Yes Means Yes law passed

[babe]

Why would consent be anything but "yes"? Why should the government not do anything (further, due process as it is kind of a joke with respect to even charging rapists) about an alarming problem like this?

OK. So you think people won't return a rape verdict for an opportunistic sexual deed done upon a woman passed out at a party, say by a football team? I don't think a law like this will be effective to change the way we are. Corrupt judges, moron jurers, everyone subject to a little extra cash in a brown envelope. . . .

Trial by jury is only an effective defense of human rights if the jury members or society in general respects human rights.

I'm saying we don't need this law because if we don't change our loose ways there is no law that can make us "good".

I assure you, I'd be sending the whole football team to jail, even if they are the national champs.

 

[fishonjazz]

Why would consent be anything but "yes"? Why should the government not do anything (further, due process as it is kind of a joke with respect to even charging rapists) about an alarming problem like this?

I have sex with my wife without her giving me consent (saying yes, you may have sex with me) all the time..... does that mean im a rapist?

 

[One Brow]

OK. So you think people won't return a rape verdict for an opportunistic sexual deed done upon a woman passed out at a party, say by a football team?

Most of the time, they won't. When was the last time a jury did return a guilty verdict for that?

I don't think a law like this will be effective to change the way we are. Corrupt judges, moron jurers, everyone subject to a little extra cash in a brown envelope. . . .

When Prohibition was in effect, per capita alcohol consumption declined. If you make a clear statement, in law, that certain behaviors are unacceptable, there will be a small percentage of the population whose behavior is changed by this. We are talking about rapes, I believe a small reduction in the number of rapes committed is a good result from this law.

I'm saying we don't need this law because if we don't change our loose ways there is no law that can make us "good".

That shouldn't stop us from spelling out what "good" is, for those who need the help.

I assure you, I'd be sending the whole football team to jail, even if they are the national champs.

Good for you, but you are in the minority there. Humans are tribal, and sportsmen (but not sportswomen) are treated like tribal champions.

 

[One Brow]

I have sex with my wife without her giving me consent (saying yes, you may game sex with me) ask the time..... dies that mean im a rapist?

Consent can be non-verbal.

 

[fishonjazz]

Consent can be non-verbal.

I thought this whole thread is about some new law that states that a woman had to say YES to sex or its rape

 

[♪alt13]

Consent can be non-verbal.

ISn't that the whole point of this law? Tht non-verbal consent is no longer adequate.

 

[fishonjazz]

ISn't that the whole point of this law? Tht non-verbal consent is no longer adequate.

This

 

[moevillini]

Consent can be non-verbal.

I thought this whole thread is about some new law that states that a woman had to say YES to sex or its rape

ISn't that the whole point of this law? Tht non-verbal consent is no longer adequate.

FROM THE LINK IN THE ORIGINAL POST

The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".

The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.

So NO, it doesn't mean that someone has to verbally say "YES"

Staying with the double negative theme for a second, it means that not saying No is not saying yes.

Clear as mud? I thought so

This

but really, if you have half a brain, it should be fairly clear.
if not, you've got bigger issues

<3

 

[moevillini]

...but really, if you have half a brain, it should be fairly clear.
if not, you've got bigger issues

<3

but just in case...

Not saying "NO" or actively resisting does not imply consent (i.e. "YES") for the encounter - - hopefully that helps.

 

[♪alt13]

FROM THE LINK IN THE ORIGINAL POST

The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".

The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.

So NO, it doesn't mean that someone has to verbally say "YES"

Staying with the double negative theme for a second, it means that not saying No is not saying yes.

Clear as mud? I thought so



but really, if you have half a brain, it should be fairly clear.
if not, you've got bigger issues

<3

How do you figure someone is supposed to meet this requirement without a yes?

 

[fishonjazz]

FROM THE LINK IN THE ORIGINAL POST



So NO, it doesn't mean that someone has to verbally say "YES"

Staying with the double negative theme for a second, it means that not saying No is not saying yes.

Clear as mud? I thought so



but really, if you have half a brain, it should be fairly clear.
if not, you've got bigger issues

<3

From the article it says that silence does not count as consent....... My wife and I don't always speak before sex and I would bet that deaf couples also remain silent before sex.

Rapists each of us

 

[JAZZGASM]

From the article it says that silence does not count as consent....... My wife and I don't always speak before sex and I would bet that deaf couples also remain silent before sex.

Rapists each of us

Fish-Quit raping your wife. My wife tried to rape me, but you can't rape the willing.

Honestly, this law won't prevent the situations it hopes to, which is a situation where a girl is drunk and is taken advantage of. If a girl is that drunk, who is going to remember if she gave consent?

California is always trying to pull this ****. They also tried to enact a comprehensive "revenge porn" statute (making it a felony iirc) to post pictures of an ex on the net. A very dumbed down version of the law passed, but it has no teeth. My feeling is if someone is willing to risk texting naked pictures, they can deal with the consequences in the event of a break up.

 

[babe]

I thought this whole thread is about some new law that states that a woman had to say YES to sex or its rape

and that is the common misapprehension for most who doubt it's goodness or efficacy for protecting our rights.

I've seen a lot of well-intentioned laws go wrong in the hands of wrong-thinking folks. . . .

I think when they are used with a thorough sense of justice, laws can be "good" or helpful. Might be a sorry case that we have so many people doing stuff with a sort of high-handed disregard for the rights of others, and might be helpful to spell it out in no uncertain terms.

My jaundiced view of "The Law" comes from seeing even the simplest and clearest principles brushed aside in actual practice in our courts.

