Something Was Wrong - S15 E12: [Consent Awareness Network] Consent in Our Lives and Laws

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

*Content Warning: sexual assault, rape, coercive control, emotional violence, fraud, legal abuse. ACTION ITEM - SIGN THE PETITION: http://bit.ly/BillPetitionDONATE to CAN: https://consentawareness.net/donate/CONTACT CAN: [e-mail]’s TedX Talk:  http://bit.ly/DefineConsentWhen "Yes" Means "No", the Truth about Consent | Joyce Short | TEDxYouth@UrsulineAcademy Joyce's Book: http://bit.ly/ConsentRevisedYour Consent: The Key to Conquering Sexual Assault (revised edition)Instagram: Joyce: @yourconsentNina: @standfirmvoiceTikTok: Nina TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@consentconversationsJoyce TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@4myconsentHashtags: #FGKIA - freely given, knowledgeable informed agreement (by a person with the capacity to reason)#CodifyConsentSomething Was Wrong’s Free + Confidential Resource Guide: www.somethingwaswrong.com/resources S15 Artwork by the amazing Sara Stewart: @GreaterThanOkay at Instagram.com/greaterthanokayYour Consent for *Kids video on youtube: http://bit.ly/YourConsentForKids*Rated G, Recommended for ages 6+ years old *PLEASE NOTE - "This cartoon is meant to be watched by children with their parents or teachers. There are 6 G-rated examples. We suggest you pause the cartoon after each question, have a brief conversation, and then proceed to get the answer. This cartoon will help you engage with your kids in an easy, fun way about this important topic. Here are the places to pause for each section: Section 1- 2:15, Section 2- 3:14, Section 3- 3:46, Section 4- 4:32, Section 5- 5:15, Section 6- 5:51.Here's a simple poem to help your kids live a lifetime of healthy consenting:"Consent" means "Freely Given,"When you know the facts and agree.So don't force, or trick or try to scare,When you want consent from me!Copyright © 2019 Joyce Short and Consent Awareness Network. All video, print, or media usage must contain copyright display, attribute to the author, and must not exceed one paragraph in length. No alterations are permitted.” See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hey, prime members, you can listen to something was wrong early and add free on Amazon music. Download the app today. I'm Candace DeLong and on my new podcast, Killer Psychy Daily, I share a quick 10-minute rundown every weekday on the motivations and behaviors of the cold-butter killers you read about in the news. Listen to the Amazon Music Exclusive Podcast Killer Psychy Daily in the Amazon Music exclusive podcast killer psyche daily in the Amazon Music app. Download the app today. Something was wrong is intended for mature audiences as it discusses topics that can be upsetting such as emotional, physical, and sexual violence.

Content warnings for each episode and confidential and free resources for survivors can be found in the episode notes. Some survivor names have been changed for anonymity purposes. pseudonyms are given to minors in these stories for their privacy and protection. Testimony shared by guests on this show is their own and does not necessarily reflect the views of myself, broken cycle media, or wondering. The podcast or any linked materials should not be construed as medical advice, nor is the information a substitute for professional expertise or treatment.

All persons are considered innocent and less proven guilty in a court of law. Thank you so much for listening. You think you know me, you don't know me well Head on, head on It comes from me You don't know anybody until you don't I am so so excited about today's episode because bringing education to empower ourselves, make change, bring change in the legal system. That's very much a huge part of what motivates the work that I do and working with survivors each day has taught me

how many holes there are within our system and how necessary the work that can the consent awareness network does. They have been following and supporting the podcast and survivors for several seasons now. I've had the pleasure of connecting with Nina Lucas who's joining us today and Joyce Short and they have wonderfully and to all of our benefit agreed to come on and educate us and help us all understand more about consent and our rights and need for change in the legal system.

So without further ado, thank you so so much Joyce and Nina for joining me for this special episode. Your time is so valuable and the work you do is extremely important and I'm doubly thankful for your time and the resources that you bring to survivors. Well, thank you Tiffany for having us on and thank you for all the work that you do to raise awareness and to support survivors. We're very excited to be here, long time listener, so I'm excited to talk to you in real time. Well, the pleasure is all mine. Joyce, if you don't mind, kicking us off and sharing a little bit about yourself and how can began. I've done a few things in this realm. We have an organization called the consent awareness network

that is a coalition of many survivors, many of them from high profile cases, like the Weinstein case and the Cosby case and X-Fiem and cases of cultivus people that have really learned that the word consent is really not not defined in our laws. And so we have a coalition that works with legislators in order to correct that layering flaw in our law and make consent the byword of how these cases are prosecuted. I'm a TEDx talk presenter. I've authored four books on the subject.

My most recent is your consent, the key to conquering sexual assault. The revised edition was just published in January. It really serves as the Bible for the work that we do. And of course, I will be linking to all of these important resources, the book, and the TED talk, which is absolutely incredible. It's around 17, 18 minutes, and it is so brave and inspiring and highly recommend. Nina, I know you're a listener,

and I know you're a chief of staff, but I'd love to hear how you began to work with Can. Absolutely. I'm Nina Lucas. I am the chief of staff of the Consent Awareness Network. My background is I was, let's just say for purposes now that I was the victim of an incredible consent violation. And what I was doing is I was trying to find out what I could do about it, how I could pursue justice, because when it happened to me, I thought, I'm not gonna let this stand. I don't know what I'm going to do, but I'm going to fight back somehow. So I started to do a lot of research online. I went to attorneys, got their counsel,

and I ultimately found the work of Joyce Short. And I have to tell you, when I did, I had the most incredible Eureka moment because I said, oh my gosh, this is what I've been trying to express. This is what I've been feeling all along about consent, but I certainly didn't have the words, or the wherewithal to come up with the work

that she had already done. So ever since then, it's been about four or five years that we've been working together. And along with choice, just has really become my life's work as well. Thank you both so much. And my heart goes out to you both as a fellow sexual assault survivor myself. I can certainly relate to some of your sentiments about getting involved and how that can help in our healing journey and our process as a survivor of sexual assault myself and learning more about the systems and the process and our legal system. I'm often surprised by how many gaps there are. Can you talk about what consent is.

Absolutely. Our laws I like to term it a Swiss cheese umbrella. And that Swiss cheese umbrella is just full of legal loopholes. The offenders just dive right into those legal loopholes. And there's no prosecution for them or there is really prosecution that doesn't succeed. Literally because there is no definition for the word consent in our laws. Keep in mind that consent is actually a noun. To consent is a verb. And in order to consent, you actually have to have consent. All right, to consent means to convey consent to another, but you can't convey consent to another unless consent is actually taking

place. So our laws need to establish what consent actually is. And the simple definition, and this is supported by Nuremberg Code, by General Data Protection Regulation, by Model PINGLE Code, it's really given knowledgeable and informed agreement by a person with the capacity to reason. And if we understand that that's what consent is, then it's easy to apply that definition to all of the varying things that people question about whether or not they actually consent it. If you look at the definition for consent, then you can see that if you use, I like to call them the three F words that should never take place in sex. If you use force, fear, or fraud, or if you use the I word, which is incapacity, so if you exploit someone's incapacity or you use force, fear, or fraud, that person is not consenting, no matter what they say or what they do.

And that's one of the very, very big problems that we have today in society. A lot of people that think that they're helping and think that they're going to convey consent as affirmative consent or enthusiastic consent or any other adjective that you're going to convey consent is affirmative consent or enthusiastic consent or any other adjective that you're going to add on to the term consent is misleading. It's really blame the victim rhetoric because it's not how you speak. It's not what you say. It's whether the person who has motivated you has done so through malicious influence or whether they've done so in a way that doesn't include malicious influence.

So if they have used malicious influence such as force, fear, fraud or exploitation of your incapacity, no matter what you say or no matter what you do, you are not consenting. And the reason that it's criminal is that the offender knows whether they've used force, fear, fraud, or exploited your incapacity. It doesn't happen by accident. There's what we call men's rea under the law and men's rea means intent. Do they intend to motivate you in a way that's unlawful?

So this nonsense about what you said or what you did, it is focusing on the victim's behavior and not on the offenders behavior. We have to stop that. We can only stop it by correctly defining consent in our laws. So powerful, so helpful. Thank you. I'm just I'm so glad we're doing this. I'm learning so much. Oh my God. Nina, as a listener, is there any tips that you would hope listeners would know about consent in their rights? Yeah, absolutely. What I want to let everyone know, as society know, your listeners to know, is that we are consent provision disruptors. We're coming to you with a message that hasn't been expressed previously. And we're coming to you that hasn't been expressed previously. And we're coming to you talking about the issues and problems and the non-protection we receive through a lot of concepts

that are in legal language presently and in consent education as Joyce was saying, the term enthusiastic consent, that's problematic. Yes means yes. Well, victims know that yes doesn't always mean yes. So when we have that codified into course, we can elaborate as we go along about why all of those are problematic, but they all circle back to being victim blaming and shaming, which is those concepts say that

whether or not a crime has been committed is based on the words and actions of the victim. And this is completely backwards. And it's all about the causation of the malicious influence of the offender. And that's what we're trying to push back and let everybody know What happens is they get a lot of the victim blaming and shaping mentality The word yes always means yes, but the word yes doesn't always mean I consent

Because the difference yes is an affirmative But if someone used for spear fraud or exploited your incapacity to get that yes, you're not consenting. And the other concept and law of no means no is just as inaccurate because oftentimes the victim is so terrorized that they're frozen, that they're not capable of actually saying no, or if you're too afraid to say no, you're not consenting. You have to have the ability to really give your agreement. There are different types of agreement that can take place in sexual contact. One of them is ascent. And ascent means basically agreement on the face of it. So no matter what is going on when you nod your head yes, you're ascenting.

But ascenting is not consenting. Ascent is agreement on the face of it. Aquaisons is agreement under duress. So if a person is using force or using coercion, is scaring you or is hitting you, then no matter whether you say yes, yes, yes, please stop. That is not consent, although in many states, it is, and we have to change that.

We have to get our laws to recognize that it's not what the victim does. It's not whether they ascend. It's not whether they acquiesce. It's whether they consent, freely give knowledgeable and informed agreement. One thing that would help clarify it is in the state of Missouri, second degree rate states,

a cent is not consent when induced by force, duress, or deception. And so that really is the end result of an awareness of what consent actually means, that you cannot use force a sphere, broad, and you can't exploit someone's incapacity and call that consent. So powerful, so informative. Hearing your TED Talk, which is kept going in my mind,

is why isn't this being taught to our children as well in school? We actually have a cartoon that we've created. And so if any of your listeners want to teach what consent means to your children, it's very easy to do. It's a fun cartoon. It has nothing to do with sexual conduct. It's definitely... D-rated!

D-rated, yes. It's all about whether a person can gobble up somebody else's brownies when they say you can have one brownie and all the brownies disappear or whether you tell the person, yeah, you can ride my bike and then the next minute they're riding your bike even though you haven't given them permission or different things kicking you off the swings. So it's all about what consent means from a child's perspective. And if we can teach them what it means at the age of six or seven or eight, then that lesson is going to carry them through for a lifetime of understanding what consent is and how to respect other people and their limits and their boundaries and be able to secure consent properly as you age and to become young adults.

