California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule

[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. 

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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 is 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.

What does "affirmative consent" actually mean?  Obviously, you're probably not going to ask someone, "may I have sex with you right now?"  From what I can tell, it just means, if someone is catatonic from being drunk or under duress, you can't say they consented because they didn't say the word "no."  But, it's the same basic consent the way we mean consent in any other circumstance.  It can be words or it can be inferred from actions and circumstances.

[bedstuy]

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.  

I went back and read the text of the bill.  Is that what you meant?  Because, I think my understanding is valid and I don't know what your reading is.

[bedstuy]

I can't believe that having to hear a girl actually say "yes" is such a burden.

That's not even the debate here.  This bill just says, the lack of a clear statement, "no" does not equal consent.  And, I think we're all agreed on that here, even Mr. Show dude.  

Ultimately, I think this is just a crazy debate to be having.  Any reasonable person knows what consent is.  Nobody is asking men to go through some exotic consent ritual, this is just common sense.  At worst, the onus is just on you to make sure that your sex partner is willing.  That's not some crazy burden, if you're not sure that someone wants to have sex at that moment, use your words for God's sake.  If you're a decent human being, you make sure that they're consenting and there's no ambiguity in what they want.  You can't just go around doing stuff and then blaming other people because they didn't stop you, that's being an insane narcissist.

In the event you have a "he-said, she-said" situation, the system just needs to deal with that by trying to find out the facts.

[bedstuy]

I can't believe that having to hear a girl actually say "yes" is such a burden.

Well according to this law, saying "no" is a huge burden. Both parties need to make themselves clear.

IF CONSENT IS NOT CLEAR YOU DO NOT GET TO BANG THE GIRL ANYWAY

If a girl agrees to go on a date with you and agrees to go back to your place after that date, that would seem to be fairly clear implied consent to most people. If that's the case, the girl needs to give a clear "no" to cancel out the mixed messages.

No.  It's not fairly clear.  It's not the least bit clear.  What on earth are you talking about?  People go on dates without having sex.  

[bedstuy]

People go on dates without having sex.  

Gonna have to revoke your gay card.

Oh, that's quaint.  Are we calling exchanging bathroom mirror selfies on grindr a "date" now?

[bedstuy]

"Do you want to come up to my place for a drink?" = "do you want to have sex?"

Everyone knows that because it's been repeated in every piece of media ever.

Anyone who doesn't know that is either a vegetable or being disingenuous.

I'm gay so maybe I'm not an expert on this stuff.  But, I don't think every hetero post-date hookup includes vaginal intercourse.  Sometimes you people just make out and watch an episode of Househunters or something, right?  Especially if it's a first date?  But, I think you citing TV for an example of how people have sex just shows your maturity level when it comes to relationships.

[bedstuy]

"Do you want to come up to my place for a drink?" = "do you want to have sex?"

Everyone knows that because it's been repeated in every piece of media ever.

Anyone who doesn't know that is either a vegetable or being disingenuous.

I'm gay so maybe I'm not an expert on this stuff.  But, I don't think every hetero post-date hookup includes vaginal intercourse.  Sometimes you people just make out and watch an episode of Househunters or something, right?  Especially if it's a first date?  But, I think you citing TV for an example of how people have sex just shows your maturity level when it comes to relationships.

If straight people do not want to have sex on the first date, they would not go back to one of their places to hang out afterwards. This is universal. Every straight person who has ever had sex will back me up.

OK.  You're joking then?  I guess the Mr. Show reference should have been a dead giveaway.  

[bedstuy]

This thread is a train wreck what the Christ did nobody else notice Mortimer claiming that spousal rape doesn't exist - by telling a story about how his friend was spousally raped??

Well, it's a good idea of letting him talk, he is doing a good job for justifying the law.

To be fair, there's a 95% chance he's never had sex.