California Democrats ban consensual, non-verbal sex
During my first official date with the woman who is now my wife, she interrupted the movie we were watching to drag me into the bedroom, rip off her clothes, and then rip mine off (
). Now, according to the State of California, she raped me, because I never verbally said "yes, I agree to sex." Or maybe we both raped each other, because neither of us said anything coherent through most of that evening (though I assure you, we were both consenting 
).
online.wsj.com/articles/califo…
This new bill passed by the California Democrats requires verbal, explicit consent prior to anything that could possibly construed as a sexual advance. Otherwise, they define it as rape, even if both parties are clearly consenting in non-verbal ways. But of course, it is only rape if college students do it, for some reason. Don't ask me why the Democrats believe that the definition of rape changes depending on whether or not you're pursuing higher education.
Furthermore, even a "yes, I agree to sex" from your partner is not enough to ensure that you avoid becoming a rapist. If your partner changes their mind in the middle of any sexual activity, and you do not read their mind and reestablish consent, then you are, according to the State of California, a rapist. There is no obligation for your partner to even let you know that consent has been revoked.
I can just imagine how these court cases will go:
"No, I changed my mind first!"
"No, I did, you rapist!"
Remember the good old days when it was the Democrats who supposedly wanted the government out of our bedrooms? Now, it is the Democrats who want to regulate exactly how your consensual sexual relations may initiate and progress. Their totalitarian, over-regulatory inclinations towards economic activity are bleeding over into the most private corners of our personal lives.
So, it feels silly that I even need to ask, but have the Democrats gone completely insane? Or are they protecting us from an evil scourge of natural, romantic foreplay that establishes clear consent without words?
). Now, according to the State of California, she raped me, because I never verbally said "yes, I agree to sex." Or maybe we both raped each other, because neither of us said anything coherent through most of that evening (though I assure you, we were both consenting 
).online.wsj.com/articles/califo…
This new bill passed by the California Democrats requires verbal, explicit consent prior to anything that could possibly construed as a sexual advance. Otherwise, they define it as rape, even if both parties are clearly consenting in non-verbal ways. But of course, it is only rape if college students do it, for some reason. Don't ask me why the Democrats believe that the definition of rape changes depending on whether or not you're pursuing higher education.
Furthermore, even a "yes, I agree to sex" from your partner is not enough to ensure that you avoid becoming a rapist. If your partner changes their mind in the middle of any sexual activity, and you do not read their mind and reestablish consent, then you are, according to the State of California, a rapist. There is no obligation for your partner to even let you know that consent has been revoked.
I can just imagine how these court cases will go:
"No, I changed my mind first!"
"No, I did, you rapist!"
Remember the good old days when it was the Democrats who supposedly wanted the government out of our bedrooms? Now, it is the Democrats who want to regulate exactly how your consensual sexual relations may initiate and progress. Their totalitarian, over-regulatory inclinations towards economic activity are bleeding over into the most private corners of our personal lives.
So, it feels silly that I even need to ask, but have the Democrats gone completely insane? Or are they protecting us from an evil scourge of natural, romantic foreplay that establishes clear consent without words?
Comments75
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
"Or maybe we both raped each other, because neither of us said anything coherent through most of that evening (though I assure you, we were both consenting )."
So, Did you see her boobs?
)."So, Did you see her boobs?
Did you meet your wife on a publicly funded University of California campus in the hypothetical future of anywhere between 2015 and 2017? If not, then your comment regarding rape is unfounded and reeks of a preconceived bias.
This applies only to publicly funded state college campuses. It is not considered rape either. It is meant to try and attack the very large issue that is sexual assault on college campuses. It is not going to be effective because no one will do anything different, which is another reason why your post reeks of bias. Because you are attacking this as if it's something that will be enforced rather than ignored. It's a good notion, it's a step towards trying to fix a major problem, but it's not really going to be effective.
Also the bill has not been passed, it was amended recently. And it acknowledges that consent can be revoked at any time, something very important to get on the law because a lot of people don't seem to believe that.
This applies only to publicly funded state college campuses. It is not considered rape either. It is meant to try and attack the very large issue that is sexual assault on college campuses. It is not going to be effective because no one will do anything different, which is another reason why your post reeks of bias. Because you are attacking this as if it's something that will be enforced rather than ignored. It's a good notion, it's a step towards trying to fix a major problem, but it's not really going to be effective.
