California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:53:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6
Author Topic: California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule  (Read 13446 times)
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2014, 06:44:45 AM »

I know it seems weird but my friends post articles on Facebook all the time, I see comments on Jezebel and other websites.

At first I thought they were poorly constructed parodies but everyone appears to be taking them at face value. If anyone is even mildly critical, they are shouted down.

The story is always the same: Girl in college. Guy asks her out. She doesn't want to but agrees out of pity. She allows herself to get drunk. She agrees to go back to his place. She makes out with him even though she doesn't want to, again out of pity. They have sex. She doesn't say "no" but she either doesn't move or she says something like "slow down" or "please wear a condom" It's rape. After the rape, she may agree to hang out with him several more times, again apparently out of pity. She may even get "raped" a couple more times. The writer will then make clear that the worst part is this person doesn't even know he's a rapist! But they are!

I've seen variations on that story so many times over the past couple years.

Also, just to be clear, nothing like that has ever happened to me. I always wait for enthusiastic consent and use a safe word even when I'm not doing anything particularly kinky, just because I'm terrified of these chicks being out there.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2014, 07:55:16 AM »

I know it seems weird but my friends post articles on Facebook all the time, I see comments on Jezebel and other websites.

At first I thought they were poorly constructed parodies but everyone appears to be taking them at face value. If anyone is even mildly critical, they are shouted down.

The story is always the same: Girl in college. Guy asks her out. She doesn't want to but agrees out of pity. She allows herself to get drunk. She agrees to go back to his place. She makes out with him even though she doesn't want to, again out of pity. They have sex. She doesn't say "no" but she either doesn't move or she says something like "slow down" or "please wear a condom" It's rape. After the rape, she may agree to hang out with him several more times, again apparently out of pity. She may even get "raped" a couple more times. The writer will then make clear that the worst part is this person doesn't even know he's a rapist! But they are!

I've seen variations on that story so many times over the past couple years.

Also, just to be clear, nothing like that has ever happened to me. I always wait for enthusiastic consent and use a safe word even when I'm not doing anything particularly kinky, just because I'm terrified of these chicks being out there.
Have you ever been with or know someone who seems uncomfortable during but claims they really are?

So ummm...what eventually happen s in this situation?  This slant of the story seems to imply that many people, especially male "pick up artists", have social skills good enough to have sex but not good enough for anything else.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2014, 07:56:08 AM »

It was already illegal to have sex with unconscious or drunk people (even mildly tipsy people, in fact, although in practice no one ever reported such things).

As such, this law is unnecessary.

Additionally, I do think this will result in lots of frivolous rape accusations. The intersectionalist left is already obsessed with "close reading" every aspect of society to find a sinister "White cis-male" motivation behind everything. Now they want to do that with sexuality in the legal sphere. It's unpopular to say but I really do believe there are a lot of misguided women who would allow themselves to get "raped" rather than just say "no" even though saying "no" would likely stop many of the "rapists" Because if they said "no" and the guy did stop, then they wouldn't be able to complain about the omnipresent "rape culture"

Oh. My. God. You have got to be kidding. You are literally defending rapists. Oh my god.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2014, 07:58:05 AM »

I know it seems weird but my friends post articles on Facebook all the time, I see comments on Jezebel and other websites.

At first I thought they were poorly constructed parodies but everyone appears to be taking them at face value. If anyone is even mildly critical, they are shouted down.

The story is always the same: Girl in college. Guy asks her out. She doesn't want to but agrees out of pity. She allows herself to get drunk. She agrees to go back to his place. She makes out with him even though she doesn't want to, again out of pity. They have sex. She doesn't say "no" but she either doesn't move or she says something like "slow down" or "please wear a condom" It's rape. After the rape, she may agree to hang out with him several more times, again apparently out of pity. She may even get "raped" a couple more times. The writer will then make clear that the worst part is this person doesn't even know he's a rapist! But they are!

