CAs Affirmative Consent Policy

[The Captain]

Oct 21, 2015 8:34:05 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Oct 20, 2015 14:17:33 GMT -5 The Captain said:

So a simple "Are you ok with this" will kill the mood.  Got it.

The problem still exists if you don't keep asking before every.single new "act".  Can I kiss you?  Can I put my hand on your right boob?  Can I put my hand on your left boob?  Can I put my mouth "down there"?  Can I turn you?  Can I turn you again?  Can I insert?  Can I take out?

Yes, it might sound absurd as you read it, but based on this new law, women can say that they only consented to parts 1, 2 and 3 but parts 4, 5 and 6 were not asked and therefor it's now rape.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something really obvious.  Can anyone point me to the legislation that changes the standard for rape as noted above?  Because I thought what we were talking about was changing on the perception of consent is taught to teens.  As with anything new, it appears there isn't clarity yet on what is exactly to be taught (common core, anyone?)

I'm serious, has the legal definition of rape been changed by this?

[whoisjohngalt]

Oct 20, 2015 15:08:24 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 20, 2015 14:53:18 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

but if teens actually thought with their head and not their hormones there would be a lot less sex...but teens let hormones run wild and if there is alcohol involved they think even less.

Everyone wants big brother out of women's bodies (well, most everyone) but now we are saying females are too stupid to consent?  I have major issues with that. 

We are either the weaker sex that need men to look out for us and make sure we don't do anything stupid, or we are strong, independent people who can make our own decisions. 

You seem narrowed in on this as a women's issue, I don't necessarily see it that way.

Let's take this in another direction - when is the last time one of us had a son come home with the snot beat out of him?  Granted, I don't have a boy, but my friends do and it's so uncommon that when it happened, we discussed it for weeks.  Yet I understand from my father and my husband that dudes used to settle disputes with their fists all the time.  Somewhere along the way that became not so acceptable and now, at least from what I can see, it's a rarity - to the point where you get suspended for doing so.

We seem to blindly think that teens can only think with their hormones.  I don't accept that.  I think it's a good thing for both parties to have to pause, and think and actively ensure the other wants to proceed.  At the very least, that forces a moment of reset and who knows - maybe there won't be so many regrets the next morning.

The above is for both genders btw.

That's not bc boys all of a sudden became less aggressive or decided that they need to figure out their problems with their words.  With all the laws and restrictions being put on them, they just found a different way to do it.  More subtle and sneaky and IMHO more dangerous.  We now have bullying that is hidden and goes on for much longer than that one fight would have gone. 

So, while may be there are less bloody noses, I think there is actually a lot more damage being caused.

[whoisjohngalt]

Oct 21, 2015 8:40:46 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 21, 2015 8:34:05 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

The problem still exists if you don't keep asking before every.single new "act".  Can I kiss you?  Can I put my hand on your right boob?  Can I put my hand on your left boob?  Can I put my mouth "down there"?  Can I turn you?  Can I turn you again?  Can I insert?  Can I take out?

Yes, it might sound absurd as you read it, but based on this new law, women can say that they only consented to parts 1, 2 and 3 but parts 4, 5 and 6 were not asked and therefor it's now rape.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something really obvious.  Can anyone point me to the legislation that changes the standard for rape as noted above?  Because I thought what we were talking about was changing on the perception of consent is taught to teens.  As with anything new, it appears there isn't clarity yet on what is exactly to be taught (common core, anyone?)

I'm serious, has the legal definition of rape been changed by this?

I don't know the specifics of the law.

I just think that it's one thing to teach kids AND adults about open communication regarding intimacy and it's entirely different to have legislation about it.

I am a huge believer in getting consent before performing any physical acts with another person.  I do ask my kids if I can kiss them and hug them.  I don't think it clicked in their brains yet bc they don't practice that with each other.  There are all kinds of physical play goes on that was never officially "consented".  But at least they are getting better when one of them says "stop", the other ones try to listen.

So, yes, talking to each other - great.  Legislation - not so much.

And I do agree with MissT that it might be yet another way for either party not to take personal responsibility for their actions. 

[billisonboard]

If you don't want to be asked if the person you being intimate with can take things to the next level of intimacy, then all you have to do is take it there yourself. It would mean that you are taking on the responsibly of ensuring that it is consensual and the risk of prosecution if it isn't. 

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2015 9:07:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If you don't want to be asked if the person you being intimate with can take things to the next level of intimacy, then all you have to do is take it there yourself. It would mean that you are taking on the responsibly of ensuring that it is consensual and the risk of prosecution if it isn't. 

How about removing the "risk of prosecution" factor... and if the other person (male or female) doesn't want you to proceed, they say "no" or "stop"?

People (male AND female) need to take responsibility for activities that they participated in. Period. If you didn't say "no" or "stop" or in some way make your disapproval known... then you consented (as long as you were conscious... the unconscious obviously cannot consent)

[ArchietheDragon]

Oct 21, 2015 8:57:53 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Oct 21, 2015 8:40:46 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok, maybe I'm missing something really obvious.  Can anyone point me to the legislation that changes the standard for rape as noted above?  Because I thought what we were talking about was changing on the perception of consent is taught to teens.  As with anything new, it appears there isn't clarity yet on what is exactly to be taught (common core, anyone?)

I'm serious, has the legal definition of rape been changed by this?

I don't know the specifics of the law.

I just think that it's one thing to teach kids AND adults about open communication regarding intimacy and it's entirely different to have legislation about it.

I am a huge believer in getting consent before performing any physical acts with another person.  I do ask my kids if I can kiss them and hug them.  I don't think it clicked in their brains yet bc they don't practice that with each other.  There are all kinds of physical play goes on that was never officially "consented".  But at least they are getting better when one of them says "stop", the other ones try to listen.

So, yes, talking to each other - great.  Legislation - not so much.

And I do agree with MissT that it might be yet another way for either party not to take personal responsibility for their actions. 

The law, which is currently only a California law, states that any college or university that gets state money has to adopt consent policies ("yes mean yes" policies) as part of their sexual misconduct response policies. 

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967



EDIT TO ADD:  It looks like NY added a similar law this year. 

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2015 8:40:46 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Oct 21, 2015 8:34:05 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

The problem still exists if you don't keep asking before every.single new "act".  Can I kiss you?  Can I put my hand on your right boob?  Can I put my hand on your left boob?  Can I put my mouth "down there"?  Can I turn you?  Can I turn you again?  Can I insert?  Can I take out?

Yes, it might sound absurd as you read it, but based on this new law, women can say that they only consented to parts 1, 2 and 3 but parts 4, 5 and 6 were not asked and therefor it's now rape.

Ok, maybe I'm missing something really obvious.  Can anyone point me to the legislation that changes the standard for rape as noted above?  Because I thought what we were talking about was changing on the perception of consent is taught to teens.  As with anything new, it appears there isn't clarity yet on what is exactly to be taught (common core, anyone?)

I'm serious, has the legal definition of rape been changed by this?

I think the standards  of how colleges will treat accusations are changed by this.  They are extrajudicial now and anything goes.  With this as a backdrop it will just get worse.

[ArchietheDragon]

Oct 21, 2015 9:26:54 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 21, 2015 8:40:46 GMT -5 The Captain said:

Ok, maybe I'm missing something really obvious.  Can anyone point me to the legislation that changes the standard for rape as noted above?  Because I thought what we were talking about was changing on the perception of consent is taught to teens.  As with anything new, it appears there isn't clarity yet on what is exactly to be taught (common core, anyone?)

I'm serious, has the legal definition of rape been changed by this?

I think the standards  of how colleges will treat accusations are changed by this.  They are extrajudicial now and anything goes.  With this as a backdrop it will just get worse.

Which is a good thing.    Too drunk to not say no is not the same thing as saying yes. 

