums and the Riverfront Times blog section. Stay classy, Chad Garrison and friends!
Implied Consent is this new court-sanctioned sexual assault thingy that resulted from a recent court decision in which a St. Louis jury ruled against 'Jane Doe', a woman who sued the "Girls Gone Wild" video franchise after, in 2004, they put her in one of their videos despite the fact that she never actually consented to be in the videos. Oh, and there was this one other thing: she actually was sexually assaulted on camera by another woman who lifted up her shirt while the tape was rolling, despite Jane's verbal protestations and saying"no" when they were all "Show us yer bewbs!" But assault, schmault -- she was in the club, okay? And the GGW guys were there! And women who go to clubs where there are dudes filming like to be raped and assaulted on camera for monies. This is common knowledge in St. Louis. Ergo, implied consent.
STL.com breaks down the "completely not mysogynistic, no" rationale of the jury in this news article:"Through her actions, she gave implied consent," O'Brien said. "She was really playing to the camera. She knew what she was doing."
Now, sisters, you might be wondering at this point: How might I be seen implying my consent, when the words coming out of my mouth might be "No, no" like Jane Doe said? This is a very good and important question. According to the official logic of the Missouri court system (state motto: "Salus populi suprema lex esto" or "The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law" lolz) you may be seen implying your consent doing one or any combination of these things at any time, so be on alert (note: this list is by no means exhaustive):
- chewing gum
- walking down the street
- eating out in public
- having a drink in a bar
- grocery shopping
- walking your dog
- walking your hamster
- checking your mail
- going for a jog
- breathing passively in an open space