Also the bill has not been passed, it was amended recently. And it acknowledges that consent can be revoked at any time, something very important to get on the law because a lot of people don't seem to believe that.
Are you trying to say that I'm not allowed to fight for the rights of college students because I got out before their rights were taken away? That's absurd.
As I've already pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you are COMPLETELY WRONG about this bill only applying to the UC system. ALL universities count as "publicly funded" for the sake of California law, because ALL universities accept federal funding (NSF, DOE, DOD, NIH, etc.) for their research. Yes, even the "private" ones. Having obtained my bachelor's of science from the California Institute of Technology, and having dealt with plenty of bureaucratic state-law bullshit linked to "publicly-funded universities," I know firsthand that this is true.
Every law is enforced. The problem with a law like this is that yes, few people will respect such a bureaucratic redefinition of the "initiation of sexual relations," allowing it to be selectively enforced against anyone who somebody has a grudge against. Meanwhile, the few who do respect this law will be left at a major social disadvantage.
As I've already pointed out elsewhere in this thread, you are COMPLETELY WRONG about this bill only applying to the UC system. ALL universities count as "publicly funded" for the sake of California law, because ALL universities accept federal funding (NSF, DOE, DOD, NIH, etc.) for their research. Yes, even the "private" ones. Having obtained my bachelor's of science from the California Institute of Technology, and having dealt with plenty of bureaucratic state-law bullshit linked to "publicly-funded universities," I know firsthand that this is true.
Every law is enforced. The problem with a law like this is that yes, few people will respect such a bureaucratic redefinition of the "initiation of sexual relations," allowing it to be selectively enforced against anyone who somebody has a grudge against. Meanwhile, the few who do respect this law will be left at a major social disadvantage.
No, I'm saying their rights are not being taken away, you are not fighting for their rights, and you implied that it didn't apply to just college students.
When I said the California system, I meant all universities and colleges within the education system in California. Apologies, I forgot that California is largely made up of University of California _____. It's not like that on the side of the country I'm from so it's not something I'm used to having to account for. That was just a clerical error on my part.
The every law thing isn't true but it doesn't really matter either way. There are some that most people just don't want to spend time repealing. They won't be left at a social disadvantage and it's just as possible to "cry rape" on someone you hold a grudge against.
When I said the California system, I meant all universities and colleges within the education system in California. Apologies, I forgot that California is largely made up of University of California _____. It's not like that on the side of the country I'm from so it's not something I'm used to having to account for. That was just a clerical error on my part.
The every law thing isn't true but it doesn't really matter either way. There are some that most people just don't want to spend time repealing. They won't be left at a social disadvantage and it's just as possible to "cry rape" on someone you hold a grudge against.
You married someone who put out on the first date? Okay then. 
We had already known each other for about 3 months by that point. The first "official" date was simply the first event at which we were both willing to admit we were on a date.
Ugh, it kills me to use this analogy, but... you guys weren't "facebook official?"
Dude, Facebook Official is pretty serious. That comes after like the 3rd or 4th official date.
TBS, you dog!
so, if I read some of these comments, it's basically a way of investigating when something is definitely not rape.
in a way, it makes sense because it at least gives a quick-proof of it being consensual other then disproving everything else (which is misused in some cases).
also, a weird portion of the current law already enables someone to change their mind in the middle of sex by saying no, making it immediately rape.
in a way, it makes sense because it at least gives a quick-proof of it being consensual other then disproving everything else (which is misused in some cases).
also, a weird portion of the current law already enables someone to change their mind in the middle of sex by saying no, making it immediately rape.
the Reuter's article is here: www.reuters.com/article/2014/0…
sounds like this is about delineating standards for investigating cases of rape accusations on campuses (which no university objected to, since it would greatly help them), NOT policing the bedroom. furthermore: It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
it says nothing about saying the word "yes" as a requirement. it means you have to be awake, non-drugged, and engaging in the activity voluntarily (i.e. not against your will). nothing really new, here.
once again you're blowing things out of proportion, and once again there are idiots who suck up your drool off the floor. i.e. another day in the politics forum. no wonder i rarely come here anymore...
sounds like this is about delineating standards for investigating cases of rape accusations on campuses (which no university objected to, since it would greatly help them), NOT policing the bedroom. furthermore: It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
it says nothing about saying the word "yes" as a requirement. it means you have to be awake, non-drugged, and engaging in the activity voluntarily (i.e. not against your will). nothing really new, here.
once again you're blowing things out of proportion, and once again there are idiots who suck up your drool off the floor. i.e. another day in the politics forum. no wonder i rarely come here anymore...
