California adopts ‘yes means yes’ sex-assault rule

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just so you'll know, I wasn't talking about you. You did not attribute ideas and words to me that I didn't make.
It never occurred to me that you didn't read and understand my rather simple post.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

lol The way some women dress is like a pirate hiding his treasure on a sidewalk in times square under one sheet of toilet paper.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

lol The way some women dress is like a pirite hiding his treasure on a sidewalk in times square under one sheet of toilet paper.

But what does that have to do your right to sleep with her? Or are you hinting at your own inability to control yourself and thus project the notion that she is purposely dressing in a way to draw you in?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Fair enough then. I wasn't sure and just wanted to clarify.

here's the bill:
legiscan.com...

one other thing for you guys out there....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...
that means that a girl that is in a bar drinking, or at a party drinking, or under any drug influence, CAN NEVER give consent, and anyone that has sex with her regardless of what she says, has committed a crime....good luck guys

a reply to: jimmyx

That's why I can't understand the hullabaloo. It's taking away "tacit" agreement and making it total consent. Makes perfect sense to me. Oh and I like your idea of a consent slip. No arguing with that.

a reply to: generik

How about signing a "contract of consent", that out to make sure that is not hear say when one of the sexual partners complain that has been rapped, it goes both ways.

a reply to: jimmyx
Even if a contract was signed, the lawyers will just make an attempt to say it is null and void, they had some beer so it was under duress.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

lol The way some women dress is like a pirate hiding his treasure on a sidewalk in times square under one sheet of toilet paper.

I thought I'd point out a flaw in your rationale here. Considering someone's clothing as provocative is indicative of the society we live in. We are all humans, we all have more or less the same parts and the parts we don't share with others, we know what they look like because the other half of the human population has them. But despite this, we put these social taboos on the parts that only 50% of us have that require us to cover them up and when they become closer and closer to being exposed we consider it to be provocative.

But this is just an application of the forbidden fruit paradigm. It's appealing BECAUSE it's unacceptable to expose it. As society allows for more skin to be shown, people become used to it and stop considering such things to be provocative. This is why back in the early 1900's a lady showing her ankle would arouse men, but now it takes MUCH more to do the same thing.

Heck, when going to the beach back in they day, they had portable ROOMS that people rolled up to the shoreline so that men didn't accidentally get a peak at an exposed woman swimming/relaxing in the water. Now women wear bikinis as the norm which are practically just underwear (that exposes more skin) that is acceptable to wear exposed in public.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: jimmyx

That's why I can't understand the hullabaloo. It's taking away "tacit" agreement and making it total consent. Makes perfect sense to me. Oh and I like your idea of a consent slip. No arguing with that.

so what if she had a couple of beers or a cocktail or a glass of wine?...she, under the law, is not legally capable of consenting to sex, no matter if she says yes a hundred times, and fills out a consent form.

a reply to: jimmyx

THAT is ridiculous. They are saying that after a glass on wine a woman is safe to drive but not give consent?

a reply to: Krazysh0t There is no flaw in my logic or yours. As soon as all the treasure is uncovered then maybe we will get used to the riches being in reach. Meanwhile if the majority of pirates keep hiding their treasure then when we come across a chest left out in the open it will draw attention of those in need of that which has been kept from them. Them pirates are either gonna have to share the booty or keep it under lock and key. Teaching elemantary kids about the way's of the sea just opens the door to set sail.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: jimmyx

THAT is ridiculous. They are saying that after a glass on wine a woman is safe to drive but not give consent?

that's right...read the law...there are going to be college guys out there that will be sought after, and set-up, especially the ones that come from wealthy families....of course there are enough stupid and horny guys out there that will get burned by this.

Then why isnt the law called yes means no?

If a consent to have sex could actually mean no why is it called yes means yes?

And if said woman who is drinking decides to drive home, gets pulled over by the police and consents to a breathalyzer test would that also be null and void?

I hear a lot of the double standard being thrown around, what if two college girls are drinking and engage in some harless experimental lesbian sex, are the both then guilty of rape?

I guess the best defense would be to video the encounter. Then when in court you could drop the bombshell of the video to be played in court in front of the jurors.

From the file of unintended consequences: This law only pertains to college students. Think about that a minute. What is going to happen when a female college student cannot get a guy to come within 20 yards of her because of this law?

a reply to: TKDRL

that exact situation happened to me but my film of the encounter proved her allegations wrong,just keep signs posted mentioning that the area your in is subject to surveillance cameras and your golden legally,but id not upload it to the net as that rarely goes well and could fall into "revenge porn" laws in various states .all i had to do to counter her allegations was show her and police the tape of the encounter.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas
This law professor thinks that it should be made illegal lol.

"However, I think we need to be extremely cautious about competing privacy concerns. ... Almost nothing is more private in our culture than sexual relations. I certainly think it is a bad idea, legally as well as culturally, to incentivize surreptitious videotaping of any kind, let alone of sexual encounters. States that currently do not make this illegal should reconsider."

I mean how dare they be able to defend themselves against bogus rape charges!

People making out after being drunk is a fact of life that has happened since alcohol has been invented.
IMO, if someone consents to using a moral altering substance, he should be directly responsible of his actions.

We need to draw a clear line, enough is enough.
95% of drunk sex is consented, it isn't rape no matter what excuses or regrets the "victims" may have.