Affirmative Sexual Consent: Is it the future?

@lunacyde:

Cool

From what I understood, California legislature wants verbal consent before any sexual activity, right? In my opinion this law only spans from being redundant to.....detrimental. I think a few posters mentioned this before, but how does this stop or deter real rapist? UNLESS you're a rapist, consent in some, way, shape or form is a given. You wouldn't be having sex if the other part wasn't in to it, right? The added measure of pure verbal consent only leads into cases of he-said-she-said, which we already have today and which will hardly be different than they are now. The only difference here is that the male will probably be screwed over even more. Now I guess any person who doesn't get that verbal consent before hand is technically a rapist? There are so many shades of gray to that they're not even worth mentioning.

This law only protects females but males need protection from this type of stuff from the other end. I know more than a couple friends who could've been ruined if they had not had alibis or proof set in stone. Some posters may not want to see it, but like men, there are some PoS females out there. I'll probably catch heat for this, but hey, internet....

Just from a woman's whim I see a lot of innocent men going to jail. Women are crazy enough to do it, hell they do it now without the help of a law like this it'll just make it easier. I also see an increase in amateur porn since recording everything would be the best thing to do for proof.

I had better have my lawyer on speed dial so every time I have sex I have a third party and I'll have legal documents ready for the signatures as proof of consent.

@laflux: Which brings me on to my next point. Drunk people who have sex are not 100 percent "due to laziness, forgetfulness, stupidity" going to use a condom in the first place. On top of the fact that all the stuff you said is not as easy as simply putting on a rubber, its sounds silly because its unworkable.

How long does it take to send and respond to a text message that says: My name is pooty and i consent to having sex with Jane Doe?" Or make a short video saying: My name is pooty and i consent to having sex with Jane Doe...... It takes mere seconds. In my experience sending a text message or using my camera phone is just as easy as putting on a condom. Main Point: putting on a condom/sending a text message/making a short video all takes SECONDS. not minutes. SECONDS

This person knows sense.

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."

-- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

-- Andrea Dworkin

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."

-- Robin Morgan

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"

-- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."

-- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

@buttersdaman000: You realize that if this gets enforced, it will PROTECT men from unfounded accusations of rape just as much as it protects women from being raped. As long as it can be founded that both sides consented, a woman can't accuse someone of raping her, and less men will be accounted for a crime they didn't commit. If those innocent men follow the supposed new protocol to prove verbal consent then they'll be protected just the same. It's not a bad deal. If, like Pooty said, text messages or brief videos were exchanged, then there would be a ton less innocent men being accused of rape, and a ton more guilty men being convicted of it. The inconvenience or possible annoyance is the only possibly objective part of this. The only reason to not want it is because you're either lazy or are planning on getting some non-consentual nookie. That's my OPINION anyway.

"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisory to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

So if my gf does something nice like deciding on a whim to wake me up with a bj she now risks opening herself up to arrest and put on the sexual predator list for the rest of her life? There goes my favorite way to wake up. Thanks Obama.

Forgetting the above question because it was only half joking and doesn't cover my next statement. It really is a separate and not the bases for it.

If you look at it a certain way this is like having the choice taken away from people on how they define the rules and boundaries of the relationship without opening people up to a heep of trouble in the eyes of the law?

From my limited knowledge of this law IMO this over reaches. It wont stop bad people doing bad things and would do much harm to people it shouldn't. The courts are filled with laws like that. This is a step in the wrong direction.

Don't think it would work too well, although the idea is sound and I love the intention behind it.

Also seems like one of those situations where the focus on the problem is in the wrong place. Ideally the focus should be on addressing peoples behavior and ability to interact with other individuals in considerate, intelligent ways. Using their abilities to be empathic and aware and understand context when engaging with others and what is appropriate and inappropriate. So teaching people, especially young people to be more aware, considerate, tactful when engaging and interacting other individuals, rather than teaching them to rely on strict formula to bet met every time, all the time. For many people sexual activity and interaction already works very well without explicit verbal consent because they are sensitive to others non verbal gestures and advances, they stay within the boundaries that both individuals or multiple individuals are comfortable with, they employ a certain amount of trust and reason before getting to such intimate stages as well. Some people would much prefer non physical ways to indicate reciprocation or sexual intent.

Their will definitely be many individuals who are lacking in such sensitivity and awareness as far as interactions with others, but I wold really prefer if those people were seen as the problem that needs to be fixed, and those people should be more considerate and communicative before igniting sex. Better sex education classes or teaching. If a girl or guy is struggling to walk and you just met them that night - don't take advantage of a situation if you don't know her or him well enough to know whether they would be okay with some hanky panky - get them home safe and sound instead.

