Opinion of affirmative consent/"Yes Means Yes"

[Bojack Horseman]

"Yes Means Yes" is well-intentioned, but it is based on manufactured hysteria and does nothing more than ruin lives and allow jilted ex-lovers to get a very dangerous kind of revenge. Under "Yes Means Yes," a person can be a willing participant in a sex act and later say that because he or she never actually said a verbal "yes," that they were raped. Now their partner, who did nothing more than have consensual sex, is looking at a 15-year prison sentence and having his name on the sex offender registry for the rest of his life, right alongside pedophiles and real rapists.

The campus rape epidemic is nothing more than a manufactured crisis created by the Obama administration changing the definition of rape and a long-standing witch hunt on the part of radical organizations. The Obama administration changed the longstanding definition that went back for centuries, probably even Bible times, that rape involves force, incapacitation, and/or the victim saying no. The Obama administration changed the definition to mean that if the receptive partner, whether male or female, has had any alcohol, or doesn't verbally say yes even if they are a willing participant, it's still rape.

Getting someone drunk to take advantage of them is one thing. But it's another to try and criminalize consensual sex between two people who were intoxicated. Should both partners be tried for raping each other because their consensual encounter involved them both being drunk?

I don't discount the stories of people who are actually victims of rape (Especially as someone who was molested as a child), but "Yes Means Yes" is just bad legislation with real-world consequences.

[Virginiá]

Well, first, how is anyone going to know for sure that they both said yes? If one of them went to the authorities and claimed raped, then the other person can just say they said yes. It's their word against the other. Are they going to get a signed and notarized contract affirming they both said yes before sex? Record it? Seems like an avenue for someone to get screwed with no verifiable evidence.

Second, while I would never change my mind and try to screw someone over because I regretted it, I have known my share of vindictive women who I could at least see them considering using this to get back at someone if they were angry or embarrassed enough. I would say the vast majority of women would not even think about doing that, but this policy gives fuel to the small minority that might, and does so with no discernible benefits.

Third, from experience and what I know of my friends, healthy, sober people don't usually just happen to find themselves having sex with no recollection of how that got started. If either one doesn't want to do it, there is time to say no and if one does, then it is already no longer legally permissible. If a guy goes in for a kiss with me and I don't want to do that, I'll gently move away and say so. Sex takes even longer to actually start and if I don't want to, I'm going to say no. I have not yet met a man who can rip of their clothes and do the deed before I'm even aware of whats going on.

Lastly, for drunk people/people on drugs, I thought if you were passed out or only barely conscious, it was already off the table? This area is one where I've always been on the fence. Exactly how drunk is too drunk to legally consent? Because I know there is a point where at minimum the least sober person should realize there is no way to know if the other person actually wants to do something, but where is that? I have not really staked out a position on this because it's just difficult to know where the line is or should be. I can drink a fair bit and still, in my opinion, know what I actually want, but how does the other person know at which point that stops being the case? Since there are legal ramifications, it's a serious question. On the other hand, I think everyone should go out into the world knowing that there are morally questionable people around every corner and they should not compromise themselves in a situation where they could be taken advantage of.. So I believe we all should be responsible as well.

[Penelope]

Freedom law (not a creep).

[dead0man]

Horrible Law (normal human being)

[Cory]

Freedom law (not a creep).

Care to actually respond to the criticisms of said law in this thread?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Freedom law (not a creep).

Care to actually respond to the criticisms of said law in this thread?

Law = cishetero-patriarchy. Being able to retroactively withdraw consent is necessary to fight against systemic oppression. Especially for poor, disabled women of colour.

[DC Al Fine]

If you take some of the proposals literally, my wife rapes me on a regular basis

[Antonio the Sixth]

Freedom law (not a creep).

[dead0man]

You can usually tell when people know their position kind of sucks. When their only defense of something is an attack on everybody on the other side you know they don't have much of an argument.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I may be incorrect, but as it stands the concept of affirmative consent is more of a public awareness campaign to explicitly define consent, targeted mainly at campuses, rather than an effort to change the structure of criminal law to end innocent without guilty (as the opponents here seem to believe?

Like a lot of this debate is very hypothetical (an awful lot of "but what if..." for a policy that first was implemented in campuses in the 90's), so I thought I'd, erm, actually read the first result of "affirmative consent policy" on Google rather than hysterically shreiking about it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which really brings a lot of the histrionics ("omg if u drink sex the femistasi will arrest u"" into perspective, no? It's a set of guidelines used for investigating rape claims, not some bureaucratic redefinition of healthy sex practices as rape.

