California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

@hawkeye10,

If you were ever to contemplate suicide, i'd advise jumping from the top of your ego. You'll starve to death on the way down.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

What I remember is there was a thread started about women here who had been raped and some few of us answered, one woman around eighty who had been badly raped as a child, and we got overwhelmed at great excess re other possibilities, whatever percent. Many pages.

You asked me recently why I don't like you? That's it. It went on for a zillion pages about your rights.

Personally, I think the word no has meaning.

The yes stuff annoys even me. No means no.

Of course process matters. Depends on the year and location how that will work out.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Classic

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Setanta wrote:

Anecdotal evidence--you haven't established that that sort of incident is the norm.
Of course, that's just all the more reason to avoid being in ambiguous situations.
Can you provide evidence that male university students are routinely
and widely subjected to false accusations of rape?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I infer that Setanta is intimating
that if the victims of false allegations of rape are sufficiently FEW,
then its OK.

Setanta, I deleted my last sentence,
so as to avoid its being personal.
How do u reply to the substance of this criticism ?

I am arguing that however few thay may BE, that 's important,
whereas u appear to advocate that its significant only
if it affects large numbers of victims.

Theoretically, the victim of defamation
coud be u or someone u favor.

David

0 Replies

Every one is in favor of more stringent sex crime laws until the accused happens to be one's brother.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Every one is in favor of more stringent sex crime laws until the accused happens to be one's brother.

Which brings up the question of how we got to this repressive legalistic concept of sex from the free love movement of the 60's.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Were you five then?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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.

This new law only pertains to colleges and universities in California, and how they define and investigate cases of alleged sexual misconduct by students, which are violations of the school's code of conduct.

So why are you talking about "criminal prosecutions"? You don't seem to understand what this law pertains to or covers.

It has nothing to do with a "criminal prosecution" or changes in any state sexual assault/rape laws, or the "due process" afforded to those accused of crimes in the criminal justice system. Technically, it really has nothing to do with rapes--which are specific felony crimes described in the state's criminal codes, and which can be punishable by jail or prison sentences, and convictions for which will leave an individual with a criminal record. Colleges investigate and take action on "sexual misconduct"--as they define it--and the harshest punishment they can mete out is expulsion from their campus. As a consequence for what might be a criminal act of rape in the legal system, getting kicked off a campus is little more than a slap on the wrist. Nothing about this new law will change that.

And I can't see how requiring an affirmative consent for sexual contact among college students would affect the issue of false accusations at all, except, perhaps, to reduce the number of false allegations due to confusion about the definition of, or presence of, consent.

So we shouldn't be talking about "crimes" in regard to this new law. We are talking about college policies and not "crimes". Hopefully, this law will help to standardize those policies across all campuses in California, specifically regarding the definition of consent that students are expected to abide by.

It makes perfect sense to require affirmative consent--which, in the new law, does not have to be verbal--rather than just "no means no" or some sort of resistance, to indicate lack of consent, which can be misinterpreted or ambiguous (she said, "No", but she really meant "Yes"). Now only "Yes" will mean "Yes", and that will make it less murky about whether sexual advances and contacts are wanted by a partner. It makes it much easier for someone, who doesn't want to cross a line in terms of sexual misconduct or sexual assault, not to do so, because it encourages communication and evidence of a partner being freely willing, and not just silent or passive.

Requiring active consent is not unique to sexual contacts. For someone to lawfully enter your home, or lawfully remove your property, requires your active consent, otherwise they will have committed criminal actions. When my home was burglarized, and the person was apprehended almost immediately afterward, the very first thing the police asked of us was, "Did he have your permission to enter your home? Did he have your consent to remove your property?" It was very much about affirmative consent. Why shouldn't being allowed to enter someone's body require the same sort of affirmative consent you'd need to enter their home?

