24
   

California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

 
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 04:23 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
In the case of Biden and Obama they expect to never need to deal with women sexually again other than their long time mates, they have nothing personal to lose by selling men out to the feminists, and power to gain by doing so.


I do not know about Biden but Obama have daughters not sons so even for the next generation he does not need to be concern over what he had help to had help set in motion.

For myself I am safe also from being force to place Russian Roulette due to my sex life however three out of my four step grandkids happen to be male and if something is not done will all need to play the Russian Roulette sex games in the future.

As far as my one step granddaughter is concern if the family can, by being very non-pc, convince her to avoid high risk behaviors such as college binge drinking, that in spite of the nonsensical claims otherwise, she will be in a very safe environment in college without the need of Kangaroo courts.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 12:14 pm
Quote:
Supporters have also launched an aggressive "consent is sexy" campaign to pre-empt the kind of comedic lampooning that was unleashed by Saturday Night Live and Dave Chappelle the last time this standard was proposed. It's sexy, they claim, to ask your partner if they'd like it "if I bit your neck" or "spanked your bottom." Think Progress' Tara Culp-Ressler, a consent evangelist, insists that far from killing the mood, making sure your partner is as excited as you are about certain moves and positions will enhance the sexual experience.

Sometimes. Still, such claims are based on a rather simplistic understanding of human sexuality that is out of touch with the lived experience of most people.

The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited. At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying — but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that.

The reality is that much of sex is not consensual — but it is also not non-consensual. It resides in a gray area in between, where sexual experimentation and discovery happen. Sex is inherently dangerous. There will be misadventures when these experiments sometimes go wrong. Looking back, it can be hard to assign blame by ascertaining whether both partners genuinely consented. Indeed, trying to shoehorn sex into a strict, yes-and-no consent framework in an attempt to make it risk free can't help but destroy it.

http://theweek.com/article/index/269164/the-big-problem-with-californias-new-sexual-consent-law

AGREE

Will the state pay a penalty for making law that is based upon either lies or a poor understanding of the problem depending upon how charitable we are towards the state? I think so. Going into partnership with the feminists is going to turn out to be an ill advised move, as this government has its own reputation to save and teaming up with the increasingly disliked and discredited feminists will not help.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/newsroom/img/posts/2014/05/frum1-4/2c0ebaa40.png
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 12:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
The state found out the hard way the price of trying to get between Americans and our Booze. Then it learned the price of trying to get between Americans and our drugs. Those will be snoozefests in comparison to the explosion that is going to take place as a result of this current effort to get between Americans and our sex games.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 12:51 pm
@hawkeye10,
Radical Idea: Government could work on their day jobs and get off of trying to force we the people to live according to their mandates. California government could for instance figure out a way to pay its bills, or it could work on managing water supplies so that they dont run out, or it could make an attempt to making its universities once again some of the best that America has to offer. These three tasks should be more than enough to keep these folks occupied, considering that they have completely failed at these tasks for at least three decades.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 05:28 pm
Quote:

Oh Yes Means Yes: The Joy of Affirmative Consent
By Ann Friedman
Oct 2, 2014

Most women have been there at least once. Staring at the ceiling, bored, while some dude pumps away. Thinking, but not saying aloud, “Ow, that’s my cervix.” Not bothering to redirect him toward the clitoris. Sort of getting a thrill from the overall encounter, but not getting off. Not even coming close. Faking it. There’s a long history of women — especially young, straight women — having sex that’s consensual but not really much fun. And an equally long history of their male partners walking home the next morning thinking, “Nailed it.”

These droves of sexually dissatisfied young women will be unwitting beneficiaries of a new law passed by the California legislature this week. At first blush, the law isn’t about them: It applies to women who didn’t consent, and who go to their universities with sexual-assault allegations. Thanks to the new statute, rather than ask a rape survivor how forcefully she said no, universities must ask whether both parties had “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” It adds, “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.”

Critics say this law is going to make consensual sex less sexy — that being 100 percent sure your partner is into it, or even stopping frequently to ask, “Is this okay?” is not hot. That university administrators will practically require written affidavits to prove sex was consensual, and the threat of a possible assault allegation will deflate boners on campuses from Humboldt State down to U.C., San Diego.

I beg to differ. Confirming consent leads to much hotter sex. “There are lots of ways to ask for a yes,” writes Thomas MacAulay Millar at the Yes Means Yes blog. “If you lean in to kiss someone and they lean in to kiss you back, that’s yes. If you ask someone if they want your cock and they say, ‘I want your cock,’ that’s yes, and if they put their mouth on it, that’s yes, too. If you’re ******* someone and holding them down and you’re both sweating and maybe bruised and you lean in and your hand is on their throat and you say, ‘can you still say no?’ and they say, ‘yes,’ that’s yes. We’re not kids here, right?”

Well, actually, incoming college freshmen are kids. Or rather, very newly minted adults. The thought of freshman welcome-week committees spelling out what MacAulay Millar just did? That makes me happy. The new law will force universities to talk to all students, female and male, about how enthusiastic consent is mandatory. Which means it will force universities to talk about what enthusiastic consent looks like. Which means, hopefully, those newly minted adults will do more talking about what turns them on and gets them off.

We’re still deprogramming the idea that nice girls don’t admit they like sex, let alone talk about how they like it. “We wanted to make the world safer for women to say no and yes to sex as we please,” write Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman in the introduction to their 2007 essay collection Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape. “Women are not empty vessels to be fucked or not fucked; we’re sexual actors who should absolutely have the ability to say yes to sex when we want it, just like men, and should feel safe saying no.” This feeling of safety is not something that can be achieved by, say, using an app like Good2Go, which asks partners to indicate whether they’re sober enough and consent to sleeping with each other. It’s impossible to declare consent up front by checking a box, because hooking up or having sex usually involves a series of acts, not just one. A person who consents to one thing may not consent to another. Women (and men) have to feel safe indicating “yes” and “no” throughout a sexual encounter, rather than getting the conversation out of the way up front.

No matter what campus policies are put in place, there are probably still going to be some messy mornings-after. And sexual assault is still going to happen. Statistics show that most campus rapes are committed by a small group of repeat offenders who clearly don’t care about consent, be it verbal, nonverbal, or via an app. But most young men, it bears repeating, aren’t rapists. Even in the absence of a university policy, they are worried about inadvertently doing something in bed that their partner doesn’t welcome. And most men are actively thinking about whether their partner is enjoying herself. The new law makes life easier for both them and the women they sleep with, because it creates a compelling reason for both parties to speak up and talk about what they like. In essence, the new law forces universities — and the rest of us — to acknowledge that women like sex. Especially sex with a partner who wants to talk about what turns them on.
http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/10/oh-yes-means-yes-the-joy-of-affirmative-consent.html


I think the young men who start paying more attention to what their partner wants and enjoys are going to find themselves rated more highly as lovers, learn a lot about women, and both parties will have more fun together. I'm sure they know that too. That's why you don't hear a lot of complaining from the college students in California of the type coming from the old guys in this thread.
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 06:06 pm
@firefly,
" You wait and see, you are going to be thankful for this government regulation of your sex life!"

The obvious problem with this theory is that almost never are we singing the glories of government regulation, at best it is a necessary evil. And given how safe our campuses have been recently this evil is not necessary.

A second major problem is that the law rarely works to change morality. Has anyone heard of the "War On Drugs"? A lot of people have been punished, a lot of family members who did nothing wrong have been gravely harmed by this war, and yet drug use goes on as if the war never happened.

Makes you wonder why the feminists dont care if the tool is likely to work. Maybe working is not goal, maybe the goal is to manufacture yet another excuse to beat on men.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 06:36 pm
Quote:
To make this easier for everyone to understand — because some people still can't seem to grasp the concept — the pro-gender equality organization UltraViolet released this racy "instructional" video. With pizza, a laundromat and a whole lot of soft lighting, the video takes a page from 1970s pornos — and it is hilarious:

The video incorporates both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and it analogizes consent with, among other things, taking someone's laundry out of the dryer without asking: "Did you move my ****?" Kevin asks. "That's why I was waiting for you," his friend replies. "I'm sorry, I thought you moved took my clothes out without asking," Kevin says, only to be told that that "would be wrong to do without asking."

It accompanies UltraViolet's new website, End Campus Rape, which aims to highlight the importance of consent and the seriousness of college sexual assault. Attn reports that the ad will "air online" (whatever that means) at universities under investigation for allegedly mishandling sexual assault cases, including Harvard, Florida State, Brown and Arizona State.

Why is this important? "Affirmative consent really just means ensuring that both parties are mutually into whatever sexy times are going down, which, when you think about it, should be the bare minimum when it comes to sexual activity," Mic's Julianne Ross wrote.

It takes the onus off one party for not saying no, and instead transfers responsibility equally between both partners. Attn put it best: "By giving zero leeway to potential sex offenders, this law lends a voice to sexual assault victims who have kept silent due to fear that their experiences wouldn't 'qualify' as rape.'"
http://mic.com/articles/100424/this-clever-video-perfectly-explains-what-yes-means-yes-actually-means






0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 06:39 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
maybe the goal is to manufacture yet another excuse to beat on men.


Take out the word maybe and I will agree with you 100 percents and also harming heterosexual women for that matter, as you can not just harm men with these crazy laws and rules.

The far right and the far left both should get out of our bedrooms and even college dorm rooms for that matter.

In any case, the problem of sexual assaults have nothing to do with this silliness other then it is being use as an excuse to be able to invade the privacy of all of our bedrooms.

An excuse by the way that been pump up by every phony means possible as college campuses have never been safer then they are today.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 06:53 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

" You wait and see, you are going to be thankful for this government regulation of your sex life!"

Good grief, the goal of this bill isn't to regulate anyone's sex life. It's to try to insure that sexual contacts between students--regards of type--are mutually agreed upon and wanted.

Having unwanted, or unpleasant, or unenjoyable, sexual contact isn't the sort of alleged "sex life" most people want.

What you see as an "evil" --may relieve many college females of having to "fake it", if their formerly disinterested partners really pay attention to how turned on, into it, and enjoying themselves they are.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 06:53 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:

An excuse by the way that been pump up by every phony means possible as college campuses have never been safer then they are today.


Which is it, are our highest elected officials stupid, or are they rather corrupt?
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 06:58 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
may relieve many college females of having to "fake it", if their formerly disinterested partners really pay attention to how turned on, into it, and enjoying themselves they are.
Where is your data on these alleged disinterested in what the women want men? Men are programed to be very interested in what women want, because historically if women dont get what they want then men dont get the sex they want. I have no information that tens of thousands of years of genetic coding vanished in a puff. More likely the feminists are making up lies again.
firefly
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 07:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Where is your data on these alleged disinterested in what the women want men?


This has nothing to do with feminism. Just ask some females--particularly those of college age--about the clumsy, inexperienced, disinterested or self-involved partners they have been with. Laughing

Why do you think the students aren't doing the loudest complaining about this bill in California? Or at the other colleges where "Yes means yes" has been in effect? Asking what your partner wants, and doesn't want, and acting on that, makes sex better for both parties. Actually communicating about it improves things.

If the students were really having great, enjoyable, satisfying sex, they'd be having a lot more of it sober. Laughing I think "Yes means yes" might help things in that department too.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 07:22 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Having unwanted, or unpleasant, or unenjoyable, sexual contact isn't the sort of alleged "sex life" most people want.


Says who? In my experience there are a lot of women who dont care what happens during the sex so long as they dont get hurt and the guy has a good time. The huge number of women who cant orgasim during penatrative sex dont have a whole lot of reason to care since they are not going to cum anyways.

BTW just what are we telling these women who like to make their men happy in bed but who dont get much out of sex in the way of joy? Are they not supposed to have sex now due to lack of enthusiasm? Aren't we telling them by way of our laws that they are defective? We really should think about the message we are sending to women who dont measure up to the demands of the new government regulations of sex.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 07:28 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Why do you think the students aren't doing the loudest complaining about this bill in California?


They are not stupid, they know that those who make the laws have not the slightest interest in what their opinion is. We have over the last few decades steadily removed rights from young americans, these new university sex laws are just more of the same of what they have been seeing all their lives. Resistance is futile.

At some point though the powder is going to blow, there will be riots on our university campuses in my lifetime. Americans of this age group have a lot to be pissed off about, and a lot of that list is directly attributable to moralistic yet resource greedy baby boomers who have fucked them over.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 07:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Says who? In my experience there are a lot of women who dont care what happens during the sex so long as they dont get hurt and the guy has a good time. The huge number of women who cant orgasim during penatrative sex dont have a whole lot of reason to care since they are not going to cum anyways.


What is this, your myth that women don't enjoy sex or care about it? All they want to do is to insure that "the guy has a good time." That's probably your ideal woman--a total submissive.

I don't think you can judge the average woman by the types you meet in your BDSM circle--not if that's the conclusions you've gathered.

Most women do care about sex, enjoy sex, and certainly want a partner who can help them climax, whether during vaginal sex, oral sex on her, or manual stimulation. And most women can be helped to orgasm during penetration by an improvement in technique or positions.

I think what really bothers you about the idea of affirmative consent is that it actually encourages females to communicate what they want and that scares you--you see it as setting a terrible precedent. Laughing

I think young college men will have far less difficulty with this than the over-the-hill set like you.

Quote:

BTW just what are we telling these women who like to make their men happy in bed but who dont get much out of sex in the way of joy?

Find better, more consider lovers, willing to listen and learn how to provide you with more joy.

OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 11:07 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Says who? In my experience there are a lot of women who dont care what happens during the sex so long as they dont get hurt and the guy has a good time. The huge number of women who cant orgasim during penatrative sex dont have a whole lot of reason to care since they are not going to cum anyways.

firefly wrote:
What is this, your myth that women don't enjoy sex or care about it? All they want to do is to insure that "the guy has a good time." That's probably your ideal woman--a total submissive.

I don't think you can judge the average woman by the types you meet in your BDSM circle--not if that's the conclusions you've gathered.
I imagine that u probably meant that's the conclusion
you've gathered, one conclusion, right??



firefly wrote:
Most women do care about sex, enjoy sex, and certainly want a partner who can help them climax, whether during vaginal sex, oral sex on her, or manual stimulation. And most women can be helped to orgasm during penetration by an improvement in technique or positions.
What is the source of your information, Firefly ?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2014 11:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
or are they rather corrupt?


I voted for corrupt along with the news media knowing that panic sell IE such headlines as women are getting rape on colleges in large numbers get far more eyeballs then college campuses are a very safe environment for young women compare to any other period in our history.

Lot of other examples of this such as the Ebola risks in the US where while they will cover the experts stating that the risks are low, but at the same time showing men in hazmat suits and others demanding that we cut off air traffic to those areas with Ebola cases and so on.

Bet also those who just take their information from the news media would be shock to know that for example the overall murder rate is at a fifth years and damn near a hundred years low.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2014 12:11 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Lot of other examples of this such as the Ebola risks in the US where while they will cover the experts stating that the risks are low, but at the same time showing men in hazmat suits and others demanding that we cut off air traffic to those areas with Ebola cases and so on.


add this

Quote:
A Massachusetts doctor and missionary who was successfully treated for Ebola he contracted in Africa is back in the hospital with what appears to be a respiratory infection, but doctors don't suspect a recurrence of the virus.

UMass Memorial Medical Center said in a statement that Dr. Richard Sacra was hospitalized Saturday for observation and is in stable condition. He has a cough and conjunctivitis, commonly known as pinkeye, hospital officials said.

Sacra will remain in isolation until doctors have confirmation from tests by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that he is not infected with the virus, the hospital said. Doctors expect to know with certainty by late Monday.

"We are isolating Dr. Sacra to be cautious pending final confirmation of his illness," said Dr. Robert Finberg, who is heading Sacra's medical team. "We think it is highly unlikely that he has Ebola. We suspect he has an upper respiratory tract infection."

http://news.yahoo.com/doctor-successfully-treated-ebola-hospitalized-034840827.html

THey are thinking it likely enough that he has Ebola still that they are taking extreme measures for a respiratory system bug. We know this, there is no denying this. But these bamboozlers go about acting like nobody knows what we all know. This is exactly how politicians act, in fact I think it is a pretty common character flaw in all of the elite. See how the "journalist" here works to try to push the bull-**** along?
0 Replies
 
One Eyed Mind
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2014 04:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Are you really asking a source from a female, about what a female wants?

I just want to face palm, but I have too much integrity to do something that is over done.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2014 07:07 am
Whoopie Goldberg Quote: There is rape and then there's rape-rape.


Likewise: There is sex and then there's sex-sex.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.21 seconds on 11/22/2024 at 12:32:05