Do you think Affirmative Consent is a good sex law?

California, New York, and Connecticut passed similar laws for affirmative consent on college campuses. New Jersey is also working on one. Most colleges already have such a law under pressure from the current administration.

Many older people seem OK with anything that outlaws their grand kids in college from having sex, including strict uni-sex dorms. But is threatening your grandsons with rape records a good way to keep them from having consensual premarital sex?

Affirmative Consent mandates that students ask permission and get a yes before each and every touch during a sex act, including kisses and groping. If they ever think their partner likes them and would like another kiss, but don't ask, it is sexual assault. It does not matter if the kiss is welcomed at the time. All that matters is that they did not ask first and get a yes. Previous permission is not relevant.

Many students have been suspended for 2 semester for sex misconduct because they kissed their partner. The accusation often comes months and sometimes years after the fact, usually during a break up. The school does not care when it happened. They take all accusations equally seriously. I wonder if someone gave an ultimatum that they are breaking up if they don't get sex, if that would count as coercion at most schools.

Now, I don't think a guy should be able to do whatever he wants and escape punishment because she did not say no first. People should have to ask to start and ask at major steps at least the first few times they do it. Telling people they must ask every 10 seconds is violating their freedom of expression and speech and privacy. The only way for them to guarantee they are acting legally is to ask even when they strongly believe their action would be welcome. That does not stop someone from lying about unwelcomeness later.

If someone wants her partner to ask every time, she should be able to tell him to, and that should carry the same weight as a pre-imptive no. Absent her telling him that at some point, before that point, the default should be that he asks the first time, and she says no for following touches of similar type.

 

Also, do you think the law should apply to all adults?

Why did the legislatures pass it for adults on college campuses but not others?

Should the law apply inside of marriage? If so, does that pressure non-married couples to get married so they can have one less law on them?

 

If that's what the law requires it's the most bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane thing I've ever heard.

 

It can get into a nebulous gray zone when the woman has been drinking at a party.
I think the man virtually always knows exactly whether the female is providing her consent, but this can sometimes be difficult to prove after the fact.

 

It goes way beyond this. The law seems to expect teenagers and young adults to behave in a businesslike manner while hormones are flooding their brains. It's an idiotic idea that ignores reality.

 

It doesn't mandate an exchange of notarized documents or the like, so in the absence of that, it still comes down to he/she said in the event of a later criminal allegation. (Assuming there are no witnesses.)

It looks to me more like political/legal posturing than anything particularly meaningful.

 

Some schools spell it out, most stay vague. But the political activists who push it spell it out exactly how I describe, though I admit they are not the actual school. Also, stories I read by journalists claiming to quote men who wish to remain anonymous say that this is how it is interpreted. On the surface, getting consent sounds very good.

I agree they know when something won't be approved. They do it anyway and say they thought she would consent. We definitely need something much more detailed than just no means no or first time yes means yes. But the current definition makes everyone a sexual assaulter. We need to spell out clearly just want we want the rules to be so they can't be gotten around by the drunk guys but still don't unreasonably impose on people's sex lives.

 

Perhaps before you kiss a girl, you should have to connect to the bureau of sexual hygiene in Washington and talk to a bureaucrat on camera for a few minutes to establish that the kiss will be consensual. Of course, please wait 4-6 weeks for approval.

The Fascists are at it again. They should be resisted through all available means or we'll end up in a mass grave soon enough.

 

State funded colleges in my state have been instructed by the education finance committee of the legislature that anything resembling suspension of or bias of due process/equal protection will be a fast way to $0 of state funding. Good for them, and such rules surely qualify. Any parent of male children who remains in one of those regressive states that has passed laws like this, or sends their male child to college in one of these states is a moron.

These laws are bald-faced discrimination, nothing more, and are flagrantly violative of several Constitutional rights.

Oh, and just so people understand where these laws come from and who creates them behind the scenes, they are created by LAWYERS, plaintiff's LAWYERS, who are constantly manipulating our justice system in clandestine ways to create the next new lawsuit gravy train. That's right, when you support laws like this, or even remain in states that pass them, you are helping lawyers line their pockets. Oh, you don't hear much about this kind of scam? Guess who funds a huge chunk of the Democratic Party and the gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex? Wonder why we don't hear more about it...

