Affirmative Consent in Post-Secondary Education Act of 2015 (Final vote)

[Associate Justice PiT]

There is a thread in the main page to present views and formal submissions

Main Page? The AFE board is not the main page. The AFE board is the board where the elections game aspect of Atlasia is conducted.

The purpose of said thread's creation was to provide a vehicle for greater interest in the Senate's discourse, not to compartmentalize and cast aside the opinions of private citizens to that they can be ignored by the Senate. This place has a long history of being out of touch on a variety of issues, the most recent example being the previous Amendment ratification. Suppressing public interest and input is not in the chamber's best interests.

     The issue is that while people take issue with the Senate for pushing some ridiculous ideas, there are never any consequences. The same folks keep winning easily. Something has to change with that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

There is a thread in the main page to present views and formal submissions

Main Page? The AFE board is not the main page. The AFE board is the board where the elections game aspect of Atlasia is conducted.

The purpose of said thread's creation was to provide a vehicle for greater interest in the Senate's discourse, not to compartmentalize and cast aside the opinions of private citizens to that they can be ignored by the Senate. This place has a long history of being out of touch on a variety of issues, the most recent example being the previous Amendment ratification. Suppressing public interest and input is not in the chamber's best interests.

     The issue is that while people take issue with the Senate for pushing some ridiculous ideas, there are never any consequences. The same folks keep winning easily. Something has to change with that.

Yankee - your stands are adorable but the purpose of the thread was not just to increase exposure, but a way to have the clearest avenue for input to Bills.

[Cranberry]

If I may direct my fellow Senators and other citizens back towards the debate of this bill?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It's difficult to know how to address the issue. I don't know how right I am in saying this, but I think part of the problem is just with the ambiguity of the act itself. If a person feels violated after a sexual experience, it's not my place to question their feelings or render them moot. But feeling violated after the fact (or during the fact) is not necessarily enough to make the participating partner guilty of anything, especially if consent was implied. Affirmative consent seems like an easy way to solve the problem, but the truth is, that's not how intimacy works, and it's not the job of the government to tell people how to have sex. And since that's an overarching principle I really can't justify straying from, I'm struggling to find a better way to deal with the problem of rape. I might have to resign myself to the fact that current laws are adequate and find some solace in the fact that the solution might rest with education outreach instead.

I mean, I just don't know. None of us "likes" rape. How do we stop it without creating more problems?

[bore]

The general rule which I followed when I was speaker, and one which I think is a good one, is that senators, the president, VP and cabinet positions and governors when they are impacted can have as much input as they like and should be encouraged. Citizens, especially if what they are posting is relevant and new information (a past bill or costs or a positive proposed amendment) are to be encouraged, but that does not go as far as people posting on every thread or just vague opinions (I think taxes are bad, say).

[Cranberry]

Hagrid, I feel partly the same way. It's frankly not really managable in my opinion to have a true impact on this problem, or at least I can not think of a way to do so through legislative means. Directing everyone to say "may I" every two seconds certainly is not, and I doubt we can come up with a workable solution here - I just doubt. I will gladly let myself convince otherwise, but until then, I see no way in which to support the bill as stands.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Citizens, especially if what they are posting is relevant and new information (a past bill or costs or a positive proposed amendment) are to be encouraged, but that does not go as far as people posting on every thread or just vague opinions (I think taxes are bad, say).

Neither of which applies to my postings by the way. Of course the former is highly subjective, I would consider the regional viewpoint I expressed to be one of great relevance and few had mentioned it.

There is a thread in the main page to present views and formal submissions

Main Page? The AFE board is not the main page. The AFE board is the board where the elections game aspect of Atlasia is conducted.

The purpose of said thread's creation was to provide a vehicle for greater interest in the Senate's discourse, not to compartmentalize and cast aside the opinions of private citizens to that they can be ignored by the Senate. This place has a long history of being out of touch on a variety of issues, the most recent example being the previous Amendment ratification. Suppressing public interest and input is not in the chamber's best interests.

     The issue is that while people take issue with the Senate for pushing some ridiculous ideas, there are never any consequences. The same folks keep winning easily. Something has to change with that.

Yankee - your stands are adorable but the purpose of the thread was not just to increase exposure, but a way to have the clearest avenue for input to Bills.

I did not vote to put the people in a broom closet, Senator. This is their chamber and they have the right to speak their piece as long as it is on topic, which I would point out was entirely so with this thread until, you, TNF and bore felt it necessary to challenge my response to PiT.

If I may direct my fellow Senators and other citizens back towards the debate of this bill?

Nothing would make me happier then to end this silly discussion of silencing the people.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's difficult to know how to address the issue. I don't know how right I am in saying this, but I think part of the problem is just with the ambiguity of the act itself. If a person feels violated after a sexual experience, it's not my place to question their feelings or render them moot. But feeling violated after the fact (or during the fact) is not necessarily enough to make the participating partner guilty of anything, especially if consent was implied. Affirmative consent seems like an easy way to solve the problem, but the truth is, that's not how intimacy works, and it's not the job of the government to tell people how to have sex. And since that's an overarching principle I really can't justify straying from, I'm struggling to find a better way to deal with the problem of rape. I might have to resign myself to the fact that current laws are adequate and find some solace in the fact that the solution might rest with education outreach instead.