I used to work, for example, for one of the wealthiest men in this country. Wealthy enough that a job applicant, a woman, could be invited to meet him in his New York suite, and then subjected to some compromising treatment. . . . and in the circumstances the woman has no credibility and gets no sympathy in pressing a case against one of the best-lawyered individuals on the planet, a man who can get judges removed from their position with a nod to some of his leige-class hired politicians.

No I wasn't there to see it directly, but I saw enough to understand the plight of women on the periphery of power. I can see a "Yes means Yes" law adeptly used to exonerate such a man, with such influence. For those people, it doesn't really matter what the law says, they have a whole way of life that is above all the laws we can pass.

I imagine that many who can't afford good lawyers will find themselves ill-prepared to face charges based on any law, and unjustly run through the grinder that our legal system can be, to great hurt.

I hope the marginal benefits will add up to something that outweighs the costs in terms of net human rights.

 

[LogGrad98]

Fish-Quit raping your wife. My wife tried to rape me, but you can't rape the willing.

Honestly, this law won't prevent the situations it hopes to, which is a situation where a girl is drunk and is taken advantage of. If a girl is that drunk, who is going to remember if she gave consent?

California is always trying to pull this ****. They also tried to enact a comprehensive "revenge porn" statute (making it a felony iirc) to post pictures of an ex on the net. A very dumbed down version of the law passed, but it has no teeth. My feeling is if someone is willing to risk texting naked pictures, they can deal with the consequences in the event of a break up.

Statutory rape.

 

[♪alt13]

When both persons are adults and there are no apparent signs of struggle allegations of rape will always be difficult for courts to "get it right". It is the prototypical he said she said situation. No one is comfortable with this reality but it is the one we have. I fail to see how this law will address that problem.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

and that is the common misapprehension for most who doubt it's goodness or efficacy for protecting our rights.

I've seen a lot of well-intentioned laws go wrong in the hands of wrong-thinking folks. . . .

I think when they are used with a thorough sense of justice, laws can be "good" or helpful. Might be a sorry case that we have so many people doing stuff with a sort of high-handed disregard for the rights of others, and might be helpful to spell it out in no uncertain terms.

My jaundiced view of "The Law" comes from seeing even the simplest and clearest principles brushed aside in actual practice in our courts.

I used to work, for example, for one of the wealthiest men in this country. Wealthy enough that a job applicant, a woman, could be invited to meet him in his New York suite, and then subjected to some compromising treatment. . . . and in the circumstances the woman has no credibility and gets no sympathy in pressing a case against one of the best-lawyered individuals on the planet, a man who can get judges removed from their position with a nod to some of his leige-class hired politicians.

No I wasn't there to see it directly, but I saw enough to understand the plight of women on the periphery of power. I can see a "Yes means Yes" law adeptly used to exonerate such a man, with such influence. For those people, it doesn't really matter what the law says, they have a whole way of life that is above all the laws we can pass.

I imagine that many who can't afford good lawyers will find themselves ill-prepared to face charges based on any law, and unjustly run through the grinder that our legal system can be, to great hurt.

I hope the marginal benefits will add up to something that outweighs the costs in terms of net human rights.

I can't believe I'm saying this . . . but, well done Babe. You ARE, apparently, capable of rational discourse without descending into a knee jerk right wing reactionary BS.

 

[moevillini]

When both persons are adults and there are no apparent signs of struggle allegations of rape will always be difficult for courts to "get it right". It is the prototypical he said she said situation. No one is comfortable with this reality but it is the one we have. I fail to see how this law will address that problem.

try this scenario - it's happened before:

College boys make a video showing themselves having intercourse and other activities with a non resisting female. Female shortly afterwards claims she is the victim of an assault. Video is used as evidence that she "consented" because she did not resist.

I can't speak to the motives of the lawmakers but it seems this could be an area where this law could apply.

 

[♪alt13]

try this scenario - it's happened before:

College boys make a video showing themselves having intercourse and other activities with a non resisting female. Female shortly afterwards claims she is the victim of an assault. Video is used as evidence that she "consented" because she did not resist.

I can't speak to the motives of the lawmakers but it seems this could be an area where this law could apply.

^link would help

Did the boys claim she gave verbal consent? If they didn't would they and their lawyers have made that claim if this was the law? Would this law stop that video from being shown in defense? Would this law really change the way the jurors interpreted what they saw in the video?

I'm not saying I am against the law. I agree with the sentiment, for the most part. I just don't see it being effective. Babe has kinda hit the nail on the head. A person with a public defender would probably be convicted with or without this law and one with a good lawyer would get off.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

try this scenario - it's happened before:

College boys make a video showing themselves having intercourse and other activities with a non resisting female. Female shortly afterwards claims she is the victim of an assault. Video is used as evidence that she "consented" because she did not resist.

I can't speak to the motives of the lawmakers but it seems this could be an area where this law could apply.

I can easily imagine a scenario in which a woman doesn't resist out of fear, or because she's simply given up after having tried to resist, or she's drugged, etc.

Just thinking of all this and what trials women go through trying to prove sexual assault/rape, it just pisses me off so much, even more so when considering George Will's claim that being sexually assaulted somehow gives women a 'coveted status' on college campuses. What an out of touch tool.

As an aside, what is it about right wing ideologues that make them so unempathetic where it comes sexual assault issues? Aside, that is, for the empathy they seem to have for the accused? I used to be a rabid right winger, and I was just like that, but I still struggle to understand why I thought that way.

 

[moevillini]

^link would help

Did the boys claim she gave verbal consent? If they didn't would they and their lawyers have made that claim if this was the law? Would this law stop that video from being shown in defense? Would this law really change the way the jurors interpreted what they saw in the video?

There was a case in a nearby town about 5-6 years ago but I can't remember enough information for google to find a link


And how many of you men seriously think a woman is going to put herself through the trauma and humiliation of a rape trial just to get back at some dickwad she thinks jilted her?