You're such a fucking idiot.Wow ... lots of conservatives in here angry at how much harder it will be to defend the actions of rapists. Can't say I'm exactly surprised considering they tend to defend every single rapist in every single P&N thread as it is.
That describes about 80% of government most places, and 99% of it in California.Dumb law. Will probably result in unintended consequences and only passed for the 'feel good' of being able to say they did 'something'.
Makes sense for CA. The issue now will be girls who were coerced into saying "yes", so a new law will need to come out to plug that loop hole.
The one weird thing I saw is that you can't legally consent if you're drunk. So if two drunk people have sex, they just raped each other? How does that work?
Just develop an SEXTRACT App. It takes a short video of each partner giving verbal and visual consent (think Vine), allows each to enter an email address, and accepts signature/thumb print of each participant, draws up a short one-line consent contract and emails it to both parties with video, signature, and thumb print.
The one weird thing I saw is that you can't legally consent if you're drunk. So if two drunk people have sex, they just raped each other? How does that work?
-snip-
People can't even remember to use condoms, and you expect them to remember this?
Who the hell is defending rape here? I for one think the system is lenient on actual rapists.Wow ... lots of conservatives in here angry at how much harder it will be to defend the actions of rapists. Can't say I'm exactly surprised considering they tend to defend every single rapist in every single P&N thread as it is.
The one weird thing I saw is that you can't legally consent if you're drunk. So if two drunk people have sex, they just raped each other? How does that work?
.
..I'm glad i'm old...fuck this shit. I feel sorry for the males of our future.
From that New Republic article I linked
------
But there is a larger problem at stake in Bill 967. It is an argument of definition: A failure to procure “affirmative agreement” means that sexual assault has taken place. If that is the case, absent such affirmative signifiers, how exactly do you know whom to arrest? Let’s say the woman brings a complaint; hasn’t she also technically raped her male partner, according to the new bill?
Very good read. She does not sound at all like your lunatic right winger on the microphone these days. Couple of notable excerpts.Here's an interesting read from a well known right winger Camille Paglia:
https://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/
Lots of good points in there.
Instead of "no means no", it is now "yes means yes". If you are confused, this is what it means:
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Sunday mandating that sexual partners on college campuses must give "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement."
The bill goes on to assert that "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."
http://mashable.com/2014/09/29/yes-means-yes-sexual-consent-law/
Joe Cohn, the legislative policy director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told Inside Higher Ed that it's difficult to prove consent, short of making a video.
According to Cohn, the bill reverses the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." An accused student would have to prove in a college hearing that he or she did get consent.
+1..I'm glad i'm old...fuck this shit. I feel sorry for the males of our future.
Good point.
So in order for there to be a rape case, the accuser would have to bring sufficient evidence that the rapist had consented. Either that or they risk rape changes being levied against them as well.
Those fricken unintended consequences again. Leftists will never learn.