California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule

[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. 

[angus]

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. 

[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.

[angus]

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.

[angus]

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.

[angus]

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.

[angus]

I don't see the issue with "affirmative consent". It's already the case in many Western countries.

Seriously?  

Man, I'm just not buying it.  I may be an old boring married guy but I wasn't always this way.  I've been laid in a number of "Western Countries."  I do not remember any conversations involving either of us asking the other for permission each step of the way.  This see,s really bizarre.  Is this the kind of conversation that young people have these days during foreplay?  Seriously?  I'm having trouble believing any of this.  It's a little embarrassing to have to paint a picture for you, but I sometimes think we may just have to do it.  Go back to the basics.  You people really ought to get offline once in a while and experience the world.  This sort of thinking isn't healthy.  You may agree with Ernest that all sex is bad sex, or you may agree with Mr. Morden that the nasty sluts had it coming, or you may agree with Leif that legislators legislating the conversation leading up to casual sex is normal and good.  I don't agree with any of those attitudes.  I seriously hope most of you don't either.

[angus]

bedstuy, I don't know really, and neither does anyone else, but it is certain that it cannot be "inferred."  That much is clear.  There's a document that the state posted and I linked herein, but I think that US legislatures have a history of reacting proactively to avoid litigation, and I think this is one such case.  My main concerns are the precedents it will set, the burdens it will place on the student in the form of increased tuition, and the bureaucracy it will create for university administrators.  I find it very disheartening that so many otherwise well-adjusted posters are jumping on this bandwagon.  

MaxQue, it most certainly does.  The architects of the bill were clear on at least that point.  Also, rape is a crime.  It was already a crime.  This bill does nothing to change that.  I can see no good coming from this bill.

[angus]

LOL.  other guy.  Frodo.  tweed.  Captain Picard.  Somebody.  It's all a blur at this point.  Don't make me go back and look at the thread and figure out who I might have been talking about.  

Sorry if that wasn't you.  No offense.  

[angus]

Ah, yes, Famous Mortimer.

Mortimer.  Morden.  You can see how that might have happened.  My apologies, Mr. Morden.
  

[angus]

I don't think women deserve to get raped.

Well, shit.  Another egg on my face.

My sincere apologies to you as well, sir.  It seems that not only did I insult you by confusing you with another poster, but I also misrepresented your position.  

I'll come back in the morning after I have metabolized my scotch, because I'm sure that I think I have something intelligent to say about all this.  I'm quite certain that it is really, really bad legislation.  Give me 12 hours to prepare my case.  Forgive me if I don't use any of your arguments, because I think my case will be better represented without them.  

[angus]

HER GOING TO YOUR PLACE IS NOT CONSENT FOR SEX, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

Why don't you shout a little louder?  I don't think that we quite understand that rape is a crime.  Perhaps between your shouting and your state's legislature legislating foreplay conversations, people may be made to understand that rape is a crime.  

[angus]

Mortimer,
It doesn't always work like that.  Sometimes you invite someone up for a drink and you both drink so much that neither of you are into it.  Sometimes you invite someone up for a drink and you drink too much and even though she's horny, you're only able to produce something resembling an elevator button, even with a good attitude.  Sometimes you invite someone up for a drink and maybe you're horny but she's really not into it.  (maybe she's not into you in that way; maybe she's just not into it at the moment; either way she makes it clear that she's not into it.)  These are all things that normally happen.  They have all happened to me. at one time or another.  I assume that one day they will all happen to most of the posters here once they grow up.

I've been hit on by straight women and by gay men.  Also, I have hit on women, sometimes successfully, sometimes not so much.  I have been invited up for a drink and I have invited others up for a drink.  Usually one of us was trying to get the other one into the sack--on that point I'll agree--but as a person who has said "no" (and I'm more into the No means No mentality than the Yes means Yes groupthink), I can attest that accepting an offer for a drink isn't tantamount to accepting an offer of being invaginated or to stand it up on command.

You are buying into too many assumptions, and your arguments are not helping to point out the inherent inefficiency and potential pitfalls of this unnecessary bill.

[angus]

Like Angus, I can testify that someone inviting someone up for a drink does not always lead to sex and does not have to mean that.

I was thinking about this last night.  One time, long before I was married (I was probably about 30, living in Boston) a couple of friends and I went to a bar--a drinking bar, not a dance club--where one of the guys recognized some women he knew.  One of them is from Italy, a couple of years younger than I, and very attractive.  We went over to them and started chatting them up.  Very soon I was getting on well with the Italian chick.  Soon enough it became clear that we were going home together.  We indicated to our friends that we'd be leaving, and we went on our way.  She said we could go to her place, and the mood was good.  We were swapping spit and rubbing noses all the way back to her place.  She had two roomies, but we only spent about a microsecond getting acquainted with them, after which she led me into her room, closed the door and plopped on the bed.  I had no doubt she wanted me to do her.  She kept putting my hand up there on her beautiful woman breasts during the obligatory tongue-wrestling contest, and giving me the eyes-wide-open "C'mon already.  Is this happening or what?" stare. 

But I wouldn't.  Or I didn't. 

All the way back to her place, on the subway, I started thinking more and more about how I'd hang out for a while but politely refuse.  She was very attractive--pretty face, nice build, smart, and lively--and under most circumstances I'd have been a sporting fellow, but as it turns out I had a huge hemmorhoid on my ass.  It had grown to about the size of my pinkie finger.  I've only had 5 of those in my life, and this was the biggest and most painful one I'd ever had, and because of it I had very little desire to let my pants down.  It would have been awkward and painful at best, and at worst totally freaked her out if the stress caused a bleeding rupture.  No doubt I was thinking that a week or so later, after my embarrassing condition had subsided, I'd instigate a rendezvous with the intention of getting more intimately acquainted with her. 

Eventually, after about an hour in her room, enjoying her company, and unceremoniously changing the subject during her more aggressive advances, I told her that I need to leave, indicating that I'd call her (we had previously exchanged telephone numbers.)  As you might imagine, she never returned my calls.  I don't think I'd have returned them either.  In fact, when I've been in similar situations--having brought a woman to my bed and been rejected at the last minute--I generally don't call back either.  Who needs that frustration?  Who needs the hurt feelings?  Ah, a bigger man would have been honest about the situation.  People develop minor, non-communicable illnesses all the time, after all.  Perhaps she'd have been understanding about it and suggested we wait a week, or that I simply lie back, close my eyes, relax, and receive a thorough undercarriage waxing sure to ease my pain.  Well, I'll never know.  After that episode I become more understanding upon being rejected at the last minute, even so far as to start call the woman a couple of days later to schedule.  In many cases, those follow-up appointments worked out very well. 

Anyway, the point is that I can relate to the person who comes home with someone, even knowing that the person is horny and ready, but with no intention of going all the way.  Probably we all can.  Something similar has happened to you, maybe.  I say this for Mortimer's benefit:  It isn't coy to follow someone home even if you're not determined to have sex with that person.  There are a million reasons why one might not go all the way, and one must realize that it's not necessarily a slight or a tease or a game.