Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

California Yes means yes law

DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 8:38:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So today California just made history by being the first state in America to pass a yes means yes sexual assault law. This means that consent is now defined as an Affirmative, Conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. No longer will silence, lack of resistance, being drunked, drugged, or unconscious constitute consent.
People who oppose this bill claim that It will shift the burden of proof onto the accused, and that won't be fair since in the court of law there should be an equal chance for the person to be found guilty or not guilty. Time magazine opposed this law because they viewed it as an intrusion of government in sexual affairs and that the government had no business regulating what goes on in the bedroom. Time then went on to say that the law failed to mention nonverbal body cues as consent which since the law fails to mention that, it is flawed and unfair.
People who support the bill such as feminist claim that this will clear up the definition of consent and help to protect people, particularly people on college campuses from predators and Rapist. The bill will also protect those most vulnerable from rape such as the drugged and drunked.
When taking the opposition and supporters into consideration, I have to say that I love this bill overall. I think its a giant step in the right direction. The only problem I have with this bill is the part of the bill that says silence will not be considered as a form of consent. If the individual that is receiving sex from someone doesn't tell them to stop, then the person that they didn't tell no should not be prosecuted for rape because he or she did not vocally receive a no response and hence would not know themselves that the person did not want to have sex with them. Besides the silence part of the bill, I like the rest of it that says yes means yes and that consent will not be defined as a lack of resistance, being drunked, drugged, or unconscious. What do you guys feel about this law?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 9:08:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'll have to see the law when it is official.

On the surface, it sounds good, but I can see a few legal issues this will cause, and others that still need to be addressed, unless the law addresses them specifically.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 12:06:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
FVCK THIS LAW!!!!!
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov...

If I am reading this right, it does absolutely nothing, except require colleges to change their policies. It doesn't change any legal issues about consent. It just says policies in colleges is to reflect consent must be verbal, and act accordingly.

Hell, it's part of the Education Code, not the criminal code.

This is just PR points for incumbents in office.
My work here is, finally, done.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 6:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

In Liberal America bed sleep on you!
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2014 11:04:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

dude, wtf. By keeping the government out of the bedroom they mean letting consenting adults do what they want, not punishing those who sexually violate people without consent.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
MsIndependent
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 9:08:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I'll have to see the law when it is official.

On the surface, it sounds good, but I can see a few legal issues this will cause, and others that still need to be addressed, unless the law addresses them specifically.

In my opinion, this law is a waste of time and money. I don't see how it will make any difference in changing the perception of rape.

1.) If a woman decides to claim rape, it's still her word against his. A guy that's going to rape a woman (or vice versa), probably wouldn't be so ethical that he wouldn't dare tell a lie. So if he says, "She said yes," it's his word against hers.

2.) Why does the government think they should all of the sudden intrude on what leads up to sex? If two people are "into" it, do they have to stop so he can ask if it's ok? Kind of a mood killer.. And if she says "yes", then changes her mind, does that mean that he still is legally able to do it anyways? Doesn't this law actually in some ways justify rape?

3.) "Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous."
Who determines whether it is unambiguous? Many people who rape try and defend themselves by saying, "She wanted it", yet the victim says she didn't. Is the government suppose to determine a blanket description for being turned on and "wanting it", how does that work?

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference. It seems to me, especially after this latest case of the missing UV student, that spending the funds to educate and remind women of the importance of safety on campus is better spent than the money that will ultimately be spent on court cases that will come out of this nonsensical law.

http://www.bbc.com...
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 4:48:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM, MsIndependent wrote:

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference.

It's political. Passing this law keeps the bra-burners quiet for a couple of months, until they find a new angle to be oppressed on. It's sad when a society is held to ransom by extremists.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 9:57:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

You can't possibly be this stupid.

How in the world can you conflate the socially liberal stance, shared by libertarians as well, i.e., shared by anyone who doesn't want to oppose a theocracy (or anyone who knows anything at all about U.S. history of the Constitution), that people should be left to their own devices so long as they don't harm another, which necessarily includes their sexual lives, with this notion that we would tolerate sexual assault? That is positively ludicrous. Never before has anyone, be they liberal or conservative, used such asinine and poorly-thought-out reasoning to justify any act of violence. This shouldn't even be a political issue at all, and that you even bothered to bring in your bullsh1t political generalizations says quite a lot about you.

At risk of embarrassing yourself further, I urge you to retract your remark and apologize for your clear lack of understanding and insensitivity to a very serious issue of sexual assault.
BobTurner
Posts: 114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 10:00:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 6:41:19 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

In Liberal America bed sleep on you!

This is just as dumb, if not dumber, than TN05's remarks for myriad reasons.

First, whilst responding to quite possibly the dumbest, most offensive remark I've ever seen on DDO, you opted not to repudiate it, but to bandwagon on it.

Second, the majority of Americans self-identify as conservative, not liberal. People who generally vote Democrat are less likely to use the term "liberal" because it's seen as politically toxic. Not to mention, post-1980s, the country has moved far to the left.

Third, you're referencing a joke made on some bogus late-night cartoon (I think it was Family Guy) that was made with respect to the USSR. Are you that ignorant that you would actually equate a desire to end sexual assault, which you should share if you possess any modicum of justice at all, with the actions of the USSR?
MsIndependent
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 10:56:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 4:48:43 AM, apb4y wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM, MsIndependent wrote:

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference.

It's political. Passing this law keeps the bra-burners quiet for a couple of months, until they find a new angle to be oppressed on. It's sad when a society is held to ransom by extremists.

So true. Political games are so drowning any sense of logic in our system these days. It's appalling.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:08:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I'll have to see the law when it is official.

On the surface, it sounds good, but I can see a few legal issues this will cause, and others that still need to be addressed, unless the law addresses them specifically.

In my opinion, this law is a waste of time and money. I don't see how it will make any difference in changing the perception of rape.
It will do that, in college universities, assuming students care.
Changing the focus from "did she say no" to "did she say yes" is a wholly different perspective.

1.) If a woman decides to claim rape, it's still her word against his. A guy that's going to rape a woman (or vice versa), probably wouldn't be so ethical that he wouldn't dare tell a lie. So if he says, "She said yes," it's his word against hers.
Keeping in mind that this will address a very specific instance of rape, but nothing legally, which is so maddening.

Acknowledging she needs to say yes and be sober is not a bad thing, but ultimiately will have little effect on number of rapes, except that more scrutiny must be placed on security to investigate.

2.) Why does the government think they should all of the sudden intrude on what leads up to sex? If two people are "into" it, do they have to stop so he can ask if it's ok? Kind of a mood killer.. And if she says "yes", then changes her mind, does that mean that he still is legally able to do it anyways? Doesn't this law actually in some ways justify rape?
No, because it is still rape if and when she says no.
But, again, this is why this law is just PR, rather than anything to actually do anything.

3.) "Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous."
Who determines whether it is unambiguous? Many people who rape try and defend themselves by saying, "She wanted it", yet the victim says she didn't. Is the government suppose to determine a blanket description for being turned on and "wanting it", how does that work?

I'm guessing if the woman gets up off the couch and walks towards the bedroom while taking her close off, that counts as a yes.
Her saying I'm going to bed, is ambiguous. Am I supposed to follow? To leave?

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference. It seems to me, especially after this latest case of the missing UV student, that spending the funds to educate and remind women of the importance of safety on campus is better spent than the money that will ultimately be spent on court cases that will come out of this nonsensical law.

Women should be reminded that they are responsible for the decisions they make, but shouldn't men also be reminded that, when it comes to sex, don't assume?
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:21:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 11:01:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
No one else is concerned that the OP basically said criminal trials should be 50/50?

In cases of date rape, aren't they?
It mostly boils down to he said she said.
She says she never said yes (or was too drunk to comply, which is a whole other issue), while he says she did.

The best this law does is say that is that no response is not good enough, and, hopefully, eliminates the gray area of an honest misunderstanding.
However, as I said, this isn't even a "law" in the sense you'd expect, as it changes nothing in the criminal code. It is a regulation on public universities and colleges on how the react to accusations and explain what rape is.
The frat boy saying "she never said no", while the woman said "I was too shocked to" isn't good enough to bury the investigation. This is probably a good thing, but not at all deserving of the accolades the OP suggests the law is getting.
My work here is, finally, done.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:21:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 11:01:02 AM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
No one else is concerned that the OP basically said criminal trials should be 50/50?

In cases of date rape, aren't they?
It mostly boils down to he said she said.
She says she never said yes (or was too drunk to comply, which is a whole other issue), while he says she did.

The best this law does is say that is that no response is not good enough, and, hopefully, eliminates the gray area of an honest misunderstanding.
However, as I said, this isn't even a "law" in the sense you'd expect, as it changes nothing in the criminal code. It is a regulation on public universities and colleges on how the react to accusations and explain what rape is.
The frat boy saying "she never said no", while the woman said "I was too shocked to" isn't good enough to bury the investigation. This is probably a good thing, but not at all deserving of the accolades the OP suggests the law is getting.

You're missing the point. OP made a general statement about criminal justice where each side should have equal chances of winning. Does that not sound bizarre to anyone else?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 12:28:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:23:35 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:

You're missing the point. OP made a general statement about criminal justice where each side should have equal chances of winning. Does that not sound bizarre to anyone else?

Frankly, I'm not putting much stock in what the OP says because he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.
Look at the last sentence. I'm pretty sure the law is already clear that drugging and manipulating and causing unconsciousness is rape already and not addressed by this law at all.

So, the fact he is saying why other people object is giving the OP too much credit, IMO.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 1:03:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:57:04 AM, BobTurner wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

You can't possibly be this stupid.

How in the world can you conflate the socially liberal stance, shared by libertarians as well, i.e., shared by anyone who doesn't want to oppose a theocracy (or anyone who knows anything at all about U.S. history of the Constitution), that people should be left to their own devices so long as they don't harm another, which necessarily includes their sexual lives, with this notion that we would tolerate sexual assault? That is positively ludicrous. Never before has anyone, be they liberal or conservative, used such asinine and poorly-thought-out reasoning to justify any act of violence. This shouldn't even be a political issue at all, and that you even bothered to bring in your bullsh1t political generalizations says quite a lot about you.

My remark is on how stupid and unnecessary this law is.

At risk of embarrassing yourself further, I urge you to retract your remark and apologize for your clear lack of understanding and insensitivity to a very serious issue of sexual assault.

I refuse to do either as no apology is warranted.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 9:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

Do you even know what liberalism is?
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 9:24:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:23:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

Do you even know what liberalism is?

Do you even know what a joke is?
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 9:25:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:24:18 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/1/2014 9:23:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

Do you even know what liberalism is?

Do you even know what a joke is?

Rape is something you think is acceptable to joke about?
Tsar of DDO
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 9:26:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/1/2014 9:24:18 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 10/1/2014 9:23:36 PM, YYW wrote:
At 9/30/2014 2:44:54 PM, TN05 wrote:
I thought liberals wanted to get government out of the bedroom?

Do you even know what liberalism is?

Do you even know what a joke is?

Rape is something you think is acceptable to joke about?

That's not a rape joke.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2014 10:23:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:

Rape is something you think is acceptable to joke about?

Anything can be joked about in the right context. I actually find rape jokes less offensive than rape discussions. Stuff that is shocking, horrifying and taboo makes great comedy material, but is incredibly depressing in serious discussion.

The war on rape jokes is another example of politically-driven bullshiit. When you joke about something, you make light of it. If you make light of something, you lessen how dark and depressing it is. If rape isn't dark and depressing, then feminist activists lose income and influence. Ironically, they're probably just as triggering as the jokes they try to censor.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2014 7:41:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 9:25:21 PM, YYW wrote:

Rape is something you think is acceptable to joke about?

Who's talking about rape, anyway? The law isn't really.

This is the legal definition of consent in California in respect to rape:
"consent" shall be defined to mean
positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of
free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have
knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov...

This law does not change the definition, only the policy of colleges, where she must say yes. No more saying "Well, case closed, she said she never said no".
Hell, consent is still as murky as ever.

I guess you could ask why schools were giving false info in the first place. That is the real crime, IMO. No means no =/= positive cooperation.
My work here is, finally, done.
MsIndependent
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 12:16:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/1/2014 12:13:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:08:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I'll have to see the law when it is official.

On the surface, it sounds good, but I can see a few legal issues this will cause, and others that still need to be addressed, unless the law addresses them specifically.

In my opinion, this law is a waste of time and money. I don't see how it will make any difference in changing the perception of rape.
It will do that, in college universities, assuming students care.
Changing the focus from "did she say no" to "did she say yes" is a wholly different perspective.

1.) If a woman decides to claim rape, it's still her word against his. A guy that's going to rape a woman (or vice versa), probably wouldn't be so ethical that he wouldn't dare tell a lie. So if he says, "She said yes," it's his word against hers.
Keeping in mind that this will address a very specific instance of rape, but nothing legally, which is so maddening.

Right..So maybe I'm missing something. What's the difference?

Acknowledging she needs to say yes and be sober is not a bad thing, but ultimiately will have little effect on number of rapes, except that more scrutiny must be placed on security to investigate.

I just don't understand how they will be able to determine anything with her word vs his scenerio.

2.) Why does the government think they should all of the sudden intrude on what leads up to sex? If two people are "into" it, do they have to stop so he can ask if it's ok? Kind of a mood killer.. And if she says "yes", then changes her mind, does that mean that he still is legally able to do it anyways? Doesn't this law actually in some ways justify rape?
No, because it is still rape if and when she says no.
But, again, this is why this law is just PR, rather than anything to actually do anything.

I agree. I absolutely think it's rape whenever she says no. I'm just afraid if she changes her mind half way through, the "yes says yes" will come into play.

3.) "Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous."
Who determines whether it is unambiguous? Many people who rape try and defend themselves by saying, "She wanted it", yet the victim says she didn't. Is the government suppose to determine a blanket description for being turned on and "wanting it", how does that work?

I'm guessing if the woman gets up off the couch and walks towards the bedroom while taking her close off, that counts as a yes.
Her saying I'm going to bed, is ambiguous. Am I supposed to follow? To leave?

Right? lol I don't know. Are they going to pass out a verbiage list as well?

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference. It seems to me, especially after this latest case of the missing UV student, that spending the funds to educate and remind women of the importance of safety on campus is better spent than the money that will ultimately be spent on court cases that will come out of this nonsensical law.

Women should be reminded that they are responsible for the decisions they make, but shouldn't men also be reminded that, when it comes to sex, don't assume?

Of course. I just don't think having to "confirm" is the answer. It is a physical thing. If a man tries and a woman pushes him off..she don't want it. Don't get it. Its simple.?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 6:45:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 12:16:31 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:13:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:08:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I'll have to see the law when it is official.

On the surface, it sounds good, but I can see a few legal issues this will cause, and others that still need to be addressed, unless the law addresses them specifically.

In my opinion, this law is a waste of time and money. I don't see how it will make any difference in changing the perception of rape.
It will do that, in college universities, assuming students care.
Changing the focus from "did she say no" to "did she say yes" is a wholly different perspective.

1.) If a woman decides to claim rape, it's still her word against his. A guy that's going to rape a woman (or vice versa), probably wouldn't be so ethical that he wouldn't dare tell a lie. So if he says, "She said yes," it's his word against hers.
Keeping in mind that this will address a very specific instance of rape, but nothing legally, which is so maddening.

Right..So maybe I'm missing something. What's the difference?

Acknowledging she needs to say yes and be sober is not a bad thing, but ultimiately will have little effect on number of rapes, except that more scrutiny must be placed on security to investigate.

I just don't understand how they will be able to determine anything with her word vs his scenerio.

Doesn't most date rape come down to this?

2.) Why does the government think they should all of the sudden intrude on what leads up to sex? If two people are "into" it, do they have to stop so he can ask if it's ok? Kind of a mood killer.. And if she says "yes", then changes her mind, does that mean that he still is legally able to do it anyways? Doesn't this law actually in some ways justify rape?
No, because it is still rape if and when she says no.
But, again, this is why this law is just PR, rather than anything to actually do anything.

I agree. I absolutely think it's rape whenever she says no. I'm just afraid if she changes her mind half way through, the "yes says yes" will come into play.

Why would it? She is saying no, which is not yes, at that point.

3.) "Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous."
Who determines whether it is unambiguous? Many people who rape try and defend themselves by saying, "She wanted it", yet the victim says she didn't. Is the government suppose to determine a blanket description for being turned on and "wanting it", how does that work?

