Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Video Guide to new California Affirmative Consent Law

Video Guide to new California Affirmative Consent Law

Parody may be law soon in California.

http://youtu.be/QwQmYSASlXo

Last March we covered how California Seeks to Redefine Consensual Campus Sex as Rape, and we asked the question: “How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?”

It doesn’t, of course. The California affirmative consent legislation was not about preventing rapes or other sexual assaults, which already are crimes, but about redefining inter-personal relationships in accordance with radical feminist demands which always view the female as victim of the male patriarchy.

The affirmative consent obligation now is on the verge of becoming law (emphasis added):

To address the problem of rape on campuses, California colleges and universities would have to adopt a standard of unambiguous consent among students engaging in sexual activity under a proposal passed by state lawmakers Thursday.

If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, such policies would be required at all public colleges and other institutions that receive state funds for student aid. They would have to include a detailed protocol for assisting victims of sexual assault, stalking, domestic violence and date violence….

Students engaging in sexual activity would first need “affirmative consent” from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person’s silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated.

Campus relationship regulation now is about the predominance of “rape culture” theory which ensnares men into kangaroo campus courts, and even opposes objective preventative measures, like “Undercover Colors” nail polish that reacts to date-rape drugs.

The normal sequence of romantic interaction now is a violation of law unless there is something more than objectively willing conduct. It’s no longer “against our will,” but rather, a matter of procedural steps imposed on willing, consensual participants in order to avoid creating a crime where none exists:

When I was in college, the standard for sexual assault basically was the title of Susan Brownmiller’s book — used during Freshman orientation — Against Our Will — Men, Women and Rape.  That made sense — No means No, whether expressed verbally or by conduct.  Or if the victim were incapable either by reason of age or physical condition of giving consent, that also made sense.  And those standards roughly equate to the criminal law’s understanding of sexual assault and rape.

Now, however, “against our will” on campus has become murky, using standards in which two completely willing participants who evidence no indication that the sexual activity is against either of their wills, will have committed a campus offense.  But only men are prosecuted.

So normal consensual human interactions must be documented to prove affirmative consent.

In the March post, we linked to the video below, which clearly was intended as parody at the time.

Parody may be law soon in California:

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is nothing more than religious fundamentalism with dressed up in modern terms. It is the prudish energy that made adultery and cohabitation crimes (that are still on the books in many states).

    clerk in reply to sequester. | August 29, 2014 at 12:20 pm

    The modern day equivalent of the Salem Witch Trials.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to sequester. | August 29, 2014 at 1:36 pm

    There is nothing religiously fundamental about California. Government over-stepping their boundaries, yes. This has nothing to do with Christianity though.

      sequester in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | August 29, 2014 at 2:17 pm

      It may be a heathen fundamentalism, but it is still a fundamentalism that infects its adherents with a religious fervor. The State merely replaces G-d with these fundamentalists.

Joseph Farnsworth | August 29, 2014 at 11:08 am

This is almost as outrageous as two Congressmen commenting on Senator Kirsten (“Scourge of Patriarchy”) Gillibrand as being “porky” and “chubby” THE HORROR, THE HORROR!!!!
These monsters must be OUTED before they can perpetrate their evil again!!

So this is what the “Free Love” hippies have come up with.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Yujin. | August 29, 2014 at 12:53 pm

    They are now OLD hippies and not getting any. If they aren’t having fun, nobody gets to have fun.

Henry Hawkins | August 29, 2014 at 11:12 am

Sex is not the subject here. Control is. Sexual interaction is just a handy available mechanism. If you’re a Young Republican on an American campus, stop dating. If you’re a white male on an American campus, stop dating.

Question: Will these laws apply to sex between faculty members? If not, why not? Don’t they want ‘protection’ against rape too?

Progressive Law: We Write ‘Em – You Obey ‘Em

    And what happens under Kalifornia’s new law when female student from College A claims she was sexually assaulted by male student from College B ??? Does College B now have an obligation to persecute — sorry, I meant investigate — its male student, even though his alleged behavior had no direct impact on any female at College B?

    And what if the answer to this question is “No” (meaning that College B has NO obligation to investigate its male student in this circumstance)? Doesn’t that make the short-term solution to Kalifornia’s new law OBVIOUS?

    I.e., shouldn’t smart male students in Kalifornia simply stop dating female students from their own colleges, and start dating only female students from other colleges?

    Of course, the long-term solution is for high school males to simply stop applying to colleges in Kalifornia, period. That boycott will take time to have an effect, however. So for the short-term, perhaps dating students from other colleges is the answer.

      You’re missing the obvious answer. College B will prosecute the male student and kick them out if at all possible because the male student is a lawsuit magnet, and the quicker they can be given the boot, the faster the college can argue in court “The moment we detected this horrible deviant, we took action to remove him from campus, so don’t sue us for a bazillion dollars.”

