24
   

California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

 
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 12:03 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
This isn't just about "frat boy humor"--it's also about frat boy behavior and how women are regarded and treated by many frat boys, and college athletes as well--and it involves an acceptance of sexual assault, and a normalization of sexual assault, and an entitlement to commit sexual assault, particularly on someone who is intoxicated. And, while this is certainly not true of all frat boys, or all college athletes, it's been true enough that a good many colleges now have special sexual assault intervention programs for these groups.

This bill will, at the very least, make it clear on California's campuses, that, in order to consent, the person must be awake, fully conscious, under no threat or duress to comply, and must demonstrate, in some way, that the sexual contact is clearly wanted, that it is mutually wanted. That alone will, or should, make people stop to think about what the other person wants, rather than just what they want.

The bill is not intended to solve all of the problems regarding sexual assault on California's campuses, but having a clear definition of consent as "Yes means yes" requires some degree of respect and alertness for what the other party really wants to engage in--enough to actually inquire about what they want, rather than simply waiting for them to resist or say, "No". That alone is a good start to dealing with the issue of sexual assaults on campuses, and trying to reduce it.

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 12:12 am
@firefly,
Quote:
The bill is not intended to solve all of the problems regarding sexual assault on California's campuses


of course, because if they were to make even a slightly serious attempt they would need to deal with all of the underaged males and females drinking themselves drunk, then getting into non government approved sex.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 12:14 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:
Every one is in favor of more stringent sex crime laws
until the accused happens to be one's brother.
Hay: speak for yourself.
I have never favored "more stringent sex crime laws" as u attribute to "everyone".





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 12:29 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

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.


I know how much it kills you to not be able to make a case that I am wrong. For three years you dismissed all of my claims of notice of problems, you called me chicken little, then watched the subjects of my concerns become full scale public crisises over and over again.

You were wrong. Deal with it.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 12:36 am
@hawkeye10,
You haven't demonstrated that there is such a problem. You face the same burden of proof as anyone else. If you can't demonstrate that there is a problem with accusations of rape, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. I don't take you seriously.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 12:51 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:

HOWEVER: the state deciding to change the definition of rape yet again is a big deal.

Except the state hasn't changed the criminal definition of rape, nor have the campuses in California changed their definition of sexual misconduct.

Unwanted inappropriate sexual contact, or sexual misconduct, is contact without consent, or contact despite resistance or protest. The state now wants colleges and universities to apply a standard that says sexual contact between students must be with consent that is active and affirmative--there must be clear indication the contact is wanted, by both parties. That does help to erase "misunderstandings" and "miscommunication" and the pressuring of one party until they give in. It should help to reduce regrets about the contact afterward, because it is more likely to have been actually wanted. It should help to keep more students from being hurt or harmed by their sexual contacts.

All that's being changed is the definition of "consent" and the conditions for "consent" on college campuses in California. What's so terribly wrong with any student making sure that the other person really wants to be having a particular type of sexual contact with them before they initiate the contact? Isn't that the best way to prevent unwanted sexual contacts, and hurting someone, even inadvertently?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 01:03 am
@firefly,
Quote:

Except the state hasn't changed the criminal definition of rape.......All that's being changed is the definition of "consent


I understand that you cant get it through your thick skull that we are not all stupid. When the state defines rape as sex in the absence of consent, then changes the definition of consent, it has then changed the definition of rape.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 01:27 am
@hawkeye10,
Colleges don't charge students with "rape". Colleges don't criminalize sexual behaviors. Colleges don't convict students of crimes.

And, on a state-wide level, the definition of "consent" is not being changed--the sexual assault laws of California are not being changed.

This bill only applies to the definitions in the sexual misconduct portions of the student code of conduct pertaining to "consent" for sexual contact between college students. It is meant to address some problems which are unique to the enclosed environment of a college campus regarding sexual misconduct, and to get a uniformity regarding "consent" across all campuses in the state. It is regarded as a student safety initiative.

If any of these cases also wind up in the criminal justice system, they will be adjudicated under the California criminal sexual assault laws, and definitions of consent contained in those laws, which have not been changed.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 01:35 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
, you called me chicken little, then watched the subjects of my concerns become full scale public crisises over and over again.



In what world did that happen? In this world you're consistently wrong.

The real problem is the vast amounts of rapes that go unreported, false rape allegations are a drop in the ocean compared to that. (And yes those making false allegations should be punished.)

What sort of piece of crap just jumps onto someone else and carries on hoping they're not too scared to shout no?
0 Replies
 
Buttermilk
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 03:08 am
@Setanta,
Yes it ought to be a case by situation because the facts may not always be clear. for instance, this law (yes means yes) infers that:

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

See: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/09/29/352482932/california-enacts-yes-means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent

So if I stick my penis in a woman am I to, continuously ask her if it's ok that I thrust? To much burden is on the accused especially if the accused is innocent.
0 Replies
 
Buttermilk
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 03:21 am
@firefly,
Right because there are many women who are forced in those situations to be around aggressive frat boys or college athletes. 2009 when I first got accepted at my graduate program a special athlete now currently in the NFL he certainly had no shortage of thirsty women at his side flocking around him. let's call a spade a spade while this policy is to help protect victims, this policy also seeks to immediately blame the accused without due process. This entire consent is supposed to be throughout the whole entire encounter is silly.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 03:58 am
@Buttermilk,
Your main concern seems to be about false rape accusations. Why would insisting upon, rather than assuming consent, because the shivering body you're shagging isn't screaming "No," increase false rape accusations?

Again, the main scandal is that a huge amount of rapes go unreported, not the tiny instances of false rape accusations.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 04:02 am
Every news story i've seen on this features men's groups bleating about due process. Every one of them claims that it facilitates false accusations. None of them state how due process is denied, or how false accusations are facilitated. This is what the XIVth amendment has to say about due process:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I see absolutely no basis for these wild accusations about due process, or false accusations. All this bill does is require that consent be explicit--so you can't just screw someone because she remains silent, or is passed out, or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Due process has absolutely nothing to do with this. If someone could reasonably make that case that this violates citizen's right to due process, the cousts will throw it out in a heartbeat.

My personal opinion is that a lot of men are alarmed at the thought that they might be held accountable for taking advantage of women in ambiguous situations. It's the only explanation i can think of for all this furor about false accusations, only in the specific instance of allegations of rape. So long as everyone is subject to the same standards, there is no violation of due process.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 04:25 am
@Setanta,
The "men" bleat, but when women decide to speak out against inequality they are subject to all manner of abuse. Take what happened to Stella Creasy just for campaigning for Jane Austen to appear on the next £10 note.

Quote:
An internet troll who threatened to rape a Labour MP after she supported a successful campaign to put Jane Austen on the £10 note has been jailed for 18 weeks.

Peter Nunn, 33, from Bristol, retweeted posts threatening to sexually assault Walthamstow MP Stella Creasy, after she supported a bid by feminist Caroline Criado-Perez to keep a woman on a British banknote.

The father-of-one also called her a witch in a 'campaign of hatred' launched last summer.

Nunn's one-day trial heard that he began leaving offensive posts on July 29 last year - five days after the Bank of England revealed Austen would be the new face of the £10 note.

He retweeted a threatening message sent to Ms Creasy which read: 'You better watch your back, I'm going to rape your a**e at 8pm and put the video all over.'

Over the next day the part-time delivery driver sent a barrage of offensive messages to the London MP using the Twitter account @protectys.

In his next message he posted: 'Best way to rape a witch, try and drown her first then just when she's gagging for air that's when you enter.'

Later that evening he wrote: 'If you can't threaten to rape a celebrity, what is the point in having them?'

Nunn also retweeted a 'menacing' message composed by the @eatcreasynow account threatening to rape Ms Creasy, and added the post 'Go get her, eat the meat!'

He called the Labour MP an 'evil witch' and wrote: 'What's the odds of Criado and Creasy snuggling and cuddling under a duvet checking their tweets and cackling like witches (rape me says Caroline).'

During his campaign of abuse, Nunn also posted six increasingly manic videos online in which he mocked campaigners.

Nunn, who declared himself a 'feminist' during his own evidence, denied using Twitter to advocate violence or rape.

Instead, the self-styled blogger, who, the court heard, has ambitions of studying for a law degree, claimed he sent the messages to exercise his right to freedom of speech and to 'satirise' the issue of online trolling.

District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe found him guilty of sending indecent, obscene or menacing messages following a trial at City of London Magistrates’ Court earlier this month and jailed him today.
She also imposed a restraining order banning him from any contact with either woman.

Dressed in a grey suit with a patterned tie, father-of-one Nunn showed no emotion as the sentence was passed.

Victim impact statements had been read out to the court on behalf of both women, who spoke of the 'terrifying' threats made against them.

Prosecutor Alison Morgan said the messages had had a 'substantial' effect on Ms Creasy, and added that she has felt the need to install a panic button in her home.

She said that the incident had altered the way she interacts with people and made her more cautious.

