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

[Rhea]

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..

It seems you are saying you do not understand what the "affirmative" means in the phrase "affirmative consent"?

It means "yes"

Like, "All those in favor, please answer in the affirmative"
It means, don't say, "whatever," don't say, "if I have to," don't say, "present".
It means, legally, and with one of the following: Yes, I agree, I affirm, I concur, nod, sign "yes," write "yes," do something that shows a response demonstrating your affirmation of the motion. That you are ON BOARD and your name can be added to the resolution on the table.

It means,
NOT neutral
NOT abstaining
NOT declining

af·firm·a·tive
əˈfərmətiv/Submit
adjective
1.
agreeing with a statement or to a request.
"an affirmative answer"
synonyms: positive, assenting, consenting, corroborative, favorable

"an affirmative answer"
supportive, hopeful, or encouraging.
"the music's natural buoyancy and affirmative character"

active or obligatory.
"they have an affirmative duty to stop crime in their buildings"



noun
noun: affirmative; plural noun: affirmatives
1.
a statement of agreement with an assertion or request.
"he accepted her reply as an affirmative"
a position of agreement or confirmation.
noun: the affirmative
"his answer veered toward the affirmative"
synonyms: agreement, acceptance, assent, acquiescence, concurrence;

LOGIC
a statement asserting that something is true of the subject of a proposition.
exclamationNORTH AMERICAN
exclamation: affirmative
1.
expressing agreement with a statement or request; yes.

Too many people have used the defense in court and in giving themselves permission to advance, that neutral or abstain (or worse yet, even "no") somehow means consent. It doesn't. It never should have. But it was used to excuse forced sex.

You have to know that they mean YES and nothing short of YES before you can proceed without being a douchebag asshole prick rapist. The law finally spells that out. THAT is what affirmative consent means.

It means, for all of you who didn't think so before, the only thing that keeps you from being in a position of forcing sex on an unwilling partner is knowing for sure that the partner actually wants it. For all those who didn't know before how to detect this, it means getting your partner to express agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

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

If one has a high incidence of intercourse with vindictive lying bitches - get a new set of friends and a new way of picking up chicks. Oh, and become a better lover. Women who gave actual consent _and_ were extremely satisfied _and_ remember it are unlikely to be vindictive. Just sayin'.

 

[ksen]

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?

Did I mention gender?

No.

 

[Arctish]

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.

I wish you would actually read the Dworkin essays you cite. You'd learn that one of those alleged quotes is a poorly constructed paraphrase, and the other one doesn't mean what you think it means when read in context.

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.

I also wish you would read the article I keep linking to about female-on-male rape. If you had read about Ben's experience you might understand why reluctant consent doesn't count as actual consent. Agreeing to satisfy a psychotic ex-girlfriend who broke into your house and is bleeding all over your sheets from where she slashed her legs in a fit of rage might be a good way to avoid a more violent outburst, but it doesn't mean you actually want her to climb on top of you.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Why? What other kind of "consent" do you imagine is acceptable?

 

[RavenSky]

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

Did I mention gender?

No.

Whether you specifically mentioned gender or not, my rhetorical question stands. To put it in gender-neutral terms - this discussion always comes down to "what if the partner I picked to have sex with is really a lying vindictive asshole."

Better?

I still think it is a sucky argument, and have to agree with Rhea:

If one has a high incidence of intercourse with vindictive lying [assholes] - get a new set of friends and a new way of picking up [sex partners]. Oh, and become a better lover. [Partners] who gave actual consent _and_ were extremely satisfied _and_ remember it are unlikely to be vindictive. Just sayin'.

 

[Stu]

If one has a high incidence of intercourse with vindictive lying bitches - get a new set of friends and a new way of picking up chicks. Oh, and become a better lover. Women who gave actual consent _and_ were extremely satisfied _and_ remember it are unlikely to be vindictive. Just sayin'.

It doesn't take a high incidence, it takes one incident. It's an unfortunate reality that some people will, in a relationship or after things have fallen apart, do whatever they can to harm the other. If the legal system or universities give people the option of causing significant harm without consequence, and without appropriate defences against it, that option will be used. When the harm is physical violence, although you do get people telling the victim it was their fault because of who they associated with, that is rightly seen as victim blaming. You wouldn't tell a battered wife that she should have been a better partner, and I can't see how it's any better to tell a victim of a false claim that they should "get a new set of friends" and "be a better lover".

 

[Bronzeage]

If one has a high incidence of intercourse with vindictive lying bitches - get a new set of friends and a new way of picking up chicks. Oh, and become a better lover. Women who gave actual consent _and_ were extremely satisfied _and_ remember it are unlikely to be vindictive. Just sayin'.

It doesn't take a high incidence, it takes one incident. It's an unfortunate reality that some people will, in a relationship or after things have fallen apart, do whatever they can to harm the other. If the legal system or universities give people the option of causing significant harm without consequence, and without appropriate defences against it, that option will be used. When the harm is physical violence, although you do get people telling the victim it was their fault because of who they associated with, that is rightly seen as victim blaming. You wouldn't tell a battered wife that she should have been a better partner, and I can't see how it's any better to tell a victim of a false claim that they should "get a new set of friends" and "be a better lover".

No, but you can tell a battered wife to get a better partner.

 

[Arctish]

If the proposed law requiring colleges and universities to use "affirmative consent" as the standard for determining whether sexual contact was consensual also required them to use "intentional lie/known falsehood" when considering expelling a student for making a false report, does the objection to this law go away?

 

[Stu]

It doesn't take a high incidence, it takes one incident. It's an unfortunate reality that some people will, in a relationship or after things have fallen apart, do whatever they can to harm the other. If the legal system or universities give people the option of causing significant harm without consequence, and without appropriate defences against it, that option will be used. When the harm is physical violence, although you do get people telling the victim it was their fault because of who they associated with, that is rightly seen as victim blaming. You wouldn't tell a battered wife that she should have been a better partner, and I can't see how it's any better to tell a victim of a false claim that they should "get a new set of friends" and "be a better lover".

No, but you can tell a battered wife to get a better partner.

That's also problematic if you're not extremely careful with why someone would stay in an abusive relationship, or don't take steps to reduce abuse. And no-one would dare say we shouldn't do anything about the abuse because women can always get better partners.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Perhaps if a woman is about to get hit, she should tell the guy to back off or she'll accuse him of rape. MAD's not just for countries.

 

[Stu]

If the proposed law requiring colleges and universities to use "affirmative consent" as the standard for determining whether sexual contact was consensual also required them to use "intentional lie/known falsehood" when considering expelling a student for making a false report, does the objection to this law go away?

One of the major problems with the change is its context in the new "preponderance of evidence" standard. Adding false claims into that mix is still wrong, but it would highlight exactly what the problem is.

A: "She raped me."
B: "No I didn't, he's lying"

One of these two people is lying, and under preponderance of evidence with expulsion as the penalty, we must choose one of the two to expel. So the university can come to two conclusions:

"We looked at the case, and the evidence wasn't necessarily all that clear or compelling and there may be a 49% chance she did it, but we're inclined to believe her. Hence we find that he lied and must be expelled"

or

"He didn't need to prove his case, but we find that she raped him because his claim was slightly better than her defence. She is to be expelled."

Higher standards give you much higher confidence in the outcome. You know that if one of them has been expelled, the investigators were satisfied that the outcome wasn't just a coin flip, but a convincing argument as to who was in the right. No-one is making an absolute statement of fact or punishing anyone on the middle ground which is decidedly uncertain. There's the additional option of "We can't reach a finding based on this evidence. We offer counselling services to those involved, and instruct them not to contact each other.". But that's still inferior to just leaving the investigation and punishment of crimes to those who have always been responsible for it.

 

[Arctish]

If the proposed law requiring colleges and universities to use "affirmative consent" as the standard for determining whether sexual contact was consensual also required them to use "intentional lie/known falsehood" when considering expelling a student for making a false report, does the objection to this law go away?

One of the major problems with the change is its context in the new "preponderance of evidence" standard. Adding false claims into that mix is still wrong, but it would highlight exactly what the problem is.

The preponderance of evidence standard isn't new. It's the standard in civil, non-criminal proceedings. It was inconsistently applied at colleges and universities, with some of them using it and others using the standard for criminal trials. All the White House memo did was spell out that use of the preponderance of evidence standard is consistent with Title IX provisions and therefore it is the appropriate standard to use at all schools.

A: "She raped me."
B: "No I didn't, he's lying"

One of these two people is lying, and under preponderance of evidence with expulsion as the penalty, we must choose one of the two to expel. So the university can come to two conclusions:

"We looked at the case, and the evidence wasn't necessarily all that clear or compelling and there may be a 49% chance she did it, but we're inclined to believe her. Hence we find that he lied and must be expelled"

or

"He didn't need to prove his case, but we find that she raped him because his claim was slightly better than her defence. She is to be expelled."

