California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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.

For legal safety, all sex shoud be confined to the brothel.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

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.

I can t comment about England, for lack of information,
but in America, rape defendants have been convicted for failure
to disengage fast enuf after consent was granted and then withdrawn,
or if girls changed their minds a few days later as to whether
she really wanted it or not, after some disagreement, e.g. where to vacation.

The consequences, after u have been dragged away in chains,
have been catastrophic. She might just as well have shot u.

U dont get those problems if u just open your wallet
at the local brothel.

David

0 Replies

This is the last i'll address this silly thread. Does one go away to university get an education in order to support one's hopes for the future, or does one go away to university to get laid? If the latter, one ought to stay home, save the money, and avoid the alleged risk of a false accusation of rape. This thread is one of the worst cases i've seen of people whining because they can't have their cake and eat it, too.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

What is the problem with ensuring sex is consensual.

That's the one question that those posting in objection to this bill have yet to answer.

All this bill will do is obligate college students in California, engaging in sexual contact, to make sure that the behaviors engaged in are by mutual agreement and clearly wanted by both parties. But that was always supposed to be the case, this bill isn't changing the intent of what "consent" has always meant--agreement, not coercion, voluntary willingness and desire to engage, by someone who is fully alert and conscious, and aware of consequences, and not incapacitated. This bill will not change the purpose and meaning of "consent"--the reason why "consent" is already a component of California's sexual assault laws.

Prior to passage of this bill, it was unlawful, and not just a violation of a student code of conduct, to have sexual contact with someone who was indicating unwillingness or resistance, either verbally or non-verbally--"No means no"--and that is still true. This bill doesn't change that at all.

All this new bill will do is to require some behavioral communication--either verbal or non-verbal--of a conscious voluntary willingness to engage in any type of sexual contact that one college student wants from another. It affords better protection from sexual assault to those who might be silent or passive and/or fearful or unable to voice or express unwillingness or resistance, either for emotional reasons, or because they are asleep, or incapacitated in some way. It clearly is meant to differentiate between those instances where one party "takes advantage of" the other simply because the situation or circumstances allow it, which really isn't true to the understanding of "consent", and instances where the sexual contact is mutually wanted, clearly wanted, and this is clarified and expressed.

In other words, this bill helps to remove the grey areas or "misunderstandings" or "miscommunications" about whether a particular sexual contact is wanted or not. Other than the type of person who doesn't care about what the other person wants or doesn't want done to them, which would be true of a sexual predator, why should anyone object to trying to make sure their sexual advances or contacts are actually welcome and wanted?

This bill does not affect false accusations, or how complaints are handled by colleges, or how a person defends themselves from complaints of sexual assaults, or any of the other straw-man issues that have been raised as objections in this thread. It simply aims to be sure that conscious, freely willing, "consent" is actually present, for both parties, when two students engage in sexual contact. The goal is to reduce the amount of unwanted sexual contact in order to reduce the instances of sexual misconduct/sexual assault on campuses. It's rather curious that this can be seen as objectionable, by anyone.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I feel I have answered that question. I will answer it again.

First of all, the question is wrong. The law changes the definition of "consent". That doesn't ensure that any specific act of sex is consensual.

There are several problems with the bill.

1) This bill only comes into effect when there is a disciplinary hearing after one person (usually a woman) charges another person (almost always a man) with sexual misconduct. The bill makes it easier for the prosecution to win the case. The bill makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself.

The bill tilts the process in favor of the prosecution.

2) The bill is completely unrealistic about the way humans have sex. Several time recently my girlfriend has initiated sexual activity without seeking my affirmative consent. I think this is a fairly normal human occurrence.

This provision only comes into affect when a legal charge is made in a disciplinary hearing. It is unlikely to change anyone's tendency to engage in normal human behavior.

A question firefly, when is the last time that you sought (or even thought about seeking) affirmative consent?

"May I now touch your left breast" is not a question that is commonly asked by normal human beings.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

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.

By your logic, that is the case whenever someone accuses another person of committing a crime against them--if one male college student accuses another of stealing his property from his dorm room, "it makes it easier for the prosecution to win and makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself." If that were the case, the prosecution would always win, or win most of the time, whenever someone files a complaint accusing another of committing a crime, any crime, against them. Did that college student give consent to the other to take his stereo from his dorm room, or did the other student steal it? It's a he said/he said situation, and a complaint, that needs investigation.

