Is ‘Yes Means Yes’ Unstoppable?

[Anastacy]

In the context I mentioned, it does!

Alrighty, double standards and hypocrisy it is then.

Thanks for the discourse.

[May90]

Alrighty, double standards and hypocrisy it is then.

Thanks for the discourse.

Not sure why I even respond to people like you... *yawn*

[Masark]

Didn't Canadian judges also decide non penetrative sex with an animal didn't break beastiality laws?

Yes, because that's what the law says. Blame the people who wrote the law for not wording it correctly if they did in fact intend to ban such acts.

[Anastacy]

Not sure why I even respond to people like you... *yawn*

I'm not sure why, either. Planting one's feet firmly in their own hypocrisy is indeed boring, though, so we agree there.

[Fasc]

Oh this is fucking rich.

"Lacks nuance and interpretation" used to describe a very simple interaction that will prevent rape and save lives: that anything other than a firm Yes is not a Yes.

"inapplicable binary" used to describe that very same simple interaction. As if it's "inapplicable" to get *fucking consent from your partner before having sex.*

The only reason it's up for interpretation is because insecure men and pompous airbags (no names mentioned) suddenly hate the lack of wiggle room, deathly fearing that they can no longer just act on their urges without, you know, CONSENT.

And yet, you think the person you're replying to is "seriously disconnected from reality?"

Unreal.

If you think ANYTHING in a court of law is simple, you are beyond ill informed. Look at any basic introduction to contract law and how many cases have hinged upon the all important question of "Was a contract made?" covering verbal discussions only over many beers to misleading advertisements to gifts and so forth. If your default response is: "IT IS SO SIMPLE YOU BIG JERKS" then you're only proving your inability to even approach this discussion.

It is amusing that you think due process is only there to provide "wiggle room" for otherwise insidious rapists but eh... legal thinking isn't for you.

Again using contract law as example, judges take great pains to AVOID trying to put themselves into the mental state of the plaintiffs and defendants since it yields inaccurate, biased, unjust results that provide no clear line for common law usage (that is, a guide for future decisions). Contracts require a "manifestation of mutual assent" which for 95% of the population is most easily recognizable as a signature. However, in cases where no signature (or documents at all) exist, the ACTIONS of the parties are observed, not their state of mind, unless something exceptional is influencing those decisions like coercive tactics, extreme drunkenness (having alcohol isn't actually a problem inherently), etc. Defenses of "well I didn't UNDERSTAND" don't fly either unless you can prove you had some severe mental defect that inhibits understandand AND YOU CAN PROVE the defendant was aware of that defect. (Restatement Second of Contracts, Section 20)

Contract law is by no means binding on criminal law or torts, but the discussions involving the act of making a contract are persuasive particularly when it comes to mental states, mutual assent, etc.

"Yes means Yes" has been shut down repeatedly for the very simple reason of shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant (and conversely shifting the presumption of innocence away). Sexual interactions are as myriad and diverse as the personalities of those engaging in them. Hyper technical statutes like "Yes means Yes" attempt to par away ALL of that to force set strictures on these interactions.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ative-consent/

The ALI and their Restatements are not law, but the Restatements are possibly the most common secondary source quoted in Appeals/Supreme Court. The nigh unanimous vote to strike down even the amended version that didn't require verbalized assent (like California) is more than enough evidence to dismiss it.

"No means No" strikes the necessary balance between giving those actually harmed a vehicle to recover damages and pursue criminal charges while avoiding any breaches in Constitutionally provided due process to those accused. Now if we could actually stop people from convincing victims to withhold information, avoiding the police, refusing rape kits, and firing up accusations 6+ months later that'd be niiiiiice.

[Theodarzna]

Reads straight from the MRA playbook.

Would you like some good boy points?

[Fasc]

Reads straight from the MRA playbook.

I didn't realize basic law was "MRA playbook" but I'll be sure to let every female judge and lawyer know they're just channeling their internalized misogyny.

If you can't refute the points, don't bother playing.

[satimy]

Here's a thought: don't rape anyone and you won't have anything to worry about. I know that can be confusing for some people...

Would be nice if it was that simple, but when radical lunatics change the definition of rape, consent and whatever else relates to rape that's pretty much impossible. It looks like the fundamentalist Christians had it right all along with abstinence education.

[Fasc]

Would be nice if it was that simple, but when radical lunatics change the definition of rape, consent and whatever else relates to rape that's pretty much impossible. It looks like the fundamentalist Christians had it right all along with abstinence education.

