California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

Forums: College, Preventing Rape, Rape, Legal, Feminist Intolerance
Email this Topic • Print this Page

LOS ANGELES — "California has defined in law just when "yes means yes'' on college campuses.

The state Senate unanimously approved legislation Thursday that, according to its sponsor, will change how campus officials investigate sexual assault allegations.

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday night that he had signed the bill.

Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party to engage in sexual activity."

I personally do not like this law and although I believe all persons who are victims and potential victims need to be protected, this law also leaves open an avenue for those to be falsely accused. I believe the professor of Florida International put it clearly:

"It is tragically clear that this campus rape crusade bill presumes the veracity of accusers (a.k.a. 'survivors') and likewise presumes the guilt of accused (virtually all men). This is nice for the accusers – both false accusers as well as true accusers — but what about the due process rights of the accused?,'' wrote Gordon Finley, an adviser to the group and professor emeritus of psychology at Florida International University."

See:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/28/california-bill-yes-means-yes-sex-assault/14765665/

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 24 • Views: 24,421 • Replies: 342

@Buttermilk,

I appreciate your take on this, B, but I probably diverge from you here.

My personal philosophy in this area has ALWAYS been...if there is not an unambiguous YES...I take it as a NO.

With me, it has always taken two to tango...and if the lady was not enthusiastic about getting down to it, I passed.

Not sure how I feel about it being made into a law...but as I said, it certainly follows what I set us for a personal standard.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Well I for one believe that consent ought to be clear and conscious as I believe that someone passed out intoxicated truly has no consent to sexual intercourse. However, like the professor said what about those that regret from the sexual encounter and who make false accusations of rape which leads to the accused of being blamed without due process.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I agree with you in principle, Frank.

The main issue I have with this law is that it erodes due process. This wording further shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant.

0 Replies

Wonder if the college boys will understand that a girl who drinks too much and crawls in bed with you must now also say yes.

0 Replies

For the sake of legal safety,
we shud all confine sexual activity to our friendly local brothels.
Just pay the friendly girl what she asks. She won 't cause any trouble.

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

I don't think this really does anything. It is still his word against hers. He can say "she said yes" and she can say "no I didn't." That is pretty much how it is now. Drunk people can give "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" and then forget it in the morning. Women who feel they are in a dangerous situation can still be pressured into saying yes. I don't see where this is going to change anything that is in place today. Seems like politics to me.

2 Replies

I am constantly amazed that people attempt to make an issue out of the victimization of men in an accusation of rape. There is a simple way to avoid that, and that's not to be a complete, slavering horn dog. Don't get in ambiguous situations, and no accusation can be made. Don't act as though university were a big casual sex lottery.

3 Replies

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

I don't think this really does anything. It is still his word against hers. He can say "she said yes" and she can say "no I didn't." That is pretty much how it is now. Drunk people can give "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" and then forget it in the morning. Women who feel they are in a dangerous situation can still be pressured into saying yes. I don't see where this is going to change anything that is in place today. Seems like politics to me.

for people who are too stingy to PAY the young lady

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

"It is tragically clear that this campus rape crusade bill presumes the veracity of accusers (a.k.a. 'survivors') and likewise presumes the guilt of accused (virtually all men). This is nice for the accusers – both false accusers as well as true accusers — but what about the due process rights of the accused?,'' wrote Gordon Finley, an adviser to the group and professor emeritus of psychology at Florida International University."

this guy sure knows how to play with language

there is nothing "nice" about rape so screw that part of his comments

and accusers/accused. I really dislike namby/pamby p.c. language. Let's not leave out what this is about. This is about rape. Call them accused rapists. Don't try to pretty it up.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

You are missing the point. Not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty, and everyone who is accused of a crime is supposed to be guaranteed due process.

People who are accused of rape should be considered innocent until proven guilty (just like people accused of any other crime).

The issue is whether due process rights are being compromised. This is a legitimate concern.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Don't get in ambiguous situations, and no accusation can be made.

OK, so according to Setanta,
no one is ABLE to accuse that:
"Setanta offered JTT $2OO.OO
if he 'd let Setanta give him a blow job," right???????
As long as he did not get into ambiguous situations,
then it cannot be done -- can 't happen . . . , right ?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I don't think this bill changes anything about due process. It is already illegal to have sex with someone without their consent. This bill just attempts to clearly define what consent is.

1 Reply

@engineer,

Of course it changes due process.

It puts the defendant in the position of proving his innocence by affirmatively proving consent. With due process in a criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt.

This puts defendants in a very difficult situation... this is a pressure that defendants of other crimes are not subjected to.

And think about the standard this is setting. The last time you had sex, did you get a clear verbal affirmative statement by your partner before you started having sex? Or was consent implied.

For that matter, the last time you had sex... did you give a clear verbal affirmative statement of your consent?

(I didn't.... but I don't think that means I was raped.)

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

It puts the defendant in the position of proving his innocence by affirmatively proving consent. With due process in a criminal prosecution, the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt.

I think it is exactly the same as it was before this law. Both before and after this law, the prosecution has to prove there was no consent (or if you want, the defendant had to prove there was consent.) Consent has always been necessary. That hasn't changed.

1 Reply

To put it more succinctly, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no consent. Period.

0 Replies

@engineer,

So then Engineer... why do you think this law is a good thing? My belief is that the goal of this law is to make things more difficult for defendants by shifting the standard of proof. If this isn't correct, than what do you see is the benefit of this new law?

Give me an example of a situation where this law makes things better?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

So then Engineer... why do you think this law is a good thing?

I don't think this law is a good thing as I feel it is a do-nothing law. I don't think it does anything other than allow lawmakers to claim they passed a law.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

maxdancona wrote:

So then Engineer... why do you think this law is a good thing?

I don't think this law is a good thing as I feel it is a do-nothing law. I don't think it does anything other than allow lawmakers to claim they passed a law.

The state has tightened up what is acceptable consent, which makes it easier to pound on citizens for unapproved sex. The state never needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that consent did not happen, because these cases so often are only he said/she said. There is no way to know what happened. What juries and judges do is pick who they want to believe.

Besides, increasingly men get pounded on without even the illusion of guild beyond reasonable doubt. Take a look at what goes on at Universities, at the insistence of the government.

0 Replies

@engineer,

I agree with you, I think at least on the cover there is still some gray areas

0 Replies

California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know