[quote]NickViar wrote:
Gee-whiz, guys, this rule might occasionally be abused, but does that mean it’s not a good one? Is the possibility of saving one drunk slut at a frat party from engaging in an activity that she may later regret not worth sacrificing numerous young men that had no ill intent and did nothing wrong? You guys surely trust the criminal justice system and juries to make fair decisions when dealing with this law, right? [/quote]
I’m not going to pretend I haven’t seen some “dudes” doing some pretty unethical shit at parties with the express intention of getting her drunk enough to “say” yes… (No I’ve never witness actual drugs beyond booze being used) But these “dudes” were fucking scumbags and fewer and farther between.
The vast majority are just flirting and trying to bang, just like the girls. It’s this second group that will be negatively effected by this.
That said, random hookup’s aren’t really the smartest idea, even though I did my fair share, maybe something like this that gives an incentive to actually date the people you fuck isn’t the worst thing in the world.
In all seriousness, how is this rule any more outrageous than rules regarding other victimless activities? I know that slippery-slopes don’t exist, but is it possible that this rule should be completely expected in a society that no longer recognizes the violation of one’s property rights as being a necessary part of a crime?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not going to pretend I haven’t seen some “dudes” doing some pretty unethical shit at parties with the express intention of getting her drunk enough to “say” yes… (No I’ve never witness actual drugs beyond booze being used) But these “dudes” were fucking scumbags and fewer and farther between.
The vast majority are just flirting and trying to bang, just like the girls. It’s this second group that will be negatively effected by this.
That said, random hookup’s aren’t really the smartest idea, even though I did my fair share, maybe something like this that gives an incentive to actually date the people you fuck isn’t the worst thing in the world. [/quote]
I propose that a third group will be most victimized: Guys who are in a relationship with a girl, don’t get a “yes” before each sexual encounter, and break up with the girl when she doesn’t want to end the relationship. Although I have not seen the actual law, from the articles that I have read, it certainly seems the girl could then go back and prosecute her ex-boyfriend(AND HAVE THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW ON HER SIDE!).
Under the new law, rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
** “Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent!” **
Can you believe this shit? I’m glad I’m happily married. I cannot imagine being a college student here.
This is what happens when liberals run amok.[/quote]
So, if someone is “intoxicated” they cannot consent.
So, I guess if two people are drunk at a party and have sex, they both committed rape under this new rule.
Good thing mutually-drunk hook ups never happen in college.
In seriousness, this is the dumbest law I’ve ever seen written, and I’ve seen a few.
Of course, what will happen is men will be selectively prosecuted under this new law by girls who just did a “walk of shame” and decide to regret it.
On the bright side, this will make a lot of work for lawyers, which I appreciate. Full employment guarantee and make our LA office that much more profitable.[/quote]
BINGO!!!
I was waiting for someone to catch this! This means no drunk sex when BOTH PARTIES are intoxicated!!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not going to pretend I haven’t seen some “dudes” doing some pretty unethical shit at parties with the express intention of getting her drunk enough to “say” yes… (No I’ve never witness actual drugs beyond booze being used) But these “dudes” were fucking scumbags and fewer and farther between.
The vast majority are just flirting and trying to bang, just like the girls. It’s this second group that will be negatively effected by this.
That said, random hookup’s aren’t really the smartest idea, even though I did my fair share, maybe something like this that gives an incentive to actually date the people you fuck isn’t the worst thing in the world. [/quote]
I propose that a third group will be most victimized: Guys who are in a relationship with a girl, don’t get a “yes” before each sexual encounter, and break up with the girl when she doesn’t want to end the relationship. Although I have not seen the actual law, from the articles that I have read, it certainly seems the girl could then go back and prosecute her ex-boyfriend(AND HAVE THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW ON HER SIDE!). [/quote]
Lol, dude. No doubt there will be unintended consequences.
Under the new law, rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
** “Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent!” **
Can you believe this shit? I’m glad I’m happily married. I cannot imagine being a college student here.
This is what happens when liberals run amok.[/quote]
So, if someone is “intoxicated” they cannot consent.
So, I guess if two people are drunk at a party and have sex, they both committed rape under this new rule.
Good thing mutually-drunk hook ups never happen in college.
In seriousness, this is the dumbest law I’ve ever seen written, and I’ve seen a few.
Of course, what will happen is men will be selectively prosecuted under this new law by girls who just did a “walk of shame” and decide to regret it.
On the bright side, this will make a lot of work for lawyers, which I appreciate. Full employment guarantee and make our LA office that much more profitable.[/quote]
On another note, those Shabbat dinners at my son’s school are known for serving wine without carding anybody. Now if he get’s raped, we can just blame the Jews.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
I dunno. Is it really so outlandish? Does anybody in this thread actually believe that being too drunk/stoned to know what’s happening and say “no”/resist should constitute consent?
I don’t doubt that abuses take place in the area of false accusations etc, but this law (at least the parts quoted in the OP) doesn’t seem all that ridiculous.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. It appears that this is a blanket type law. It’s not JUST for drunk girls who are out of it and get taken advantage of. It’s for anyone. Even if she’s sober, you both get it on, and the next day regrets it and cries rape, if she didn’t say “yes I will have sex with you”, then you raped her.
[/quote]
Yeah, I can see that. Next step is you need a written consent agreement signed and notarized. [/quote]
Which is exactly what I wrote in my first post.[/quote]
So you did. That’s what I get for posting before engaging what’s left of my brain.
The more I think about it, the more potential issues I see people having with the wording of this law.
That being said, if you are unable to elicit multiple affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreements during sex, you’re likely doing it wrong…
This law is going to be a major problem. The law does not require verbal consent, but it does not define what constitutes nonverbal consent. Also, this law also requires schools to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard for allegations - meaning someone has committed sexual assault if there is a greater than 50 percent likelihood of guilt - that is lower than the reasonable doubt standard used in courts.
None of today’s college kids are going to consider this while partying it up, this legislation was written so the Berkeley lunatics will have a feel good moment thinking they are changing the world.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
At first I thought you fellers were joking. Then I googled “good-to-go app.” Then I thought maybe I was reading some type of The Onion-esque article.
Do you guys realize this explicit permission for sex is nothing new? 20 years ago when I was driving around LA listening to talk radio all the time, there would be these feminist whackos on the air saying men needed permission in writing.
What’s really great about that Good-to-Go ap is the way young people are about these devises today, many young women will actually use the ap which will irk the feminists wackos because they are really just man haters looking to cock block.
[quote]on edge wrote:
Do you guys realize this explicit permission for sex is nothing new? 20 years ago when I was driving around LA listening to talk radio all the time, there would be these feminist whackos on the air saying men needed permission in writing.
What’s really great about that Good-to-Go ap is the way young people are about these devises today, many young women will actually use the ap which will irk the feminists wackos because they are really just man haters looking to cock block.[/quote]
I actually remember hearing something like this when I was a bit younger, but in the form of contracts for sex, but as I remember it conservatives had put it out there and it was dem feminists who were against it because it was binding haha. Can’t say no after you sign…
I see both sides. I’ve been a victim of false accusations by a woman before, but she lied about me having consentual sex with her to cause a fight with her boyfriend…
Being this is around to protect college women, and in my own town guys being busted for rape with minimal evidence, especially in cases where it’s drunk white girls accusing black males, I just see lots of problems with it down the road.
