California adopts ‘yes means yes’ sex-assault rule

Buyer's remorse does not equal rape. This is crap any more, if you spread 'em willingly, drunk or sober, you. spread. them. willingly. A regretful sleezeball doesn't need protection after the deed was willingly done. A forced, unwilling victim does. I'm so sick of every plastered female being able to say last night's threesome was rape, or every vindictive girl being able to go after a guy out of spite, retracting consent after the fact. Saying the wino down the hall can now claim rape after a bottle & a romp is a cop-out for personal responsibility. That's not how being a victim works, you don't get to choose.

Surely this is not singularly being used to punish innocent men. It is probably more directed at those god-awful date rape drugs, which are typically combined with the alcohol the female has already consumed.

I don't think (at least I hope) this won't cause false reports, and I'm thinking it won't.

Guys, as women we are your sisters, mother's, aunts, GF's, wives, etc. and nobody wants to see you punished for something you didn't do.

Somebody wrote "when regret becomes rape", ouch. I can see possibilities with that, but I honestly believe most women have better sense than that. Plus, being put through a rape-trial is grueling.

I wonder if there is a consent app out there yet. If not then cut me in on the profits.

I've already caught flack for a rape thread, might as well get it here, too.
I think this thread is even more reason for why mine is so important. Adults need to take responsibility for their actions. Men and women. It's never anyone's fault, other than the rapists. But harmful situations can be avoided. It's nice to see that California has acknowledged that a lot of rape cases have one thing in common, and that's alcohol. For me, consent is sober. Consent is excited. Consent is a smile, it's intense, and it doesn't look regretful.

But alcohol fogs that, I think. I think that this could allow more rapists to be persecuted. But I think it also might add a layer of camouflage to the rapists. Depending on how this plays out. I like the idea that this law places. Only have sex with a person you trust. Which is what people should have been doing all along. Had people of been doing this all along, maybe HIV/AIDS, Herpes and the like wouldn't be such a 'normal' thing.

I'd also like to know if this law protects men in any kind of way. 90% of men who are raped don't report it, because they get judged and laughed at. Because it's apparently unheard of that a male wouldn't want to have sex with everyone. Bottom line is, I hope this works in some ways. I hope all people take responsibility for their actions because of this being put into play. I hope that they catch people. But only the guilty people. And I hope this isn't another double standard. I'm female, and I like that as a female a lot of things will go in my favor. But men need protection, too. And the lack of double standards would make that happen, and close another gap in order to get closer to gender equality.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting So you support men being treated as slaves and think that women when drunk should be treated as children. Good......

a reply to: generik

Well, I guess I won't be having sex in Cali any time soon. I'm going to guess that many men will follow suit, leading Cali's consumption of batteries through the roof.

originally posted by: therationalist
a reply to: ladyinwaiting So you support men being treated as slaves and think that women when drunk should be treated as children. Good......

Exactly! Your level of reading comprehension is amazing..........!

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Surely this is not singularly being used to punish innocent men. It is probably more directed at those god-awful date rape drugs, which are typically combined with the alcohol the female has already consumed.

It isn't.

I don't think (at least I hope) this won't cause false reports, and I'm thinking it won't.

It will.

Guys, as women we are your sisters, mother's, aunts, GF's, wives, etc. and nobody wants to see you punished for something you didn't do.

Whoever came up with this law does.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting Sarcasm wouldn't change the logical analysis of your post....
If you support the law, then you support men treated as guilty until proven innocent based upon mere accusation by a female......that is how slaves are treated.
Second, if you believe that drunk women are incapable of making rational decisions which is what the law implies, then you do believe drunk women are children.....

a reply to: JIMC5499

I hope you're wrong, however, if they have a significant number of false reports coming in, I think they will step up to re-work this.

Look, women aren't stupid. Rape is a horrible, horrible thing and some victims never get over the subsequent PTSD. I think it's few women who want to intentionally put themselves through the humiliation. Those with an axe to grind, will be found out.

originally posted by: therationalist
a reply to: ladyinwaiting Sarcasm wouldn't change the logical analysis of your post....
If you support the law, then you support men treated as guilty until proven innocent based upon mere accusation by a female......that is how slaves are treated.
Second, if you believe that drunk women are incapable of making rational decisions which is what the law implies, then you do believe drunk women are children.....

Awesome! I haven't witnessed anyone with your comprehensive reading skills outside a special ed class!

But I regularly meet women like you who think sarcasms are valid arguments when they haven't got any.....
either reply to me logically or concede that you have got no answers to my points beside sarcasms.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting
No the vast majority of women are not stupid, however, many of them that are college age are ignorant and willing to believe what a person in a position of authority tells them.

Some of our colleges and universities are promoting an agenda that all men are sexual predators and that all women are victims. This is an example of what I am referring to. University of Michigan : Withholding Sex, Discounting Feelings Are 'Sexual Violance'

Another law written with good intentions that will play out in reality VASTLY differently than what was in the head's of the people writing it.

a reply to: therationalist

You know, there are so many miles between what I said, and what you think I said, I really don't think there is anything for us to discuss.

All I can recommend is that you read my post again, and then read your responses to it. If you still think I'm advocating that men are to become slaves and women treated as children, then I can't keep responding to you. The gap is too wide for any type discourse, okay? At least for me.

The biggest clue as to how this will play out is the Occidental case:

Alcohol negated the females consent

Alcohol did not negate the males responsibility

What does that mean?

All males will be guilty and all females innocent if alcohol is involved regardless of circumstances.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I'm still thinking this is primarily directed towards date-rape drugs.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Well considering the lawyer in the OP literally created a legal precedent to use this law in cases of just alcohol use, I'm going to have to disagree with you.

I think the main problem is how College Campuses deal with rape allegations. Up until a few weeks ago, they had an overwhelming policy of "please don't mention this again, or it will make our school look bad". And that is only with the few rapes that ARE reported.

I think the blame and fix should be applied correctly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll be curious to see where this goes:

Quote:

The college denied Doe's appeal. He has since filed a lawsuit against the college and reached out to FIRE for help. FIRE sent Occidental a letter outlining the group's concerns that Doe's due process rights were severely violated.

"Right now we are waiting from a response from Occidental," said Shibley.

She sent him an email asking whether he had a condom, which implies consent. But maybe she changed her mind at some point during the date?
Anyway, I'm not seeing justice in what's written here, but we really don't know her side of the story.