 

I think the answer is mandatory orgies. Lots of witnesses. Sorry. I couldn't resist. The whole idea of regulating sex on a college campus is, well, I can't come up with anything better than bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane. I think rape is clearly and thoroughly defined. It's not a consensual act. This policy turns consensual sex into rape. Where is the point of no return where yes can't become no? Does such a point even exist in this whacked policy?

 

Yep, law is a growth industry. Thanks. We do need to be reminded of this. Let's not be so partisan, though. Plenty of Republican pockets are being stuffed too. Maybe not so much by trial lawyers, but certainly by other interests.

 

as described in your post that sounds stupid, hope the bill is not also as stupid

"No means no is better" was my vote

laws like this will just make more young people be put on the sex offender list that have no business being on there

....

 

Do you have links to the actual legislation? I mean, I presume you read them before commenting on what they say.

I very much doubt that’s actually what they say or how they’d be interpreted.

How many? Do you have any actual examples of this?

I’m sorry to sound so untrusting and cynical but you’ve set an unfortunate precedent with previous threads.

 

Welcome to Washington DC, where the bastards have no real life experience but their actions have real life consequences.

 

If you're a guy on campus, avoid interacting with fellow female students in a non-classroom setting.
A night of bad sex isn't worth ending up in some Title IX Kangaroo Court, ran by bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy Marxist.

 

Would I have to ask permission before each thrust of my penis?

 

If you kiss a woman...is she agreeing to have sex?

If she allows you to touch her breast...does that give you the right to think you can enter her vagina with your penis?

If she allows you to touch her vagina...are all bets off and you can do whatever you want?

 

Missed point, ignored point, equivalence is false.

80-90% (if not more) of trial lawyers are Democrats and contribute heavily to Democrats. A large majority of other lawyers are Democrats. They know where their bread is buttered and which side is most amenable to graft. That's where these types of laws come from, enabled by useful idiots like campus feminists and SJWs. Lawyers are behind it all though. To restate, a vote for Democrats is a vote for trial lawyers, the ones on television constantly encouraging fake lawsuits.

 

I didn't miss any point. I actually agreed with you. I'm merely pointing out that both sides have their share of pocket stuffers. Do you disagree?

 

It's silliness. The only thing we need is "no means no."

 

I think people should ask permission before inserting a penis in a vagina, unless she specifically says he no longer needs to ask. I also think they should ask before the first time kissing someone. For future kisses, it should be a no means no default with a broad range of signals that are recognized as no, unless one of them says they want yes means yes with that person. I think I'm the only moderate on this issue.

 

They do not say you have to do that. They just say it is the responsibility of the perpetrator to be sure of consent, not the responsibility of the victim to say stop.

I've interviewed many proponents of affirmative consent. They say it means he needs to be attentive. But the case is not decided on what a reasonable person would infer at the time. It is decided based on did he ask before the moment she now says she objected to.

I agree he should pay attention and should stop before she says no if there are clues a reasonable person would notice. He also should ask before insertion. I also think many guy proceed when they know she does not want him too, and use no means no as their loophole. I just think the affirmative consent law is too vague and too simple and too strict and needs much modification.

 

HonestJoe,
In prior threads I stated how the wording of laws could be interpretted and that I don't trust administrators in secret trials with their own procedures. You stated the is ok as vaguely worded and that I need to learn to trust judicial discretion. Nothing has changed since then.

The state laws can easily be Googled. I'll post them once I'm off my phone. Most telling is the Obama administration's definition of affirmative consent, which my school and many others use.

It says
knowing agreement to engage in sexual activity at each step.
How can you know unless you ask? Why did they use the word step instead of the word escallation?

 

[MENTION=51921]HonestJoe[/MENTION]
Why don't you vote in my poll for option #2?
[MENTION=69927]Lesh[/MENTION]
Why don't you vote in the poll for option #1?

 

Well, according to this definition, I'm a serial rapist who should have dozens of rape charges on my record

Total nonsense. Having a girl kiss you or put her hand in your pants is consent enough, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm beginning to think that the people who come up with these laws have horrible sex lives, and they may even be virgins. A healthy sex life, or history of one, may need to be included in the list of qualifications for office.