Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

California's Yes Means Yes Law

YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
California has recently passed a "yes means yes" law, which established the new standard of "affirmative consent" for consent to sexual activity.

Affirmative consent is vocalized consent. So, in order to "consent" to sexual activity, someone has to say or do something to indicate that they actually consent. This raises the standard for what constitutes consent. Passive or implicit consent (like, not actively resisting) is no longer enough. Rape, in California (at least theoretically) could, upon this bill's coming into effect, could exist where someone who otherwise made indication that they desired to discontinue sexual contact and implicitly consented.

Proponents of the law suggest that this is going to mitigate the risk of sexual assault, and reduce the complication of figuring out when and under what circumstances a victim that did not actively resist being raped actually was or was not raped. The law is designed to promote clarity in communication. Perhaps, this is because there are some jurisdictions in California which have determined that in the absence of active resistance, absent other factors, rape does not occur because the absence of indicators of resistance (like, scratch marks or other physical indicators) implied consent is assumed under some cases. It is very hard for courts to determine, fairly, when, in the absence of physical indicators of rape, penetrative sexual contact is actually rape.

The bill's enforcement mechanism is state funding: essentially, if California universities want state money, they have to adopt this standard for delineating sexual assault from contact that is not sexual assault. But, instead of the "murky water" of figuring out, after the fact, if there is sufficient evidence to show that a sexual assault occurred, we're now turning to hearsay to yield further clarity? I think that, in frat houses, frat boys might be less likely to aggressively pursue a girl who didn't want to hook up. But in the courts, I can't see how this would hold up. Instead, it's going to shift the burden, probably at the expense of justice.

Not all of the bill is flawed. Clearly, the absence of evidence of resistance does not imply consent. It never did. It was a necessary but not dispositive factor. Some jurisdictions have grasped that, others have not. So, to the extent that it establishes that the lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, we're making progress. But, the bill also says "nor does silence mean consent." So, I think it's pretty clear that at least one way to "consent" in California is to say "yes!" But at the same time, the bill leaves unclear whether actions alone could or could not rise to the level of "affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreements to engage in sexual activity."

One of the bill's proponents, Amanda Hess, says that consent might include non-verbal clues, but the bill clearly says that "relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding" meaning that in the absence of "affirmative consent" plus the allegation of rape alone, a sexual contact that was implicitly consented to at the time could still be 'rape' in California -and even here, we're talking about people making accusations about what other people did or did not do.

Our standard for rape could, now, be as low as (1) accusation that rape occurred, and (2) accusation that there was no consent. Even if there was consent, unless the encounter was videotaped, who could know who actually said what? This is an unworkable standard. I'm all for discouraging sexual violence, but I can't support arbitrary laws that would force any rational court back to the previous standards of evaluating evidence available, the circumstance in which the alleged assault took place, etc.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 1:17:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are lots of cultural problems that can be solved by laws, like health care, the minimum wage, etc. There are others, like this, which require a change in collective conscience. The law can't do that. It can only impose costs on individuals who act in ways that are socially unacceptable.

I think most of the "rape culture" talk is hyperbolic. While sexual assault is a real problem and one that needs to be addressed, most guys aren't rapists. Talk of a "rape culture" would require that a majority of guys are sexual assailants, and that's not the case. That is also not to sideline or undercut the problems associated with sexual violence. It's rather to say that we as a society have to really change the way we think about sexual assault, and in order to do that, we have to change the way that men relate to women and the way that women relate to men.

Talk of "rape culture" implies, more or less loosely, that all men are the problem -which is the kind of hot air that I would expect to come from such noted intellectuals as Andrea Dworkin, but there is a general reason that nothing she does is taken seriously outside of her field. People just say "oh, look... another crazy feminist" which reinforces anti-feminism stereotypes and perpetuates ongoing gender-relation problems because the only people who want to have a meaningful conversation look crazy.
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 1:27:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:17:47 PM, YYW wrote:
I think most of the "rape culture" talk is hyperbolic. While sexual assault is a real problem and one that needs to be addressed, most guys aren't rapists. Talk of a "rape culture" would require that a majority of guys are sexual assailants, and that's not the case. That is also not to sideline or undercut the problems associated with sexual violence. It's rather to say that we as a society have to really change the way we think about sexual assault, and in order to do that, we have to change the way that men relate to women and the way that women relate to men.

Talk of "rape culture" implies, more or less loosely, that all men are the problem -which is the kind of hot air that I would expect to come from such noted intellectuals as Andrea Dworkin, but there is a general reason that nothing she does is taken seriously outside of her field. People just say "oh, look... another crazy feminist" which reinforces anti-feminism stereotypes and perpetuates ongoing gender-relation problems because the only people who want to have a meaningful conversation look crazy.

Do you follow Alex Day on youtube?
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 1:43:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:27:36 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 10/9/2014 1:17:47 PM, YYW wrote:
I think most of the "rape culture" talk is hyperbolic. While sexual assault is a real problem and one that needs to be addressed, most guys aren't rapists. Talk of a "rape culture" would require that a majority of guys are sexual assailants, and that's not the case. That is also not to sideline or undercut the problems associated with sexual violence. It's rather to say that we as a society have to really change the way we think about sexual assault, and in order to do that, we have to change the way that men relate to women and the way that women relate to men.

Talk of "rape culture" implies, more or less loosely, that all men are the problem -which is the kind of hot air that I would expect to come from such noted intellectuals as Andrea Dworkin, but there is a general reason that nothing she does is taken seriously outside of her field. People just say "oh, look... another crazy feminist" which reinforces anti-feminism stereotypes and perpetuates ongoing gender-relation problems because the only people who want to have a meaningful conversation look crazy.

Do you follow Alex Day on youtube?

No. Why?
Tsar of DDO
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:14:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:43:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/9/2014 1:27:36 PM, Cermank wrote:
At 10/9/2014 1:17:47 PM, YYW wrote:
I think most of the "rape culture" talk is hyperbolic. While sexual assault is a real problem and one that needs to be addressed, most guys aren't rapists. Talk of a "rape culture" would require that a majority of guys are sexual assailants, and that's not the case. That is also not to sideline or undercut the problems associated with sexual violence. It's rather to say that we as a society have to really change the way we think about sexual assault, and in order to do that, we have to change the way that men relate to women and the way that women relate to men.

Talk of "rape culture" implies, more or less loosely, that all men are the problem -which is the kind of hot air that I would expect to come from such noted intellectuals as Andrea Dworkin, but there is a general reason that nothing she does is taken seriously outside of her field. People just say "oh, look... another crazy feminist" which reinforces anti-feminism stereotypes and perpetuates ongoing gender-relation problems because the only people who want to have a meaningful conversation look crazy.

Do you follow Alex Day on youtube?

No. Why?

Because there's this whole discussion around him that's very relevant to the topic at hand. Not going very deep into the specifics, but basically he's a youtube guy who started making videos when he was 14 or so. Pretty down to earth normal guy, his 'claim to fame' was when he read twilight for his videos. Pretty funny stuff.

He's in his early 20s now, and basically this girl came up on tumblr saying that he's emotionally manipulative, and pressurised her into sexual acts. He responded by denying everything, and this opened a floodgate of tumblr 'confessions' by girls saying that they had similar experiences with him. Like one of them was how he used the 'Can we get over that thing where you say no for an hour before we get down to it?' line on them. Another was when he made them feel that they'd lose him as a friend if they resisted too much. There was a lot of stuff, not exactly implying coercion per say, more of implicit coersion. Girls weren't down with stuff he wanted to do, he didn't consider it an exact no.

I found his response to one of the posts pretty revealing- after the first confession, he posted something to the effect of, 'At no time have I ever had sexual relations with anyone who I thought wasn't completely okay with it.' A girl (who was one of his best friends) responded by recounting an incident where she had just broken up with her boyfriend and was staying over at his house because she needed support and he kept trying to kiss her even though she explicitly refused. His response? A lot of introspection and ' I think I was working under a model where certain things do not mean no. Like if we have kissed before, I would think that it wouldn't be rapey to try getting with you even if you weren't in the mood, since you've shown that you aren't averse to seeing me as a potential partner. I thought we were just playing.'

And this attitude is something I have seen pretty often. Not only in real life, but also in a lot of medias that we are exposed to, as a culture. Rape culture doesn't mean that men are rapists, it means that men are exposed to values that are regressive, and reinforce values that are not conductive for either gender, esp women. The entire attitude behind 'chasing the girl', for example.

