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

[doubtingt]

This thread got long fast, and I haven't read it all so forgive me if this has been covered.....

Does this law say you need explicit verbal consent to every sex act? What would sex sound like under this law? Past consent doesn't count, so you have to be asking "May I?" and she has to be saying "yes yes yes" ever few seconds or you are raping her? Rather awkward don't you think?

Not to mention, if you get affirmative consent before hand by her saying "Come over and we'll screw", then as you are hanging out you both have a beer or get high, then that prior affirmative and sober consent no longer counts even though it was in reference to that sex act.

My bet is that the new law is as vague as possible in every aspect from what counts as affirmative consent to when it must be given, how often, and what "intoxicated" means. By making it impossible to objectively verify that you've met the conditions, it makes it easier for the prosecution to claim that you did not meet them, and thus the mere fact of an accusation is used as proof that you did not meet them under the assumption supported by all the law's promoters that no one who wasn't guilty of rape would ever be accused.
The purpose of the law is not to reduce actual rape, but to make it so that an accusation of rape counts as its own evidence proving the accusation.

Given how many actual rapes (not "actual" under legal definition but a rational definition of sex against a persons' will) lack needed evidence for a rightful conviction, such a law will increase convictions or actual rapes, just as applying the same type of ambiguous an low bar to any crimes would increase convictions of actual criminals. But inherently such laws also reduce the differential probability that an actual and non-actual crime will be convicted, once accused. Therefore, it is guaranteed to also increase conviction rates of those falsely accused. This is beyond any rational doubt. The only arguments available to the laws' promoters is either that false accusations never occur or that they just do not care about innocent people being imprisoned. Liberals spend so much effort decrying the false imprisonment on every other type of crime that they cannot really take the latter tactic. That forces them to hold the silly position that false accusation never and would never occur, which also requires that they deny the reality that once you define a non-rape act as a crime, this will not impact how people view those acts, and once you make it more likely that false accusations would lead to a conviction, that still no one would use such accusations as a means of hurting someone.

 

[RavenSky]

But to clarify, selective enforcement from whom? Again, if there was in fact actual mutual consent between the people engaged in the sexual act such that no one was harmed, exactly who would be filing a complaint?

One of the two parties involved, for instance. And since implied consent no longer constitutes consent, it would not be a false complaint.

So your premise is that someone who in fact genuinely consents to sex but did so in an implicit rather than explicit manner will wake up the next morning and take advantage of this law to file charges against the other party?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, it's getting a bit too late to continue here. I'll finish by saying I don't actually fundamentally disagree with the concept of affirmative consent. It's very good advice to follow the concept at a personal level. But to mandate it in a system without protections against unjust accusations is just asking for those wrongfully accused to suffer irreparably. Criminal complaints should be left to the criminal justice system.

The law is not about criminal complaints (in California). It is about conduct codes on college campuses.

I will also note that, as shown in the papers about the Canadian application of "affirmative consent" to actual criminal cases, it is as a standard for a defendant's use of a "mistaken consent" defense, not as part of the prosecutor's charges.

 

[Rhea]

Sometimes it seems like the objection to this law is, "but but but... this law will cut down on the sex I have. Because making sure the other party consents will cut down on the sex I get to have and that... is... somehow not reasonable!"


When my kids tussle and one of them gets whiney and says, "stop!" I expect them to stop. Often they will try to justify, "but s/he was just saying that to get an advantage" or "s/he/I am having fun, s/he/I didn't mean it!" to which I reply, Stop still means stop. Every. single. time. When someone refuses to play with you because you said stop, YOU will learn to only say stop when you actually want it to stop. Stop will always mean stop here. When I hear it, the game is over. If you don't really mean "stop" then it won't take you long to learn to use a different word if you want to keep playing. I suggest, "time out!" or "pause!" or "not so hard or I'll have to stop!"

No means no. Lack of yes means no. Silence means no. Uncertainty means no. Get that out there in the open and people will figure out how incredibly easy it is to get consent when you actually care if you have consent. Affirmative consent is only difficult when you don't have consent. With consent, it is ridiculously easy to have affirmative consent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why have special laws for college campuses?

 

[Rhea]

Why have special laws for college campuses?

I was under the impression it was so that college campuses would have a uniform law to point to in dealing with an area where this kind of rape is especially prevalent.

Where things like this happen

 

[Derec]

Sometimes it seems like the objection to this law is, "but but but... this law will cut down on the sex I have. Because making sure the other party consents will cut down on the sex I get to have and that... is... somehow not reasonable!"

No, the danger of the law is that it will penalize consensual sex by restricting what kinds of consent it finds acceptable. A female had anything to drink? It's "rape". Consent wasn't expressed 100% unambiguously and explicitly? It's "rape". And so on.

 

[RavenSky]

This thread got long fast, and I haven't read it all so forgive me if this has been covered.....

Does this law say you need explicit verbal consent to every sex act? What would sex sound like under this law? Past consent doesn't count, so you have to be asking "May I?" and she has to be saying "yes yes yes" ever few seconds or you are raping her? Rather awkward don't you think?

Best response I've seen to a similar answer was in the comments section of this article: http://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2013/04/08/letstalkaboutconsentinpractice/

If you’re actually confused, you can ask a question, and then you won’t be confused anymore because you’ll hear an answer. If you don’t care what the answer is, you’re a predator.

If “good guys” always make sure they have affirmative consent, then they will feel a lot less protective towards men who are like “seriously, I thought she wanted it!” because they’ll know it’s not that hard to get the answer. They won’t feel “well that he said/she said could happen to anybody!” because they’ll know that’s bullshit.

And that's what it's really about for the university/college campuses

 

[Derec]

Why have special laws for college campuses?

I was under the impression it was so that college campuses would have a uniform law to point to in dealing with an area where this kind of rape is especially prevalent.

Evidence that any kind of rape is "especially prevalent" on college campuses?
I think it's more to do with the witch hunt that started in earnest after Obama administration demanded lowest possible standard of proof for "sexual assault" cases (and only those) as well as doing away with other protections accused students had enjoyed previously. That has led to innocent male students getting expelled, in one case even though his accuser was actually charged by the police with filing a false report (in most other cases no criminal complaint was made, just a college one).
All suspected cases of "sexual assault" should be forwarded to the police and real courts - not adjudicated by ideologically biased kangaroo courts at universities.

Where things like this happen

I doubt this law, as totalitarian as it is, actually bans mildly sexually suggestive frat banners. Not to mention that none of them suggests non-consent.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Best response I've seen to a similar answer was in the comments section of this article: http://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2013/04/08/letstalkaboutconsentinpractice/

If you’re actually confused, you can ask a question, and then you won’t be confused anymore because you’ll hear an answer. If you don’t care what the answer is, you’re a predator.

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

 

[Derec]

So your premise is that someone who in fact genuinely consents to sex but did so in an implicit rather than explicit manner will wake up the next morning and take advantage of this law to file charges against the other party?

It's certainly a possibility. False rape claims have been happening, especially in the college kangaroo court context where the ability of the accused to defend himself is severely restricted and the false accuser is hardly scrutinized.

 

[Rhea]

Sometimes it seems like the objection to this law is, "but but but... this law will cut down on the sex I have. Because making sure the other party consents will cut down on the sex I get to have and that... is... somehow not reasonable!"

No, the danger of the law is that it will penalize consensual sex by restricting what kinds of consent it finds acceptable. A female had anything to drink? It's "rape". Consent wasn't expressed 100% unambiguously and explicitly? It's "rape". And so on.

Only if she presses charges. If she had something to drink and had no objections then it is functionally not-rape because it never goes to court.

 

[RavenSky]

The bolded part is an unsupported assertion that is likely false, and it wouldn't be supported even if the remainder of the quote is accepted as true, because that would be a logical fallacy.

In the course of 20 years of interviewing these undetected rapists, in both research and forensic settings, it has been possible for me to distill some of the common characteristics of the modus operandi of these sex offenders. These undetected rapists:
• are extremely adept at identifying “likely” victims, and testing prospective victims’ boundaries;
• plan and premeditate their attacks, using sophisticated strategies to groom their victims for attack, and to isolate them physically;
• use “instrumental” not gratuitous violence; they exhibit strong impulse control and use only as much violence as is needed to terrify and coerce their victims into submission;
• use psychological weapons – power, control, manipulation, and threats – backed up by physical force, and almost never resort to weapons such as knives or guns;
• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/

bolding mine

In a study of 1,882 university men conducted in the Boston area, 120 rapists were identified. These 120 undetected rapists were responsible for 483 rapes. Of the 120 rapists, 44 had committed a single rape, while 76 (63% of them) were serial rapists who accounted for 439 of the 483 rapes.

The implications of the research on undetected rapists – research that has largely focused on men in college environments – point to the similarity of these offenders to incarcerated rapists. They share the same motivational matrix of hostility, anger, dominance, hyper-masculinity, impulsiveness and antisocial attitudes. They have many of the same developmental antecedents. They tend to be serial offenders, and most of them commit a variety of different interpersonal offenses. They are accurately and appropriately labeled as predators.

This picture conflicts sharply with the widely-held view that rapes committed on university campuses are typically the result of a basically “decent” young man who, were it not for too much alcohol and too little communication, would never do such a thing. While some campus rapes do fit this more benign view, the evidence points to a far less benign reality, in which the vast majority of
rapes are committed by serial, violent predators.

This is what you all are arguing against. It is your assumption that most college rapists are "basically “decent” young man who, were it not for too much alcohol and too little communication, would never do such a thing."

Some probably are. If these young men learn to ask, to get affirmative consent, then they won't be accidental rapists.

More importantly, the predators who are actually reasonable for the vast majority of rapes on college campuses won't be mistaken for "basically “decent” young" men.

 

[Derec]

Only if she presses charges. If she had something to drink and had no objections then it is functionally not-rape because it never goes to court.

