Only in California - Sexual Activity First Needs "Affirmative Consent" From Sober Parties

[Toni]

Now only the last item is actually wrong. The rest is merely persuasion. To say (as for example the infamous Ms. Magazine "study" of college rape does) that trying to change a woman's mind about sex is tantamount to "rape" is the real problematic thing here.

It depends entirely on how the person was going about trying to change a woman's mind about sex. There are a lot of women, usually very young ones, who are not used to standing up for themselves, or who fear being hurt more if they protest so they give in to get it over with and to avoid greater physical trauma.

But I agree: seduction is not the same thing as rape, assuming that everyone is of legal age, there are no inappropriate positions of authority which would unduly influence the situation, no one is too drunk to understand what is going on or too drunk to be able to stand up for him/herself.

I won't even go into the discussion about the fact that it does not need to be painful and that some women enjoy it except to say that at least some young people who are sexually active are not overly disturbed by the notion that (some) sex hurts (some) women and that is ok, to be expected and that males should not be expected to either abstain from hurtful sexual practices nor ensure that their partner is comfortable and able to enjoy the experience.

This thread is not about "best practices" or what people in loving (or even liking) relationships should do, but about what counts as "sexual assault". It's the same problem as demanding "enthusiastic consent". That is ok as something to strive to as a best case scenario but not something to demand as a minimum to make a sexual event not a "sexual assault". "Reluctant consent" or "halfhearted consent" is still consent.

I was speaking about attitudes. If the pervasive attitude is that women don't enjoy sex or only enjoy sex if drunk, then why not rape them? Obviously, they 'want it' and don't expect to enjoy it so why not dispense with the hypocrisy and just take what you want? Except that's rape.

It does make me wonder how widespread this attitude is and if it extends to other sexual practices. Is there a general belief that many/most women don't enjoy sex unless they are drunk? Or passed out?

There is a big difference between being merely "drunk" and "passed out". To conflate these two is a big problem in these discussions. But both genders often enjoy alcohol consumption in conjunction with sexual activity, especially with strangers. Here there is again the double standard of treating drunk women as "victims" but equally drunk men as "predators".

On the contrary: I am not conflating drunk with passed out. I am saying that one does not have to be passed out to be too drunk to consent. There is a very big difference between being slightly tipsy and black out drunk and passed out drunk, with many stops in between. One does not need to be passed out to be 'too drunk.' It seems that common sense would be that noticeably slurring words or stumbling is obviously too drunk.

Is there a general belief that sex is something that males must beg for, or even force and that this is somehow acceptable?

Why are you trying to equate begging for sex with forcing someone to have sex against their will? If you convince a female to (pity) fuck you because you begged her more power to you and it's perfectly consensual sex, forcing her isn't. The two could not be more different.
But in a nutshell, on the average men want sex more and have orders of magnitude harder job actually getting sex than women. As such it is often necessary to persuade, seduce, beg, bargain or outright pay women to have sex with us. Those are still 100% consensual. Unfortunately some men also cross the line into forcing women to have sex or taking advantage of them when they are unable to consent (either actively or opportunistically). Men usually have to work hard to get sex. But you should not equate consensual and non-consensual means just because they both involve work on the man's part and the women don't initiate it.

Crossing that line into forcing women to have sex and taking advantage of them when they are unable to have consent is rape. It's not 'just one of those things; that happens because a guy's sex drive is so strong.

I certainly am not equating consensual and non-consensual: that is rape, btw.

That women who decline are uptight (this is what women were told when I was young) or if they do have sex, they are promiscuous sluts who have by default accepted sex with anyone who wishes to have sex with her, especially if it's a good looking athlete or wealthy student?

Who is saying all that?

It's in the article about anal sex that I linked. I find it very disheartening that that particular canard is still being used to pressure unwilling participants into having sex they aren't interested in.

 

[RavenSky]

It's the same problem as demanding "enthusiastic consent". That is ok as something to strive to as a best case scenario but not something to demand as a minimum to make a sexual event not a "sexual assault". "Reluctant consent" or "halfhearted consent" is still consent.

Um, no. Just no. No woman (or man) should ever be made to feel like they have to give "reluctant consent" because, frankly, that is not consent at all. What the fuck kind of partner would even accept "reluctant consent"?

Would you? Seriously, I'd love an answer from every person here that apparently has issues with the concept of "affirmative consent" or "enthusiastic consent" - would you fuck a man or woman that you know really does not want to have sex but "reluctantly consents"?

 

[Toni]

What is "strange to me" is the pointless promotion of a litigious non-solution to the so-called campus "rape crisis". You see, there ARE THREE elements to this issue:

First, is there really a rape culture and crisis on college campuses or is this just another confabulated feminist issue?

I live in a college town. Students have been back for about a week now. So far, there have been 3 attempted sexual assaults which have been reported in local news. Which is 3 more than have been reported during the entire time students were not on campus.

Actually, what is most remarkable to me is that these assaults were reported in the newspapers. Usually, such assaults are kept pretty quiet, just as most suicide attempts and most cases of death by acute alcohol poisoning are kept pretty quiet. But since it's not a very big town, people hear--just not through news channels.

Second, even if there were a 'rape crisis' does does affirmative consent address it or does it merely spawn more ambiguous 'buyers regret' paybacks?

It seems to me that it would lessen 'buyers remorse' as you so charmingly put it. The expectations are more clearly spelled out:

Exactly how did you know that she wanted you to continue, Mr. Jones?

It will still come down to who is more believable.

Third, even if there is a crisis, and affirmative consent addresses the problem, is it practicable or tolerable in a liberal society?

I cannot see how it is tolerable to NOT insist on affirmative consent.

As no one in this thread really cares if the crisis is real (although I have demonstrated it is not), for the sake of argument let's pretend that is. If so, just how likely is it that rape is due to a confusion over mutual desires ? Do you think that rape or sexual assaults occur because of mixed signals or blurred communication?.

I believe that most people in this thread do care about the prevalence of sexual assaults, and such assaults on/near college campuses. I also don't believe that you have 'demonstrated that the crisis is not real.

Rape and sexual assault are crimes of violence, often induced by alcohol, not a failure to communicate.

I agree, although studies have shown that most rapists are not drunk when they commit their crimes.

It serves no legitimate purpose, and even supporters of the bill have admitted that sexual violence is not the result of mixed signals: studies show that people who commit sexual violence are almost always aware that they are intentional and directed at more compliant women (e.g. those drunk or "round heeled") rather than a product of of “blurred” communications. (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/05/3364041/new-study-blurred-lines-alcohol/)

I would think that men as well as women would welcome a clarification of expectations.

Finally "affirmative consent" is impracticable and illiberal. It is a non-specific jumble of characterizations, unmoored to specifics:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml

SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:

...The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

To the contrary: it's fairly specific.

So rather than accept the natural progression of romance and/or seduction (by either party) the government regulators intrudes on the privacy of student sex lives to impose a required and repeated "affirmative consent" - from start to finish.

You are being silly. The statute states explicitly that consent can be removed at any time: either party can change his or her mind and the other must respect that.

Worse yet, the law is vague and, and if taken literally, is absurd. Rhea (and perhaps others) do not believe it requires verbal consent. Really? We know what it is NOT: silence or compliance. And the law specifically states it has to be a "voluntary agreement", repeatedly given for each and every activity of an evening. So one wonders, if not verbally, how else does one obtain these voluntary agreements, via Morse code?

I don't think you really believe what you are asserting.

Perhaps those who celebrated the right of privacy, the banishment of government from our bedrooms when it comes to birth control or sodomy ought to be asking themselves how to justify the new intrusions of the regulatory state mandating procedures in sexual relations. Don't you think?

