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

[Armoured]

...that governments would be invading people's bedrooms.



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.

You seem so desperate to take umbrage and find fault with "liberals" it has impaired your reading comprehension. It's about spelling out positive consent, not the strawnman nonsense you "paraphrased".

 

[nightflight]

nm

 

[variant]

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?

The law isn't clear on the definition of what constitutes consent or how it would/could be proven that you got it in the case where you had been accused of rape.

The law means, for the purposes of campus investigations, you are guilty until proven innocent in any cases where an accusation is made, even if you obtained explicit consent, and were never told to stop.

 

[Armoured]

The law isn't clear on the definition of what constitutes consent or how it would/could be proven that you got it in the case where you had been accused of rape.

I think the point is, if there's anything ambiguous about the consent, stop. If you really need what constitutes "consent" spelled out to you in that much detail, you probably aren't ready to be considering a sexual relationship anyway.

Baring semantic mountains made from molehills, what possible reason is there to find fault with a law that seeks to ensure sex acts are consentual?

 

[variant]

I think the point is, if there's anything ambiguous about the consent, stop. If you really need what constitutes "consent" spelled out to you in that much detail, you probably aren't ready to be considering a sexual relationship anyway.

Baring semantic mountains made from molehills, what possible reason is there to find fault with a law that seeks to ensure sex acts are consentual?

Because I don't expect a teenage boy to know when consent is withdrawn without being told to stop.

 

[Armoured]

Because I don't expect a teenage boy to know when consent is withdrawn without being told to stop.

That's a problem of teenage boys, not the law. Again... If you really need what constitutes "consent" spelled out to you in that much detail, you probably aren't ready to be considering a sexual relationship anyway.

This especially applies to teenage boys.

 

[variant]

That's a problem of teenage boys, not the law. Again... If you really need what constitutes "consent" spelled out to you in that much detail, you probably aren't ready to be considering a sexual relationship anyway.

This especially applies to teenage boys.

That the state of California should legislate who is ready for sexual relationships is ludicrous.

The law allows for the implicit withdraw of consent. So, we're putting the onus on a teenage boy to know what is going through someones mind.

According to the text of this law someone can withdraw consent without saying so because it is your responsibility to ensure you have it.

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.

Being inexperienced and or having such errors in judgment does not make them rapists or mean they should be treated as such.

Withdraw of consent, once given, should always have an explicit standard for legal purposes.

 

[Armoured]

That the state of California should legislate who is ready for sexual relationships is ludicrous.

The law allows for the implicit withdraw of consent. So, we're putting the onus on a teenage boy to know what is going through someones mind.

According to the text of this law someone can withdraw consent without saying so because it is your responsibility to ensure you have it.



Being inexperienced and or having such errors in judgment does not make them rapists or mean they should be treated as such.

Withdraw of consent, once given, should always have an explicit standard for legal purposes.

Alright, so how should it be worded?

 

[variant]

Alright, so how should it be worded?

This:

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 explicitly 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.

 

[Armoured]

This:

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 explicitly 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.

Oh, right. That's much better for the average teenage boy. Well done.

 

[variant]

Oh, right. That's much better for the average teenage boy. Well done.

It clears up a lot of legal questions, and keeps us from holding young people to vague and arbitrarily enforced standards.

 

[Armoured]

It clears up a lot of legal questions, and keeps us from holding young people to vague and arbitrarily enforced standards.

If you say so. Either way, I doubt the OP would like it.

 

[variant]

If you say so. Either way, I doubt the OP would like it.

It's reasonable to have a standard for what constitutes consensual sex if you have laws regarding it.

It is unreasonable to say consent can be revoked at any time and that the accused party was responcable for knowing this without being told.

 

[Armoured]

It's reasonable to have a standard for what constitutes consensual sex if you have laws regarding it.

It is unreasonable to say consent can be revoked at any time and that the accused party was responcable for knowing this without being told.

But that isn't what the law cited in the OP says.

Again, semantic mountains.

 

[variant]

But that isn't what the law cited in the OP says.

Again, semantic mountains.

I quoted the law directly.

Read it yourself:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

 

[Armoured]

I quoted the law directly.

Read it yourself:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

Not in post 33 you didn't. But whatever. You know you have a tendency to be needlessly contrarian, right? The issue discussed is whether or not a law demanding an absolute quality of consent is a good idea, and you're arguing about the specific wording of a claim no one made.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Keep it up. We'll take all the women voters that the Republicans have scared away with attitudes like this.

Obama Losing Support Among Women, Youths, Latinos

 

[variant]

Not in post 33 you didn't. But whatever. You know you have a tendency to be needlessly contrarian, right? The issue discussed is whether or not a law demanding an absolute quality of consent is a good idea, and you're arguing about the specific wording.

I don't see anything needless about it, this is obviously going to get someone in trouble who doesn't deserve it, so if the legislature really wanted to:

"lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board so we can create an environment that's healthy, that's conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well too, so young men can develop healthy patterns and boundaries as they age with the opposite sex,"

They wouldn't be putting the legal onus on the male partner in all sexual encounters to continuously maintain the explicit consent of their partner (somehow) after it was already given.

 

[Armoured]

I don't see anything needless about it, this is obviously going to get someone in trouble who doesn't deserve it, so if the legislature really wanted to:

"lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board so we can create an environment that's healthy, that's conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well too, so young men can develop healthy patterns and boundaries as they age with the opposite sex,"

They wouldn't be putting the legal onus on the male partner in all sexual encounters to continuously maintain the explicit consent of their partner (somehow) after it was already given.

Where is the onus put on the male partner? Looked weighted equally to me.

 

[variant]

Where is the onus put on the male partner? Looked weighted equally to me.

Reality means that this a law about men raping women, especially the portion I am speaking of.

If you honestly believe that women are going to be punished for not maintaining affirmative consent to sex with a man throughout the sexual process then I don't know what to say.