Imagine if people going to eat fast food had to confirm they know eating Big Mac's are going to make them fat and unhealthy before they could order? I know its not the same thing, or to put it another way, a statistic involving rape and sexual assault that I can't remember exactly but know is often underreported is how many victims are raped, attacked by spouses, because that can still happen. So does that mean even a married couple should start requiring verbal consent each time? Or is the problem more to do with some individuals ability to assess a situation and choose the best course of action and behavior?

That being said for all I know this could definitely lead to a reduction in rape, sexual assault and maybe my own arguments are just not applicable in any real way and so I would rather see anything that would reduce those horrid statistics. Just generally I prefer address the problem before it becomes a problem, well in advance.

Because everyone knows that women are the only ones that feel this way and only because rapists exist!

. . . yeah, I think users should tone it down a notch and stop hurling around insults.

@joygirl: @buttersdaman000: Hello. Not sure exactly what users are implying passively in a general sense or accusing more directly, but no users should be referring to other users as either a feminazi or a rapist. So both of you please be more careful with your wording. If you choose to keep addressing each other do so with a degree of goodwill and openness. Its okay to disagree with a modicum of civility.

Questions or concerns can be sent via PM. Posts from here that are too hostile or inappropriate will be deleted. Thanks. Oh also I will give you both a chance to remove anything in your posts so far that might seem inflammatory so far before deleting them as well. A few hours. So if you value your on topic points (and i think you both made great on topic points) please do so. Thanks.

Its fanciful it you think all Drunk people will remember to this without fail. And nope, putting on a Condom is easier.

Intentions seem great, but practicality is lacking.

And ultimately the problem with most cases is (as someone all ready says) its often party a's word vs party b's word.

Do people still honestly think the text message Idea can work?

Yea, it could work for the rapist, if they decide to use the woman's phone to send a message of consent.

:3

Huh. Good point.

@comicstooge: :P

So if 2 people are intoxicated and they have sex without even talking, and tomorrow they both feel raped, who will out of these 2 people go to jail?The male one.

btw mute people no longer can have sex.

@comicstooge: Are you serious with half your comments or are you making cracks at modern feminism?

Haha, I'm kidding, man.

@comicstooge: Phew, thank god. You can never know with people on the internet these days.

The sad thing is, all the quotes I said are real.

What I don't get is how this is supposed to give the certainty of consent. I mean, what keeps the woman from saying she was raped even if when they had the sexual intercourse she clearly said him yes?

@laflux: Drunk people inherit certain risk when they decide to get drunk. They are still responsible for the decisions they make good or bad. If they dont protect themselves that is on them. it doesnt make it a bad idea for the people who want to protect themselves. again, if you think putting on a condom is easier then sending a text message then fine. but sending a text or pic is still very easy. also, many people have passwords on their phones. Even if I'm passed out you can't send a fake message from my phone. Nothing will ever cover all the bases. still a little proof of consent is better then none

@joygirl: It's odd that people think this is a bad idea because of drunk people and rapist. I don't know of any law that forces drunk people and rapist to do the right thing. You'll always have people trying to take advantage of laws and people. If a person has to get drunk or rape someone to get laid, then this law doesn't help. but for the MILLIONS of other people this can be beneficial.

I see a lot of people saying that this law won't stop rapists from committing rapes. This is true, and I don't think this is what the law is necessarily trying to do. I think the main point of the law is to make it easier to prosecute cases where consent is not clear. If along the way it helps some college students refrain from making some terrible decisions along the way i think that is a tertiary reason for its passage.

Laws in general don't tend to deter criminals, but they do allow for punishment for said crime afterwards.

American problems...

Riiiiiiight....

Pretty sure this is already the law in the UK

This bill is so flawed. It has good intentions and I like that the college will help victims seek help. But how are two people supposed to prove that they both said yes? Are girls going to start asking for video recordings or signatures right before sex? Lol just lol if this becomes the norm.

I don't think a rapist would even care obviously, they're still going to rape. It seems that this would only prevent chicks from lying about rape for whatever reason.

I'm sorry, but this is a ridiculous topic. I just don't see the big deal here. It doesn't change anything. Unless you're giving consent in front of a reliable, unbiased witness, verbal consent doesn't change anything. Do they want voice recorded evidence? Like, how lazy is the system? Lol.

@monsterstomp:

I still don't get how that constitutes "American Problems". Sex crimes are a serious problem worldwide, even across Europe.

@lunacyde: I've said that in how many other threads and hadn't been taken seriously until now.

@lunacyde: well, depend on what you call sex crime.

Another part is that if I was a female, I'd find it offensive that they think I don't know how to say no....or somehow incapable of it. That is what this bill is mainly centered around.

Dave Chapelle had a skit about this YEARS ago. You had to sign an actual contract before having sex. Some celebrities make copies of your ID before having sex. Also have you sign a waiver saying it's consensual and you won't tell anyone. Sex and the possible consequences are serious business

@monsterstomp:

Well maybe you should try a smiley emoticon or something....to convey the nature of your comment.

@lunacyde: I'm alright :D

..I cannot help but agree that this bill could land innocent people in jail, or aid a rapist in getting off scot free. If there is no verbal "yes" it's going to get sketchy quick, and sketchy has the potential for mistakes. And there really isn't much stopping a rapist from forging signatures, sending texts and what have you. I agree that the intention behind this is admirable, but it's got too many holes for it not to fail on innocent people and rape victims alike.

Why not? alot of this should be basic common sense.

Oh ya, 40% of rape victims now are men.

Check this out. Made To Penetrate: The Hard Truth About Girl-on-Guy Rape

Yeah, and that's one of the main problems with the law. It seems like you're assuming that every case of unclear consent automatically means rape and that's just wrong and sexist to be frank. If a law like this passes it makes gray situations into black and white, unfairly hurting the defending party even more so. As we have it now, even in these gray cases the male is usually always screwed. The only way he can get out is if he has,

- A clear cut alibi/consent (which wouldn't concern this law)

- Lawyers/detectives who can investigate the character of the accuser and find out what really happened. If they find that maybe she's not letting on as much as she truthfully should then the defendant has a better chance of not getting screwed over.

But, with this law, even if the detectives and lawyers find evidence everything will just come down to verbal consent. And what constitutes verbal consent or just consent in general is another whole gray matter in itself. So basically, while it may help in catching real rapist a bit, it hurts the innocents chances much much more. This law is basically playing rapist russian roulette.

WOMEN ARE BETAH!

Hence what I'm saying is it would be actually more useful for drunk people to avoid having sex altogether....

Also I think saying that is a bit unfair, I got wasted drunk once and my wallet got lost with 20 pounds in it. Was I responsible for my actions in getting to that point. Yes. But when my Wallet was returned with 20 pounds missing, it doesn't mean I should have been stolen from.

The way I see the law being implemented, it just seems like a bit of a muddle up to me. In a world where we can guarantee verbal consent whenever people agree to engage in sexual activity- when it doesn't happen we can assume that sexual assault took place. Problem is we can't guarantee verbal sexual consent=sexual consent because of people's patterns and various situations. Unless this changes, all this law is going to do is prove that People didn't commit sexual assault where the rules where followed (and this ignoring any potential fowl play mentioned by other users). This is entirely different from proving whether someone did commit sexual assault.

Currently, the bill kinds of falls flat on the second one, and it won't really improve conviction rates, unless we make some pretty sweeping (and unfair) assumptions where the rule wasn't followed- i.e lack of verbal consent equals sexual assault. Or when the rules are not followed, we simply fall back to traditional methods to solve these disputes, which isn't much of an advancement on current situations

@joygirl said:

Ideally, the means they use to enforce this will only inconvenience rapists. Unless the case gets taken to amazing extremes with big brother watching us, the only non-rapists I see being affected by this are frequent clubbers/bar-hoppers/one-night-standers.

We are people too :3

And in anycase that is still potentially a very large group of innocent people who could be compromised. Since its the also the sector where a great proportion of these disputes occur, the progression in creating a clean and efficient way to target wrongdoers is limited. This is further enforced by the fact that it may be implemented in an environment (college/university), where a greater proportion of people are "frequent clubbers/bar-hoppers/one-night-standers", than usual.

@rd189:

Statistically speaking rapists (not just men, but the majority men) get away with rape at a far greater rate than innocent people are accused/convicted of rape. 97% of rapists will never see a day in jail. (RAINN)

Numerous studies have been done on false claims of rape. The rate at which rape claims are proven false is less than 10% in every study. Most of them are even far lower (2%, 5.9%, 5-8%, etc)

Now this is the point. Affirmative consent should be achieved (I have already admitted "proving" it is another matter) in EVERY instance where you have sex. It's not difficult. I do it every time I have sex. As a man we can't possibly understand the thought process of a woman, so I think IMHO it is better to err on the side of caution. Certainly not every case of unclear consent is automatically rape, but every case of unclear consent has the POTENTIAL to be rape. In another state where this bill is not in effect if a guy is on trial and the prosecutor asks him "Did she give affirmative consent" and he can say yes, that helps his case, it doesn't hurt it. Making affirmative consent the law clarifies what the right and lawful thing is to do in the situation. If you know the law and aren't going to follow the law then you are by definition a criminal and you deserve to be criminally prosecuted.

You always crawl out from the woodwork, sooner or later :P

I'm like a cold that just won't go away!