Reuters frequently misses the boat on American law. Sexual consent was already defined as an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. They don't pass new regulations like this, with new language and new definitions, just to reaffirm existing law. When this law is invoked in court, the prosecutors will be applying a rigorous definition of "affirmative consent" that ensnares as many innocent people as possible, and Democrat-leaning judges and juries will be readily convinced.
They won't be asking in court, "Well does this law actually explicitly require her to give a verbal 'yes'?"
They will be asking, "Well did she say yes? If not, then how can you consider it 'affirmative consent'?"
They won't be asking in court, "Well does this law actually explicitly require her to give a verbal 'yes'?"
They will be asking, "Well did she say yes? If not, then how can you consider it 'affirmative consent'?"
I wonder how that's going to work out. Will people have to bring an official document into the bedroom, signed by both parties before the sexual act? Maybe a camera or witness to verify they both signed it.
This is what I don't get about it. It sounds like they're basically setting up a law where the only possible scenario is a very vague "he said-she said" situation.
There won't be any witnesses, so who's to say what happened?
There won't be any witnesses, so who's to say what happened?
Yep. Waste of time. But I'm sure the politicians got paid to pass this & lawyers get some good pay later on fighting all these "he-said-she-said" cases - they need job security, ya know. 
Job security? In California, of all places?
(I dun know )
)
Feminists.
Yeah, those darn people pushing for equality. So annoying, am I right?
Show me any major feminist movement such as NOW or WIPP advocating for "equality". Women are treated better under nearly every statistical standard and still these organizations focus only on women. You wake me up when the main feminist complaints are the male suicide rate and boys falling behind in school (it was certainly worth screaming about when girls were falling behind). Yeah, equality, that's what they're about. Good god.
The feminist movement is advocating for equality. Women are not treated better by any means. Male suicide rates is not a gender issue. Boys falling behind in school is not a gender issue. When women were falling behind it was because they weren't expected to learn these things. My mother's questions were ignored in science class because "she didn't need to know it". My cousin was failed in English because "girls should write pretty".
Sexism is alive and well, I suggest you wake up right now. Women can receive less pay for equal work. They are viewed as weaker which, since there are two sides to every coin, can spawn issues for the piece of shit MRA's too. Such as men being in more dangerous jobs. That wouldn't happen if they viewed women as capable of doing those jobs. I'm not even going into the sexual assault aspect of being a female in society. Good god. How someone can be so utterly blind to reality baffles me.
Sexism is alive and well, I suggest you wake up right now. Women can receive less pay for equal work. They are viewed as weaker which, since there are two sides to every coin, can spawn issues for the piece of shit MRA's too. Such as men being in more dangerous jobs. That wouldn't happen if they viewed women as capable of doing those jobs. I'm not even going into the sexual assault aspect of being a female in society. Good god. How someone can be so utterly blind to reality baffles me.
Your mother and your cousin? Spare me the anecdotal nonsense. These things are gender issues when they affect women. The fact you have just said they don't count for men, says all you need to know about how feminism has formed your brain into a wonder of double standards. While women's groups start #banbossy campaigns because it harms "self esteem", and Dove soap runs adds talking about how proud girls should be to be girls, no one seems to be terribly interested in boosting the self esteem of boys who are offing themselves in record numbers. But you're right -- no unequal treatment there. I'm sure the feminist movement will get around to it once we get rid of a few more words they don't like. Priorities and all that.
Ooh, look at you bringing up the pay gap -- the only place you ever turn. It's complete bullshit of course. When considering equal education, equal experience, and equal hours worked, women make 107% of what men make. That means more, in case you didn't get the memo. It amazes me how such easily disprovable lies spread through society. Until I meet people like you.
