October 15, 2015

"As far as I can tell, the new 'affirmative consent' paradigm allows for a very realistic possibility of two adults raping each other at the same time..."

"... which makes a mockery of the whole concept of rape. And can't people have consensual sex even if they aren't fluent in the same language? And didn't people have consensual sex before the advent of language itself? And don't nonhuman animals have consensual sex without using language? Tying consent to 'explicit permission' seems like the kind of simplistic mistake that might be made by a first-year law student, who should realize upon further reflection that the law needs to be more accommodating of the diversity of real-world situations."

Writes John.

35 comments:

tim maguire said...

I hope you responded with something similar to your usual response to "that doesn't sound very gay to me"--it might have been a valid response long ago, but it's trite and beside the point now. Only suckers think this is about rape.

Sebastian said...

"which makes a mockery of the whole concept of rape."

No. It usefully expands it, bringing many more men within its scope, proving the evils of patriarchal oppression.

"And can't people have consensual sex even if they aren't fluent in the same language?"

No. Sex without open communication amounts to assault. You aren't outing yourself here, are you?

"And didn't people have consensual sex before the advent of language itself?"

No. Patriarchy always prevented consent by denying women's autonomy. Didn't you learn that back in college?

"Tying consent to 'explicit permission' seems like the kind of simplistic mistake that might be made by a first-year law student"

Not a mistake. A feature, not a bug. All part of the same Prog offensive.

"who should realize upon further reflection that the law needs to be more accommodating of the diversity of real-world situations."

Sorry, no. Law doesn't need to accommodate evil. Real-world situations need to be changed to fit the law. There is no diversity exception for rape.

"I feel bad for the teacher who has to teach this nonsense"

Don't. They are all eager soldiers in the Prog offensive.

Now stop bitching and get with the program.

Rick said...

Contrary to the branding of "Yes means Yes" or "Affirmative Consent" the policies as written and implemented are more honestly described as "Accusations Equal Guilt".

They're written as they are not by accident but because that's what the activists want.

Freeman Hunt said...

Considering that the rules exclude nearly all consensual sex had by human beings, they are clearly absurd. Under these rules, most adults have probably never had consensual sex.

Terry said...

Consensual sex is over rated.

Opinh Bombay said...

Smartphone App!

Touch here to Date / Time stamp your approval to

a) Allow me to touch your .....
b) Give permission for .....

b

stan said...

One Amherst College student was expelled because he blacked out from alcohol while being serviced (Lewinsky-style). She claimed afterward [2 years later] that she withdrew consent while doing what she was doing. He admitted he didn't remember anything. So he couldn't contradict her testimony that she withdrew consent. Thus, he "raped" her by allowing her to finish while he was blacked out.

Expelled.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/man-receives-sex-act-while-blacked-out-gets-accused-of-sexual-assault/article/2565978

Alexander said...

We move ever closer to the day when the only legal sex is sodomy and pedophilia.

Salon can't wait! #lovewins

Wilbur said...

How much conversation must occur at a glory hole to pass muster? Or anonymous gay sex period? Or do these standards only apply when a female is involved?

Caligula said...

Perhaps the concept is to be to create an environment in which all have committed crimes, thus bringing prosecutorial discretion to its logical end-point (in which authorities may punish anyone at whim)?

damikesc said...

Considering that the rules exclude nearly all consensual sex had by human beings, they are clearly absurd. Under these rules, most adults have probably never had consensual sex.

Gotta be rough for the blind or the deaf, considering that they cannot be assured of consent even more than most.

I'm supposed to be worried about a "War on Women", still though, aren't I?

One Amherst College student was expelled because he blacked out from alcohol while being serviced (Lewinsky-style). She claimed afterward [2 years later] that she withdrew consent while doing what she was doing. He admitted he didn't remember anything. So he couldn't contradict her testimony that she withdrew consent. Thus, he "raped" her by allowing her to finish while he was blacked out.

Could he charge her with theft?

I love that if a guy fucks a sleeping girl, the dude raped her.
If a girl blows a sleeping guy, the dude raped her.

EDH said...

So, this is what "getting the government out of your bedroom" looks like?

Fred Drinkwater said...

