It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Lawmakers Pass 'Affirmative Consent' Sexual Assault Bill

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Students engaging in sexual activity would first need 'affirmative consent' from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person's silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated."


Hmmm. Tough topic. Anyone who rapes someone deserves the worst. But how do we define rape? Consent given while intoxicsted... So if both parties are equally drunk, where does that leave us?

I'm really not sure how to see this. It's not safe to hookup anymore.

Why is sex the only thing that people can't be held responsible for, drunk driving, anything else involving alcohol you are still held accountable.

(Question from rogans podcast)
edit on 9/23/2014 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Link: www.thefire.org...

Short of videotaping the consent or signing contracts it will still be a 'he said / she said' situation.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Elton

The courts side with the women though right? Kind of like childhood abuse cases and things like that?

How many lives will this ruin?

I'm not pro rape I detest it and we should send rapist to ISIS, but I. Also not pro ridiculous laws.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:39 PM
link   
No just means one thing.....however loud you say it.....



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion


The Times adds:

"Along with a comprehensive prevention program, colleges would be required to help victims of sexual assault seek medical care, counseling, legal assistance and other services.

"Students engaging in sexual activity would first need 'affirmative consent' from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person's silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated."


What? So we have a different legal criteria for consensual sex, depending on whether or not the participants are students or non students?

I understand what they're trying to do, but I can't see how it can be enforced.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The law seems to encourage the Universities to create a policy regarding mutual consent. I imagine it will result in expulsion and the Police would still investigate a rape accusation the way they usually do (I don't know police procedures).

That said it's an odd law and they probably could just have talked with various university officials to accomplish the same thing.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Film everything!!!!

Just kidding (and apologies for the poor taste) turn the cameras off when your partner consents.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
the question I have is:

If both parties were intoxicated when they consented to sexual activity. Are they both equally guilty of sexual assault the next day when they are sober?

Equality for all should be the warcry! NOT guys should know better (or some other rubbish)

**I am not in any way condoning sexual assault. I find it to be the second lowest act a man can commit. However, I have seen too many people ruin their lives when they were out partying and someone had regrets during the "walk of shame". If one can be charged due to the other drinking the law should charge both (if both were intoxicated)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:50 PM
link   
"Sir, your Intercourse Consent Agreement wasn't properly notarized. You have the right to remain silent..."

Is that where we're going? Mutual consent in triplicate? "Are you licensed to have sex in this county, baby?" Talk about killing the mood.




posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Only California would make a law stating that "yes" means "yes" and "no" means "no".

I weep for our world.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 10:58 PM
link   
That would mean that I was considered a possible rapist since I never asked anyone to sign a consent form in my life.

I can see the older people telling the teenagers in ten years.....When I was your age we didn't need a legal paper to have sex.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
"Yeah ... I signed the contract, your honor, but then I exercised my woman's prerogative to change my mind. He raped me anyway."

I can see it now.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I don't condone rape. I like fully participating, willing partners, as engaged
and happy to be there as I am.

That being said, I've had sex partners who yelled "No, no, no, oh god, no"
while climaxing...

Was I supposed to stop?



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: rival

Was there an assigned lawyer present?

There has to be, now.

Or at least a legal notary.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:16 PM
link   
So 90% of the time simply stopping long enough to put on a condom is too much of a hassle for most young couples but now on top of that the Gov. suggests some form of 'affirmative consent' to be made.

No problem. Kids today have a much higher awareness when it comes to personal responsibility as well as superior organizational skills compared to us older model humans. I don't see how this could possibly fail. I mean, it's not like sexual activity amongst young adults is something engaged in lightly or impulsively due to higher hormonal level or anything.

Sex today, when it comes to young adults is something planned for complete with safety measures and debated about for proper application of possible future outcomes, right??

It's as simple as signing this consent form right here where it's labeled, "You've got to be kidding me!!"


Perhaps we should just register our 'junk' in Gov. approved storage facilities until we all pass a Gov. sanctioned course on how to correctly use and maintain our genitalia, upon which we'll be granted monitored access for it's use. Properly monitored at first of course....We don't want complete chaos after all.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Only California would make a law stating that "yes" means "yes" and "no" means "no".

I weep for our world.


Ain't that the truth!!

Although I wonder what they'll take a picture of to put on our License???



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
I detest rape. The idea of rape horrifies me. Rapist are the worst of the worst.

Pretext done. I have two main questions yet to be answered:

1. What if both parties are equally intoxicated? Can blame rest with any one party at that point?

2. Why do we hold people accountable for their actions while drunk, unless sex is involved? Whether it is driving, being in public, saying things, hitting people, etc. Why is it even the things that DON'T hurt someone else (urinating in public, being drunk in public, etc.) will land someone in jail, but if you're drunk you suddenly can't be held accountable for your decisions if they involve sex?

Just asking questions as respectfully as possible. Please do not attack me.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: gatorboi117

I think that is a valid question.

However, I'm not sure that people are allowed exemption from responsibility exactly, but maybe I'm not understanding what you mean. Can you give me an example???

I mean, we still hold people responsible for their sexual activities even while drunk. Saying someone isn't responsible because they are raped while drinking is different though since Nobody consents to rape. Rape is assault regardless of whether you've been drinking or not.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

What I'm referring to is how there are cases where a girl willingly and enthusiastically had sex with a man while drunk. When she woke up in the morning, she regretted it and claimed that she never meant to. And since she was intoxicated, the courts have ruled that she was "incapable of consent", and therefore the man raped her. Even though he thought she was consenting.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
the question I have is:

If both parties were intoxicated when they consented to sexual activity. Are they both equally guilty of sexual assault the next day when they are sober?

Equality for all should be the warcry! NOT guys should know better (or some other rubbish)

**I am not in any way condoning sexual assault. I find it to be the second lowest act a man can commit. However, I have seen too many people ruin their lives when they were out partying and someone had regrets during the "walk of shame". If one can be charged due to the other drinking the law should charge both (if both were intoxicated)


This, if a woman can charge a man with rape because she was intoxicated, a man should be able to accuse her of rape if he was intoxicated, and both parties should go to jail until it can be proven the man forced himself on the woman. Good luck with that.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join