California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule

[Lief 🗽]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/28/california-yes-means-yes_n_5897828.html?&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wonderful news! Looks like California is preparing to give college rapists a good thrashing.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I like the "glass is half full" approach here.

Dominating.

[Person Man]

Of course the consent has to be at the time of the contact and doesn't cover them if they say "if I pass out, you can do what you want". That's an escape clause for at least one middle age "pickup artist" I used to know.

[DrScholl]

And this would have never passed without Democrats having a supermajority in the legislature, which a lot of people screamed was a bad thing.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

And this would have never passed without Democrats having a supermajority in the legislature, which a lot of people screamed was a bad thing.

Why would that be a bad thing?! 

"Oh no!  Think of all the completely reasonable and beneficial legislation that can't be fillibustered!" 

[Franzl]

I like this in principle, but just how clear does the confirmation have to be? Will one have to literally ask "Are you willing to engage in sexual activity in accordance with California §....?"?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Excellent news.

I like this in principle, but just how clear does the confirmation have to be? Will one have to literally ask "Are you willing to engage in sexual activity in accordance with California §....?"?

I'm sure "Wanna f**k?" will be accepted as well.

[Bojack Horseman]

Personally I'm not big on the whole "drunk sex=rape" thing. Now if you get someone drunk to have sex with you, that's one thing, but if you're both drunk and you both decide to go at it, that's not rape. To quote an article in Time Magazine, "I'm not as concerned for my daughter being assaulted on a college campus as I am for my son having his life ruined when he has sex after a party."

[Person Man]

Personally I'm not big on the whole "drunk sex=rape" thing. Now if you get someone drunk to have sex with you, that's one thing, but if you're both drunk and you both decide to go at it, that's not rape. To quote an article in Time Magazine, "I'm not as concerned for my daughter being assaulted on a college campus as I am for my son having his life ruined when he has sex after a party."

There is a problem when you are more concerned about "buyer's remorse" than date rape. And everyone involved seems to be responsible.


This is another big issue. Kids need to be more aware of the heuristics of the party. Is there someone who has had only one or two drinks macking on someone who is obviously intoxicated? It might seem like it is unreasonable but there must be a way to legislate around common sense. We won't be able to get rid of all "date rape" and "buyer's remorse" situations, but I think we can have a lot fewer than we do now and handle them a lot better.

Excellent news.

I like this in principle, but just how clear does the confirmation have to be? Will one have to literally ask "Are you willing to engage in sexual activity in accordance with California §....?"?

I'm sure "Wanna fuck?" will be accepted as well.

or when making out becomes "something more"
 "wanna go watch TV?" or "wanna go back/upstairs?" works as well.

[Simfan34]

This thread became very terrible very quickly.

[bedstuy]

Personally I'm not big on the whole "drunk sex=rape" thing. Now if you get someone drunk to have sex with you, that's one thing, but if you're both drunk and you both decide to go at it, that's not rape. To quote an article in Time Magazine, "I'm not as concerned for my daughter being assaulted on a college campus as I am for my son having his life ruined when he has sex after a party."

I think that's just an argument based on the ambiguity with the word drunk.  There's drunk and there's drunk, right.  I think a reasonable interpretation would be intoxicated to the point where you can't truly consent.  So, being tipsy is obviously not drunk for these purposes.  Unable to stand up, slurring your words, being unresponsive, vomiting, eyes glazed over, that's drunk and no decent person would accidentally have sex with someone in that position.  A person with a moral compass takes care of that person, makes sure they drink some water and potentially seeks medical attention for them.

So, there is no mutual drunk sex by that definition.  Just think about when you've been seriously, blind drunk.  You're in no shape to have sex, the only physical urge you have is to void the contents of your stomach and get the room to stop spinning. 

[TDAS04]

Good news. 

[Person Man]

Personally I'm not big on the whole "drunk sex=rape" thing. Now if you get someone drunk to have sex with you, that's one thing, but if you're both drunk and you both decide to go at it, that's not rape. To quote an article in Time Magazine, "I'm not as concerned for my daughter being assaulted on a college campus as I am for my son having his life ruined when he has sex after a party."

I think that's just an argument based on the ambiguity with the word drunk.  There's drunk and there's drunk, right.  I think a reasonable interpretation would be intoxicated to the point where you can't truly consent.  So, being tipsy is obviously not drunk for these purposes.  Unable to stand up, slurring your words, being unresponsive, vomiting, eyes glazed over, that's drunk and no decent person would accidentally have sex with someone in that position.  A person with a moral compass takes care of that person, makes sure they drink some water and potentially seeks medical attention for them.

So, there is no mutual drunk sex by that definition.  Just think about when you've been seriously, blind drunk.  You're in no shape to have sex, the only physical urge you have is to void the contents of your stomach and get the room to stop spinning. 

