California Legislature passes ‘yes means yes’ bill

[DonViejo]

Source: Washington Post

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when “yes means yes” while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses.

The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill.

Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his bill would begin a paradigm shift in how California campuses prevent and investigate sexual assault. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity.

“With this measure, we will lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board so we can create an environment that’s healthy, that’s conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well too, so young men can develop healthy patterns and boundaries as they age with the opposite sex,” de Leon said before the vote.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/29/california_legislature_passes_yes_means_yes_bill/

[Calista241]

1. So....is anything different? n/t

[DonViejo]

2. Did you read the full article or just the excerpt, above?

[Calista241]

4. Yeah, it says you need an affirmative response before getting down to business.

Previous laws required that you not ignore a negative response.

So, under the old laws, a negative response and the continuation of the sex act meant it was rape. Basically, they're saying lack of a negative response doesn't mean it's an affirmative response, and I just don't understand how this is materially different from before. It just seems to me that the state is trying to regulate body language and perception.

I personally think the answer to college rape is more sexual education when you are younger. I mean, more than just the birds and the bees procreation talks. Which in my day (the late 90's) was like 2 days in some biology class. There needs to be a whole fricking class on human sexuality and sexual relationships early on in high school or late middle school.

[passiveporcupine]

13. What is different is

an unconscious or semi-conscious person cannot say yes, and they cannot say no either. The new law invalidates the right to engage in sex with someone who "can't say no".

[davidn3600]

14. It's already been illegal to have sex someone intoxicated or unconcious

That's been considered to be rape.

The problem has always been proving it.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

20. So basically, it's "unless she actually says 'yes', you have to assume it's 'no'"

Only an explicit positive response will let you have sex with her.

[Niceguy1]

23. or any of the variants

Of yes, that aren't always verbal, or safe for a public forums lol

[passiveporcupine]

34. exactly

[Calista241]

30. I guess thee are fucked up people out there.

I mean, how good could the sex be with an unconscious partner, or someone so intoxicated they don't know wtf is going on? Sounds like a super unpleasant experience on both sides to me.

However, I would have thought this was against the law under the old no means no laws.

[hughee99]

29. California state legislators now feel good, like they've done something about a problem.

Other than that, I don't see the difference. He said/she said is still there unless they're going to start requiring written or video recorded "contracts" as a condition for having sex. I could argue that it's actually a little worse for victims, because now it's another obstacle a victim will have to fight through if they initially consented but changed their mind during the encounter and said no.

[Cha]

3. Mahalo Don

[kelly1mm]

5. If “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity.

is the new rule for consent, then I would assume that if you are intoxicated you cannot consent? If both parties are intoxicated would that mean that both are de facto guilty of sexual assault? What if one person is intoxicated but initiates sexual activity and the other consents. Is the person consenting committing a sexual assault?

Basically, what I THINK this is saying, is you cannot (without risk of sexual assault investigation) engage in sexual activities while intoxicated. Am I right?

[geek tragedy]

6. It doesn't say "stone cold sober" it says affirmative, unambiguous and conscious nt

[kelly1mm]

7. True - but I used the word intoxicated - so lets use the .08 alcohol limit for driving.

If you rare too intoxicated to drive, can you consent to sexual activity? What is you opinion on that? Where should the limit be?

All I know is that I have had sex while intoxicated and did not feel sexually assaulted. I don't think my wife thought she was sexually assaulting me (or being sexually assaulted by me) or that if we were both intoxicated that we were BOTH sexually assaulting each other.

[Regrell]

8. Good thing this law isn't designed to come between you and your wife.

Drunken or not.

I mean, is it *really* that difficult for people to understand that forcing yourself onto an incapacitated person is wrong? Anyone familiar with alcohol knows the difference between "fuck yeah! let's hump!" and "ehhhhhhhh slur slur slur" or "......".

On edit: the only person suggesting we use .08 is....you.

[kelly1mm]

10. I was trying to suggest a definable objective limit. I proposed .08 as that is common

for DWI. Another objective limit would be fine with me. If you would like to propose one that would be fine.

To bring this into what the law is designed to do, when I was in college I also had sex while intoxicated. In fact, I had sex while only I was intoxicated and the other person was not, when both of us were intoxicated, and when only my partner was intoxicated.

My specific question is if BOTH parties are intoxicated (to whatever extent you would say would be too incapacitated to give consent) and they have sex, are they both guilty of sexual assault?

[Niceguy1]

25. drunk sex can be awesome!

[librechik]

22. good point! n/t

[Nye Bevan]

31. A couple could easily be guilty of raping each other, under this standard.

Say both get drunk and perform sexual acts upon each other, with neither giving "affirmative consent" at any point. Then the next day they both regret it and file a complaint. Both are then clearly guilty of sexual assault.

[kelly1mm]

32. That was my reading of the standard as well. You stated it better than I did! Thanks! nt

[Unvanguard]

42. States differ somewhat in their standard but intoxication has always mattered.

This rule doesn't change anything about that. It just changes the default: instead of "It's consensual as long as there is no 'no'," it's "It's non-consensual unless there is a 'yes'" (which need not be verbal but must be unambiguous.)

[truthisfreedom]

9. Creepily sounds like "a girl can't change her mind" law.

[jamzrockz]

16. You have a good point

I actually have received a yes to sex that felt more like a no and a no that felt like a yes from girls. The body language tell just as much if not more than the verbal language in this sort of situations. But I do understand this was proposed to protect both men and women in situations where there is doubt.

[CTyankee]

33. This happened to a friend of mine (years ago)...she initially wanted to have sex with

a man whom she knew socially and trusted. However, he was into "rough sex" and began to hurt her. She asked him to stop. But since she had initially consented he felt he could just continue. The next day she went to a doctor who asked her "who did this to you?"

[lululu]

40. No means no at any time in the process

Let me guess, she didn't think she could prosecute, so the guy got away with this.

It strikes me that these laws are attempting to codify what any decent person knows. Like pornography, any rational person knows what rape is.

[CTyankee]

44. As I read further I found that out, to my relief...

no, my friend did not report it. I think she feared being told she consented initially, therefore she's to blame!

[Unvanguard]

43. It's not. The bill is explicit on that point.

Here:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. 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.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml

[Psephos]

11. Government in the bedroom.

That's fucked up.

When exactly did government oversight of sexual relations become a progressive idea? Because I can remember when we fought that tooth and nail.

[mopinko]

18. it's not progressive to prosecute rape?

dunno about you, but things like marital rape laws were things i fought for.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. Precisely

It is an attempt to define what constitutes consent. Non-consensual sex is rape.

[passiveporcupine]

35. verbal consent is still not necessary in every encounter

as this will only come up if someone decides to claim rape.

If you are with your spouse or partner, in a healthy and happy relationship, and you both get drunk and have sex, it's not likely either of you would ever try to claim "rape".

This rule may help to make people more aware of who they are having casual sex with. If it's someone they don't know well, and have not had an on-going sexual relationship, they need to make sure it's consensual.

Don't forget that women get turned on too, even if they don't really want to have sex, their bodies may be begging for it. That is often why girls say no but they act like they mean yes. It still does not mean yes.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

38. OK, let me restate

If she does not explicitly consent, then she can legitimately claim to have been raped. Is that better?

[passiveporcupine]

39. Yes, you are correct, and

considering this is not a state-wide policy applying to all Californian's who have sex, it is a "campus" policy, aimed at minimizing the problem with rapes on campuses, I have no problem with it.

[LanternWaste]

27. It's not, but preventing rape is.

"When exactly did government oversight of sexual relations become a progressive idea?"

It's not, but preventing rape is. If you feel compelled to consciously conflate the two, that's on you alone...

[demwing]

45. And since when is rape defined as "sexual relations"? /nt

[Psephos]

48. Since when did you conflate rape being ok and govt. in the bedroom?

Two separate matters.

You trust government a LOT more than I do.

[demwing]

50. Government regulates criminal activity, some criminal activity happens "in the bedroom"

Do you also rail against government intrusion into the bedrooms of adults who have sex with minors?

The only reason statutory rape can be prosecuted is because someone in government defined and codified an age of consent. Was that also an intrusion?

[Psephos]

51. Do you support govt intrusion into whether or not to terminate pregnancy?

Regulation of sex and reproduction are *not* the govt's business. Can you not see how Orwellian that is, how much room for trouble this creates? Where did you get this idea that our bumblefuck, corrupt govt should stick its nose in your bedroom??

