09-29-2014, 05:44 PM | #1 | |
Silver LO
|
"Yes" Means "Yes"
As a note, this topic will be relating to sexual assault. I am hoping for a mature conversational debate here about it. If such topics are a trigger for you, you may wish to avoid this topic.
A new bill passed here in CA, regarding explicit consent for sexual acts on college campuses. Quote:
However, this bill personally does not sit completely right with me. While clear consent is very important, it also covers what would be consensual sex if one party threw back a couple shots, or even possibly anything that affects brain chemistry, even if they are fully aware they are in that state and still want and consent to the sex. What about people like myself, who are on mentally affecting medications on a daily basis? If someone's had a couple beers, and are technically drunk by blood alcohol level, but still aware and consenting due to strong constitution, is it considered rape? As well, implied consent is a bit of a grey area in general. Where is the line drawn? Does a contract detailing every single action to be performed exactly as stated have to be drafted, signed, notarised, and filed with the county clerk with 24 hours' notice before one can have casual sex? While clearly this is an exaggeration, what about smaller things? Is anything that could be considered a "surprise" in the bedroom, or changing positions, or caressing their body, something that requires separate consent? And if I kiss a guy, he kisses me back, and we fall back into bed together, clearly wanting to get involved, does one of us have to break the mood by breaking liplock and asking for explicit consent on any and all sexual actions for that night? While I think protecting consent is very important, I also feel there should be some definite room for implied consent as well. Clearly getting someone drunk to obtain their consent is wrong, but if someone was already clearly interested before they got drunk, I don't see an issue. I know my opinions might be seen as a bit controversial, but they are my views. So, thoughts, comments, debates? |
|
09-29-2014, 06:24 PM | #2 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
There has already been a little bit of Skype conversation about it, but I'll weigh with my two cents. I think that this bill is a step in the right direction: we need clearer laws that protect people from rape and protect sexual assault victims. However, while this bill has good intentions, I feel that it probably would have been better off not made. Kairne bring up the point, but I'll restate it like this: How are we to prove consent was given? It's an issue. Unless you record it or have a witness (who isn't going to become sexually active, mind you, I highly doubt threesomes will remove the burden of consent), then its pretty much impossible to prove. Which means that its this law is either not going to be able to prosecute rapists, because its going to have no teeth to do so, or its going to do the complete opposite. If people actually try to use this law, its going to cause a lot of rape accusations to fly around, and the possibility for a lot of innocent people to end up either in jail, or in prison. It's not like false rape accusations are uncommon either. So while this bill gives clear, good intentions, I don't believe that it will accomplish any good: its either going to do nothing, or its going to cause a lot of hurt.
|
09-29-2014, 06:30 PM | #3 |
Naga's Voice
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: somewhere gay idk
Posts: 3,279
|
I certainly applaud these people for bringing up a topic like this and getting strict legislation done on it, as it's one of those topics that sets an awkward mood for just about anyone and can lead to excessive controversy. A standing ovation for doing it and not screwing it up majorly with controversial comments (I'm sure my bringing this up is as much to your chagrin as mine, but avoiding a fiasco like the "legitimate rape" debacle is a wonderful handling on their part).
Now, certainly, things like medications and alcohol are an issue, and date rape inevitably falls in line. For those situations, its hard to draw lines and its also hard to see where they've been crossed once they appear to have been. There simply is no way to keep a vigilant date rape police, or make sure the person consented before having enough alcohol to send them over their line of coherent thought, and medications are just as hard if not harder to do the same for. It's just not possible for the lawmakers and enforcers to handle. This is why laws like this pass some responsibility to the public. If you see something that is legally questionable at best, you probably shouldn't idly stand by and let it happen. If you get hurt or anything (we all know the big beefy man example), well, that's just another criminal offense (or their only one if you actually stopped them). It's very good on these folks to try to tackle an issue so adamantly, but this will end up requiring aid and responsibility on the people's part as there is simply no way to enforce it through the state law enforcement alone. And for the general public to avoid falling victim, keep good company, and if your companion happens to be someone you might end up in intercourse with, make it clear before you meet or anything whether you're consenting and be firm about it applying until or unless you say otherwise. This removes plausible deniability as you've put your foot down early on, so they can't claim implied consent when none was present, and hopefully before you had anything to drink, so your state of mind is credible. That's all I really have to say on the issue.
__________________
|
09-29-2014, 07:10 PM | #4 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
With "No," all you need is one "no" and you're done, that's it, no sex allowed until both parties agree to it at a later time if ever. With "Yes," the problem is the time table. How often do you have to re-ask? What is the expiration policy on a "yes"? Do you ask once per session? Or do you have to ask more frequently than that?
I worry that this law is a one-size-fits-all solution for a very specific subset of all sexual encounters in a university community. It's easy to support a "'Yes' means yes" approach when it comes to strangers in bars and night clubs. It's rather harder to get behind it for married students. Another criticism that I have just now read is that this law, in applying only to universities, betrays the legislators' lack of faith in their own bill (now law). Because after all: if the idea were so good, wouldn't you want it to apply to all Californians and not just the ones enrolled in university?
__________________
|
09-29-2014, 07:14 PM | #5 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
Clearly the answer is to loudly ask for permission before each kiss, fondle, tug, thrust, lick, headbob, and spanking and requiring an equally loud "YES" as a response for each action. This is the new sexual norm. Deviate at your own risk.
|
09-29-2014, 08:49 PM | #6 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
A girl gets wasted. She can't think clearly. A guy swoops in and takes advantage of her that night. She didn't say yes, but she didn't say no either. She was too intoxicated to fight it. She wakes up the next to with a total stranger she'd probably never be with otherwise. Was it rape? By how this law seems to be, she could say yeah it was. He took advantage of her poor mental condition.
It's probably targeted at colleges rather than in general since girls who report it to the campus security might be dismissed because "Oh you were drunk. You made a poor choice. He didn't assault you," scenario whereas a woman saying she was raped to a police officer will probably pursue the case right away. |
09-29-2014, 08:55 PM | #7 |
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Unless I'm mistaken, rape law already allowed provisions for such things. If you are not of sound mind or body, its rape already. If you are drunker than a skunk, they you can't reason clearly.
__________________
|
09-29-2014, 10:07 PM | #8 | |
我が名は勇者王!
|
Quote:
One of the music teachers at a local elementary school was fired for an incident that was similar - he put his hands on a young girl's shoulders because she was throwing a fit, to calm her down, and she told her parents he fondled her chest. It went to court. There were a bunch of witnesses - obviously, the whole class - and he was easily found innocent, but the school pressured him to leave anyway, because parents were complaining about his 'teaching methods'. So, there's way more benefits to a strict anti-rape law than a liberal one. Reduced pre-marital sex cuts down on birth rates and pleases the religious conservatives. Justice (punishing criminals) becomes a lot more common than injustice (punishing an innocent) unless there's some mass/dramatic cultural change where women are out to deliberately exploit men, unlikely to say the least. The only loser in this deal is Cupid.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
|
09-30-2014, 01:06 AM | #9 | |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
Quote:
Rapist usually target someone who is drunk or high. They didn't pick the girl because she was the love of his life or whatnot. They picked her because she was drunk and he knew he could manipulate her. This article discusses things like how many rapes go unreported, how often a rapist gets away with it, and how rare false reports of rape are exceedingly rare. In fact, the myth of false reports of rape is typically how rapist get away with rape, as juries will typically sympathize with the rapist more than a victim. No one wants to be accused of rape. A victim is often shown as a seductress and a slut. No man wants to be falsely accused of rape. People would rather hear a woman is a slut than a man is a criminal. Also remember, no one pursues rape unless the victim reports it. If you have sex with someone consensually, you won't wait the next day and report them of raping you. If you were willing to have sex with someone prior to getting drunk or high, you're not going to report them as a rapist after you awaken the next day with them in bed. The government won't bust down your door while you're doing the nasty and ask if both parties agreed to have sex. |
|
09-30-2014, 04:28 AM | #10 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Sorry can I just clarify what 'yes means yes' actually means in this context? What is the effect of this law?
|
09-30-2014, 06:15 AM | #11 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Sexual assault has been legally broadened, meaning "yes" means "yes," "no" means "no," and "..." also means "no."
This of course begs the question of how long a given "yes" lasts and whether or not a previous yes indicates a current yes. Not only that, but also more complicated, relationship-specific dynamics. Honestly sexual assault could stand to be a lot clearer, but not in this way. I'd prefer better understanding of the perceptions of both sides. There's no such thing as "objective" rape. The definition comes from the perception of the act by the victim as unwanted or forced. The issue only arises when consent gets muddled and while it's a good enough idea to say "lack of a no does not indicate the presence of a yes," there are a loooot of exceptions that don't even bear listing.
