Posted on 09/29/2014 8:42:04 AM PDT by Teotwawki
Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when "yes means yes" and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.
[snip]
The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.msn.com ...
Simple. It just means that sandra fluke (rhymes with duck) needs to go to the print shop and have a ream of “consent/mutual agreement to perform sex act” forms printed up for her own use. Hmmm. Do they have to be notarized? Maybe the LA slimes will do a public service deal and have standardized forms available to copy in the Sunday entertainment section. Or maybe a link to www.latimes/letsdoitlegally.com
This is a terrible law. Expect a bunch of false accusations come out. So if a date has a glass of wine at dinner, she can now claim rape if she regrets going to bed with the guy?
Maybe I am getting ahead of myself, but I see where this might go. Of course, if someone is rendered unconscious they can’t grant consent.
How many sexual assaults are there in these university’s in cali?
When I was a college kid, we were usually both drunk.
Does that mean we raped each other? Or are only men guilty?
This is what a legislation of a one party state driving businesses out daily spends its time on.
My thought too. This is the kind of crapola dweeb elitists believe they must refine on the pathway to Nirvana.
apparently Kalipornia colleges do nothing but sex-related crap
They’re eventually going to make college so expensive (in all ways, not just including financially) that no one will go anymore.
Perhaps that’s a good thing.
Yes, that is what they mean.
Oh, and these same women are supposedly qualified to be combat infantrymen capable of fending off a man who intends to kill her. Without a consent form.
Looks like another Lawyers’ Full Employment Act to me.
“Your Honor, we intend to prove that during their encounter the complaintant’s breasts became rather perky, which my client construed as nonverbal consent.”
How about a guy has a glass of wine with dinner? Can he claim rape if he regrets going to bed with the girl?
Equal rights means equal for all!
A couple of them were really passionate/aggressive. Was I taken advantage of?
So, the person that wants sex the most is the gate keeper?
What happened to personal responsibility? How about not getting into a condition where your faculties are not comprised? It like putting the wolf in charge of guarding the sheep.
You laugh, but really, the way to fight a law like this is to make such a mockery out of, while simultaneously gumming up the system it was designed to feed, that it becomes apparent to everyone that it is untenable.
There should be literally thousands of male college students on California who file charges (or whatever) under this law with their universities, targeting young women they didn't particular care for while dating. Clog the system. Subvert the system. Destroy the system.
Next they will mandate that any sexual encounter must be observed by at least two witnesses, from start to finish.
Don’t know why anyone would think that to be unreasonable. /s
That's an interesting point. If the woman is "intoxicated", then the man is guilty of rape, as the woman is presumed to not be responsible enough to decide to have sex. Yet a woman who gets behind the wheel while intoxicated is presumed to be fully responsible for her decision to drive while drunk.
My position is that, for a woman to be "too drunk to consent", she would need to be either unconscious or too drunk to be aware that sex was happening. (this is not the position of the feminists)
“My first question is...why would a *college* be required to investigate a sexual assault?”
Because a college isn’t bound to report to the court system and doesn’t need to meet all those pesky standards like “presumed innocent until proven guilty”, “trial by a jury of peers” and “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s much easier to lynch a man and ruin his life without any evidence if you don’t need to worry about that stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.