Californian's Anti-rape Law Will Put A Lot Of Innocent Men Behind Bars!

[thereisnospoon]

Do liberals ever miss an opportunity to try to appeal to a voting block by unjustly harming another voting block? Do they think of unintended (although I honestly think they know the unintended consequences, but honestly don't care).As a father of daughters (and a son), I take rape seriously. Women should always feel safe and rapist should never get away with it. However, this law will do the opposite of what it's intended to do. It will put innocent men in jail and not prevent rape.

California adopts yes means yes sex-assault rule page 1
"This law has requires a woman to affirmative stated she wants to have sex before doing it. “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk,..."

False claims of rape are real and more numerous then people want to think. This almost guarantees that any claim of rape will lead to a prosecution.

Soon they will be arresting people for bad thoughts!

Hate crime laws are double-jeopardy for 'bad thoughts' already. But legal.

I don't see this law as a problem. Should be saying yes verbally to sex. Some people freeze and become catatonic for example when things get sexual, they're being silent isn't then consent so much as being petrified.

A law that flips the burden of proof to the accused is unjust.

 

[boilermaker55]

You don't know anyone else that might fit right into your thoughts. Or is the prejudice in you coming out?

Too bad it wasn't in effect in Arkansas when Bubba Bill Clinton was governor.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Honest your honor.........She was ASKING for it

its more like, honest, (some person on a college justice board" we were both drunk, there was drunk consent.

Says the college justice board, nope, only women can get drunk without legal consequences, you are expelled.

Says the college male, Um, Tile IX says otherwise, I sue you.

And in the end, only the lawyers make any money out of it.

Honest your honor....

She was DRUNK....its the same thing as ASKING for it

I mean, would YOU pass up that piece of tail?

First of all, most of these don't even make it to a criminal court.

2nd, if both parties are drunk, what then?

Why do women have a post coitus veto?

If you stick your dick in it......you'd better have consent

Of coure.
THe bad part is this law clouds the issue of consent.

 

[Lakhota]

Californian's Anti-rape Law Will Put A Lot Of Innocent Men Behind Bars!

Stay in Chicago.

 

[Silhouette]

California adopts yes means yes sex-assault rule page 1
"This law has requires a woman to affirmative stated she wants to have sex before doing it. “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk,..."

Wait....so this is the State that forces little kids every May 22nd to celebrate a dude who got his sexual jollies with underaged teen boys on drugs as "representative of the LGBT movement across the nation and the world"; enshrined just in those words in CA law...

...and this is the quote from his famous biography: The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk:

"Harvey Milk always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems" [page180]

So now there is zero tolerance for having sex with someone addled on drugs? While they require kids to celebrate a man who preferred sodomizing boys who were addled on drugs?

Wait...I'm confused....

 

[GHook93]

Does this apply to married couples as well? If not, why not?

You can rape your wife

Two drunk people having sex, and one regretting it after is not rape, sexual assault or any other crime.

Progressives are all about "getting the government out of our bedrooms." Why is this suddenly not the case?

Great point, there were some nights in college I got drunk and regretted some of the nasty women I slept with.

Since I was drunk I wasn't able to consent, so I could call rape, because I regret it!

 

[GHook93]

How bout we do this for our USMB conservatives?

If she is wearing skimpy clothes she is fair game? OK

Bzzt!!! you are going with another debate, not going to work.

Answer the question, do men have to live by a different set of standards under college justice systems, and how does this square under Title IX?

When you can figure out how a woman can rape a man who is passed out, you may have a Title IX complaint

A woman raped me while I was blacked out drunk. She told me later that I kept saying, "No! No! No! You have a husband."

I said, "So... you raped me?"

She said yes, and I said,"Eh..."

Not even half believable!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Thats haram Sunni

That was in my sinful pre-Islam days......

Sinners are MUCH more fun!

 

[elektra]

Have the Judges spoke yet, Judges will dictate the law.

 

[hadit]

Too bad it wasn't in effect in Arkansas when Bubba Bill Clinton was governor.

It wouldn't have mattered. It used to be considered impossible for the most powerful man in the office to have a completely consensual affair with a less powerful woman. Bubba uses the LEAST powerful woman for his own selfish sexual pleasure and the "feminists" institute the "one free grope" rule as well as the "nuts and sluts" defense and suffer whiplash from looking the other way.

 

[hadit]

Honest your honor.........She was ASKING for it

its more like, honest, (some person on a college justice board" we were both drunk, there was drunk consent.

Says the college justice board, nope, only women can get drunk without legal consequences, you are expelled.

Says the college male, Um, Tile IX says otherwise, I sue you.

