Would you risk having sex in California ('yes means yes')?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Does it apply to both partners?

I'm always say'n yes anyways no worries!

This video is brilliant in explaining consent. But really funny though! It has been making the rounds recently and I am surprised no one else has linked it yet.

So you saying that I have to tape every encounter now .. just to make sure that I have video evidence if there is ever a "questionable" situation. I wonder if someone from the p**n industry actually wrote this law.

Oh yeah - not everyone in California is left .. that mostly applies to the North.

a reply to: Profusion

I wouldn't have any interest in having sex with a woman dumb enough to set foot in California.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Profusion

So, let me get this straight - in the land of Hollyweird, your sexual partner must continuously say "yes" "yes" "yes" until the final climaxtic moment otherwise you could potentially go to jail?

Seems like in Californification it now pays to videotape the whole shebang.

Here in Australia, if you fail to make your partner say yes yes yes right up to and beyond the vinegar stroke - all you risk is disappointing her/him.

Then again, in Australia, we prefer down under

Teehee. So in otherwords, you need to keep your partner happy and satisfied all the way till the end or else you go to jail. I guess that's fair.

But seriously, if anybody can just lie about it after the fact, what's the difference? I think I'm just going to make them sign a contract. Just don't read the small print, lolz.

Unless you sign something, or record the other party saying "Yes" -- it's still going to be he-said vs. she-said.

I don't see how this solves anything.

originally posted by: Profusion
California adopts historic 'yes means yes' rule on sexual consent

I believe the 'yes means yes' rule on sexual consent is exactly how it should be. Sex is a contract IMHO and therefore the boundaries of the contract must be clear. Quoting from the law:

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

Knowing the above, would you risk having sex in California?

I would not. Here's why:

In other words, in order for sex to be lawful, both parties must acknowledge verbally and continuously that they are indeed in the mood for love (the word “verbal” was removed from the bill, but it seems impossible to satisfy the conditions nonverbally).
'Affirmative Consent' Is Bad for Women

As unbelievable as it sounds, "continuously" is actually the standard. It's an impossible, unworkable standard IMHO. And, it's exactly how it should be.

Down with sex! It's time to put the human race out of its misery.

I am really ambivalent about this law. On one hand, I agree with it completely on ideological and theoretical grounds. On the other hand, I think it's an absurdity that could potentially ruin the lives of many innocent people.

FIrst, I'm against any kind of sexual assault or exploitation, and also anybody being even manipulated into sex. And, my comments below in no way excuse nor diminish that many women have been subjected to sexual assault.

However, I agree that this just doesn't seem realistic. I think most of us on here who are have been sexually active at some point in our lives know that in the majority of sexual situations, there is no clear "do you want to have sex" or something similar. Sometimes, yes, but rarely so.

Also, I will trust these laws when I see a woman hauled in for not getting continual consent.

It is the same with the intoxication cases where both parties are drunk but a man can get hauled in for rape. There is no reason, unless the woman is totally out of sorts or passed out, that this should be rape. Unless, of course, a woman can be charged with rape for sleeping with an intoxicated guy, as do many woman every single night across the world. But they aren't really.

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

the word “verbal” was removed from the bill

So no you don't have to keep saying yes. Calm down.

I think the matter is serious, though the wording of the bill can't seem to satisfy the needs of it.

You see there are plenty of people continuously abused sexually that have no voice. Many years of not being able to voice anything. Like when children are sexually abused they have no voice.

I don't think this is just about the one off one night stand turned violent scenario. Rape encounters have so many faces, I can see why it is hard to define how to show or voice consent.

