Do you think Affirmative Consent is a good sex law?

If she isn't conscious it isn't consensual.

The problem with this crap is that he said she said tends to she said he's going to jail.
When girls react to coyote ugly the way guys do, I'll stop needing more than her say so.

 

If what is said in the OP is true then No means no is better IMO. However, I would like to see an actual copy of the rules under question and really wonder why there is no link to it.

 

I think most of the people pushing the law did not intend it for guys like you. Women want 90% of men to not touch them, and would not mind those being required to ask so she can just say no. However, they want the other 10% to touch without asking. The question then is how to write a law that does not make the stakes too high for the 10% so as to chill them, yet still lets officials do something about the 90% who likely knew their advance would not be liked yet did it anyway and are protected by "she did not say no".
Unfortunately, all the pictures I've seen of guys found responsible for sex misconduct are good looking guys. Often they are accused of something from months ago, typically during a breakup. I think the law would work much better if it had to be reported within 24 hours.

I agree about the unconscious woman, or even if she does not understand her surroundings.
As for the level of proof, I agree again. If the penalty was not so severe, I'd be OK with less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, if it did not go on his public record. When they want to brand someone guilty of sex misconduct in the newspaper, that is when I scream for needing more than just his word vs hers.

I'm on my computer now. I'll post the links shortly.

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

That is California:
Note:

The two clauses of that sentence are redundant unless it means people must ask permission for each step. Also, "any" includes later, which means this rule has a glaring typo that hopefully a reasonable person would interpret to mean "any time before or during".

That sounds mild and reasonable, but nothing about that statement says that the presence of a relationship is at all a defense. Its only effect is to remove it as a defense for anything. At best that sentence is vague. If they really want to say a relationship does not matter, they should just say it. If it does matter, then they should say exactly how it matters in a defense.
Do you see how they try to hide the strictness of it in a safe sounding sentence?

Sounds pretty clear to me that people must pause to really verify.

So the fact that you kissed her many times before does not mean you can kiss her again. You must be sure and get it in the affirmative. If she agrees to have sex, does that mean you can do it how you want? I suspect not, which would imply you must ask at more than one point.

Notice it does not state exactly how consent can be withdrawn. It just states that silence or lack of resistance do not imply consent.

My question is, if someone at trial says she stopped consenting at a certain point, but was silent, and he did not ask, is he in violation? Theorists who came up with the law stated that a woman can become so scared she can't move, which is why silence is not a reason to imply consent. Indeed, some men can become domineering during an encounter and make her feel she is not in control. But the law does not specify this aspect.


That is California.

 

Notice how the rule states that the parties must ensure that they get an unambiguous yes, but it does not give examples of how they can get the yes. It only states what does not count. So if you are accused of not getting consent and you say why you think there was consent, you don't know if it counts, nor are they bound to accept it.

Should schools be required to say what does count instead of merely stating what does not count?

BTW, even though I've seen the Obama Administrations definition quoted many places, I can't find a direct source. I'll just take you to my school's policy

 

https://policy.boisestate.edu/student-affairs/code-of-conduct/

The university can take away any former student's degree at any time in the future if anyone accuses them of serious misconduct from years prior. The standard is preponderance of evidence.

How is that for controlling the leaders of tomorrow after they invested all that work into getting their degree? After someone graduates, it should require proof beyond a reasonable doubt it a public court of law to remove someone's degree. These administrators are drunk on their power.

Well, the removed the phrase "must be given at each step". The website is constantly changing, as are my state's laws. Still, it only says what counts as not consent. It gives no examples of how someone can obtain consent. At the conduct hearing, students will be asked how they obtained consent. They won't know if what they interpreted as consent will count according to the rules.

 

True. There are some shockingly clueless men who don't know when to quit or when they are being flatly rejected. Many women will be nice to men, especially men who seem potentially dangerous, and highly aggressive types will take advantage of it. This is one of those things that should be quietly implemented, to a degree, not splattered all over social media. Let judges with intelligence and prudence figure these things out. Women are being conditioned to believe that getting drunk and having sex that you regret is rape, which it most certainly is not. I've slept with some atrocious women while wasted, and while I regretted the hell out of it the following day, I never thought I was RAPED.