Its common sense and very simple. Someone has taken advantage of a helpless victim or not.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Does this mean California law has one standard of rape for colleges and another for everywhere else?

[TNF]

Excellent news. The next logical step here is to stop treating rapists with kids' gloves.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

This is a good law.

Naturally, the Tea Party opposes it.

[bullmoose88]

Personally I'm not big on the whole "drunk sex=rape" thing. Now if you get someone drunk to have sex with you, that's one thing, but if you're both drunk and you both decide to go at it, that's not rape. To quote an article in Time Magazine, "I'm not as concerned for my daughter being assaulted on a college campus as I am for my son having his life ruined when he has sex after a party."

I think that's just an argument based on the ambiguity with the word drunk.  There's drunk and there's drunk, right.  I think a reasonable interpretation would be intoxicated to the point where you can't truly consent.  So, being tipsy is obviously not drunk for these purposes.  Unable to stand up, slurring your words, being unresponsive, vomiting, eyes glazed over, that's drunk and no decent person would accidentally have sex with someone in that position.  A person with a moral compass takes care of that person, makes sure they drink some water and potentially seeks medical attention for them.

So, there is no mutual drunk sex by that definition.  Just think about when you've been seriously, blind drunk.  You're in no shape to have sex, the only physical urge you have is to void the contents of your stomach and get the room to stop spinning. 

This is generally a good idea. The statute I mean. That said does the statute define a level of intoxication whereby consent is per se unattainable? Is it a totality of circumstances/factors test?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I'm not debating that rape is horrible crime that needs to be stopped, and support the stuff further down in the article, but I still wonder how the "verbal consent" part is really going to change things? This works if there's witnesses saying there was none or some kind of video/audio recording of what's going on, but if there's none of those this still is a "he said/she said" thing.

I wonder how this will actually play out in a court of law. It's a good law with good intentions, but as we've all learned so well things aren't as clear and simple as they seem.

Also, why do they still allow the university to investigate? It should be actual law enforcement. The university can cooperate, sure, but this stuff needs to be handled by the police.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

^The irony tho

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Well-intentioned, but unfortunately somewhat problematic in application.

[angus]

Well intentioned?  Maybe.  Mostly it's nanny state in the extreme.

I think it's creepy.  Way too Orwellian.  Everyone always used to bitch about the GOP wanting to legislate what goes on in the bedrooms, now the Democrats are getting in on the act.

Rape is already crime, as it should be, and it is already prosecutable in California without this "affirmative" law.  I expect that before a year is finished there will be many unintended consequences, but it's the sort of Pandora's Box that won't be easily closed once opened.  Any legislator looking for its repeal will risk being labeled a knuckle-dragging misogynist. 

[Associate Justice PiT]

Well intentioned?  Maybe.  Mostly it's nanny state in the extreme.

I think it's creepy.  Way too Orwellian.  Everyone always used to bitch about the GOP wanting to legislate what goes on in the bedrooms, now the Democrats are getting in on the act.

Rape is already crime, as it should be, and it is already prosecutable in California without this "affirmative" law.  I expect that before a year is finished there will be many unintended consequences, but it's the sort of Pandora's Box that won't be easily closed once opened.  Any legislator looking for its repeal will risk being labeled a knuckle-dragging misogynist. 

     This is what I was thinking. Rape allegations are oftentimes a "he said, she said" sort of thing, and particularly the kind of allegations this addresses. The main effect that I can see is that it would make it easier to get a conviction in absence of corroborating evidence, which makes my blood run cold. And Democrats complain that the courts have a conservative slant.

[Mr. Morden]

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.

Instead, it looks like they're keeping the same standard within the criminal justice system, but changing the standard for internal investigations conducted within universities, outside of the criminal justice system.  I understand that colleges and universities have codes of conduct for their students, and that it may be appropriate for a university to take action against a student even when a criminal conviction is not made, but why is it the state's business to micromanage how universities enforce their own codes of conduct?  It sounds like the legislature is just throwing up its hands and saying "Our criminal justice system can't prosecute rape properly, so we're going to use universities as a sort of secondary criminal justice system with different rules."  Seems like a cop-out.

[politicus]

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.

Regarding consent, its necessary to change those rules. It shouldn't be legal to have sex with a person that is clearly unable to give consent, whether intoxicated, mentally handicapped, unconscious or for any other reason.

I understand that colleges and universities have codes of conduct for their students, and that it may be appropriate for a university to take action against a student even when a criminal conviction is not made.

It probably is given the epidemic nature of the problem, but its unfortunate. Legally you are either guilty or innocent.

[Famous Mortimer]

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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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"

What the f**k?