Affirmative Consent Laws

[Thunderbird is the word]

Vote!

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

for (not a rapist)

[Marokai Backbeat]

I mean, I obviously favor strict and straightforward consent laws that invalidate any consent given under coercion.

Often what is flawed about affirmative consent proposals is that they are vague on how they are all that different from established consent law, introduce a lot of subjective interpretation to an issue where present law is fairly clear cut (though difficult to determine for obvious reasons), and subverted just as easily as current consent laws: lying. Due to all of this they just sort of strike me as the sort of laws you implement in a "We must do better!" moral panic and don't really think them through very clearly.

California's most recent consent law was pretty terrible for a lot of reasons that have been argued over on this forum before, but at least it, to my knowledge, targets specifically colleges and universities which makes it sort of understandable, even if statistics don't really support the notion that college students are substantially more likely to be raped than the rest of the population. (That strikes me just as an extension of mainstream feminism's classism but that's another debate.)

But they're generally done from a sympathetic place. In general it comes down to the individual proposal. Stuff like requiring stated, "sufficiently enthusiastic" consent (this is, actually, ableist) to every progression of every sexual encounter is the stuff I find to be (oddly dis-empowering) overkill.  

[PJ]

I support the idea in theory, but there are problems with ambiguity and enforcement of said laws in practice. They are by no means a catch-all solution to the issue of rape, but they are justified in that consent is obviously necessary for sex, and the law should reflect that.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I support the idea in theory, but there are problems with ambiguity and enforcement of said laws in practice. They are by no means a catch-all solution to the issue of rape, but they are justified in that verbal consent is obviously necessary for sex, and the law should reflect that.

I obviously agree that there should be an expression of consent to initiate some sort of sexual interaction but am uncomfortable about explicit verbal statements of consent being the only way. It ignores a lot of the way that we as humans communicate. Body language, nodding the head, and shouldn't you being the one initiating the act be implicit interest in the activity? And there are people with disabilities that have difficulty with speech, or the deaf. There are a lot of things that complicate that being the only standard.

There are obviously ways to work all of that out but the law should be more nuanced to accommodate for that.

And I think it's important to impress on people the equal importance, not just of saying yes, but also saying no.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Unenforceable and terribly written.

[ElectionsGuy]

Terrible laws that can criminalize behavior that isn't rape just because a person didn't "ask". Its stupid, and as the person above me said, unenforceable too, but that's apparently the solution leftists have these days.

[PJ]

I support the idea in theory, but there are problems with ambiguity and enforcement of said laws in practice. They are by no means a catch-all solution to the issue of rape, but they are justified in that verbal consent is obviously necessary for sex, and the law should reflect that.

I obviously agree that there should be an expression of consent to initiate some sort of sexual interaction but am uncomfortable about explicit verbal statements of consent being the only way. It ignores a lot of the way that we as humans communicate. Body language, nodding the head, and shouldn't you being the one initiating the act be implicit interest in the activity? And there are people with disabilities that have difficulty with speech, or the deaf. There are a lot of things that complicate that being the only standard.

There are obviously ways to work all of that out but the law should be more nuanced to accommodate for that.

And I think it's important to impress on people the equal importance, not just of saying yes, but also saying no.

There is a lot of gray area in these types of laws, and my statement probably should have been more carefully phrased to address that. Even with poorly written affirmative consent laws that don't address ambiguous situations, it at least sets the precedent of the need for an expression of consent.

[TNF]

Pretty much the logical conclusion of the anti-sex witch hunt that feminists have been pushing for the better part of the last thirty years or so. You don't have to be a genius to see that these laws are less about preventing rape than they are more or less implicitly about putting the government back into the bedroom after it was kicked out during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s-70s. Back then they sent monitors around dorm rooms to make sure that all four feet were on the floor, now they go for a written contract beforehand and bring in the lawyers.

[Mechaman]

Buhbut TNF!  How will I know when it's okay to unhook those thingies on a girl's bra unless a signed contract from the University of Berkeley Women's Studies Department head tells me?!

[Cory]

Pretty much the logical conclusion of the anti-sex witch hunt that feminists have been pushing for the better part of the last thirty years or so. You don't have to be a genius to see that these laws are less about preventing rape than they are more or less implicitly about putting the government back into the bedroom after it was kicked out during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s-70s. Back then they sent monitors around dorm rooms to make sure that all four feet were on the floor, now they go for a written contract beforehand and bring in the lawyers.

