000			02076nam a22002417a 4500
999			_c6793 _d6793
005			20250625151533.0
008			200819s2020 ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aGore, Ashlee _99333
245			_aIt’s all or nothing : _bconsent, reasonable belief, and the continuum of sexual violence in judicial logic _cAshlee Gore
260			_bSage, _c2020
500			_aSocial & Legal Studies, 2020, Advance publication online, 13 August 2020
520			_aThis paper discusses controversies over the reasonable belief in consent defence to sexual assault shared by many common law jurisdictions. The implementation of a ‘reasonable’ belief standard has been heralded as a safeguard against rape myth narratives that endorsed men’s unreasonable but ‘honest’ beliefs in women’s consent. This paper argues that judicial constructions of reasonable belief in consent continue to apply notions of reasonableness abstracted from the social context of women’s experience of sexual violence and disconnected from sociological insights which contextualise both the encounter and jury decisions. Using a feminist sociocultural analysis (Gavey, 2005; Kelly, 1988), the successful appeal in the case of R v Lennox (2018 Queensland, Australia), against his conviction by a jury is discussed. The reasoning in the Lennox appeal reveals that overriding judicial constructions of women as incredible in their communication of non-consent, and the prevailing legal dichotomies of consent, and credibility as ‘all or nothing’, undo the progressive potential of the standard of ‘reasonableness’ in consent law and reinforce the phallocentrism of legal discourse. (Author's abstract). Record #6793
650			_aCONSENT _94690
650			_aCRIMINAL JUSTICE _9167
650		4	_9237 _aEVIDENCE
650		4	_aSEXUAL VIOLENCE _9531
651			_aINTERNATIONAL _93624
651		4	_aAUSTRALIA _92597
830			_aSocial & Legal Studies _94799
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0964663920947813 _zDOI: 10.1177/0964663920947813
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE