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

[James Keith]

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

One of your other accounts?

 

[SakuMemories]

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.

So this law says that consent can be revoked at any time?! That is common sense. I mean it sounds like part of the definition of consent, you are generally free to do with it as you see fit.

I am also curious to see where it says the change in consent does not need to be communicated. It sounds pretty fucked up.

 

[skombolis]

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.

Yeah that ups the ante about 1000 percent. Now it is not just sex but someone you supposedly love and want to spend the rest of your life with yet you still are basically telling them you don't trust them fully.

I'd try to approach like like "listen, 50% of marriages end in divorce. And most of those divorces are nasty. Do you think anybody ever imagined that when they got married? If God-forbid things went bad between us I have to make sure my family is still taken care of. But you will be taken care of as well" and hope she understood. And even still, prenups only count towards money accrued BEFORE the marriage. They are still entitled to half of anything made after the marriage. Some prenup clauses have infidelity clauses. Think about how bad that would be to sell. I love you but just in case you are the type of person to fuck people behind my back I'm gonna need you to initial here as well.

It's that kind of world friend. It is pretty depressing actually when one really stops to think about it. You can't even trust love any more.

 

[chokeyou]

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

I explained why it is in multiple posts, he hasn't explained why it isn't. I even got articles explaining it and he responded with "I want academic articles."

 

[ben236]

So this law says that consent can be revoked at any time?! That is common sense. I mean it sounds like part of the definition of consent, you are generally free to do with it as you see fit.

I am also curious to see where it says the change in consent does not need to be communicated. It sounds pretty fucked up.

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

Nowhere in the text does it say the above doesn't apply when the person changes their mind.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yeah that ups the ante about 1000 percent. Now it is not just sex but someone you supposedly love and want to spend the rest of your life with yet you still are basically telling them you don't trust them fully.

I'd try to approach like like "listen, 50% of marriages end in divorce. And most of those divorces are nasty. Do you think anybody ever imagined that when they got married? If God-forbid things went bad between us I have to make sure my family is still taken care of. But you will be taken care of as well" and hope she understood. And even still, prenups only count towards money accrued BEFORE the marriage. They are still entitled to half of anything made after the marriage. Some prenup clauses have infidelity clauses. Think about how bad that would be to sell. I love you but just in case you are the type of person to fuck people behind my back I'm gonna need you to initial here as well.

It's that kind of world friend. It is pretty depressing actually when one really stops to think about it. You can't even trust love any more.

I'm all-or-nothing type of person, no prenup just good will, and if it goes to hell then I accept it. But yeah, this world has left me behind.

 

[Jack V Savage]

One of your other accounts?

I have no other accounts. Want to try to answer the question or where you just trolling again?

I explained why it is in multiple posts, he hasn't explained why it isn't. I even got articles explaining it and he responded with "I want academic articles."

Explain it to me as succinctly as possible.

 

[SakuMemories]

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

Nowhere in the text does it say the above doesn't apply when the person changes their mind.

Ah so you are making this shit up. Despite being sure this was some MRA bullshit, I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. Oh well.

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.

Is this your obvious argument? Here is what is obvious: Two people courting, as in dating, as in being romantically involved more than 2 hours before fucking don't need to worry about this shit.

I mean lets be real here, these laws are aimed at bros who fuck passed out bitches, drunk out of their mind. I expect you guys as good Christians obsessed with purity and modesty to not address the issue any other way than: People should not be engaged in such behavior to begin with. Its pretty funny that the exact opposite is happening.

 

[Dogstarman]

These stories remind me of when I was fucking this chick in college. She wasn't the best looking chick but she gave it up and was dirty in bed. She would look at me and say do anything you want to me, and she meant it.

As I said the problem was she was a skinny white girl. I like curvy Latina chicks and I was kind it embarrassed being with her in public.

Any way she got really clingy to the point she was starting to sleep at my place every night.

When she left her toothbrush at my place that was taking it too far. I had to break it off. She got fucking pissed too. She came to me 2 days later saying I gave her some kind of std. I went to check because,wtf? I was clean, btw. Then she called me about a week later saying she got a new boy friend that respected her and he was going to kick my ass. This was before cell phones, so I couldn't block the calls. I told her good for you and hung up. So a week goes by then she calls back to bitch me out and yell again that her boyfriend is on the look out for me so watch out. Just then, I just say can't you come over right now, just you and hang out?

The crazy bitch comes over and I Fuck the shit out of her again. Afterward she says she hasn't come like that in a few weeks, lol. She started complaining that her new bf was weak and had a small dick, mine isn't earth shattering by the way. She then goes on to say, we can't let bf know. That is music to my ears.

Well anyway another week goes by and I didn't hear shit, which is a relief.

Her bf was the best thing to happen to me. She stayed with that dude the rest of my college life and if I wanted some of that chick she would come when I called.

To me it seems like these girls get broken hearted then try and hurt the guy as much as they can. I'm not saying rape doesn't happen but the guys in college aren't all predators. Must be tough being a guy in college now a days.

 

[chokeyou]

Explain it to me as succinctly as possible.

Valuing the betterment of women and minorities through government intrusion while downplaying the constitution and fundamental rights is generally an ideal from the left, see for example affirmative action. Valuing constitutional rights and keeping the government out of your private life as much as possible, eg. the right to carry a gun, is generally an ideal of the right. This law has the government regulating the manner in which we can have sex for the benefit of women while depriving men of the right to due process. It's essentially femenazism at its worst.

 

[dontsnitch]

Ah so you are making this shit up. Despite being sure this was some MRA bullshit, I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. Oh well.


Is this your obvious argument? Here is what is obvious: Two people courting, as in dating, as in being romantically involved more than 2 hours before fucking don't need to worry about this shit.

I mean lets be real here, these laws are aimed at bros who fuck passed out bitches, drunk out of their mind. I expect you guys as good Christians obsessed with purity and modesty to not address the issue any other way than: People should not be engaged in such behavior to begin with. Its pretty funny that the exact opposite is happening.

I'm simply being objective. We live in a hook-up culture where people have sex without knowing each other well. I don't approve, but I don't condemn. This doesn't mean that I can't point out the irrationality of having to carry a contract with you, and that it contradicts how humans interact.

I could say let's just teach abstinence, would that be better?

 

[skombolis]

Ah so you are making this shit up. Despite being sure this was some MRA bullshit, I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. Oh well.


Is this your obvious argument? Here is what is obvious: Two people courting, as in dating, as in being romantically involved more than 2 hours before fucking don't need to worry about this shit.

I mean lets be real here, these laws are aimed at bros who fuck passed out bitches, drunk out of their mind. I expect you guys as good Christians obsessed with purity and modesty to not address the issue any other way than: People should not be engaged in such behavior to begin with. Its pretty funny that the exact opposite is happening.

This is one of the most insane posts I have ever read

1) People have one night stands all the time and that is what this law is aimed at, not people in relationships. Although now even someone in a relationship can claim rape if every time they have sex with their boyfriend or spouse they didn't verbally consent first.

2) And the law sure as shit is NOT aimed at guys having sex with woman who are passed out. That is already rape because the person was physically unable to give consent

3) What does being Christian have to do with why someone shouldn't understand there are some huge problems with what should be an equal situation

A) If a girl has been drinking supposedly she isn't capable of giving consent EVEN IF SHE DOES because she is in an altered state of mind, yet a guy being drunk means nothing. So the million high-school and college kids that have had sex this year alone, many times while both are drinking (or not, it doesn't matter according to the 'yes means yes' standard) all the guys are rapists despite the sex being consensual. And you are ok with that apparently. Because that is exactly what that standard says.

B) A guy has to get oral consent but a woman doesn't

C) In a he said/she said situation, there is even less of a presumption of innocence than already exists in the criminal justice system already

People have been having sex for hundreds of thousands of years off of non-verbal cues, body language, common-sense, and mutual participation. Sex is an intimate and progressive act where the participation from both sides is the implied consent. "No means No" is a perfectly acceptable standard. Needing someone to verbally consent or a consensual act is rape is absurd. Let's apply that standard to any other action. I extend my hand to someone for a handshake. They see it and extend theirs and shake my hand. Afterwards I am charged with assault because they never orally consenting to me shaking their hand.

You are on a rescue mission where there is no victim. In fact, you are trying to support something that by its very nature is only going to lead to the persecution of the innocent. My only guess is your 'Christians should be obsessed with purity' and all that nonsense is what is driving this strawman argument.

 

[VulgarSnaps]

Rape is a criminal issue and shouldn't be handled by campus tribunals or whatever nonsense these fantasyland people come up with.

Should the accused take any sexual assault plea down, or be in fact guilty, expel them and direct victim to counseling.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Valuing the betterment of women and minorities through government intrusion while downplaying the constitution and fundamental rights is generally an ideal from the left, see for example affirmative action.

