California Enacts 'Yes Means Yes' Law, Defining Sexual Consent

[Nathon Detroit]

Now wait just a minute.... aren't the liberals the ones who always say... "Government should stay out of our bedrooms." ? :think:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes California the first in the nation to have a clear definition of when people agree to sex. The law goes further than the common "no means no" standard, which has been blamed for bringing ambiguity into investigations of sexual assault cases. The new law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time." California's legislature approved the measure last month, with broad support. But while victims' rights advocates have welcomed the new standard, the law also has its critics, who say its requirements place too much burden on the accused.

FULL STORY

 

[genuineoriginal]

Now wait just a minute.... aren't the liberals the ones who always say... "Government should stay out of our bedrooms." ? :think:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes California the first in the nation to have a clear definition of when people agree to sex. The law goes further than the common "no means no" standard, which has been blamed for bringing ambiguity into investigations of sexual assault cases. The new law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time." California's legislature approved the measure last month, with broad support. But while victims' rights advocates have welcomed the new standard, the law also has its critics, who say its requirements place too much burden on the accused.

FULL STORY

Leave it to Californication Liberals to require Affirmative Action before you can have sex.

 

[GFR7]

Now wait just a minute.... aren't the liberals the ones who always say... "Government should stay out of our bedrooms." ? :think:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes California the first in the nation to have a clear definition of when people agree to sex. The law goes further than the common "no means no" standard, which has been blamed for bringing ambiguity into investigations of sexual assault cases. The new law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time." California's legislature approved the measure last month, with broad support. But while victims' rights advocates have welcomed the new standard, the law also has its critics, who say its requirements place too much burden on the accused.

FULL STORY

Yes. It's called hypocrisy......

 

[Ktoyou]

Good topic, read this morning and thought this had to be Barbra Boxer. It seems silly any sexual encounter would be halted by the female suddenly announcing, “ I give my concept to this encounter, I say YES!”

How shall they enforce this silly rule?

Perhaps men should insist on a written contract be made before any spontaneous desire is carried forth? Oh, that does sound romantic?

 

[Lighthouse]

The fact that it can be halted in the middle is going to cause problems.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Now wait just a minute.... aren't the liberals the ones who always say... "Government should stay out of our bedrooms." ? :think:

Well no, it's most people I think you'll find and the majority of those will say it's a different ball game if abuse is carrying on behind 'closed doors'. Where it comes to consent then if either person is unwilling to start or continue in an act of sexual intercourse then it's rape if the other forces it regardless. A tricky thing to prove in many situations buts lets get past the tired liberal/conservative aspect as that serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is really a disservice to the topic at hand. Where it comes to giving 'affirmative consent' ongoing then yeh, it does seem ridiculous. A loving couple in the throes of passion are hardly gonna want to sign verbal consent forms...

 

[Ktoyou]

Well. How are you going to deal with these young rabbits? It seems as if there is no logical compass here; as if the woman would have all the power? Consider, they are like rabbits today, and sure, some may think there is more to it, then finding out the man has no intent, the woman can claim she was raped because she did not give her consent!

I think what they should do is sign consent forms and they should be filed at the college. Otherwise, go back to how it was when I was young, when there was no sexual expectation until talk of marriage and many waited to after. Now if that is impossible, then there has to be some protection for men; they think it unmanly to address the issue. Same with asking directions, men do not like asking, so they drive around until they get more lost.