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

[Armoured]

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.

Ah, so it's not what's written, it's what "everybody knows it means". Well kinda hard to argue with that.

 

[variant]

Ah, so it's not what's written, it's what "everybody knows it means". Well kinda hard to argue with that.

Would you like some statistics? Or perhaps I should explain why it's generally easier to asess consent from a man?

 

[Armoured]

Would you like some statistics?

Statistics that show any given law doesn't mean what it says, but rather what "everybody knows it really means"?

Why yes, I would be fascinated by such statistics. Don't quite see what that has to do with the OP, but sure thing.

 

[variant]

Statistics that show any given law doesn't mean what it says, but rather what "everybody knows it really means"?

Why yes, I would be fascinated by such statistics. Don't quite see what that has to do with the OP, but sure thing.

The statistics would show that rape complaints are pretty one sided in both their preponderance and enforcement.

But first, do you honestly think the cravat that requiring partners to maintain affirmative consent throughout the sexual process is ever going to come up for a male making a complaint about a female? Or, that this is the purpose of this law in any way shape or form?

 

[Armoured]

The statistics would show that rape complaints are pretty one sided in both their preponderance and enforcement.

But first, do you honestly think the cravat that requiring partners to maintain affirmative consent throughout the sexual process is ever going to come up for a male making a complaint about a female? Or, that this is the purpose of this law in any way shape or form?

More "everybody knows" huh? And not even with the promised statistics.

 

[variant]

More "everybody knows" huh? And not even with the promised statistics.

I'm not going to go through the process of looking up statistics until I am sure you actually disagree with my assessment.

So, I asked you a question.

 

[Armoured]

I'm not going to go through the process of looking up statistics until I am sure you actually disagree with my assessment.

So, I asked you a question.

No. You're trying to make an argument happen where non exists.

Item: A law requiring consent before and during intimacy with someone is a good thing.
Item: The OP thinks this means constantly verbally reassuring the partner that it's OK to continue.
Item: OP misunderstood the law.

If you want to discuss the secret hidden meaning of the law, that everyone "really knows it's all about", and how horribly unfair it is that males are expected to be aware that women can revoke consent, may I suggest you take your fedora and start a new thread about it?

 

[variant]

No. You're trying to make an argument happen where non exists.

Item: A law requiring consent before and during intimacy with someone is a good thing.
Item: The OP thinks this means constantly verbally reassuring the partner that it's OK to continue.
Item: OP misunderstood the law.

If you want to discuss the secret hidden meaning of the law, that everyone "really knows it's all about", and how horribly unfair it is that males are expected to be aware that women can revoke consent, may I suggest you take your fedora and start a new thread about it?

The OP is correct, the law requires the accused to show some continued affirmation of consent in the case where an accusation of rape has been made.

The law is by no means clear on what that constitutes.

 

[Armoured]

The OP is correct, the law requires the accused to show some continued affirmation of consent in the case where an accusation of rape has been made.

The law is by no means clear on what that constitutes.

"consent" is a a pretty well defined legal concept. "implied" consent included. Consent doesn't have to be verbal.

 

[variant]

"consent" is a a pretty well defined legal concept. "implied" consent included. Consent doesn't have to be verbal.

Affirmative consent requires an affirmation and the law requires it be maintained thorough the sexual process. The law also states that it can be revoked at any time but does not specificity that this needs to be done explicitly.

The law also explicitly states: "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent."

The only way to be sure you are following this law would be to continually ask.

 

[Armoured]

Affirmative consent requires an affirmation and the law requires it be maintained thorough the sexual process. The law also states that it can be revoked at any time but does not specificity that this needs to be done explicitly.

The law also explicitly states: "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent."

The only way to be sure you are following this law would be to continually ask.

*eyeroll* fine dude. Whatever. The law is demanding people constantly ask each other "is this OK" as a mantra. That's absolutely what this is about.

 

[variant]

*eyeroll* fine dude. Whatever. The law is demanding people constantly ask each other "is this OK" as a mantra. That's absolutely what this is about.

That is how the bill is written.

So that anyone accused of rape is treated as guilty by the college disciplinary board unless there was no point in the process that was ever vague as to the continued desire to have sex.

It is vague enough that almost any sexual encounter can count as rape unless they verbally checked in at regular intervals.

 

[Armoured]

That is how the bill is written.

So that anyone accused of rape is treated as guilty by the college disciplinary board unless there was no point in the process that was ever vague as to the continued desire to have sex.

It is vague enough that almost any sexual encounter can count as rape unless they verbally checked in at regular intervals.

Well, if that's your concern, that's how you'd better have sex in California from now on.

In fact, if that's the only way you know of to ensure ongoing consent, that's probably how you should have sex anywhere.

