patrick.net

These kind of stupid laws by feminists is what makes even something as disgusting as rape highly suspicious. So a woman didn't say yes, was silent, smiled, enjoyed it and wanted more-technically it is still rape?

What about the man-if he didn't say yes and woman grabbed his junk and he enjoys a good blowjob-by this law it means he is raped?-because ehe never said yes?? Of course these kind of laws never apply to men. feminazis will never stop until they make this the female version of Saudi Arabia.

A written contract should be required. In fact, an independent observer should be present at all times.

I am adding this to my long list of reasons to not live in California.

Agree with zzyzzx. One more thing that I don't have to worry about now that I don't live in California anymore.

Fellas, it's time to drop the USA altogether and start to legally bone hoes in Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Germany, Brazil, and the list goes on.

This country blows.

There's so much sodomy going on in California, the laws have to protect the heathens from them selves.

Unless they arrest every woman who has sex without providing written or recorded consent and receiving the same from the man, this bill would be a violation of the Equals Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under law, men and women are equals. Period. No law shall be applied to one while the other has immunity.

Furthermore, this law does nothing to prevent the he said / she said problem. It would make more sense to require all people in California to wear chastity belts that can only be unlocked by the state. That way, consent can be confirmed and notarized, and made a public record. Of course, that means everybody knows who everybody is fucking.

Those who do not say no deserve no protection. Rape should be redefined to include only forcible or physically coerced sexual acts. Other semi-consensual forms of "rape" should not be consider legitimate.

The problem with the law is that no man or woman verbally says, "I consent to have sex with you at this time.". No one does. Not ever.

I mean, have you ever, ever had sex with a woman? Did she every state a "verbal affirmation" that she wanted sex? Women don't do that, they never have, and you can't fight millions of years of evolution.

That's not to say it's not clear when sex is consensual and when it's not. But this bill does nothing to solve that problem. It's still one person's word against another unless their is evidence of violence or a video of the act. Hell, in principle, a man could claimed that the woman raped him since she initiated the sex and he did not give verbal affirmation. I doubt our courts would be impartial though.

MattBayArea says

Additionally, when women are so drugged up that they can't consent

That's already illegal and easy to prove, unlike lack of verbal affirmation.

MattBayArea says

The bottom line is that there is NOT a problem with women lying and claiming they were raped in order to get men in trouble.

There are scumbag men who rape and there are scumbag women who lie about being raped. There is plenty of evidence for both claims.

MattBayArea says

There IS an epidemic of rape

Actually it's the opposite, the rape rate has been steadily declining making all time lows year-after-year.

MattBayArea says

This requirement to hear 'yes' will help in cases where men force themselves upon women who are too frightened to say no

This is utterly retarded and totally impractical. Plus, it violates the 14th. Any society defining crimes where the accused has to prove their innocence is slipping into fascism fast.

MattBayArea says

Changes need to be made and who the fuck gives a shit if they're perfect, if they help

I do and everybody who has a son should. There is a reason why most bay area men are frightened pussies, too scared to walk up to a girl at a bar and ask her out, and usually bossed around and abused should they find a gf once in a while.

I often have to look twice to figure out who's a boy and who's a girl in preschool because almost all manly behavior has been eradicated.

The best way to prevent sexual violence against women is to teach them self-defense techniques like Krav Mags.

Someone with a weak mind cannot call her change-of-heart a rape.

The only valid female sex act is bearded clam face slathering by the immense hirsute lesbian.

Everything else is rape.

Immense non hirsute lesbian shaved clam has an easement.

So how is this supposed to change the whole "he said / she said" problem? The guy can still say she said "yes" when she may not have actually consented and she can say she was "raped" even if she was the aggressor.

Without a written, notarized contract or a professional, unbiased camera and sound crew on site to record the entire act in 3D 4k def who's to say what really happened?

We obviously need more inmates for the prison industrial complex.

marcus says

That's not to disagree that there are too many questionable allegations too. But let's not confuse the two or conflate one with the other.