I'm guessing if the woman gets up off the couch and walks towards the bedroom while taking her close off, that counts as a yes.
Her saying I'm going to bed, is ambiguous. Am I supposed to follow? To leave?

Right? lol I don't know. Are they going to pass out a verbiage list as well?
That's the point.
The law, at best, is saying if it is ambiguous, don't have sex.
Saying "she wanted it" is not good enough, because she needs to say "I want it".

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference. It seems to me, especially after this latest case of the missing UV student, that spending the funds to educate and remind women of the importance of safety on campus is better spent than the money that will ultimately be spent on court cases that will come out of this nonsensical law.

Women should be reminded that they are responsible for the decisions they make, but shouldn't men also be reminded that, when it comes to sex, don't assume?

Of course. I just don't think having to "confirm" is the answer. It is a physical thing. If a man tries and a woman pushes him off..she don't want it. Don't get it. Its simple.?

The issue the law is trying to deal with is getting colleges to investigate rape more, and telling men they need positive consent. Saying "she didn't say no" is not good enough.

As it is, security will just brush a claim under the rug if the woman says "well, I didn't say no because I was to scared", and blame her and close the case. Under the new law, the fact that she never said "yes" requires investigation and reporting.
My work here is, finally, done.
Dr_Obvious
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 9:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/29/2014 8:38:01 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
So today California just made history by being the first state in America to pass a yes means yes sexual assault law. This means that consent is now defined as an Affirmative, Conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. No longer will silence, lack of resistance, being drunked, drugged, or unconscious constitute consent.
People who oppose this bill claim that It will shift the burden of proof onto the accused, and that won't be fair since in the court of law there should be an equal chance for the person to be found guilty or not guilty. Time magazine opposed this law because they viewed it as an intrusion of government in sexual affairs and that the government had no business regulating what goes on in the bedroom. Time then went on to say that the law failed to mention nonverbal body cues as consent which since the law fails to mention that, it is flawed and unfair.
People who support the bill such as feminist claim that this will clear up the definition of consent and help to protect people, particularly people on college campuses from predators and Rapist. The bill will also protect those most vulnerable from rape such as the drugged and drunked.
When taking the opposition and supporters into consideration, I have to say that I love this bill overall. I think its a giant step in the right direction. The only problem I have with this bill is the part of the bill that says silence will not be considered as a form of consent. If the individual that is receiving sex from someone doesn't tell them to stop, then the person that they didn't tell no should not be prosecuted for rape because he or she did not vocally receive a no response and hence would not know themselves that the person did not want to have sex with them. Besides the silence part of the bill, I like the rest of it that says yes means yes and that consent will not be defined as a lack of resistance, being drunked, drugged, or unconscious. What do you guys feel about this law?

If people would just follow what the Bible teaches, sex would only occur between married couples. Problem solved. I mean, it's obvious. Isn't it?
MsIndependent
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 2:21:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 6:45:28 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/3/2014 12:16:31 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
At 10/1/2014 12:13:47 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/1/2014 3:18:45 AM, MsIndependent wrote:
At 9/29/2014 9:08:10 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
I'll have to see the law when it is official.

On the surface, it sounds good, but I can see a few legal issues this will cause, and others that still need to be addressed, unless the law addresses them specifically.

In my opinion, this law is a waste of time and money. I don't see how it will make any difference in changing the perception of rape.
It will do that, in college universities, assuming students care.
Changing the focus from "did she say no" to "did she say yes" is a wholly different perspective.

1.) If a woman decides to claim rape, it's still her word against his. A guy that's going to rape a woman (or vice versa), probably wouldn't be so ethical that he wouldn't dare tell a lie. So if he says, "She said yes," it's his word against hers.
Keeping in mind that this will address a very specific instance of rape, but nothing legally, which is so maddening.

Right..So maybe I'm missing something. What's the difference?

Acknowledging she needs to say yes and be sober is not a bad thing, but ultimiately will have little effect on number of rapes, except that more scrutiny must be placed on security to investigate.

I just don't understand how they will be able to determine anything with her word vs his scenerio.

Doesn't most date rape come down to this?

Yes. So what's the difference?