I think one has to look at these initiatives, and this bill, in the context of the climates on campuses, particularly regarding sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, to understand why the situation needs to be improved. A few years ago, pledges to a fraternity at Yale marched around a residential area of campus chanting, "No means yes! Yes means anal!"

Why on earth should female students have to put up with that sort of gross insult and a misogynist attitude that makes light of sexual assault, if not actively encouraging it?

Unfortunately, a very similar incident just occurred in Texas.

Quote:

Texas Tech Investigating Frat For 'No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal' Sign
09/23/2014

Texas Tech University is investigating reports that its Phi Delta Theta fraternity displayed a sign at a recent party reading "No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal."

The website Total Frat Move on Monday posted two photos allegedly from the fraternity: the first showing the banner, and another of a display in the shape of a woman's private parts, which appears to feature a working sprinkler. TFM stated that the photos came from a hurricane-themed party hosted by Phi Delt at the Lubbock, Texas, university over the weekend.

TFM, a website that caters to members of fraternities, took down the post Monday evening, but not before BroBible posted copies of the images. TFM did not respond to questions on Twitter about why the entry was removed, although it left its original social media posts online.

"Sexual misconduct is a serious issue," Chris Cook, a spokesman for Texas Tech, told The Huffington Post by phone on Tuesday, adding that the university's investigation into the reports is ongoing.

Texas Tech did not say whether any sanctions have yet been imposed.

The national office of Phi Delta Theta announced Tuesday that it is suspending the Texas Tech chapter while it investigates the "inappropriate images" in cooperation with local alumni officials.

“We are deeply concerned by the images provided from the alleged event," Sean Wagner, associate executive vice president of Phi Delta Theta national, said in a statement. "Phi Delta Theta has zero-tolerance for any behavior that promotes misogyny or promotes a sexually hostile environment. This action directly contradicts the values of Phi Delta Theta and anyone found to be directly involved in the severely misguided decision will be held accountable, and education in this area will be provided."

The sign reportedly displayed at the party bears the same controversial slogan that caused a major scandal at Yale University in 2011. Yale's Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity was kicked off campus for five years after members there marched on campus chanting, "No means yes, yes means anal!" The incident was cited in a federal complaint against Yale for a sexually hostile climate, which helped spark an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/23/texas-tech-no-means-yes-fraternity-phi-delt_n_5865606.html

At the very least, it seems appropriate to let all college students know that only an unambiguous "Yes means yes" constitutes consent when it comes to sexual activity and sexual contacts. This bill in California is a good start.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Requiring active consent is not unique to sexual contacts. For someone to lawfully enter your home, or lawfully remove your property, requires your active consent, otherwise they will have committed criminal actions. When my home was burglarized, and the person was apprehended almost immediately afterward, the very first thing the police asked of us was, "Did he have your permission to enter your home? Did he have your consent to remove your property?" It was very much about affirmative consent. Why shouldn't being allowed to enter someone's body require the same sort of affirmative consent you'd need to enter their home?

This is an interesting analogy, but I don't think it works.

First of all, this metaphor highlights a philosophical problem with the modern view of sex. Laws like this one view sex as something that a man does to a woman (and that a woman does for a man). In this metaphor, only women own private houses. (Yes, technically this law is gender specific, but is there a person here who would honestly take a man seriously who claimed he didn't receive affirmative consent).

Even your own words, talking about being "allowed to enter someone's body" presupposes that it is the man being held responsible for an sexual act. Forgive me, but I don't view sex in such a one-sided way.

Second of all, let's expand on the hypothetical example you propose by imagining the type of ambiguous situation that this law addresses.

Let's say I am having a lawn party for my kids and you are a neighbor. You assume that it is OK to enter my house to use my bathroom without asking... which may be a faux pas, but is not a completely unreasonable assumption seeing as you are a guest at my lawn party (especially if you know me).

Let's also assume (to make an equivalent situation) that I am in the doorway and I see you enter.