Again, we are discussing a bill that affects a college code of conduct, and that has nothing to do with "prosecutions" or criminal "defendants". It simply seeks to clarify what is meant by consensual sexual contact between students in terms of the student code of conduct. And someone who feels the contact was non-consensual, certainly has a right to file a complaint about it with the college, just as they have a right to file a criminal complaint with the police. Your position conveys a sense of affront that anyone has a right to accuse anyone of a wrong-doing against them--particularly when it's a woman accusing a man. Because you resent the fact that women have the power to accuse, just as men do, and are entitled to have any complaints of wrong-doing against them investigated, just as men are entitled to the same, is more about your personal resentments than anything to do with this new bill.

This new bill is not gender specific, and it "favors" no one. It applies equally to both genders in terms of defining "consent" in sexual contact between students, to help insure that the contact involves mutually consenting individuals. It helps to insure that both students regard each other with at least a minimal degree of respect in terms of what the other wants, or doesn't want, with regard to sexual contact. And it doesn't matter whether these students are male/female, male/male, or female/female--this bill applies equally.

You've yet to come up with a valid objection to the effort to make sure that sexual contact between students is actually mutually consenting--and that's all this bill will try to do. What's so terrible about that? Can you answer that without dragging in irrelevant or unrelated issues that have nothing to do with this particular bill.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I've changed my mind about being annoyed somewhat by the new law, having been happy enough with the word NO - now I understand better what they are talking about after this article:

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/11635/20140929/california-passes-yes-means-yes-bill-after-gov-jerry-brown-signs-it-into-law.htm

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

By your logic, that is the case whenever someone accuses another person of committing a crime against them--if one male college student accuses another of stealing his property from his dorm room, "it makes it easier for the prosecution to win and makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself."

I feel strongly that it is wrong to view sex as something that a man does to a woman.

In the example you give, you have one person taking the property of another person. You are invoking a one sided transaction where one person is the receiving some benefit at the expense of another. This doesn't describe a human sexuality.

Quote:

This new bill is not gender specific, and it "favors" no one. It applies equally to both genders in terms of defining "consent" in sexual contact between students, to help insure that the contact involves mutually consenting individuals.

This is laughable. Would you like to take an guess of the number of times that this law is ever used against a woman? I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that the percentage of cases where a man accuses of a woman of failing to provide affirmative consent is under 2% (and I think that is a pretty high estimate).

Again I would point out that in my personal experience, my girlfriend has initiated sexual contact with me without bothering to get my affirmative consent. This is fairly normal for me (and I expect for most of us). Of course, this will only become an issue during a disciplinary hearing. Any man who tries this tack will be laughed out of the hearing room.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

When your girlfriend initiates sexual activity do you respond positively or do you turn away? If you turn away does she pursue things even though you don't appear interested? The next day do you feel uncomfortable, used, violated?

Or do you wake up after a night of loving consensual sex and post a load of nonsense about gender inequality and redefining rape?

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Hmmm.... turning away sounds awfully like "No means no", doesn't it.

Obviously if one person turns away (or indicates unwillingness in any way) the other person should stop. But that isn't what this law is saying. This law says that my girlfriend should seek affirmative consent for each step in the process and should not proceed until I intentionally communicate my approval.

This isn't normal. If you honestly think back to your own sexual relationships, you will understand what I am saying.

In a normal human sexual relationship, consent is often implied. I doubt that this law will change human sexual behavior at all. After all, it only applies in a disciplinary hearing.

1 Reply

Forgetting about that law for a bit...just want to restate that my personal take is that anything other than an enthusiastic "yes"...ought to be considered a "no."

Use that criteria...and you end up with no trouble.

And honestly, it should not impact on how often you get laid...appropriately.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Really, so you think a woman could mount a successful rape charge with the following. 'Yes, when he made overtures, I stuck my tongue down his throat, and started rubbing myself against him until penetration occurred, but because I didn't say anything it must be rape.'

What jury will convict that? You honestly think this is what that law means? You think it's some big brother way of having the sex police regulate what we do in the bedroom? Are you that paranoid?

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

I think it is funny that someone is taking the time to thumb down each person no matter which side they are on. (I wonder if it is the same person). For the record, I don't thumb down... I just find it amusing.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

"May I now touch your left breast" is not a question that is commonly asked by normal human beings.

So, if you were a college student, you'd feel free to just grab or fondle the breasts of any female who passed near you on the campus, without bothering to find out whether she wanted such contact with you? And it would be all right with you if another man, or a female, on campus, just grabbed at your crotch and squeezed it, because that's what they felt like doing?

"Normal human beings" respect the fact that other people have the right to exercise control over what is done to their bodies in any situation.