A lot of guys don't consider what they do sexual assault. In an ideal world, every girl's word would be taken exactly how its said- and not on the 'implication' of it (and every girl would say exactly what she means, on the flipside), but till that isn't true- we are stuck in this sort of middle ground where all of us are guided by our respective implicit gender roles (women to be receptive, men to be proposers), and these degrees of sexual assaults, some of which would fall under the socially acceptable category and some not.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:14:41 PM, Cermank wrote:

Yes yes yes. Thank you for saying that so well because it's exactly right.

I was living with a situation like this - my partner kept pressuring me to have sex when I didn't want to and would only stop if I was really forceful. I mean, I had to scream NO and push him, and one day I was sick of it. I thought, he loves me, if I just lie here he will see how much I don't want this. But he didn't. He had sex with me and afterwards he was lying all happy stroking my hair saying sh1t just like normal. It broke my heart. He couldn't see me at all. He couldn't see consent.

I think that's how a lot of guys are. They only see your body.

So, of course, it's not that I think it was a crime or that I want to take it further. Just in terms of person to person, it's not right.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:40:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM, YYW wrote:
California has recently passed a "yes means yes" law, which established the new standard of "affirmative consent" for consent to sexual activity.

As I said in the other thread, this law changes no such standard. The standard has always been "positive consent".
The law is written into the education code, not the criminal code.

If I am wrong, and I looked at sources after they had been changed, than correct me.
But, I quoted the California statute, and the law itself.

I don't see this changing anything, except on college campuses' orientation.
My work here is, finally, done.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 2:55:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:30:50 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:14:41 PM, Cermank wrote:

Yes yes yes. Thank you for saying that so well because it's exactly right.

I was living with a situation like this - my partner kept pressuring me to have sex when I didn't want to and would only stop if I was really forceful. I mean, I had to scream NO and push him, and one day I was sick of it. I thought, he loves me, if I just lie here he will see how much I don't want this. But he didn't. He had sex with me and afterwards he was lying all happy stroking my hair saying sh1t just like normal. It broke my heart. He couldn't see me at all. He couldn't see consent.

I'm so sorry, that sounds awful.

I think that's how a lot of guys are. They only see your body.

So, of course, it's not that I think it was a crime or that I want to take it further. Just in terms of person to person, it's not right.

That's one of the issues with the 'grey areas' in sexual assault, it doesn't seem that big of a deal because you know the guy. And you know he isn't a monster- and obviously only monsters and sexual assaulters/ rapists. Although the law seems more for show than any real value, this is still an issue that needs to be discussed and 'solved' as a society.

It definitely wasn't right, and honestly, it did fall under the legal definition of sexual assault- just not the social definition.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 3:33:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:55:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
That's one of the issues with the 'grey areas' in sexual assault, it doesn't seem that big of a deal because you know the guy. And you know he isn't a monster- and obviously only monsters and sexual assaulters/ rapists. Although the law seems more for show than any real value, this is still an issue that needs to be discussed and 'solved' as a society.

It definitely wasn't right, and honestly, it did fall under the legal definition of sexual assault- just not the social definition.

Yeah it's interesting because in one way I would see the law as having no relevance at all for a private matter like that. That's just my personal perspective. In another way, though, it really matters because it's setting out what's socially expected. It clarifies it.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 2:14:41 PM, Cermank wrote:

A lot of guys don't consider what they do sexual assault. In an ideal world, every girl's word would be taken exactly how its said- and not on the 'implication' of it (and every girl would say exactly what she means, on the flipside), but till that isn't true- we are stuck in this sort of middle ground where all of us are guided by our respective implicit gender roles (women to be receptive, men to be proposers), and these degrees of sexual assaults, some of which would fall under the socially acceptable category and some not.

This intrigues me.
Do you think some of the muddy water is that men are conditioned to ignore what women say to an extent?
"Are you mad at me?"
"No."
Well, that means yes, doesn't it.

So, when a woman rebuffs an advance, men can be left with three thoughts:
1. She playing hard to get, like a game (I assume this becomes obvious pretty quickly if you are wrong) (and, come to think of this, this is a game no woman should ever play)
2. She is just saying that to get a reaction, like saying it's okay to go to the bar with friends, when she's not okay with it.
3. She means it.

The whole situation sucks, and, frankly, I'm glad I'm married, so I don't have to deal with this BS. Because, not only do you need to know if she means no for real, you ALSO need to be able to know if she is ABLE to give consent.

