Sex just got a lot more problematic in California

[Jaskalas]

I am sure the first person tried with this new law will challenge it and it will be struck down. Hopefully, on the grounds that it is unbelievably fucking stupid.

99% of people aren't rich enough to challenge laws.

This is a disaster of guilty until proven innocent.

 

[lopri]

I don't know what is so hard about getting a consent prior to sex? I am not sure about the wisdom of the law but there is no presumption of guilt here. It actually gives you an element that gets you out of a potentially frivolous accusation. What am I missing?


It is amazing how some people see criminal conducts through different lenses, though. Imagine this was some dumb self-defense law which involved firearms.

 

[marincounty]

Damn Republicans! These social conservatives need to stay out of our bedrooms!

The bill met no Republican opposition in the state Senate, but Assembly Republicans "questioned whether statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define sexual consent between two people," according to the AP.

Yeah those Republicans are so good at protecting our rights, not.

 

[Blackjack200]

If it is anything like the military, which already has a "unable to legally consent while intoxicated" rule, whoever reports it first is the one who got raped. We were told not to engage in sexual activity with a drunk girl; if we did and were also drunk, report it first just in case.


I am sure the first person tried with this new law will challenge it and it will be struck down. Hopefully, on the grounds that it is unbelievably fucking stupid.

Haha, wow, that is crazypants.

 

[BoberFett]

I don't know what is so hard about getting a consent prior to sex? I am not sure about the wisdom of the law but there is no presumption of guilt here. It actually gives you an element that gets you out of a potentially frivolous accusation. What am I missing?

I don't know if you've ever actually had sex, but it's quite common for there to be no verbal confirmation in the form of "Yes, I would like to have sexual intercourse with you now between 1am and 2am on 10/1/2014 in the following positions:.... Anything outside of the previously verbalized accepted agreement to copulate will be considered sexual assault".

It's often just a sly look at each other and clothes on the floor.

 

[Fern]

I don't know what is so hard about getting a consent prior to sex? I am not sure about the wisdom of the law but there is no presumption of guilt here. It actually gives you an element that gets you out of a potentially frivolous accusation. What am I missing?


It is amazing how some people see criminal conducts through different lenses, though. Imagine this was some dumb self-defense law which involved firearms.

Re: Bolded - How so?

She actually says, then you get charged because she denies saying yes. How the h3ll do you prove she did say yes? How does she prove she didn't?

All I see is more 'he said, she said' which is what have now.

Fern

 

[Sephire]

Im not sure whether to laugh or cry. They found a way to regulate the bedroom again.

Those damn Republicans!

 

[Venix]

Re: Bolded - How so?

She actually says, then you get charged because she denies saying yes. How the h3ll do you prove she did say yes? How does she prove she didn't?

All I see is more 'he said, she said' which is what have now.

Fern

Bonnie Lowenthal, one of the bill's co-sponsors, was asked exactly that question: How can an innocent man defend himself from a false accusation?

Her response? "Your guess is as good as mine."

 

[squarecut1]

So I turned on NPR (thankfully we still have NPR) and they happened to be talking about this very law. There was this student who seemed rather confused and despondent. Poor guy.

But here's the thing. Something most people find ridiculous today will be the norm in a few years, as entire generations would have grown up with it. It would be normal for them

Don't want to imagine how world will be like in 100, 200 years from now. Just glad I won't be around to witness that kind of "civilized" world, where there is a law for every conceivable thing

 

[lopri]

@Fern: For the scenario you mentioned (he said, she said) this law makes zero difference. One of them is lying and the police will have to prove the rape. If proven, a party will be guilty of rape + perjury or the other party will be guilty of perjury + obstruction of justice.

This law, if I understand its intention correctly, applies to situations where a victim is unable to give consent (obviously) or you are unsure if your partner is attracted to you. Acquiring consent will effectively give you an immunity. If your partner is willing to lie to the school/police/court, she or he should be punished accordingly. In that sense, this puts additional burden on the accuser if she or he gave consent because it will be more difficult to claim the consent was not genuine or some such.

Again, whether this is a wise law or this law can even be enforced - I do not know. I have not given much thought about it. Nevertheless there is no switch of presumption as far as I can tell here.

 

[MongGrel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80UQWWUIYs

 

[Bird222]

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. Trojan will also mail you free condoms as a cross-promotional offer.

But the problem is that you can withdraw consent at any time.

 

[MongGrel]

But the problem is that you can withdraw consent at any time.

Those were called cock teasers when I was in high school in the 70's.

 

[Pneumothorax]

The bill met no Republican opposition in the state Senate, but Assembly Republicans "questioned whether statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define sexual consent between two people," according to the AP.