What intrusion? It simply outlines explicitly what was already in place and makes it harder for one party to assert that the other one was into it because they didn't scream and try to fight them off.

 

[Rhea]

I am still no better informed about how you would prove affirmative consent.

The commerce example is easy to prove. You either signed something, or handed your credit pin over, or you verbally said 'yes' on the phone and it was recorded. Name specifics about how you would prove affirmative consent in sexual encounters.

Not just examples of what it is (though you've only given a shadowy outline of that anyway) but how you would prove it.

Just like any other crime, you may not be able to "prove" your alibi. Rape isn't a special crime that gives extra-special get-out-of-jail-free cards when your alibi is not airtight. Why should it? Why do you think it should be the ONLY crime that allows conviction only when there is _absolute_ proof? I honestly do not know why you think this crime is so special.

The burden is that you have tyo have gotten actual consent, which is helpfully now spelled out as "affirmative" which means yes-affirming in some way.

Now, if someone brings charges, you should spell out what you did to get "affirmative consent" and then the court can decide if your "alibi" is believable.

Some people's alibis are not airtight, but they still create a "reasonable doubt" so they get off. (Some of those people are guilty). Some people's alibis are not airtight and they get convicted (some of these people are innocent) because their alibi is just not terribly convincing.

This is common practice in many cases of many different kinds of crimes. But you're saying that in THIS case, the case of rape, a person should be able to just say their alibi and be acquitted? Even if the alibi is not even an alibi?


Two things going on here:
1. Some people - MANY, according to the news reports of their excuses - seem to actually think that frightened silence is consent. This law spells out for those self-centered pricks that IT IS NOT, and they will face a trial if they operate on it. And tries to draw out, like it's being told to a child, what actually counts as consent. That it has to be actively and obviously wanting the action. Wanting. Affirmatively. Yes-appearing. Because some self-centered pricks don't seem to get this as a basic (and really, extremely easy to acquire) standard of what actual consent actually means.

2. All people would need to explain, if they were brought up on charges, what actually happened to make them believe that they got consent. Some of these will be very believable. It may echo words that others have heard, it may be clearly in the accuser's type of language. It may have been partially overheard. Some of these will not be believable at all. Because it might be accompanied by bruises, or be contrary to basic tenets of the other person's personality, or be backed up by witnesses, or be outside of the accuser's vocabulary. The court will hear what is presented as the defense - and decide if it sounds like a convincing case of actually thinking affirmative consent was given.


But this law helps to define what level you're going to be asked if you tried to get. And that is ongoing yes-appearing WANT for the activity. "Affirmative consent".


And it is really easy to give and get. I'm plumb flummoxed by this idea that finding out whether your partner actually wants sex seems so foreign and difficult for so many of you. I am simply stumped. I do not get this mindset AT ALL. Can you really honestly not envision how two or more people could communicate desire and want that is unambiguous? What a frighteningly insecure world!

 

[Rhea]

...The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

So rather than accept the natural progression of romance and/or seduction (by either party) the government regulators intrudes on the privacy of student sex lives to impose a required and repeated "affirmative consent" - from start to finish.

Worse yet, the law is vague and, and if taken literally, is absurd. Rhea (and perhaps others) do not believe it requires verbal consent. Really? We know what it is NOT: silence or compliance. And the law specifically states it has to be a "voluntary agreement", repeatedly given for each and every activity of an evening. So one wonders, if not verbally, how else does one obtain these voluntary agreements, via Morse code?

Perhaps those who celebrated the right of privacy, the banishment of government from our bedrooms when it comes to birth control or sodomy ought to be asking themselves how to justify the new intrusions of the regulatory state mandating procedures in sexual relations. Don't you think?

You really honestly cannot think of a way to express desire and want absolutely unambiguously without words? You're watching the wrong kind of porn.

