|
California debates 'yes means yes' sex assault law
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 12:46:05
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned.
Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-10-03 12:46:46
true. Courtney Cox too.
I can live without Lisa Kudrow though.
Finally some Monica love!
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 12:47:47
true. Courtney Cox too.
I can live without Lisa Kudrow though.
Finally some Monica love!

I'm not going to lie to you. At the time, it was all about Jennifer Aniston.
But as I've gotten older there's been a balancing of appreciation.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2014-10-03 12:48:21
Ok let me try it this way,
I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally).
BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't).
And yet you don't see any potential for abuse?
They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. lol@ clearly defined legal definitions.
Obviously to Jassik, broad definitions = clearly defined.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-10-03 12:49:31
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned. lol... that's not even Jennifer Anniston...
Siren.Mosin
By Siren.Mosin 2014-10-03 12:50:16
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
shoot, looks good to me.
idk who she is or wtf Ram & mald is though, am I missing something important?
[+]
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 12:50:19
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned. lol... that's not even Jennifer Anniston...
No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was.
Either way, my point stands.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-10-03 12:57:53
Ok let me try it this way,
I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally).
BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't).
And yet you don't see any potential for abuse?
They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
By Blazed1979 2014-10-03 12:58:44
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned. lol... that's not even Jennifer Anniston...
No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was.
Either way, my point stands. idk dude i typed "Jennifer Aniston 2014 nasty" and got used the first image I got.
By Blazed1979 2014-10-03 13:03:32
Ok let me try it this way,
I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally).
BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't).
And yet you don't see any potential for abuse?
They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
I haven't had a drink in over 12 years and I don't sleep with strangers, or people I am not entirely comfortable with for that matter.
But I'm in my mid 30's and way past the raging hormones of my teens to mid/late 20's. I know how a bunch of young men are going to be criminalized as a result of this, even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions.
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-10-03 13:03:46
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned. lol... that's not even Jennifer Anniston...
No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was.
Either way, my point stands. idk dude i typed "Jennifer Aniston 2014 nasty" and got used the first image I got. The internet can be a cruel mistress! It won't be the last time it lies to you!
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-10-03 13:05:15
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned. lol... that's not even Jennifer Anniston...
No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was.
Either way, my point stands. idk dude i typed "Jennifer Aniston 2014 nasty" and got used the first image I got. The internet can be a cruel mistress! It won't be the last time it lies to you! Well at least she can't accuse me of raping her.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-10-03 13:06:06
Ok let me try it this way,
I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally).
BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't).
And yet you don't see any potential for abuse?
They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
I haven't had a drink in over 12 years and I don't sleep with strangers, or people I am not entirely comfortable with for that matter.
But I'm in my mid 30's and way past the raging hormones of my teens to mid/late 20's. I know how a bunch of young men are going to be criminalized as a result of this, even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions.
Don't you mean you're just so awful in bed that your partner will have to cry rape instead of living with the shame?
Gawd, grow up already!
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-10-03 13:09:35
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret.
I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
"I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary"
No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-10-03 13:10:33
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret.
I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
"I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary"
No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words.
Your honor, "I was totally smashed, I was incapacitated".
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-10-03 13:16:31
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret.
I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
"I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary"
No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words.
Your honor, "I was totally smashed, I was incapacitated".
"Your honor, she initiated it and clearly enjoyed it until her friends found out."
Innocent until proven guilty, she would have to prove she was incapacitated.
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 13:17:45
Quote: even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions.
Criminal -- maybe not.
"Bad" -- subjective. "Love 'em and leave 'em" is pretty *** terrible, in my opinion, unless it's a mutual understanding of consequence-free sex in the first place. Then again, if you enter into that without knowing and trusting the person first, you're an idiot.
[+]
Cerberus.Anjisnu
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2803
By Cerberus.Anjisnu 2014-10-03 13:22:01
To be fair Ramyrez I don't think any single and drunk male or female is lookin for spouse material in a bar
[+]
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 13:25:32
To be fair Ramyrez I don't think any single and drunk male or female is lookin for spouse material in a bar
I don't think you're familiar enough with the rural portion of the country's population.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-10-03 13:25:50
Quote: even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions.
Criminal -- maybe not.