[Lief 🗽]

for (not a rapist)

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I'm in agreement with Marokai here, actually.

On the other hand, if feminist critique of sexual mores strikes you as an 'anti-sex witch hunt', there's probably something less than upstanding about your understanding of sexual mores. This is something one sees a lot in men who are otherwise impeccably left-wing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For. It won't miraculously solve the problem, but it closes a massive loophole that has allowed many rapists to get away.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Buhbut TNF!  How will I know when it's okay to unhook those thingies on a girl's bra unless a signed contract from the University of Berkeley Women's Studies Department head tells me?!

LOL, you literally sound like a Fox News talking head.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Often what is flawed about affirmative consent proposals is that they are vague on how they are all that different from established consent law, introduce a lot of subjective interpretation to an issue where present law is fairly clear cut (though difficult to determine for obvious reasons), and subverted just as easily as current consent laws: lying. Due to all of this they just sort of strike me as the sort of laws you implement in a "We must do better!" moral panic and don't really think them through very clearly.

^This^

I obviously agree that there should be an expression of consent to initiate some sort of sexual interaction but am uncomfortable about explicit verbal statements of consent being the only way. It ignores a lot of the way that we as humans communicate. Body language, nodding the head, and shouldn't you being the one initiating the act be implicit interest in the activity? And there are people with disabilities that have difficulty with speech, or the deaf. There are a lot of things that complicate that being the only standard.

^And this^

I basicly agree with everything Marokai has written on this topic so far.

[TNF]

Relevant.

[WVdemocrat]

Of course consent should be clearly defined, but these laws are far too vague. It's really not effective in ensuring consent or preventing rape.

[TJ in Oregon]

Clearly the answer is requiring a notary.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

Consent under ACLs is, literally, a two-step process:

1. Were all parties willing to engage in sex? If "yes", go to step 2. If "no", rape has occurred.
2. During sex, did any parties express unwillingness to continue? If "yes", rape has occurred.

1) can be fulfilled with something as simple as "hey, wanna screw?" "Yeah, sure." and if you think 2) is an unreasonable standard...

As for the fantasy of Government Sex Goons watching you screw and taking notes at every moment that has been embraced by the right and, sadly, some segments of the left, well, it's an effective scaremongering tool, but still a fantasy.

[Famous Mortimer]

Consent under ACLs is, literally, a two-step process:

1. Were all parties willing to engage in sex? If "yes", go to step 2. If "no", rape has occurred.
2. During sex, did any parties express unwillingness to continue? If "yes", rape has occurred.

1) can be fulfilled with something as simple as "hey, wanna screw?" "Yeah, sure." and if you think 2) is an unreasonable standard...

As for the fantasy of Government Sex Goons watching you screw and taking notes at every moment that has been embraced by the right and, sadly, some segments of the left, well, it's an effective scaremongering tool, but still a fantasy.

This is not how it works under an ACLs, this is how it works under normal anti-rape laws.

The explicit stated reason for ACLs is that is that for rape to take place, 2 doesn't even need to happen. One party doesn't need to go as far as expressing unwillingness, they just need to feel that it's rape. They are under no obligation to tell he other person, even if consent was clearly granted 5 minutes before and they are withdrawing it. The burden is on the partner to know that they are withdrawing consent, even if they don't say it. That is why ACLs are unreasonable.

[ingemann]

I would suggest a compromise that conservative, college feminists and asbergers could be happy about; Let's ban extramarital sex. This is a truly Solomonic solution. The college feminist can declare all sex in college for rape, the conservatives can defend marriage and tradition and the asbergers can get clear legal contracts into people's sexual lives. Everyone are happy.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

ingemann, before I decide how much of an colossal jackass I think you are, I have to ask: What group of people, exactly, is it who you're referring to as 'asbergers'?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is there any argument against these laws that isn't a colossal strawman?

[ingemann]

ingemann, before I decide how much of an colossal jackass I think you are, I have to ask: What group of people, exactly, is it who you're referring to as 'asbergers'?

Well I'm exactly as big jackass as you want me to be, through isn't it a little political incorrect to call me the J word, I mean shouldn't we have come further than comparing men to male animals known best for their large genitals and promiscuous lifestyle, what kind of example are you setting for the young women, where they can come with such sexist about the other gender, you should be ashamed of yourself.