Yeah those Republicans are so good at protecting our rights, not.

Wow blame the other side that has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER IN SACRAMENTO. (Dems have clear majorities in all branches of state government - in case you didn't know) What do you think will happen to the hapless repub who goes against this stupid ass rule in his next election? "Mr Repub hates women and supports rape!" is the headline sure to come out from the labor union financed dem hack who goes against him on his next campaign.

I thought your party was all about staying out of the bedroom?

 

[Sephire]

Wow blame the other side that has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER IN SACRAMENTO. (Dems have clear majorities in all branches of state government - in case you didn't know) What do you think will happen to the hapless repub who goes against this stupid ass rule in his next election? "Mr Repub hates women and supports rape!" is the headline sure to come out from the labor union financed dem hack who goes against him on his next campaign.

I thought your party was all about staying out of the bedroom?

I don't think there is any elected Republican in California :awe:

 

[werepossum]

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?

The next iteration is that the woman must request sex without any prompting from the man.

Nope, the man raped the woman - as it's always been.

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.

Read that yesterday. As always, Paglia rules.

I'm assuming the "right winger" was in jest.

If it is anything like the military, which already has a "unable to legally consent while intoxicated" rule, whoever reports it first is the one who got raped. We were told not to engage in sexual activity with a drunk girl; if we did and were also drunk, report it first just in case.


I am sure the first person tried with this new law will challenge it and it will be struck down. Hopefully, on the grounds that it is unbelievably fucking stupid.

Hmm, that's a good point. They say date rape is consensual sex followed by the man not phoning for 24 hours. Here's a way around that - report her drunken ass for rape first!

And I would seriously donate money toward the election of a judge for the office of his choice were he to strike down a law "on the grounds that it is unbelievably fucking stupid".

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sounds stupid reading this thread. I don't really care enough to look into it further. Hopefully, it gets struck down if it's really as explained.

So every once in a while you get something stupid like this from liberals, but you have a never ended stream of rape talk from conservatives.... therefore totally equal.

 

[irishScott]

Sounds completely unenforceable. It's dumb, but I don't see it being particularly damaging.

Stuff like this makes me wonder where the Democrats get off claiming to be the party of reason and intellect. Just because you're more eloquent doesn't make you any less stupid. Also, loving the posters in this thread blaming Republicans for Democrat legislation.

 

[squarecut1]

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally involved in government overreach. Please don't be fooled by labels or rhetoric. Have to look no further than the erosion of civil liberties. It is all about what suits whose agenda. Rest is all bs

 

[werepossum]

Both Democrats and Republicans are equally involved in government overreach. Please don't be fooled by labels or rhetoric. Have to look no further than the erosion of civil liberties. It is all about what suits whose agenda. Rest is all bs

This. We sometimes get so caught up in the parties' differences that we forget they are largely the same.

 

[squarecut1]

Sounds completely unenforceable. It's dumb, but I don't see it being particularly damaging.

Missing the bigger picture, you are. This is how it starts. Soon it will spread to other states. Then they would decide that this he said / she said is too problematic, and you need written, signed consent. Before you know it, you would need lawyers to have sex (and no doubt this legislation would have been massively funded and supported by the trial lawyers association)

Sounds crazy? Hyperbole? Pause for a minute and consider that many things that are normal today were considered crazy at one time. Our barometer for normal is what we grew up in. That does not necessarily make it normal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Poor poor men. They used to sit in the cat bird seat but now it's occupied by kittens. But the feminized men will be OK. The men of the future will be kind and gentle, delicate and squishy, and of course, liberal. Instead of Sunday football, we'll sit around and knit. I will teach you how to do Ikebana.. I love it when the apricots bloom in spring. And to float camellia in water is heavenly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Missing the bigger picture, you are. This is how it starts. Soon it will spread to other states. Then they would decide that this he said / she said is too problematic, and you need written, signed consent. Before you know it, you would need lawyers to have sex (and no doubt this legislation would have been massively funded and supported by the trial lawyers association)

Sounds crazy? Hyperbole? Pause for a minute and consider that many things that are normal today were considered crazy at one time. Our barometer for normal is what we grew up in. That does not necessarily make it normal.

You're so so right. It's a sign of the apocalypse, and the death of dear Father and the rise of the Mother. They will have to cart Nephalump away to the mental institution. You have to expect a backlash when men become assholes. You don't think Isis doesn't know what's coming for them? You poor thing.

 

[xaeniac]

Sex please

 

[alcoholbob]

In before Moonbeam starts his CBD diatribe.