California adopts 'yes means yes' sexual assault rule

lol

Your view might be from LA LA LAND. If it is true that men are the ones pursuing sex most of the time, and I think it is, then it will be the men who are hung out to dry most of the time if the sex does not meet the governments standards of consent, even before we consider the bias in the law against the one that is sticking something into a hole.

And a lot less sex. I think about 1/4 of the time my wife and I are both an "enthusiastic yes!" at the same time. The rest of the time one of us is "meh" or is doing sex to try to add some joy in the other ones life.

Is that Los Angeles ?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=la%20la%20land

This bill is directed at the sort of date rape/ acquaintance rape situations that occur among college students, and it attempts to reduce instances of those by clarifying consent so that only "Yes means years".

Wherever did you get the idiotic idea it was intended to apply to couples who've been married for decades, like you and your wife? Does everything have to be about you?

Men commit most burglaries as well, that doesn't mean that laws that criminalize the taking of property, without consent, are designed to "hang men out to dry". And regardless of Max's inability to recognize it, consent is definitely a component to distinguish between the lawful and unlawful taking of property, just as consent distinguishes lawful from unlawful sexual contact. Consent isn't unique to sexual assault law.

And you vehemently opposed those changes in the law, that updated definitions like the federal definition of rape, so it wasn't an act that only involved non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis, or "carnal knowledge of a female by a male"---you wanted the onus to remain only on the one with the penis, and only in a situation involving the "missionary position"--hardly the view of a self-defined "sexual radical".

You didn't care that the old federal definition of rape didn't consider unwanted sexual penetrative assaults by men on men, or woman on women, or women on men, involving objects, as real "rapes", or that unwanted penile penetrations of a man's mouth or anus by another man, was also a quite real rape--and that both genders deserved and required the protections of law to help prevent such serious sexual assaults. You weren't at all concerned about making sure that men were better protected from sexual assaults, let alone making sure that federal statistics recorded and reflected such assaults against men so they would receive a better allotment of victim services and funds, to address their particular needs.

Needless to say, any criminal sexual assault, or any criminal act of any kind, would already constitute a violation of the student code of conduct on California's campuses, and nothing about the new bill changes that. The only change, specific to students, and the code of conduct, is that sexual contact between students must be mutually agreed upon--consent is not inferred by silence, passivity, or lack of protest or resistance--it must be expressed and communicated in an affirmative manner. Whoever disregards that, regardless of gender, may well find themselves named in a sexual misconduct complaint--and deservedly so.

Well, maybe women should be more unambiguous about sex, then "horny" wouldn't matter would it?

I agree totally with Engineer. This law is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. It is a meaningless piece of legislation which changes absolutely nothing. Some politicians just needed to get their names in the news.

University: "young man can you prove that she said yes to exactly what you did to her?"

JR: "No"

University: " In that case you are expelled. In a few years the state will find jail cells for your kind"

So buy the A-hole a donut, stick him in a closet and let him enjoy himself. Sounds better to me, than making little girls aged 11-13 years be outfitted with IUDs, as is the current recommendation of "educated" healthcare "providers" in the US.

What this law does which actually goes back to what some MRA argue, is that it indirectly labels men as "victimizer" and women as "victim." And for the love of God please don't mix my words up to reflect what Bill says. If I clearly say rape, or unwanted touching is wrong I mean just that. I'm merely highlighting another spectrum which does happen at Universities one to which I currently attend now, is that there are those that do have malicious intent.

Apparently you and some of the members are out of touch with the current climate on University campuses because there are students that engage in reckless sexual behavior period. Let's put it out there that consent even through in an intoxicated state, can be and (I use those words loosely) implied. Now what is the difference between being intoxicated and unconscious? A huge difference. There are some women who have a low tolerance of alcohol and with one drink are either buzzed or hammered.

Now here is a question for you, if a woman is groping and is engaging in sexual conduct with another man is she consenting to sex even though she or both are reciprocating a type of sexual behavior? Or does a person have to be completely sober in order to fully consciously give consent? If that is not clear let me be more clearer:

If I'm at a club and I've had a few drinks and a woman whom I'm interested in has had a few drinks and we are feeling each other due to chemistry and the effects of alcohol, and let's say for argument's sake I engage her sexually and she reciprocates is her reciprocation consent even though she has consumed alcohol? I would think any smart person would say yes. Just because you've consumed alcohol doesn't mean you're not always fully aware.

Good idea and I suggest that all brothels be owned and operated by women who understand why many cash-rich men would do anything or pay anything for a robust lay with a hot babe ( either male or female, for that matter ...why be fussy?).

No we're living in the year 2014, a time when too many young men have major problems with growing up. Too many males aged 25 years+ are unemployed, living at home with their mommies and still looking for the "golden tit".

As it should be. But in 2014, a red-hot dryer would appear to be more appropriate.

There is no strawman you said:

"Can't you people keep it in your pants for a few weeks?" which is a sexist stereotype which implies that men have poor impulse control. You're doing exactly what radical feminist do, while advocating sexual assault laws to protect people (actually women) you indirectly make sexist stereotypes towards men. Then again, coming from you, I'm not surprised as several members have indicated to me that, that is how you are so I accept your foolish remarks.

If in fact you consider yourself a feminist you do more harm for the cause than you do good because the whole idea of feminism at least philosophically is to escape those particular harmful stereotypes.

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

WHAT is expected to happen after "a few weeks?"

I don't know....Apparently according to Set sexual misconduct is preventable if only you keep it in your pants for a few weeks or even a year.

No, it is a strawman, because i wasn't talking about men in general, i was talking about you in particular. You're whining about this, as though it were intended to inconvenience you personally. You also imply, without substantiation, that there is a high incidence of false accusations of rape. If that were true, simple common sense would suggest to you that you avoid ambiguous situations so as not to fall afoul of this alleged danger. You know, like maybe wait until you can go home on the weekend? You know, like keeping it in your pants because your university career is (or should be) more important to you than getting laid?

When you claim that i have said what i most definitely have not said, that is a strawman. An even more feeble strawman is to suggest that i am a "feminist" (without a shred of evidence) and to then globally characterize all feminists and suggest that i am failing as a feminist. You don't know if i'm a feminist. I know of no reason to consider you an expert on feminist thought. You are, in fact, attempting to construct one strawman from another. You're really rather poor at debating rhetoric.

Asshole . . . i kept mine in my pants for more than a year after i began university, until i had established a reliable relationship with a young woman. Of course, i wasn't out there to get laid by whatever woman came along whom i could exploit. Spare me any more of your witless straw men.

Setanta the able2know "Chanty Binx"



I can't believe you're a guy who rants like a little bitch