Yes Means Yes law passed

[babe]

wait... hold on... I'm confused...

what is this tool chest of demagoguery of which you speak?

and who is doing the manipulating?

and are you saying we shouldn't enjoy our food, our beer and our families?

and what does bring well-off have to do with any of this?

I think the word that comes to mind here is obfusciate

I figure the word is "obfuscate".

But that's not your problem. Your problem is that you're trying to fit some square pegs into round holes. How in the world did you imagine my words to mean the exact opposite of what I said?

OK, I'm editing here to try to be "nice", not knowing whether the above is actually sincere, or just another livid retort.

The tools of demagogues historically have been alluring offers like "A chicken in every pot", "Circuses and Bread for the Masses", promises of government largesse for the poor. But any fool knows what really counts is having powerful or influential "friends" or "connections", like Mitt Romney hanging out with the Bush clan, or Obama going to Martha's Vineyard to play golf with the finest people.

Is that clear enough?

And so far as I'm concerned, if anyone prefers beer or food or fun to politics, the world should not be run by schemers who are doing things that cut him out of the loop so far as politics is concerned. The problem is we have a few people who want to exert disproportionate power.

The people who make use of clever tactics to defeat the common public will are almost always "fascist". The word comes from Latin, and means "connections".

In my book, state socialists are fascists if there is an elite inner circle. Communists are fascists because they have an elite little inner Party circle. The "communist" leaders live in posh homes while the workers subsist in cold one-room apartments and stand in long lines to get a loaf of bread. "Communist" is a lie, a sort of left-hand in a puppet show.

"left and right" in politics is generally a lie, because in fact those who seek political power are always going to the "connections" they have with influential or wealthy backers, seeking the money and media support for building political power, which generally requires passing out money to all kinds of folks who value their "connections" and their little streams of wealth that depend on government spending somehow, or legislation affecting their business interests.

If this isn't clear enough, it might be your own problem seeing a simple viewpoint about what has gone wrong with our government.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So are we still debating whether society should take the issue of rape seriously? Or was this ever about that?

 

[babe]

So are we still debating whether society should take the issue of rape seriously? Or was this ever about that?

Fine point.

Nobody in this entire thread has ever said we should not take the issue of rape seriously.

A few people think a law is necessary to define the meaning of "yes", a few people just think that is ridiculous. Apparently, the problem is that we have a government that can't be trusted to follow any law we can pass without turning the intended impact of the law upside down somehow.

Some people think we have a great government that can fix everything that's wrong with everybody, and some people think we have a moron government that will make a mess of everything it undertakes.

I don't think we need this law. I think we need men and women who understand what yes and no mean, and who will respect one another. Uhhhmmm. . . . and maybe some judges and juries who understand this just as well, and who will return a verdict of rape on both men and women who in any fashion entrap one another in dicey poorly-defined sexual relationships. Get a marriage license, folks. A written contract, whatever. . . . but I said above that in a society with unclear morals defined personally, I doubt anyone can really rely even on "yes" for meaning "yes", so whatever. . . . I'm not going to count on yes meaning yes, unless I'm dealing with someone I know means it. Would be a good idea for any man or any woman to do that.

Apparently, some folks don't understand the meaning of words, and if someone says something simple and true, many will misconstrue it somehow.

 

[NUMBERICA]

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?

 

[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