And in the end, only the lawyers make any money out of it.

Honest your honor....

She was DRUNK....its the same thing as ASKING for it

I mean, would YOU pass up that piece of tail?

First of all, most of these don't even make it to a criminal court.

2nd, if both parties are drunk, what then?

Why do women have a post coitus veto?

Why not? They already control the man's reproductive freedom if they get pregnant.

 

[Bush92]

So in California you need a lawyer to engage in sexual intercourse. "The party initiating the contractual arraignment agrees to French kissing and performing fellatio (but not to ejaculation) on the party of the first part, then move into an exercise of penis to vagina contact for no more that 15 minutes of time prescribed at a date and location of the initiating party. Initiating party does not agree to anal intercourse. Any deviation away from said arraignment will be a violation of the contractual agreement and result in possible rape charges." Ahhhh, sooooo much passion. Liberals are now wanting to destroy romantic moments.

 

[Manonthestreet]

How about we stop pretending college students are full grown adults when it's patently obvious from their stupid behavior that they're not?

Then let us also take away the vote and eliminate them from military service, and raise the drinking age....

 

[rightwinger]

So in California you need a lawyer to engage in sexual intercourse. "The party initiating the contractual arraignment agrees to French kissing and performing fellatio (but not to ejaculation) on the party of the first part, then move into an exercise of penis to vagina contact for no more that 15 minutes of time prescribed at a date and location of the initiating party. Initiating party does not agree to anal intercourse. Any deviation away from said arraignment will be a violation of the contractual agreement and result in possible rape charges." Ahhhh, sooooo much passion. Liberals are now wanting to destroy romantic moments.

No...actually, all you need is some personal responsibility

Something conservatives used to value

 

[Manonthestreet]

How long before its impossible to recruit to CA colleges??

 

[Rikurzhen]

Remember all those liberals saying that they wanted to get government and society's morals out of people's bedrooms. Fucking hypocrites.

This law isn't restricted to one-night stands. Here is the law:

The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
​

I believe I have found the fatal flaw in the law:

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
​

There are two actions taking place: 1/) One person asks the other person for sex. 2.) One person complains about the other person. The law assumes that the person doing the complaining is the person who was ASKED.

The defense here is for the accused to claim that he was drunk and the girl ASKED him. Then when the girl complains she becomes the one who was guilty of ASKING a drunk man to have sex with her and by asking and then acting on a drunk man's assent, she is the one who committed the crime. The fact that she filed the accusation doesn't automatically imply that she was the one who was taken advantage of. With both person's drunk and with the law holding the drunk INITIATOR to a different standard than the drunk RECIPIENT, no one should ever admit to being the INITIATOR. Not ever.

A second tactic here is to preemptively file complaints after every sexual encounter and then change your mind after the paper work is completed. Just flood the system with complaints about women who sleep with you.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Californian's Anti-rape Law Will Put A Lot Of Innocent Men Behind Bars!"

Nonsense.


There's no 'evidence' in support of this – this is nothing more than ridiculous rightwing demagoguery and fear-mongering.

 

[Bush92]

"Californian's Anti-rape Law Will Put A Lot Of Innocent Men Behind Bars!"

Nonsense.


There's no 'evidence' in support of this – this is nothing more than ridiculous rightwing demagoguery and fear-mongering.

Now Big Brother is in the bedroom. Good job communist People's Republic of California.

 

[Bush92]

So in California you need a lawyer to engage in sexual intercourse. "The party initiating the contractual arraignment agrees to French kissing and performing fellatio (but not to ejaculation) on the party of the first part, then move into an exercise of penis to vagina contact for no more that 15 minutes of time prescribed at a date and location of the initiating party. Initiating party does not agree to anal intercourse. Any deviation away from said arraignment will be a violation of the contractual agreement and result in possible rape charges." Ahhhh, sooooo much passion. Liberals are now wanting to destroy romantic moments.

No...actually, all you need is some personal responsibility

Something conservatives used to value

That why we don't need Big Brother government telling us how to fuck.

 

[zeke]

If I were a single man in California, I would print up business cards, to be handed out to girls at the beginning of a date. The cards would have boxes to be checked, indicating what sorts and levels of intimacy are acceptable (use your imagination), then have a block at the bottom for signature. Before spending any money on her I would have her check the boxes of her choosing, then I would take the girl to a notary, to have her signature notarized for my records.

I might not get much p**sy, but I wouldn't have to worry about rape allegations.

I like the apt idea better, sell it at the POS!

Dude, people are apt to think you stupid if you keep calling software app(lications) apt. What's the matter, you don't have kids to educate you on apps?