Higher standards give you much higher confidence in the outcome. You know that if one of them has been expelled, the investigators were satisfied that the outcome wasn't just a coin flip, but a convincing argument as to who was in the right. No-one is making an absolute statement of fact or punishing anyone on the middle ground which is decidedly uncertain. There's the additional option of "We can't reach a finding based on this evidence. We offer counselling services to those involved, and instruct them not to contact each other.". But that's still inferior to just leaving the investigation and punishment of crimes to those who have always been responsible for it.

I think a lot of the confusion in this thread is due to the overlap between criminal investigations of rape allegations and the investigations colleges and universities do. Colleges and universities investigate possible violations of Codes of Conduct, not crimes per se. So even though the specific incident they are looking into might also be the subject of a criminal investigation, the process and the outcome can be very different.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think a lot of the confusion in this thread is due to the overlap between criminal investigations of rape allegations and the investigations colleges and universities do. Colleges and universities investigate possible violations of Codes of Conduct, not crimes per se. So even though the specific incident they are looking into might also be the subject of a criminal investigation, the process and the outcome can be very different.

There's not any confusion about that, it's just not seen as a legitimate rationale for using a poor standard to determine if someone should be punished. If you're going to kick someone out of university for something he's accused of doing, you should be pretty damn sure that he actually did it - not simply slightly more sure than not.

 

[Arctish]

I think a lot of the confusion in this thread is due to the overlap between criminal investigations of rape allegations and the investigations colleges and universities do. Colleges and universities investigate possible violations of Codes of Conduct, not crimes per se. So even though the specific incident they are looking into might also be the subject of a criminal investigation, the process and the outcome can be very different.

There's not any confusion about that, it's just not seen as a legitimate rationale for using a poor standard to determine if someone should be punished. If you're going to kick someone out of university for something he's accused of doing, you should be pretty damn sure that he actually did it - not simply slightly more sure than not.

Yeah, but that "slightly more sure than not" is a bit of a strawman. No one is saying weak evidence absolutely requires the most extreme action. An investigation can conclude with the determination that there is no good evidence to be had, and that any punitive action is therefore unjustifiable. Or it can conclude with the determination that the rules were broken and that punishment is justified, but there's not enough evidence to justify the most severe punishment.

There's more than one way to punish students who violate a Code of Conduct.

 

[Stu]

I think a lot of the confusion in this thread is due to the overlap between criminal investigations of rape allegations and the investigations colleges and universities do. Colleges and universities investigate possible violations of Codes of Conduct, not crimes per se. So even though the specific incident they are looking into might also be the subject of a criminal investigation, the process and the outcome can be very different.

I don't think there's any confusion here, just a recognition of how the government is getting around the 'problem' of presumed innocence for those accused of rape by compelling universities to conduct quasi-prosecutions without the presumption, but still with substantial consequences. It's not even a private matter for the universities, since it's not their choice at all. The government already has a system to deal with rape, but it's not being used because actually having to convincingly prove a complaint is seen as an unfair obstacle to just punishing them anyway.

Yeah, but that "slightly more sure than not" is a bit of a strawman. No one is saying weak evidence absolutely requires action. An investigation can conclude with the determination that there is no good evidence to be had, and that any punitive action is therefore unjustifiable. Or it can conclude with the determination that the rules were broken and that punishment is justified, but there's not enough evidence of ill intent to justify expulsion.

Unfortunately not. It's the US Department of Education which is saying that weak evidence requires action. "Slightly more sure than not" is precisely what preponderance of the evidence means. It should absolutely be the case that insufficient evidence should be grounds for not finding one way or the other, but it's not. You can't say "there is no good evidence to be had, and that any punitive action is therefore unjustifiable", it has to be stronger than that. It has to reach the point of "we can't apply punitive action because there is more evidence this didn't happen than it did". And if someone isn't punished, it can be directly implied that this is the case, instead of just being left at "insufficient evidence".

 

[Toni]

I wish you would actually read the Dworkin essays you cite. You'd learn that one of those alleged quotes is a poorly constructed paraphrase, and the other one doesn't mean what you think it means when read in context.

Not to mention the Marilyn French quote is from a NOVEL, words spoken by one of the characters. Hardly French's personal opinion nor were those words meant to be taken as a true statement. Rather, they are the words of one character.

The MacKinnon quote is a misquote as well.

But why mess with a good list of misquotes and misattributions from an online misogynist screed?

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Thanks for the valuable contribution to the discussion.

 

[Metaphor]

It seems you are saying you do not understand what the "affirmative" means in the phrase "affirmative consent"?

I'm saying I don't understand how consent is different to affirmative consent. If it is different, why would you demand affirmative consent when what you should be demanding is consent?

But if they're not different, if affirmative consent is merely an incredibly poor, circular, and totally unhelpful attempt at defining consent, my objection is simply that they should have defined consent instead. Consent, not affirmative consent, is what makes the difference between sex and rape. I can't understand how this point is so hard to accept.

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

Surely you cannot mean this. Surely you don't want to reduce anyone's chances of being correctly accused of rape? Do you mean instead 'reduce your chances of being a rapist?' Or do you mean, 'reduce your chances of being falsely accused of rape'?

Asking men to take mitigation of risk strategies sounds familiar. It sounds like victim blaming.

I also cannot fathom how you think it could make a difference. If you've been falsely accused of rape, how would having affirmative consent help you?

If one has a high incidence of intercourse with vindictive lying bitches - get a new set of friends and a new way of picking up chicks. Oh, and become a better lover. Women who gave actual consent _and_ were extremely satisfied _and_ remember it are unlikely to be vindictive. Just sayin'.

Can you imagine this advice in a woman's magazine? "Is he cheating on you? Become a better lover and he may not stray."

Oy vey.

 

[Arctish]

I don't think there's any confusion here, just a recognition of how the government is getting around the 'problem' of presumed innocence for those accused of rape by compelling universities to conduct quasi-prosecutions without the presumption, but still with substantial consequences. It's not even a private matter for the universities, since it's not their choice at all. The government already has a system to deal with rape, but it's not being used because actually having to convincingly prove a complaint is seen as an unfair obstacle to just punishing them anyway.

I don't see that at all, and frankly, I wonder what you are looking at that makes you think "the government is getting around the 'problem' of presumed innocence for those accused of rape" and is "just punishing them anyway". Did you read the recommendations sent from the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault? I did. It's not about punishing men, or doing away with the presumption of innocence, or any of the other claims a certain Men's Rights Activist has made about Obama and feminazis. The entire document is about practical and fair-minded ways to address sexual assaults on campus, including providing support for victims (male and female) who don't want to make a formal complaint or file charges. It specifically renounces a one-size-fits-all approach while identifying key issues where a single standard is appropriate, even necessary, to meet Title IX requirements.

Yeah, but that "slightly more sure than not" is a bit of a strawman. No one is saying weak evidence absolutely requires action. An investigation can conclude with the determination that there is no good evidence to be had, and that any punitive action is therefore unjustifiable. Or it can conclude with the determination that the rules were broken and that punishment is justified, but there's not enough evidence of ill intent to justify expulsion.

Unfortunately not. It's the US Department of Education which is saying that weak evidence requires action.

The White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault says:

"Separate and apart from training, we also need to know more about what investigative and adjudicative systems work best on campus: that is, who should gather the evidence; who should make the determination whether a sexual assault occurred; who should decide the sanction; and what an appeals process, if the school has one, should look like.
Schools are experimenting with new ideas. Some are adopting different variations on the “single investigator” model, where a trained investigator or investigators interview the complainant and alleged perpetrator, gather any physical evidence, interview available witnesses – and then either render a finding, present a recommendation, or even work out an acceptance-of-responsibility agreement with the offender. These models stand in contrast to the more traditional system, where a college hearing or judicial board hears a case (sometimes tracking the adversarial, evidence-gathering criminal justice model), makes a finding, and decides the sanction.
Preliminary reports from the field suggest that these innovative models, in which college judicial boards play a much more limited role, encourage reporting and bolster trust in the process, while at the same time safeguarding an alleged perpetrator’s right to notice and to be heard."

If the Department of Education says something different I'd like to see it.

"Slightly more sure than not" is precisely what preponderance of the evidence means. It should absolutely be the case that insufficient evidence should be grounds for not finding one way or the other, but it's not. You can't say "there is no good evidence to be had, and that any punitive action is therefore unjustifiable", it has to be stronger than that. It has to reach the point of "we can't apply punitive action because there is more evidence this didn't happen than it did". And if someone isn't punished, it can be directly implied that this is the case, instead of just being left at "insufficient evidence".

Okay, just to be sure I understand you, are you saying the preponderance of evidence standard should never be used in weighing a non-criminal complaint, or are you saying it should never be used when the complaint is about non-consensual sex in a college or university environment?

The jury charged with hearing the faulty ignition switch lawsuit against GM is going to use the preponderance of evidence standard in reaching their verdict. This is a case in which people died due to the alleged negligence of the company. Do you think the standard should be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or are you okay with how such cases are currently decided?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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"?

Isn't that basically what a prostitute does? She wouldn't fuck you normally, but she'll do it if you throw some money in. I don't see that as enthusiastic consent, especially if she bargains for price.

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.

Actually, you can do exactly that, if they have no good evidence otherwise. The onus is on the prosecution, not the accused.