Kind of ironic, isn't it:
Women need a man to tell them their opinion doesn't matter, because their saying yes means no, because they are drunk, high, or otherwise unable to consent. (regardless of how drunk the man is)
Whatever that threshold is....
My work here is, finally, done.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:28:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM, YYW wrote:
California has recently passed a "yes means yes" law, which established the new standard of "affirmative consent" for consent to sexual activity.

Affirmative consent is vocalized consent. So, in order to "consent" to sexual activity, someone has to say or do something to indicate that they actually consent. This raises the standard for what constitutes consent. Passive or implicit consent (like, not actively resisting) is no longer enough. Rape, in California (at least theoretically) could, upon this bill's coming into effect, could exist where someone who otherwise made indication that they desired to discontinue sexual contact and implicitly consented.

Proponents of the law suggest that this is going to mitigate the risk of sexual assault, and reduce the complication of figuring out when and under what circumstances a victim that did not actively resist being raped actually was or was not raped. The law is designed to promote clarity in communication. Perhaps, this is because there are some jurisdictions in California which have determined that in the absence of active resistance, absent other factors, rape does not occur because the absence of indicators of resistance (like, scratch marks or other physical indicators) implied consent is assumed under some cases. It is very hard for courts to determine, fairly, when, in the absence of physical indicators of rape, penetrative sexual contact is actually rape.

The bill's enforcement mechanism is state funding: essentially, if California universities want state money, they have to adopt this standard for delineating sexual assault from contact that is not sexual assault. But, instead of the "murky water" of figuring out, after the fact, if there is sufficient evidence to show that a sexual assault occurred, we're now turning to hearsay to yield further clarity? I think that, in frat houses, frat boys might be less likely to aggressively pursue a girl who didn't want to hook up. But in the courts, I can't see how this would hold up. Instead, it's going to shift the burden, probably at the expense of justice.

Not all of the bill is flawed. Clearly, the absence of evidence of resistance does not imply consent. It never did. It was a necessary but not dispositive factor. Some jurisdictions have grasped that, others have not. So, to the extent that it establishes that the lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, we're making progress. But, the bill also says "nor does silence mean consent." So, I think it's pretty clear that at least one way to "consent" in California is to say "yes!" But at the same time, the bill leaves unclear whether actions alone could or could not rise to the level of "affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreements to engage in sexual activity."

One of the bill's proponents, Amanda Hess, says that consent might include non-verbal clues, but the bill clearly says that "relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding" meaning that in the absence of "affirmative consent" plus the allegation of rape alone, a sexual contact that was implicitly consented to at the time could still be 'rape' in California -and even here, we're talking about people making accusations about what other people did or did not do.

Our standard for rape could, now, be as low as (1) accusation that rape occurred, and (2) accusation that there was no consent. Even if there was consent, unless the encounter was videotaped, who could know who actually said what? This is an unworkable standard. I'm all for discouraging sexual violence, but I can't support arbitrary laws that would force any rational court back to the previous standards of evaluating evidence available, the circumstance in which the alleged assault took place, etc.

I agree with this new California law, because it helps erase some of the ambiguities that are present with the current "No means no" standard, where a person was required to say "No" to indicate they did not desire sex--which is not possible in a number of situations (the person is asleep, the person is under the influence of alcohol, etc.).

However, there is a way to prevent these kinds of allegations in the first place, and that is if people abstain from one-night stands and one-time sexual encounters. As long as people insist on having casual, one-time sexual encounters, these types of allegations will fly!

People need to use their brains.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:31:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM, YYW wrote:
California has recently passed a "yes means yes" law, which established the new standard of "affirmative consent" for consent to sexual activity.

Affirmative consent is vocalized consent. So, in order to "consent" to sexual activity, someone has to say or do something to indicate that they actually consent. This raises the standard for what constitutes consent. Passive or implicit consent (like, not actively resisting) is no longer enough. Rape, in California (at least theoretically) could, upon this bill's coming into effect, could exist where someone who otherwise made indication that they desired to discontinue sexual contact and implicitly consented.