All right, because consent is the same everywhere. The definition never changes. I always say it's the boardroom, the bedroom, the operative, when the playroom, the locker room. It's always freely given knowledgeable informed agreement. I mentioned a little earlier about Nuremberg Code and General Data Protection Regulation, a couple of things that you should be aware of. The reason that you sign a consent form when you go for your COVID vaccination has to do with Nuremberg Code. And Nuremberg Code was created as the result of the Nuremberg trials against the Nazis during the Second World War. They were, I won't even call them doctors, they were just horrible human beings, they were

conducting quasi medical experiments on concentration camp captives. And they were tried for war crimes after the Second World War in Nuremberg, Germany. The end result was Nuremberg Code, which really sets the standard for getting people involved in medical experimentation and now has actually become the watchword for any kind of medical treatment. So when you go for medical treatment, you must sign a consent form. And even though you sign that consent form, if someone tricks you into signing it, or coerces you into signing it, or forces you into signing it, that consent form has no validity whatsoever, because of Nuremberg code. And the language that we use in our definition for consent

is very, very similar to the definition in Nuremberg code, freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement. It's also the same in general data protection regulation, which regulates your data input on the internet. When you sign up for any new platform, most of us ignore all that boilerplate because we know they're going to tell us the same thing. We're going to sign it anyway.

We're just going to add our name. And we want to use the platform. And we're going to cross our fingers and hope that they do things in an above board fashion. But one of the things that you'll see, if you actually read the thing and delve into what it's actually telling you, has to do with their adherence to general data protection regulation. GDPR was created in the European Union, and it was created in May of 2018. And what's ironic for me is that my TEDx talk was also delivered in May of 2018.

And I found it ironic when I learned about GDPR, which is after I created and presented this TEDx talk, that we both define consent in the same way, freely given, knowledgeable and informed agreement. And the way I learned about GDPR really came as a result of the Bill Cosby trial. I met the author of Chasing Cosby, who explained to me that the woman who was the who explained to me that the woman who was the poor person for the jury was familiar with definition for consent in GDPR. And so I contacted her, her name is Cheryl Carmel, and Nina and I had scheduled an appointment with the legislators in Pennsylvania. We actually had introduced the concept and elicited their support in defining consent in the laws of Pennsylvania. So we were meeting with them in Harrisburg, and I thought, well, wouldn't it be great if we could bring Cheryl with us so that

she could explain to them what happened in the jury room during the Cosby trial. And lo and behold, what happened was the jury actually asked the judge for the definition for consent. And what the judge said was, that's a question that cannot be answered. Your reasonable people use your common sense. And the reason he told them that, number one, he spoke to them about being reasonable people because that's actually the function of the jury. The function of the jury is to represent what 12 reasonable people, the peers of the offender,

would consider to be a crime or not a crime. And that's why we have jury decisions in our criminal cases. The jury deliberated at the end of the trial whether or not Cosby was guilty or innocent and in that deliberation the first question that came to their mind was, did he have consent? And so they asked the judge for the definition and that was the answer that the judge gave him. Well fortunately because Cheryl was on the definition, and that was the answer that the judge gave him. Well, fortunately, because Cheryl was on the jury, she knew what the definition of consent was from general data protection regulation.

And the end result is because they had that definition, which is freely given knowledgeable and informed agreement by a person with capacity to reason, they were able to convict Bill Cosby of sexually assaulting Andrea Constan. What happened subsequently was a terrible overstepping of the Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, completely contrary to the laws of Pennsylvania, quite frankly. They should have been able to overturn it by the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court refused to listen to the case, which was a horrific miscarriage of justice.

And the Weinstein case in New York, the jury asked the judge the same question, what is the definition of consent? And the response was similar because New York State has no definition of consent. And we have to keep in mind when we are talking about cases of sexual assault in particular, the whole question boils down to was consent present, and consent is not defined in the law. And this is just making so many predators, they just wiggle through the legal loopholes,

and they know very well, by the way, predators. They know very well that, in most cases, the law reflects legal language that says, if you say yes or agree, you have consented, predators know very, very well that all they need to do is to elicit a yes from you and that they are within the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. And so many of these laws are written with the intent to assist and to protect, but because they're not using the correct definition of consent, they further embed and codify victim blaming and shaming. That happened in the LA

trial of Weinstein as well. There were four survivors involved in that, and only one received justice. One of the women involved was the governor's wife of California Jennifer Sebel Newsom and she had described how she had fainting orgasm to stop bothering her. And so the defense attorney, sorry, yeah, exactly. I'm sorry. Yeah. Well, I had a hard enough time saying the bigot word. So anyway, the attorney Mark Warksman was grilling Jennifer on the stand and saying, okay, can you feign that orgasm now?

