Affirmative Consent Laws

[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.

[TNF]

Relevant.

[TNF]

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

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.

OK, I get that a specific law might be too vague, or effectively unenforceable, or fails to address other issues, but 1) that doesn't mean that all affirmative consent laws would necessary have the same problems 2) nobody has tried to explain what practical nefarious consequences it would possibly have, and how it will bring about the Feminazi Reich as several posters here seem to believe.

Well there's the obvious possibility that forgetting to ask something like "Hey, can I take your bra off?" in the heat of the moment being turned into "Consent was not given for x during intercourse," at a trial, or something like that. Or for turning a regrettable (but consensual) sexual encounter by two drunk college students into a high profile rape case because one of the parties didn't ask about engaging in a specific sex act during the deed.

It's a real shame that the ostensible liberal-left gave up being the fights for rationality and freedom in sexual relations in the 1960s in favor of becoming the bedroom police of the 2010s. Obviously none of what I'm saying applies to actual rape, but that's not what these laws are aimed at stopping. These laws are aimed at controlling and regulating sexual behavior between young adults, and for pushing sexuality back into the hushed tones of the 1950s, albeit from a moralistic, Victorian feminist standpoint than from a Jesus freak one.

[TNF]

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

I mean, if you just don't read them, then I guess not.

OK, I get that a specific law might be too vague, or effectively unenforceable, or fails to address other issues, but 1) that doesn't mean that all affirmative consent laws would necessary have the same problems

They maybe don't all have the same problems, but as far as I'm aware there's not been any affirmative consent proposals that don't suffer from either being unenforceable, redundant, or awkward and dangerous.

And honestly, Antonio, you're smarter than "Well maybe all of those proposals are terrible but that doesn't mean every single one of these laws are bad! You don't know that!" Okay, make some sort of affirmative consent law for us that isn't either:
1. Vague.
2. Unenforceable.
3. Placing the burden of proof on the accused.
4. The same as current consent law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now who's strawmanning?

The crux of these affirmative consent proposals demand explicit, stated consent for any activity of a remotely sexual nature and any elevation thereof all the way to the real deal. It doesn't take much to imagine a scenario where harmless incidents get people thrown in jail. The only way you can think that's okay is if you're using the same logic as law and order conservatives.

I mean, when I see stuff like this or this I don't even think it's much of a stretch anymore to say these people expect really bizarre behavior from people for normal intimate interaction. Those are literally "consent contracts." Skits like this aren't even an exaggeration for some people anymore.

What I find so baffling is why these activists don't empower people to just say no. It's like these people are trying to set up the most dangerous game of Simon Says ever, creating some obtuse set of standards where the burden is on the initiator, instead of just encouraging both people to make the boundaries clear beforehand.

The idea of individuals who have been together for years and have developed an innate understanding still needing the government to impose on them a series of permission requests for kissing or taking off each others shirt is a joke. Or it would be, if some people didn't actually think that's how people should behave. Sorry, Simon didn't Say "take off the shirt." That'll be 6-12 months.

Plus being listed on a sex offender registry for life, not being able to get a job that pays more than $7.25 an hour because of it, being stigmatized forever because of it, etc, etc.

[TNF]

You trust courts that regularly administer the death penalty to innocent people to make the right call when it comes to determining whether or not consent was given during intercourse?