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

[Metaphor]

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.”
[/B]

I wonder how it can be demonstrated. Is the defendant saying 'she said yes' out loud demonstrating she said yes? Or are third-party eyewitnesses and/or recordings required?

 

[arkirk]

Are you allowed to agree to the sex while sober then get drunk and do it? Will there be special paperwork to fill out? All you fuckers out there better carry around some forms and don't forget to get them signed and stowed in a safe place! We all know casual sex is not something that can be formally approved and certified. I agree there is too much drunken rape, but I honestly don't think this type of legislation is going anywhere...excepting an increase in masturbation.

 

[Arctish]

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?

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?

Consent can be affirmative or implied or presumed. All three have different legal implications.

I can give you permission to take money from my wallet. That is affirmative consent. When I tell my daughter to go get money for lunch, she has implied consent to take it from my wallet, since that's where the money usually is. My husband has presumed consent to take money from my wallet due to it being our jointly held money and my having given him open-ended permission to take cash from my wallet on many previous occasions.

The affirmative consent I gave you should never be mistaken for implied or presumed consent. You have to ask me for permission each time you want to take money from my wallet. My family members don't.

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?

IMO the purpose of this legislation is to clarify the point that the difference between rape and not-rape is consent, and if you don't have affirmative consent you might not have consent at all.

 

[credoconsolans]

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.

This sad fact is why well meaning feminists are so often not taken seriously by mainstream society.

BS. Women don't get charged often because MEN don't report the crime.

I think it has something to do with making them look like their penises are small in front of other men if they do.

Man up. You want a woman to pay for raping you, report it!

 

[RavenSky]

I've always found it more exciting to go beyond affirmative consent and make her beg for it. Removes all the ambiguity.

 

[Arctish]

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?

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.

I highlighted a different part of your quote. The author is either completely ignorant of the use of drugs to render people unable to express their will that they not be fucked, or is simply overlooking this type of predatory behavior because it undermines his position.

Date rape drugs makes the historical understanding of rape out-dated and inadequate. Men and women who resort to slipping their prey a little something to make them compliant are rapists regardless of whether or not their victim was able to say "no". You can't bypass the issue of consent without enabling sexual predators like them.

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.

What makes you think only women are the targets of sexual predators? What about Charlie? Is it okay that some woman used him as a fuck-toy without his consent?

 

[RavenSky]

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?

I have to wonder much the same thing every time a thread like this happens. Obviously, the OP article is a bunch of misogynist dreck, but even people I ordinarily respect get really weird on this topic. I just do not understand what is so damned horrible about enthusiastic sober consent before sex - particularly with someone you don't know very well (if at all).

 

[Metaphor]

IMO the purpose of this legislation is to clarify the point that the difference between rape and not-rape is consent, and if you don't have affirmative consent you might not have consent at all.

I agree that the difference between rape and not-rape is mutual consent, but I'm not clear on why 'affirmative consent' is somehow better than 'consent'. In fact, it seems to me a significantly worse situation for everyone, if 'affirmative consent' is equated with 'verbal consent' (which it appears to be).

Let's say a woman sees a man on Tindr (or whatever 'romance' app young heterosexual people use, I've got no idea frankly), and invites him over for sex. The exchanges they have will be recorded on their apps. So far so good.

Now, the man gets there, and they have sex. Neither party says, verbally, 'I consent to this sex'.

The next day, the man decides he did not have affirmative consent and files a rape charge.

BTW, in this scenario, let's assume there was consent by both parties, but not affirmative consent.

Are both parties rapists? Are neither? How can the woman prove she got verbal consent from the man before she had sex with him?

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Suppose she says "Wait, here is a condom"; that is only implied consent.
Or she says "I want to give you a baby"; that is only implied consent.
Or you ring her doorbell, she calls out for you to enter and find her standing in front of you naked with two martini's; that is only implied consent.
Or she opens the door wearing leathers, carrying a whip and ordering you to fall to your knees and get to work pleasing her; that is only implied consent.

Affirmative consent is when she says "It's 300 bucks and I take credit cards".

 

[Arctish]

IMO the purpose of this legislation is to clarify the point that the difference between rape and not-rape is consent, and if you don't have affirmative consent you might not have consent at all.

I agree that the difference between rape and not-rape is mutual consent, but I'm not clear on why 'affirmative consent' is somehow better than 'consent'. In fact, it seems to me a significantly worse situation for everyone, if 'affirmative consent' is equated with 'verbal consent' (which it appears to be).

Let's say a woman sees a man on Tindr (or whatever 'romance' app young heterosexual people use, I've got no idea frankly), and invites him over for sex. The exchanges they have will be recorded on their apps. So far so good.

Now, the man gets there, and they have sex. Neither party says, verbally, 'I consent to this sex'.

The next day, the man decides he did not have affirmative consent and files a rape charge.

BTW, in this scenario, let's assume there was consent by both parties, but not affirmative consent.

Are both parties rapists? Are neither? How can the woman prove she got verbal consent from the man before she had sex with him?

Did she invite him over, or did she invite him over for sex?

The last time we discussed this topic I told you about a time I went over to a guy's house to watch a movie and he thought I was there for sex. If he hadn't backed off things would have gotten ugly. Just because I agreed to spend time with him at his house didn't mean I agreed to hop into bed with him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

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?

"Affirmative consent" is an explicit "yes", not merely showing you want sex. I can't recall ever having it other than it must exist when she's the initiator. With such a rule we would not have married--in the early years she was too shy about such matters to come out and say it.

- - - Updated - - -

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.”
[/B]

I wonder how it can be demonstrated. Is the defendant saying 'she said yes' out loud demonstrating she said yes? Or are third-party eyewitnesses and/or recordings required?

California is a two-party state, you can't record.

 

[Metaphor]

I agree that the difference between rape and not-rape is mutual consent, but I'm not clear on why 'affirmative consent' is somehow better than 'consent'. In fact, it seems to me a significantly worse situation for everyone, if 'affirmative consent' is equated with 'verbal consent' (which it appears to be).

Let's say a woman sees a man on Tindr (or whatever 'romance' app young heterosexual people use, I've got no idea frankly), and invites him over for sex. The exchanges they have will be recorded on their apps. So far so good.

Now, the man gets there, and they have sex. Neither party says, verbally, 'I consent to this sex'.

The next day, the man decides he did not have affirmative consent and files a rape charge.

BTW, in this scenario, let's assume there was consent by both parties, but not affirmative consent.

Are both parties rapists? Are neither? How can the woman prove she got verbal consent from the man before she had sex with him?

Did she invite him over, or did she invite him over for sex?

The last time we discussed this topic I told you about a time I went over to a guy's house to watch a movie and he thought I was there for sex. If he hadn't backed off things would have gotten ugly. Just because I agreed to spend time with him at his house didn't mean I agreed to hop into bed with him.

I thought I had made the scenario quite explicit when I wrote:

and invites him over for sex.

I don't want to attempt to construct what a hookup exchange would look like between a man and a woman (since I've never done such a thing, and I don't think it's just going to be a parallel of what happens on gay hookup apps), so I won't. Let's say the written text messages make it explicit she's inviting him over for penis in vagina sex.

Please note, before anyone attempts a 'gotcha', I am not stating that the app messages establish consent, or that someone can't arrange a hookup and then change their mind, because I'm not saying that. I'm merely trying to establish a scenario.

So, the man gets the address and comes over. They have mutually consensual sex but neither party verbally consents.

The next day, the man decides that, since he did not get verbal consent ('affirmative' consent), he is going to lay rape charges.

Note that, in this scenario, both parties actually consented, but neither party verbally consented.

In this scenario, how can the woman defend herself? Should she lie and say she got verbal consent? Would her saying, in the courtroom, "I asked him if he wanted sex, and he said yes", prove that she got verbal consent? Or, is she stuck, because of course she can't prove verbal consent, because even if she had gotten it, the only other witness was the man who is accusing her of rape, and she didn't have the foresight to record his consent?

Should she lay counter-charges of rape, since the man never got verbal consent from her, either?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

I have to wonder much the same thing every time a thread like this happens. Obviously, the OP article is a bunch of misogynist dreck, but even people I ordinarily respect get really weird on this topic. I just do not understand what is so damned horrible about enthusiastic sober consent before sex - particularly with someone you don't know very well (if at all).

The problem here is that it sets an unreasonable burden.

1) You normally have no way to prove it.

2) Some women are too shy to come out and say it.

It in effect lets a woman declare consensual sex to be rape if she changes her mind. (Or a man, but that's normally not an issue.)

 

[Metaphor]

If "affirmative consent" is operationalised as "verbal consent", can anyone actually condone this legislative madness?

If this is not what "affirmative consent" is, can someone please tell me what it is, because I have no interest in attacking a straw man.

Mutual consent is the necessary and sufficient condition for sex to be not-rape. Verbal consent ("affirmative consent") is neither sufficient nor necessary to have actual consent.

 

[Arctish]

Did she invite him over, or did she invite him over for sex?

The last time we discussed this topic I told you about a time I went over to a guy's house to watch a movie and he thought I was there for sex. If he hadn't backed off things would have gotten ugly. Just because I agreed to spend time with him at his house didn't mean I agreed to hop into bed with him.

I thought I had made the scenario quite explicit when I wrote:

and invites him over for sex.

I don't want to attempt to construct what a hookup exchange would look like between a man and a woman (since I've never done such a thing, and I don't think it's just going to be a parallel of what happens on gay hookup apps), so I won't. Let's say the written text messages make it explicit she's inviting him over for penis in vagina sex.

Please note, before anyone attempts a 'gotcha', I am not stating that the app messages establish consent, or that someone can't arrange a hookup and then change their mind, because I'm not saying that. I'm merely trying to establish a scenario.

So, the man gets the address and comes over. They have mutually consensual sex but neither party verbally consents.

