What's new
By:

Yes Means Yes law passed

QuinSnydersHair said:
I know I've always made sure a girl wants to have sex with me, just before what feels like the oncoming moment of penetration, by asking, Are you absolutely sure you're okay with me sticking my member in you?
Click to expand...

If you are so deaf to body language that this is what you need to do, good for you.
 
LOL at you guys so focused on penises and vaginas.

Look at the big picture...


Or just keep looking at your penis. As long as you can see it, it's probably not anywhere it doesn't belong.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Is a yes still a yes if it is preceded by 20 minutes of begging? Asking for a friend of a friend. Or something.
Click to expand...

If you need to beg for 20 minutes, that's not exactly enthusiastic consent. It's not very nice, either, and somewhat icky.
 
One Brow said:
If you are so deaf to body language that this is what you need to do, good for you.
Click to expand...

The CA law does not consider body language affirmative consent, bro. It requires verbal consent, and you'd better make a recording of it, and of the whole process to document it. And if you videotape it, you will cross the line on porn, and possibly blackmail. . . .

In fact, just thinking about what lawyers can do with this, in the line of "ambulance chasing", convinces me we have gone one law too far. . . . .
 
babe said:
The CA law does not consider body language affirmative consent, bro. It requires verbal consent, and you'd better make a recording of it, and of the whole process to document it. And if you videotape it, you will cross the line on porn, and possibly blackmail. . . .

In fact, just thinking about what lawyers can do with this, in the line of "ambulance chasing", convinces me we have gone one law too far. . . . .
Click to expand...
Um hmm
 
One Brow said:
Please quote the section where it says the only type of consent is verbal.
Click to expand...

If the law does not define all possible forms of positive consent, it ain't no kinda law.

would a wink suffice? A smile? lying down? uhhh hmmmmm. then getting drunk should count, too. yah ain't no kinda girl, or guy. to drink and not be down with a good time.

I'd go look up the language for you, as written in the law, but I'm sure it wouldn't make you love this lawyerly approach to nirvana and social justice any less. Some folks just gotta have it all spelled out, at least in their own minds.

I'm just sure this kind of "progress" raises more questions than it can possibly answer, and I don't think it's the proper business of society, civilization, or the government, to get into this level of legalism.

like I said, any time a woman gets unhappy with you, you have to make a choice. Get out of her life, or do something to make her feel better about having you in it. Personally, I think a whole lot of understanding and mutual consent should be established before you get sexual, and after. Casual sex is the problem. We're not animals, and we have notions about relationships and what they mean. "Marriage" is an acceptable level of commitment that has worked fairly well overall, across the centuries, in communities above the level of nomadic tribes.

while no should always mean no, so far as woman's rights go, yes should never be taken for an absolute or irreversible "yes". No man should ever misunderstand that. Or ignore it. Even if you are married, and no matter what went before. A man has to take "no" for what it means, whenever it is the fact of the womans' feelings, or words, or whatever way it is communicated.

There wasn't any government police on the beat in the nomadic camps, pastoral cottages, or caves of bygone ages, but unless the man was just too stupid to know what "no" means, it still meant "no".

If men don't understand that, and want some legal definition for a proper relationship, they aren't gonna have any good relationships.
 
One Brow said:
If you are so deaf to body language that this is what you need to do, good for you.
Click to expand...

Me? No, not at all. Trust me, the ladies love Gyp and I know when they want the goods. I was however saying all that in more of a OneBrow voice because I get the sense you're not exactly smooth with the ladies. Amirite?
 
babe said:
Some folks just gotta have it all spelled out, at least in their own minds.
Click to expand...

Other folks just gotta any check on their privilege into question by resorting to the fantastic.

babe said:
Casual sex is the problem. We're not animals, and we have notions about relationships and what they mean. "Marriage" is an acceptable level of commitment that has worked fairly well overall, across the centuries, in communities above the level of nomadic tribes.
Click to expand...

Rapes also happen in relationships that are not casual, even between married people. Marriage doesn't work for everyone; just because it works for you doesn't make it a universal panacea.

babe said:
while no should always mean no, so far as woman's rights go, yes should never be taken for an absolute or irreversible "yes". No man should ever misunderstand that. Or ignore it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Yea mens yes, no means no, maybe means no.
 
QuinSnydersHair said:
I was however saying all that in more of a OneBrow voice because I get the sense you're not exactly smooth with the ladies. Amirite?
Click to expand...

I can't think of any way to answer the direct question that doesn't sound like bragging, so I'll pass on that, other than saying I've been married for 25 years and monogamous for 23 of them.

However, I will note that the whole notion of being "smooth with the ladies" is objectionable. Every woman is an individual, and what some women find smooth, others will find slick, or gamy, or irritating. I just try to treat each woman with the respect she deserves, and things work out well that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top