California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

The law has no bearing on the vast majority of sexual encounters. It only applies when a student files a sexual assault complaint. And all it does is help the disciplinary board craft its line of questioning to get to the important facts. Now, instead of starting the investigation by asking if the victim said no—and how she said no and whether her no was good enough to get her out of unwanted sex—the investigation focuses on the actions of the accused. Example questions could include, "Did she want to have sex with you?" or "Did she want to do everything you two did?"

She also makes clear a near universal opinion of misandrists....that men should be able to read the minds of women

that men should be held criminally liable if women claim that we did not do it correctly.

The affirmative consent law sets the bar for sex at roughly the same level that we have for going to someone's house: Don't do it if you're not invited, and don't use the fact that someone invited you into his or her living room as an excuse to abscond with a stereo.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/09/29/affirmative_consent_in_california_gov_jerry_brown_signs_the_yes_means_yes.html

And the entire point of "yes means yes" standards for consent is to encourage clear communication on the part of both parties about the types of contact that are wanted--or unwanted--before they are engaged in

The affirmative consent law sets the bar for sex at roughly the same level that we have for going to someone's house: Don't do it if you're not invited, and don't use the fact that someone invited you into his or her living room as an excuse to abscond with a stereo.

Hawkeye a very amusing analogy of this law or it would be amusing if it was not also accurate.

Turning sexual relationships on CA college campuses into games of Simon says.

In the history of the human race I wonder if any couple had ever made love in the manner this law is demanding of college couples.

Bullshit, the law says directly that each act needs a new affirmative consent, not each encounter

People communicate all the time during sex, sometimes verbally, and they also send feedback to partners that clearly indicates whether they are enjoying themselves and an active willing participant or not, and they do this without having to give it much thought. Most people, including college students, want to engage in sex that really is consensual and wanted, by both parties, and that takes the partner's preferences into account, and that excludes what isn't wanted, or what one just isn't in the mood for--and better communication facilitates all of that. You're obviously not one of those people, if the whole notion of affirmative consent troubles you.

For decades, there has been a unique, growing disparity between the way we treat accused rapists and their accusers. It’s grown because of a relentless pressure to manipulate the rules to increase arrests and convictions in rape cases. The protections against false accusations have been whittled away one by one to make it easier to charge and easier to convict, with the unintended consequence of making it easier to make a false accusation.

In order to more easily file criminal charges, these basic protections have been eliminated:

A required corroboration of a rape taking place; now, the accusation alone is sufficient
Evidence of a clear element of force or the threat of force
The classic element of mens rea (guilty mind)
And in pursuit of convictions, rolled back protections have included:

The ability to cross-examine accusers about past conduct. Rape shield laws insulate an accuser’s past while creating rules to greatly broaden evidence of the accused’s past conduct. (see Fed. Rule Evid. 413 for the most outrageous example.) Even evidence of the accuser’s prior false allegations of rape is inadmissible because it is considered sexual conduct within the meaning of the shield statute.
Intoxication as a defense — while consent by an allegedly intoxicated victim doesn’t matter.
The cautionary jury instruction that rape is a charge easily made but not easily defended.
We need a modest reform to mitigate these changes. This is not a zero-sum game where a benefit to the accused is detrimental to the accuser. There is an obvious benefit to discouraging false charges and denying the ability to use them as blackmail or as a weapon in domestic disputes.

False accusations of rape appear far higher than false accusations of other crimes. One study, conducted over nine years in one Midwest city, found that 41 percent were false; a study of two state universities over three years found 50 percent to be false. Meanwhile, the FBI reports the number of unfounded rape accusations at 8 percent, while the average rate of all unfounded crime reports is at 2 percent. We don’t know the precise figures because rape statistics are unreliable or misleading, and much depends on how police categorize false, unfounded, insufficient evidence, etc., but we know the rate is high.

In the emotionally charged conversation about rape, few topics are more fraught than that of false allegations. Consider some responses to the news that singer-songwriter Conor Oberst had been falsely accused of sexual assault. Last December a woman writing in the comments section of the website xoJane, going by the name Joanie Faircloth, claimed Oberst raped her when she was a teenager. The charge spread across the Internet; Oberst denied it and brought a libel suit against Faircloth when she refused to retract the story. In July she completely recanted, admitting that she had made it all up to get attention. Yet instead of showing sympathy for the ordeal of the musician—one known for being supportive of feminist issues—some chided him for taking legal action to defend himself against a false, career-damaging charge. In the Daily Dot, pop culture critic Chris Ostendorf decried the lawsuit, arguing that it could intimidate real victims of rape and that it promoted the idea of men as victims of false accusations—even though that’s exactly what Oberst was. After Oberst dropped the suit, Bustle’s Caroline Pate praised his decision and referred to the saga as “a roller-coaster for both parties”—treating the false accuser and the wrongly accused as morally equivalent—and called the revelation of Oberst’s innocence “crushingly disappointing.”

We're left to draw the following conclusion: False allegations of rape aren't rampant. But they don't have to be to cause terrible trouble. This is a problem that a men's rights movement shouldn't trump up. And also one that feminists can't dismiss.

Changing the standard from "Yes" to "No" is doing nothing though, but I also don't see how it makes the situation any worse (or better) for falsely accused men either.

C.J. Spillman is another example of men being guilty unless and until proven innocent and should be punish at once on the word of women accusers alone before any investigations can be done.

In this case, a woman that happen to be in his hotel room in the early AM hours is bringing charges of rape

How dare he still be playing for his team seems to be the comments on the internet medias at least.

if you're dealing with anything off the field and we can help with, we're here for you. Having said that, there is standards that we have about all off the field behavior and certainly domestic violence applies to that. We're just very clear with how we're going to handle things."

Pure speculation.

This is only in the first stages of investigation.

In other words, you don't care whether your partner wants particular types of sexual contacts with you or not. You'll do what you want to do regardless.

You are aware, aren't you that this bill only pertains to school policy regarding the standard for consent between college students--each particular sex act between students must be clearly wanted by the partner. The consent must be affirmative.

How awful. The state of California is trying to decrease sexual assaults between students by requiring that affirmative consent be given, or obtained, or clearly indicated, before engaging in various acts of sexual contact. Good grief, the state wants students to only engage in sexual contact that is clearly wanted--and the person initiating the contact must be sure it is wanted before proceeding. That's terrible--limiting students only to genuinely consensual, wanted, sex, non-criminal sex. My God, if everyone did that, the sexual assault numbers on campuses would plummet. What a horrible idea. It's unfair to those who only prefer sex with the unwilling or semi-comatose

"SAFETY!" is almost always the excuse used by the state to remove our freedom

the " YES" said often level of consent in this law will absolutely be used to criminalize BDSM just as soon as the feminist/state cooperative thinks that they can get away with it, which obviously I have a problem with.

Uni campuses are on average more safe than the rest of America, which is in turn the most safe that it has been in generations. "CRISIS ON CAMPUS!" is a fraud