Would you like to talk about the ways women are treated better? Shall we begin with the tender years doctrine, which grants them child custody in nearly all cases? How they receive half the time in prison for the same felony? How their contraception is paid for? How they make up only 4% of workplace deaths? How they take more out of the state coffers than they put in, while men put in more than they take out? How they are the most likely to abuse children, yet men are always cast as the abusers? How it is nearly impossible for them to be indicted on domestic abuse charges even though they account for about 40% of reports? How they can cry rape and ruin a man's life with no evidence? How they make up the majority of college graduates? How school has been tailored towards girls since 1970? How they have received the right to vote, yet are still not required to be a part of the draft? Shall I go on? Blind to reality? My dear boy, you haven't a grasp of that word or its meaning. Your "reality" is whatever propaganda you've been told to swallow. Chew long and hard.
Ooh, look at you bringing up the pay gap -- the only place you ever turn. It's complete bullshit of course. When considering equal education, equal experience, and equal hours worked, women make 107% of what men make. That means more, in case you didn't get the memo. It amazes me how such easily disprovable lies spread through society. Until I meet people like you.
Would you like to talk about the ways women are treated better? Shall we begin with the tender years doctrine, which grants them child custody in nearly all cases? How they receive half the time in prison for the same felony? How their contraception is paid for? How they make up only 4% of workplace deaths? How they take more out of the state coffers than they put in, while men put in more than they take out? How they are the most likely to abuse children, yet men are always cast as the abusers? How it is nearly impossible for them to be indicted on domestic abuse charges even though they account for about 40% of reports? How they can cry rape and ruin a man's life with no evidence? How they make up the majority of college graduates? How school has been tailored towards girls since 1970? How they have received the right to vote, yet are still not required to be a part of the draft? Shall I go on? Blind to reality? My dear boy, you haven't a grasp of that word or its meaning. Your "reality" is whatever propaganda you've been told to swallow. Chew long and hard.
Evidence to show that the pay gap doesn't exist?
www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=…
Here's proof it does. ThinkProgress, Stanford, Wikipedia, Department of Labor. Pick your poison. Your attitude is unnecessary.
Treated "better" is a more accurate way of putting that. They are given less time because they are viewed as weaker. They are given custody because they are viewed as objectively better parents because they are a mother. Their contraception is paid for as will ours when we have something of similar style. They make up for a small amount of workplace deaths because they are viewed as weaker and incapable of doing those jobs. Proof to back up the abuse claim? Proof to back up the 40% claim? They can cry rape? Yet most of the time rape actually happens and the guy gets off. Yeah, swing and a miss there. The guys life is not ruined, come on now. Let's not even pretend like that bullshit is remotely true. They make up the majority of college graduates? That's not being treated better. When society sees two genders, one will do more than the other. School has not been tailored towards girls even slightly. They are sent home for how they dress and they are still told they cannot play sports because they are a girl. What do you even mean tailored towards? Again, they are not required to be part of the draft because they are viewed as weaker and incapable. You listed maybe one actual legitimate thing that doesn't even prove how they are treated better. You are a sexist, plain and simple. You do not understand reality and it is not propaganda. Women fear walking alone in the middle of the day. They are hollered at from sidewalks daily. When they "cry rape", as you so ignorantly put it, most of the time they are blamed in some way or another. A large portion of women face sexual assault in their life and most grow up fearing to talk about it because of again, victim blaming. Yes, the pay gap does exist. They are viewed as weaker and therefore men have to carry the burden. You think that's because men have been treated unfairly? No, women were established in society to be weak, THAT'S what has caused this. A surprising amount of feminists see this while most MRA's are blind to it. If women were viewed as equal the problems I say and the problems you bring up would BOTH be addressed. How can you be so blind as to not see that? Women wouldn't be viewed as weaker, they'd be in the draft, they'd work more dangerous jobs, they wouldn't get the kid every time, etc... I've said it's two sides of the same coin. One coin. One solution. Regardless, you severely lack perspective in a borderline offensive way.
www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=…
Here's proof it does. ThinkProgress, Stanford, Wikipedia, Department of Labor. Pick your poison. Your attitude is unnecessary.
Treated "better" is a more accurate way of putting that. They are given less time because they are viewed as weaker. They are given custody because they are viewed as objectively better parents because they are a mother. Their contraception is paid for as will ours when we have something of similar style. They make up for a small amount of workplace deaths because they are viewed as weaker and incapable of doing those jobs. Proof to back up the abuse claim? Proof to back up the 40% claim? They can cry rape? Yet most of the time rape actually happens and the guy gets off. Yeah, swing and a miss there. The guys life is not ruined, come on now. Let's not even pretend like that bullshit is remotely true. They make up the majority of college graduates? That's not being treated better. When society sees two genders, one will do more than the other. School has not been tailored towards girls even slightly. They are sent home for how they dress and they are still told they cannot play sports because they are a girl. What do you even mean tailored towards? Again, they are not required to be part of the draft because they are viewed as weaker and incapable. You listed maybe one actual legitimate thing that doesn't even prove how they are treated better. You are a sexist, plain and simple. You do not understand reality and it is not propaganda. Women fear walking alone in the middle of the day. They are hollered at from sidewalks daily. When they "cry rape", as you so ignorantly put it, most of the time they are blamed in some way or another. A large portion of women face sexual assault in their life and most grow up fearing to talk about it because of again, victim blaming. Yes, the pay gap does exist. They are viewed as weaker and therefore men have to carry the burden. You think that's because men have been treated unfairly? No, women were established in society to be weak, THAT'S what has caused this. A surprising amount of feminists see this while most MRA's are blind to it. If women were viewed as equal the problems I say and the problems you bring up would BOTH be addressed. How can you be so blind as to not see that? Women wouldn't be viewed as weaker, they'd be in the draft, they'd work more dangerous jobs, they wouldn't get the kid every time, etc... I've said it's two sides of the same coin. One coin. One solution. Regardless, you severely lack perspective in a borderline offensive way.
Why am I not terribly surprised that your understanding of this topic extends as far as google search. I wish for once you people would surprise me by having something beyond talking points and Wikipedia quotes. Had you actually taken the time to research (oh the horror) the subject at hand, you might have noticed a number of links in your own, bias worded search (why not search "gender gap myth?" Are you terrified of other points of view?), make a mockery of you. The majority of them explain away 70% of the gender gap, but insist the rest is due to discrimination. A few others are brave enough to go all the way, and explain that when we consider the exact same job, education, time at work, etc, the gap does not exist. Do better.
This is all nonense, and an incredible amount of it. Yes, yes, I have heard it all before -- we all have. When a man has an advantage it is the "patriarchy". When a woman has an advantage, it is the "patriarchy". Wait, what? Do you even consider the ridiculous double standards your idiotic positions require you to hold, and does it frighten you how easily they slip out? When men were given custody of children, which they were until the tender years doctrine, it was claimed as a sign of the patriarchy. Now that women get custody, is that the matriarchy? Oh no, of course not. What an amazing one way street. When men performed better in school, this was a sign of favoritism towards male students. Now that girl's are doing better? Nothing to see here folks. I could go on and on through your entire list, but I'm sure you can figure it out from here. Just apply a moronic, transparent double standard of "heads I win tails you lose" to everything you've said and you'll get a nice summary of your "thinking."
Absurd attitudes like yours are why Hillary Clinton can say "women are the primary victims of war; women lose their husbands, fathers and sons," and no one bats an eye. Yes, even when men die horribly, it is the woman who has to live "sad" who is the real victim. Dear god.
This is all nonense, and an incredible amount of it. Yes, yes, I have heard it all before -- we all have. When a man has an advantage it is the "patriarchy". When a woman has an advantage, it is the "patriarchy". Wait, what? Do you even consider the ridiculous double standards your idiotic positions require you to hold, and does it frighten you how easily they slip out? When men were given custody of children, which they were until the tender years doctrine, it was claimed as a sign of the patriarchy. Now that women get custody, is that the matriarchy? Oh no, of course not. What an amazing one way street. When men performed better in school, this was a sign of favoritism towards male students. Now that girl's are doing better? Nothing to see here folks. I could go on and on through your entire list, but I'm sure you can figure it out from here. Just apply a moronic, transparent double standard of "heads I win tails you lose" to everything you've said and you'll get a nice summary of your "thinking."
Absurd attitudes like yours are why Hillary Clinton can say "women are the primary victims of war; women lose their husbands, fathers and sons," and no one bats an eye. Yes, even when men die horribly, it is the woman who has to live "sad" who is the real victim. Dear god.