Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Bill, SB 967, would require “affirmative consent” before college-age couples can have sex. This would essentially outlaw sex that is had “while in the heat of passion”.
From Breitbart News:
SB 967, amended last week by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), would mandate that college students obtain “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.”
………..
“Obviously, there is a problem,” he said in the report. “SB 967 will change the equation so the system is not stacked against survivors by establishing an affirmative consent policy to make it clear that only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.’”
According to the language of the bill, “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, 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.”
If California is the future of our nation, then we are truly doomed!
Last edited by West Coast Republican; 06-06-2014 at 09:42 AM..
"Bill, SB 967, would require “affirmative consent” before college-age couples can have sex. This would essentially outlaw sex that is had “while in the heat of passion”.
From Breitbart News:
SB 967, amended last week by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), would mandate that college students obtain “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.”
………..
“Obviously, there is a problem,” he said in the report. “SB 967 will change the equation so the system is not stacked against survivors by establishing an affirmative consent policy to make it clear that only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.’”
According to the language of the bill, “consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, 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.”
If California is the future of our nation, than we are truly doomed!
Indeed, they're always first to come up with some crackpot idea ( or else it's new york) Interesting these loony ideas always happen in the most populated democrat states ( usually).
Have you actually read the whole text of the bill? It seems to be concerned with denying state funding to colleges and universities ("state funds for student financial assistance") who do not have acceptable policies in place for dealing with sexual violence and misconduct (and accusations concerning such) on campus. I see no problem with this. Sexual violence in places of higher education is a serious problem in America, and there is certainly no problem with the concept of enthusiastic consent.
The only thing that concerns me is that such laws do nothing to stop the problem at its source: the way people are raised and educated and taught to view each other, especially, how they are taught to view women and sex in general.
Have you actually read the whole text of the bill? It seems to be concerned with denying state funding to colleges and universities ("state funds for student financial assistance") who do not have acceptable policies in place for dealing with sexual violence and misconduct (and accusations concerning such) on campus. I see no problem with this. Sexual violence in places of higher education is a serious problem in America, and there is certainly no problem with the concept of enthusiastic consent.
While California can be nutty at times, the above post is a very valid point. We shouldn't be turning a blind eye towards sexual violence, rape, abuse, etc.
Have you actually read the whole text of the bill? It seems to be concerned with denying state funding to colleges and universities ("state funds for student financial assistance") who do not have acceptable policies in place for dealing with sexual violence and misconduct (and accusations concerning such) on campus. I see no problem with this. Sexual violence in places of higher education is a serious problem in America, and there is certainly no problem with the concept of enthusiastic consent.
The only thing that concerns me is that such laws do nothing to stop the problem at its source: the way people are raised and educated and taught to view each other, especially, how they are taught to view women and sex in general.
If this is the case, then Democrats have to stop accepting money from Hollywood. Hollywood is the reason why a lot of these problems you mentioned is Kool and acceptable.
Yes, Republicans, please come out fully against this bill and continue your successful outreach to women voters.
Quote:
If this is the case, then Democrats have to stop accepting money from Hollywood. Hollywood is the reason why a lot of these problems you mentioned is Kool and acceptable.
While California can be nutty at times, the above post is a very valid point. We shouldn't be turning a blind eye towards sexual violence, rape, abuse, etc.
We aren't turning a blind eye, we shouldn't be wasting tax payers money passing bills that make no difference.
This is the classic:
Something must be done
This is something
Therefore;
It must be done
Have you actually read the whole text of the bill? It seems to be concerned with denying state funding to colleges and universities ("state funds for student financial assistance") who do not have acceptable policies in place for dealing with sexual violence and misconduct (and accusations concerning such) on campus. I see no problem with this. Sexual violence in places of higher education is a serious problem in America, and there is certainly no problem with the concept of enthusiastic consent.
The only thing that concerns me is that such laws do nothing to stop the problem at its source: the way people are raised and educated and taught to view each other, especially, how they are taught to view women and sex in general.
No I did not read the whole bill, but from I did read I fail to see any logic behind it preventing rape or other forms of sexual violence on college campuses. It just seems like another loony California Nanny-State "Control the Masses" bill, the same type that was introduced in New York City to ban bottles of soda. It's just ridiculous how big the Government is in some states.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