You're nitpicking trying to find any way to worm out of just seeing the spirit of the law and realizing how incredibly easy it is to get affirmative constent. Yeah it says silence does not mean consent. But if you say to a jury, "she didn't say 'yes' verbally, but she did crawl onto my lap, she did beckon me with her finger to 'come closer' she did take my penis and guide it to her vagina," you're going to have demonstrated affirmative consent.

She can be still, but saying yes, please. She can be silent but not still and actively pulling you closer. Nit pick all you want trying to find ways to conclude sex with people who don't want it will not be wrong. But damn, you're making me sense that you are exactly the kind of audience that needs it spelled out in crayon on a barn wall what doesn't mean "yes."

 

[Bronzeage]

It's the same problem as demanding "enthusiastic consent". That is ok as something to strive to as a best case scenario but not something to demand as a minimum to make a sexual event not a "sexual assault". "Reluctant consent" or "halfhearted consent" is still consent.

Um, no. Just no. No woman (or man) should ever be made to feel like they have to give "reluctant consent" because, frankly, that is not consent at all. What the fuck kind of partner would even accept "reluctant consent"?

Would you? Seriously, I'd love an answer from every person here that apparently has issues with the concept of "affirmative consent" or "enthusiastic consent" - would you fuck a man or woman that you know really does not want to have sex but "reluctantly consents"?

What the fuck kind of partner?

Let's see. That would be the kind who has little concern for their partners needs, desires or problems. The kind of person who doesn't have time to do laundry, so takes clean underwear from his roommate's dresser. On one end of the spectrum, this is a sociopath, on the other end, just an asshole. Take a guy who has a general hostility toward women because of their repeated failure to recognise his finer qualities, combine this with his certain knowledge she would "do it" with anyone else and we have our garden variety date rapist, who thinks any woman who doesn't claw at his eyeballs, really wants it.

We could call all this protest over "affirmative consent", the asshole's reputation preservation movement. If a guy had a reputation of waiting until a potential partner was impaired before making a move, he might be subjected to some inverse slut shaming.

 

[Derec]

I agree, although studies have shown that most rapists are not drunk when they commit their crimes.

Most actual rapists might not be, but most "rapists" certainly are if you use the feminazi definition that "drunk is rape" (but only for females). Most college cases where a man was expelled for bullshit "she was too drunk to consent if she consumed any amount of alcohol and then made a rape claim" (UGA, Vassar etc.) involved a man that was drinking as well. The Athens, Ohio case where a female was orally pleasured against a Chase Bank window and returned the favor by filing a (this time criminal) complained that luckily went nowhere involved both people being very drunk.

 

[Derec]

Um, no. Just no. No woman (or man) should ever be made to feel like they have to give "reluctant consent" because, frankly, that is not consent at all.

No, consent is consent. Trying to circumscribe consent ever tighter is turning ever more consensual sex into "rapes" and feminazis just love it because deep down they think all heterosexual sex is rape anyway.
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"
Marilyn French

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
Andrea Dworkin

"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks."
Andrea Dworkin

And so on.

What the fuck kind of partner would even accept "reluctant consent"?
Would you? Seriously, I'd love an answer from every person here that apparently has issues with the concept of "affirmative consent" or "enthusiastic consent" - would you fuck a man or woman that you know really does not want to have sex but "reluctantly consents"?

This is not about what I or anybody else would do. This is about defining sexual assault vs. consensual sex. Would you really want to prosecute people (or only men to be consistent with the feminist theory and practice) because their partner has not consented enthusiastically enough? How enthusiastic is enthusiastic enough to avoid prosecution? How would you even measure such a thing?

Reluctant consent, consent given for other considerations (including straight monetary exchange) and any other consent which can not be described as "enthusiastic consent" is still consent, which means it's nowhere near sexual assault.

 

[ksen]

And it is really easy to give and get. I'm plumb flummoxed by this idea that finding out whether your partner actually wants sex seems so foreign and difficult for so many of you. I am simply stumped. I do not get this mindset AT ALL. Can you really honestly not envision how two or more people could communicate desire and want that is unambiguous? What a frighteningly insecure world!

