“Sex without stopping to formally verbalize every component” is the way sex is engaged in. This law defines that as rape. “It doesn’t define some hypothetical activity that someone could, but never actually does, engage in, as rape, therefore there is some sex not considered rape” is semantic gamesmanship.
Did you read the law? If so, please point to the specific text that defines what you have said above is rape.
There’s no organized political caucus drumming up hysteria about a nonexistent “rape epidemic,” doubling down on their shrieking after a recent series of high-profile hoaxes, blaming at least half the population for being part of a conspiracy, that has just succeeded in making all sex illegal so that anyone can be prosecuted for “rape” at any time to appease political demons? Coulda fooled me.
No, it isn’t. Usually when things don’t add up, I look back at my numbers and figure out which one I got totally wrong.
I am not familiar with the details of the proposed NY law, perhaps you could link to it?
I am familiar with the “affirmative consent” administrative policy at my son’s college campus. It does not define all sex to be rape. And it doesn’t “do nothing”, in fact, it was rolled out with a lot of training (as I believe I mentioned just a couple of posts above) and the assumption is that college kids will have sex and will find ways to request and affirmatively grant consent. The goal, which may be imperfectly reached, is that college kids be careful to make sure they have obtained consent, and don’t mis cues and so push themselves on other kids in ambiguous situations. The goal is to teach kids how to disambiguate, with the burden on the “yes” side to make sure both parties agree.
Will it work perfectly? Of course not. Will a lot of innocent students be prosecuted, or face administrative consequences, despite having only engaged in activities that both parties desired? No. Probably no one in that situation will run into trouble. Will some students be prosecuted who weren’t before? Probably. But they will be students who push others beyond the limits the other was comfortable with. Yes, some of those ambiguous situations will become offenses. I doubt it will be a disaster, and I’m sure it won’t end campus sex.
Someone mentioned up-thread that some campuses had tried written consent forms. IIRC part of the debate involved characterizing those forms as legal contracts. The argument was that they could not be legally enforced because that would nullify the right of either party to change their mind at any time, for any reason. [“Hey!! You signed the paper. You gotta give it up!!”] That made the consent form worthless because neither party could rely on it. How would these oral (no pun intended) or visual contracts be any better?
What do I win from you in three months when there will be 15 stories about people kicked out of school for “rape” for not getting “affirmative consent?” It’s easy to just make these proclamations.
It’s not a proposed law. It’s an actual law. The text is here:
This is the part of the law that the people who are complaining are complaining about:
Well, it depends. Did those people engage in activities the other person really wanted to do? And if so, why didn’t they say they wanted to do it at the time?
Look, a vile and disgruntled ex can lie under today’s laws. They will still be able to lie under any new laws (unless we require witnesses to prove rape, which is probably not optimal, either.)
If they wanted to do it, and they said they wanted to do it, then it will take more chutzpah for them to later claim they didn’t consent than it does with the current situation.
Or do you think that students will be unable to say “yes” when they want to? Because I think that if them’s the rules, a lot of kids will follow them.
Thanks!
That doesn’t sound so horrible. And you don’t have to get a verbal answer to every move – just an unambiguous indication of consent.
Yes, if people follow that, there will be less sex. And a lot fewer tears by kids who weren’t quite sure how to respond and then got uncomfortable. And fewer regrets the next morning.
I’m not worried about “vile and disgruntled exes” or really anything about the whole “crying rape” strawman.
As a factual matter, 99.99999% of sexual encounters do not involve stopping to discuss “affirmative consent” at every stage. BOTH partners are criminalized by this approach, which makes all sexual activity as humans actually practice it into rape. I’m worried about vindictive campus administrators, political shriekers, and cops who can basically label ANYONE (male or female!) a rapist if they’ve ever had sex. Any “vile and disgruntled” or power-mad person can now destroy any target they want to, and it has nothing to do with whether they’ve had a personal sexual relationship with that person.
Hell and tarnation, son.
I answered your question, so can you just answer one in return? Are you or are you not aware that there is no discussion required by an affirmative consent policy?
Some examples of what’s already happening thanks to this sort of re-definition of sexual assault:
Require all campuses to adopt such ridiculous policies and we can expect to see more of this sort of thing.
I always though “no” and “stop” were pretty unambiguous signals.
Now we need a lawyer in the room to interpret.
Yeah, let me know how “no we didn’t discuss but she enthusiastically participated, creating consent by action” goes at the next witch trial.
No. Just like I don’t think that everyone who borrows a car without asking is a car thief. Just like with sex, however, if you didn’t ask and it turns out it wasn’t ok, you are likely to get into trouble.
Also, as mentioned a bajillion times, this has nothing to do with rape as a criminal charge. Sex without affirmative consent may or may not be rape. But the main point is that if you are on a NY college campus and have sex with someone, campus regulations say you have to get affirmative consent and if you don’t, it may be used against you if the sexual encounter leads to a complaint.
The government doesn’t get to declare that some organs of government (public universities) can decide to investigate and prosecute crimes according to separate procedures where the criminal law and the protections afforded to criminal suspects don’t apply. Any LAW passed by the LEGISLATURE about the CRIME of rape and assigned to GOVERNMENT ORGANS to implement does, immutably, have everything to do with “rape as a criminal charge,” no matter how many times you or they try to make it not so by magic incantations.
Can you kindly explain the mechanism by which one would end up with a criminal charge under this law?
The fact that it allows government organs to find people guilty of rape and exact punishment on them for such without going through the criminal courts is the whole problem. This is aside from the patently obvious fact that the “affirmative consent” horseshit is going to be expanded outside of the campus kangaroo court soon.
I’m a lawyer, so sometimes I don’t understand things that are easy to understand. Can you explain?
I can tell you how all about how it goes, but somehow I don’t think you would believe me, because nobody gets waterboarded or has their lives ruined.