the "yes means yes" law (high school, colleges)

[Sydney123]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

If both parties don't give an explicit "yes" to a specific sexual act, there was rape. How on earth does protect against bogus claims? Have you ever, once in your life given an ongoing explicit "yes" during sex?

There's no way to protect against bogus claims no matter what law is passed. The law says that she must be
"Capable" of making a rational choice as to whether or not to do so. These claims that she must keep saying
"yes" throughout is just a smoke screen that the nay sayers are using to bolster their argument, as is their claim that bogus claims will skyrocket. I'd wager that most of these people don't have a dog in the fight to begin with. Not in college or don't have kids that attend or are about to attend and are just taking yet another opportunity to attack women as being vindictive liars who's sole purpose in life it to punish men.

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Does "oh yeah! Oh yeah!, oh yeah! Oh baby oh yeah!, yeah like that, yes Yes YES!" count?

No.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

No.

Bummer.

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by Sydney123

There's no way to protect against bogus claims no matter what law is passed. The law says that she must be
"Capable" of making a rational choice as to whether or not to do so. These claims that she must keep saying
"yes" throughout is just a smoke screen that the nay sayers are using to bolster their argument, as is their claim that bogus claims will skyrocket. I'd wager that most of these people don't have a dog in the fight to begin with. Not in college or don't have kids that attend or are about to attend and are just taking yet another opportunity to attack women as being vindictive liars who's sole purpose in life it to punish men.

You are showing that you think this law is only for women.

This law makes it way easier for someone to make these bogus claims.

"An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others(I love this.) to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."-SB967

Don't you see that this makes nearly every single sexual encounter between people sexual assault? That means that nearly every sexual active college student has committed sexual assault, both men and women. However, the issue arises that women make false reports of rape way more than men, women have buyers remorse in terms of sex way more then man and women have more reasons to regret a sexual experience then men. In addition to this, women are consistently favored by juries and the judicial system as a whole. So even if men and women are covered equally under this law, women are going to exploit this law much more than men will. Even your post above shows that if a women charges a man with sexual assault because she didn't provide affirmative consent, but he didn't provide affirmative consent either, the judicial system/school will favor her and punish him. This is the entire issue I have with this law, it turns everyone into criminals, which will be used by women against men.

Crazy liberals love to scream "keep the government out of our bedroom", why aren't they screaming now? (I'm liberal for the most part.)

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

Please define out of control. If you are going off the 1 in 5 statistic that is pure bull****. The rate of real rape is much higher in Oakland where you live than at most schools. Should this law be in place in Oakland instead of schools?


So what should be an acceptable numbers of victims? 1 out of 6? 1 out of 8? 10? 20?
I'll ask you the same question. Have you ever had ongoing explicit consent during a sexual act?

Actually, as a gay man who's been around the block, I've been in situations where I didn't exactly give consent and I wasn't quite sure what to do after the fact. I didn't make a big deal out of it and call the police, but maybe I should have. I've also been drugged with GHB and luckily nothing happened to me because I was able to get away. I guess I should just blame myself for that instead of the would-be jerk that tried to rape me right?

Even though I am personally very liberal when it comes to sex, that is an equally valid reason to establish a much stronger puritanical mentality like the past. This wasn't an issue in the past because people wouldn't go out and get drunk and have sex with some random person, people kept it in their pants. In some ways I think the past was better because people were much less animalistic about sex, it was more civilized. I think it is interesting that people think it is modern and progressive to be liberal about sex when that is how many animals are and how ancient humans were.

I don't see how it is, but that's just my opinion. People are screaming for gender equality left and right, and to me this is a step in the right direction

My replies are bolded.

[Iaskwhy]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

So what should be an acceptable numbers of victims? 1 out of 6? 1 out of 8? 10? 20?

It's under 2% and lower than that if discount grey area cases with alcohol involved. The Rape Epidemic Is a Fiction | National Review Online

Actually, as a gay man who's been around the block, I've been in situations where I didn't exactly give consent and I wasn't quite sure what to do after the fact. I didn't make a big deal out of it and call the police, but maybe I should have. I've also been drugged with GHB and luckily nothing happened to me because I was able to get away. I guess I should just blame myself for that instead of the would-be jerk that tried to rape me right?

It's really messed up that you were drugged. I would absolute blame the jerk that did that to you. However, that is vastly different than what we were talking about here. If someone drugs someone else to have their way with them that person should absolutely be locked up, no question about it and I think everyone in this thread would agree with me. I'm not really sure what you mean about "didn't exactly give consent" so I cannot comment on that.

Even though I am personally very liberal when it comes to sex, that is an equally valid reason to establish a much stronger puritanical mentality like the past. This wasn't an issue in the past because people wouldn't go out and get drunk and have sex with some random person, people kept it in their pants. In some ways I think the past was better because people were much less animalistic about sex, it was more civilized. I think it is interesting that people think it is modern and progressive to be liberal about sex when that is how many animals are and how ancient humans were.

I don't see how it is, but that's just my opinion. People are screaming for gender equality left and right, and to me this is a step in the right direction

I see this as another step back in men's rights in favor for women's rights, as has been the trend lately.

Bold.

[scottinpdx]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I guess I'm in the underwhelming minority here, but I think this law is sorely needed. Sexual assaults on campus are OUT OF CONTROL and most guys who sexually assault women get away with it. I think this makes everyone more accountable for their actions. The "well she didn't say NO!" excuse has gone on way too long. And like others have pointed out, being drunk and having sex with someone happens way too often. Personally, I think guys should AVOID drunk chicks at frat parties to protect themselves from being accused of 'rape' just as women should avoid getting plastered and having drunk sex with a guy that's only after her because she's drunk and doesn't have the judgment to protect herself. Sex in and of itself isn't a bad thing, but people use alcohol to reduce their inhibitions way too often. It's a cultural thing that needs to stop. One of the reasons it exists in the first place is the puritanical mentality people have had about sex for so long. If we stopped shaming everyone from wanting to get laid in the first place, we wouldn't have such an unhealthy culture and model of binge drinking that leads to hazy consent.

I used to work in a bar/club across from a college campus. I would constantly see the following scnereo. Girl shows up wearing practicaly nothing, gets completly hammered and dances (...well dry humping each other) with random drunk guy, Both go home and hook up. The next day the girl tries to say she was raped. Always blames the guy even though she was just as much to blame as him.

On the other hand, I had to step in many times to stop a sober guy from picking up drunk girls.

[04kL4nD]

I mean you're basically proving my point. There's not much accountability for either side when binge drinking is so prevalent, so all this does is make people more aware of what they're getting themselves into.

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by Iaskwhy

If both parties don't give an explicit "yes" to a specific sexual act, there was rape. How on earth does protect against bogus claims? Have you ever, once in your life given an ongoing explicit "yes" during sex?

We're not talking about Harlequin Romances here. This is mainly designed to provide clear ground rules for casual campus "hookups" that have become pretty common in that age group these days.

Obviously it's still not a cure-all, since if either party doesn't wanna abide by 'em, then they obviously open themselves to some degree of 'risk', just like they do with, say, unprotected sex. Though if someone else has a better solution, let's hear it.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by mateo45

We're not talking about Harlequin Romances here. This is mainly designed to provide clear ground rules for casual campus "hookups" that have become pretty common in that age group these days.

Obviously it's still not a cure-all, since if either party doesn't wanna abide by 'em, then they obviously open themselves to some degree of 'risk', just like they do with, say, unprotected sex. Though if someone else has a better solution, let's hear it.

Better solution: Ban frats.