Proponents of the law suggest that this is going to mitigate the risk of sexual assault, and reduce the complication of figuring out when and under what circumstances a victim that did not actively resist being raped actually was or was not raped. The law is designed to promote clarity in communication. Perhaps, this is because there are some jurisdictions in California which have determined that in the absence of active resistance, absent other factors, rape does not occur because the absence of indicators of resistance (like, scratch marks or other physical indicators) implied consent is assumed under some cases. It is very hard for courts to determine, fairly, when, in the absence of physical indicators of rape, penetrative sexual contact is actually rape.

The bill's enforcement mechanism is state funding: essentially, if California universities want state money, they have to adopt this standard for delineating sexual assault from contact that is not sexual assault. But, instead of the "murky water" of figuring out, after the fact, if there is sufficient evidence to show that a sexual assault occurred, we're now turning to hearsay to yield further clarity? I think that, in frat houses, frat boys might be less likely to aggressively pursue a girl who didn't want to hook up. But in the courts, I can't see how this would hold up. Instead, it's going to shift the burden, probably at the expense of justice.

Not all of the bill is flawed. Clearly, the absence of evidence of resistance does not imply consent. It never did. It was a necessary but not dispositive factor. Some jurisdictions have grasped that, others have not. So, to the extent that it establishes that the lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, we're making progress. But, the bill also says "nor does silence mean consent." So, I think it's pretty clear that at least one way to "consent" in California is to say "yes!" But at the same time, the bill leaves unclear whether actions alone could or could not rise to the level of "affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreements to engage in sexual activity."

One of the bill's proponents, Amanda Hess, says that consent might include non-verbal clues, but the bill clearly says that "relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding" meaning that in the absence of "affirmative consent" plus the allegation of rape alone, a sexual contact that was implicitly consented to at the time could still be 'rape' in California -and even here, we're talking about people making accusations about what other people did or did not do.

Our standard for rape could, now, be as low as (1) accusation that rape occurred, and (2) accusation that there was no consent. Even if there was consent, unless the encounter was videotaped, who could know who actually said what? This is an unworkable standard. I'm all for discouraging sexual violence, but I can't support arbitrary laws that would force any rational court back to the previous standards of evaluating evidence available, the circumstance in which the alleged assault took place, etc.

You know, in a world filled with emotional, one-sided perspectives and selfish points-of-view, I think the best policy is to have sex with someone that truly loves you.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:38:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:28:03 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:

I agree with this new California law, because it helps erase some of the ambiguities that are present with the current "No means no" standard, where a person was required to say "No" to indicate they did not desire sex--which is not possible in a number of situations (the person is asleep, the person is under the influence of alcohol, etc.).

Except that isn't the legal standard; it's just what people say, because it's catchy.
Like how people think a 17 year old having sex is illegal with an 18 year old, or having your seatbelt is required when the car is in motion, or a whole host of other things that are wrong or misleading.

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...

You can see plain as day that this does not apply to people who are asleep.
It never was a simple "no means no", but it was catchy, and got the message across to most men.
Keep in mind, yes does not always mean yes, either.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:48:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think this law is going to cause problems.

What happens when say a sexually active couple is dating. When you're dating and you get into a comfortable groove you don't get consent. No one really does. After you've been dating (or married or whatever) for a substantial amount of time no one is going to ask "Can we have sex honey, yes or no?" during foreplay.

So what happens when the relationship goes south and the girl (or guy) is pissed or heartbroken or whatever and goes to the cops and says "He never got verbal consent when we were dating."? Does the guy get nailed because he didn't ask during a relationship or what?

That'd be complete and utter BS but completely possible in this situation. Are you saying the government is now tell me what to say in my own bed with my significant other? Garbage.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:49:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 3:33:42 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:55:49 PM, Cermank wrote:
That's one of the issues with the 'grey areas' in sexual assault, it doesn't seem that big of a deal because you know the guy. And you know he isn't a monster- and obviously only monsters and sexual assaulters/ rapists. Although the law seems more for show than any real value, this is still an issue that needs to be discussed and 'solved' as a society.

It definitely wasn't right, and honestly, it did fall under the legal definition of sexual assault- just not the social definition.

Yeah it's interesting because in one way I would see the law as having no relevance at all for a private matter like that. That's just my personal perspective. In another way, though, it really matters because it's setting out what's socially expected. It clarifies it.

YES. Succinct explanation of the dilemma from a libertarians POV.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 10:49:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Khaos Mage wrote:

" 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."

This is actually the description of the new law. Sex must now be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party on college campuses. Otherwise rape may have taken place, which is determined on a case by case basis.