2.) Why does the government think they should all of the sudden intrude on what leads up to sex? If two people are "into" it, do they have to stop so he can ask if it's ok? Kind of a mood killer.. And if she says "yes", then changes her mind, does that mean that he still is legally able to do it anyways? Doesn't this law actually in some ways justify rape?
No, because it is still rape if and when she says no.
But, again, this is why this law is just PR, rather than anything to actually do anything.

I agree. I absolutely think it's rape whenever she says no. I'm just afraid if she changes her mind half way through, the "yes says yes" will come into play.

Why would it? She is saying no, which is not yes, at that point.

She would of said "yes" already, which is why I specified changing her mind.

3.) "Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous."
Who determines whether it is unambiguous? Many people who rape try and defend themselves by saying, "She wanted it", yet the victim says she didn't. Is the government suppose to determine a blanket description for being turned on and "wanting it", how does that work?

I'm guessing if the woman gets up off the couch and walks towards the bedroom while taking her close off, that counts as a yes.
Her saying I'm going to bed, is ambiguous. Am I supposed to follow? To leave?

Right? lol I don't know. Are they going to pass out a verbiage list as well?
That's the point.
The law, at best, is saying if it is ambiguous, don't have sex.
Saying "she wanted it" is not good enough, because she needs to say "I want it".

This is so ridiculous..exactly, a verbiage list?? The government is forcing a verbiage list in sex standard. It's out of control. They need to find something better to do, like learn to tell the truth, stop ISIS, Ebola, and clean up the ridiculous corruption and politics that play into every ridiculous decision they make.

I really don't know what the real point is behind this, or how it will make any difference. It seems to me, especially after this latest case of the missing UV student, that spending the funds to educate and remind women of the importance of safety on campus is better spent than the money that will ultimately be spent on court cases that will come out of this nonsensical law.

Women should be reminded that they are responsible for the decisions they make, but shouldn't men also be reminded that, when it comes to sex, don't assume?

Of course. I just don't think having to "confirm" is the answer. It is a physical thing. If a man tries and a woman pushes him off..she don't want it. Don't get it. Its simple.?

The issue the law is trying to deal with is getting colleges to investigate rape more, and telling men they need positive consent. Saying "she didn't say no" is not good enough.

As it is, security will just brush a claim under the rug if the woman says "well, I didn't say no because I was to scared", and blame her and close the case. Under the new law, the fact that she never said "yes" requires investigation and reporting.

Officer: Did you say no?
GIrl: No
Officer: Did you say yes?
Girl: No
Officer: Did she say yes?
Boy: Yes
Officer: Did she say no?
Boy: No

um case closed??
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 2:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 2:21:54 PM, MsIndependent wrote:


Officer: Did you say no?
GIrl: No
Presently, the investigation stops here.
No means no, and you didn't say no, therefore you weren't raped, and your feelings are invalid, little girl.
Yes means yes, means the girl needs to actually agree to sex somehow.

Officer: Did you say yes?
Girl: No
Officer: Did she say yes?
Boy: Yes
Officer: Did she say no?
Boy: No

um case closed??
Getting this far, everyone is on the same page, though, and this is why there are police and courts.
Replace sex with assault or murder, and you have the same he said she said.

The verbiage isn't what is important. What is important is getting positive unambiguous consent, as opposed to requires positive unambiguous non-consent. That is the difference the law brings. It is likely too minute to do anything, but it is hardly overstepping anything.
My work here is, finally, done.
MsIndependent
Posts: 383
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2014 2:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/3/2014 2:30:08 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/3/2014 2:21:54 PM, MsIndependent wrote:


Officer: Did you say no?
GIrl: No
Presently, the investigation stops here.
No means no, and you didn't say no, therefore you weren't raped, and your feelings are invalid, little girl.
Yes means yes, means the girl needs to actually agree to sex somehow.


Officer: Did you say yes?
Girl: No
Officer: Did she say yes?
Boy: Yes
Officer: Did she say no?
Boy: No

um case closed??
Getting this far, everyone is on the same page, though, and this is why there are police and courts.
Replace sex with assault or murder, and you have the same he said she said.

The verbiage isn't what is important. What is important is getting positive unambiguous consent, as opposed to requires positive unambiguous non-consent. That is the difference the law brings. It is likely too minute to do anything, but it is hardly overstepping anything.

If a female doesn't say no, the responsibility falls on her. How else would a guy know to stop?