So if a female has a glass of wine she can have consensual (even affirmatively consensual) sex and it miraculously mutates into non-consensual sex if she decides to press charges for whatever reason (like revenge or avoiding accusations of cheating if she has another boyfriend)? Do you realize how crazy that is? It gives a carte blanche to false accusers.

 

[Derec]

• use alcohol deliberately to render victims more vulnerable to attack, or completely unconscious.

http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/

What does "completely unconscious" (or nearly so) have to do with pushing male students (and treating them as rapists) because they had consensual sex with a female who has been drinking but was nowhere close to this? Especially if they had been drinking (and were in similar state if inebriation) as their female partner? We can all agree that those that prey on woman in that matter are assholes that should be punished for their actions. But the solution is not to have a zero tolerance policy on alcohol (there is a wide zone between "stone cold sober" and "too drunk to consent") and certainly not to apply that policy to intoxicated females only (i.e. if a woman has sex with an intoxicated male she is never getting expelled).

There is a huge overreaction to alcohol and sex as well as a double standard where a drunk female is deemed to be a "victim" but an equally drunk male isn't.

Again I must mention the UGA no-rape case. The accuser was observed drinking at some point before the sexual encounter. That was enough for campus inquisition to deem her "too drunk to consent" even though she was able to walk to and from the accused's dorm and was able to compose text messages, proving that she in fact wasn't too drunk to consent at the time they had sex. Also, he was drinking alcohol too but she wasn't expelled.

 

[RavenSky]

This part of the above cite report actually supports the positions some of you have that college campuses shouldn't be handling these cases at all:

The less benign reality of sexual violence in the university setting also carries implications for university judicial processes. A judicial board would hardly seem the appropriate venue to deal with a sexual predator. Further, cases of non-stranger rape are extremely difficult to properly investigate and prosecute – they are in fact far more complex than the majority of stranger rapes. A proper investigation requires skilled and specially-trained investigators working closely with specially-trained prosecutors. Absent a proper investigation, almost every non-stranger rape case quickly devolves into the proverbial “he-said-she-said” conundrum, and judicial board members are left helpless to discern what actually may have occurred. This situation increases the likelihood of inadequately or even poorly-handled cases, thereby increasing the harm done both to the victim and to the larger community.

 

[Eldarion Lathria]

Two of the Gucci Rules:

No means NO!

Yes means no if she's underage or drunker than you are.

Eldarion Lathria

 

[Derec]

Some probably are. If these young men learn to ask, to get affirmative consent, then they won't be accidental rapists.

The problem are false accusers. Even if the man asks and she says "yes" there is no guarantee she won't regret the sex the next morning (or next year as in the Vassar case) and accuse him of rape. And if she had even a drop of alcohol, according to Rhea, that and her accusation means that he is a "rapists" no matter how consensual the sex was.

- - - Updated - - -

Two of the Gucci Rules:

No means NO!

Yes means no if she's underage or drunker than you are.

Eldarion Lathria

Feminazi rules:

Yes means No if she had any amount of alcohol and/or regrets the sex the next day or year (Vassar case) or wants revenge for you not calling her or wants to avoid responsibility for having cheated with you or wants to get rid of competition for that grant.

 

[Rhea]

Only if she presses charges. If she had something to drink and had no objections then it is functionally not-rape because it never goes to court.

So if a female has a glass of wine she can have consensual (even affirmatively consensual) sex and it miraculously mutates into non-consensual sex if she decides to press charges for whatever reason

No, it doesn't; what makes you think such a crazy thing? Nobody has said anything remotely like this. You made it up and it's stupid.

(like revenge or avoiding accusations of cheating if she has another boyfriend)?

Yeah this happens a lot.

Do you realize how crazy that is? It gives a carte blanche to false accusers.

There is never "carte blanche" to a person embarking on a journey through the rape-victim justice system.

 

[RavenSky]

Best response I've seen to a similar answer was in the comments section of this article: http://disruptingdinnerparties.com/2013/04/08/letstalkaboutconsentinpractice/

That doesn't answer the question I asked.

"(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."

 

[Derec]

No, it doesn't; what makes you think such a crazy thing? Nobody has said anything remotely like this. You made it up and it's stupid.

You said that. If a female is drinking and doesn't press charges it's rape. So it follows that you think that if she has been drinking and pressed charges that she must have been raped.

Yeah this happens a lot.

Yes it does. Hofstra case was like that. The false accuser, Damnell Ndonye, didn't want her boyfriend to think she was a slut just because she agreed to let several guys fuck her. So she falsely accused them of raping her. Fortunately for them, they recorded the whole thing which led to the Damnell admitting she was lying.

There is never "carte blanche" to a person embarking on a journey through the rape-victim justice system.

The colleges made it very easy for false accusers, which is why a lot of them opt not to file criminal charges, only the college inquisition ones. The accused are not allowed to confront the accuser (through a cross examination for example), she is not scrutinized in any way by the investigators, etc. and her every word is believed implicitly. The whole process is not designed to get to what probably happened but to expel as many male students (and who cares if they are innocent) as possible to avoid losing federal funds.