"yes means yes" rape standard on college campuses unconstitutional.

[klnOmega]

In high school teachers and principals have a lot more leeway and the standards are more lax because of the nature of the situation. There needs to be a good learning environment for everyone and you are just a kid in school. Therefore banning profane t-shirts doesn't violate the first amendment and taking a kids cellphone doesn't violate the due process clause. However, the constitution still applies to the actions of the schools. So for example, when a kid is expelled from school he is entitled to a hearing and the right to be heard, and an expulsion for wearing an obama shirt for example would violate the first amendment.

Seems like they are picking and choosing how the constitution applies to them. If students are protected under the constitution, teachers shouldn't be able to take phones away without a warrant.

 

[chokeyou]

Could that be because California and New York have the two biggest college systems in the nation? Considering they're obviously getting the most push of any state in regards to university issues, because they are far and away home to the most universities, it would make sense they would be first to enact legislation.


But by all means, liberal ideology!

Still waiting on that ideological citation by the way.

I shouldn't have to provide citations since this is obviously a leftist politically correct movement, but here you go.

Klein's do something at all costs approach is also an indictment of the modern left's warped priorities and callous disregard for due process.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/13/ezra-klein-completely-supports-terrible

As anyone can tell you who

 

[chokeyou]

Seems like they are picking and choosing how the constitution applies to them. If students are protected under the constitution, teachers shouldn't be able to take phones away without a warrant.

That would make it impossible for teachers to run their classes, it would be completely unreasonable to require that.

 

[speakhandsforme]

I shouldn't have to provide citations since this is obviously a leftist politically correct movement, but here you go.



http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/13/ezra-klein-completely-supports-terrible



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/not-so-fast-on-yes-means-yes.html

And you didn't. You posted two opinion articles.

Come on, give me some academic journals or something that shows me where this liberal ideology comes into play. If you can't and still want to cling to that supposition, I'm sure you'd be okay with me saying that racism and sexism are grounded in the anals of rightist ideology, yes?

 

[chokeyou]

And you didn't. You posted two opinion articles.

Come on, give me some academic journals or something that shows me where this liberal ideology comes into play. If you can't and still want to cling to that supposition, I'm sure you'd be okay with me saying that racism and sexism are grounded in the anals of rightist ideology, yes?

Dude I'm not going to go pulling academic articles to teach you something anyone who's familiar with the political system knows.

 

[SakuMemories]

Isn't it a little bit disconcerting that people need to be told this? Make sure to get consent before fucking? It actually sounds quite terrifying, I imagine especially so if you are a broad. To know that the dudes around you need to be reminded that its not ok to rape.

I think our american friends really need to sit down and think when did this happen. I can't imagine this thing magically happened from one day to the other.

 

[speakhandsforme]

Dude I'm not going to go pulling academic articles to teach you something anyone who's familiar with the political system knows.

And that's what i thought.

Next time, spare speculation on "ideology" for people who actually understand it.

 

[ben236]

Isn't it a little bit disconcerting that people need to be told this? Make sure to get consent before fucking? It actually sounds quite terrifying, I imagine especially so if you are a broad. To know that the dudes around you need to be reminded that its not ok to rape.

I think our american friends really need to sit down and think when did this happen. I can't imagine this thing magically happened from one day to the other.

You should probably read up on what the "Yes Means Yes" bill entails before commenting.

Nobody is saying that it's okay to rape.

 

[chokeyou]

Isn't it a little bit disconcerting that people need to be told this? Make sure to get consent before fucking? It actually sounds quite terrifying, I imagine especially so if you are a broad. To know that the dudes around you need to be reminded that its not ok to rape.

I think our american friends really need to sit down and think when did this happen. I can't imagine this thing magically happened from one day to the other.

Do Europeans enter into verbal contracts for sex every time they do it? That's what we're talking about here, if you don't actually get her to say the word "yes" you are a rapist because you are a man. If both of you were drunk and neither of you remembers what happened then you are a rapist.

 

[skombolis]

lol

I have never gotten oral consent to have sex and I'm assuming that would kill the moment if I was that stupid not to realize when me and a woman were going at it and she's pulling my pants down or taking her off and then we proceed to go that route that the intent of sex is implied. Can you imagine having to stop and be like "for the record I do have your permission to have sex right? I only ask in case you are the type of sick bitch that would accuse me of rape if we don't end up dating after this"

And if a woman is unable to consent because she is drunk then so is the guy. And I don't mean unable to consent because she is passed out, I mean inebriated, just like the guy. And I'm someone who has screwed himself out of getting laid probably a dozen times because I either felt the girl had too much to drink, or knew she was going through some shit and would probably regret it the next day, or I simply was looking to show I didn't mind taking things a little slower because i was into the girl just to find out she wasn't looking for anything past that night and all I did was miss my chance. And i think rapists are the lowest scum on the planet; baby rapists first then regular rapists. But regret is not rape. That ought to be the new fucking slogan.

 

[SakuMemories]

You should probably read up on what the "Yes Means Yes" bill entails before commenting.

Nobody is saying that it's okay to rape.

As far as I understand, you now need to explicitly, consciously and affirmatively give consent. Silence and lack of denial/resistance does not mean you consent.

Why did this have to be written into a bill? What kind of problem is there that they hope to address with this...?

 

[James Keith]

It's not due to "left wing ideology," ...

Yes it is.

 

[SakuMemories]

Do Europeans enter into verbal contracts for sex every time they do it? That's what we're talking about here, if you don't actually get her to say the word "yes" you are a rapist because you are a man. If both of you were drunk and neither of you remembers what happened then you are a rapist.

You idiot, you forgot that Yurpeons don't have real sex. All the men are gay and all the women are getting raped by muslim immigrants. So there is no need for a verbal contract. All this according to Fox News of course.

 

[skombolis]

While I'm as big a critic of college disciplinary process on criminal issues as can be, I don't see how this is "unconstitutional".


A college panel doesn't have legal authority, and the "accused" isn't being tried for a crime. If your boss catches you stealing, for example, he can fire you on the spot. You don't get to bring in a lawyer and have a trial in front of a jury, nor should you have that "right". If your boss, or the college in this case, pursue legal actoin against you, then you will have your day in the court.

How is that a comparable analogy? Being seen committing a crime compared to being presumed a rapist in a consensual act because someone didn't specifically say in the process of a hookup leading to sex "I am giving you my permission to have intercourse. You may record me saying this for legal reasons but the audio can only be used in the event that you are accused. No audio or video may be recorded from this point further.". Then you pull out a contract and say "sign here, initial here here, and date it here. ok.....now where were we baby?"

It is such an absurd fucking standard that goes against every constitutional and common sense sense standard there is. What about if the sex isn't missionary but she is on top, should he still have no rights because he didn't get consent? And how can he prove he got consent other than by some insane way like I joked about?

 

[dontsnitch]

This topic is what got Warren Farrell labelled as a rape apologist.

The obvious argument against this is that sexuality and courtship between couples is very rarely established through verbal communication, but is entirely non-verbal. It takes place widely thought the use of body language and nuance where words become redundant, and would spoil the romance. To replace all of this with a sloppy and abrupt verbal proposal to have intercourse, followed by a mandatory verbal response before proceeding absolutely murders the mood and is childish at best, and is only surpassed in cringe-worthiness by pulling out a contract to sign. Weird times.

 

[skombolis]

This topic is what got Warren Farrell labelled as a rape apologist.

The obvious argument against this is that sexuality and courtship between couples is very rarely established through verbal communication, but is entirely non-verbal. It takes place widely thought the use of body language and nuance where words become redundant, and would spoil the romance. To replace all of this with a sloppy and abrupt verbal proposal to have intercourse, followed by a mandatory verbal response before proceeding absolutely murders the mood and is childish at best, and is only surpassed in cringe-worthiness by pulling out a contract to sign. Weird times.

THIS

Although these days, it is becoming so hard to protect against false charges and the risk of he said/she said with no presumption of innocence people have pretty much managed to ruin sex. You take out the non-verbal communication and you take out the passion. A contract is more like something you would have a prostitute sign and at minimum it says you don't trust her enough not to cover your ass legally. Sad days.

 

[dontsnitch]

THIS

Although these days, it is becoming so hard to protect against false charges and the risk of he said/she said with no presumption of innocence people have pretty much managed to ruin sex. You take out the non-verbal communication and you take out the passion. A contract is more like something you would have a prostitute sign and at minimum it says you don't trust her enough not to cover your ass legally. Sad days.

I guess it's what prenups where when they first were introduced. You're essentially saying that you don't trust your partner and you need a declaration from them to not throw you to the wolves when it's said and done.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes it is.

He explained why it isn't. Why do you think it is?

 

[ben236]

As far as I understand, you now need to explicitly, consciously and affirmatively give consent. Silence and lack of denial/resistance does not mean you consent.

And consent can be revoked at any time.

So in the middle of intercourse, a woman can change her mind (or claimed she changed her mind), not give you any verbal or non-verbal cues that she changed her mind, and you are now a rapist. Furthermore, it just increases ambiguity from the court's perspective since more often than not, initiating sexual contact, whether it's first, second, third base or a home run tends to be non-verbal in nature.

Basically anything other than a "can I finger you" responded with a "yes, you may finger me" (who the fuck acts like this during sex?), will be viewed as sexual assault in the court's eye. And even that might not stand as affirmative consent because the girl can change her mind one second later without telling you and you have now sexually assaulted her.

This law is basically a false accuser's godsend.

Why did this have to be written into a bill? What kind of problem is there that they hope to address with this...?

It makes false rape accusations easier. That is really the only thing I can think of.

 

[James Keith]

As far as I understand, you now need to explicitly, consciously and affirmatively give consent. Silence and lack of denial/resistance does not mean you consent.

Why did this have to be written into a bill? What kind of problem is there that they hope to address with this...?

The so-called "rape culture". A feminist thing.