Can you do this? He was pulling up the fact that California defines consent or doesn't define consent as positive cooperation. And his point was, well, if you did that, what else could be more positive than that? So when we're talking about defense attorneys and sometimes even prosecutors or law enforcement, when we talk about them having this toxic practice

or ripping apart witnesses on the stand, they're not only just being moral and creepy and wrong, they are being effective. They're working within the law and how the law handles this, the legal language respecting consent, and they're using it to their advantage because it's not defined correctly.

They are able to find these legal loopholes. We have many, many stories of this, but that's just one of them that really got a lot of attention recently. And there was an article or an interview done of some of the male jurors of that trial. And they were saying things like, well, I didn't like the fact that she emailed him afterwards. Those were the attitudes of some of the men on the jury. And I just can't help but think if we had defined consent, that's just certainly something that they would not be able to get away with or say.

If we define, when we define consent, let me be positive here. When we, when we define consent, what will happen is that model jury instructions will have to be rewritten. And what will happen is that the trial will involve simply, was the motivation done through malicious influence or causation, or was it not done through malicious influence or causation? Model jury instructions would then inform both the prosecution and the defense in regard to what becomes admissible in a court of law. So things related to what the victim was wearing

or whether the victim had previous sexual contact with this person would become irrelevant and inadmissible in a court of law. What the courtroom will focus on is what was the causation that brought these two people together in sexual conduct? Was it malicious or was it not malicious? It was not malicious, then it was not a crime, if it was malicious, then it was a crime. So it will simplify these cases, it will stop the victim blaming, it will stop people from casting

all of this heavy weight of responsibility on their own shoulders and carry shame with them for years and years and years. It will really simplify being able to get sexual predators off the street. Sexual predators, the most part are serial rapists. And the Rapin and Ses National Network tells us that on average they'll rape between 30 and 70 people in their lifetime. So getting one rapist off the street can help 30 to 70 additional victims. And that's why it's so important to get this right. Absolutely, because as it stands now, mentions of consent in the law are just codifying further

these blame-naming concepts. Exactly. And that's- They're enabling rapists. And that's horrifying, because you know, we always ask, gosh, why is there so much victim blaming and shaming? Stop victim blaming and shaming. Well, because it's in the law. I mean, I don't mean to laugh, it's not amusing. But I mean, that's where it starts. It is in our laws. Me and I see victims' stories all the time.

People come to us with their cases. And unfortunately, we have to tell them, look, we know what consent is, but your laws don't know what consent is. And so the likelihood that you're going to be able to build a case on what you just told me is unfortunately unlikely because these cases because trials, they're not based even on on truth. They're based on proof. And you not only have to have a considerable amount of proof, but you also have to have laws that make the action that took place a crime. And in most states, it's simply not a crime to defraud someone.

You can defraud them of their pet pig, and they'll go to jail, but you defraud them of sexual contact with your body, and that's no big deal in most states across the country. Right, and that's why we're saying that defining consent in the law is a human right, that we need to make a civil right, and that we now know in the world, finally, for the most part that everyone is entitled to their bodily autonomy and personal agency, and to be free from bad actors that seek to undermine those rights. So we really have a long way to go as far as human rights go

