California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

I love irony, Izzy. And, I wonder if you see the irony in your argument.

You complain that if a woman argues for her view of equality on an open forum like twitter... she will be threatened with rape. Yet I am arguing for opinion of equality in an open forum, and you are comparing me with the worst bigoted scum.

Yes, I take being compared to Peter Nunn personally, how could I not? You are implying that my disagreement with this law somehow makes me as bad as frat-boys chanting hateful slogans and Peter Nunn threatening a violent crime. It is unfounded slander, I have nothing to do with Peter Nunn.

I have presented my argument calmly and reasonably. I haven't attacked anyone or even questioned the motives of anyone. My point are my points, take them or leave them.

When you try to shut down an argument by tarring the other side with unrelated (admittedly vile) anecdotes, you are engaging in the same type of behavior you are condemning.

I have not compared you with anyone. I replied to Setanta and posted something that had just happened over here. This is all in your head. Not irony, delusional hysteria.

If you want equality, you shouldn't have a problem with feminism, feminism is all about equality between the sexes. Now that's irony.

Again, this is not about you. I've not compared you to Nunn or frat boys (whatever the **** they are,) or anyone else. You're the one, (for whatever twisted reason,) that's turned all of this onto yourself.

I wasn't even aware you'd posted on this thread when I responded to Setanta.

This is a rather circular argument. I don't have a problem with equality between the sexes. I have a problem with this law which, in my opinion, is the opposite of equality between the sexes.

That is the problem with the term "feminism". You state by definition that feminism is about equality. Then you equate this specific policy with feminism, and take it as proof that this policy is for equality.

That is a bogus argument.

In my opinion, this law is unjust. Whether or not it is part of "feminism" is irrelevant to any discussion of whether it is a good law or not.

Yes my main issue is yes what about those false allegations and yes I'm concerned about the small percentage of people who are falsely accused. As a current University student and who, has a friend that currently plays on the football team I am well aware of the types of "traps" that await for superstar athletes. According to our campus policy on sexual misconduct, if the accused is currently a student at the school they are suspended until the case is resolve which can take no more than 60 days!

What I was arguing with Set about is the commonality of these false allegations and yes I do have a problem with Senate Bill 967 (yes means yes). So while these superstar athletes and other students of Greek life come into contact with people who are inebriated, or under the influence or simply sexual promiscuous, I firmly believe that the ambiguity of yes means yes can in fact become problematic. I wouldn't want to be suspended from school if post sexual intercourse, I find out that I'm being accused of sexual misconduct.

I am mostly concerned with "retroactive rape" as in those that are ashamed to have the one night stands because they've consumed alcohol therefore they believe that consent was not given even though they actively had sexual intercourse.

There's nothing ambiguous about "yes means yes." The way to avoid the alleged trap is to just not go there.

This really isn't about men not wanting to take accountability. Hell, I'm an adult and I take accountability when I'm late or on time paying bills, or when I pay my taxes or when I go in to work (or call off) all what I do are continuous conscious decisions I make. Whether I suffer the consequence or benefit, it is all my responsibility. What I don't like which I've myself witnessed from co-workers as well as fellow students is the bias and how the policies are carried out.

For example (yes using an anecdote), I had a fellow co-worker written up and suspended for hugging another employee. An observing employee not the recipient of the hug, felt that workplace touching even among two consenting adults was inappropriate at the workplace. That person anonymously went to HR reported it. HR called the accused in, heard their side of the story still suspended that employee because of the policy that is in place, that employee had to go to a work place sexual harassment meeting (even though that employee wasn't accused of sexual harassment).

My hospital is overly sensitive when it comes to sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

"Yes means Yes" is a great slogan. It is right up there with "United we Stand".

Political Rectitude loves a great slogan.

Yes tell that to Brian Banks!


The player has been training nonstop since October, and told ESPN: ‘After all I’ve been through these last 10 years, I can still do some things that will impress you.’

Even if Banks’ NFL dream doesn’t come into fruition, the exonerated high school graduate has a job offer from the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Attorneys representing 26-year-old Banks said their client is entitled to $100 a day for every day of his incarceration under state law.

Banks was exonerated last week after his accuser, Wanetta Gibson, admitted she had made up the whole story of sexual assault ten years ago and had been reluctant to come forward because of a large settlement she received from the school district.

Banks' exoneration came after Gibson sent him a friend request on Facebook when he left prison in February of 2011 with a tag. In a message, she explained she wanted to 'let bygones be bygones'.

He was on the way to the school office to talk about his college applications when he bumped into Gibson, a fellow student, and they went to a stairwell to make out, Brooks told KPCC. He pointed out that they did not have intercourse.

He explained that Banks said something to upset Gibson and they parted on bad terms. She later accused him of kidnapping her, dragging her across the school and raping her in the stairwell.