"Bad" -- subjective. "Love 'em and leave 'em" is pretty *** terrible, in my opinion, unless it's a mutual understanding of consequence-free sex in the first place. Then again, if you enter into that without knowing and trusting the person first, you're an idiot. Sometimes I think I'm talking to my grandmother when I'm talking to you. There's nothing wrong with going out and just *** some random. There's nothing bad about it if they're both consenting adults.
Intent is important but just because you didn't go into the act with the intention of raping someone doesn't mean you didn't actually end up raping someone.
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-10-03 13:26:16
You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday?
No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret.
I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague.
Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent?
Its too vague.
"I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary"
No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words.
Your honor, "I was totally smashed, I was incapacitated".
"Your honor, she initiated it and clearly enjoyed it until her friends found out."
Innocent until proven guilty, she would have to prove she was incapacitated. Your honor, I binge drank 6 beers that night. It *** me up.
[+]
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6052
By Leviathan.Comeatmebro 2014-10-03 13:26:51
"Your honor, she initiated it and clearly enjoyed it until her friends found out."
Innocent until proven guilty, she would have to prove she was incapacitated. it's not very hard to get testimony that you were drinking in a bar, witnesses everywhere.. even if you weren't incapacitated at that time i would think people would be likely to go along with it if you claimed a few more drinks after you left
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-10-03 13:29:36
Can we exterminate the human species yet? Go for it.
I honestly don't think it's any fun if we do it to ourselves directly.
I keep holding out hope for the rise of the lizard men. Or even the robots, be it a la The Matrix or Terminator.
Except she ALWAYS wins. Women always win in the court of public opinion. She beats you unconscious, and everyone just says "you must of done something to piss her off", you slap her and your this evil man who deserves to be punished. There is a reason that while men are the victims of 40% of domestic abuse, they never get any sort of legal protection and the man always gets handcuffed and brought to the police station, even if he's bleeding and bruised.
Female privilege is rampant right now and the liberals have altered the narrative in such a way that it's politically incorrect to point that out. It's not politically acceptable to hold a women accountable for her actions. That is some scary sh!t right there.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-10-03 13:30:10
Have you guys ever been in a court room? lol...
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6709
By Ragnarok.Nausi 2014-10-03 13:30:15
(1) 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 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.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
Pulled this from the text of the law, doesn't the bold part mean that if the accused had been drinking, that they are unable to determine affirmative consent?
Man, this thing is worse than I thought.
[+]
Caitsith.Zahrah
Server: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2014-10-03 13:31:21
IDK what's going on in your heads', but the realistic scenario is she might make a comment to her friends about your performance. Worse case, she might say you have a small *** during the gal-gab.
Continue your freak out session though.
[+]
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-10-03 13:32:12
Can we exterminate the human species yet? Go for it.
I honestly don't think it's any fun if we do it to ourselves directly.
I keep holding out hope for the rise of the lizard men. Or even the robots, be it a la The Matrix or Terminator.
Except she ALWAYS wins. Women always win in the court of public opinion. She beats you unconscious, and everyone just says "you must of done something to piss her off", you slap her and your this evil man who deserves to be punished. There is a reason that while men are the victims of 40% of domestic abuse, they never get any sort of legal protection and the man always gets handcuffed and brought to the police station, even if he's bleeding and bruised.
Female privilege is rampant right now and the liberals have altered the narrative in such a way that it's politically incorrect to point that out. It's not politically acceptable to hold a women accountable for her actions. That is some scary sh!t right there. That has to be about one of the dumber things you've ever posted here.
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 13:32:46
Quote: even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions.
Criminal -- maybe not.
"Bad" -- subjective. "Love 'em and leave 'em" is pretty *** terrible, in my opinion, unless it's a mutual understanding of consequence-free sex in the first place. Then again, if you enter into that without knowing and trusting the person first, you're an idiot. Sometimes I think I'm talking to my grandmother when I'm talking to you. There's nothing wrong with going out and just *** some random. There's nothing bad about it if they're both consenting adults.
Intent is important but just because you didn't go into the act with the intention of raping someone doesn't mean you didn't actually end up raping someone.
I'm not against people engaging in random hookups, per se. Like you said, consenting adults.
I'm just the kind that would be a bit paranoid about sleeping with someone I don't know at least to some degree. Those seem like the situations -- to me -- where you really might end up with false rape requests. That or sleeping with people you know you shouldn't, like people who are in relationships already.