That's not the part that is flummoxing most people disagreeing with you in this thread. The part that is flummoxing is trying to figure out how you'd prove under this law that you received affirmative consent should one party much later decide to press charges.

If it was just he said/she said before I don't see how this alleviates that problem.

 

[ksen]

You really honestly cannot think of a way to express desire and want absolutely unambiguously without words?

Just to reiterate, it's not that I can't think of ways to express desire and want unambiguously and to recognize those same things in my partner it's how would I, or she for that matter, prove it before a court or university tribunal?

 

[Derec]

And it is really easy to give and get. I'm plumb flummoxed by this idea that finding out whether your partner actually wants sex seems so foreign and difficult for so many of you. I am simply stumped. I do not get this mindset AT ALL. Can you really honestly not envision how two or more people could communicate desire and want that is unambiguous? What a frighteningly insecure world!

No, that's not what flummoxes people. It's the having to prove one has done this when falsely accused without being able to confront the accuser or use any communication between us and the accuser as evidence.
Remember in the UGA, UNC and Vassar cases the accused had communication with the false accuser showing that the sex was consensual (and that the accusers weren't "too drunk to consent") and in each case the campus inquisition deemed those communications as irrelevant. In the UNC case they even deemed the false accuser being charged for filing a false report by the police as "irrelevant". This law is just making it even easier to expel male students on dodgy to non-existing evidence.

 

[Toni]

And it is really easy to give and get. I'm plumb flummoxed by this idea that finding out whether your partner actually wants sex seems so foreign and difficult for so many of you. I am simply stumped. I do not get this mindset AT ALL. Can you really honestly not envision how two or more people could communicate desire and want that is unambiguous? What a frighteningly insecure world!

No, that's not what flummoxes people. It's the having to prove one has done this when falsely accused without being able to confront the accuser or use any communication between us and the accuser as evidence.
Remember in the UGA, UNC and Vassar cases the accused had communication with the false accuser showing that the sex was consensual (and that the accusers weren't "too drunk to consent") and in each case the campus inquisition deemed those communications as irrelevant. In the UNC case they even deemed the false accuser being charged for filing a false report by the police as "irrelevant". This law is just making it even easier to expel male students on dodgy to non-existing evidence.

Actually, this will make it easier for accused students to defend themselves as it provides a structure and a script, really, of what should be taking place and what they need to be able to testify happened.

In cases of acquaintance rape and indeed, most rape, it boils down to who is more believable.

 

[Derec]

Actually, this will make it easier for accused students to defend themselves as it provides a structure and a script, really, of what should be taking place and what they need to be able to testify happened.

I don't think so.

In cases of acquaintance rape and indeed, most rape, it boils down to who is more believable.

But it shouldn't. It should boil down to actual evidence, that should not be arbitrarily discounted by the inquisitors. And men should be allowed to fully defend themselves using such evidence (including questioning the accuser). That colleges deem evidence like a text message by the accuser saying that she "had a great time" as "irrelevant" is a disgrace and a travesty!

 

[Rhea]

And it is really easy to give and get. I'm plumb flummoxed by this idea that finding out whether your partner actually wants sex seems so foreign and difficult for so many of you. I am simply stumped. I do not get this mindset AT ALL. Can you really honestly not envision how two or more people could communicate desire and want that is unambiguous? What a frighteningly insecure world!

That's not the part that is flummoxing most people disagreeing with you in this thread. The part that is flummoxing is trying to figure out how you'd prove under this law that you received affirmative consent should one party much later decide to press charges.

If it was just he said/she said before I don't see how this alleviates that problem.

Some people on this thread have questioned, "how am I supposed to get affirmative consent without it being weird or awkward?"
Other people have asked, "how am I supposed to prove it?"

To the first group: "how am I supposed to get affirmative consent without it being weird or awkward?" start by learning that communicating with your partner is not awkward, unless you're afraid of the answer. Lots of suggestions have been given from asking "you like that?" to sitting back 5 inches and seeing if s/he closes the gap. About a hundred more suggestions have been given in this and other threads. We could start a dedicated thread in the lounge to discuss sexy things people can do during sex if people want.

To the second group: To avoid being a vandal, make sure you don't knowingly damage someone else's property. Understand that public property, while partly "yours" isn't actually "yours" and needs to be included in this group. Make sure you understand that toppling over rock formations is considered vandalism. There is no guarantee that you will not be accused of vandalism, even if you have not committed vandalism. If you do get accused, you will have to explain what you know about vandalism and what evidence you have that you haven't knowingly committed vandalism. But it's an excellent idea to not get on the stand and argue, "well, who's to say what's vandalism, if I shift the rock formation by an inch but it doesn't fall, or if I just lean on it and it falls, how was I supposed to know that's vandalism or that people might object to it? What if the definition of vandalism convicts me even if all the people on my facebook page don't think this should be called vandalism?" Once you present your claim of whether you were even present for the vandalism, or whether what you did should be prosecuted as vandalism, you may or may not be believed and you may or may not be wrong about whether you broke a law but no one anywhere is ever guaranteed a favorable outcome just because they say they didn't do it and it shouldn't have been vandalism anyway.


This statute about rape and "having to prove your innocence" is no different from most other crimes. It might reduce the amount of sex some people get. It will probably only reduce sex for those who actually do not have an accurate idea of whether their partner really wants sex. Cockblocking is a fairly benign price to pay for reduction in rape. Some people disagree with that. I do not understand them.

 

[ksen]

That's not the part that is flummoxing most people disagreeing with you in this thread. The part that is flummoxing is trying to figure out how you'd prove under this law that you received affirmative consent should one party much later decide to press charges.

If it was just he said/she said before I don't see how this alleviates that problem.

Some people on this thread have questioned, "how am I supposed to get affirmative consent without it being weird or awkward?"
Other people have asked, "how am I supposed to prove it?"

Well, then those people are idiots. Because it's the easiest thing in the world to find out if your partner really wants to have sex or not.

What's not so easy is if things turn sour later and you have to prove it before an official proceeding.

To the first group: "how am I supposed to get affirmative consent without it being weird or awkward?" start by learning that communicating with your partner is not awkward, unless you're afraid of the answer. Lots of suggestions have been given from asking "you like that?" to sitting back 5 inches and seeing if s/he closes the gap. About a hundred more suggestions have been given in this and other threads. We could start a dedicated thread in the lounge to discuss sexy things people can do during sex if people want.

Protip to group #1: communicating with your partner often leads to even better sex.

To the second group: To avoid being a vandal, make sure you don't knowingly damage someone else's property. Understand that public property, while partly "yours" isn't actually "yours" and needs to be included in this group. Make sure you understand that toppling over rock formations is considered vandalism. There is no guarantee that you will not be accused of vandalism, even if you have not committed vandalism. If you do get accused, you will have to explain what you know about vandalism and what evidence you have that you haven't knowingly committed vandalism. But it's an excellent idea to not get on the stand and argue, "well, who's to say what's vandalism, if I shift the rock formation by an inch but it doesn't fall, or if I just lean on it and it falls, how was I supposed to know that's vandalism or that people might object to it? What if the definition of vandalism convicts me even if all the people on my facebook page don't think this should be called vandalism?" Once you present your claim of whether you were even present for the vandalism, or whether what you did should be prosecuted as vandalism, you may or may not be believed and you may or may not be wrong about whether you broke a law but no one anywhere is ever guaranteed a favorable outcome just because they say they didn't do it and it shouldn't have been vandalism anyway.

This group there's no arguing with because they'll always believe their shithouse lawyering is right.