and the concept of consent. There's so many, we're being delused all the time with new laws that they're trying to make or initiatives that they're trying to do to cover up one legal poll like that they're trying to do to cover up one legal loophole, like stealthing, intimate image abuse, fertility fraud, sex and human trafficking. These are all based on consent. And one of the reasons why we're trying to make up these laws as we go is because we're trying to plug the legal loophole, where if we had just defined consent properly in the law, it would be very, very apparent where these offenses would be not only unethical, but illegal, that one course of control laws as well. I've seen some course of control initiatives

that are on the books and some states now that don't even mention the word consent. And consent is just such an integral part of really most crimes. In New York, they mentioned consent in the statutes 162 times, all without a definition. Most of it outside of the sexual assault realm, it's even in the law for arson, like do not burn someone's house down without their consent. But it's not defined. It just affects

everything. It affects really every offense, and we've got to get that in there in our laws. When you're dealing with consent and changing our laws, the reality is that there are so many ways that a person can be violated. It's infinite. We define rape and sexual assault by whether the person does a specific act that is identified in a specific statute within penal code.

And that has to change. We have to have a broad understanding that non-concentral sexual conduct is a sexual assault. Right, and there are different levels of sexual assault. Keep in mind that not all sexual assaults arise to what are considered rape in many states. There are degrees that we ascribe to every type of case based on the level of harm. So not all cases, if you're coercing someone, you're not necessarily going to get the same sentence. You're not going to be convicted based on the same degree that if, or coercing someone as you would, if you had violated them through putting a gun to their head, there are different ways of dealing

with the levels of harm that people are subjected to as victims. So people ask me all the time, well, what they're claiming is that all everybody should go to jail for 20 years. That's just totally incorrect. There are levels of degrees that are appropriate for each and every type of crime and our lawmakers part of their function is to determine what level of degree is going to be assigned to specific types of crimes. Right. And what Joyce was talking about, all the legal polls, if you've ever read any kind of sexual assault, the legal in the penal code,

it's very gruesome reading, obviously. And the fact of the matter is that if you are particular sexual assault is not outlined in law, you are out of luck. If you watch my TEDx talk, it starts with the case at Purdue University, where a young man by the name of Donald Grant Ward gets in bed behind a young lady who is a student at Purdue. It was her boyfriend's dorm room, and her boyfriend had invited some friends over. They were on their devices.

She was bored. She was tired. She went up to the top bunk of the boyfriend's bed. He followed her up and he embraced her. She fell asleep in his embrace and she woke up to a sense of a hand stroking her breast and the hand traveled down her body into her underwear and they engaged in sexual contact. And a couple of minutes into it, she had no other bathroom. So she climbed down out of the bunk bed and went to the bathroom. And when she came back, instead of finding her boyfriend on the top bunk, she saw Donald

Grant Ward smiling down at her. And she was still a wilderness. She didn't get what was going on. So she decided she was gonna go down to her room, which was down the hall in this coed dormitory. Don't ask me what I think of coed dorms. Anyway, she found her boyfriend asleep in her bed, and she related to him what had transpired. The boyfriend went down and confronted

Ward. Ward admitted what he had done. The police arrested him. The jury acquitted him. And his conviction was expunged. So we worked very hard at getting the law passed in Indiana. I was contacted by Representative Sally Seeris, who wanted help in getting consent to find in the laws of Indiana. And we worked very hard at defining what consent was for Indiana and also to get the action of what Donald Ward had done, get that also criminalized in Indiana's law,

and we were not successful in doing so. Subsequently, I was contacted by additional legislators in Indiana, and we worked again at defining the laws, and unfortunately there are too many enabling legislators in Indiana that refuse to actually define consent properly and instead adopted a yes means yes concept of sexual assault in Indiana's laws. In fact, we've worked with Alaska on defining consent as well. They wanted to adopt the military law. And the military in the United States is the jurisdiction that has the highest level of sexual assault of any jurisdiction in this country.