[dead0man]

So it's meaningless propaganda?  Nobody is going to get kicked out of his/her college with zero evidence just because somebody changed their mind a few months later?  Well that's good!  Don't worry guys, it's just reminding us all not to rape.  No need to worry.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

k

[Mr. Reactionary]

So it's meaningless propaganda?  Nobody is going to get kicked out of his/her college with zero evidence just because somebody changed their mind a few months later?  Well that's good!  Don't worry guys, it's just reminding us all not to rape.  No need to worry.

Just remember, the nuts pushing this think the special rules ONLY apply to women, as in the fictional case of Jake.



Or in the real case of Washington & Lee John Doe

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/01/the-rape-disaster-at-washington-and-lee/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The Dowager Mod]

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

so, aside from one dumb poster that apparently was from eight years ago and then immediately removed ... you have one case where campus police mishandled an internal matter, where the wronged party can appeal (and is) in a court of law (just like any such situation).

The mishandling is due to other issues (namely campuses jumping the gun on cases before suspending and/or making names public). Not the concept of affirmative consent, which is a sound procedural.

[Cory]

It's time to completely get rid of the whole college tribunal system and have these things taken care of by law enforcement. Not "expel him because he looks like the guy who raped me".

The stupid Mattress Girl issue is the worst display of this type of "listen and believe" mentality. This witch hunt needs to end and we need to stand up to the small minority of crazies on college campuses who think they can run the place because the silence of the majority.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It's time to completely get rid of the whole college tribunal system and have these things taken care of by law enforcement. Not "expel him because he looks like the guy who raped me".

The stupid Mattress Girl issue is the worst display of this type of "listen and believe" mentality. This witch hunt needs to end and we need to stand up to the small minority of crazies on college campuses who think they can run the place because the silence of the majority.

I agree (at least with state universities). State schools are government actors, so official punishment by them for alleged criminal violations should require 14th Amendment protection. The state schools could still maintain honor council systems for punishing non-criminal but otherwise prohibited behavior like cheating or damaging school property or possession of stuff the school itself has banned from its property, like alcohol by minors or illegal drugs. The school could still sanction students who committed crimes after a conviction, and would not have to worry about any due process concerns for trying questions of fact, because the facts and conviction would be public record. Otherwise I foresee a large increase in unjust punishment from kangaroo court martials.

[Beet]

FYI, Here is the text of the actual California law.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm honestly pretty unclear on how they differ from existing consent law. As far as I know they generally aren't as big of a deal as people make them out to be.

[TNF]

Horrible Laws (not a creep)

[Taco Truck 🚚]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

FYI, Here is the text of the actual California law.

Me:  Yeah baby, you want this big d*** don't you?

Her:  Yes, yes, give it to me!

Me:  You reaally want this big d*** don't you?

Her:  Yes! Yes!

Repeat for 30 solid minutes... on a good night (five on a bad).

Sadly though a lot of that does get said... I do kind of seem pathetic now that I write it out like that.

Interestingly so even having a lawyer, notary, and triplicate copies signed in front of a justice of the peace isn't enough.  If she barely mummers stop 30 minutes in and you give it one more slight pump with just the tip you are a rapist.  Sort of cheapens the word "rape."

The campus rape epidemic is nothing more than a manufactured crisis created by the Obama administration changing the definition of rape and a long-standing witch hunt on the part of radical organizations. The Obama administration changed the longstanding definition that went back for centuries, probably even Bible times, that rape involves force, incapacitation, and/or the victim saying no. The Obama administration changed the definition to mean that if the receptive partner, whether male or female, has had any alcohol, or doesn't verbally say yes even if they are a willing participant, it's still rape.

You mad, bro?

I've seen Obama blamed for all kinds of things but really I don't think he has that much sway over some drunk loser frat boys at Ole Miss.  The fact of the matter is the majority of rapes do not get reported.  The number of "gray area" rapes that get reported is probably minuscule.  How this stuff is defined and prosecuted is definitely an issue but it isn't like there is a tsunami of "gray area" lack of positive consent rapes getting reported.

If I have sons my advice has always been and will continue to be avoid crazy b******s.  Plenty of fine young ladies out there.  Leave the crazy ones to people who enjoy having their lives jacked up.  The crazy sex is great but the crazy aftermath isn't.

[P123]

Horrible Laws (not a creep)

[Famous Mortimer]

Started out good but it's gotten out of hand.

There's been an ideological shift among women from "you don't have to have said no for it to qualify as a rape" (fair statement) to "you shouldn't say no" as if saying no is somehow unfeminist or some huge, unreasonable burden.

I think the it should be modified to something like "yes means yes but say no if you can"

[Sir Mohamed]

The intention is good. But I'd like to have a no means no law. Would make more sense.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Started out good but it's gotten out of hand.

There's been an ideological shift among women from "you don't have to have said no for it to qualify as a rape" (fair statement) to "you shouldn't say no" as if saying no is somehow unfeminist or some huge, unreasonable burden.

I think the it should be modified to something like "yes means yes but say no if you can"