Anon is having sex in 2025

It's obviously hyperbole, but that's the nature of satire. As our society has become more aware and sympathetic towards the victims of sexual assault, debates concerning the nature and sufficiency of consent have been more and more common. Those discussions have generally been for the best, but it's also been easy for advocates to get so wrapped up in the greater mission of protecting victims and preventing assault that they end up proposing impractical, unreasonable standards. For example, some years back a dedicated group of legal scholars proposed that states pass laws abolishing the legal defenses of implied and tacit consent, meaning defendants would not be entitled to rely on body language, suggestive actions, or apparent reciprocation if accused of assault. (Here's an article on the proposal: https://www.bettison.com/aba-resolution-re-consent-in-sexual-consent-cases-bad-for-all/) That proposal may seem great at first; it would make it harder for predators to disguise assaults as mere misunderstandings. But it would also criminalize a WIDE range of innocuous behaviors through which many couples express affection: surprising a partner with an embrace, cuddling a sleeping partner, "stealing" a kiss from a partner, initiating or inviting further intimacy with a touch, hugging a partner from behind, or any other act of intimacy that relies on the presumption that consent will be given. Similarly, but less officially, various advocates have called for rules that dramatically narrow the scope of consent as a defense to accusations of sexual misconduct. For good reason, people championed phrases like "Consent to one act does not constitute consent to another act" or "Consent on a prior occasion does not constitute consent on a subsequent occasion." (See, for example, the definition and rules of consent set forth in this university catalog: https://catalog.stthom.edu/definition-of-consent). But the most extreme advocates, who wanted these general principles applied as categorical rules with legal and social penalties, were generally unclear on when consent should be deemed to have expired. This uncertainty presents a real problem for disciplinary and legal cases because it's hard to say what conduct is prohibited. This is especially problematic for criminal prosecution, where a zealous prosecutor may pursue a case against someone even if the victim feels the offense was small enough to be overlooked or forgiven. OP's joke pokes fun at this issue through absurdity. They depict a fool taking extreme measures to *guarantee* compliance with even the most unreasonable (but technically valid) interpretation of those rules.