100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Affirmative Consent law passes in Cali | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. Dude, I asked another dude what his interpretation is of claiming my opinion is prejudice, dude. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. Dude, I asked another dude what his interpretation is of claiming my opinion is prejudice, dude. Well, that other dude isn't calling you a racist. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 10/01/14 05:54 PM
|
|
I'm so glad so many people thing Rape is a laughing matter. I for one think that one rape victim is too much. hey prime, I have been assaulted twice in my life, so I definitely wouldn't laugh about rape,, I just don't quite understand the purpose or enforceability of such a law,,,understanding that sex/lovemaking can be a very intimate thing or a very impulsive thing that not everyone responds to in the same way mandating the response,, seems like missing the mark,, to me anyhow,,,,especially since it will still come down to something that happens with only two witnesses Yeah... I get why people would feel that way about the bill. What I don't understand is when people choose to mock a bill instead of trying to understand it. I actually read the bill in it entirety. By what I read, it seems that the enforcement of the bill is by preventing funding to colleges and Universities that don't implement the policy. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(b) (1) Rape in the second degree is an act of sexual intercourse, an act of sodomy as described in subdivision (a) of Section 286, an act of oral copulation as described in subdivision (a) of Section 288a, or an act of sexual penetration as described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 289, which is accomplished without the affirmative and freely given consent of the victim, and a reasonable person would not have believed there was affirmatively and freely given consent. In a prosecution made pursuant to this subdivision, the prosecutor is required to demonstrate that the defendant did not reasonably believe that affirmative consent had been freely given.
(2) In determining whether consent was affirmatively and freely given, the totality of the circumstances, including the age of the victim, his or her relationship to the defendant, and any handicap or disability of the victim, and any threats of hardship not amounting to duress, shall be considered. (c) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress. The second quote is taken from senate bill 991 that was drafted in feb 2014. Section 2 explains what and how things are considered when consent is affirmative and freely given. I think that consent isn't well defined because mandating a response isn't what the legislature is trying to do. what they are trying to do is remove the obscurity of things like Date rape, rape by drugs and alcohol, and sex with someone sleeping. Essentially someone shouldn't have sex with anyone who can't consent. To clarify, By the terminology used in this new bill a few new things are being changed. 1) Colleges and Universities will lose funding if they don't update their policies regarding rape and rape victims. 2) Explains what updates they need to implement . a) The Definition of "Affirmative consent" is clarified more for Universities and Colleges . b) What new steps the universities and colleges need to take . c) Increasing assistance for trauma related to such events . d) Including prevention programs Does this make sense or do I need to clarify further. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. Dude, I asked another dude what his interpretation is of claiming my opinion is prejudice, dude. Well, that other dude isn't calling you a racist. Dude, and you know this (statement of fact), how? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 10/01/14 06:55 PM
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. Dude, I asked another dude what his interpretation is of claiming my opinion is prejudice, dude. Well, that other dude isn't calling you a racist. Dude, and you know this (statement of fact), how? Because If I was calling you a racist I would say it to you, and not infer it (not that I was doing that either). I am just saying exactly what I said and I can prove it if you like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so glad so many people thing Rape is a laughing matter. I for one think that one rape victim is too much. hey prime, I have been assaulted twice in my life, so I definitely wouldn't laugh about rape,, I just don't quite understand the purpose or enforceability of such a law,,,understanding that sex/lovemaking can be a very intimate thing or a very impulsive thing that not everyone responds to in the same way mandating the response,, seems like missing the mark,, to me anyhow,,,,especially since it will still come down to something that happens with only two witnesses Yeah... I get why people would feel that way about the bill. What I don't understand is when people choose to mock a bill instead of trying to understand it. I actually read the bill in it entirety. By what I read, it seems that the enforcement of the bill is by preventing funding to colleges and Universities that don't implement the policy. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(b) (1) Rape in the second degree is an act of sexual intercourse, an act of sodomy as described in subdivision (a) of Section 286, an act of oral copulation as described in subdivision (a) of Section 288a, or an act of sexual penetration as described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 289, which is accomplished without the affirmative and freely given consent of the victim, and a reasonable person would not have believed there was affirmatively and freely given consent. In a prosecution made pursuant to this subdivision, the prosecutor is required to demonstrate that the defendant did not reasonably believe that affirmative consent had been freely given.
(2) In determining whether consent was affirmatively and freely given, the totality of the circumstances, including the age of the victim, his or her relationship to the defendant, and any handicap or disability of the victim, and any threats of hardship not amounting to duress, shall be considered. (c) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress. The second quote is taken from senate bill 991 that was drafted in feb 2014. Section 2 explains what and how things are considered when consent is affirmative and freely given. I think that consent isn't well defined because mandating a response isn't what the legislature is trying to do. what they are trying to do is remove the obscurity of things like Date rape, rape by drugs and alcohol, and sex with someone sleeping. Essentially someone shouldn't have sex with anyone who can't consent. To clarify, By the terminology used in this new bill a few new things are being changed. 1) Colleges and Universities will lose funding if they don't update their policies regarding rape and rape victims. 2) Explains what updates they need to implement . a) The Definition of "Affirmative consent" is clarified more for Universities and Colleges . b) What new steps the universities and colleges need to take . c) Increasing assistance for trauma related to such events . d) Including prevention programs Does this make sense or do I need to clarify further. I don't see how it could be clarified. I read what you read and I still didn't see what was going to be considered 'affirmative consent' it is already illegal to have sex with someone intoxicated but the problem is in PROVING The rape,, which doesn't really change by this policy of stating there must be some consent the accused will most likely BELIEVE consent existed, and was given, and if not, wont admit that they didn't believe it,,,,or that it wasn't given in such a sexually 'free' world, I really don't have ideas as to how to decrease rape its really a he said/she said crime usually the best thing to decrease the rates, I believe, is to teach people more caution and vigilance in their own choices regarding drinking, mixed crowds, and the messages they may send with their body and verbal language,,,as well as teaching males and females more respect for not only their own bodies but the bodies of others,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only guarantee to avoid a woman falsely claiming rape is with a notarized consent form.
Even those liberals who are complete idiots should know that. Every time I type liberal, I have to go wash my hands to git da stank off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. Dude, I asked another dude what his interpretation is of claiming my opinion is prejudice, dude. Well, that other dude isn't calling you a racist. Dude, and you know this (statement of fact), how? he posted that it was offensive and prejudice,, where does 'racist' fit in? that's a very specific TYPE of prejudice that I didn't see an accuation of , |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 10/01/14 06:36 PM
|
|
Furthermore, the accusation that all liberals shouldn't reproduce is as offensive as saying that "Insert race here" shouldn't reproduce, gays and lesbians shouldn't reproduce, poor women should have their tubes tied, or all NRA shouldn't have kids. Show me an accusation. You are entitled and I am entitled to an opinion. My opinion being, for the sake of humanity, most liberals should not produce. Accusing statement: It's best for humanity if liberals don't reproduce. While you are right that you have an opinion. That doesn't mean that it isn't as offensive as saying that "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to live, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to reproduce, or "insert any group here" shouldn't have the right to survive. It's literally prejudice. As in by the literal definition of prejudice. In my opinion prejudice has no reason in society, and thus there is no reason why I shouldn't let it cultivate by my inaction. that's not a joke, nor in any way humorous in nature. Are you calling me a racist? Dude, nobody here is calling you a racist. Dude, I asked another dude what his interpretation is of claiming my opinion is prejudice, dude. Well, that other dude isn't calling you a racist. Dude, and you know this (statement of fact), how? Because If I was calling you a racist I would say it to you, and not infer it(not that I was doing that either). I am just saying exactly what I said and I can prove it if you like. weird ... I don't even remember posting this... quote of me ... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back on topic.
The only guarantee to avoid a woman falsely claiming rape is with a notarized consent form. Even those liberals who are complete idiots should know that. Every time I type liberal, I have to go wash my hands to git da stank off. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
he posted that it was offensive and prejudice,, where does 'racist' fit in?
that's a very specific TYPE of prejudice that I didn't see an accuation of , 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so glad so many people thing Rape is a laughing matter. I for one think that one rape victim is too much. hey prime, I have been assaulted twice in my life, so I definitely wouldn't laugh about rape,, I just don't quite understand the purpose or enforceability of such a law,,,understanding that sex/lovemaking can be a very intimate thing or a very impulsive thing that not everyone responds to in the same way mandating the response,, seems like missing the mark,, to me anyhow,,,,especially since it will still come down to something that happens with only two witnesses Yeah... I get why people would feel that way about the bill. What I don't understand is when people choose to mock a bill instead of trying to understand it. I actually read the bill in it entirety. By what I read, it seems that the enforcement of the bill is by preventing funding to colleges and Universities that don't implement the policy. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(b) (1) Rape in the second degree is an act of sexual intercourse, an act of sodomy as described in subdivision (a) of Section 286, an act of oral copulation as described in subdivision (a) of Section 288a, or an act of sexual penetration as described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 289, which is accomplished without the affirmative and freely given consent of the victim, and a reasonable person would not have believed there was affirmatively and freely given consent. In a prosecution made pursuant to this subdivision, the prosecutor is required to demonstrate that the defendant did not reasonably believe that affirmative consent had been freely given.
(2) In determining whether consent was affirmatively and freely given, the totality of the circumstances, including the age of the victim, his or her relationship to the defendant, and any handicap or disability of the victim, and any threats of hardship not amounting to duress, shall be considered. (c) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress. The second quote is taken from senate bill 991 that was drafted in feb 2014. Section 2 explains what and how things are considered when consent is affirmative and freely given. I think that consent isn't well defined because mandating a response isn't what the legislature is trying to do. what they are trying to do is remove the obscurity of things like Date rape, rape by drugs and alcohol, and sex with someone sleeping. Essentially someone shouldn't have sex with anyone who can't consent. To clarify, By the terminology used in this new bill a few new things are being changed. 1) Colleges and Universities will lose funding if they don't update their policies regarding rape and rape victims. 2) Explains what updates they need to implement . a) The Definition of "Affirmative consent" is clarified more for Universities and Colleges . b) What new steps the universities and colleges need to take . c) Increasing assistance for trauma related to such events . d) Including prevention programs Does this make sense or do I need to clarify further. I don't see how it could be clarified. I read what you read and I still didn't see what was going to be considered 'affirmative consent' it is already illegal to have sex with someone intoxicated but the problem is in PROVING The rape,, which doesn't really change by this policy of stating there must be some consent the accused will most likely BELIEVE consent existed, and was given, and if not, wont admit that they didn't believe it,,,,or that it wasn't given in such a sexually 'free' world, I really don't have ideas as to how to decrease rape its really a he said/she said crime usually the best thing to decrease the rates, I believe, is to teach people more caution and vigilance in their own choices regarding drinking, mixed crowds, and the messages they may send with their body and verbal language,,,as well as teaching males and females more respect for not only their own bodies but the bodies of others,,,, That's the point. the bill is directed towards educators educating the new generation. I don't see how legislation could legislate peoples opinions, so government officials wouldn't be able to get teachers to teach respect. What they can do is force the ethical dilemma out into the open, and force educational institutions to educate their students on the issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 10/01/14 06:56 PM
|
|
he posted that it was offensive and prejudice,, where does 'racist' fit in? that's a very specific TYPE of prejudice that I didn't see an accuation of , Sorry my eyes were deceiving me there it would appear that I misunderstood who said that... I apologize for the misunderstanding. However I do thank you for conceding the argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm so glad so many people thing Rape is a laughing matter. I for one think that one rape victim is too much. hey prime, I have been assaulted twice in my life, so I definitely wouldn't laugh about rape,, I just don't quite understand the purpose or enforceability of such a law,,,understanding that sex/lovemaking can be a very intimate thing or a very impulsive thing that not everyone responds to in the same way mandating the response,, seems like missing the mark,, to me anyhow,,,,especially since it will still come down to something that happens with only two witnesses Yeah... I get why people would feel that way about the bill. What I don't understand is when people choose to mock a bill instead of trying to understand it. I actually read the bill in it entirety. By what I read, it seems that the enforcement of the bill is by preventing funding to colleges and Universities that don't implement the policy. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(b) (1) Rape in the second degree is an act of sexual intercourse, an act of sodomy as described in subdivision (a) of Section 286, an act of oral copulation as described in subdivision (a) of Section 288a, or an act of sexual penetration as described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 289, which is accomplished without the affirmative and freely given consent of the victim, and a reasonable person would not have believed there was affirmatively and freely given consent. In a prosecution made pursuant to this subdivision, the prosecutor is required to demonstrate that the defendant did not reasonably believe that affirmative consent had been freely given.
(2) In determining whether consent was affirmatively and freely given, the totality of the circumstances, including the age of the victim, his or her relationship to the defendant, and any handicap or disability of the victim, and any threats of hardship not amounting to duress, shall be considered. (c) As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress. The second quote is taken from senate bill 991 that was drafted in feb 2014. Section 2 explains what and how things are considered when consent is affirmative and freely given. I think that consent isn't well defined because mandating a response isn't what the legislature is trying to do. what they are trying to do is remove the obscurity of things like Date rape, rape by drugs and alcohol, and sex with someone sleeping. Essentially someone shouldn't have sex with anyone who can't consent. To clarify, By the terminology used in this new bill a few new things are being changed. 1) Colleges and Universities will lose funding if they don't update their policies regarding rape and rape victims. 2) Explains what updates they need to implement . a) The Definition of "Affirmative consent" is clarified more for Universities and Colleges . b) What new steps the universities and colleges need to take . c) Increasing assistance for trauma related to such events . d) Including prevention programs Does this make sense or do I need to clarify further. I don't see how it could be clarified. I read what you read and I still didn't see what was going to be considered 'affirmative consent' it is already illegal to have sex with someone intoxicated but the problem is in PROVING The rape,, which doesn't really change by this policy of stating there must be some consent the accused will most likely BELIEVE consent existed, and was given, and if not, wont admit that they didn't believe it,,,,or that it wasn't given in such a sexually 'free' world, I really don't have ideas as to how to decrease rape its really a he said/she said crime usually the best thing to decrease the rates, I believe, is to teach people more caution and vigilance in their own choices regarding drinking, mixed crowds, and the messages they may send with their body and verbal language,,,as well as teaching males and females more respect for not only their own bodies but the bodies of others,,,, That's the point. the bill is directed towards educators educating the new generation. I don't see how legislation could legislate peoples opinions, so government officials wouldn't be able to get teachers to teach respect. What they can do is force the ethical dilemma out into the open, and force educational institutions to educate their students on the issue. that's the thing,, there are many parts to the issue, including respect of self and others as it is, I still don't see what EXACTLY is being legislated/mandated,,, noting a difference between government LEGISLATION and school policy,, and figuring the government is mandating that schools have certain policies,, what are those policies , and how will the school be able to implement them (they certainly cant expect or teach both parties must verbally agree to sex before AND during), so how will that 'consent' policy be explained or implemented amongst the college population? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I'm more concerned that the previous legislation which mandated "'No' means 'no'" was somehow too ambiguous so we *needed* further legislation mandating that "Only an emphatic, enthusiastic, and continuing 'yes' means 'yes'".
Guess it becomes necessary to draw clearer, cleaner, and bolder lines in a Rape Culture, to remove any possible confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Serverousprime
on
Wed 10/01/14 07:21 PM
|
|
Yep they can't and that's not the point. legislators aren't trying to legislate verbal actions of sex. They are trying to legislate when people can't and thus any sexual act would be deemed as rape. The things the police will consider is:
* the totality of the circumstances * the age of the victim * his or her relationship to the defendant (suspect) * any handicap or disability of the victim * any threats of hardship not amounting to duress The things the the university needs to consider * The complainant was asleep or unconscious * The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication * The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition As for the implementation, that's up to the institutions. What is clear is that things are going to change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so they need this law... why? is rape not illegal in califorina already? signed confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yep they can't and that's not the point. legislators aren't trying to legislate verbal actions of sex. They are trying to legislate when people can't and thus any sexual act would be deemed as rape. The things the police will consider is: * the totality of the circumstances * the age of the victim * his or her relationship to the defendant (suspect) * any handicap or disability of the victim * any threats of hardship not amounting to duress The things the the university needs to consider * The complainant was asleep or unconscious * The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication * The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition As for the implementation, that's up to the institutions. What is clear is that things are going to change. I really don't think they will its too difficult to define what is 'consent' in a two person event like sex/making love I don't think this changes that,, I can think immediatel of examples where I was in a few of the above situations and made love but it wasn't rape,,, I have been involvd with someone who was 'threatening' to leave, and we were immediately after CONENTUALLY involve I have been involved with a supervisor(relationship) but it was still consentual I have been laying next to someone I was in a relationship and awakened to intimacy,, and it was consentual I have never been drunk, but many cases where that is concerned involve BOTH parties being drunk,, so I never have understood how they determine RAPE just from the drinking point being, besided possibly the handicap or incapacitation, I don't see where any of the considerations really clear up wheter something was consentual or not and AT THE END OF THE DAY,, we still will only be left with what two people say happened,,,, I say its best not to get ourselves into such iffy situations I certainly don't want to see sexual relations legislated rape is difficult to discern and prosecute, but I really don't think this adds anything that will make it any easier,,, |
|
|
|
|
