They told me if I voted for Mitt Romney...

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
...that governments would be invading people's bedrooms.

Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party to engage in sexual activity.

And they were right.

If progressives tell you that the want to stay out of people's bedrooms, judging by the actions of progressives in California, it sure doesn't seem like they mean it.
 

SepiaAndDust

There's a FISH in the percolator
May 6, 2012
4,380
1,325
57
Mid-America
✟26,546.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
While I don't necessarily agree with the bill, I don't think that rape is covered by the phrase in the bedroom. In fact, I would define in the bedroom as referring to "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decisions" made by consenting adults.
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
While I don't necessarily agree with the bill, I don't think that rape is covered by the phrase in the bedroom. In fact, I would define in the bedroom as referring to "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decisions" made by consenting adults.

This isn't about rape or sexual assault.

This is about telling people who are engaged in sexual activity how they have to have sex.

What if someone wants to roleplay or use uhh...sexual toys that make it impossible to speak? This is the government telling people how they have to engage in sexual intercourse.

Of course, it's an idiot law from California, but that's redundant.
 
Upvote 0

Cute Tink

Blah
Supporter
Nov 22, 2002
19,570
4,624
✟102,861.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
This is about telling people who are engaged in sexual activity how they have to have sex.

...

This is the government telling people how they have to engage in sexual intercourse.

Then I guess both parties have an interest in who is having sex with who and how.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
This isn't about rape or sexual assault.

This is about telling people who are engaged in sexual activity how they have to have sex.

What if someone wants to roleplay or use uhh...sexual toys that make it impossible to speak? This is the government telling people how they have to engage in sexual intercourse.

Of course, it's an idiot law from California, but that's redundant.

What part of the law requires verbal consent? Or reiteration of consent during the act?

What part of "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decisions" doesn't apply to the sex you're regularly having?
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What part of the law requires verbal consent? Or reiteration of consent during the act?

That would be the part where the law says that consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity...

Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

What part of "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decisions" doesn't apply to the sex you're regularly having?

What business of yours is the sex that I'm regularly having?
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
That would be the part where the law says that consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity...
That means bothy parties must still be consenting through out the activity. Not that they constantly say "may I do this, may I do that". Surely you knew that, right? You're just being obtuse, you didn't think that's what "ongoing consent" meant, right?


What business of yours is the sex that I'm regularly having?
You don't have to tell me anything about your sex life. The question was about what you're NOT doing, not what you ARE doing. So again, what part of "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decisions" doesn't apply to the sex you're regularly having?
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
And here's where I fisk the bill:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity.

And...how do they determine that?

“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.

If a partner initiates, and the other partner does not say, "No," can't that be interpreted as consent?

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.

Good grief. Isn't that awkward?

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

Because silence is not communication?

:doh:

Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

Wow. That's even more of a mood killer.

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.

But, it shouldn't be an indicator of lack of consent before the law, either.

Of course a prior relationship could provide doubt about a rape claim, but how dare we give the defendant an advantage.

:doh:

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

Blah, blah, blah. Legalese transition...

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused

If you're responsible enough to drink, you're responsible enough for the consequences. So far, this is the only part of the law that isn't actually stupid.

(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.

And...who defines a "reasonable" step? Is it a signed and notarized ten page contract and power of attorney?

:doh:

(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

So, what happens if you have a "He said, she said" type of situation? What happens if both parties have the same version of events except for the consent and the lack of consent. If both parties have equal credibility, then who gets the benefit of the doubt?

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

More sweet legalese transition...

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.

Gee. Roofies are bad. Who'da thunk it?

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

Gee. Isn't using roofies part of the definition of rape?

:doh:

(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

Gee. That could also be part of the definition of rape.

Can't colleges expel people for rape?

(b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:

Don't people have the right to face their accuser as part of due process and to cross examine the accuser and any witnesses as part of due process?

(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.

So, they can expel people for being sexual predators, but they can't actually tell anyone they expelled a person for being a sexual predator?

:doh:

(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.

In a case like this, shouldn't they, you know, call the police to report a crime?

:doh:

(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.

Hey. Guess what. That's a crime. Call the police to investigate.

(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.