Many moons ago, one of my classmates attacked a guy, because he'd allegedly date raped his female platonic friend.

Later, I'd found out that the man and the woman, had actually slept together in the same bed but throughout the night, he was groping her, until she finally gave in.

Now, WTF was that? The last time a woman offered to snuggle up with me, overnight sharing the same bed, it was ---CLEAR---, what she really wanted me to do to her. It wasn't to play a teddy bear.

The affect of the law is going to be making guys more cautious. But I can also see how it will or could be seen as taking some of the fun and challenge out of the game for a young guy that is of seducing a woman, by slowly moving from making out to other things. Then again, even though it's been a long time since I was young and in that situation, I always knew when I had the green light. I can see it being kind of funny, right at that moment when the girl is like "bring it!" to stop for a few seconds and ask her, "are you sure ? I need you to say it out loud....."

If on the other hand the particular girls game is saying no because she likes it that way, she's going to have to sign an elaborate role playing contract, with safety words and so on, and that might kind of kill the whole turn on of that for her, especially if what turns her on is going that route with guys she doesn't know and isn't already involved with. Women that are in to that are going to be out of luck.

Here is the text of CA-SB-967

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

Basically, the bill is CIVIL law that denies ALL state funding to any college that does not follow the rules spelled out in the law, rules about how the college must handle complaints against students for sexual assault, EVEN WHEN there is no criminal complaint filed, nor any finding of guilt (or innocence) in a court law.

Among the requirements of the law (quoted from reference)

---------------------------------------------

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

--------------------------------------------

Basically, the law will force all colleges to establish kangaroo courts where sexual assault complaints will be treated as follows:

1. sexual assault is proven unless the accused can produce evidence (witnesses, recording, signature provably not obtained under duress) of affirmative consent.

2. the cases are handled by a much lower standard of evidence than the criminal court standard of proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt". The standard of guilt "by the preponderance of the evidence" just means "more-likely-than-not" or "50.1% convinced".

3. all kinds of protections granted to criminal defendants, such as the right to counsel, are not recognized.

Many college students, all male, have already been found guilty by similar tribunals required by the Federal Title IX statutes regarding federal funding.
If you search the web you will see that several universities already have lost lawsuits brought by male students whose lives were ruined after being expelled from colleges based on the findings of such tribunals.

This already is a big mess of injustice, and it will get worse. War on men, anyone?

Folks, this is just another "Zero Tolerance" Policy.

Some people stab people, so ban all knives, including plastic butter knives.

The law we DO need is that colleges can't make decisions about Rape until after the Criminal Trial. Administrator lead Courts of Star Chamber don't let the accused faced the accuser, judge on hearsay, and pursue the action most likely to keep the school out of the papers and out of trouble, which means the Accused of a Heinous Crime is always guilty.

We've seen Public University "Justice" time and time again, whenever reputation of the School is involved. It's positively Kafka-esque.

In years past, a guy would have been judged a disgusting pig for video recording his conquests. Now, it's just smart.

If rape were legal, this problem would go away.

"Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

Apart from being evil, the law is also written by people of low mental ability.

Read the above quote, and ponder the following: What about the case, where there is neither ongoing consent throughout ("oh yes baby, harder") NOR a revocation of consent ("STOP, my consent to sexual intercourse is hereby revoked").

What if neither occurs? There might be some cases where a man says "she was on top of me and continued actively enveloping me after I stopped providing affirmative ongoing consent". Expell her!

MattBayArea says

when women are so drugged up that they can't consent, any sex with them is rape - this change may help prevent that.

No. When they are drugged up they'll say 'yes, YES, YEEESSSS'.
Then they'll say they were drugged up and that was rape.

The law will ensure that premarital sex will be discouraged which will reduce the number of abortions as well as stigmatized bastards in society who wonder why they get passed around like cars by being with mommy from sunday night till thursday afternoon and with daddy from thursday afternoon till sunday night week in and week out.

dublin hillz says

The law will ensure that premarital sex will be discouraged which will reduce the number of abortions as well as stigmatized bastards in society who wonder why they get passed around like cars by being with mommy from sunday night till thursday afternoon and with daddy from thursday afternoon till sunday night week in and week out.

Abortion is not a bad thing. The government should encourage it.

Better yet, there should be a lump-sum sterilization tax credit as well as a one-time birth tax. To be fair, parents can receive a marginal-tax rate reduction.

Peter P says

Abortion is not a bad thing. The government should encourage it.

Perhaps, but it's still better to not have unwanted pregnancy in the first place rather than be in a situation where abortion is contemplated.

dublin hillz says

Peter P says

Abortion is not a bad thing. The government should encourage it.

Perhaps, but it's still better to not have unwanted pregnancy in the first place rather than be in a situation where abortion is contemplated.

Perhaps there should be this college campaign:

IUD, not DUI

What do these affirmative consents say?

Fuck me now, you animal, pull it out and fuck me, I have to have it NOW!

signed: Rabid, Horny female _______________

Gun shy male with random erection______________

Voyeuristic Witness and.or tape/video_______________

CA-if a woman smiles, enjoys sex with you-you still raped her

False.

I think everyone needs to calm down a bit on this.
If a woman kisses you - that means yes.
If she unbuttons her clothing or your clothing - that means yes.
If she is does just one of the many other things that people do when having consensual sex - it means yes.

This law is really about getting state universities to be tougher on, for example, frat parties where drunk/drugged and semi-conscious or unconscious girls are fucked.

Several years ago I had to pick up my 19 year old niece and her friend at 6am from Alta Bates hospital. She had passed out at a Berkeley frat party and someone called for an ambulance. What happened was vague - but it appears she was slipped a mickey and that she had had sex. She had gone to the party with her friend who she was visiting. Same thing happened to her. They arrived at the party at 9 and they didn't remember anything after 10. The call for the ambulance was at 2 am.

My niece is a good kid and not promiscuous. At the time she had a serious bf (who she has since married and has 2 kids with) and the only reason they went to the party was because her friend had a crush on one of the frat boys.

The university police got involved but said it wouldn't be easy to build a case. Both girls were mortified by the prospect of defending themselves and hearing the details of what happened.

This is what this law is addressing and trying to prevent. Will it work? Probably not so much. But it is certainly not "American jihad against men".

Just don't to to frat parties. If they want to meet frat boys, go to the Marina district of SF.

rooemoore says

If a woman kisses you - that means yes.

Maybe when you're middle aged. But no, not to kids. Are you kidding me ?

I feel bad for you if that's your experience.

rooemoore says

his is what this law is addressing and trying to prevent. Will it work? Probably not so much. But it is certainly not "American jihad against men".

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you here.

Peter P says

Just don't to to frat parties. If they want to meet frat boys, go to the Marina district of SF.

The true victims are the parents who are shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for university expenses often to the detriment of their retirement only to have their "children" do these things at frat/sorority parties.

rooemoore says

but it appears she was slipped a mickey and that she had had sex.

rooemoore says

Both girls were mortified by the prospect of defending themselves and hearing the details of what happened.

This is exactly the problem. The people with legitimate cases aren't the ones who are so quick to launch complaints because they are truly scarred and humiliated by what happened. Under no circumstances should the guys who did what they did to your niece and her friend have been allowed to get away with it. I am truly sorry for what happened to them.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of young women who use the system to get back at a guy who doesn't want to commit, for example. They aren't scarred or particularly humiliated, so they have no problem telling a sordid story just to get even. In fact, they like the attention it gets them.

dublin hillz says

Peter P says

Just don't to to frat parties. If they want to meet frat boys, go to the Marina district of SF.

The true victims are the parents who are shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars for university expenses often to the detriment of their retirement only to have their "children" do these things at frat/sorority parties.

Those parents victimized themselves by not using condoms when they were young.

Is it time to invent a 21st century chastity belt? Entering a secret code to unlock can imply consent.

marcus says

rooemoore says

If a woman kisses you - that means yes.

Maybe when you're middle aged. But no, not to kids. Are you kidding me ?

I feel bad for you if that's your experience.

You feel bad for me because I've kissed girls and had sex with them?

rooemoore says

You feel bad for me because I've kissed girls and had sex with them?

No. Because if true, then in your youth you never kissed a girl who would not have sex with you that same day. No matter how much of a stud you were or think you were, when you're young there are the kind of girls that are going to make out with you and enjoy it, without going all the way that first time. It can be because they wanted and needed to go through lots of teasing first, or because she was the kind of girl that was "hard to get" and concerned about not being perceived as a slut. OR simply that she didn't feel ready or that you were "the one" (to be her first, or her next). That doesn't mean she can't enjoy toying with you and or being toyed with.

I'm not saying I was a cassanova. The truth is I was sort of a late bloomer. But it was the seventies and I was a good looking nice guy who got his share (like in the Bob Sieger song).

Yes, I believe that you had to have missed out if you fucked every girl that kissed you (the same day) - or if you think that every girl that kissed you would have let you fuck her that same day.

Dan8267 says

Unless they arrest every woman who has sex without providing written or recorded consent and receiving the same from the man, this bill would be a violation of the Equals Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Under law, men and women are equals. Period. No law shall be applied to one while the other has immunity.

Furthermore, this law does nothing to prevent the he said / she said problem. It would make more sense to require all people in California to wear chastity belts that can only be unlocked by the state. That way, consent can be confirmed and notarized, and made a public record. Of course, that means everybody knows who everybody is fucking.

Do not forget a background check and 10-day wait period for everyone who wants to engage in sexual activity.

The changing pattern of Rape in America:

1950

Man just out of prison, in heat, pulls woman off the side of the sidewalk in late afternoon. Pulls her against wall, enters her, and orgasms. About 10 seconds. She gets pregnant, doesn't think about it and he later is killed or goes to prison. Later on that child grows up to be President of a Fortune 500 company because of his shameful beginnings.

1970

A twisted 19 year old, who is impotent, posts pictures of Farah Fawcett on his walls. Bitter at his situation, and angry at his carping divorced Mom, he goes off into the streets with a penknife. He finds a young swinging single woman living alone and enters her apartment. He rapes not out of pleasure but of violence. Later the woman is encouraged to come out in front of a court and go on TV to tell the world about it and remove the shame.

2014:

A college coed dressed up in her 6 inch candies, plaid micro skit and tube top because it's "80s Night" at the bar. Before going she tells her boyfriend she's studying but she confides in her friends she's really out to find a hot guy with a cool car. At the bar, she has half a Cosmopolitan, and tired from schoolwork, becomes flirty with a young physics grad student who works out. They exchange Facebook data and, like most nights, he goes home alone at 10pm to play some XBox with online friends.

Suddenly at 2am there is a loud scratching at the door. She has stumbled from the bar to his dorm room. He lets her in and she, no longer drunk from the long walk, pushes him onto the bed. After 90 minutes of oral, anal, vaginal sex, she gets up, dresses. As she starts to open the door, he asks her, "do you want a cab?" And she says "no".

3 weeks later, she is having coffee with her boyfriend, and he asks if she's had sex with another guy. She starts to cry and say, "this weird guy raped me". Later on the grad student is convicted of 1st degree Battery and put in jail for 25 years because she said "no".

rooemoore says

If a woman kisses you - that means yes.

No, it doesn't. If a man was accused of rape and his defense included the statement "If a woman kisses you - that means yes." he would probably be assumed guilty automatically, and spend life in prison just for saying that, no matter whether he was even guilty or not.

You can't be serious.

John Bailo says

She starts to cry and say, "this weird guy raped me". Later on the grad student is convicted of 1st degree Battery and put in jail for 25 years because she said "no".

Yep, and then are those who criticize me, for wanting to see hoes up in Canada than in wasting time, dating around here.