So your argument has nothing to do with either liberal or left-wing thought. It's based on what you see as general tendencies. But that just shows that people aren't ideologically consistent, not that those positions are liberal or leftist.

Valuing constitutional rights and keeping the government out of your private life as much as possible, eg. the right to carry a gun, is generally an ideal of the right.

Well, Constitutionalism generally is a liberal position, and not an ideal of the far right (though American rightists have some liberal positions).

This law has the government regulating the manner in which we can have sex for the benefit of women while depriving men of the right to due process. It's essentially femenazism at its worst.

So you're calling it a right-wing phenomenon. The name (that you badly mangled) implies right-wing feminism, does it not?

 

[ben236]

Ah so you are making this shit up. Despite being sure this was some MRA bullshit, I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. Oh well.

Were you dropped on your head as a child or something?

"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 law is pretty specific (or vague) in what the criteria for consent entails. The onus is entirely on you to ensure you have the consent of the other person. The other person does not have to protest or resist in order to not give consent, whether before or during (or de facto, after) intercourse.

It clearly states that the affirmative consent is ongoing throughout a sexual activity. Meaning that during sex, the affirmative consent standard still applies.

Actually read the fucking bill because it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[chokeyou]

Ah so you are making this shit up. Despite being sure this was some MRA bullshit, I had to give you the benefit of the doubt. Oh well.


Is this your obvious argument? Here is what is obvious: Two people courting, as in dating, as in being romantically involved more than 2 hours before fucking don't need to worry about this shit.

I mean lets be real here, these laws are aimed at bros who fuck passed out bitches, drunk out of their mind. I expect you guys as good Christians obsessed with purity and modesty to not address the issue any other way than: People should not be engaged in such behavior to begin with. Its pretty funny that the exact opposite is happening.

What makes you say that people who are dating don't have to worry about this? The law doesn't make an exception for that, and a crazy bitch going through a bad break up could just as easily make false rape accusations.

Also, fucking a passed out bitch is rape under existing laws, there is no need for this stupid law. All it does is allow women to make false accusations and get a dude expelled from school as a "rapist" because she regrets having consensual sex the next day. Women don't have the right to be free from making stupid decisions.

 

[chokeyou]

So your argument has nothing to do with either liberal or left-wing thought. It's based on what you see as general tendencies. But that just shows that people aren't ideologically consistent, not that those positions are liberal or leftist.



Well, Constitutionalism generally is a liberal position, and not an ideal of the far right (though American rightists have some liberal positions).



So you're calling it a right-wing phenomenon. The name (that you badly mangled) implies right-wing feminism, does it not?

None of what you wrote makes sense, and you didn't explain any of your opinions other than to essentially say no you're wrong. Why is it difficult for you to understand that die hard feminists (feminazis) are generally hard leftists and that the right is typically against this type of government intrusion into our personal lives?

 

[James Keith]

I have no other accounts. Want to try to answer the question ...

Liar. And no, you are clearly a waste of time when it comes to debates about principles. I'd suggest you scroll back through the history of our discussions on the topic, if there really is still anything you're confused about regarding my stance on the topic.

As for the other poster, I was indeed teasing him in his demands for sources etc while offering next to nothing in response. You can call it trolling, but I think of it as making a point.

 

[ben236]

And of course "yes means yes" is based on left-wing thinking. The people who support "Yes Means Yes" are doing so with the intention of correcting what they believe to be a social inequality between men and women. Men are the oppressors, women are the oppressed, and the intent this law (at least in the eyes of the people who support it) is to help correct the balance.

This is textbook left wing ideology.

 

[Cayenne]

I've glossed over the "yes means yes" (SB-967) bill and there's nothing outrageous in it. Don't have sex with girls who are unconscious or influenced by drugs or alcohol. It also lays out that you're not allowed to force yourself on your girlfriend if she's not into it. The part that seems to cause problems is that the girl needs to give "affirmative consent". In the context of the bill, they meant that when a girl is blacked out and not actively saying no doesn't mean you are allowed to have sex with her. None of these things are unreasonable.

The fox articles quotes that story about the guy who was expelled even though the girl was clearly not being raped. This case has been brought up several times in the war room already. Because this is being brought up repeatedly it probably gives the illusion that it's some sort of scary trend that keeps happening, but it's same one case. The intent of the bill isn't wrong, it's more that the bill is too vague and up to malicious interpretation.