• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

maxparrish

maxparrish

Veteran Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
2,262
Location
SF Bay Area
Basic Beliefs
Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/08/video-guide-to-new-california-affirmative-consent-law/

Last March we covered how California Seeks to Redefine Consensual Campus Sex as Rape, and we asked the question: “How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?”

It doesn’t, of course. The California affirmative consent legislation was not about preventing rapes or other sexual assaults, which already are crimes, but about redefining inter-personal relationships in accordance with radical feminist demands which always view the female as victim of the male patriarchy.

The affirmative consent obligation now is on the verge of becoming law (emphasis added):

To address the problem of rape on campuses, California colleges and universities would have to adopt a standard of unambiguous consent among students engaging in sexual activity under a proposal passed by state lawmakers Thursday.

If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, such policies would be required at all public colleges and other institutions that receive state funds for student aid. They would have to include a detailed protocol for assisting victims of sexual assault, stalking, domestic violence and date violence….

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.

Campus relationship regulation now is about the predominance of “rape culture” theory which ensnares men into kangaroo campus courts, and even opposes objective preventative measures, like “Undercover Colors” nail polish that reacts to date-rape drugs.

The normal sequence of romantic interaction now is a violation of law unless there is something more than objectively willing conduct. It’s no longer “against our will,” but rather, a matter of procedural steps imposed on willing, consensual participants in order to avoid creating a crime where none exists.

So normal consensual human interactions must be documented to prove affirmative consent.
Click to expand...
 
Thank God. I remember once back in university, I went to a baseball game with some friends and had a few beers and then went to my girlfriend's house and had sex with her. The rapist bitch didn't spend a single day in jail. :mad:

I'm glad that plagues to humanity like her will finally be properly dealt with.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Thank God. I remember once back in university, I went to a baseball game with some friends and had a few beers and then went to my girlfriend's house and had sex with her. The rapist bitch didn't spend a single day in jail. :mad:
Click to expand...
It doesn't work like that. If she had drank any alcohol you'd be a rapist but the same doesn't apply to her. Because feminism.
 
Some enterprising person should come up with an "iConsent" iPhone app.
 
dismal said:
Some enterprising person should come up with an "iConsent" iPhone app.
Click to expand...

And the app will have to keep a constant reading of current level of consent and be synced with the other person's app so they know when to pull out of the activity.
 
Derec said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Thank God. I remember once back in university, I went to a baseball game with some friends and had a few beers and then went to my girlfriend's house and had sex with her. The rapist bitch didn't spend a single day in jail. :mad:
Click to expand...
It doesn't work like that. If she had drank any alcohol you'd be a rapist but the same doesn't apply to her. Because feminism.
Click to expand...

This sad fact is why well meaning feminists are so often not taken seriously by mainstream society.
 
Bronzeage said:
I've always found it more exciting to go beyond affirmative consent and make her beg for it. Removes all the ambiguity.
Click to expand...

You're aware that no woman can really have consented to penis in vagina sex, right? Because of the patriarchy, the outward appearance of consent is no more consent than slaves are consenting to be slaves when they don't run away from the master's cotton fields.
 
What is it with guys and getting consent before you fuck somebody? Does it spoil all the fun if you know for certain your partner wants it? Is it more thrilling if you think s/he might not? Or is this a matter of easy access becoming not so easy because now you have to be considerate, and s/he has to be sober enough to tell if you're not?
 
Arctish said:
What is it with guys and getting consent before you fuck somebody? Does it spoil all the fun if you know for certain your partner wants it? Is it more thrilling if you think s/he might not? Or is this a matter of easy access becoming not so easy because now you have to be considerate, and s/he has to be sober enough to tell if you're not?
Click to expand...

I have a different question for you:

What's affirmative consent? Is it different to consent? In what situation could someone have consent but not affirmative consent?

If affirmative consent is something different to consent, would you charge someone with rape if they got consent but not affirmative consent?

If it is not different to consent, what on earth is this legislation about, except a dog and pony show that wastes everyone's time and money and hurts the cause of rape victims?
 
Metaphor said:
Arctish said:
What is it with guys and getting consent before you fuck somebody? Does it spoil all the fun if you know for certain your partner wants it? Is it more thrilling if you think s/he might not? Or is this a matter of easy access becoming not so easy because now you have to be considerate, and s/he has to be sober enough to tell if you're not?
Click to expand...

I have a different question for you:

What's affirmative consent? Is it different to consent? In what situation could someone have consent but not affirmative consent?
Click to expand...

How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?

As a lawyer who has handled rape and sexual harassment cases, I can’t imagine how. But this radical result is what some want to happen in California.

In endorsing a bill in the California legislature that would require “affirmative consent” before sex can occur on campus, the editorial boards of the Sacramento and Fresno Bee and the Daily Californian advocated that sex be treated as “sexual assault” unless the participants discuss it “out loud” before sex, and “demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity.”

Never mind that consent to most sex is non-verbal, and that rape has historically been understood to be an act against someone’s will, rather than simply a non-violent act that they did not consent to in advance. Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in.

The affirmative-consent bill, Senate Bill 967, does not expressly require verbal permission to demonstrate consent, although it warns that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding.”

But supporters of the bill are very clear about their desire to require verbal discussion or haggling prior to sex.

The Fresno Bee praised the bill because “it adopts in campus disciplinary cases the ‘affirmative consent standard,’ which means that ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said out loud.” The Daily Californian declared that “the proposal’s requirement that defendants in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in sexual activity makes SB 967 a step in the right direction.”


Since most couples have engaged in sex without “verbal” consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists. By demanding verbal discussion before sex, they are also meddling in people’s sex lives in a prurient fashion. (Whether consent is explicit is often inversely related to whether sex is really welcome, with grudgingly consensual acts often being preceded by more explicit discussion and haggling than acts that are truly welcomed and enjoyed, as I explain here).

If affirmative consent is something different to consent, would you charge someone with rape if they got consent but not affirmative consent?

If it is not different to consent, what on earth is this legislation about, except a dog and pony show that wastes everyone's time and money and hurts the cause of rape victims?
Click to expand...

This will soon be the law on California campuses. The female student must say outloud "Yes I consent to having sexual activity, consisting of (fill in the blanks)." Any male accused of rape must PROVE he obtained verbal affirmative consent any sexual activity or he is guilty. And if the woman has had a few drinks, she CANNOT give affirmative consent so DON'T have sex unless she is stone cold sober.

It's California folks. My suggestion, find an out of state college.
 
Metaphor said:
I have a different question for you:

What's affirmative consent? Is it different to consent? In what situation could someone have consent but not affirmative consent?

If affirmative consent is something different to consent, would you charge someone with rape if they got consent but not affirmative consent?

If it is not different to consent, what on earth is this legislation about, except a dog and pony show that wastes everyone's time and money and hurts the cause of rape victims?
Click to expand...

I have a question for you. Did you read the OP?
 
blastula said:
Metaphor said:
I have a different question for you:

What's affirmative consent? Is it different to consent? In what situation could someone have consent but not affirmative consent?

If affirmative consent is something different to consent, would you charge someone with rape if they got consent but not affirmative consent?

If it is not different to consent, what on earth is this legislation about, except a dog and pony show that wastes everyone's time and money and hurts the cause of rape victims?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom