Is ‘Yes Means Yes’ Unstoppable?

[Mehrunes]

Asking "would you like a cup of tea?" is looking for affirmative consent. It's hardly an extreme request. The definition of "consent" isn't changing. Requiring affirmative consent just removes the idiotic argument of "well, I thought she wanted it, even though she was kinda fighting me, she was just playing hard to get" rapist bullshit.

It albo nicely puts the burden of proof on the accused but who cares about due process. Gotta deal with Extreme rape apologia with complete overkill despite that it would most likely not fly in court in modern sociopolitical climate anyway.

[May90]

To use boxing with these laws. Person A asks Person B, may I punch you now. May I jab you now? May I upper cut you now? So on and so forth the whole boxing match?

That's the whole reason that the example in the OP would be considered rape when compared to these "yes means yes" laws, because you are REQUIRED to ask CONSENT before each AND every action.

No, it is not necessary, because the context is obvious in the situation. Now, if the people are new in boxing, or if it is some special kind of sparring, then yes, they can talk in advance about the details. Same way, people before having sex better make it clear to each other (at least, at some point in their relationship) what they are okay with and what not. That's basically what consent is. You don't have to say every single time you want to make a motion whether the partner is okay with it. You do have the ability to revoke consent at any point though - similarly, in boxing sparring you have the ability to say, "Okay, that's it, we are ending it".

Not sure what's so confusing here...

So you are in fact calling Endus's tea comparison stupid? Because he made the decision sex is tea.

And the comparison for boxing becomes asking to take a swing or block a punch before each movement. Next.

Endus was talking about the situation of two people, with one offering tea to another. Endus' comparison is relevant. Yours is not.

[Endus]

The simplest is to just make sex effectively a crime (since under affirmative consent you cannot practically have sex) and while many like Endus or May90 ect will misrepresent this as merely "Stopping rape," they are being misleading either intentionally or out of ignorance. These policies cast a wide net, have no real interpretative solidity to them and basically can be easily abused to throw anyone in jail under a mere accusation. It is in effect a statutory idea whose purpose is to make sure that if we (As in society) want to punish somebody we absolutely can punish them and have a reason to do it.

This is just wildly off-base.

The standard has always been affirmative consent. Because if an accusation comes out, and the victim says they didn't consent, the accuser will be obliged to demonstrate how they were sure the victim was consenting. Affirmative consent policies don't actually change the legal requirements, in the vast majority of instances; they merely clarify what has always been the standard.

Because "no means no" seemed to require a strong refusal of consent was required, otherwise you HAD consent. That consent was presumed to exist. That was never the case, under the law; affirmative consent just better explains the actual legal requirements.

There is no "wide net". If you didn't have reason to think they were willing partners, you were raping them. That's what affirmative consent says.

[alexkeren]

Here's SUNY's policy; http://system.suny.edu/sexual-violen...ative-consent/

From this one, "Consent to any sexual act or prior consensual sexual activity between or with any party does not necessarily constitute consent to any other sexual act."

Concurs with my point, every act must have consent.

Here's UMN's; https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa

Chosen because they came up first on Google. Neither of those support your claim as to what "affirmative consent" entails; they make it clear that it can be words or actions, and that it must be present, and may be withdrawn at any point, and that lack of resistance as opposed to enthusiastic participation is equivalent to such withdrawal.

And from UMN's link, again, "Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity."

These laws, and the directions handed out, require every step gets consent. Not just at the beginning.

[Dextroden]

No, it is not necessary, because the context is obvious in the situation. Now, if the people are new in boxing, or if it is some special kind of sparring, then yes, they can talk in advance about the details. Same way, people before having sex better make it clear to each other (at least, at some point in their relationship) what they are okay with and what not. That's basically what consent is. You don't have to say every single time you want to make a motion whether the partner is okay with it. You do have the ability to revoke consent at any point though - similarly, in boxing sparring you have the ability to say, "Okay, that's it, we are ending it".

