Do you think Affirmative Consent is a good sex law?

We need a "funny button" here!

 

If you punish both, you get a chilling effect so that none come forward.

If you don't pick one, say the guy, and punish him, then guys who deliberately take advantage of drunk women will have some drinks as legal armor.

If you punish the first person to report the other, that might work. Rapists might try to report her first, but not likely, since they would be reporting all their attacks and getting a paper trail. However, there is the risk one might use it on a woman, and then we have to decide whether to enforce it or end the policy.

Schools try to hide the issue by also saying they investigate and use an preponderance standard, which is code for "guys lose against women."

You could say that if they are sober enough to ask for sex and participate, they are sober enough to consent. I like that one, but what if they are just a bit drunker? Then which one gets the axe? If you say they both messed up, then students will drink just for legal armor, which is not what we want.

 

Or they knew what they were doing and knew they could blame the alcohol the next day. I don't believe in blackouts since I never had one. Was it his place? Also possible he was just too drunk to care and thought it would be cool to pee on the floor. Would someone admit to that? It definitely is possible for someone to be mobile and in a completely different state of mind that maybe people should not take advantage of. But what if both are equally drunk?

I think if one is super drunk and the other is moderately drunk, they should not sleep with the super drunk, or at least not be leading and not be on top. If both are super drunk, then neither should be blamed, though of course the rapists will claim they were super drunk.

 

True. They want such high penalties that jurors require an even higher degree of certainty to render a guilty verdict. Then few get convicted. The penalties need to come down significantly for a first time offense unless actually are certain. The problem is jurors don't get a choice of "pretty sure" and "certain". They just pick guilty or not guilty, and the judge then picks the sentence based on a guilty verdict. I say let each juror decide independently what penalty if any they are comfortable handing out based on their degree of certainty and the crime. Rank them. The 8th strictest prevails, so that 2/3 think it should be at least that high. It would also eliminate hung juries. They could even decide who goes on the sex offender's list and for how long.

However, the left wants revenge sentences mandatory, and the right wants high sentences too just so jurors will be less willing to convict. So, administrators have to find loop holes to get some sense of order on campus, and prosecutors scare people into plea deals under thread of charging them with many horrible crimes.

 

You don't have enough experience with alcohol then, which is fine--most people on here don't. Anyone who parties a lot, or has partied a lot, is more than familiar with how common blacking out is among the population of heavy drinkers, or the type of sleep walking I described. I can assure you that blackouts are not only real, but experienced by millions of people a year. The type of sleepwalking I described is less common, though still probably in the hundreds of thousands.

No, neither person is lying, and I've seen similar incidents in other people, on many occasions. The fact that you are doubting me means you have zero experience with these issues and are in no way qualified to have a valid opinion on them, no offense. A person who is extremely wasted should be considered clinically insane, at that moment. Furthermore, I don't believe people who have never used drugs or alcohol have any business passing legislation that effects those who do, in any capacity. It is like a toad trying to teach a bird to fly. It is such an alien thing as to be impossible to understand without actually experiencing.

Part of the reason we have a stupid drug war is because people who have never used drugs have been responsible for understanding and managing their usage.

 

You've seriously misrepresented the act. The consent refers to "sexual activity" and the term "sexual activity" is defined in 18 U.S.C. 2246(2) AND 18 U.S.C 2246(3) and does not include kissing.

Since you're not likely to do any research I'll post the definition here:

Very sloppy OP.

Sources:
New York's affirmative consent law
18 U.S. Code 2246]

 

A drunk driver who hits someone is held responsible, but given 1/5 the penalty of someone who committed 2nd degree murder, and 1/10 the penalty of someone who committed 1st degree murder. If a woman did not try to fight off the drunk guy, that further lowers his liability, assuming he did not scare her.

If both are super drunk and voluntarily have sex, I say neither should get penalized. What if he is super drunk and she is out cold and he does not realize it because he is so drunk? What if he is not really that drunk and simply claims he was?

 

Thank you for that link. My school includes kissing as sexual contact, and I've read many reports of guys getting suspended for kissing at many schools. Sounds like the New York policy is much better. I take issue with one part:

1. They are misleading. They list arouse or gratify at the end of the list where it is less likely to be read, letting people see the harassing part first to think the law is more reasonable.
2. So you can kiss someone without asking, but if you place your hands anywhere on their rear while kissing, that is a violation? Most people do that. This is still too strict.

It does say consent to activity is not necessarily consent to other activity. They need to elaborate on that more.
I want it to say people may gradually escalate while paying attention to whether their partner is responding well, and back of if they get a negative reaction. As long as the step is not huge, it should not be a big deal.

Inserting ones penis should not be done fast enough so as to deprive someone of sufficient opportunity to see it coming, process what is going on, and say no.

Too much is left to wonderment here as to how the trials work and what counts.

 

Frankly, I do whatever the hell I want, as long as it's consensual. If I want to grab a woman's ass while I'm kissing her, I'll do it in front of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tower. In fact, I'll do a lot more than that just to (*)(*)(*)(*) people off.

As for what you said about trying to figure out what happened when two people are wasted, a woman needs to decide how pissed off she is after she wakes up, I guess. 9/10, if the guy isn't ugly, the girl won't care at all. Usually, it is no big deal and people move on. Then again, I'm not sure why men can't claim rape (not that I'm advocating that!). Basically, rape is determined by how attracted one party is to the other upon awakening. If the woman is attracted to the guy, she will be excited. If he's ugly, that guy is doing hard time lol.

 

That's a sad indictment on what "rape" basically is, but yeah, that's what our feminist activist friends reduced it to. And now they want to cry that it's some horrific crime. In most cases, by "horrific", it's now "OMFG, I slept with that!?". Sorry, I'll save my outrages for actual, physical violations of women as opposed to this nonsense we've been forced to endure which has made sexual intercourse a "at-risk venture", as that article points out.

 

"OMFG, I slept with that!?" this is ACTUALLY the impetus for destroying many a young man's life. Perhaps we need to start showing people videos of horrible things so they can get some perspective.

Here's one about animals: [video=youtube;7rVyigeJw8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rVyigeJw8U[/video]

the crazy thing starts at 30 seconds.

 

I'm just saying this is where we're headed. And it's very sad.

 

And then the same people moan and complain about how men have "retreated". Yeah, it's better to retreat than to be put on Megan's list lol. So either those "antsy" women try to be just a little bit compassionate and rework those laws for general society, or you're going to get more contempt and division(as well as retreats) lol.

 

How do you determine who was a "a bit drunker?" In the case I was referring to, witnesses at the party testified that it was the woman who was the aggressive one. Later on in the evening, she proceeded to sneak out of her dormitory and "present herself" to this boy in his dorm room. Yet, HE got expelled for school, and his reputation and life were ruined.

As the mother of a son, this kind of thing is concerning to me on a personal level.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe, if you cannot handle yourself when drinking, you should take responsibility for your own actions and NOT drink to begin with.

 

I don't consider regretting your silly decisions to be "rape" on the other party's side. Sorry. If you can't handle your alcohol and can't control yourself when you drink, then you need to take responsibility for YOURSELF.

Now, if you are passed out, unconscious or something, that is a different story entirely. Still though, you should never allow yourself to put in that position. A smart person would not.

 

So did you have anything to say about the actual topic, or was the hairsplit on "kissing" just an obvious red herring?

 

It wasn't splitting hairs - he completely misrepresented the law. He didn't even read the thing before he posted.

 

What the hell??!! Am I reading this right? Are you kidding me?! Talk about sucking romance out of an up-close and personal moment! A guy & gal who likes each other and he has to stop and ask "may I?" every other second? Short of intercourse, this is the most FAR-OUT, STUPID thing I've read in ages........

And if she does agree to sex, that makes it consensual. It's between those 2 and if she gets pist at him later, she shouldn't be allowed to cry 'rape!' and his name ends up on the nat'l sex offender list for the rest of his life........

 

OK, no then, you had nothing other than the hairsplit. Figures.

 

Here is why men are expelled so easily: http://time.com/99697/campus-sexual-assault-nancy-chi-cantalupo/

Cliffs:
If a school does not give the plaintiff what she wants, they can likely be successfully sued for $800,000. If a defendant sues, only 3 out of many have every won, with the biggest award being only $26,500.
The supreme court ruled that schools have an interest in keeping campus safe and going beyond criminal laws. When calculating the success of making campus safe, the damage done to innocent men does not matter. Only that done to women counts in their equation. But it is not sexist since the law is written gender neutral.


http://time.com/99959/campus-sexual-assault-matthew-kaiser/
This lawyer says most of his clients are expelled for drunk sex that seemed consensual at the time, but the woman, who says she can't remember the previous night, says she would never have done that.
Me, if she reports it the next day, and she does not seem to have a motive to lie, I might just side with her, but I would not ruin a guy's record over it. I'd just have him transfer to another school if she was really that afraid of him. More proof is needed for steeper punishment.

 

If the woman is passed out or so drunk she cannot consent, then I would tend to agree, but in these cases it's all about "he said/she said." What if she called him and she set up an interlude? That is what happened in the case I cited. He went back to his dorm. She called him and then showed up at his dorm room, had sex with him and then had him "investigated" for rape, and he was then expelled. Does that sound fair to you?

 

That is not fair at all.

Nor is it fair they can go back 2 years without proof.

 

Trump required all to make a tape consenting to being screwed, before any serious moves. And, I think they were required to say how much they enjoyed it.

Such a tape is handy when folks say you didn't satisfy. Even if made unduressed.

 

Suppose she goes to his place to have sex, and halfway through, he wants anal or she just wants to stop, but he forces her. He denies it, saying everything was consensual. She reports it that night or the next morning. What do we do then?

I don't want just any student being able to successfully accuse any student. It must be someone that person at least chose to touch sexual.
I don't want students being able to successfully accuse someone for something that happened 6 months ago. By then, I would strongly suspect they are just upset about something else.
But if we know sex happened, and she reports it promptly, and she says she wanted to stop but he would not let her, what do we do then? I realize siding with the accuser lets any woman get a guy expelled easily if she is willing to at least let him start or at least go to his place.
Agreeing beforehand does not mean she can't change her mind mid session. If she says she did, it makes the previous agreement irrelevant. He would need an approving text message afterward to defend himself, that or have a tape of the event that sounded like all went well. She could still say he scared her into silence, but I don't think we are asking too much for her to at least say no once.
Absent a tape, I think it is wrong to brand him a rapist, but it is not the end of his life if he is told to transfer elsewhere and take incompletes for his courses at his expense. That is expensive to him for so little proof, but what other way do we have to fight back against rapists?
Currently, conduct hearings do far worse than that. They grill guys with irrelevant questions, call them rapists, and don't let them present their case, then officially expel them and officially finding them responsible for sexual misconduct. Likely they get F's in their classes, or at least W's.

 

affirmative consent is a bad law concerning traditional relations but okay for general advances, government mandated chastity belts are better since consent will never be mistaken.