The new law was passed and signed to eliminate the ambiguities I mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.usatoday.com...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 11:03:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:48:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think this law is going to cause problems.

What happens when say a sexually active couple is dating. When you're dating and you get into a comfortable groove you don't get consent. No one really does. After you've been dating (or married or whatever) for a substantial amount of time no one is going to ask "Can we have sex honey, yes or no?" during foreplay.

So what happens when the relationship goes south and the girl (or guy) is pissed or heartbroken or whatever and goes to the cops and says "He never got verbal consent when we were dating."? Does the guy get nailed because he didn't ask during a relationship or what?

That'd be complete and utter BS but completely possible in this situation. Are you saying the government is now tell me what to say in my own bed with my significant other? Garbage.

How often are men charged with rape because a "crazy ex" lied to the police? Is this number higher or lower than the amount of men who haven't been charged with rape because either written laws or cultural norms actively blur the lines between what can and cannot be considered rape?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 11:07:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 11:03:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:48:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think this law is going to cause problems.

What happens when say a sexually active couple is dating. When you're dating and you get into a comfortable groove you don't get consent. No one really does. After you've been dating (or married or whatever) for a substantial amount of time no one is going to ask "Can we have sex honey, yes or no?" during foreplay.

So what happens when the relationship goes south and the girl (or guy) is pissed or heartbroken or whatever and goes to the cops and says "He never got verbal consent when we were dating."? Does the guy get nailed because he didn't ask during a relationship or what?

That'd be complete and utter BS but completely possible in this situation. Are you saying the government is now tell me what to say in my own bed with my significant other? Garbage.

How often are men charged with rape because a "crazy ex" lied to the police? Is this number higher or lower than the amount of men who haven't been charged with rape because either written laws or cultural norms actively blur the lines between what can and cannot be considered rape?

I'm just saying there could be unintended consequences of this law. Besides, how often does someone really exhibit signals that are interpreted as yes to the point where you're in bed before you decide that's not what you want? That also seems unlikely. If you didn't want it you probably wouldn't be in bed at that point and if you are you still can say no. If you say no and still get it, that's rape. I think it should stay the same. No means no. If you don't want it say no, if you say no and get it its rape. Why do we have to put undue burden on this?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 11:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 11:07:06 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 10/9/2014 11:03:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:48:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think this law is going to cause problems.

What happens when say a sexually active couple is dating. When you're dating and you get into a comfortable groove you don't get consent. No one really does. After you've been dating (or married or whatever) for a substantial amount of time no one is going to ask "Can we have sex honey, yes or no?" during foreplay.

So what happens when the relationship goes south and the girl (or guy) is pissed or heartbroken or whatever and goes to the cops and says "He never got verbal consent when we were dating."? Does the guy get nailed because he didn't ask during a relationship or what?

That'd be complete and utter BS but completely possible in this situation. Are you saying the government is now tell me what to say in my own bed with my significant other? Garbage.

How often are men charged with rape because a "crazy ex" lied to the police? Is this number higher or lower than the amount of men who haven't been charged with rape because either written laws or cultural norms actively blur the lines between what can and cannot be considered rape?

I'm just saying there could be unintended consequences of this law.

So what is the solution to the problem of consent, if not maintaining that it needs to actually be there?

Besides, how often does someone really exhibit signals that are interpreted as yes to the point where you're in bed before you decide that's not what you want? That also seems unlikely. If you didn't want it you probably wouldn't be in bed at that point and if you are you still can say no.

You sound like someone who presumes rape to only cover that category of scenarios wherein the rapist literally has a gun to yer head.

If you say no and still get it, that's rape. I think it should stay the same. No means no. If you don't want it say no, if you say no and get it its rape. Why do we have to put undue burden on this?

Because 1/3 of all women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime and the way in which rape is traditionally discussed clearly ignores many aspects of rape which don't currently lend themselves to objective verbalization. That's something that needs to change and framing sexual consent as something which is positively maintained (rather than negatively presumed) is one step towards doing that.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2014 11:25:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:15:07 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 2:14:41 PM, Cermank wrote:

A lot of guys don't consider what they do sexual assault. In an ideal world, every girl's word would be taken exactly how its said- and not on the 'implication' of it (and every girl would say exactly what she means, on the flipside), but till that isn't true- we are stuck in this sort of middle ground where all of us are guided by our respective implicit gender roles (women to be receptive, men to be proposers), and these degrees of sexual assaults, some of which would fall under the socially acceptable category and some not.

This intrigues me.
Do you think some of the muddy water is that men are conditioned to ignore what women say to an extent?
"Are you mad at me?"
"No."
Well, that means yes, doesn't it.

So, when a woman rebuffs an advance, men can be left with three thoughts:
1. She playing hard to get, like a game (I assume this becomes obvious pretty quickly if you are wrong) (and, come to think of this, this is a game no woman should ever play)

I'd agree, although this falls into that shady 'exciting' part of dating that I'm not completely comfortable passing judgement over. I know of guys who lose interest if the girl says yes too easily, since they savour the chase. It put some girls in an awkward dilemma.

2. She is just saying that to get a reaction, like saying it's okay to go to the bar with friends, when she's not okay with it.
3. She means it.

The whole situation sucks, and, frankly, I'm glad I'm married, so I don't have to deal with this BS. Because, not only do you need to know if she means no for real, you ALSO need to be able to know if she is ABLE to give consent.

Kind of ironic, isn't it:
Women need a man to tell them their opinion doesn't matter, because their saying yes means no, because they are drunk, high, or otherwise unable to consent. (regardless of how drunk the man is)
Whatever that threshold is....

Yeah, I won't argue its easy from the male's POV. But it definitely isn't a problem with merely random hookups (although random hookups are much more likely to press charges). Marital rape is a pretty serious problem, and even people in relationships suffer from it.

The thing is, every person is different and voices his consent in a different way. Like I know the relationship I was in before (which was a pretty messed up on again off again thing that stretched on for godawful4 years) was messed up because there wasn't proper communication, leading to all these 'games' which I agree is cruel and time wasting and stressful. Communication really is the key to a healthy non assaulty relationship.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:23:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:49:34 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Khaos Mage wrote:

" 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."

This is actually the description of the new law. Sex must now be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party on college campuses. Otherwise rape may have taken place, which is determined on a case by case basis.

The new law was passed and signed to eliminate the ambiguities I mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.usatoday.com...

From your source:
The measure will apply to all colleges and universities accepting state financial aid.

This means that it doesn't change the legal definition of consent.
Again, this law is part of the education code, NOT the criminal code.

Note the part underlined part you quoted in the article is NOT in the statutory definition of consent I quoted. Ergo, "no means no" was never the letter of the law, but a rule colleges enforced when dealing with accusations.

Don't believe me? Try this source, since the California statute itself isn't good enough.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.

Interesting there is always mention of schools, and never how the legal definition has been changed....
It's almost like it's a regulation for schools, and not some radical change in the legal definitions of consent.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:27:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 10:48:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think this law is going to cause problems.

What happens when say a sexually active couple is dating. When you're dating and you get into a comfortable groove you don't get consent. No one really does. After you've been dating (or married or whatever) for a substantial amount of time no one is going to ask "Can we have sex honey, yes or no?" during foreplay.

So what happens when the relationship goes south and the girl (or guy) is pissed or heartbroken or whatever and goes to the cops and says "He never got verbal consent when we were dating."? Does the guy get nailed because he didn't ask during a relationship or what?

That'd be complete and utter BS but completely possible in this situation. Are you saying the government is now tell me what to say in my own bed with my significant other? Garbage.

Read my posts.
Verbal consent is not necessary, and this law does not change the legal definition of rape or consent. It forces colleges to change their policies.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:32:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 11:03:42 PM, socialpinko wrote:

How often are men charged with rape because a "crazy ex" lied to the police? Is this number higher or lower than the amount of men who haven't been charged with rape because either written laws or cultural norms actively blur the lines between what can and cannot be considered rape?

How does this law change any of that?
At best, colleges stated policies on the matter might avert a few men or clear up a few situations, but, frankly, the law does little.
My work here is, finally, done.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:28:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 6:23:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:49:34 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Khaos Mage wrote:

" 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."

This is actually the description of the new law. Sex must now be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party on college campuses. Otherwise rape may have taken place, which is determined on a case by case basis.

The new law was passed and signed to eliminate the ambiguities I mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.usatoday.com...

From your source:
The measure will apply to all colleges and universities accepting state financial aid.

This means that it doesn't change the legal definition of consent.
Again, this law is part of the education code, NOT the criminal code.

Note the part underlined part you quoted in the article is NOT in the statutory definition of consent I quoted. Ergo, "no means no" was never the letter of the law, but a rule colleges enforced when dealing with accusations.

Don't believe me? Try this source, since the California statute itself isn't good enough.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.

Interesting there is always mention of schools, and never how the legal definition has been changed....
It's almost like it's a regulation for schools, and not some radical change in the legal definitions of consent.

Of course this new law changes the previous law, khaos. If it was exclusively a university policy and not something written into law, the Governor would not have signed the bill and the state Senate would not have passed it. That's would governments do, khaos, change laws!

Granted, this change applies to college campuses that accept state financial assitance. But, yes, this law is now part of the state's legal code.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 9:47:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 9:28:41 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 10/10/2014 6:23:48 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:49:34 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Khaos Mage wrote:

" 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."

This is actually the description of the new law. Sex must now be "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party on college campuses. Otherwise rape may have taken place, which is determined on a case by case basis.

The new law was passed and signed to eliminate the ambiguities I mentioned in a previous post.

http://www.usatoday.com...

From your source:
The measure will apply to all colleges and universities accepting state financial aid.

This means that it doesn't change the legal definition of consent.
Again, this law is part of the education code, NOT the criminal code.

Note the part underlined part you quoted in the article is NOT in the statutory definition of consent I quoted. Ergo, "no means no" was never the letter of the law, but a rule colleges enforced when dealing with accusations.

Don't believe me? Try this source, since the California statute itself isn't good enough.
http://www.businessinsider.com...
(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.

Interesting there is always mention of schools, and never how the legal definition has been changed....
It's almost like it's a regulation for schools, and not some radical change in the legal definitions of consent.

Of course this new law changes the previous law, khaos. If it was exclusively a university policy and not something written into law, the Governor would not have signed the bill and the state Senate would not have passed it. That's would governments do, khaos, change laws!

Granted, this change applies to college campuses that accept state financial assitance. But, yes, this law is now part of the state's legal code.


Okay, then.
Show me the previous law then. Show me that it changes it.

Again, as far as what rape is, it changes nothing, which is what many supporters in this very thread seem to be thinking it does.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 10:41:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 6:27:46 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/9/2014 10:48:33 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I think this law is going to cause problems.

What happens when say a sexually active couple is dating. When you're dating and you get into a comfortable groove you don't get consent. No one really does. After you've been dating (or married or whatever) for a substantial amount of time no one is going to ask "Can we have sex honey, yes or no?" during foreplay.

So what happens when the relationship goes south and the girl (or guy) is pissed or heartbroken or whatever and goes to the cops and says "He never got verbal consent when we were dating."? Does the guy get nailed because he didn't ask during a relationship or what?

That'd be complete and utter BS but completely possible in this situation. Are you saying the government is now tell me what to say in my own bed with my significant other? Garbage.

Read my posts.
Verbal consent is not necessary, and this law does not change the legal definition of rape or consent. It forces colleges to change their policies.

Ah that makes more sense then.
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 12:47:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Our standard for rape could, now, be as low as (1) accusation that rape occurred, and (2) accusation that there was no consent. Even if there was consent, unless the encounter was videotaped, who could know who actually said what? This is an unworkable standard.

How is that different than the standard before this law?
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 1:41:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 12:47:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Our standard for rape could, now, be as low as (1) accusation that rape occurred, and (2) accusation that there was no consent. Even if there was consent, unless the encounter was videotaped, who could know who actually said what? This is an unworkable standard.

How is that different than the standard before this law?

I'm not sure that in practice it will be. The difference is the language used.
Tsar of DDO
TheGreatAndPowerful
Posts: 3,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2014 6:08:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/10/2014 1:41:01 PM, YYW wrote:
At 10/10/2014 12:47:52 PM, TheGreatAndPowerful wrote:
At 10/9/2014 1:11:31 PM, YYW wrote:

Our standard for rape could, now, be as low as (1) accusation that rape occurred, and (2) accusation that there was no consent. Even if there was consent, unless the encounter was videotaped, who could know who actually said what? This is an unworkable standard.

How is that different than the standard before this law?

I'm not sure that in practice it will be. The difference is the language used.

The wording of your statement implies some change. What's the change? Why does different language used matter?