Terry: "Consensual sex is over rated."
I wouldn't know. Apparently I've never had it, so I have no way to compare. Sadly,though, I do not plan to turn myself in as a multiple felon. I'm just a bad person that way.
Let's see. The ALI proposal, generalized, says:

The only kind of X (a very common activity) which will be legal after today is a form of X which we cannot show has ever occurred in history, and we cannot describe a realistic process by which X could occur legally.

I have read that one of the typical features of totalitarian governments is the demand that people openly accept patent absurdities. Like some perverse form of Cognitive Behavior Therapy, this breaks down your ability to disagree with, or resist, any demand from the government. I only wonder if ALI and their ilk are doing this consciously, or because they are ignorant.

Bill Peschel said...

EDH: "So, this is what "getting the government out of your bedroom" looks like?"

Anyone else remember the SNL skit from the first year, when the Supreme Court visits this couple's bedroom to rule on their various sex acts under the sheets?

MaxedOutMama said...

We seem to be veering off into the land of unconstitutional vagueness and due process violations.

Taken literally, the married couple who wake up and sleepily begin fooling around before the alarm rings are both committing sexual assault.

At some point, such statutes are going to fall in court.

It's as if kidnapping were redefined as taking someone somewhere without their consent. And their consent when they got into the car "Let's go for pizza, Ron!" "Sure!" doesn't mean that they consented for the whole trip. So if you ended up at Papa John's when your passenger really wanted to go to Domino's, unless you explicitly asked for consent at the traffic light as in "Is it okay if I make the right turn to Papa John's - I've got a coupon?" the driver may be accused of kidnapping.

This is neither wise nor constitutional. At some point in the sex act, attention becomes diverted to the flesh, and verbalization is not a priority. When "She was humping me like a weasel, Officer," becomes an inadequate legal standard of consent, there is a problem.

Matthew Sablan said...

EDH: "So, this is what "getting the government out of your bedroom" looks like?"

Only if you agree to it.

Virgil Hilts said...

More minorities than whites are prosecuted for sex crimes per capita. I assume that educated people intend the inevitable consequences of their actions; the intent here is to send more and more brown and black men to prison (and or disproportionately kick them out of campuses, or get them on sexual offender lists so that they can never get a decent job again). All in response to a completely/fraudulently manufactured crisis. The progressives pushing this (just like heir hero Woodrow Wilson) really hate minorities.

Rick said...

the intent here is to send more and more brown and black men to prison (and or disproportionately kick them out of campuses, or get them on sexual offender lists so that they can never get a decent job again).

I don't think that's the intent but when it happens those pushing this rule will consider it proof America is run by racist white men.

Rocco said...

damikesc said:
"...[If a guy fucks a sleeping girl, the dude raped her. If a girl blows a sleeping guy, the dude raped her.
To prevent men from raping while sleeping, I hope that someone would invent a type of belt for men that is kinda like briefs; except that has a locking mechanism so that it cannot be removed or penetrated. Maybe even the key should be kept with the guy's parents.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Rocco: Uh...Don't ask how I know this, but google images is your friend (or maybe not, if you value your eyes)
[Today's my lucky day - Captcha made me look at French Fries!]

cubanbob said...

When it comes to legislation there is stupid and then there is California Stupid.

damikesc said...

At some point, such statutes are going to fall in court.

At some point, the people who proposed, passed, and signed these statues should be shot.

I would wonder if any of these busybodies have ever had sex in their lives.

Moneyrunner said...

Please keep in mind that these a our rulers. And that academics not only take them seriously but vote for them. As proof Anne voted for Obama without the influence of drugs, alcohol or threat to her physical safety. This is proof of something ... but Anne is the hostess so I will not impugn her intelligence or sanity.

Moneyrunner said...

At some point, such statutes are going to fall in court.
Why do you believe this is true? Your childlike faith in the courts deserves the laughter that the judges direct at the boobs they judge. Judges believe in all sorts of things: penumbras and emanations. Fees that are taxes. Unicorn farts. The fact is that the people on courts are members of the legal profession like Anne. People who are a combination of ideologues, gullible and willfully stupid. It's a requirement to be part of the bar. Of course some are women who are wise Latinas and they are still approved.

Douglas said...

What Freeman Hunt said.