I've seen variations on that story so many times over the past couple years.

Also, just to be clear, nothing like that has ever happened to me. I always wait for enthusiastic consent and use a safe word even when I'm not doing anything particularly kinky, just because I'm terrified of these chicks being out there.

Holy hell. This is monstrous.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2014, 08:07:03 AM »

I know it seems weird but my friends post articles on Facebook all the time, I see comments on Jezebel and other websites.

At first I thought they were poorly constructed parodies but everyone appears to be taking them at face value. If anyone is even mildly critical, they are shouted down.

The story is always the same: Girl in college. Guy asks her out. She doesn't want to but agrees out of pity. She allows herself to get drunk. She agrees to go back to his place. She makes out with him even though she doesn't want to, again out of pity. They have sex. She doesn't say "no" but she either doesn't move or she says something like "slow down" or "please wear a condom" It's rape. After the rape, she may agree to hang out with him several more times, again apparently out of pity. She may even get "raped" a couple more times. The writer will then make clear that the worst part is this person doesn't even know he's a rapist! But they are!

I've seen variations on that story so many times over the past couple years.

Also, just to be clear, nothing like that has ever happened to me. I always wait for enthusiastic consent and use a safe word even when I'm not doing anything particularly kinky, just because I'm terrified of these chicks being out there.

Holy hell. This is monstrous.

Like I said, some of these guys just think they're alpha males entitled to sex. They're rapists. Others are just average awkward guys who don't know they're intimidating and not connecting the dots.

Back to TOD, does this law have criminal penalties or is it "if you're too sexually aggressive,  you get kicked out of school? "
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: September 30, 2014, 09:51:16 AM »

No.  It does not stipulate expulsion from school, and it does not specify criminal penalties.  It doesn't need to, as california state statue (penal codes 261-269) already does this. 

Here's the text of the bill:

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

It only affects Cal State, U of Cal, and community college districts.  What this bill does is specify that these educational institutions establish policies, including outreach programming in student orientation, and require state and local governments to provide funding for protocols.  It also potentially sets bad precedent, increases the societal acceptance of an increasingly Napoleonic code of justice, and probably scares the hell out of young people. 

It's also very bizarre.  I've been an old boring married guy for a long time, but I still remember being single.  I cannot imagine a typical situation being calibrated as,  "May I do this?"  "Oh yes, you may."  "May I do that?"  "Oh, no, I am not ready to do that but the other is okay."  "Did you say 'okay' or did you say 'yes'?  I need clarification."  "Oh, I said yes to the first item.  You may proceed."  "May I now proceed to do this a little harder or a little softer?"  ...

George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf points out that under this law "a guy who is lying back and enjoying oral sex, one assumes enjoying it--or at least tolerating it--is not consenting simply by doing that, but under that definition if he didn’t say 'yes,' he is being violated." 

The bill is at best an overreaction, at worst an invitation to litigation.

But mainly what this legislation does is allow legislators to feel good about themselves. 
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2014, 10:21:13 AM »

No.  It does not stipulate expulsion from school, and it does not specify criminal penalties.  It doesn't need to, as california state statue (penal codes 261-269) already does this. 

Here's the text of the bill:

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

It only affects Cal State, U of Cal, and community college districts.  What this bill does is specify that these educational institutions establish policies, including outreach programming in student orientation, and require state and local governments to provide funding for protocols.  It also potentially sets bad precedent, increases the societal acceptance of an increasingly Napoleonic code of justice, and probably scares the hell out of young people. 

It's also very bizarre.  I've been an old boring married guy for a long time, but I still remember being single.  I cannot imagine a typical situation being calibrated as,  "May I do this?"  "Oh yes, you may."  "May I do that?"  "Oh, no, I am not ready to do that but the other is okay."  "Did you say 'okay' or did you say 'yes'?  I need clarification."  "Oh, I said yes to the first item.  You may proceed."  "May I now proceed to do this a little harder or a little softer?"  ...

George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf points out that under this law "a guy who is lying back and enjoying oral sex, one assumes enjoying it--or at least tolerating it--is not consenting simply by doing that, but under that definition if he didn’t say 'yes,' he is being violated." 

The bill is at best an overreaction, at worst an invitation to litigation.

But mainly what this legislation does is allow legislators to feel good about themselves. 


So does this allow prosecution by criminal court or just subjects students to discipline by the Dean of Students?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2014, 10:33:12 AM »
« Edited: September 30, 2014, 10:48:23 AM by angus »

This bill does not make mention of criminal prosecution.  If you research the penal codes, you'll see that rape is already a criminal offense in California.  In Pennsylvania as well, for that matter.  Prosecution for the crime is allowed under existing statue.  

The "yes means yes" bill is a feel-good measure.  It says, among other things, that "In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district... shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965..."  It goes on to say that the policy must stipulate that consent doesn't arise from drunkenness, etc., and that the policy must specify how the investigations will be carried out.  Additionally it stipulates that these colleges and universities maintain a partnership with "community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused..."

It really doesn't do much other than set up a culture of fear and rigidity in the minds of campus administrators and students.  You should read the text of the bill.  It seems to me that it was a reactionary response to the increased reporting of the so-called Rape Culture on campuses.  It was one of those "We have to do something" moments, such as that which existed right after September 11, 2001 when we decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, install the PATRIOT act, charge ourselves a terrorist fee for flying on airplanes, start spying on our neighbors, and treat anyone who "looks muslim" with suspicion.
 
As an added benefit, it creates more bureaucracy and adds costs to higher education, at a time when faculty are already burdened by unnecessary bureaucracy and students are already so burdened by increasing educational costs that they borrow beyond their ability to repay for the privilege of being educated.  All so a few men and women can help themselves to re-election.


Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2014, 11:02:04 AM »

At the risk of sounding like a religious prude, let me point out that this sort of bill would not be needed if our culture did not merely tolerate, but encourage casual sex.  If at the very least, the expectation for both men and women would be that they would at the least be "going steady" before visiting a certain village in Pennsylvania, the number of conflicting accounts (whether from differing interpretations or outright lying) of whether sex was consensual would be considerably reduced.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2014, 11:11:08 AM »

True, although in that case many young college men would be visiting another another village in Pennsylvania.  Luckily, there's always this village in Pennsylvania to help them out.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2014, 11:23:23 AM »

Yikes. 

I think it may be a totally valid point to say this won't make a huge difference.  But, let's not compare this to the War on Terror, that's hyperbole.  Residential colleges do realistically need to have policies when it comes to sexual assault.  If nothing else, it's good to clarify what that means. 

The elephant in the room here is that perhaps the American college community needs to re-examine their standards of behavior.  I mean, maybe binge drinking and having sex with random people is something should be done sparingly.  College is a special place for exploring and a experimenting, sure.  There is something to campus left-wing activism that refuses to put two and two together here.  A certain group has this knee jerk reaction of "you're not my real dad, you can't tell me what to do!!" 

So, maybe this is "slut-shaming" or sexist, but that's the missing element here.  College students need to have sex in a more conscientious way.  General rules like, communicate, try to get to know someone before you have sex, make sure you're not taking advantage of your partner, listen to them and make sure they're comfortable.  In terms of drinking, the same basic logic applies, the drinking on many college campuses is over the top.  Just cooling it somewhat would do a world of good.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: September 30, 2014, 11:26:24 AM »

let's not compare this to the War on Terror, that's hyperbole

hahaha.  I'm over it now, having been distracted by funny place names.  By the way, all three of those mentioned earlier, along with Puseyville and Paradise, are located in Lancaster County.  


Jugtown and Virginville are in nearby Berks county, not far from the state police manhunt.

Climax, PA is located out west, near Big Beaver, PA.  Grumps has probably visited those places.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: September 30, 2014, 11:35:12 AM »

Sorry, but let me add my voice to the skepticism here.  Sexual assault is a serious crime that should be investigated by the authorities in the criminal justice system.  If the authorities are dropping the ball on their investigations and prosecutions of this crime within the criminal justice system, such that they'd be better served by changing the consent rules to this new standard, then the state government should just go ahead and make that change.

Yes, one of the problematic aspects here is that colleges, campus police and campus tribunals etc are involved in this at all. Sexual assault is not something that should be judged by a code of conduct or anyone associated with the university, its much too grave for that. It should always be investigated and prosecuted by normal law enforcement officers with the proper training and knowledge to handle this (and if they don't have enough of those California should do something about that). This whole internal system vs. state responsibility aspect looks like a blind spot in the debate.

In America, we still have the tradition of colleges acting in loco parentis even if for the most part they no longer do.  That tradition is where the idea that colleges should concern themselves with the non-academic aspects of collegiate life comes from here in the States.  Whether higher education should even be in the business of offering food and board to their students is something that doesn't come up as much as it probably ought to.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,402
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: September 30, 2014, 12:28:37 PM »

Additionally, I do think this will result in lots of frivolous rape accusations. The intersectionalist left is already obsessed with "close reading" every aspect of society to find a sinister "White cis-male" motivation behind everything. Now they want to do that with sexuality in the legal sphere. It's unpopular to say but I really do believe there are a lot of misguided women who would allow themselves to get "raped" rather than just say "no" even though saying "no" would likely stop many of the "rapists" Because if they said "no" and the guy did stop, then they wouldn't be able to complain about the omnipresent "rape culture"


Logged
Citizen (The) Doctor
ArchangelZero
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,391
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2014, 12:42:08 PM »

Being someone on the inside when this was going through -- police oversight is near impossible and often not considered feasible due to schools being microcosms that would make it easier for subjects to target others. The publicity that would arise regarding an arrest is often something victims want to avoid. I personally don't believe administrations should be in charge of disciplinary measures and investigations should be moved to city police. However, unless such investigations can be done quietly (which is almost impossible anyway), then sadly administrative oversight is the only reasonable alternative.
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2014, 12:59:07 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2014, 01:01:21 PM by They call me PR »

At the risk of sounding like a religious prude, let me point out that this sort of bill would not be needed if our culture did not merely tolerate, but encourage casual sex.  If at the very least, the expectation for both men and women would be that they would at the least be "going steady" before visiting a certain village in Pennsylvania, the number of conflicting accounts (whether from differing interpretations or outright lying) of whether sex was consensual would be considerably reduced.

I tend to think that the issue isn't the prevalence of casual sex. The issue is (some) men feeling entitled to sex with any woman they want, regardless of the woman's feelings or if there's any chemistry between them (or in some cases, if the woman even knows the man exists). The days of female sexuality being controlled by men are over, and thank Zeus for that. Yet some jealous, resentful, misogynistic men apparently haven't gotten over that development.

And there really aren't many cases of outright lying by survivors of sexual assault.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2014, 02:11:43 PM »

At the risk of sounding like a religious prude, let me point out that this sort of bill would not be needed if our culture did not merely tolerate, but encourage casual sex.  If at the very least, the expectation for both men and women would be that they would at the least be "going steady" before visiting a certain village in Pennsylvania, the number of conflicting accounts (whether from differing interpretations or outright lying) of whether sex was consensual would be considerably reduced.

I tend to think that the issue isn't the prevalence of casual sex. The issue is (some) men feeling entitled to sex with any woman they want, regardless of the woman's feelings or if there's any chemistry between them (or in some cases, if the woman even knows the man exists). The days of female sexuality being controlled by men are over, and thank Zeus for that. Yet some jealous, resentful, misogynistic men apparently haven't gotten over that development.

And there really aren't many cases of outright lying by survivors of sexual assault.

I wasn't specifying who the potential liar might be.  While there are occasional examples of alleged victims doing so, I agree that it's far more common for accused perpetrators to lie.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2014, 02:17:10 PM »

This is a great step in the right direction to prevent campus rape.

I don't understand why "affirmative consent" is in any way controversial - it's something that personally I've done for years to ensure I wasn't being too forward or misinterpreting anything. It's simple, makes both partners more comfortable, and if you do it smoothly you can seamlessly even include it in the verbal foreplay.

I don't think it's a bad idea for universities to handle this sort of thing as a first resort- a lot of campus rape happens when a guy takes advantage of a girl that got too drunk. In that situation, our societal norms place a lot of blame on the girl for allowing herself to become that inebriated (while the guy's predatory behavior is dismissively downplayed). That guilt prevents many women from going to the police. Often when one girl accuses a guy of rape, it causes several other victims to come forward with allegations against the guy - that's because only then can they see, "No, it wasn't because I was irresponsible, he didn't just do it to me, he's a rapist so he needs to be stopped". If done right, a familiar campus atmosphere can allow a more welcoming atmosphere for a rape victim to report what happened.

Also there's nothing wrong with the fact that school expulsion has a lower threshold of proof than a genuine criminal case. If school officials are deciding if their campus would be safer without someone present, if the majority of the evidence indicates he's a rapist it would be ridiculous to do anything other than expel him.

Also false accusations of rape almost never happen, and on the rare occasions where they do happen it's very rare for the guy to get punished for it since the fraud usually gets discovered and even if for some reason investigators don't discover it's a fraud the guy still goes free because entire thing is fake and therefore has no evidence. The only reason "false accusations" are seemingly so prevalent is because it's basically the only defense a rapist can logically make when they get accused of their crimes. Just because like literally every guy accused of sexual assault claims they're being wrongfully accused, it doesn't make it true or even imply the guy has any actual evidence to support his claim
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2014, 02:58:36 PM »

The days of female sexuality being controlled by men are over, and thank Zeus for that.

Really? 

Of all the gods in the pantheon you might thank for relinquishing male control of female sexuality, you pick one famous not only for seduction and rape, but also one famous for swallowing the only goddess child destined by the Titans to be more powerful than he.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2014, 03:09:58 PM »

Obviously this is a good rule.

About that whole disgusting "he said, she said" canard:

1) You do realize that false accusations are really really rare, and that unreported assaults are orders of magnitude more common, no?
2) Eyewitness testimony is admissible in a court of law, why do we seem to be so uniquely skeptical of it when it comes from rape/assault victims?
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,426
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2014, 03:54:53 PM »

The days of female sexuality being controlled by men are over, and thank Zeus for that.

Really? 

Of all the gods in the pantheon you might thank for relinquishing male control of female sexuality, you pick one famous not only for seduction and rape, but also one famous for swallowing the only goddess child destined by the Titans to be more powerful than he.


I guess I should have said, "Thank feminism for that"-which has the added benefit of being true.

Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2014, 04:35:18 PM »

I'm sure glad all of these drinks and drugs killed my sex drive a long while ago.
Logged
Mopsus
MOPolitico
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.71, S: -1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2014, 05:40:21 PM »

I'm sure glad all of these drinks and drugs killed my sex drive a long while ago.

So are women.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2014, 06:31:21 PM »

Apart from the obvious piece of misogynist trash that has already been repeatedly called out, I want to point out that prevalence of rape has little to do with people having casual sex or drinking. Lots of rape happens in relationships and this tired old myth is just a more subtle way of victim blaming. It's perfectly fine for people to have casual sex and it is even safe for lots of participants (i.e. men).

I think this is likely a step in the right direction, mostly because it might change attitudes. A classic parallel is the law against child-beating.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,510
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2014, 06:39:00 PM »

This law has the potential to upend traditional norms when it comes to gender roles. It's probably safer for men to simply take a more passive approach when it comes to sex, and let her take the initiative from now on.  
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 12 queries.