Quote:

This bill only comes into effect when there is a disciplinary hearing after one person (usually a woman) charges another person (almost always a man) with sexual misconduct. The bill makes it easier for the prosecution to win the case. The bill makes it harder for the defendant to defend himself.

The criminal sexual assault laws also come into play only after someone files a complaint. So? And that hardly makes it easier for the prosecution to get a date rape/acquaintance rape conviction--it's notoriously difficult to obtain convictions in such criminal cases.

There is no rational reason to assume that this bill will make it any easier for college investigators to find that someone violated the code of conduct, regarding sexual contact, than it was before this bill passed, nor have you come up with one. And, if it helps to make it less likely that someone can "get away with" a non-consensual sexual contact, which is a violation of the student code, that's fine, that's the point.

This bill does not change the meaning of "consent"--it clarifies it in terms of the student code of conduct. Just because the other person is silent, or not actively resisting or protesting, or not even awake, doesn't mean they are consenting. Consent means the contact is wanted, and the desire for the contact is expressed and communicated by both parties. And that's all it means.

Whatever goes on between you and your girlfriend really isn't applicable in terms of understanding or evaluating this new bill. The problems on campuses are mainly occurring in the context of a hook-up/casual sex culture, where consent really isn't implicit, or implied, between two people who actually know each other well, and who have basic regard for each others wishes. In the sort of situation that gives rise to most complaints on campuses now, requiring affirmative consent is an important step in trying to improve student safety and decrease incidents of sexual assault, precisely because it does decrease grey areas. Only "Yes means yes" will really mean "Yes"--and that's not hard for anyone to misunderstand or misinterpret.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

You honestly think this is what that law means? You think it's some big brother way of having the sex police regulate what we do in the bedroom?

Yes. That is my reading of the law and the reason that I object to it. Of course, in the course of a disciplinary hearing the actual meaning of the law will be decided by the officials leading the hearing.

The idea that this standard is not ambiguous is coming into question.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I feel strongly that it is wrong to view sex as something that a man does to a woman.

In the example you give, you have one person taking the property of another person. You are invoking a one sided transaction where one person is the receiving some benefit at the expense of another. This doesn't describe a human sexuality.

I don't view sex as something a man does to a woman--I don't view this topic in gender terms, as you obviously do. Sexual assault is sexual assault--whether it occurs between people of the same sex or opposite sexes.

When sexual contact occurs without the clear consent--the freely willing conscious agreement of the other person--you do have one person "receiving some benefit at the expense of another"--you have one personal violating another. And you are beyond dumb and naïve if you can't acknowledge that does occur as part of "human sexuality"-that's what sexual assault is all about, and why we have laws to help people control their sexual impulses toward others, unless consent for their expression is given by the other person involved in the contact.

And all this new bill will try to ensure is that sexual contact between students is mutually agreeable and wanted, as evidenced by affirmative consent. And that directly addresses the type of situations that lead to the most complaints of sexual misconduct on campuses now, where affirmative consent was neither sought nor given, and where often consent wasn't even present, and the contact was made despite protests. You can't claim "No really means yes", or silence or passivity means "yes", when the situation requires a clear, uneqivocal "Yes".

1 Reply

@firefly,

You are arguing points that we agree on. We agree completely about sexual assault. We agree that when sexual contact occurs without clear consent that it is one person violating another.

Let's focus on where we disagree.

1. I don't believe either of us are "beyond dumb or naive". If I thought so, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you.

2. In the quote above, I was reacting specifically to your use of theft of property to describe a sexual encounter. You responded out of context. I do feel in several responses on this thread people have implied that sex is something a man does to a woman (something I disagree with).

3. Whether consent is necessary isn't at issue. The issue with this law is what constitutes consent.

The law says that affirmative consent must be sought at each stage of a sexual encounter. In my opinion this is not normal in a human sexual relationship. In relationships that I have experienced, the consent was implied (by both parties) without being explicitly stated. I believe that a great number of good, healthy, mutually beneficial sexual encounters happen without either party seeking the type of explicit consent mandated in this law.

4. This law will only come into effect during a disciplinary hearing, and it will only negatively impact the defendant. It tilts the balance in favor of the prosecution. I don't believe this law is likely to cause men to start stopping a sexual encounter to seek permission at each stage. It is even less likely to cause women to act this way.

5. In practice this law is anything but gender neutral. Although in my experience, women rarely ask for explicit consent before initiating sexual contact, the vast number of people who will be targeted by this law will be men.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

the vast number of people who will be targeted by this law will be men.

Only because the vast majority of people who violate any sexual assault laws are male.

But the overwhelming majority of men don't violate such laws, they have no problems with issues of consent, and abiding by them. And that will be true regarding this new bill as well.

Like any bill, or criminal law, it only targets violators. You should be encouraging college men to abide by the provisions of this new bill, including the need for affirmative consent in their sexual contacts, if this is an issue that concerns you.

I think that over 90% of men already want to be sure they have affirmative consent, for any type of sexual contact, and they know how to evaluate it, throughout a sexual contact, without asking the kinds of silly questions you cite--they pay attention to the feedback they are getting from the other person, how the other person is responding, what the other person is doing and saying, and they have regard for what the other person wants and doesn't want, and they adjust their behavior accordingly, or they ask, "Are you okay with this?". This bill won't affect them at all.

You must be nervous about the possibility that the need to make sure the sexual contact is really welcome and wanted is what's going to put college men in some sort of jeopardy--I'm not. Decent college men, the overwhelming majority of college men, already do that. I just have a higher opinion of men than you do.

And I think it's only a positive that this bill sends a clear message, to all students, that sexual contacts are supposed to be clearly wanted, and it's only when they're not, that they become sexual assaults.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

But the overwhelming majority of men don't violate such laws, they have no problems with issues of consent, and abiding by them. And that will be true regarding this new bill as well.

Like any bill, or criminal law, it only targets violators. You should be encouraging college men to abide by the provisions of this new bill, including the need for affirmative consent in their sexual contacts, if this is an issue that concerns you.

I don't think this is true.

1. Anyone who initiates sexual contact without getting explicit consent will be in violation of this law. My experience tells me that many women will do just that... initiating sexual contact without explicit consent from their male partner.

Based on my personal experience, women will violate the letter of this law nearly as much as men. Most of the time no one will care because this is normal human sexual behavior.

2. This law doesn't target all violators, and it certainly doesn't target violators equally. Do you really think that a man who uses this law when a woman fails to ask for his explicit consent will be taken seriously?

3. This law only comes into effect when there is a disciplinary hearing. My concern is that such hearings are fair to both sides, and this law tilts these hearings drastically in favor of the prosecution.

Obviously there are clear cases of rape. These cases are already prosecuted and you and I and any rational person would agree.

This law impacts the difficult cases where there is a legitimate gray area and where reasonable people can disagree about whether there is a violation or not and who is responsible.

Tilting these cases in favor of the prosecution isn't a reasonable solution in my opinion, particularly when the decision will be based on imposing an demand on human sexuality that isn't normally done by most of us.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You just keep repeating the same unverified assumptions about why this bill is inherently "unfair" to men, when nothing contained in the bill is inherently unfair to any one, and you've yet to cite any passage from this bill that supports anything you are saying in that regard.

I do not view sexual assault, and the need for affirmative consent, as a gender issue, and I've repeatedly made that clear. The goal is to reduce the incidence of unwanted sexual contacts on college campuses in California--regardless of the genders involved. It doesn't matter if these contacts are male/female, male/male or female/female--sexual assault is sexual assault.

Quote:

Tilting these cases in favor of the prosecution isn't a reasonable solution in my opinion, particularly when the decision will be based on imposing an demand on human sexuality that isn't normally done by most of us

The fact you keep talking about "prosecutions" makes little sense--this bill doesn't affect state criminal sexual assault laws at all, and colleges don't "prosecute" anyone. And requiring affirmative consent, doesn't tilt anything in anyone's favor, as long as the parties both make sure that the type of contacts are mutually agreeable--and that really should always be the case.

If you're claiming that making sure your sexual contacts, particularly with relative strangers, are really wanted, imposes a "demand on human sexuality that isn't normally done by most of us," you're really speaking for yourself. Most normal decent people don't regard others as lumps of meat--simply there to satisfy their own sexual desires or impulses--they are aware the other person is a human being with definite feelings and preferences about the types of contacts they want and don't want, and they respect those. And, if you can't really tell how to evaluate your partner's feedback, and communications, in terms of whether you have affirmative consent or not, without resorting to a silly list of questions, or waiting until that partner is loudly protesting and actively fighting you off, you're in sorry shape, and you should take David's advice and obtain your sex only in brothels.

Bothering to continue discussing this bill with you is a waste of time. You've yet to come up with a valid objection to it, based on something actually contained and specified in the bill, and you keep repeating the same illogical arguments that make no sense, and you keep confusing investigations of possible violations of a student code of conduct with criminal prosecutions in a court of law. I'm tried of trying to address your extremely muddled thinking.

"Yes means yes" will considerably clarify the consent issue on California's campuses, and that's the purpose of the bill.

Bye, Max..

2 Replies

California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know