Alaska is the worst state in the country and Arkansas is the next worst state in the country. So we were very intent on helping Alaska get consent correctly and instead they adopted military law. Military had an even worse record of sexual assault than Alaska does and recently, fortunately, we were able to get a amendment actually introduced in the National Defense Authorization Act through Representative Annie Custer, who is a Congresswoman from New to define consent in NDAA. We got the amendment passed in NDAA and we were very, very fortunate in crossing our fingers that the Senate would back it as well. And unfortunately, the Senate pulled

our amendment out of the National Defense Authorization Act. In the coming two weeks, April 21st, depends authorization act. In the coming two weeks, April the 21st, we're going to be participating in a rally and press conference that is being held by never-loan advocacy. And these are people that have been sexually assaulted in the military. And we just found out yesterday that Annie Custer is going to be with us, we're going to continue working on getting the definition for consent correctly introduced and passed in the National Defense Authorization Act so that we can control and minimize the amount of sexual assault that takes place in the military and protect the people who protect our nation. So that's really what it's going to take. It's going to take demand from the public. We recently worked with Representative Robin Lundstrom

in Little Rock, Arkansas. Fortunately, we were out of there about two weeks before the tornado struck. And fortunately, Representative Lundstrom, her home, is intact, and she was safely in Little Rock without being hit by the tornado. However, the tornado that hit us was the enabling mentality of the legislators in Little Rock who reused to define consent in their laws. The other thing that we worked on with Representative Lundstrom was to eliminate the statute of limitations on why felony rapes in Arkansas.

Now, Arkansas, keep in mind, is the second worst state in the nation on rape and sexual assault. And yet they refused to define consent and they refused to drop the statute of limitations on rape. Right now, the statute of limitations on rape in Arkansas is six years. It is second to the worst statute of limitations in this country. The worst is three years. In Texas, if you walk through the door of the precinct with five other victims, then there's no statute of limitations. It's bizarre. If you look on our web page, the web page contains a list of every state, the order of your rank in terms of where your rape statistics land for Capita. And you'll also see the statute of limitations that applies in your state. Fortunately, 70% of the states across the country have no statute of limitations on rape any longer.

Unfortunately, Arkansas is not one of them, but we'll be back. We haven't given up on Arkansas. They had a problem with their rape kids. They were not actually processing or properly maintaining rape kits for anonymous victims. Sometimes when a victim reports a rape, they determine that they don't want to go through with the process, they're just not ready at that point in time.

And those rape kits should be retained so that if they change their mind that they will be able to pursue justice and hold that rapist accountable, we were able to accomplish, we had three legislative changes that we were attempting to bring about in Arkansas. One of them passed were not given up on the other two. We will be back to Arkansas. past we're not giving up on the other two. We will be back to Arkansas. Absolutely. I have some other action items if I may. We absolutely appreciate any donations. We're a grassroots organization and thing that you can donate as much as a cup of coffee. That would be great. Everything helps. That's wonderful. I would absolutely watch Joyce's TEDx talk. The feedback that I get from people, and especially recently, we've

been working with a lot of cults is so enthusiastic and they talk about how transformative it is for them to learn good true definition of consent and how that is really assisted on healing journeys for them. We do have that cartoon for children, so that's something fun to share and I'll also say that adults can learn a thing or two from that as well. Joyce's book, if you want to get a deeper dive into everything, I absolutely recommend it for anybody who's interested in consent, consent educators, people who are passionate about consent, it is a must-read. I also want to mention our petition. We have a petition asking for support for consent definition legislation. We would love to see that go viral.

If you could sign that and share that, that would be fantastic. We would really appreciate that. And then I would also use our hashtags. We use the hashtag fgkia, freely given, knowledgeable informed agreement, and then the hashtag codify consent. And finally, I would ask everybody to think about the problems that we've outlined with some of these concepts that are going on now, enthusiastic consent. Yes means yes, no means no, affirmative consent.