This statute about rape and "having to prove your innocence" is no different from most other crimes. It might reduce the amount of sex some people get. It will probably only reduce sex for those who actually do not have an accurate idea of whether their partner really wants sex. Cockblocking is a fairly benign price to pay for reduction in rape. Some people disagree with that. I do not understand them.

For most other crimes, unless I'm forgetting some, you don't have to prove your innocence. The prosecuting party needs to prove your guilt.

 

[Rhea]

Protip to group #1: communicating with your partner often leads to even better sex.

Unless your partner was not actually into it, in which case you just saved your own ass.

This statute about rape and "having to prove your innocence" is no different from most other crimes. It might reduce the amount of sex some people get. It will probably only reduce sex for those who actually do not have an accurate idea of whether their partner really wants sex. Cockblocking is a fairly benign price to pay for reduction in rape. Some people disagree with that. I do not understand them.

For most other crimes, unless I'm forgetting some, you don't have to prove your innocence. The prosecuting party needs to prove your guilt.

It is true you do not have to prove your innocence, but you do have to answer the charges with some kind of defense. And this operates the same way. State your case on what you did to determine that you had consent. If you're accused of a robbery, you don't get to say, "I did not" and walk away. You have to present evidence in your defense. Same goes here.

Protip: If you understand what affirmative consent is, and you deliberately do things to make sure you have it, the odds of a false rape accusation reduce to near zero. And any false rape accusation that does come your way will have something big behind it like jilted lover or what-not that will be part of your defense.


Reduce your chances of a rape accusation - get affirmative consent.

 

[blastula]

I have a question for you. Did you read the OP?

Yes.

Would anyone care to answer my question? And, preferably, illustrate with examples. In particular, examples that show the difference between

i) Having consent and affirmative consent.
ii) Having consent but not affirmative consent.

I also want to know if ii) is a rape situation, and if it is better, worse, or the same as not having consent at all.

Well, it appears you missed the part that said,

Students engaging in sexual activity would first need “affirmative consent” from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person’s silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated.

Still puzzled?

 

[Metaphor]

Yes.

Would anyone care to answer my question? And, preferably, illustrate with examples. In particular, examples that show the difference between

i) Having consent and affirmative consent.
ii) Having consent but not affirmative consent.

I also want to know if ii) is a rape situation, and if it is better, worse, or the same as not having consent at all.

Well, it appears you missed the part that said,

Students engaging in sexual activity would first need “affirmative consent” from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person’s silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated.

Still puzzled?

Quite. It describes 'affirmative consent' as 'a clear threshold', even though it's simply not a clear threshold. I can describe myself as a male model with a ten-pack, but it's simply not the case.

Overall, however, the gist seems to be that the difference between sex and rape is no longer consent. It's affirmative consent. So, every time you got consent but not affirmative consent, you've raped someone.

I find it alarming that this doesn't bother more people on the thread. It should bother them.

 

[ksen]

I find it alarming that this doesn't bother more people on the thread. It should bother them.

If I were still in the meat market I probably would. However I'm married and she lets me get her drunk and rape her whenever I want to . . . plus she cooks.

 

[RavenSky]

What's not so easy is if things turn sour later and you have to prove it before an official proceeding..

. These discussions always comes down to "what if the woman is a vindictive lying bitch", don't they?

For most other crimes, unless I'm forgetting some, you don't have to prove your innocence. The prosecuting party needs to prove your guilt.

. The accused doesn't have to prove his innocence here either. Claiming she consented is a choice of defense, just like him claiming he was never there at all. Once a defense is presented, then the accused needs to present support for that defense.

All this law says is that the accused doesn't get to claim he had implied consent, he must claim (& show) affirmative consent if he chooses "she consented" as his defense. He ALWAYS had to show support for any claim of "consent". The only difference under this law is arguing that "she didn't say no" isn't good enough. He has to argue that she said "yes" (by clear word or deed)