Sexual Violation

This'll just be a quick side-note guys. So, Australia's government are introducing a new charge: sexual violation. What sexual violation means, is that the defendant actually believed that they had consent. Now, let's look at the consequences of that law:

1. Confusion. Legally, this is contradictory. By law, even if you're married, you need an affirmed "yes" before sex. Now, by introducing sexual violation, how can that exist? Will they change the definition of rape? Because if you didn't get the clear "yes", it's legally rape. If you did get the "yes", you clearly know you have consent. There's no room for "not a yes but not a no". You don't have to say "no" for it to be rape. If the other person didn't make clear they were consenting, it's legally rape. So how can you not know whether you do or don't have consent without raping someone? 

2. Appeals. If you were a convicted rapist, I would probably expect you to file for an appeal once this is passed. The floodgates are about to burst open due to this. Courts with be congested and a shitstorm will brew, especially if many of them actually succeed. Every single convicted rapist ever is going to file for appeal on the grounds that they thought they had consent. Which brings me to my next point.

3. How the fuck are you supposed to prove that you had consent? Seriously, try to think up some way that you would prove it if you were in that position. How on earth can you prove that you were under the impression consent had been given?