Posted on 12/18/2014 7:21:24 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
California’s “yes means yes” law turns the idea of sexual consent upside down. Suddenly, nearly all sex is rape, unless no person involved reports it as such.
Consent, under the California law that is spreading to other American universities, is required to be “ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.” The law also states that “a lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.” Also, previous sexual activity “should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”
The law also states that incapacitation due to drugs or alcohol is considered nonconsensual. In theory, one could imagine that meaning black-out drunk or visibly not in control of one’s actions. But in practice, even having one or two drinks hours before sexual activity can constitute "too drunk to consent."
By this definition, the only sex that isn’t rape is sex where consent can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for every stage of the activity. Sure, that sounds reasonable, but the fact that one of the bill’s sponsors doesn’t know how anyone could prove consent tells you a lot about the bill.
So what would provable consent look like? Joke all you want, but descriptions of bland, bureaucratic sexual situations really are the only way to prove consent.
Can I kiss you? Sign here.
Can I touch you? Sign here.
You get the point.
Beyond signed documents (which, if the signature wasn’t perfect could be interpreted as the person being too drunk to sign their name), would be video recordings of the entire night’s events. This would have to include the first meeting of the two people through some time after the sexual activity. (Perhaps body cameras for college students are the answer?)
If this all sounds absurd to you, it’s currently confined to college campuses and not the population at large. Which is frightening, but not relevant to the larger population outside of college.
At least for now.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is open to changing that. During an MSNBC-hosted panel discussion on Monday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, Gillibrand said she was considering taking the “yes means yes” law to the federal level.
“I definitely have been studying it and looking at it,” she said. “I think there's something there, and I think that is where our debate needs to go.”
I’ve worried for a long time about the slippery slope the “yes means yes” law could lead to regarding the definition of consent. Currently, there is a separate definition of consent and rape on college campuses from the rest of America. It was only a matter of time before backers of the law decided to make their definition (which is almost impossible to prove) the law of the land.
I had wondered how college women, who are currently being told that all sex is rape if they declare it so, would do outside of college when the law is different. Now I won’t have to wonder, because the law might be changed for them.
That sure rules out seduction.
Is “consent beyond a shadow of a doubt,” a new legal standard?
Remember, Republicans are the prudes.
Finding a notary to all of this sure is gonna kill the mood.
All sex is rape..........The feministas did this back in the 70’s and 80’s...........
That's what'll always happen one week after you've defined all sex as fabulous.
DITTO.
PIV is always rape, ok?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3108209/posts
That also rules out “the happiness of pursuit.”
I’m scared to even look down when I pee at this point...I’m afraid I might be raping myself and not knowing it while I point Mr. Johnny T at the toilet! (sarc/)
Common sense is now a rare element in US society...maybe China can produce more and sell it us at $1.99 per unit...
“Hey, you have great lips. The only thing better than looking at them would be if you signed right here and allowed me to kiss them.”
Seriously, leading a wholesome Christian life keeps this from being an issue.
Funny coming from a state that rapes its citizens daily.
You should include that too many people don’t want to take personal responsibility for their actions, past and present. I mean, by leaving the definition of rape in the hands of immature young women, our young men are at risk of being forced onto the sex offender registry if some young tart decides she wants to clean up her past by explaining that instead of a string of lovers, she encountered a string of rapists as a young college/university student. Therefore her sexual past shouldn’t be held against her.
I encourage all young men to now hire a professional if they want to diddle a woman and avoid post-relationship drama.
Who will step up to defend all of the innocent cats and dogs against false charges of rape?
Perhaps this ends sex before marriage.
But this law also gives wives the ability to put unwanted husbands in jail for married “rape”.
Well, well, well, here we are, back at no sex before, or outside of marriage. Who woulda thunk it? The old way actually made sense after all.
WTH is PIV?
I can see it now: Single man seeks treatment for self rape.
190-210 proof brain bleach, stat!
I remember reading this...don’t remind me.
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.