YES means YES law - Ca. gets it right

[mirage62 0]

It'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.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Andy9o8 0]

A strictly technical point: the nickname of the law - "Yes means yes" - is a bit misleading, as it implies that affirmative consent necessarily needs to be verbal, when in fact that's not quite the case. To my reading of the statute, the affirmative consent may sometimes be expressed via non-verbal conduct.

Here's the actual text of the statute; judge for yourselves:

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

[Bertt 0]

Another technical point: This still boils down to one person saying "of course my partner said yes", and the other saying "uh, no I didn't".
I'm pretty sure the next step will be a requirement for either video proof or an eyewitness to consent.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[lummy 4]

Bertt

Another technical point: This still boils down to one person saying "of course my partner said yes", and the other saying "uh, no I didn't".
I'm pretty sure the next step will be a requirement for either video proof or an eyewitness to consent.

I'm waiting for someone to start selling waivers on campus

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[mirage62 0]

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.

I realize that this could be a he said she said situation. I personal believe that as a society we have reached a point were laws like this need to be passed (I'm NOT a big LAW passer)

The sad part is that there needed a law like this to be passed. Again how "cool" is it to take a completely drunk person to bed?

You may get to a point where a badly drunken person isn't given a ride home out of fear of what could be claimed....

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Bolas 5]

mirage62

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.

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.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bertt 0]

What you describe is already rape under existing law because the "dead drunk" woman is not capable of consent. In fact, the California law is really a requirement for state funded schools to have a policy in place. It doesn't really say people must change their behavior; just that there has to be a policy that says they should. Kind of like a warning label.
I'm still trying to think of ways to prove consent, so how about this. What if the partners have to agree on a certain payment for certain sex acts, followed by money changing hands. Wouldn't that prove consent? Problem solved. You're welcome, California.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Bolas 5]

Bertt

What you describe is already rape under existing law because the "dead drunk" woman is not capable of consent. In fact, the California law is really a requirement for state funded schools to have a policy in place. It doesn't really say people must change their behavior; just that there has to be a policy that says they should. Kind of like a warning label.
I'm still trying to think of ways to prove consent, so how about this. What if the partners have to agree on a certain payment for certain sex acts, followed by money changing hands. Wouldn't that prove consent? Problem solved. You're welcome, California.

If combined with the video requirement, no new law is required as it becomes performance art.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kelpdiver 2]

mirage62

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.

This law won't hold up. Note that it doesn't apply to criminal courts, just the school admin boards. The first time a kid gets put on probation or expelled from Cal because he can't prove she said yes, it's going to trial.

Sorry, Mirage, you can't sacrifice presumption of innocence just because college kids behave poorly.

It does remind me of Elsinore practice to video tape all jumpers reading the waiver aloud. That's about the only level of proof that would actually improve the problem. With smart phones all having video, it would be pretty easy to crank out an app that records "yes I want to fuck you" testimonials. Though even then I can see problems if she happens to slur her speech a little, so unless it's coupled with a BAC analyzer, we're still forcing the defendant to prove he's innocent.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Sorry, Mirage, you can't sacrifice presumption of innocence just because college kids behave poorly.

[champu 1]

The other issue is that the language of the bill makes being drunk yourself not a defense as well as rendering invalid what would otherwise be affirmative consent of the other person if they are "incapacitated" due to use of alcohol if you should have known they had too much to drink. Soooooooo.... Last one to the student services office is a rotten egg... er... rapist...

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.

[Backintothesky 0]

How many people actually say "yes I confirm I want to fuck you" before having sex?

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.

mirage62

It'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]

LOL, listen guys. Most of you don't know me personally. Some think you know me from post here. My point was and is that this is one of the few times that I see a law as a good start to a problem.

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.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[SkyDekker 1,121]

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.

[Backintothesky 0]

mirage62

This law attempts to address a problem that society has lost control of.

When did society ever have control over rape?

mirage62

the 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.

mirage62

Unfortunately 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.

mirage62

but 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 1,121]

Quote

you 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]

ROTFLOL, I give up.

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

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

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.

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]

It goes beyond that even... it invalidates affirmative consent that she may have very well given if she was drunk when she gave it but then later says she "couldn't understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activitiy."

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

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.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[Bolas 5]

Of 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.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
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]

Bolas

Of 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 1,121]

Quote

Does yes still mean yes when the person has no recollection of saying yes?

Depends on the gender of the person.