If you would think about those and then perhaps replace those hashtags with FGKIA and codify consent because any sort of yes means yes or words and conduct concepts are absolutely victim blaming and shaming. They're looking to the victim to determine whether or not a crime is taking place. We know that is completely backwards. And one of our goals, of course, is to protect victims from the horrible ripping apart that they received, from society, from law enforcement, from our judicial system. And defining consent is freely given, knowledgeable informed agreement will absolutely turn the tide in that respect. Thank you so, so much. This is incredibly valuable to our supporters as well as myself. I cannot thank you at both enough for the work that you do. I hope that that listeners will get fired up and get involved

in whatever capacity they're able and feel comfortable. I loved what you said Joyce, it's not if it's when when we define consent. And I thank you both for being huge advocates in this movement and the support that you provide survivors and everything you're doing on a daily basis to move this forward because until this changes, nothing changes. A hundred percent Ruth Bait against Breach had a wonderful expression. She said that we changed nothing until we change our laws. Absolutely. We've had efforts like me too, and times up, and it's on us, further awareness. But what we need is a solution.

And the solution is a legislative one. It's to codify consent in our laws. And that's what we're fighting for. And I would also like to add if anybody would like to contact their legislators in an effort to get the legislative ball rolling in their state. They can contact us via the website and we would be happy to assist them and guide them and steward them in that process. We're always looking to meet with more legislators and to

get legislative action started in different states. I will link to their website and how you can donate to KAN's efforts and join myself in donating towards their efforts. It is so, so important. And we really need groups like KAN to bring the legal action and change that we discuss every week that is so needed for survivors of these crimes. I always like to ask, do you have any other points that you want to touch on or anything you want to go back to revisit? The poaching the amendment to the United States grants a sole equal protection under the law.

And if the one word that determines guilt or innocence is not clearly defined and clarified, then how do we possibly get equal protection? Every jury has to make up the rules individually in their own deliberations. You can have one jury on one side of the hallway with a similar case, another jury on the other side of the hallway, and you can have two very, very different outcomes. So the binding consent is going to create the kind of equal justice that one deserves. Yeah, I just want to read it right again to your listeners, to the people whose stories have been featured on your podcast. I want to take away their guilt and shame.

I want to take away their embarrassment. I want to take away the beating up that they do upon themselves and to remind them that nothing that you said or did contribute to your abuse. And you're saying yes, you nodding your head, you're going along to get along, you're not leaving. That does not constitute consent. And I want you to be fortified and strengthened by knowing that. You both are legends. I look up to you both so much and the work you're doing. And I look forward to continuing to support your work and finding more ways we can partner together in the future.

Thank you so so much. Thank you for having us. Thanks for amplifying our mission. Thanks for amplifying our mission. Thank you so much for listening. Until next time, stay safe friends. Something was wrong is a broken cycle media production created and hosted by me, Tiffany Rees. If you'd like to support the show further, you can share episodes with your loved ones, leave a positive review, or follow something was wrong on Instagram.

At something was wrong podcast. Our theme song was composed by Glad Rags. Check out their album, Wonder Under. Thank you so much. Hey, Prime members, you can listen to something was wrong early and ad-free on Amazon Music. Download the app today, or you can listen early and add free with Wondery Plus in Apple podcasts. Before you go, tell us about yourself by completing a short survey at Wondery.com slash survey. Hi, I'm Lindsay Graham, the host of Wondery's podcast American scandal. We bring to life some of the biggest

controversies in US history. Presidential lies, environmental disasters, corporate fraud. In our newest series, we look at the Kids for Cash Scandal, a story about corruption inside America's system of juvenile justice. In Northeastern, Pennsylvania, residents had begun noticing an alarming trend. Children were being sent away to jail in high numbers, and often for committing only minor offenses. The FBI began looking at two local judges, and when the full picture emerged, it made

national headlines. The judges were earning a fortune, carrying out a brazen criminal scheme, one that would shatter the lives of countless children, and force a heated debate about punishment, an America's criminal justice system. Follow American scandal wherever you get your podcasts. and America's criminal justice system. Follow American scandal wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen ad-free on the Amazon Music or Wonder App.