Posted on 09/29/2014 2:24:55 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The governor of California, Jerry Brown, has signed a bill that makes the state the first in the United States to define when “yes means yes” and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.
State lawmakers last month approved a bill by Senator Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, as states and universities across the US are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women’s advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown’s office on 16 Sept urging him to sign the bill.
De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
“Every student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy,” De Leon said in a statement Sunday night. “The state of California will not allow schools to sweep rape cases under the rug. We’ve shifted the conversation regarding sexual assault to one of prevention, justice, and healing.”
The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.
Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault to have valid complaints.
“This is amazing,” said Savannah Badalich, a student at UCLA, where classes begin this week, and the founder of the group 7,000 in Solidarity.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
It is, but...active cooperation and participation means yes, no matter what the words are.
There may be a silver lining. This may mean that kids stop having random sex on campus. Liberalism has come full circle. They used to call conservatives and Christians prudes for not condoning “free love.” Now they have created an atmosphere where any sane student would not have sex unless they were in a long-term relationship with someone they trust.
You asked: “I want to know if this is going to be applied to sodomite “relationships”.”
Well of course, pedophiles are the next big democratic support group.
So the children will have to mean yes when they say yes. What a sick sick country this is. It’s a wonder it hasn’t been destroyed yet like sodom and Gomorrah.
Anyone who has been drinking is now "a victim of rape" in Caliwhackistan?
So, if a young lady & a young gentleman get drunk and have sex, they raped each other?
These Cali whackjobs need to be slapped hard enough to knock the teeth out of their brainless heads.
Just be sure to document your naughty activities to establish the crucial ‘yes’ factor. The camera might get in the way and the condoms might be awkward but isn’t that just the price of being who you want to be without some laws all over your body and in your bedroom?
Get real and get married.
If we had a President who could not define the word “is” what makes anyone think an inebriated, horny, college putz will be able to discern “yes” means “yes”?
***Does this mean that if the guy is drunk, then he can’t consent and the gal is the rapist? ***
I think the drunk males should start filing charges against the drunk females, accuse them of stimulating the males, and then hopped on while the guy was lying on his back. How could the women refute these charges? It would all become he said/she said. Maybe it would clog up the system to an absurd point.
Exactly.
They cheered when women “finally” had complete “sexual freedom” and then were shocked and confused when they discovered that there is a bad side to it all. The sexual revolution taught men that it was okay to objectify women. And porn is at he heart of it.
And what we have since learned is that the old traditional ways had merit but you will never hear the Left and Feminists admit it. That respect for women was a cornerstone.
When a man opened a door for a woman, it didn’t mean that he thought that she was inferior and incapable. To the contrary, it meant that he was putting her on a pedestal and it was a show of respect. But the feminists and Left were so blinded hate that they missed this point. They didn’t care.
I think the best course for the college male is just to video everything and post it on facebook. :-P
Campus dating:
Do you want to have sex with me?
Yes I do.
Will you please date and sign this paper that you have agreed to have sex with me and that you are not under the influence of alcohol, dope and/or other narcotics.
May I read it please? It has boxes to check off including oral, anal and frugal. What’s frugal?
If you check the frugal box that means I don’t have to pay you for any service you may render, date you again, pick up a bar tab and/or marry you or pay support for any child conceived from our tonight’s activity.
You know, I’m getting a headache. I’ll call my lawyer and get back to you.
They do that anyway. :)
Like filling out a form in the doctors office.
Here is a novel idea: how about if you don't jump in the sack right away and at minimum be in a committed relationship before having sex. That will greatly reduce the chances of rape, STDs, pregnancy, etc.
Bottom line: you “reap what you sow.”
The Consent contracts will be located right next to the condom dispensers.
You can have a signed paper and the lawyers will still claim rape.
She will say that she signed the form and then got drunk and was raped.
There is no end to this....other than to kill all the lawyers...kill them tonight.
Perhaps a marriage document signed by both parties should state that the man should provide room and board and the woman should promise to provide regular sex. I.e., put it on a sound business footing. ;>)
They most certainly are. These are the same people that were (are) say "Keep the government out of our bedrooms" in other debates.
I have said for years that those who condemned the “double standard” of the past have now replaced it with no standards. Not an improvement.
Exactly.
It was, is, and always be a major commitment in a relationship to have sex. Instincts drive men and women differently but the end result is a child. Certainly, people can take drugs to reduce the chance of pregnancy but the instinct is still there. You cannot suppress thousands or millions of years of existence. And the drugs are VERY new.
There are other motivating factors for men and women. For example, a lot of partners means a greater chance of spreading genes. However, a woman is the sex that becomes pregnant and carries the burden of the child. So a woman benefits from a committed relationship.
Since men do not have the burden of having children, their instincts are different. This is where “morality” and marriage play an important part. They commit the men to the relationship for the sake of the child and mother.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the man cannot be in love or can’t fall in love. Nor does it mean that women are never promiscuous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.