Perhaps you could tell us exactly why “whether they had agreed to spend the evening together” is relevant?

And look at this:

Young men do not want to have to take a consent form and a lawyer on a date, just as young women have every right to go on a date and to say “No”, having it respected.

1) I have never taken a consent form or a lawyer on a date. This has so far not caused me any problems. It’s surprisingly easy not to rape people.

2) If a woman goes on a date, says “No” and does not have that “No” respected, isn’t that rape? If so, shouldn’t that be a crime? If not, what is it?

Before that, though, his analysis of corporate manslaughter legislation is transparently stupid. He twice characterises this as the creation of an equivalence between accidental death and murder, despite the important clue (i.e. the word “manslaughter” in the term “corporate manslaughter”) that it is explicitly being distinguished from murder. Which means that all of his arguments (apparently, company directors don’t want to kill people, because the victims could be their own relatives - the most rubbish reason for not killing people I have ever heard) are arguments against criminalising manslaughter. Does John Redwood want to legalise manslaughter? Why?

Could a man ever use “reasonable force” to assault a woman on the street? Is there a “reasonable force” defence to a rape charge?

(Clue: No.)

No that isn’t the correct paraphrasing. By the way Labour’s doctrine of equivalence doesn’t extend to criminalising forced marriage - a vehicle for acquaintance rape if ever there was one - Labour vetoed that bill this year.

So according to John Redwood, spending some time in a woman’s company entitles him to sex with her?