James and Joanna Howe Are 100% Right About Consent The motte and bailey is one of the oldest tricks in public debate. Here's one way it's used: You take someone's quote and attach an explosive interpretation to it. When the interpretation is challenged, you fall back on the quote. "He said it, didn't he?" The treatment of James and @ProfJoannaHowe is a textbook case. On The Dr Jo Show this month, the couple criticised the establishment's push for explicit consent scripts in Australian classrooms. They remarked that they "don't do consent" — they do marriage. Their point, made very clear in the conversation and spelled out many times since, is that consent is an inadequate foundation for sexual ethics. Agreement alone does not make sex good. Marriage, as a covenant of self-giving love, is the only good and safe place for sex. You may think their view is right or wrong (I happen to agree with it). But their claim was about moral foundations, not forcing yourself on your spouse. The bailey came quickly. Activist journalists and leftist politicians claimed that James Howe believes wives need not consent in marriage. Some went further and claimed he was a rapist. They were clearly lying. But when challenged, they quickly retreated to the motte. "He said he doesn't do consent. Those were his words." Those were his words but they've inserted their own meaning into them. And that's the trick — the motte and the bailey. When the Howes rejected "consent", they meant a philosophy of sexual ethics. When critics reported that rejection, they swapped in a different meaning: a wife's willingness. The "consent" the Howes reject is a bankrupt sexual ethic. The "consent" their critics claim they reject is a wife's agreement. The smear only works if readers fail to notice the motte-and-bailey switch. Reasonable people can disagree with the Howes about consent education (I happen to agree very strongly with them on it). What they cannot do is turn the Howes' critique of an ideology into the confession of a crime by secretly changing the meaning of a word. Changing the meaning of words is a classic leftist ploy. But the courts won't fall for it when the Howes sue. And you shouldn't fall for it either. Walk in the light instead.