I don't think you'll be having it a lot, I suspect most people would get pretty tired of the joke after the first dozen or so repetitions, but hey, if winning a semantics match is more important to you than trying to meaningfully agitate for less sexual assault, you gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[variant]

Well, if that's your concern, that's how you'd better have sex in California from now on.

I am not the target of the law, just men having sex on college campuses in California, it would be a rather dubious idea to foist on the general population.

In fact, if that's the only way you know of to ensure ongoing consent, that's probably how you should have sex anywhere.

I'm not saying I am stupid, I am saying that is the only way one could possibly be sure not to be treated as a rapist by a California college where you were a student.

You should look at the standards as they are being applied on campuses say this example given by Yale University.

5. Devin and Ansley are engaging in a consensual sexual encounter, which Devin begins to
intensify. Ansley responds by pulling away slightly, moving Devin’s hands and saying “not
so fast; I’m not sure.” Devin cooperates briefly but then intensifies the contact once more.
Ansley inches backwards and then becomes still. Nonetheless, Devin has sex with Ansley.

While the initial sexual activity was consensual, that consent was not sustained. The UWC
penalty would likely range from multi-semester suspension to expulsion.

http://smr.yale.edu/node/16/attachment

So we expel people for not reading all the sighs properly when a simple no or stop would clarify the situation.

I don't think you'll be having it a lot, I suspect most people would get pretty tired of the joke after the first dozen or so repetitions, but hey, if winning a semantics match is more important to you than trying to meaningfully agitate for less sexual assault, you gotta do what you gotta do.

The fact that you don't understand that implicit consent and affirmative consent are two different standards is the issue here not semantics.

When passing laws that effect peoples lives, how they are worded is actually pretty important.

 

[[serious]]

*eyeroll* fine dude. Whatever. The law is demanding people constantly ask each other "is this OK" as a mantra. That's absolutely what this is about.

No, the law doesn't say that.

The law requires affirmative consent. If you aren't getting some signal that your partner is interested in what is going on, you are probably doing it poorly.

 

[[serious]]

That is how the bill is written.

So that anyone accused of rape is treated as guilty by the college disciplinary board unless there was no point in the process that was ever vague as to the continued desire to have sex.

It is vague enough that almost any sexual encounter can count as rape unless they verbally checked in at regular intervals.

Source for "verbal" aspect? It's not in the law.

Let's look at a hypothetical, let's say a couple is in the middle of everything, and one partner stops participating. Would anyone hear actually not ask if everything was alright? If you actually have no ongoing indication that they are into it, why would you NOT check in with them?

 

[variant]

Source for "verbal" aspect? It's not in the law.

Well a nod or thumbs up might do.

All other sorts of "affirmations" are going to be somewhat ambiguous especially if consent can end at any time implicitly.

5. Devin and Ansley are engaging in a consensual sexual encounter, which Devin begins to
intensify. Ansley responds by pulling away slightly, moving Devin’s hands and saying “not
so fast; I’m not sure.” Devin cooperates briefly but then intensifies the contact once more.
Ansley inches backwards and then becomes still. Nonetheless, Devin has sex with Ansley.

While the initial sexual activity was consensual, that consent was not sustained. The UWC
penalty would likely range from multi-semester suspension to expulsion.

What is wrong with what Devin did in the scenario I posted was that he didn't say anything to her to make sure she was still involved. He is quite possibly under the impression that she is.

When the college comes to question him about this he now needs to now be able to show that she unequivocally consented at every step of the process or he gets suspended. So, any grey area is going to be an issue.

Ashley apparently didn't want to have sex enough to ask authorities to police her bedroom activities with an expulsion, but shouldn't be required have enough responsibility to tell her quite possibly obliviously stupid partner to stop.

We of course don't know if that would have actually stopped him in the scenario because we don't know his intentions.

 

[AirPo]

This isn't about rape or sexual assault.

That is exactly what it is about.

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

No it's not.

What if someone wants to roleplay

Do you mean

"an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision"

to roleplay?

or use uhh...sexual toys that make it impossible to speak?

Do you mean

"an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision"

to use uhh...sexual toys that make it impossible to speak?

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

No it's not.

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

When all else fails, name call.

 

[KitKatMatt]

Also, roleplaying and using toys that make it hard to speak entails using safe words/safe actions.

BDSM: Safe, sane, consensual.

All scenes need to be discussed by all parties in detail before the scene starts, including safe words and actions, which will end the scene immediately if called on.

 

[variant]

Also, roleplaying and using toys that make it hard to speak entails using safe words/safe actions.

BDSM: Safe, sane, consensual.

All scenes need to be discussed by all parties in detail before the scene starts, including safe words and actions, which will end the scene immediately if called on.

If everyone was built to run their sexual lives in the contractual manner of a BSDM enthusiast there would be little need for many of our laws on sex.

I don't think it is a reasonable expectation though.