Investigators tested her but found no physical evidence of rape, Brooks said. Banks maintained they had not had sex and all sexual contact had been consensual. Brooks said Banks has remained on probation under electronic monitoring, has had to register as a sex offender and has had trouble getting a job.








See:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152409/Brian-Banks-Player-falsely-accused-rape-NFL-auditions-teams.html


You sound like one of those people who did the "don't be that guy" campaigners who indirectly believes that men are inherently rapist.... Seriously, hence is why I used the word trap there are people who utilize the system for their own gain and destroy the lives of people. I'm no avid men's rights activist but I certainly am not a white knight who thinks men are inherently sexual and that men have poor impulse control. Sorry, I've met too many scandalous women in my life to know women like the one that robbed Mr. Banks' life, are out there lurking.

So the fact that so many rapes go unreported doesn't concern you at all? You sound like BillRM peddling the myth that all rapes are down to women regretting it the next day.

The figures don't back up what you say. Most rapists get away with it.

Yes the subject of rape concerns me period. But you're ignoring my point because as rape goes unreported, there are low reports of false accusations. I guess that because rapes/sexual assault goes unreported the fact that false accusations have low numbers really means nothing correct? the comment about regretting it the next day is a fact and a reality in some case and I emphasize the use of the word "SOME" and please don't compare me to Bill because I'm far from the likes of him.

I guess when you work in the medical field and have to go to annual meetings on workplace sexual harassment and have had fellow co-workers written up or fired over petty touching or retaliatory means you've become quite a bit sensitive. How would you feel if your life was robbed like that athlete and had to spend 6-10 years of your life in prison only to find out the accusation was false? Like I told Set just because there is low reports of false accusations doesn't mean it's less of an issue.

Why is this law the opposite of equality? What is the problem with ensuring sex is consensual. I've never been in a position where I've doubted that my sexual partner has consented. Why are you concerned about those sexual predators who get someone so wasted they're incapable of giving consent?

It's not just men either, I know someone who had her drinks spiked by another woman. Fortunately nothing happened because she was so wasted she just wanted to go home to sleep, but if something had happened it would not have been consensual.

Nobody is ignoring your point, but what impact does clarifying the law on consent have on false rape charges? If someone is malicious enough to make something like that up then this law won't change things either way.

If consent is a grey area chances are it wasn't given. What sort of person would want to have sex with someone drifting in and out of consciousness anyway?

On this issue you sound exactly like BillRM. You sound like you're saying it's alright to rape a woman once she's had a drink.

I see nothing here which addresses the issue of keeping it in your pants until you're in a safe situation. This is just a lot of special pleading for a return to the former standards, and whining about more stringent protections for potential victims. Can't you people keep it in your pants for a few weeks? Hell, if you think your academic career is at stake, keep it in your pants for a few years.

Two things here...

1) In my opinion this law is the opposite of equality because it applies when one person (usually a woman) accuses another person (almost always a man) of sexual misconduct. In these cases it makes it easier for the prosecution to win and makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself.

It favors one side of a legal dispute and disadvantages the other. That isn't equality.

2) It is ridiculous for you to claim that my opposition to this law means I am "concerned about [the rights of] sexual predators".

It doesn't any more than my opposition to the war in Iraq meant I was in favor of terrorism or that my opposition to the death penalty means I am in favor of serial killers.

This is another bogus argument.

" Can't you people keep it in your pants for a few weeks?"

Yes because all men have poor impulse control, yes the radical feminist ad hominem attack. How about some women stop using the judicial and academic system for advancing their own gains. But yes men have poor impulse control and we just always have to rape somebody!

Heck Setanta, let's just say people shouldn't have sex out of wedlock. We are not living in the 1950s.

Telling people not to have sex has often been tried, but it has never worked as a way of solving social ills.

I never had to keep it in my pants when I was at college. I had no problems finding women who were willing enough. (Then again I had the foresight to go to a college where the split was 80% women to 20% men.)

That's why it's a good idea to make sure you get consent. It doesn't favour one side or the other, just clarifies things. Again, if there's any doubt consent is being given chances are it's not. Had this law been in effect when I was at college it wouldn't have changed my behaviour in the slightest. All the women I shagged definitely consented, some quite loudly.

As for bogus arguments, you were the one who assumed that my posting of the Nunn case was all about you.

I'm not telling anyone not to have sex, i'm just pointing out that if you fear the consequences, don't go there. Wait for the weekend, go to another town. Don't try to attach your idiot arguments to what i say and then try to make me look like the idiot.

Your melodramatics have nothing to do with what i was proposing. Keep your low-rent histrionics to yourself. If you think that you truly do have poor impulse control, you shouldn't go anywhere near women. That was not, however, what i said.

It seems that neither you nor Max can approach this subject without resorting to extravagant straw man fallacies.