I mean, I just don't know. None of us "likes" rape. How do we stop it without creating more problems?

Why not transform the bill into an educational piece? Certainly that would be a much more achievable approach then "may I" being a legal requirement at every step and probably result in more success as well.

[bore]

Citizens, especially if what they are posting is relevant and new information (a past bill or costs or a positive proposed amendment) are to be encouraged, but that does not go as far as people posting on every thread or just vague opinions (I think taxes are bad, say).

Neither of which applies to my postings by the way. Of course the former is highly subjective, I would consider the regional viewpoint I expressed to be one of great relevance and few had mentioned it.

Sure it's subjective but practically everything is. I was just pointing out that, unlike senators and the President/VP ordinary citizens do not have an unlimited right to speak in this chamber. The decision to allow your posts is up to the Speaker.

[Senator Cris]

I echo the comments of my collegues.
Really, I think that there are good intentions behind this, but it's unworkable.
There are a lot of concerns here. As pointed out by Hagrid, I really don't think that feeling violated during or after the fact can make the partner guilty of anything, especially if there was consent.
Or at the same time, forcing someone to say "may I" every moment is not the right solution for this.

I don't see how I could vote for this as it stands.

[Lief 🗽]

Respectfully, I don't know where my fellow senators are getting this "May I" at every step requirement from. That's not what affirmative consent means and that's certainly not what the language of this legislation calls for, as I read it. Like Comrade-Senator Blair, I object to the amendment.

[windjammer]

A vote is now open, please vote Aye Nay or Abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Lief 🗽]

NAY

I really don't understand this amendment. Nothing about these two sentences should be controversial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What is wrong with this language? This seems like common sense to me, and removes the ambiguity of "well she didn't say no..." situations. This puts the burden on the person initiating sex to make sure the other person actually wants to have sex. Rape victims "shutting down" (rather than struggling or fighting back) when they are assaulted is actually a very common thing, and often used to attack the credibility of the rape victim. This should not be controversial.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suspect this second sentence is the more controversial one. A lot of people have been saying that it requires people to constantly ask "May I" at every step of sexual encounter. I frankly don't see how you can read it as that. Affirmative consent can be given in many other ways than the super-formal, quasi-contractual "May I insert my penis? Yes, you may" strawman presented, both verbally and non-verbally. All this sentence means is that both parties should feel comfortable with the entire sexual encounter, and that either party can say "no, I'm not comfortable with this" at any point.

[TNF]

Aye

[Blair]

Nay,

Basically what Lief said A) Rape doesn't require any resistance from the victim, the amendment implies it does B) You can consent to sexual activity, without consenting to sexual intercourse

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

NAY

[Cranberry]

Since, as I mentioned, I find this bill as a whole quite unworkable in the present state, I do not have a strong opinion on striking one total clause...

Abstain

[windjammer]

Since, as I mentioned, I find this bill as a whole quite unworkable in the present state, I do not have a strong opinion on striking one total clause...

Abstain

[Senator Cris]

Abstain

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Abstain

I don't want my position to be misconstrued as "anti-consent." I want radical change to this bill, which I will offer soon.

[DemPGH]

No.

Picking a couple sentences out of this won't work, I don't think. We need an overhaul/revision of this one if we're going to go forward with it.

[Adam Griffin]

Abstain

I don't want my position to be misconstrued as "anti-consent." I want radical change to this bill, which I will offer soon.

[insert "Hagrid's penchant for nasty rape jokes" here]

Also, I will continue to post in any goddamn Senate thread in which I feel like and I challenge any of you to try and stop me.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, my intention was to totally rewrite the thing, but it proved quite difficult and I ended up creating an amendment that's a lot like the one we're currently voting on. I think it makes the legislation more palatable, but I'm not really sure how to proceed.

I believe some of the distrust around the consent piece is that "affirmative" consent must be ongoing at all times. This language does make it sound like the consent must always be explicit. While I agree that sex should happen only between consenting parties, explicit consent is unworkable. My amendment makes it so that the policies must only require consent in any of its forms, not just "affirmative consent." I've also made it so that the institutions must promote affirmative consent; it just sounds friendlier and less invasive. Finally, I've softened some of the language regarding what consent is. Sometimes, lack of protest is consent, because participating individuals shouldn't have to consistently utter "yes please, yes please." Finally, I've changed the "preponderance of evidence" piece. Sorry, but I don't think innocent people should be punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Anyway, that's basically what I have here. I'm not going to put it forward until I hear that it will be approached with some support. After looking at the bill more closely, I think I do support the spirit of it. We just have to make sure that we're not asking for unfair or impossible standards.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lief 🗽]

I am okay with most of the amendment, except for the change to a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard. I would not support any legislation that requires colleges to use such an impossibly high standard.

[windjammer]

This has enough votes to fail. I let 24 hours for people who haven't voted to vote?

I just would like to remind every senator that senators do have the right to participate directly in the senate threads. There is no rule forbidding that and it was explicitly allowed in the former rules threads (ie it was likely deleted in order to make the senate rules shorter).

I prefer this situation than any poll, thread creation or complaint about minor things that could have avoided if the citizen had decided to directly participate in the senate threads (like what happened with the reintroducing the efficiency referenda amendment).