In this metaphor, I would argue that if I watch you enter, and I don't explicitly tell you that you aren't invited, there is no way that you are going to be charged or prosecuted with a crime. The fact that I allowed you to enter without challenging you means that I have given you a tacit approval.

Of course, if I tell you to stop, and you keep going... then you are trespassing.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Colleges investigate and take action on "sexual misconduct"--as they define it--and the harshest punishment they can mete out is expulsion from their campus. As a consequence for what might be a criminal act of rape in the legal system, getting kicked off a campus is little more than a slap on the wrist.

Do you understand the problem with your assertion here. I don't know how long it has been for you, or if you have any children near college age, but expulsion is not a "slap on the wrist". It is a loss of tens of thousands of dollars, and a huge public black mark that can dramatically impact career and future educational opportunities.

This is a pretty drastic punishment in itself. A penalty this harsh calls for a process that is fair to the defendant.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Even your own words, talking about being "allowed to enter someone's body" presupposes that it is the man being held responsible for an sexual act. Forgive me, but I don't view sex in such a one-sided way

Sexual misconduct that involves sexual assault does involve penetration of a body--orally or anally in the case of a male, and additionally, genitally in the case of a female. The penetration can involve the penis for a male, but females can also penetrate a male, or another female, with an object, and males can penetrate both males and females with objects as well.

So, not all sexual assaults are vaginal penetrations of a female by a male--they can include male/male and female/female penetrations of various types. You're the one viewing sex in a one-sided or narrow way. It is the one doing the penetrating who must seek and be sure they have consent--regardless of the genders involved.

And all this new law is about is the definition of "consent" for sexual contact among college and university students in California. I think requiring an affirmative consent, and not just some display of resistance, or silence, or passivity, will help to clear up the confusion about how willing the partner is to engage in the activity. And it's up to the one initiating the activity to be sure that the partner is willing to freely engage--and that's not gender specific.

Again, this is about campus policies, regarding sexual misconduct, not about the prosecution of "crimes". There's nothing funny about signs and chants saying, "No means yes! Yes means anal!". There's an entire climate on campuses that needs to be addressed. And requiring clear affirmative consent for sexual activity is a start. Sexual contact is not an entitlement, it's something that must be willingly and freely allowed by one person to another--it must clearly be wanted contact. This law simply reinforces that on campuses in California.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Sexual misconduct that involves sexual assault does involve penetration of a body--orally or anally in the case of a male, and additionally, genitally in the case of a female.

This definition of sexual misconduct is ridiculous and backwards.

At the risk of repeating myself, let me try to explain it again. When I have sex with my girlfriend, I am not doing something to her. I am doing something with her. The idea that sex (i.e. vaginal intercourse) is something that a man does to a woman is (at least to me) wrong. It is an outdated and puritanical way to look at sex.

There are cases where women force men into vaginal intercourse. This is rape, pure and simple. This is considered rape by rape crisis centers and victim advocacy group which help female victims.

The federal legal definition rape was changed for exactly this reason.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

There's an entire climate on campuses that needs to be addressed

says who? This appears to be the best behaved class of university kids since the early 1960's on a per capita basis, which is the only fair way to judge them. This "OMG!, we have a crisis of evil doing on University campuses" is a convenient figment of the imagination of the feminists, and the overly emotional stupid young women who fall for their crappola (and sometimes the men who want to **** them).

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Here is a pamphlet on male victims of rape which debunk the very myth that you are spreading.

Notice that this is a victims advocacy group that serves primarily female victims (not a male focused organization). Most rape victims advocacy groups say similar things.

http://www.rapevictimadvocates.org/PDF/MythsFactsMaleSurvivors.pdf

Firefly, your views on rape are clearly outdated.

1 Reply

Quote:

Students at the University of San Francisco may not need to worry that their Panhandle campus is as dangerous as reports have made it out to be, according to a new study looking at criminal data.