__________________
|
09-30-2014, 05:28 PM | #12 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
No, no you don't. If everyone's clearly having a good time you're in the clear.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 09-30-2014 at 05:43 PM. |
||
09-30-2014, 05:48 PM | #13 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Oh ok that's interesting, certainly something that any campaigners will be happy with. I tend to see forcing objectivity in to this kind of thing as sadly necessary but ultimately futile so I can't say I'm hugely interested but still this is a step forward.
|
09-30-2014, 06:15 PM | #14 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
I'm sorry, but I've never heard something more wrong. Literally the archetypical stereotype for every kind of crime, from break-ins to rape to money laundering, is male.
|
09-30-2014, 07:04 PM | #15 |
The Path of Now & Forever
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
|
I'm not saying men aren't criminals, but every defense of a rapist is almost always the victim is a seductress.
I still remember the trial where a college team sexually assaulted a girl. When she came forth with the accusation of rape, the media said, "Those poor boys. Their futures are ruined." |
09-30-2014, 07:52 PM | #16 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
Ah, the football one. Fair point, that was completely ridiculous.
|
09-30-2014, 07:56 PM | #17 | ||||
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also, I understand that the media and the justice system will warp things, but how does this law change that? It's not going to do anything. "Yes means yes" is great, but when it comes to court, all you are going to get is one person saying yes and the other saying no. Most likely you'll have the yes guy's friends backing him up too depending. This isn't going to increase convictions. How does this law change the "seductress" view? In my opinion, it doesn't.
__________________
|
||||
10-01-2014, 06:04 AM | #18 |
Volcano Badge
|
This is a step in the right direction. I applaud this. Being a victim of sexual predators or any sort of abuse of power literally is one of the worst things that can ever happen to you. The psychological trauma and the removal of autonomy can even be far worse than the physical trauma, and even though forcing more rules may seem unnecessary, preventing the most heinous of crimes ultimately is a step forward for the good.
|
10-01-2014, 09:09 AM | #19 |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
This law is a good willed gesture at best, and downright ineffective and worst. I obviously support consent having to be given, but how would one prove that consent was given before sex since sex is a private thing. I mean,, there's no way that people are going to have consent notarized in writing or have a witness stand there and witness consent being given.
__________________
|
10-01-2014, 10:01 AM | #20 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
The point of it is to codify in official writing what people should be doing anyway, to avoid some of the more ambiguous debates over whether something constitutes sexual assault or not.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
10-01-2014, 11:42 AM | #22 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
I think you're missing the grey area here. For the most part, sexual assault laws are along the lines of "against ones will", which can be taken to imply that only active resistance/saying no is rape, whereas Cali have apparently decided to enshrine in law than more active consent is required. There are situations that one could argue are not covered/ambiguous under the former that are accounted for under the latter.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
10-01-2014, 01:15 PM | #23 |
Silver LO
|
Well, as the consent must be explicit and affirmative, how exactly is that to be judged in any way other than verbal or in writing?
This is also further muddied by the fact that in quite a few bedroom situations, "No" can mean "Yes" |
10-01-2014, 01:41 PM | #24 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
It honestly sounds like every male university student in the state of California is either going to have to abstain from sexual intercourse, carry a legal document in his wallet at all times for sexual partners to sign pre-sex, or else (and what 99.9% of sexually active students will likely do) take a risk and have sex without legal documentation.
The first few court cases under this new law will test its practicality and fairness to men. So I guess stay tuned for now. And, if you're a sexually active male attending university in California, stay safe. Dorky as it may seem, getting your sex partner to sign a legal document first may be a life saver.
__________________
|
10-01-2014, 04:50 PM | #25 |
大事なのは自分らしいくある事
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Determined
Posts: 5,840
|
What I find interesting about this law is that it explicitly applies to 'on college campus'. Which is... Really specific.
I mean, not that it changes a whole lot. If you're sleeping with someone, chances are you trust that they're not going to falsely report you for rape, as this is one of those laws where it only comes into effect if reported. On the flip-side, all dishonest court proceedings are still going to be "they said yes" VS "they said no". Imop, all this really does is take a step to prevent 'accidental rape' which I can't imagine is too common. Although, Talon, I'm surprised you specified 'male'- Doesn't the law apply to both genders equally, in theory? |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|