Ms Morgan said Ms Criado-Perez's statement described the 'fear and horror' she had felt, which had manifested itself in physical symptoms such as dizzy spells.

During mitigation, Nunn's defence lawyer, Helen Jones, told the court he felt great remorse for the stress and anxiety he had caused, but Judge Roscoe said she had not seen this during his trial when she had found him 'evasive'.
Describing his behaviour as 'egocentric', she added: 'It was really all about you and your opinions and what you wanted to do.

'Although we're only talking about six tweets, it was persistent. You moved account when one was blocked.'

The judge said she had taken the defendant's good character and no previous convictions into account along with the impact a custodial sentence would have on his long-term partner and their three-year-old daughter.

She added: 'However, it has to be an immediate sentence. There is no reason to suspend it.

'I'm not convinced that that would give the message that this is entirely unacceptable.'

Neither Ms Creasy nor Ms Criado-Perez attended court to see him sentenced.

As news of Nunn's sentencing broke, other trolls immediately took to the social networking site to lash out at the MP for Walthamstow.

Some hurled abuse at Judge Elizabeth Roscoe for jailing Nunn - and suggested Ms Creasy should be in prison herself for reporting the crime.

Commenting on the hearing, Ms Creasy said: 'Today's sentence for Peter Nunn is a step forward in recognising the distress and fear online harassment can cause.

'We now need to ensure our police and criminal justice services are better trained to identify the risks anyone receiving threats faces, whether these are made on or offline so that we can protect those being stalked.

'Above all, we need to send a clear message that it isn't for anyone to put up with being harassed via any medium- this is an old crime taking a new form online and should be treated as such.'

Ms Criado-Perez said Nunn 'made me fear for my life - as no-one ever has before'.

But she added that she felt the charge against him was the wrong one and said of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): 'I don't feel they understood what happened to me.'

Writing on her online blog today, she said: 'While what Nunn did was extremely menacing, I do not think that sending messages describes the essence of his campaign against me and Stella. I think that is better described with the term stalking.'

She went on: 'I felt he was a clear and present threat to me.

'He made me scared to go outside, to appear in public. He seemed obsessed enough to carry out his threats.'





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2773565/Twitter-troll-threatened-rape-Labour-MP-Stella-Creasy-row-Jane-Austen-appearing-10-notes-jailed-18-weeks.html
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 05:03 am
Wait...you mean it's possible to have sex with another person????? Why wasn't I informed of this sooner??? Grrrrr....
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 06:57 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
My personal opinion is that a lot of men are alarmed at the thought that they might be held accountable for taking advantage of women in ambiguous situations.


Funny thing. I completely agree with this quote. This sums up the issue very well.

Of course the problem is that this implies a view of sexuality that is stuck in the 1950's where women need to be protected from men who might "take advantage of them".

This is such an unrealistic view, I suppose that is a key part of the problem.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  3  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 07:01 am
@izzythepush,
I also find it funny that any man who questions any feminist dogma gets tarred with the worst anecdotes possible. It makes reasoned civil discussion on the topic impossible.

What does one guy in England who did something, that all of us agree is pretty wretched, have to do with a discussion of this law? I mean really, because I am against this law I have to answer for every wrongdoing done by any man in the world?

Political rectitude.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 07:07 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
If any of these cases also wind up in the criminal justice system,


this is another problem in many jurisdictions

university policies often, explicitly and implicitly, work to prevent criminal matters being reported to off-campus police. If someone (male or female) is raped/sexually assaulted, it should be reported to off-campus police and not just left to campus police/security to deal with.
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  4  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 07:25 am
@maxdancona,
I once knew a girl who didn't have a problem with this law whatsoever.

All way through our lovemaking, she used to shout: Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Sep, 2014 07:27 am
@maxdancona,
It's not the same league, if any woman argues for equality on an open forum like twitter, tumblr facebook etc. she will be threatened with rape.

Try opening a female named account on tumblr, and just argue for something like having a woman on an American banknote and see how long it takes before you're threatened with rape.

What dogma are you challenging? That sex should be consensual?

I don't know why you take the Peter Nunn case so personally. Nobody has asked you to answer for what he did. Unfortunately Nunn is not an isolated incident, there are plenty more like him out there. What makes him different is that he got caught.
 

Related Topics

Career advice for a science major. - Question by aspvenom
10th Grade Board Exams in America - Discussion by sozobe
Reverse sexism - Discussion by Baldimo
I can't decide between 2 colleges. - Question by Erdbeere
Has the friendzone gone too far? - Question by njbenda
interview questions? - Question by njbenda
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/18/2021 at 01:42:55