Shouldn't that be the responsibility of people who conduct such interviews. You know, the police?

(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.

Hey. Sounds like a job for the police.

(6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.

This, I could perhaps understand.

(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.

Shouldn't this be step (1) since sexual assault is, you know, a crime?

(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.

This is a good step, but, should be left to the police.

(9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.

Whiz quiz for everyone!

(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.

So...who determines whether or not something is egregious?

Hopefully not the people who came up with a law about handling crimes that leaves actually contacting the people who fight crime until step 7.

(12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.

Hopefully they tell them it's a crime and that the should report it to the police.

(13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties.

Gee. Because anonymous tips haven't gone horribly wrong.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
That means bothy parties must still be consenting through out the activity. Not that they constantly say "may I do this, may I do that". Surely you knew that, right? You're just being obtuse, you didn't think that's what "ongoing consent" meant, right?

Well, to quote a law:

Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

If I may paraphrase, affirmative consent means, affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity, must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity, and can be revoked at any time. Lack of protest to a sexual activity or silence about a sexual activity do not mean consent irregardless of a past sexual or dating relationship.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm quoting from and have read the law.

It sure seems like it's written to mean that it requires people to do exactly what you suggest that it does not mean.

"May I do that."
"Yes."
"May I do this."
"Yes."
"May I do that."
[silence]
"Ahem."
[end of activity]

:doh:

Yes. The law is really written that badly.


You don't have to tell me anything about your sex life. The question was about what you're NOT doing, not what you ARE doing. So again, what part of "affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decisions" doesn't apply to the sex you're regularly having?

People don't always understand my relationships...

:sorry:

An awkward moment involving the police and a riding crop...
 
Upvote 0

KitKatMatt

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
May 2, 2013
5,818
1,602
✟29,520.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Someone once told me that it was really my fault I got sexually assaulted, because I didn't outright say "no" or "stop". I was terrified and couldn't speak, though I did try to push the guy away (but he was much bigger than me, I had no chance).

So, personally, I like the wording of this. "No" means "no", but the lack of a "no" doesn't mean "yes".
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Someone once told me that it was really my fault I got sexually assaulted, because I didn't outright say "no" or "stop". I was terrified and couldn't speak, though I did try to push the guy away (but he was much bigger than me, I had no chance).

It's not your fault. It's a good argument for the second amendment, though. If you tried to push him away, you communicated quite clearly. Unfortunately, he ignored your message.

The guy ignored your signals. It's kind of hard to ignore a .38.

So, personally, I like the wording of this. "No" means "no", but the lack of a "no" doesn't mean "yes".

In your case, the assaulter ignored your communication.

How would requiring more communication have helped?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Because the primary concern here is whether or not any added awkwardness (a point which I'm not conceding) kills your chances of getting laid. :thumbsup:

This is an extremely poorly written an ambiguous law. Such laws are easily prone to abuse and misinterpretation.

Of course there's also the fact that college administrators don't have the moral courage to report crimes to the police and to expel students for rape.
 
Upvote 0

KitKatMatt

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
May 2, 2013
5,818
1,602
✟29,520.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's not your fault. It's a good argument for the second amendment, though. If you tried to push him away, you communicated quite clearly. Unfortunately, he ignored your message.

The guy ignored your signals. It's kind of hard to ignore a .38.

That's great and all, but I don't carry a gun, and don't intend to.
 
Upvote 0

Panzerkamfwagen

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.
May 19, 2015
11,005
21
39
✟19,002.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
That's great and all, but I don't carry a gun, and don't intend to.

That's your decision.

I was just trying to point out to you that a firearm makes you the relative equal of a stronger, faster, and bigger man, and that if you carried one, you would not be dependent on stronger, bigger, and faster men to protect you. It's a tool, nothing more.

If you change your mind, I'm willing to offer you advice to the extent of my knowledge and abilities.
 
Upvote 0

KitKatMatt

stupid bleeding heart feminist liberal
May 2, 2013
5,818
1,602
✟29,520.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I am not dependant on any man to protect me, and I take offense at the statement.

The only reason I didn't attack the guy was because he was a close friend. That's why it scared me.

I have learned much since then, and am dependant on no one for my safety but myself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums