A class discussion brought to my attention an app related to consensual sex, Good2Go. In theory, it sounds like a revolutionary idea that raises the topic of consent and makes it accessible to young people.
For those who haven’t heard of the Good2Go app: It encourages sexual partners to assess their mutual interest in sex and record their intoxication levels before getting busy. Partners are asked, “Are We Good2Go?” and can answer “No, Thanks,” “Yes, but … we need to talk” or “I’m Good2Go.” If either party chooses “No, Thanks,” a pop-up announces, “Remember! No means No! Only Yes means Yes, BUT can be changed to NO at anytime!” But if a partner claims to be “Good2Go,” they are sent to another page asking if they’re sober, mildly intoxicated, “Intoxicated but Good2Go” or “Pretty Wasted.” If someone chooses the latter, the app says the person “cannot consent” and instructs the partner to give the phone back to its owner. Otherwise the user is asked to enter his or her phone number and a password and confirm that they’re at least 18 years old.
By now, the app has been removed from online stores. However, it is important to understand why Good2Go was so problematic it warranted removal.
I’m sure the makers of the app had the best intentions, and it is progressive in itself that people are inventing ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault. However the Good2Go app has so many problems it makes me wonder whether it is actually doing more harm than good.
First of all, it is far too complicated to navigate for a person in a sober state, let alone for someone who has been friendly with a bottle of vodka for the night. And, realistically, it is not going to prevent the motives of a rapist. If a sexual predator is with a woman and she has the app with intent to use it to have consensual sex with someone, he could simply input the answers for her and select that she said yes. If you’re going to rape someone, hitting a button on his or her behalf is not beyond the scope of what you’re comfortable with.
Furthermore, Good2Go could contribute a dangerous new element to those he-said she-said rape cases, as the app maintains a record of every agreement registered in its system, tied to both users’ personal phone numbers and Good2Go accounts. Users do not have access to those records; however, a government official with a subpoena could.
In essence, this is an app that would prove useful to the minuscule number of men who are wrongfully accused of rape rather than the 1 in 3 women who will be sexually abused in their lifetimes. Good2Go may remind users that consent can be retracted at any time; nevertheless, there are judges and juries who will take evidence of a person’s saying yes to sex at one point, and presume that they were asking for whatever happened later that night.
As well as the logistics of the app, my main frustration is the rationale of it in which it assumes that men don’t know if a woman wants to have sex or not without the help of an app. Men are not stupid. They understand that only yes really means yes; the problem arises when they just don’t care. Although the Good2Go app has shed some light on the importance of consent, it seems to be protecting rapists rather than potential victims.