We have criminal statutes against rape. Govt should focus on vigorous enforcement of the law. LOTS of room for improvement there.

[demwing]

52. Do you always answer a question with another question?

Is it because you don't know the answer, or just don't want to admit the answer?

[Psephos]

53. The sad thing is the irony doesn't seem intentional. n/t

[demwing]

56. It's not really ironic, unless I'm falling to the same level

and I'm not.

your response is just more deflection...

[Psephos]

57. Ok, at this point, I doff my hat to a remarkable Poe.

Took me awhile to realize it.

Nice job.

[Psephos]

54. I'm sure those who equate abortion with murder will be interested in your theory.

Better hope the presidency and Senate don't flip R.

You are playing with fire. The abortion nuts love the idea of the government telling people what and how they can do with their bodies.

[demwing]

55. You're being obtuse

intentionally or not, don't care. No more time for this.

Peace

[lunatica]

46. Rape is rape. It is not 'sexual relations'. It is rape

any more than beating your kids is 'normal parental discipline'. Abuse is abuse.

[Snow Leopard]

12. So young men can develop healthy patterns?

[malthaussen]

15. How about a signed and notorized contract for each encounter?

That would eliminate all ambiguity.

-- Mal

[jamzrockz]

17. Or maybe

just maybe the whole sexual encounter can be captured on video. I mean everybody has cell phones with cameras nowadays. This way, there is no more ambiguity as to whether consent was given.

[AngryAmish]

19. I absolutely recommend that to college aged kids.

People can say anyrhing but video will save your ass.

[mopinko]

24. is that supposed to be amusing?

i dont think so.

[jamzrockz]

26. Not at all

The same problem we have now with he said, she said will still exist under this law. The only game changer will be some sort of requirement to produce evidence that both sides cannot deny and that is a video evidence.

[mopinko]

36. so the asshole cam post it on a revenge site?

you are out there, my friend.

[jamzrockz]

37. Ok then

how about audio file of the event? The point is that this particular law isn't going to do anything. Something like recording audio files will be a game changer.

[Psephos]

49. As we've seen a lot with cops lately, this is a logical next step.

Which underscores how gullible people are to believe government in the bedroom is somehow going to HELP them.

Those who disagree should do a quick YouTube search for vids on how cops have "protected and served" us.

I am ALL FOR diminishing sexual abuses and rape. This is a hopelessly reality-challenged way to do it.

[lunatica]

47. I wonder if you understand the difference between rape and consensual sex

Consensual sex happens all the time, and usually there's a signal of some kind given by both parties. Most people get the signals correctly. Rapists don't though. And sometimes women don't find out their having sex with a rapist until they're actually having sex with one. At what point do people no longer have the right to say no?

[Xithras]

28. Sadly, the law isn't as big a win as it's made out to be.

In spite of the name and the articles hopeful attitude, this law isn't the groundbreaking win against rape that it's being portrayed as. The legislature essentially punted responsibilities to the colleges by requiring each of them to create their own "yes means yes" rules. That means every college and university in California will now have slightly different standards of consent, drawn by college employees who often have little or no experience in the law. It requires that the consent be “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision”, but doesn't actually say what that means. So one college can say that a nod of the head is "good enough", while another college requires that each partner verbally confirm that they accept and understand the implications of sexual activity. There will be hundreds of different standards across the hundreds of colleges and universities that dot California.

I have zero problem with having the state set standards of consent. I have a huge problem with the idea that random faculty will get to set different standards based on their personal views (think about the unfortunate women who attend California's more conservative religious colleges, which are already hotbeds of sexual assault and victim shaming).

Of course, a guy on the radio (liberal...I'm in California) this morning pointed out a potential win in this law for Christian and conservative colleges. Colleges often have limited recourse for preventing sexual activity on their campuses, but with this new rule in place, the conservative campuses can now establish standards for sex that are unattainably high (like written consent for each encounter). Students who violate the rules can be expelled. This could conceivably allow some colleges to create sex-free campuses (and if you think that there aren't colleges willing to do that, you haven't been paying attention to the recent rise in conservative and "Biblical" universities).

[Unvanguard]

41. Good for them. This is the right rule and it should be adopted generally. n/t