So this actually might stop a lot of premarital sex? Who would have thought that the full circle would be reached in the ill named sexual revolution.

I have a plan…

let’s bring back the code of chivalry. It imposes conduct codes on BOTH men and women. And it’s about time…

    gregjgrose in reply to Ragspierre. | August 29, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Amen to that. I remember way-back-when in the early days of the campus speech-code wars, someone held up as antiquated (why are some people against quates, BTW?) a code that said “ABC university expects its students to conduct themselves as ladies and gentlemen”, and oh the horror, that clearly had to be replaced, and I thought, huh? Or as they say today, What The Foolishness?

    The other thing, since these people have to be treated as children, incapable of (unspoken) consent under ordinary circumstances, bring back 21 as the age of majority.

    Now that I think about it, bring it back anyway…do it for the children.

As a 20-something white male, it feels like this entire country (based on policies, laws, and media perception) is turning against me. I can’t be intimate with a girl because she may get me arrested for rape. I can’t get a scholarship because I’m not black (never mind my perfect attendance and 4.0 GPA). There are so many things and I’m becoming tired of it all.

If something terrible happened to me, the government wouldn’t care, Obama wouldn’t talk about it, the DOJ wouldn’t investigate, and zero new policies would be made. The media would remain silent, be against me, or dig into my background to try to discredit me since I’m not part of their narrative or agenda.

I know there are a lot of us, and I recognize that there are a lot of minorities and people who feel they are being treated unfairly in this country, but I just don’t feel like anyone is standing up for me anymore. Apparently, I’m enemy number one. Apparently, I’m the bad guy. Apparently, I’m the one who supposedly has all of the advantages.

Not anymore.

    Shane in reply to Mr. Izz. | August 29, 2014 at 12:00 pm

    You have fallen into the racial divide. You are NOT a white male you are Mr. Izz or whatever your name is. White male is a role foisted on you buy those that seek to divide. You should fight that not other groups laboring under some other artificial distinction. No one can or should stand up for you as a white male, they should stand up for you as an individual. You have taken the thinking of the people that you hate. Look at that carefully, because I don’t really think that that is your intent.

      Mr. Izz in reply to Shane. | August 29, 2014 at 12:06 pm

      I don’t hate people. I don’t hate my fellow man. I don’t hate any particular race, nor blame any race for any specific thing. I think you’ve misunderstood.

      I hate the policies, I hate the way the media seems to treat me, I hate the way the government responds situations. I want everything to be equal, and they aren’t. Not even close.

      If I’m up for a scholarship, and it is between me and a black man, I want the scholarship to go to the person most deserving and qualified. If that’s me, great, if it is not me, great. I hold no remorse or anger to that other individual. However, I despise the organization that chooses the black man over me for no reason other than he is black. That’s not being racist, that’s not hating a different race, that’s understanding that things are not working the way that they should.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Shane. | August 29, 2014 at 12:23 pm

      He’s right. I’m watching my son and other bright, well-educated and talented 20-something white males get passed over in favor of “more viable” candidates.

      I’ll stop right there.

    Karen Sacandy in reply to Mr. Izz. | August 30, 2014 at 8:13 am

    A Bloomberg salesman came to my office about 3 weeks ago, a young black man, formerly a college football player. We got off on a tangent and I started listing all the ways society is harsh to men. He said he had never thought of it that way…..

    Anyway, what’s interesting about all of this is, we are being guilted into handing over our culture, and what these requirements are really about, is stopping white people from pro-creating, and making us at war within our own ranks, so other people can take over.

    Do you think any illegal aliens are adhering to such silliness? Hell no! They’re too busy at the OB-GYN office for their prenatal check ups!

This has nothing to do with “prudery” since the Wymen & Gender studies departments of CA universities & colleges take a “sex positive” position – that females can and should be as promiscuous as possible, that virginity is a Patriarchal tool of oppression, and sex just isn’t that big of a deal …

…EXCEPT cisheteronormative sex. Female supremacy demands that any such sex is to be controlled fully 100% by the females, including using it as a tool of revenge against males who disappoint or anger them. And, of course, any questions raised about the veracity of a female’s claims against a male is proof that the Patriarchy is still in charge.

    These beliefs are rooted in a hatred as vile as anti-semitism. A pernicious creed that seeks to involuntary impose prudery on men.

    Welcome to the Sandra Fluke generation.

    Chem_Geek in reply to darleenclick. | August 29, 2014 at 6:49 pm

    But “cisheternormative sex” (whatever THAT is*) is and always has been controlled by the female. Men have no power; we get only what they choose to give. (Usually cold shoulders.)

    * cis to me means that the functional groups are both on the same side of the double bond…

Still won’t stop morning after regret and false accusations of rape…

HH is, sadly, correct.

    It isn’t supposed to stop false accusations of rape … indeed, it is to help make sure those accusations are accepted as Truthy.

      Ragspierre in reply to darleenclick. | August 29, 2014 at 12:26 pm

      “All PIV sex is rape, OK…???”

      Noteworthy is that all lesbian sex is conspicuously NOT included in this whole “morning after” concept of “rape”.

      Well, and all male homosexual behavior, too…

    Henry Hawkins in reply to sbdivemaster. | August 29, 2014 at 12:30 pm

    Tired of those GOP students and their little demonstrations? No problem. Send in a honey trap. Get him booted from campus.

    Tired of those pro-Israel students and their little demonstrations? Send in the honey trap.

    Tired of anyone anywhere on campus with whom you don’t agree? Honey trap.

    But this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is the beginning, the test lab, if you will, for the progressive attempt to eventually control everyone’s sexual behaviors and interactions.

TrooperJohnSmith | August 29, 2014 at 12:18 pm

Coming to a Smart Phone Near You:

The Legally Binding Confirmation of Consensual Sex App!!

I’m not joking.

    Get on that as fast as you can. I’m sure you could make a quick million or two.

    Won’t work. Even the parody of a signed contract won’t.

    The CA law says that consent can be revoked “at any time.”

    That includes during the actual act of intercourse – it can become rape upon the first stroke past a “no”, “stop” or a moment of non-affirmative-consent silence.

      Ragspierre in reply to darleenclick. | August 29, 2014 at 12:56 pm

      So… “Don’t stop!” Can become “Don’t!” and “Stop!” at any time.

      Helluvadeal… Just think what Lenny Bruce could do with this…!!!

      Gremlin1974 in reply to darleenclick. | August 29, 2014 at 5:49 pm

      “a moment of non-affirmative-consent silence”

      This is the one that has always gotten me, the non-verbal no that I am supposed to notice when, without being to graphic, I may not be able to see my partners face, lol.

The vast majority of college students are adults – so we are talking about adult sexual behavior

If this is now the “new standard” of what defines consent for sexual activity, why is it being confined to only those adults who attend college?

Why isn’t it good enough for the rest of CA’s adults??

(I SO wish some lone Republican in CA’s legislature would take this tact and run with it)

Notice what they have NOT done (yet) : apply this to the general public. But I promise you – it’ll be proposed and possibly passed.

This reminds me of an old GF I had. She and I were a total “Ken & Barbie” match – everyone saw that we were obviously in love and in 9 months of dating (I went off to college) we had only **1** serious fight – which for teenagers is amazing.

A decade and a half later, after she’d dated some serious losers who treated her badly (she always had a penchant for bad boys) she went for counseling.

Unfortunately the counseling she got was from a bunch of women’s activists that had a large proportion of man hating lesbians. **BE VERY CLEAR HERE** I’m not knocking lesbians – lesbians love women – these rad-fem lesbians hated men.

They took every hetero relationship from her past and re-wrote it in her head and heart as some scheming vile violation – to include our relationship.

When I talked to her she was full of feminist cliche’s on how I had “violated her” and had “emotionally abused her” and “gotten her drunk and had sex with her”

I pointed out that 10 years after we dated she was still pursuing me, that we were friends, that our mutual friends who had known us had seen nothing like she was describing – none of it mattered.

I then pointed out that her first forays into bisexuality, during college, had been uniformly another woman getting her drunk and getting into her pants – seducing her into trying out lesbian sex.

I asked her if THOSE experiencs were also “violations” – she, unsurprisingly, not only denied that women getting her drunk to seduce her were violations, but told me that I clearly hated lesbians and probably women.

@@@@@@@@

My point is that this law is meant to target heterosexual men ONLY. The same actions committed by anyone else is “different”.

It will be proposed as a general law – once it becomes a norm and an accepted practice on campuses.

Shy girl virgins will now be naturally selected from the population.

Does anyone know how far the university’s authority extends? For example, can the university discipline any enrolled student for alleged sexual misconduct no matter where the misconduct occurs? Or can the university discipline students only for alleged misconduct that occurs on campus property?

    Gremlin1974 in reply to siguiriya. | August 29, 2014 at 5:53 pm

    Actually some universities have disciplined students for acts that have happened off campus. Now to be clear this usually involves an off-campus frat house or the like, but still.

    My question has always been, why are Universities involved in the first place, we are talking about allegations of felony behavior. The verdict and sentence should not be decided by a group of teachers, but by the courts.

    Here you go:

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill/sen/sb_0951-1000/sb_967_cfa_20140615_135446_asm_comm.html

    Provides that in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in Section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)), involving a student, both on and off campus.

    So I’d advise college males from being very very careful of how you break up with the girlfriend you left at home.

argh … I seem to be having grammar cramps today

“I’d advise college males about being …”

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend