http://news.msn.com/us/california-adopts-yes-means-yes-sex-assault-rule
Under the new law, rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
** “Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent!” **
Can you believe this shit? I’m glad I’m happily married. I cannot imagine being a college student here.
This is what happens when liberals run amok.
This is the single weirdest cockblock I have ever seen.
Getting laid in college just got beyond strange.
So I guess screaming and active resistance is right out.
Lots of crazy drugs out there along with crazy women. I can see the validity of this, but there’s also a lot of women who make bullshit claims to keep their reputations in line, or do stupid shit like make claims they slept with men to make their current men jealous.
How romantic/ smooth is it going to be when you bust out your cell phone and ask her to perform a sobriety test and consent to sex?
Better get that verbal “yes” recorded with her stating her name or written down with a signature AND notary to make sure you didn’t forge it. She can always come back and deny ever saying “yes” and that you are making it up.
Maybe someday when the thought police are implemented, fantasizing about a girl will be crime because she didn’t consent to the sex you had with her in your head.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Maybe someday when the thought police are implemented, fantasizing about a girl will be crime because she didn’t consent to the sex you had with her in your head.
[/quote]
What kind of time am I looking at here? I mean… ahh, is someone who would do such a thing looking at here?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
Maybe someday when the thought police are implemented, fantasizing about a girl will be crime because she didn’t consent to the sex you had with her in your head.
[/quote]
What kind of time am I looking at here? I mean… ahh, is someone who would do such a thing looking at here?[/quote]
Purge your thoughts now to be on the safe side. You never know, the crime of a “thought rape” may be prosecutable retroactively.
Although, you may be OK if, in your fantasy, you ask for permission first and you fantasize about her saying “yes”.
Just speculating…
I dunno. Is it really so outlandish? Does anybody in this thread actually believe that being too drunk/stoned to know what’s happening and say “no”/resist should constitute consent?
I don’t doubt that abuses take place in the area of false accusations etc, but this law (at least the parts quoted in the OP) doesn’t seem all that ridiculous.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I dunno. Is it really so outlandish? Does anybody in this thread actually believe that being too drunk/stoned to know what’s happening and say “no”/resist should constitute consent?
I don’t doubt that abuses take place in the area of false accusations etc, but this law (at least the parts quoted in the OP) doesn’t seem all that ridiculous.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. It appears that this is a blanket type law. It’s not JUST for drunk girls who are out of it and get taken advantage of. It’s for anyone. Even if she’s sober, you both get it on, and the next day regrets it and cries rape, if she didn’t say “yes I will have sex with you”, then you raped her.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I dunno. Is it really so outlandish? Does anybody in this thread actually believe that being too drunk/stoned to know what’s happening and say “no”/resist should constitute consent?
I don’t doubt that abuses take place in the area of false accusations etc, but this law (at least the parts quoted in the OP) doesn’t seem all that ridiculous.[/quote]
I went to college, and while there frat parties. I know the intent of the law, and the intent is a good one. (Although not partying in that situation, and rather a safe place with people you trust is a much better preventative.)
But you know the saying about paths paved with good intentions.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I dunno. Is it really so outlandish? Does anybody in this thread actually believe that being too drunk/stoned to know what’s happening and say “no”/resist should constitute consent?
I don’t doubt that abuses take place in the area of false accusations etc, but this law (at least the parts quoted in the OP) doesn’t seem all that ridiculous.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. It appears that this is a blanket type law. It’s not JUST for drunk girls who are out of it and get taken advantage of. It’s for anyone. Even if she’s sober, you both get it on, and the next day regrets it and cries rape, if she didn’t say “yes I will have sex with you”, then you raped her.
[/quote]
Yeah, I can see that. Next step is you need a written consent agreement signed and notarized.
So I mean, what do you do now?
Get her number and text her: “Hey, I just meet you, and this is crazy, but I want to bone”
And she has to write back: “Yes, that sounds like a grand time fine gentleman.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So I mean, what do you do now?
Get her number and text her: “Hey, I just meet you, and this is crazy, but I want to bone”
And she has to write back: “Yes, that sounds like a grand time fine gentleman.”
[/quote]
Too ambiguous.
I’m imagining a Judge Judy clone being like, “What is this ‘bone’ you speak of? Sorry that’s not consent.”
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So I mean, what do you do now?
Get her number and text her: “Hey, I just meet you, and this is crazy, but I want to bone”
And she has to write back: “Yes, that sounds like a grand time fine gentleman.”
[/quote]
Too ambiguous.
I’m imagining a Judge Judy clone being like, “What is this ‘bone’ you speak of? Sorry that’s not consent.”
[/quote]
“Sexual intercourse” sounds so sexy.
I wonder if “fuck you till your legs wobble” would fly.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
http://news.msn.com/us/california-adopts-yes-means-yes-sex-assault-rule
Under the new law, rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
** “Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent!” **
Can you believe this shit? I’m glad I’m happily married. I cannot imagine being a college student here.
This is what happens when liberals run amok.[/quote]
So, if someone is “intoxicated” they cannot consent.
So, I guess if two people are drunk at a party and have sex, they both committed rape under this new rule.
Good thing mutually-drunk hook ups never happen in college.
In seriousness, this is the dumbest law I’ve ever seen written, and I’ve seen a few.
Of course, what will happen is men will be selectively prosecuted under this new law by girls who just did a “walk of shame” and decide to regret it.
On the bright side, this will make a lot of work for lawyers, which I appreciate. Full employment guarantee and make our LA office that much more profitable.
Gee-whiz, guys, this rule might occasionally be abused, but does that mean it’s not a good one? Is the possibility of saving one drunk slut at a frat party from engaging in an activity that she may later regret not worth sacrificing numerous young men that had no ill intent and did nothing wrong? You guys surely trust the criminal justice system and juries to make fair decisions when dealing with this law, right?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So I mean, what do you do now?
Get her number and text her: “Hey, I just meet you, and this is crazy, but I want to bone”
And she has to write back: “Yes, that sounds like a grand time fine gentleman.”
[/quote]
Too ambiguous.
I’m imagining a Judge Judy clone being like, “What is this ‘bone’ you speak of? Sorry that’s not consent.”
[/quote]
“Sexual intercourse” sounds so sexy.
I wonder if “fuck you till your legs wobble” would fly. [/quote]
I’d be entertaining to hear that sentence read aloud in court at the very least.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I dunno. Is it really so outlandish? Does anybody in this thread actually believe that being too drunk/stoned to know what’s happening and say “no”/resist should constitute consent?
I don’t doubt that abuses take place in the area of false accusations etc, but this law (at least the parts quoted in the OP) doesn’t seem all that ridiculous.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. It appears that this is a blanket type law. It’s not JUST for drunk girls who are out of it and get taken advantage of. It’s for anyone. Even if she’s sober, you both get it on, and the next day regrets it and cries rape, if she didn’t say “yes I will have sex with you”, then you raped her.
[/quote]
Yeah, I can see that. Next step is you need a written consent agreement signed and notarized. [/quote]
Which is exactly what I wrote in my first post.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
Gee-whiz, guys, this rule might occasionally be abused, but does that mean it’s not a good one? Is the possibility of saving one drunk slut at a frat party from engaging in an activity that she may later regret not worth sacrificing numerous young men that had no ill intent and did nothing wrong? You guys surely trust the criminal justice system and juries to make fair decisions when dealing with this law, right? [/quote]
As a lawyer, I recommend a written, notarized, consent, a blood test and breathlizer prior to intercourse (to confirm non-intoxication), and filming every sexual encounter to confirm that the written consent was not withdrawn at any time.
Also, don’t sleep with that Lebanese girl I slept with in the IDF who would scream “no, no, nooooo, no, no, no, YESSSSSSS” as she orgasmed. Too confusing.
Also, if I withdrew at the first “no” she would have killed me.
[quote]cueball wrote:
Better get that verbal “yes” recorded with her stating her name or written down with a signature AND notary to make sure you didn’t forge it. She can always come back and deny ever saying “yes” and that you are making it up.
Maybe someday when the thought police are implemented, fantasizing about a girl will be crime because she didn’t consent to the sex you had with her in your head.
[/quote]
You only believe that because you are part of the patriarchy, whatever the Hell that is.