As for the sleeping thing, I've literally fallen asleep while having drunken sex, both of us fell asleep, and neither one of us was pissed off or felt violated the following day.

 

Technically, I don't think they should be able to remove a degree under any circumstances. Being convicted of a crime does not render one's achievements nonexistent. This is yet another stupid, nonsensical tendency driven by the peasants we refer to as "the court of public opinion," which is to say driven by the capricious and hollow intellects of mindless zombies whose opinions are less than worthless.

 

Just because she gives you a hand job does not mean you have the right to intercourse.

Yes...you might be a rapist.

 

Hello Newman.

Have you ever had sex before, or are you the guy they based 40-year-old Virgin on? The point is that if the situation escalates from kissing, to foreplay, to sex, and I never say a word, I am not raping the person, plain and simple.

 

This is a gross exaggeration of what "affirmative consent" means. For a more realistic article on the concept, check out this article: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/06/25/3453041/affirmative-consent-really-means/

 

Woman wants to marry graduate. Graduate says no. Woman threatens to tell the school that during their 3 year relationship, there was a time he had sex with her without asking permission first, and she has it on film. Woman tells graduate, "marry me or lose your precious degree you worked so hard for."

Or,

Graduate is a political activist. School administrators don't like the success this activist has had against their causes. School contacts graduate: "We have a former student who says you raped her years ago. We find it more believable than not. We are taking your degree."

Does anyone else see something wrong with a school having that much retroactive power at the preponderance standard?

 

Thank you for posting that!

Nothing in that article implies I exaggerated. It says we must get explicit consent. It tries to justify it and soften it, but that is what it says you must do. It even says your partner must be as excited by everything as you are, even though we all know certain acts can be more exciting for one person or the other.

Um no, they just did turn everyone into rapists. Passing a law and threatening taking someone's degree is not merely "encouraging."

See, the policy assumes that people won't ask for permission, and that people just won't falsely accuse them and will only report someone if they were actually raped. The accused are presumed guilty. Or rather, accusers are presumed to not lie.

 

Was she asking for it?
Was she asking nice?
Yeah, she was asking for it
Did she ask you twice?

Read more: Hole - Asking For It Lyrics | MetroLyrics

 

I spoke to my lawyer friend. First he said that requiring people say or do a particular ritual before engaging in sex violates their freedom of expression. Also he said asking the accused to explain why he thought he had consent violates due process of putting the burden of proof on the accuser.

I think in civil court, the accuser must prove responsibility, but may call the accused to the stand. That is for monetary damages, though.

I then asked him, "but what if some guy goes around grabbing women's rear ends? What do we do to stop that?"
He replied "that is battery. A court would look at the circumstances to decide if they meet societal standards."
I replied, "but who sets societal standards? Shouldn't they be written out? Is Affirmative consent a legitimate societal standard?"
He agreed a law must be spelled out for it to be used against someone.

This whole time I've been worried about kisses. Now I'm wondering how a woman can prevent a guy from penetrating her short of telling him in advance that she does not give him permission to penetrate her that night. Awkward. If he enters quickly enough before she can say no, he has not committed rape.

I certainly don't want to have to ask 50 questions or have 50 pauses for eye contact and a nod during a sex session. I think a compromise is to ask permission to require that people escalate very gradually the first time with someone and either ask before penetration or make it very obvious they are planning to do it well in advance. That might step on some people's freedom of expression.

We almost have to make a list of conditions where it can go faster: A guy and girl see each other in the bar. Without speaking, they approach each other, lock lips, and head into the bathroom to have quick rough sex, and then leave. Clearly from the approach, kiss, and walk to the bathroom, both consented. But what if he did anal too, which she did not expect? Do we charge that as rape or a simple battery or just tell her she took a risk when she went in? Some would say the risk should be on him. I'm thinking they should split the difference.

 

I learned something today. I'd always been aware of the connection between the regulatory state and crony capitalism, but the influence of trial lawyers and the Dems were never at the forefront of my awareness. I will be looking into this connection A LOT more in the future, thank you. It seems that another giant piece of the puzzle is now in place. The trial lawyers must be a major reason the Dems never stop and have become so insane on so many issues--money. I broke my own rule and failed to follow the money, instead believing that ideology played a bigger role. As usual, my cynical instincts are correct...