The "yes means yes" law has nothing to do with children as the following article mentioned:

Whether or not a 15-year-old girl or boy wanted to have sex with an 18 year old is immaterial; she or he ise not deemed old enough for consent to matter.
'Affirmative Consent' Is Bad for Women

However, one place it really matters is in pornography:

Rape is an inflammatory word, especially with respect to the adult industry. Actual depiction of rape may result in an obscenity trial and a prison term for the videomaker. Pornographers such as Max get around the rape issue by ensuring that at some point the female starlet verbally consents to whatever is going on. A typical Max Hardcore scene looks like a rape. A girl is pursued and captured. She cringes and cowers; Max yanks her by the pigtails and slaps her around. But it is not rape, because she tells us it isn’t. Images battle with words. Turn the sound down, and it is a rape.
Maxed out

The "yes means yes" law will make the above illegal, finally. It's unbelievable to me that in the 21st century pornographers were getting away with "legal rape" in California. I wonder how much this law has to do with that. Remember, California has been the pornography capital of the world for a long time.

That's not my thing. And I agree that it is problematic that people are celebrating "rape culture" in porn. But there is a difference between actual rape and acting rape.

The law will make it easier to prosecute date rape and drunk rape, all the girl has to say is I was too drunk to say yes, but I never said no because again I was too drunk. And she has a case, but what if the guy was just as drunk he never said yes either, so do they both get charged, this could get really silly fast ?

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

the word “verbal” was removed from the bill

So no you don't have to keep saying yes. Calm down.

I think the matter is serious, though the wording of the bill can't seem to satisfy the needs of it.

You see there are plenty of people continuously abused sexually that have no voice. Many years of not being able to voice anything. Like when children are sexually abused they have no voice.

I don't think this is just about the one off one night stand turned violent scenario. Rape encounters have so many faces, I can see why it is hard to define how to show or voice consent.

The "yes means yes" law has nothing to do with children as the following article mentioned:

Whether or not a 15-year-old girl or boy wanted to have sex with an 18 year old is immaterial; she or he ise not deemed old enough for consent to matter.
'Affirmative Consent' Is Bad for Women

However, one place it really matters is in pornography:

Rape is an inflammatory word, especially with respect to the adult industry. Actual depiction of rape may result in an obscenity trial and a prison term for the videomaker. Pornographers such as Max get around the rape issue by ensuring that at some point the female starlet verbally consents to whatever is going on. A typical Max Hardcore scene looks like a rape. A girl is pursued and captured. She cringes and cowers; Max yanks her by the pigtails and slaps her around. But it is not rape, because she tells us it isn’t. Images battle with words. Turn the sound down, and it is a rape.
Maxed out

The "yes means yes" law will make the above illegal, finally. It's unbelievable to me that in the 21st century pornographers were getting away with "legal rape" in California. I wonder how much this law has to do with that. Remember, California has been the pornography capital of the world for a long time.

That's not my thing. And I agree that it is problematic that people are celebrating "rape culture" in porn. But there is a difference between actual rape and acting rape.

wow, problematic and rape culture in the same sentence. Have SJW's taken over ATS while I've been away? sad.

By California's definition, I and my girlfriend have raped each other countless times. Students were literally told, when they asked how best to interpret consent, that it should be clarified continuously throughout the act. More specifically, asking their partner if they want to continue multiple times while being intimate.

Now, not to get to graphic, but many times when getting intimate with my gf, I decide to go downstairs so to speak. More often than not, I simply go down there and "get to work", (usually after foreplay ofc ) I do my thing, she never says no.

Now, going by the definition you have provided:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

This means that since I failed to ask my girlfriend, whom I have been with for nigh on three years, and have been living with happily for the last 1.5 years, have just raped my girlfriend.


This is why this law is asinine. This law also, de facto outlaws a couple from going out for dinner and wine then returning home and having sex, since they may both very well be intoxicated, they would be raping each other. It doesn't take much more than a brainstem to know that men will be charged extremely disproportionately.

Unfoetunatlwy, I am going to school in the great Peoples Republic of Commiefornia and its not practical to move so I am stuck here. Luckily I trust my girlfriend. Once again unfortunately, many men will likely be victimized by this law by vindictive, or just downright evil women.


This is how the law will be pursued in most cases, that is an official poster that was put up at a school. That means the state believe that only women can be taken advantage of, just your typical radical Liberal mindset.


EDIT: What is it that is one of the gay rights movements slogans? "Stay out of my bedroom!" wasn't it? I see this as absolutely no different. The state is literally trying to mandate how I and my girlfriend decide to go about our intimacy by literally requiring us to ask each other questions during the act, it's complete bull#, because it accomplishes nothing that people didn't know already, without the asking of questions. Just like all the gun free school zones that are shot up by someone who decides to bring a gun on to school campus and shoot it up anyway, this law is not going to stop a rapist from raping, or dropping a date rape drug in a drink, or pressuring a girl to drink more and more (all of which are illegal as well)

Laws only serve to restrict those who would not do such a thing anyway.

originally posted by: sickdeathfiend

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: zazzafrazz

the word “verbal” was removed from the bill

So no you don't have to keep saying yes. Calm down.

I think the matter is serious, though the wording of the bill can't seem to satisfy the needs of it.

You see there are plenty of people continuously abused sexually that have no voice. Many years of not being able to voice anything. Like when children are sexually abused they have no voice.

I don't think this is just about the one off one night stand turned violent scenario. Rape encounters have so many faces, I can see why it is hard to define how to show or voice consent.

The "yes means yes" law has nothing to do with children as the following article mentioned:

Whether or not a 15-year-old girl or boy wanted to have sex with an 18 year old is immaterial; she or he ise not deemed old enough for consent to matter.
'Affirmative Consent' Is Bad for Women

However, one place it really matters is in pornography:

Rape is an inflammatory word, especially with respect to the adult industry. Actual depiction of rape may result in an obscenity trial and a prison term for the videomaker. Pornographers such as Max get around the rape issue by ensuring that at some point the female starlet verbally consents to whatever is going on. A typical Max Hardcore scene looks like a rape. A girl is pursued and captured. She cringes and cowers; Max yanks her by the pigtails and slaps her around. But it is not rape, because she tells us it isn’t. Images battle with words. Turn the sound down, and it is a rape.
Maxed out

The "yes means yes" law will make the above illegal, finally. It's unbelievable to me that in the 21st century pornographers were getting away with "legal rape" in California. I wonder how much this law has to do with that. Remember, California has been the pornography capital of the world for a long time.

That's not my thing. And I agree that it is problematic that people are celebrating "rape culture" in porn. But there is a difference between actual rape and acting rape.

wow, problematic and rape culture in the same sentence. Have SJW's taken over ATS while I've been away? sad.

SJWs have been here for quite a while.

This law is sexist, like girls never initiated, touch, or even wait for the guy to say yes before they start


On the flip side, I really hope this makes the movie and tv industry leave CA.

If they film anything without step by step consent, wouldn't they be breaking the law?

I haven't had cause to even think about it in nearly 12 years so... to answer the question, "Not applicable personally." Lol

Peace.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Profusion

So, let me get this straight - in the land of Hollyweird, your sexual partner must continuously say "yes" "yes" "yes" until the final climaxtic moment otherwise you could potentially go to jail?

Seems like in Californification it now pays to videotape the whole shebang.

Here in Australia, if you fail to make your partner say yes yes yes right up to and beyond the vinegar stroke - all you risk is disappointing her/him.

Then again, in Australia, we prefer down under

I agree... the most violent and absurd movies are produced there but if my female partner is done yet I cannot stop I am a rapist? Intercourse's beginning and end is not wholly decided by the participants. It just kind of... happens. .

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
The law will make it easier to prosecute date rape and drunk rape, all the girl has to say is I was too drunk to say yes, but I never said no because again I was too drunk. And she has a case, but what if the guy was just as drunk he never said yes either, so do they both get charged, this could get really silly fast ?

Wow! This might be an unprecedented event! I actually agree with you completely.

a reply to: Profusion

Sex is a contract? Lack of resistance is not acceptance?

I mean. Wow. So I have just gotten back from a bar and there's a naked, conscious woman who i dont know her name laying on my bed.

So if you have your way, about then, I'm going to have to break out with a consent form?

Dear god, this is f'ing stupidiy.

Too many lawyers. Not enough heart and spontaneity in your world.

Glad you are not in mine.