It is hard to treat this seriously.
What next, a JP witnessed Dept of Human Services form signed by both parties.
Then perhaps a man MIGHT escape being charged with rape.

in a world that critizes slut shaming for women who are loose and then mock girls keeping themself for their life long partner, I doubt whether sense could come from our lawyers.

I would like to remind people about things like nature and instinct. Consent is a modern invention.
ALL animals, of which we are just one, rape the opposite sex, as it is natures way.
Men, real men, (it used to be males) are not programmed to the concept of 'NO', as it is contrary to their instinct.
The problem is that most 'normal' women (it also used to be females) also were and are wired for sex.
But with who?
Both men and women have a sex drive, (if your normal) so at some point, and it's cyclical, they are both going to be 'gagging for it', as the saying goes.
I have witnessed many 'rapes' in my time.
And as is the case with the human animals, the female objected vehemently.
Cats are some of the most violent rapists on the planet.
How many wall flowers would actually throttle their cats if they knew, let alone saw what their precious little 'moggy' got up to when left to their own devices.
The women have to fess up and see that if they did not put themselves, yes themselves, in some of these compromising situations, there would not be a problem.
It used to be that the majority of women acted like women.
Wonderful creatures one and all.
Due to the promotion of equality and so on today's 'females' form the majority of the 'other' sex.
These females are sluts compared to women of old.
Sure there were always females that were addicted to sex, but were few.
Compared to men who are 'always' aroused, 24/7, yes even in our sleep sometimes.
It is relevant to this topic, but has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, both men and women don't want to be censored when it comes to sex?
So it would seem that there is 'No enthusiasm for consent reforms'.

We can use the Like Lazarus trial as an example of the problems with affirmative consent. In that case neither person had affirmative consent from the other and, using the standard of affirmative consent, they are both guilty of rape. Obviously that interpretation of events is ridiculous and highlights the problems with affirmative consent.

Secondly, there are sexist assumptions that the author alluded to, but did not directly challenge. Men will be expected to get affirmative consent, but women won't need to worry about it.

I also dislike governments making laws based upon media reporting of particular incidents. We don't know what evidence Four Corners omitted. They also portrayed Mr Lazarus as an over-priveleged tosser, which is as bad as shaming the victim. Trials should be about evidence, not prejudice about the sort of people involved.

I'd like to ask the ladies how do they give their consent to sexual activity?

Why the silence from the women on this forum, surely your perspective could help a lot

Prevent the need for consent. Avoid Uni females (especially neurotic white) and other entitlement Princesses and it should be as safe as crossing the street.

Artificial wombs are not far off hence there is not even a residual need for females.