Not sure what's so confusing here...


Endus was talking about the situation of two people, with one offering tea to another. Endus' comparison is relevant. Yours is not.

Of course not. Opposition to what you think is always incorrect.

[Bollocks]

There is a few factors going on here.

First there is the cultural anxiety about free sexuality, part of this as a response to the elite media's voyeurism about the sex lives of young adults. Particularly college age woman, and in a painful irony a fear that we are losing out or being exploited by this free libertine sexual atmosphere. In this way both traditionalist conservatives and feminists get to combine forces, one gets to create a prosthetic were the family and social moors once ruled, the other gets to pretend its creating something radical and knew.

The second is just the general trend towards an over legislated society and over regulation and bureaucratization of our private lives by the increasingly ever present state. In a sense this is the expansion of managerialism or technocracy into micromanagement of peoples lives via creating new departments and avenues for policing of activity and behavior. For Feminists with an interest in recreating society, this is ideal since they will likely be the ones operating and running this new avenue of bureaucracy.

As it turns out free sex and no sexual moors has downsides. Mainly people get hurt, women have sex we later regret, boyfriends break our hearts and some guys lie to get a quickie. These are all terrible things, but really shouldn't justify any legislative action, but IMHO in the eyes of some people if something bad is happening it MANDATES some grandiose government policy to address it. The simplest is to just make sex effectively a crime (since under affirmative consent you cannot practically have sex) and while many like @Endus ;or @May90 ;ect will misrepresent this as merely "Stopping rape," they are being misleading either intentionally or out of ignorance. These policies cast a wide net, have no real interpretative solidity to them and basically can be easily abused to throw anyone in jail under a mere accusation. It is in effect a statutory idea whose purpose is to make sure that if we (As in society) want to punish somebody we absolutely can punish them and have a reason to do it.

- - - Updated - - -



Traditionalist conservatives and most mainstay conservatives are going to go along with it, either because it creates a new means of controlling the public's sexuality since we've discredited religion and the family, so bureaucracy is all they can hope for, OR out of simple fear of appearing okay with something as ominously named as "Rape Culture."

I can somewhat agree with the first point, but that only applies to religious conservatives which are the ones concerned with sex, but that doesn't apply to the remaining conservatives and the second point doesn't make much sense given the little attention this bill recieved. I mean did you know that there was a feminist group complaining on the sex scene in the killing joke movie? I just realized that today.

[Endus]

It albo nicely puts the burden of proof on the accused but who cares about due process.

The burden of proof was always on the accused, to demonstrate they reasonably thought they had consent. That's been the standard for rape cases for literally decades, if not centuries, because for a rape case to go to court, the victim is claiming they did NOT consent. So your defense has to be able to provide evidence as to why the victim is incorrect. You're the one who has to provide this, because we're talking about consent, which is the victim's state of mind, and they're better suited to be aware of that than anyone else, so if you want to contradict their statement, you're going to have to be able to provide an argument and/or evidence to back that up.

That's always been the case.

- - - Updated - - -

From this one, "Consent to any sexual act or prior consensual sexual activity between or with any party does not necessarily constitute consent to any other sexual act."

Concurs with my point, every act must have consent.

And from UMN's link, again, "Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity."

These laws, and the directions handed out, require every step gets consent. Not just at the beginning.

And that consent can be words or actions. The parts you're discussing mean that if she consents to a blowjob, you don't have justification to force it into anything further without her continued consent.

Yes; they have to continue to be consenting. If they're still participating and enjoying, that is consent. If they go limp, that isn't. If they don't seem comfortable with going further, that isn't. And so on.

This stuff should be really obvious. It's not a fine distinction, and it really kind of disturbs me that some of you think it is. Why on Earth would you want to push someone into sex when they're passive and unresisting, rather than an eager contributor? Seriously, ew.

[THE Bigzoman]

Anyway, what I don't understand is why is this limited to colleges and the like only when it's state law. If it was an initiative of a college or a group of them, I could understand that. After all, US colleges are places of feels and not places of learning. But it's the state telling them to do it. While keeping the criminal law in the old (and sane) way. Sounds rather inconsistent. Unless they are using places of feels as testing ground for insanity to make a point about how insane it actually is.

I'm torn on this.

If this is really the holy grail of the whole rape issue, why not broaden the scope to everyone? Why have it only to apply to young adults for 4-5 years?

A part of me thinks that advocates know that if it were applied to everyone, that it would face more scrutiny and push-back. The whole "When they came for socialists, I didn't worry" kind of thing. Who gives a shit about college kids? They probably had it coming anyway.

But another part of me thinks that colleges are just a testing ground and an attempt to set a precedent before they go for the big prize. After all, people who abide by a law to a certain degree when they're younger are probably more likely to accept another version of it when they're older.

It makes sense.

[Theodarzna]

This is just wildly off-base.

The standard has always been affirmative consent. Because if an accusation comes out, and the victim says they didn't consent, the accuser will be obliged to demonstrate how they were sure the victim was consenting. Affirmative consent policies don't actually change the legal requirements, in the vast majority of instances; they merely clarify what has always been the standard.

Because "no means no" seemed to require a strong refusal of consent was required, otherwise you HAD consent. That consent was presumed to exist. That was never the case, under the law; affirmative consent just better explains the actual legal requirements.

There is no "wide net". If you didn't have reason to think they were willing partners, you were raping them. That's what affirmative consent says.

It absolutely is not. Advocates acknowledge that affirmative consent prohibits a wide range of ordinary behavior, but simply assume that people won’t seek redress in seemingly minor cases even though they are entitled to do so. By casting such a wide net, affirmative consent gives the authorities broad leeway to pick and choose whom to punish—meaning, as is usually the case with such overbroad legislation, that the poor, minorities, and other socially disadvantaged groups will be hit hardest. The standard has never been affirmative consent, you are simply lying as you are wanton to do in the many discussion were you are wrong.

If things are already an "affirmative consent," situation there would be zero incentive to make that the law of the land, which it is not. The current standard is No means No, and that the law reflects that even in rape the accuser in theory has to prove the other person guilty. I know in practice we through all concepts of law, fairness and justice out the window because a woman is crying in the corner, BUT the law is clear that the burden falls officially on the accuser not the accused to prove a crime occurred, even in rape. THUS the desire to change the law. If affirmative consent was the law, which it isn't and you are absolutely lying through your teeth about this and being disingenuous as you always are, then there would be zero need to add these Yes Means Yes statutes.

[Mehrunes]

Not really, no.

The difference between "no means no" and "yes means yes" is that the former appears to presume consent; if you don't actively say "no", you're consenting. So if you're too afraid to say no, you "consent". If you're passed out, well, you can't say no! And so forth.

All things which are obviously rape, but which "no means no" wouldn't contradict.

And which for some magical reason are still rape in areas that don't use affirmative consent.

This is incorrect. There's non-verbal forms of consent, like when she grabs your hand and puts it somewhere, or the like. Affirmative consent isn't about asking constantly, it's about being sure they're still into it.

And yet when similar law was passed in California even the lawmakers who supported it were either not sure about it or outright stated verbal consent is needed. Because, you know, the victim could have been to afraid to speak their mind and people misreading body language isn't uncommon. "I thought they gave clear signals of affirmation" is shit defense with yes means yes laws. Especially once you factor in that different people use different signals.

[Endus]

It absolutely is not. Advocates acknowledge that affirmative consent prohibits a wide range of ordinary behavior, but simply assume that people won’t seek redress in seemingly minor cases even though they are entitled to do so.

I don't see any remote way that this could possibly be true. So I'm gonna ask that you provide even one single example of what you think is such "ordinary behaviour", that affirmative consent would falsely flag.

[Deleted]

I'm not bothered, the more this happens, the more relationships will break down, the divide between the sexes will grow and the Western World will go the way of Japan.

[Theodarzna]

I can somewhat agree with the first point, but that only applies to religious conservatives which are the ones concerned with sex, but that doesn't apply to the remaining conservatives and the second point doesn't make much sense given the little attention this bill recieved. I mean did you know that there was a feminist group complaining on the sex scene in the killing joke movie? I just realized that today.

It applies to generally everyone. Even the most faux-"progressive," will be squeamish thinking their daughter, sister, or mother is off at college getting plowed by frat guys and actually enjoying it. Activists in favor of Yes means Yes are hesitant to readily and openly discuss the nature of the bills and ideas of Yes means Yes, because it is a tough thing to sell to the public that they are basically making the sex that everyone has and has had since time immemorial illegal and for all practical purposes makes it impossible to prove it was legally sanctioned if one party decides to raise a stink, or if they fully apply the way it works on college campus' if ANYBODY decides to raise an issue.

[Dextroden]

I don't see any remote way that this could possibly be true. So I'm gonna ask that you provide even one single example of what you think is such "ordinary behaviour", that affirmative consent would falsely flag.

Kiss your significant other as a surprise.

Did they ask for it? No? Welcome to rape burg.

[Endus]

And which for some magical reason are still rape in areas that don't use affirmative consent.

Because affirmative consent has always been the legal standard. That's the point.

And yet when similar law was passed in California even the lawmakers who supported it were either not sure about it or outright stated verbal consent is needed. Because, you know, the victim could have been to afraid to speak their mind and people misreading body language isn't uncommon. "I thought they gave clear signals of affirmation" is shit defense with yes means yes laws. Especially once you factor in that different people use different signals.

Here's the actual bill; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201320140SB967

Doesn't make any statement that the consent has to be verbal.

- - - Updated - - -

Kiss your significant other as a surprise.

Did they ask for it? No? Welcome to rape burg.

A kiss doesn't qualify as "rape" under any law that I'm aware of. Try again.

[Theodarzna]

I don't see any remote way that this could possibly be true. So I'm gonna ask that you provide even one single example of what you think is such "ordinary behaviour", that affirmative consent would falsely flag.

A boyfriend smacks my ass or comes up behind me and starts kissing my neck. Normal ass relationship stuff that I know some of you guys are unaware of.

I am not giving "consent," under any feminist interpretation of what that means, if I don't want it I simply say "No, I'm not interested."

Yes means Yes, actually does mean that I'd have to be ASKED if I want my ass smacked, each time, and on each cheek. Considering I actually interact with the Title IX officers and actually have been part of organizing one of these kangaroo courts I am going to say I know more than a forum moderator who I suppose gets his information purely from Laci Green and XOJane.

[Dextroden]

Because affirmative consent has always been the legal standard. That's the point.



Here's the actual bill; https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...201320140SB967

Doesn't make any statement that the consent has to be verbal.

- - - Updated - - -



A kiss doesn't qualify as "rape" under any law that I'm aware of. Try again.

It's sexual contact obtained with no consent.

Or are you really going to argue the border between sexual assault has not been blurred by idiots like you?

Infracted. Flaming is not tolerated here

[Endus]

A boyfriend smacks my ass or comes up behind me and starts kissing my neck. Normal ass relationship stuff that I know some of you guys are unaware of.

I am not giving "consent," under any feminist interpretation of what that means, if I don't want it I simply say "No, I'm not interested."

Again, kisses don't qualify as "rape", in the first place. Nor does a smack on the ass.

[DarkTZeratul]

A kiss doesn't qualify as "rape" under any law that I'm aware of. Try again.

Alright, let's go bigger. A girl decides to wake up her boyfriend with a blowjob.

[Deleted]

Soon all sex will have to take place at government licenced reproduction centres, with a lawyer on hand to obtain consent after each stroke.