The next day, the man decides that, since he did not get verbal consent ('affirmative' consent), he is going to lay rape charges.

Note that, in this scenario, both parties actually consented, but neither party verbally consented.

In this scenario, how can the woman defend herself? Should she lie and say she got verbal consent? Would her saying, in the courtroom, "I asked him if he wanted sex, and he said yes", prove that she got verbal consent? Or, is she stuck, because of course she can't prove verbal consent, because even if she had gotten it, the only other witness was the man who is accusing her of rape, and she didn't have the foresight to record his consent?

Should she lay counter-charges of rape, since the man never got verbal consent from her, either?

If she invited him over for sex, then their having sex was based on her affirmative consent. The fact it wasn't expressed by mouth in person shouldn't matter. Deaf and mute people can give affirmative consent through sign-language, and people who have suffered a stroke rendering them non-verbal can also give affirmative consent through other types of unambiguous signals like squeezing hands once for yes and twice for no.

The essential point is that the consent was affirmative ("yes, you may...", "I want to ...", "Please do...", *squeezes hand and smiles* ) and the person giving consent wasn't drunk, drugged, underage, or suffering from a medical condition that rendered their consent invalid.

 

[Metaphor]

I thought I had made the scenario quite explicit when I wrote:

and invites him over for sex.

I don't want to attempt to construct what a hookup exchange would look like between a man and a woman (since I've never done such a thing, and I don't think it's just going to be a parallel of what happens on gay hookup apps), so I won't. Let's say the written text messages make it explicit she's inviting him over for penis in vagina sex.

Please note, before anyone attempts a 'gotcha', I am not stating that the app messages establish consent, or that someone can't arrange a hookup and then change their mind, because I'm not saying that. I'm merely trying to establish a scenario.

So, the man gets the address and comes over. They have mutually consensual sex but neither party verbally consents.

The next day, the man decides that, since he did not get verbal consent ('affirmative' consent), he is going to lay rape charges.

Note that, in this scenario, both parties actually consented, but neither party verbally consented.

In this scenario, how can the woman defend herself? Should she lie and say she got verbal consent? Would her saying, in the courtroom, "I asked him if he wanted sex, and he said yes", prove that she got verbal consent? Or, is she stuck, because of course she can't prove verbal consent, because even if she had gotten it, the only other witness was the man who is accusing her of rape, and she didn't have the foresight to record his consent?

Should she lay counter-charges of rape, since the man never got verbal consent from her, either?

If she invited him over for sex, then their having sex was based on her affirmative consent. The fact it wasn't expressed by mouth in person shouldn't matter. Deaf and mute people can give affirmative consent through sign-language, and people who have suffered a stroke rendering them non-verbal can also give affirmative consent through other types of unambiguous signals like squeezing hands once for yes and twice for no.

The essential point is that the consent was affirmative ("yes, you may...", "I want to ...", "Please do...") and the person giving consent wasn't drunk, drugged, underage, or suffering from a medical condition that rendered their consent invalid.

So what am I to make of the quote, posted earlier, that verbal consent was the requirement?

 

[RavenSky]

I have to wonder much the same thing every time a thread like this happens. Obviously, the OP article is a bunch of misogynist dreck, but even people I ordinarily respect get really weird on this topic. I just do not understand what is so damned horrible about enthusiastic sober consent before sex - particularly with someone you don't know very well (if at all).

The problem here is that it sets an unreasonable burden.

1) You normally have no way to prove it.

2) Some women are too shy to come out and say it.

It in effect lets a woman declare consensual sex to be rape if she changes her mind. (Or a man, but that's normally not an issue.)

I think it is an unreasonable burden to insist the victim of a rape have to prove s/he said "no"

We are not discussing the infinitely minuscule number of people who *change their mind*. We are discussing the much greater number of people who are raped. And if the hypothetical woman is too shy to ask for sex, oh well.

 

[Metaphor]

And, just in case anyone missed my earlier questions, can someone illustrate, with hypotheticals, the difference between

i) Sex with actual consent as well as affirmative consent
ii) Sex with actual consent but no affirmative consent

Is condition ii) rape? Is it a contradiction in terms? (In which case, there's no difference between 'consent' and 'affirmative consent', it just clarifies the legal standard for proof of consent).

 

[Toni]

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?

Once one considers whether a woman really wants to have sex, then it opens up issues like: what does she want in bed? Out of a date? A relationship? Life? I mean, what if women want to actually control their own bodies? Their own reproduction? What if they start expecting consideration? Respect? Orgasms? A job with real authority? Equality?

Sounds like getting consent is an awful lot like acknowledging that the woman is your equal. I can see why it might be better not to open that can of worms at all.

 

[Arctish]

So what am I to make of the quote, posted earlier, that verbal consent was the requirement?

I don't know what you should make of it. The Washington Post doesn't say the consent has to be verbal. It says:

the law would require “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement” by each party to engage in sexual activity.

The Bill in question contains the language the Washington Post reported. Maybe the article that says the consent has to be verbal is an opinion piece.