Recommended Posts
Jeez. It's going to get to the point where there has to be a signed contract for each activity.
"Do you consent to kissing with tongue? If yes please tick and sign here. Do you consent to nipple licking? If yes please tick and sign here"
Coupled with video evidence....
Seriously if I were a single guy in California I would seriously consider buying a video camera and recording each sexual activity to protect my own ass.
This law does nothing to protect women and once again it will come down to "he said she said".
It smacks of certain people's desire to label all men rapists until proven otherwise.
mirage62It's a sad state of affairs when we have to pass a law that basically says don't be a damn animal.
Basically the law says that, you must have a "yes" verbal to have sex with someone, that the lack of a "no" was not a yes. Preventing drunk females (normally) from basically getting raped while drunk because they didn't say "no" (basically they said nothing)
I know I'm old....but in my day a guy that took advantage of a drunk female wasn't proud of it and was looked down on by people in my frat. Did it happen, I bet it did.....but now a days it sure seems like the stigma is gone.
Hate that we have to pass laws for decent behavior. Won't solve all the problems but HOPEFULLY after a few assholes go to jail the word will get out.
mirage62 0
If I had posted that the real answer was for someone to stomp the shit out if a guy that takes advantage of a drunk female.... Well some of you w make comments about "what happens if it was her fault"
This law attempts to address a problem that society has lost control of. I wasn't a perfect gentleman growing up but the idea of having sex w an obviously passed out person is just revolting to me. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be as rare as in the past.
So maybe it will be overturn, maybe there are problems but MAYBE it will get one young male from making a terrible mistake.
SkyDekker 1,278
Bolas***I believe that when a young man picks up a dead drunk women at a party, who is seen by others to be dead drunk, he damn sure better be careful about what happens.
Though in practice that is not how it works.
There is only one gender which is expected to remain responsible for their acts when drunk.
Shouldn't the other person's level of intoxication also be a factor?
Let's not genderfy this as the situation could be reversed or even in a same sex scenario.
mirage62This law attempts to address a problem that society has lost control of.
When did society ever have control over rape?
mirage62the idea of having sex w an obviously passed out person is just revolting to me.
As it is for 99% of men, including those college students that the state of California is now saying are rapists till proved otherwise.
mirage62Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be as rare as in the past.
Evidence for that statement? I believe groping and what we would now call sexual assault was the norm in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s (sorry don't know how old you are).
Rape has always happened unfortunately.
mirage62but MAYBE it will get one young male from making a terrible mistake.
How? If you need a law to tell you not to have sex with a passed out person then you are already far too fucked up.
The law is very vague. And it still leads to a "he says she says" situation. Except now instead of being a case of innocent till proven guilty, you will now have young men charged with rape because they had sex with a girl whilst they were both intoxicated.
This will do nothing to protect young women from being raped.
SkyDekker 1,278
Quoteyou will now have young men charged with rape because they had sex with a girl whilst they were both intoxicated.
Yup....like I said, only one gender is expected to be responsible when drunk.
mirage62 0
We could make some common sense comments:
1. How many drunk males are taken advantage by sober females??
2. Ok SkyDekker they are BOTH drunk, the female wakes up in the morning and decides she was raped. What changes now? (If the law wasn't there) she can claim rape at any time.
3.To the other person (sorry didn't catch the name) Google "College rape" with just a little looking you'll find all the information you need to decide if the numbers are increasing.
Last, and I'm sure this will go over like a turd in a church punch bowl.
I personally believe that there are better ways to handle these types of things. Generally I don't agree with passing laws. Perhaps I should have titled it "Ca. is trying to get it right" BUT....
I'm not as worried about the few as the many. No law is perfect. It's a start. I don't have a son... I have three daughters perhaps that shades my view, but if I had a son he wouldn't have the problem because I would teach him as a man not to screw women who can not consent.
Peace
SkyDekker 1,278
QuoteOk SkyDekker they are BOTH drunk, the female wakes up in the morning and decides she was raped. What changes now? (If the law wasn't there) she can claim rape at any time.
Because when both claim that they were too drunk to remember if consent was given, one is getting charged with rape and the other is a victim.
I will let you figure out which one is which.
champu 1
And his being drunk can't be used as an excuse for not being able to tell she was too drunk to have not understood what saying "yes" meant.
mirage62
I personally believe that there are better ways to handle these types of things. Generally I don't agree with passing laws. Perhaps I should have titled it "Ca. is trying to get it right" BUT....
I'm not as worried about the few as the many. No law is perfect. It's a start. I don't have a son... I have three daughters perhaps that shades my view, but if I had a son he wouldn't have the problem because I would teach him as a man not to screw women who can not consent.
Mirage, no one (I believe) is making personal judgments on you in this thread based on your postings. But you're wrong on this matter. Flat out wrong. As Skydekker points out, why if two people get drunk and fuck, the man is a rapist and the woman is a victim? You want this to be about passed out women, but this bill covers much greater ground.
A lousy law is not a good start to solving a problem. Particularly unconstitutional ones (since the law explicitly ignore actual rape charges in the criminal system, it might stand up, but that again proves how inappropriate it actually is).
What can you tell your three daughters? You can tell them that drinking leads to poor decisions, that men have used social lubricants to get some, that it's a good idea to have a wingwoman at a Frat party. Along with that they are the victim in a forcible rape event and yes, the situation is a bit unfair to them.
mirage62 0
I appreciate your comments, perhaps the bill which I have not read, is terrible.
Obviously several people here feel passionately that this is bad. I respect there right to have that thought.
Of course the male can avoid the issue by not being so drunk, or to not be with a women that is so drunk as to cause a problem. Perhaps that is to much to do. Perhaps it's unfair to the male. I'm SURE a better law could be crafted.
The part of the law that I thought and think is good (as I understand it) is that the approval of sex has to be a "yes" not a lack of a "no"
Let me ask this: Currently rape is about the same, he said/she said. I understand some of the fears being mention but to me they aren't that much different now.
I'm not worried about people's judgment of me here at S.C. as a friends said one time. "I've been called worse by better"
Besides look at the post numbers....I'm out of my depth posting with you guys.
Bolas 5
The reverse can be true too.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
Andy9o8 0
Quote...the bill which I have not read....
.... The part of the law that I thought and think is good (as I understand it) is that the approval of sex has to be a "yes" not a lack of a "no"
But as I said in post #2, it's really not that simple; the text of the law itself does not use the word "yes" in the context of communicating consent, or even require the affirmation of consent to necessarily be verbal. As much as the law's authors seem to have been trying to be specific, its language is actually, IMPO, quite vague and ambiguous.
Look, you really ought to take a minute or so to read the actual law. It's linked in my post above, and it's not very long.
Shotgun 1
BolasOf course the female can avoid the issue by not being so drunk, or to not be with a man that is so drunk as to cause a problem.
The reverse can be true too.
God forbid we look at the obvious.
Does yes still mean yes when the person has no recollection of saying yes?
But alcohol is too big of a problem to address, so let's just make goofy laws to skirt the issue.
SkyDekker 1,278
QuoteDoes yes still mean yes when the person has no recollection of saying yes?
Depends on the gender of the person.
And "incapacitated" dosen't mean "blackout drunk or passed out" which we can hopefully all agree would not be okay, it just means "not with the capacity to give consent" which could mean anything. They list "unconscious" separately.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites