I draw readers’ attention to our laws on unlawful sexual connection. Note particularly the section on consent, which seems to allow almost any situation to be defined as unlawful. If you are considering having sex with someone (I will assume for this posting it is a woman), keep in mind the following information. Consent can be seen to have been absent when:
a) she offered no protest (i.e. she made no effort to say “no”) or any physical resistance (i.e. she accepted advances and participated in the sexual activity).
b) she “allowed” sexual activity because she feared that force might be applied to her or some other person;. Nothing you did is relevant here. This echoes the Domestic Violence Act where claimed subjective fear is enough for a protection order to be granted regardless of whether the respondent ever did anything violent or whether there is any rational basis to that fear.
c) she is seen as having been too drunk or stoned to give consent. That means (e.g.) if a woman has been drinking and invites you to get it on, she can later claim that you should not have accepted her invitation because she was drunk. This, as with all the other provisions here, applies also to your married or long-term partner, so don’t mistakenly think it’s safe to have sex with your wife in the relaxed afterglow of dinner and a bottle of wine.
d) she claims to have been mistaken about your identity; again your role in this is irrelevant.
e) she allows the act because she is mistaken about its nature and quality. So, for example, if she accepts and enjoys you having oral sex with her but later decides it was immoral, she can charge you with sexual violation.
f) any other circumstance in which she decides retrospectively that she really preferred not to have participated, because the act specifically states that it places no limit on the circumstances in which a person can be seen to not have given consent to sexual activity.

I suppose these are the provisions under which Louise Nicholas was able to prosecute men for sexual activities which she as a competent adult well beyond the age of consent agreed to and participated in actively and without protest. Ladies, remember this if you ever want to get revenge on a current or ex-lover. If successful and you have been together for a couple of years it will probably enable you to gain all or most of his property also.

How have things come to this? How has a feminist administration been able to make laws that allow women almost unlimited scope to charge men with retrospectively-decided crimes that can see the men imprisoned for longer than if they had killed or maimed someone? Although the wording of the Act is gender neutral, it is clearly motivated by feminist preference and will be applied accordingly. Hence we repeatedly see real female sexual offending described euphemistically with the female offender charged sparingly and given light sentences (e.g. see this recent example). You can bet that if a woman was charged for offences based on the above claims, it would be laughed out of Court (in the unlikely event it had not already been laughed out of the police station).

So what does this mean for men? I was on a panel about a decade ago on a tv show about sexual offending, along with others including Greg Newbold and some staunch man-hating feminists. After debating the complex issue of consent (during which Greg Newbold increased his infamy when he asserted that from a woman “no” does not always mean “no”!), one of the women made the (at the time) incredible assertion that only signed, written consent from a woman should be enough to protect a man from rape allegations. Well, that is now another item on the feminist agenda that has come to pass. Only that written consent to sex is not enough; under the Act you will need written consent specifically for every sexual act she participates in. Men, be afraid, be very afraid, and realise that unless you have written consent from a sexual partner you could easily be charged under NZ law with rape or other sexual offending. Keep in mind also that when you read about some man being convicted of rape etc, don’t jump to any conclusions about what it means. Under the current law, perfectly innocent behaviour in good faith can and will be construed as serious sexual offending.

Living in this country is no longer safe for men. NZ men deserve to be recognized as worthy of political asylum in other countries, but no doubt the clever gender-neutral facade of such legislation and NZ’s undeserved image as a country with due regard for civil rights and gender equality will rule out such avenues of escape for most NZ men.