Everyone should be (*)(*)(*)(*)ing at all times. I'd like to adopt an idea from idiocracy and introduce handjobs at Starbucks!

 

I’m on record of saying I don’t think Colleges should be trying criminal accusations at all and that the wider system behind that should be changed. Approaches to legal processes regarding sexual assault and rape accusations specifically are separate questions.

In general terms, no law can be written to literally and directly cover every possible situation. There’s also going to be elements of vagueness and interpretation – that’s why rulings are made by judges and juries rather than computers. There is clearly a balance to be struck between making laws general enough to have practical applications but specific enough to be understood and followed. Simply stating “This law is vague!” isn’t an argument on that basis though.

Everything can be easily Googled. If you want a discussion about specific legislation though, I think you have a responsibility to at least identify exactly which legislation you’re referring to, especially pending legislation which can go though lots of versions and changes very quickly. I’m not willing to trawl though various state websites to try to find the laws I think you’re referring to.

Incidentally, you states that “Many students have been suspended for 2 semester for sex misconduct because they kissed their partner” and I asked for examples. Do you have those examples? In the context of this kind of discussion, I think it’s vital to be clear and accurate about the practical outcomes of the rules and legalisation in question.

 

It's not a mechanical process. It just happens. For me, we start by kissing, then fondling, cloths come off, we start (*)(*)(*)(*)ing. The only talking going no is dirty talk. No one is asking for permission. Eventually, she's begging you to agree to her consent.

For instance, if she had just given me head, and she was wet and ready, and then said she had a headache, I'd go for it anyway until she told me to stop. Basically, foreplay is an invitation for me to try to get inside, not always a guarantee, though it almost always works well .

I need to go find a good book on this.

All this is nonsense. It's easy as hell to hell if a girl doesn't want something. VERY clear.

 

Don't mind these terrible places. Let's worry about things inside the United States.

 

Examples:

http://www.advocate.com/news/daily-news/2011/10/14/male-cheerleader-suspended-kissing-another-boy
That one appears to be consensual and 3rd party accusation, though not enough info.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/f...d-for-kissing-another-student/article/2590140
Guy says consensual kiss, woman tells police consensual but tells school it was not consensual and that he would not let her leave. Text messages show she did not want to see him again but that he seemed confused and she saying she was just sensitive. The school suspended him.


http://specials.daytondailynews.com/a-rape-on-campus/
That explains that schools are fearful of their funding being taken, due to federal pressure, so they basically expel men on women's word to impress the federal government that they take sexual assault seriously.

There are much better reports I read before of people getting expelled for a kiss that happened months or years ago, but I'm having trouble digging them up again. It has been 6 months since I read it.

 

http://time.com/3222176/campus-rape-the-problem-with-yes-means-yes/
That article explains some major problems with the affirmative consent standard. Bloomberg has many articles explaining it further.

http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html
There a drunk woman makes moves on a drunk man. At first he is not interested but then becomes interested. Their friends separate them, but he texts her to come back. She does, and sends her friends a text message saying she is heading over to his place to have sex. They do. His roommate finds them in the act. I don't recall if he separated them again or just let them finish. The next morning she reports him for the sex, saying she was too drunk to consent. He is expelled.



It seems sex gets expulsion and kisses get suspensions. My school says if after someone graduates, they find preponderance of evidence that a "serious violation" occurred while someone was still a student, they can revoke the person's degree. What counts as "a serious violation"? Sex perhaps?

 

http://www2.clarku.edu/offices/cave/consent/consent_examples.cfm

boom! Proof that my worries are true. Proof that I'm smart at reading the law.

If you say you will break up with someone if they don't have sex, that is coercion, it says. So you don't even have a right to say what you don't like about a relationship and just how much it bothers you. You only can walk away without saying the reason why or knowing if they would have cared had you told them. Free speech is silenced.
... I think that rule might chill some free speech. Someone should sue. They need not be charged to sue on free speech grounds.

I wonder how many nay sayers knew very well the law meant this but just lied on open forums to keep the sheep from worrying.