And hilariously... the radical morons have completely used radical fundies' language and guilt tripping methodology.

"Don't watch Harry Potter because it allows Satan into your life and causes you to SIN!!"
Oh no, I don't want to sin! That's really bad!! Harry Potter into the garbage you go!!!

"Don't fail to get enthusiastic consent at all times else you're a sexist and a RAPIST!!!"
Oh no, I don't want to be sexist! That's really bad!! Affirmative consent is the only way to go forever!!!

======

Impossible to discuss anything with most of them because even mere criticism of the efficacy of a statute (command) is somehow synonymous to actually wanting rape (sin) to be legal (acceptable). Glad there is overwhelming sensibility within the ALI though, quite a few progressive trial judges would have LOVED to have a shiny new set of language to use in their decisions to destroy the evil rapists.

[Deleted]

Oh this is fucking rich.

Oh i just know this will be great.

"Lacks nuance and interpretation" used to describe a very simple interaction that will prevent rape and save lives: that anything other than a firm Yes is not a Yes.

Yeah because the sort of rapist that might kill you, is the kind to care about getting a yes.
Just as for all previous engagements i have had with you, are you for real?

"inapplicable binary" used to describe that very same simple interaction. As if it's "inapplicable" to get *fucking consent from your partner before having sex.*

This isn't actually about that.

The only reason it's up for interpretation is because insecure men and pompous airbags (no names mentioned) suddenly hate the lack of wiggle room, deathly fearing that they can no longer just act on their urges without, you know, CONSENT.

Its called due process and innocent until proven guilty.

And yet, you think the person you're replying to is "seriously disconnected from reality?"

No, its definitively you and your ilk.

- - - Updated - - -

Reads straight from the MRA playbook.

yes - See this not an argument.
Because, just because you have some seriously conditioning requiring you to think that men's rights is badthink - Does not make that so.

[hydrium]

Here's a thought: don't rape anyone and you won't have anything to worry about. I know that can be confusing for some people...

Your sig applies to you almost perfectly.

[callipygoustp]

Thank FUCKING god the reality I see everyday doesn't match the fucked up version of reality some of you paint in these ridiculous threads.

[Espe]

Thank FUCKING god the reality I see everyday doesn't match the fucked up version of reality some of you paint in these ridiculous threads.

Seriously, who would have thought suggesting people not rape others would be so controversial on mmoc?

[Powerogue]

Taking the chance of kissing with a girl at the club is not somewhere I'd like legislated.

We're getting to the point where about the only viable option is staying alone and waiting for the human race to die out. That'll teach them.

Good thing I'm ahead of the game.

[Fasc]

Seriously, who would have thought suggesting people not rape others would be so controversial on mmoc?

Yeah.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mo...rticle/2578857
Such.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/am...ed-for-rape-bu
A.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...sexual-assault
Simple.
http://helpsaveoursons.com/category/fighting-back/
Idea.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...t-laws/381518/

The only reasons you speak why you do is because A) you're trolling deliberately and/or B) you genuinely see no issues with corruption, lying, abuse, etc even existing. Given you're very quick to dismiss honest mistakes in government agencies as cruel malevolence... I'm going to just go with A. You don't really have a point worthy of discussion.

/shrug

[callipygoustp]

Seriously, who would have thought suggesting people not rape others would be so controversial on mmoc?

Utterly shocking that you would twist it to THAT. No surprise at all. Rolling my eyes, indeed.

[May90]

Yeah.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/mo...rticle/2578857
Such.
http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/11/am...ed-for-rape-bu
A.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/...sexual-assault
Simple.
http://helpsaveoursons.com/category/fighting-back/
Idea.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...t-laws/381518/

The only reasons you speak why you do is because A) you're trolling deliberately and/or B) you genuinely see no issues with corruption, lying, abuse, etc even existing. Given you're very quick to dismiss honest mistakes in government agencies as cruel malevolence... I'm going to just go with A. You don't really have a point worthy of discussion.

/shrug

Gotta love all these "sources".

Sure, such things happen, but the chances that they will affect you are like, 0.00000001%. Then, again, if people want to be paranoid, they are free to as well! After all, if you leave your house, you have a higher chance to die to a meteorite fall than if you stay, so better not risk it...

[Fasc]

Gotta love all these "sources".

Sure, such things happen, but the chances that they will affect you are like, 0.00000001%. Then, again, if people want to be paranoid, they are free to as well! After all, if you leave your house, you have a higher chance to die to a meteorite fall than if you stay, so better not risk it...

If you're going to be just completely intellectually dishonest, don't bother. If you have issue with the sources, then state WHY in some quantifiable terms aside from smug air quotes.

Further, there is a reason why case law is studied and focuses exclusively around times and places where new language needed to be adopted, old language dismissed, or a statute simply better clarified. You don't study the contract cases where clearly someone signed but claims they didn't agree to all the terms, because determining "manifestation of mutual assent" was decided pretty clearly back in the mid-1800's. Common law handles 99.99% of all cases handily, and if a trial judge goes way off the beaten path that same common law typically gives the appeals court an easy means of reversing or ordering a new trial.

"Yes means Yes" is brand new language, setting forth brand new statutory requirements that if put into effect for actual courts would create a complete discord between the specificity of the sexual assault/rape law and literally all other torts and criminal statutes. That's why ALI shot it down for the very reasons you're stating are just "paranoia." The examples weren't intended to be a "See how prolific it is!!" but rather "See how abused its already become in barely 2 years" on just college campuses. Trying to simply shame people for concerns about the efficacy of an unconstitutional statute is pathetic, the details matter more than you can possibly realize. Although, like Espe, I honestly think you're just trolling for the sake of trolling as you've produced zero counterfactual cases. /shrug

[May90]

If you're going to be just completely intellectually dishonest, don't bother. If you have issue with the sources, then state WHY in some quantifiable terms aside from smug air quotes.

Further, there is a reason why case law is studied and focuses exclusively around times and places where new language needed to be adopted, old language dismissed, or a statute simply better clarified. You don't study the contract cases where clearly someone signed but claims they didn't agree to all the terms, because determining "manifestation of mutual assent" was decided pretty clearly back in the mid-1800's. Common law handles 99.99% of all cases handily, and if a trial judge goes way off the beaten path that same common law typically gives the appeals court an easy means of reversing or ordering a new trial.

"Yes means Yes" is brand new language, setting forth brand new statutory requirements that if put into effect for actual courts would create a complete discord between the specificity of the sexual assault/rape law and literally all other torts and criminal statutes. That's why ALI shot it down for the very reasons you're stating are just "paranoia." The examples weren't intended to be a "See how prolific it is!!" but rather "See how abused its already become in barely 2 years" on just college campuses. Trying to simply shame people for concerns about the efficacy of an unconstitutional statute is pathetic, the details matter more than you can possibly realize. Although, like Espe, I honestly think you're just trolling for the sake of trolling as you've produced zero counterfactual cases. /shrug

You can post 200 stories, in a country of 300 million people - if that sample somehow makes you fear being wrongfully accused in rape and be imprisoned, then sorry, but, indeed, you are paranoid.

The advice "Don't rape anyone, and you have nothing to fear" is pretty obvious. Funny how people twist their narrative to try to make this advice look wrong! Then, again, these forums are so crazy with regards to anything that is related to society and politics, that I won't even bother trying to look surprised any more.

[Theodarzna]

If you're going to be just completely intellectually dishonest, don't bother. If you have issue with the sources, then state WHY in some quantifiable terms aside from smug air quotes.

Further, there is a reason why case law is studied and focuses exclusively around times and places where new language needed to be adopted, old language dismissed, or a statute simply better clarified. You don't study the contract cases where clearly someone signed but claims they didn't agree to all the terms, because determining "manifestation of mutual assent" was decided pretty clearly back in the mid-1800's. Common law handles 99.99% of all cases handily, and if a trial judge goes way off the beaten path that same common law typically gives the appeals court an easy means of reversing or ordering a new trial.

"Yes means Yes" is brand new language, setting forth brand new statutory requirements that if put into effect for actual courts would create a complete discord between the specificity of the sexual assault/rape law and literally all other torts and criminal statutes. That's why ALI shot it down for the very reasons you're stating are just "paranoia." The examples weren't intended to be a "See how prolific it is!!" but rather "See how abused its already become in barely 2 years" on just college campuses. Trying to simply shame people for concerns about the efficacy of an unconstitutional statute is pathetic, the details matter more than you can possibly realize. Although, like Espe, I honestly think you're just trolling for the sake of trolling as you've produced zero counterfactual cases. /shrug

May90, much like Endus, are not capable of intellectual honesty.


[Infracted]