Sex just got a lot more problematic in California

[squarecut1]

If they had opposed the bill, there would certainly be a slew of "war on women" attacks against the GOP.

You are right, but these people are elected to do what is the right thing in the public interest, not how something looks or polls.

It is the same reason you won't see the mainstream press, media touch this with a nine foot pole - even the ones who can see how wrong this is and all that it will lead to down the road. Because it won't look good.

This country badly needs men and women of integrity, ones who would do the right thing for the sake of doing right. Not based on their fame and personal wealth.

 

[BoberFett]

You've over stepped the logic. It's meant to jail / punish bad things.

If punishment was the goal, things would be far simpler. Our complex system of law began trying to prevent all wrongs long ago.

 

[squarecut1]

Here is a pertinent extract from that piece.

https://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

The gender ideology dominating academe denies that sex differences are rooted in biology and sees them instead as malleable fictions that can be revised at will. The assumption is that complaints and protests, enforced by sympathetic campus bureaucrats and government regulators, can and will fundamentally alter all men.

 

[squarecut1]

I am reminded of a conversation I had with an older relative many years ago, a learned and well read man.

He told me that in ancient tribal societies, if a man found himself alone at home with his daughter for whatever reason, it was not uncommon for the man to quickly exit the house.

Yes we have come a long way from the tribal ages (at least in some parts of the world), but as that article stated, there is still that constant nearness of savage nature.

 

[Bird222]

"Consent" apps and texts are useless when consent can be revoked at any point (including retroactively?). Emma Sulkowicz, the Columbia University student who is carrying a mattress around with her 24/7 until the school expels her alleged rapist, has stated that her rape started as consensual sex. From an interview of her:
"One night there was a party for the orientation leaders. In the ivy-covered courtyard outside Wien Hall, Paul kissed Sulkowicz, who says that she was sober except for a sip of gin-and-Sprite. He was buzzed and carrying a handle of vodka. While they were having consensual sex in her dorm room, she alleges that he suddenly pushed her legs against her chest, choked her, slapped her, and anally penetrated her as she struggled and clearly repeated “No.”

My question is who raped who? If he was "buzzed" could he have consented to sex? Sounds like they both raped each other.

 

[irishScott]

Missing the bigger picture, you are. This is how it starts. Soon it will spread to other states. Then they would decide that this he said / she said is too problematic, and you need written, signed consent. Before you know it, you would need lawyers to have sex (and no doubt this legislation would have been massively funded and supported by the trial lawyers association)

Sounds crazy? Hyperbole? Pause for a minute and consider that many things that are normal today were considered crazy at one time. Our barometer for normal is what we grew up in. That does not necessarily make it normal.

Just because some slippery slopes work doesn't mean they all do. We're not talking some relatively high-level philosophical perspective like self defense rights or privacy, we're talking about regulating a base human behavior in the privacy of peoples' homes, which you can't really do. Any attempt to enforce "signed consent" for sex, let alone lawyers, will be about as effective and enforceable as those laws that to this day mandate prison time for taking it up the ass (despite being declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 2003). I can guarantee the only reason this legislation passed at all was because the lawmakers know it'll be too ineffective to come back and bite them in the ass. The modern feminist is easily played

For reference, homosexual acts used to be punishable by death, castration or imprisonment depending on the state. Never stopped homosexuals.

 

[Knowing]

My question is who raped who? If he was "buzzed" could he have consented to sex? Sounds like they both raped each other.

Nope.

The difficulty of defining incapacitation and consent was underscored last week when Dean Wasilolek took the stand. Rachel B. Hitch, a Raleigh attorney representing McLeod, asked Wasiolek what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex.
"They have raped each other and are subject to explusion?" Hitch asked.
"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex," said Wasiolek.

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/a-...ions-of-sexual-misconduct/Content?oid=4171302

Somehow men and women are equal, but men have the ability and the responsibility to retain their mental faculties to both give and understand consent whilst being incapacitated. These sorts of inconsistencies happen all the time when arguing on the inter-tubes, but when Duke's Dean of students is literally arguing it in court we're entering extremely fuzzy (and dark) territory.

 

[BoberFett]

Somehow I don't think you'll find feminists arguing that men can be raped by women. Because patriarchy.

 

[Knowing]

Somehow I don't think you'll find feminists arguing that men can be raped by women. Because patriarchy.

Of course you won't, but however many abstractions away from the real crime (against women) they want to make the equivalent crime against men, a woman can't be convicted of it if a man has some supernatural power against incapacitation that a woman doesn't have.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I wouldn't be able to hear if she said yes or no,...
my ears are covered by my neck. So, her being passed out after pouring
10 beers into her (with a few 'relaxants') clearly means she was ready for it.

It would be very ironic if this law claims as its first unintended victim a African American male student and then you finally realize the stupidity of this law and this post. Never mind that even under such a situation as you used above in your post the laws are already in place to cover drugged rapes and this law is just a way for schools and police officials to opt out of having to do any sort of investigation and just presume guilt.

 

[alkemyst]

I think this is safer. Too many women can claim they never said "YES" and they try to imply they meant "NO".

I usually ask especially for the first time, "Are you ok with this?" or something similar.

 

[squarecut1]

You're so so right. It's a sign of the apocalypse, and the death of dear Father and the rise of the Mother. They will have to cart Nephalump away to the mental institution. You have to expect a backlash when men become assholes. You don't think Isis doesn't know what's coming for them? You poor thing.

Look Sherlock, mankind has been around for hundreds of thousands of years at least, and yet if just a hundred years ago you had told someone that they could get into trouble with the law for a couple of smacks to their child, they would have responded in the same ridiculing, incoherent rambling style of yours like above. The mere concept of law getting involved in such a thing would have been incomprehensible. Yet today, it is the norm in many parts of the world.

By the way, I don't approve of smacking children. But there is a world of difference between that and wanting to get the law involved.

It is not inconceivable at all that people would be required to have signed consent to have sex. But if you have just tunnel vision, like you clearly have, you can't comprehend the fact that what is ridiculous today could be the norm tomorrow.

 

[Cozarkian]

I think this is safer. Too many women can claim they never said "YES" and they try to imply they meant "NO".

I usually ask especially for the first time, "Are you ok with this?" or something similar.

Even if you ask if it is okay, she can still say she never said Yes. Also, the law requires the school to ignore prior sexual relationships, so you have to ask every time, not just the first.

In fact, the law is so broad there isn't even an exception for married students. While your spouse may be unlikely to file a complaint, technically, if you didn't ask for affirmative consent, you violated the university policy against sexual assault.

 

[uclaLabrat]

I think everyone is looking at this the wrong way.

Is it really a bad thing when you've basically made legal means of reproduction next to impossible for people who decided it was a good idea to attend a California college?

California has the best university system in the country

 

[Rakehellion]

Just put a QR code on the condom wrapper. I call the patent first. :hmm:

Edit: You're such a rapist!

I don't think I've ever given verbal consent either, so they're the rapists!

 

[FerrelGeek]

I think this is safer. Too many women can claim they never said "YES" and they try to imply they meant "NO".

I usually ask especially for the first time, "Are you ok with this?" or something similar.

And then the next day comes and she regrets it, for whatever reason. You don't text her quickly enough to tell her that she was the best you ever had and she gets all butt-hurt. Her women's studies prof gets her riled up and she claims she never gave you consent to blow your load in her. BAM!!!! You just became a rapist, bro.

Yes, sarcasm with a mix of hyperbole, but this is the stupid unintended consequence of this law.

Squarecut1 - You are right, but these people are elected to do what is the right thing in the public interest, not how something looks or polls.

It is the same reason you won't see the mainstream press, media touch this with a nine foot pole - even the ones who can see how wrong this is and all that it will lead to down the road. Because it won't look good.

This country badly needs men and women of integrity, ones who would do the right thing for the sake of doing right. Not based on their fame and personal wealth.

Very true, but today everything is based on managing perception. The chattering masses are led (by the nose) by the soundbite, the optic.

 

[z1ggy]

So... a lot more college bro's are going to be filling up CA prisons I'm guessing after girls can essentially say they are raped, short of signing a legal contract with the guy.

 

[Exterous]

I don't know what is so hard about getting a consent prior to sex?

What about the requirement that consent "must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity"? Sounds like just laying there and moaning isn't enough both parties must shout 'Yes' every five seconds or else!

I am not sure about the wisdom of the law but there is no presumption of guilt here. It actually gives you an element that gets you out of a potentially frivolous accusation.

Not really because there is no way to prove what happened. Sounds like not only do we need body cams for all cops but for all college students!

 

[squarecut1]

I am a little confused here. I completely get the fact that this is the politicians' way of fooling the gullible voters - "Look, we took ACTION! The women are safer now". I get that.

What I don't understand is why are the women advocacy groups and the like are hailing this as a great achievement. For example

Pundits and activists have welcomed the bill, claiming it will reduce victim blaming.

"Instead of starting the investigation by asking if the victim said no — and how she said no and whether her no was good enough to get her out of unwanted sex — the investigation focuses on the actions of the accused," Amanda Marcotte, a blogger who focuses on feminism and politics, wrote for Slate.

Savannah Badalich, a UCLA student and founder of activist group 7000 in Solidarity, described the legislation as "amazing."

"It's going to educate an entire new generation of students on what consent is and what consent is not ... that the absence of a no is not a yes," she said.

Are these people really that stupid? Or is this their way of milking their donors, showing their work achieves 'results'?

 

[boomerang]

Are these people really that stupid?

Yes

 

[Jaskalas]

So... a lot more college bro's are going to be filling up CA prisons I'm guessing after girls can essentially say they are raped, short of signing a legal contract with the guy.

I think they've proven a contract won't matter. It can be revoked at any time. Ergo, a claim against a man can be made regardless of... anything. Except MAYBE video proof of consent from start to finish.

Better get those cell phones charged and ready.

 

[squarecut1]

This being a tech forum and all, heavily male dominated. If there were some women here, or those who support this kind of law, it would be interesting to hear their viewpoint. I want to know what is the rationale, what is their thought process? Could make for an interesting debate...

 

[IGBT]

extremely confused populous in calif. the more liberal they get the more confused they get about which bathroom to use.

 

[FerrelGeek]

IAre these people really that stupid? Or is this their way of milking their donors, showing their work achieves 'results'?

Both.

Remember, this is the demographic that thinks that they have a right to free birth control and failing to provide it constitutes a war on women.

 

[squarecut1]

So... a lot more college bro's are going to be filling up CA prisons I'm guessing after girls can essentially say they are raped, short of signing a legal contract with the guy.

For now I think, it will be more college expulsion due to sexual assault. That record will stay with a guy.

They are well on their way to legislating sex out of existence. Similar to what they have done with marriage. All in the quest for a better society