Colleges say that relationships are not supposed to have any trading or give and take. You both must be equally enthusiastic at all times or else it is rape.
I would never pressure a woman repeatedly to have sex or else. Following her around the room keeping up the verbal pressure is just wrong. However, I do think someone should be allowed to state before leaving that if you don't meet me halfway on this, I'm leaving.
However, just because they should be allowed to say that does not mean it is wise. If she does not want sex with him then, it will only get worse in marriage. So maybe schools are doing men a favor by threatening punishment to those who do such an unwise move when they should just leave.


HonestJoe,
I agree with you. I am in favor of fighting sexual assault with a lower standard of proof combined with lower penalty. I was willing to side with college administrators if they used their power fairly. But now I see that they will do anything to convince the department of education that they are being tough on sexual assault. They can't be trusted to run a campus hearing.

 

If the OP's explination of this is accurate it's pretty idiotic. If a guy were to ask my permission before every touch kid or thrust he would be told to leave. Where's the passion?

I also see a lot of guys in here talking about the mentality of women today I want to know where these women are. Cause it's been my experience that women of my generation are very outspoken and are more than able to say no when enough is enough.

And no. A handie or blowie is not consent for sex anymore than consent for vaginal sex is consent for anal. But you guys know that. Or you should.

 

Many schools have removed language that says students must ask permission at every step. Mine has. That does not men they don't adjudicate it that way. Sure, you don't have to ask at every step. But if she says she withdrew consent at a certain point, they will ask him if he asked permission right before then. If he says no, he is found responsible. I think that means he must ask at every point.


It sort of is moot. If someone wants to lie, she is being very kind by only saying he failed to ask, rather than he forced her. Having that rule almost gives him a socially acceptable out. However, I do wonder if any impressionable women will believe in the affirmative consent they are being taught and think a guy did assault them because he did not ask, even if they were OK with the action otherwise. I guess the solution to that is to just date older women, who are less impressionable and more independent.


My concern is that for every 1 guy reported, there might be 100 blackmail under threat of losing his degree if he does not marry a woman or give her money. Maybe that is just paranoia, though. Obviously 99% would never do that, but 1% of 18,000 women on campus is 180. Still just a 1% chance of that happening. But as an at best average looking guy with my degree as my main thing I'm offering, I feel my odds are 10% not 1%, which is more than what I want to risk.

 

You're welcome, it is refreshing to see someone actually seeking facts. Seek your own of course and take even what I've posted skeptically. The trial lawyers' lobby, btw, is known by the abbreviation "ATLA," which is a good start. EDIT I see they are calling themselves the "American Association for Justice" now <Bronx cheer>. They have as much influence over Democrat politics as unions and feminists, maybe even more, just less visible to the public. Compare their rhetoric to union rhetoric or other Democrat "friend of man" rhetoric, lots of similarities, lots of BS. Note that though actual ATLA contributions may seem trivial, lawyers contribute -directly- to Democrat candidates. This is by design, to keep under the radar.

Ever smell something rotten at TV lawyer commercials waving a flag and claiming to help the "little guy?" while having clients gloat about how much money they got and how they paid for all their kids' college with it (are car wrecks supposed to be windfalls? to pay for college? or are they supposed to compensate real damage related to real injuries to real victims)? Ever had a very minor fender bender and the other party go to crooked chiropractors, docs and lawyers to gin up "injuries" that just happen to be the limit of your insurance policy? Odds are you, your family or friends will experience this sooner rather than later, as it is growing every year. It has happened to my immediate family twice so far in my lifetime. We ALL pay for it... lawyers and "victims" just make 100x more on the scam than they pay. This is all a huge chunk of Democrat politics and why it is the way it is.

Another area you might want to explore is the SPLC or "Southern Poverty Law Center," another trial lawyers front in the guise of "social justice." Guess what? when you label some group "racist" or a "hate group" and then file frivolous civil lawsuits against them, or the government does, it poisons the jury pool and settlements, verdicts and contingency fees go up up up up! That's probably just a coincidence though.

Bogus "rape" and sexual abuse charges based on unconstitutional rights violations make collecting those big civil verdicts, settlements, -contingency fees- oh so much easier. But I guess that's a coincidence too.