Futile law,, in my opinion

Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.

The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".

The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.

Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.

Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.

http://news.yahoo.com/california-passes-yes-means-yes-campus-sexual-assault-092512755.html


how do you prove or disprove such 'consent' occurred?

I have a contract I make women sign.

Can't you just see it now..... NO WITNESSES!

After all, they have a life and career to consider.......

typical knee jerk reaction of the '' beautiful people '' MANY ARE OVER EDUCATED IN TODAYS WORLD TO THE POINT THEY NO-LONGER HAVE COMMON SENSE--

I think it was a Woody Allen movie about the future where the couples had to have a written contract before engaging in sex.

If a woman wants to claim rape she should be required to have at least two males testify to her being morally correct and innocent.

BTW
That's NOT my idea.

The law takes away the excuse that the woman didn't say "no".

lol, its almost come to that

understood, but its applying the law that makes it futile

how will one prove she said 'no' or didn't say 'yes'?

and is it going to be rape as long as there isn't a verbal YES, because that could lead to a lot of pissed off females , who didn't actually say yes while they were undressing,,,,being legally vengeful

A text or voicemail approving of sex is binding.

I've been using those when communicating with my soon to be ex old lady.

My attorney told me she could possibly claim I stole her car and wouldn't give it to her.

I sent a text and mentioned her car still parked at my place. She recorded a message that she needs more time to pick it up.

My evidence is still recorded and the attorney witnessed it.

If the man admits that he didn't hear the woman say "Yes", then he is without an excuse.

and knowing this, what man will say they didn't hear it,,,?

The new California law may be flawed, but at least it is an attempt to aid the victims of rape.

sometimes doing something still accomplishes nothing

it would be doing something to force victims to prove vaginal injury,, but that wouldn't mean it was a good idea

I am thrilled rape is being taken seriously, but I am not thrilled that time and energy was spent on this solution instead of something that is more applicable and enforcable

Yes. I'm very confused by this law.

If a woman takes her clothes off, then takes my clothes off, then lies down and pulls me on top of her....then I penetrate her without getting a 'yes'... then I raped her??? Is that what this law is saying?

That's whack.

I mean, if both parties did physical acts to make their intentions clear and to facilitate sex, and neither party gives a yes, is it possible that both parties committed rape?

I understand that the grey areas of consent cause serious problems for some people, but I have serious doubts about this law as a solution.

Like liberal Democrats, some laws have good intentions but bad results.

















Wait. Did I say "Like liberal Democrats" out loud?