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2015 9:28:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:26:54 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I think the standards  of how colleges will treat accusations are changed by this.  They are extrajudicial now and anything goes.  With this as a backdrop it will just get worse.

Which is a good thing.    Too drunk to not say no is not the same thing as saying yes. 

"too drunk to say no" is already a standard isn't it?  I think it is illegal now to have sex with someone who is so intoxicated they cannot speak or is that not so?

eta:  I think it is a good idea and hope it catches on, but I think the idea coming from and being taught by the state means it will be abused terribly.

eta #2: 

[ArchietheDragon]

Oct 21, 2015 9:32:00 GMT -5 @hickle said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:28:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Which is a good thing.    Too drunk to not say no is not the same thing as saying yes. 

"too drunk to say no" is already a standard isn't it?  I think it is illegal now to have sex with someone who is so intoxicated they cannot speak or is that not so?

eta:  I think it is a good idea and hope it catches on, but I think the idea coming from and being taught by the state means it will be abused terribly.

coming from and being taught by the state?  What does that mean?

[whoisjohngalt]

So, really, no two drunk people will ever be allowed to have sex on campus bc being intoxicated automatically precludes you from giving consent. 

[ArchietheDragon]

Oct 21, 2015 9:43:04 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

So, really, no two drunk people will ever be allowed to have sex on campus bc being intoxicated automatically precludes you from giving consent. 

Now you have it.   

Hopefully soon sex will only be allowed once per life for procreation purposes only.  

[billisonboard]

Oct 21, 2015 9:21:41 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:07:47 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If you don't want to be asked if the person you being intimate with can take things to the next level of intimacy, then all you have to do is take it there yourself. It would mean that you are taking on the responsibly of ensuring that it is consensual and the risk of prosecution if it isn't. 

How about removing the "risk of prosecution" factor... and if the other person (male or female) doesn't want you to proceed, they say "no" or "stop"?

People (male AND female) need to take responsibility for activities that they participated in. Period. If you didn't say "no" or "stop" or in some way make your disapproval known... then you consented (as long as you were conscious... the unconscious obviously cannot consent)

That sounds good but in all realms of human interaction the person who initiates is always at some level of risk.

[MJ2.0]

Oct 21, 2015 9:44:40 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:43:04 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

So, really, no two drunk people will ever be allowed to have sex on campus bc being intoxicated automatically precludes you from giving consent. 

Now you have it.   

Hopefully soon sex will only be allowed once per life for procreation purposes only.  

NOOOOOO!!!!!     YOU MONSTER!!!!!

[OldCoyote]

How long before we have to have a State issued consent form signed?

[MJ2.0]

Oct 21, 2015 9:28:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:26:54 GMT -5 @hickle said:

I think the standards  of how colleges will treat accusations are changed by this.  They are extrajudicial now and anything goes.  With this as a backdrop it will just get worse.

Which is a good thing.    Too drunk to not say no is not the same thing as saying yes. 

but what about a drunken "yes"?

They're going to have to make bigger clutches if I have to take all this with me for a good night out:
a condom
a breathalyzer
a blue light (to verify the legitimacy of ID to ensure I'm not having sex with a minor)
list of questions to ask to ensure everything is consensual

No room for lip gloss!

[midjd]

How long before we have to have a State issued consent form signed?

Because that's obviously the logical next step. 

Again, a law changing the way consent is taught to college students has NOTHING to do with the prosecution or proof requirements of a rape case. Nothing. 

Slippery slope arguments are very rarely accurate.

[NoNamePerson]

Everyone should be wired for sound and recording maybe. CMA so to speak 

ETA: and always have a condom with you!!

[ArchietheDragon]

Oct 21, 2015 10:32:04 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:28:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Which is a good thing.    Too drunk to not say no is not the same thing as saying yes. 

but what about a drunken "yes"?

They're going to have to make bigger clutches if I have to take all this with me for a good night out:
a condom
a breathalyzer
a blue light (to verify the legitimacy of ID to ensure I'm not having sex with a minor)
list of questions to ask to ensure everything is consensual

No room for lip gloss!

yes means yes. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 21, 2015 10:32:04 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

Oct 21, 2015 9:28:23 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Which is a good thing.    Too drunk to not say no is not the same thing as saying yes. 

but what about a drunken "yes"?

They're going to have to make bigger clutches if I have to take all this with me for a good night out:
a condom
a breathalyzer
a blue light (to verify the legitimacy of ID to ensure I'm not having sex with a minor)
list of questions to ask to ensure everything is consensual

No room for lip gloss!

Don't forget a black light to check your person and clothing for spilt 'organic' material.

[MJ2.0]

Oct 21, 2015 10:34:36 GMT -5 midjd said:

How long before we have to have a State issued consent form signed?

Because that's obviously the logical next step. 

Again, a law changing the way consent is taught to college students has NOTHING to do with the prosecution or proof requirements of a rape case. Nothing. 

Slippery slope arguments are very rarely accurate.

but isn't it a little naive to think it won't ever be used that way?

[OldCoyote]

Yes means Yes,   means nothing unless you have a signed State issued consent form,   Notarized no less.

After all, yes means yes, can change into no when the feeling of guilt set in or you have an argument, they are no longer the love of your life.   

[justme]

Bloody hell! If anything affirmative consent would help the huge (said very sarcastically) number of men falsely accused. Now their response wouldn't be "but she didn't say no!" It would instead be "I asked her throughout the encounter if she was ok/wanted to stop/etc"

Why does that help them? Because saying it can still be rape if the person doesn't say no for various reasons. The victim not saying no does not mean a rape didn't occur.

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2015 10:34:36 GMT -5 midjd said:

How long before we have to have a State issued consent form signed?

Because that's obviously the logical next step. 

Again, a law changing the way consent is taught to college students has NOTHING to do with the prosecution or proof requirements of a rape case. Nothing. 

Slippery slope arguments are very rarely accurate.

Just because it's not the likely NEXT step... doesn't mean it's not a few or several steps down the proverbial road.

[MJ2.0]

Oct 21, 2015 10:50:48 GMT -5 justme said:

Bloody hell! If anything affirmative consent would help the huge (said very sarcastically) number of men falsely accused. Now their response wouldn't be "but she didn't say no!" It would instead be "I asked her throughout the encounter if she was ok/wanted to stop/etc"

Why does that help them? Because saying it can still be rape if the person doesn't say no for various reasons. The victim not saying no does not mean a rape didn't occur.

yeah, actually it helps no one in that regard. If it's just a verbal contract, it does nothing to mitigate the "he said/she said" problem because one or both parties could easily lie. So on that front, having this rule is pretty pointless.

Again, I think the purpose is to make you pause for a few seconds to ensure you understand fully what's about to go down.

[billisonboard]

Oct 21, 2015 11:03:50 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

...

Again, I think the purpose is to make you pause for a few seconds to ensure you understand fully what's about to go down.

Or who

[Tennesseer]

Oct 21, 2015 11:24:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Oct 21, 2015 11:03:50 GMT -5 MJ2.0 said:

...

Again, I think the purpose is to make you pause for a few seconds to ensure you understand fully what's about to go down.

Or who

That's not sex. Didn't you ever learn that?

[whoisjohngalt]

I feel so bad for my boys. 

On a side note - on one hand we are constantly musing about the increased lack of human interactions but on another, we are coming up with more and more rules about that said interactions.  Starting on playgrounds and continuing all the way through adulthood. 

We never seem to be able to strike a nice balance.  It's usually from one extreme to another.

[Deleted]

Oct 21, 2015 11:26:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 21, 2015 11:24:22 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Or who

That's not sex. Didn't you ever learn that?

Yah, is that a level?

Are you sure?

[MJ2.0]

Oct 21, 2015 11:54:43 GMT -5 @xmascookie said:

Oct 21, 2015 11:26:16 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

That's not sex. Didn't you ever learn that?

Yah, is that a level?

Are you sure?

it's like the best damn level ever if the giver knows what to do.