Steven Davis said...

What Freeman Hunt said makes me wish all of my sex was consensual.

"Do you want it Baby?"
"Oh God Yes! Please give it to me!!!"
"Do you want some more?"
"PLEASE DON'T STOP!!!!"
"I have to stop every once and awhile. Do you want it ALL THE WAY?"
....

I am not Laslo

Steven Davis said...

I'd be interested in how this exchange would be judged:

"Please rape me!"
"Are you sure? I want to rape the hell out of you, but only if you want me to."
"YES, DO THAT! I WANT YOU TO RAPE ME HARD!!!"

I am not Laslo

holdfast said...

Most dolphins are rapists.

Just sayin'.

The Godfather said...

If this is going to be the rule, then there ought to be a requirement that the complaint be filed within 24 hours of the last "yes".

Paco Wové said...

Petards, hoist away:

Oxford student activist resigns from posts over non-consensual sex

Paco Wové said...

"the people who proposed, passed, and signed these statu[t]es"

E.g.;

Co-sponsors of SB-636
Sen. Mae Flexer, 29th Dist.
Rep. Gregory Haddad, 54th Dist.
Rep. Roland J. Lemar, 96th Dist.
Rep. James Albis, 99th Dist.
Rep. Matthew Lesser, 100th Dist.
Rep. Roberta B. Willis, 64th Dist.
Rep. Rick Lopes, 24th Dist.
Rep. Theresa W. Conroy, 105th Dist.
Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, 133rd Dist.
Sen. Steve Cassano, 4th Dist.
Rep. Robyn A. Porter, 94th Dist.
Rep. Whit Betts, 78th Dist.
Rep. Cara Christine Pavalock, 77th Dist.
Rep. Philip J. Miller, 36th Dist.

MaxedOutMama said...

Moneyrunner - but everyone has sex, practically. These judges will be faced with a situation in which they are either declaring themselves serial rapists or they are rejected the legality of the law, and somehow I don't think they are going to be declaring themselves serial rapists.

Further, there is a WHOLE LOT of very strong legal precedent saying what the government can regulate in terms of sex has limitations, going back to the penumbras of birth control for marital sex, etc. Individuals have the right under the Constitution, as the SC has understood it, to wander into the bedroom and hump happily away without the government controlling the details of that encounter. If that is not the meaning of Lawrence, Casey, etc, what is the meaning of those cases?

A series of Supreme Court panels have slowly built up case law that affirms that adult, consenting individuals have the right to sexual autonomy and self-determination.

Under the law as written, if one spouse wakes up in the middle of the night, gets bored, and plops a suggestive hand upon the genitals of the other in the hope of sparking something, IT IS SEXUAL ASSAULT. This is ridiculous.

mikee said...

I, for one, decided to carry a lupara and follow my daughter around her enormous state university campus during her four years there, to help prevent her from unwillingly joining the "1 in 5" women on that campus who would experience sexual assault before graduation. Nothing less seemed sufficient to protect her.

Despite the college's reported sexual crime rate of well less than 1% cumulative over four years, for all reported sexual assaults, reported to the feds under Clery reporting laws on campus crime, I decided treating the "1 in 5" number with respect was called for, as a responsible father of a young woman. Who could disagree with that desire to protect one's child?

However, in her junior year she invited me to dine with her, to meet a young man towards whom she expressed romantic interest. I showed up with the lupara, just in case she changed her mind during dinner and decided to withdraw her consent for him to reciprocate her romantic interest, maybe during dessert, I hoped because I was hungry.

That sawed off shotgun in my hand made eating my steak difficult, but it was worth it to know I was protecting my daughter from sexual assault on campus.

I urge those crowing over supposed sexual assault on campus and demanding ridiculous consent law reforms, to allow all females on campus legal carry of concealed handguns to help prevent rape on campus!

If those wanting reform to protect women say no, we know they aren't serious about protecting women.

Fred Drinkwater said...

mikee:
Usually I can get through my breakfast coffee Althouse reading without having to consult Google, but "lupara" stumped me.
Does your daughter wear a long duster a la Malcolm Reynolds? If not, I don't see how she's going to carry one of those concealed :-)

walter said...

This BS rapes the brain.