Earlier this summer, the news website The Daily Beast ranked USF as the third most dangerous campus in the country, citing the number of criminal offenses at the school from 2008-10 based on data submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, as is required by federal law.

In The Daily Beast report, violent incidents such as rape and sexual assault were left out, which can alter statistics, said Anisha Sekar of NerdWallet, a website whose goal is to provide transparent, accurate information on education and finance.

Based on the data submitted to the federal government, USF had 40 burglaries, 13 robberies, eight aggravated assaults, 17 car thefts and two homicides from 2008-10.

The most current report, released last week, shows that USF crime is down, with only five burglaries last school year compared to 11 the previous year, three robberies compared to six, and two aggravated assaults compared to three.

Car thefts were up from 14 in 2010 to 24 in 2011.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/new-study-says-university-of-san-francisco-is-not-such-a-dangerous-campus/Content?oid=2317074

Enrollment over 10,000

AND university campuses are across the board more safe than America at large is, Just as the NFL players are much better behaved than their peers across America, but you would never know it if you fall for the clap trap that the feminists put out and that the " journalists" repeat.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I'm not spreading any myths about male rape--in fact, in my last post, I clearly pointed out that males can be sexually assaulted by both males and females.

And the new law regarding consent on campuses in California applies equally to both males and females--it is intended to protect both genders from unwanted sexual contacts. That is true of the state criminal sexual assault laws as well.

So, frankly I don't know what the hell you are talking about. You've yet to come up with a valid objection to the new law in California. It can only benefit everyone to have a definition of "consent" that hinges on the sexual activity being clearly wanted--and that affirmation being expressed in some way. It makes it easier for students not to cross the line into sexual misconduct, even inadvertently, because they are obliged to make sure the contact is wanted by the partner, and it encourages them to clearly communicate their wishes. Hopefully, that will help to contribute to lowering the number of unwanted sexual contacts. And that's really the point.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

It can only benefit everyone to have a definition of "consent" that hinges on the sexual activity being clearly wanted--and that affirmation being expressed in some way. It makes it easier for students not to cross the line into sexual misconduct, even inadvertently, because they are obliged to make sure the contact is wanted by the partner, and it encourages them to clearly communicate their wishes.

You and I strongly disagree on this point.

The main part of this law comes into affect only when one person (usually a woman) accuses another person (almost always a man) of "sexual misconduct". This law makes it easier for the prosecution to win the case. And it makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself.

The idea that this is any benefit for a defendant is utterly ridiculous.

The idea that this will help relationships (outside of a allegation of sexual misconduct) is also ridiculous.

There are several times recently where my girlfriend has initiated sexual contact either vaginally or orally. She made the assumption that I wanted this sexual contact. She didn't ask me, nor did she seek my consent.

I don't think this law will change her behavior, or mine.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I'm not sure how this law is going to put a stop to offensive frat boy humor, or even start the process of doing so. To do so would require one of two things, the first being impossible and the second being objectionable.

No amount of school mandated sensitivity training or gender studies courses is going to counteract behavior that is a) fairly common to drunk and horny men and b) glorified and reinforced by the culture. By behavior I mean embracing offensive, crude sexual humor. It's a behavior that has been practiced for many centuries, although rarely as publicly and so often in "mixed company" as it is today. It is also behavior that can be seen on the internet, radio and TV, and in the movies, theater and the print media.

I don't mean to single out Bill Maher, but his show is a good example of how coarse, and even misogynist humor has not only become accepted, but applauded.

Not that long ago I saw a clip from one of his shows wherein he made a crack about some group (probably creationists or the Tea Party) and called them "dumb motherfuckers." Sitting at the dias, his guests all laughed heartily, including the former Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi. I don't recall who the other guests were specifically, but typically they are mainstream journalists, politicians, academicians and the like, not a band of edgy comics who irreverently crack wise and blue about every topic under the sun. They all thought it was hilarious, and not a one seemed to be offended or displeased in the least.

My point is not that Maher is a foul mouthed lout and his panel of guests all hypocrites, but that language that not that long ago would have had these people, if not vacating the stage then at least uncomfortable, is now totally acceptable, and by prominent mainstream people.

My point has nothing to do with whether or not our culture has been harmed by this, but that it's not possible to accept coarse language and crude sexual humor from people we think are cool and then expect frat boys to show restraint. I guarantee you that a whole lot of people, especially young ones, think that the sign of which you complain is not only funny, it's clever.

Since the sort of humor represented by that sign is prevalent not only on campuses but in general society, the only way to put a stop to it is censorship. School authorities declaring that such humor when directed at disfavored groups is funny, but when seen as offensive by favored groups, must stop.

Yes calling a certain group "dumb motherfuckers" is not identical to making a joke out of rape, but one can't be harmless and the other a travesty.

As for the rule itself, as others have suggested, it seems an impotent waste of time. Anyone who is prepared to rape a woman in a brutal forceful manner, isn't going to care whether she says "Yes," "No," or "Maybe." And if there were problems with men taking advantage of a woman who didn't clearly and forcefully say "Np," those problems will continue if the woman displays any ambiguity in terms of saying "Yes."

Max is right, this rule isn't going to transform sexual affairs between students into a Monty Python skit where the man declares "I hereby announce my clear and unequivocal desire to have sexual relations which you, which is to say inserting my penis in your vagina. What say you?" and the woman replies "I fully understand that you are proposing to repeatedly thrust your penis into my vagina, and I hereby declare that I am responding Yes, please do insert your penis into my vagina!"

Are men going to carry sex contracts around with him and require a signature? Or are they going to carry tape recorders so they can record the affirmative response for their future defense?

And it will do nothing about false accusations born of regret upon waking the next day or simple malice. If will do nothing to clear up the role alcohol plays in these incidents either, as an argument can as easily be made that the affirmative consent, no matter how convincing at the time, was given under the influence of alcohol, as one that alcohol prevented the woman from clearly asserting "No."

It's just a political response to the impossible demand that a largely manufactured "epidemic" be dealt with, some way; any way, without any consideration for the actual dynamics at work.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The main part of this law comes into affect only when one person (usually a woman) accuses another person (almost always a man) of "sexual misconduct". This law makes it easier for the prosecution to win the case. And it makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself.

No, this new law only shifts the definition of consent from "No means no" to "Yes means yes". Under either definition, someone can file a complaint of sexual misconduct. There's no difference in how a person might defend themselves from such a charge, because, in both cases, the charge would be that consent was not present or sought. This law pertains only to the definition of the type of "consent" required. It has nothing to do with issues regarding defending oneself from accusations of sexual misconduct.

Again, you are still, erroneously talking about "prosecutions"--this bill pertains to campus policies, and not criminal prosecutions of any kind. Maybe you should actually read the bill so you'd know what you are talking about.

Colleges don't "prosecute"--they investigate and reach their own determination of whether a student has violated their code of conduct. Whether consent was violated is clearly the issue in sexual misconduct, so the definition, and standard, for consent must be as clear-cut as possible--requiring an affirmative "Yes" sets a much clearer standard, along with the other provisions in the bill.

What goes on between you and your girlfriend really isn't relevant to understanding the situation on college campuses, where most of the sexual misconduct often involves drinking and casual hook-ups. Requiring that "consent" be affirmative, and clearly expressed, can, indeed, make a big difference in the amount of unwanted sexual contact in that sort of environment. Reducing the amount of unwanted sexual contact--and sexual misconduct--is the goal on those campuses.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

No, this new law only shifts the definition of consent from "No means no" to "Yes means yes"

It is still a he said she said and the judge/jury will still either guess who is telling the truth or support the one who takes the name victim...just as they do now.

HOWEVER: the state deciding to change the definition of rape yet again is a big deal. What gets done next to criminalize sex? How about after that?

1 Reply

California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know