[li]No, it doesn’t apply to everyone, just colleges[/li][/quote]
It applies to everyone “on a college campus” regardless of who they are. It’s probably an equal protection issue to have different standards for what is rape based on irrelevant geographical factors, so we’ll see if the law gets challenged on that basis before it (inevitably) gets expanded to cover the whole state.
The notion that “a law has nothing to do with the law” or “a definition of rape has nothing to do with the definition of rape” can only come from the same place of confusion as “everyone has been fucking wrong until now and we’re here to straighten you rapists out.”
[quote]
No, therefore, it does not allow police and prosecutors to pick and choose whose life to ruin
[li]No, it doesn’t require you (assuming you are a college student and what you’re worried about is your university’s policy, as opposed to any other person worried about anything else, including the criminal law, since in those cases this has bugger-all to do with you, as described above, that is) to ask specifically about anything, much less everything you do in the sack[/li][/QUOTE]
Assuming the place we’re talking about is the place where you misunderstand what the news item in question is, then you’re right.
You’ve been corrected a few times about it in the thread, but you’re still talking about it exactly the same way, so I’m going to assume you’re not exactly open to clarification of these points. In case anyone else is confused, though: this is a bill requiring campus policies to change. Campus policies are not prosecutions. Campus policy is not criminal law. Campus policy does not define who is and who is not a rapist.
(And, of course, the larger point that you’ve been totally misrepresenting what affirmative consent even is stands regardless.)
Thank you. In addition to the above, the New York law appears to be similar to one passed in California last September. Those who are currently ‘losing their shit’, as someone put it, are invited to follow the link below and read the text of the California law (it’s not very long):
A law requiring a government-operated institutions to do something is, in fact, a law, that will cause consequences, when things are done.
Do you support the Junior Anti-Sex League’s crusade to define all sex as rape, or not? Stop hiding behind “oh this is not a real law and no one’s ever going to enforce it” and come out with it.
I believe that we can distinguish consequences in general from the specific consequences you’ve been talking about.
It is likely that college students will be more susceptible to academic code violations and disciplinary action as a result of sexual conduct that was not accompanied by unambiguous signs of affirmative consent on the part of their partner.
It is not likely that the police will target normal citizens and destroy their lives.
Yep. As I recall, we had very similar conversations here about that law, with a different cast of characters, at some point in the past. What happens in reality, regardless of policy, is that almost all sexual conduct complaints and investigations result in no discipline and no public awareness (which I assume is what Haberdash et al would hope to see), and once in a blue moon a story becomes more high-profile when a student who got suspended files a lawsuit and sends a press release to men’s rights organizations. In those cases, the allegations are invariably that the student committed a sexual assault by any definition; I don’t know of any case where the allegation was specifically that “s/he didn’t ask” as opposed to, say, “I was incapacitated and unable to govern my actions.”
Zero times, to my knowledge, has one of these policies resulted in anyone going to jail, which is something that seems to both go and not go without saying.
The university denied his rights and a real court overturned the action against the man…at great cost. Who is going to pay his legal bills? He has been victimized and there is likely nothing he can do about it. The real courts are the appropriate place to adjudicate criminal matters. Due process issues makes these consent laws fsirly useless.
Do you or do you not think that all sex without “affirmative consent to every component” is rape? Why won’t anyone defending this law actually answer the question?
There was a time when GENTLEMEN existed and propriety with class was valued, not scorned or contentious. But GOD said this would happen and I take solace in knowing that one day all things will be made new.
there was a time when GENTLEmen existed with propriety and decorum but erosive unGODliness and insidious behavior reigns. I take solace in knowing one day “all things will be made new”
I dunno. Why won’t anyone defending the trees who are listening to my thoughts answer my questions about whether or not listening to my thoughts violates my constitutional rights? I’ll answer your question (no, I don’t think all sex without affirmative consent to every component is rape) but then maybe we can loop back to something relevant.
I posted here to point out the things you’ve said about this bill that are inaccurate. I don’t know why it’s important that we have a referendum on my opinions about those inaccuracies; it’s not like my opinion about your mischaracterizations is going to change what the law actually is.
And, to repeat, nearly everything you’ve said so far in this thread is either based on a misunderstanding or is just a direct restatement of the misunderstanding.
A law that requires colleges to fine students for failing to return library books is also a law, but it doesn’t make it rape to fail to return a library book. It doesn’t even make it a felony. There are lots of “real laws” that don’t result in felony charges.
No, I don’t think that’s enough to make it rape, but I think it’s a bad idea. I think you have an overblown idea of what “affirmative consent” entails. If you lean over to kiss a date goodnight, and she sticks her cheek or lips to the spot your lips are aimed at, that’s affirmative consent. If she just stands there coldly, it’s not. With an affirmative consent law, she knows that she has to lean back towards you – these things usually come with some training.
Yes, training. My son’s campus instituted one of these policies. They had a troop of actors demonstrate ways to ask and to consent. Live porn freshman week! My son said he felt there was a subtext that if there’s a lack of consent, it will be the guy’s fault. But he said the actual rules all seemed pretty reasonable. He has since started dating a woman, and let’s just say that I’m pretty sure they’ve mutually consented to a certain degree of physical contact.
Anyhow, the key thing, whether consent is “affirmative” or not, is that there needs to be mutual consent. So long as you know the other party consents, you really don’t have anything to worry about.
Actually, your question, as originally phrased, was “Do you support the Junior Anti-Sex League’s crusade to define all sex as rape, or not?”
That one is easy to answer:
[Mona Lisa Vito]
It’s a bullshit question.
[/Mona Lisa Vito]
There no such thing as a “Junior Anti-sex League” and this non-existent organization is not on a crusade of any kind, because, you know, it doesn’t exist.
The California law I linked to does not define all sex as rape. Perhaps the New York law does; feel free to provide a link to it and I’ll have a look.
On the rephrased question, no, I don’t necessarily think that all sex without “affirmative consent to every component” is rape but that doesn’t seem to be quite what the California law says either. Have you read it?
Now, it someone were to ask me, say, “do I think the law is well phrased as it stands?”, I’d say “no”, for much the same reasons cited by a few others: that it addresses only what specific parts of university policies must say, and, regarding “he said-she said” situations, is highly specific concerning victim’s rights while being not at all specific about the rights of the accused. That of course does not mean the accused have no rights or that universities should assume such, just that other laws than this one apply.
If it’s bad law, and if the Title IX lawsuits that have been filed have merit, then the courts will have the last word. I’m sympathetic to the plight of the person referred to in madsircool’s link (assuming they’re thoroughly innocent of wrongdoing), but that’s pretty much the way the system works.
That’s pretty much all I have to say on this subject; do carry on.
Consent is the current law. Rape is already illegal. The entire meaning of “affirmative consent” is that it’s not good enough to know – without the formalities it’s rape period.
Why is it that you are such a supporter of this law which you assure us does nothing, changes nothing, will not result in anyone being prosecuted, is not even a law, and obviously won’t ever be enforced? Something’s not adding up.