[+]
Server: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6052
By Leviathan.Comeatmebro 2014-10-03 13:33:56
It was his fault he got accused of rape, he shouldn't have had consensual sex with that girl. She had a boyfriend, you know he was looking for trouble.
By Ramyrez 2014-10-03 13:35:32
Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: »It was his fault he got accused of rape, he shouldn't have had consensual sex with that girl. She had a boyfriend, you know he was looking for trouble.
Between us, one of us has had a house burned down because a friend slept with a girl who was romantically entangled otherwise, and he knew it.
I don't blame anyone but the arsonist.
But it could have been avoided if said friend found somewhere else to whet his willy.
Quote: SAN DIEGO (AP) — College students have heard a similar refrain for years in campaigns to stop sexual assault: No means no.
Now, as universities around the country that are facing pressure over the handling of rape allegations adopt policies to define consensual sex, California is poised to take it a step further. Lawmakers are considering what would be the first-in-the-nation measure requiring all colleges that receive public funds to set a standard for when "yes means yes."
Defining consensual sex is a growing trend by universities in an effort to do more to protect victims. From the University of California system to Yale, schools have been adopting standards to distinguish when consent was given for a sexual activity and when it was not.
Legislation passed by California's state Senate in May and coming before the Assembly this month would require all schools that receive public funds for student financial assistance to set a so-called "affirmative consent standard" that could be used in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault allegations. That would be defined as "an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision" by each party to engage in sexual activity.
Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it's also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep.
Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as maybe a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.
Several state legislatures, including Maryland, Texas and Connecticut, introduced bills in the past year to push colleges to do more after a White House task force reported that 1 in 5 female college students is a victim of sexual assault. The U.S. Education Department also took the unprecedented step of releasing the names of schools facing federal investigation for the way they handle sexual abuse allegations.
But no state legislation has gone as far as California's bill in requiring a consent standard.
Critics say the state is overstepping its bounds. The Los Angeles Times in an editorial after the bill passed the state Senate 27-4 wrote that it raises questions as to whether it is "reasonable" or "enforceable." The legislation is based on the White House task force's recommendations.
"It seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely as to tell young people what steps they must take in the privacy of their own dorm rooms," the newspaper said.
Some fear navigating the murky waters of consent spells trouble for universities.
"Frequently these cases involve two individuals, both of whom maybe were under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and it can be very tricky to ascertain whether consent was obtained," said Ada Meloy, general counsel of the American Council on Education, which represents college presidents.
She said schools need to guarantee a safe environment for students, while law enforcement is best suited for handling more serious sexual assault cases.
John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University's Law School professor, believes having university disciplinary panels interpret vague cues and body language will open the door for more lawsuits.
The legal definition of rape in most states means the perpetrator used force or the threat of force against the victim, but the California legislation could set the stage in which both parties could accuse each other of sexual assault, he said.
"This bill would very, very radically change the definition of rape," he said.
University of California at Berkeley student Meghan Warner, 20, said that's a good thing. She said she was sexually assaulted during her freshman year by two men at a fraternity but didn't report it because she believed "that unless it was a stranger at night with a weapon who attacked you when you were walking home, that it wasn't rape. It's just a crappy thing that happened." She now runs campus workshops to teach students what constitutes consent.
"Most students don't know what consent is," she said. "I've asked at the workshops how many people think if a girl is blacked out drunk that it's OK to have sex with her. The amount of people who raised their hands was just startling."
Defining consent may be easy to do on paper, said Laura Nguyen, a 21-year-old San Diego State University senior, but "we're talking about college students out at night and the reality is there's not just 'yes' or 'no.' There is a lot of in between. I really think it depends on the situation."
The legislation initially stated that "if there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved."
After some interpreted that as asking people to stop after each kiss to get a verbal agreement before going to the next level, the bill was amended to say consent must be "ongoing" and "can be revoked at any time."
"California needs to provide our students with education, resources, consistent policies and justice so that the system is not stacked against survivors," state Sen. Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, said in promoting the bill.
Supporters say investigators would have to determine whether consent had been given by both parties instead of focusing on whether the complainant resisted or said no.
Denice Labertew of the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault said the bill fosters a cultural change: "There's a lot of criticism around affirmative consent because it requires us to change the way we normally think about this."
Source
|
|