Misogynist meetings to be held across the world

[Phrossack]

Yep. Of course, how that's going to play out in an actual legal interpretation sense is not really clear, but the logical extreme of it would be something like having to get a yes before kissing her, then a new yes before feeling her up, then a new yes before unzipping her pants, etc. It's unlikely it will be enforced in that kind of nonsense way but that IS a valid interpretation of the law.

And there's no real proof of assent at each stage beyond hearsay unless it is documented with video, audio, and possibly signed contracts. Not that the people who wrote that law expect these things to be done, and not that most people are seriously going to follow them, but it could become an issue when someone decides to raise it in court just to make a point.

 

[Farm Boy]

"I'm going to kiss you now. Would you like me to proceed?"
"Yes"
"Okay now I am going to touch your left breast. Would you like me to proceed?"
"Yes"
"Alright, it's time to fondle the other breast now. Would you like me to proceed?"
"Yes"
"Okay, I would like to get permission to touch the left nipple now and play with it a bit. Would you like me to proceed?"
"Yes"
{nipple action}
"Thanks for that nipple action, I really want to put my left hand on your penis now. Would you like me to proceed?"
"YES"
"Alright, now I'm thinking of performing a bit of a stroking motion. Would you like me to proceed?"
"Yes yes"

How romantic

And how the hell would anyone ever prove which parter forgot to ask before the action escalated? I assume that the person initiating the action needs to get permission first, and how do you even prove that? You can't. And what do you do in a scenario in which two people are really really DTW and are just groping each other all over the place? Who's the initiator? Who needs to get permission?

This is all stupid.

Sounds fuzzy. Sort of like consent when people are mutually drunk.

Phrossak, these aren't issues raised to "make a point." This is society determining the legal framework of what is required for sex to be legal rather than punishable violence. It's a really really old issue. Today is just today.

 

[Ryika]

And how the hell would anyone ever prove which parter forgot to ask before the action escalated? I assume that the person initiating the action needs to get permission first, and how do you even prove that?

I'd assume that it's probably the man who has to make sure to not accidentally rape her. Always seems to work like that.

 

[Farm Boy]

Rape by definition is not accidental. Nor is it magically in practice. Every society has rules about sex.

 

[caketastydelish]

On the one hand, asking permission every stage of intimacy doesn't seem realistic.

On the other hand, actually inserting someone inside of you (or if it's the man, inserting himself inside of the woman) without a condom. When they brought condoms with them...

I won't go as far to say this particular woman actually raped me. She did stop after I told her to stop, after all.

I still think what she did was wrong, and that's one of the cases where the 'yes means yes' laws would have actually been applicable.

Women can get pregnant even from just temporary insertions. Beyond that, there are always STD's to worry about.

 

[Hygro]

To be fair, some of my favorite moments of intimacy involved asking first, because of the asking.

 

[Nexlev]

In no place in the US is "affirmative consent" the legal standard for rape. However, at most universities, it is the standard for student sexual conduct. As BvBPL pointed out, in California (and I think New York) it is mandated by law that it will be the standard at universities.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, "punishable sexual violence" then. Rape is more frequently a colloquial umbrella term than it is a legally meaningful word.

 

[Ryika]

Rape by definition is not accidental. Nor is it magically in practice.

Well, if affirmative consent is a thing and not confirming every 10 seconds that consent is still active is rape, then rape by accident is also a thing. "OH, CRAP. I forgot to ask when I touched her butt!" would technically be rape.

Of course in any reasonable system you're right, rape by accident does not exist.

 

[BvBPL]

I don't buy that, that doesn't make any sense, that can't possibly be the legal interpretation of the law, no way is any couple ever, out there double-checking every 2 minutes with each other whether they'd like to continue having sex or not.

Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.

Link.

Yeah, nobody is going to do this. But I mean, even so, a university's stupid rules doesn't mean that that's what the law is federally or even state-wide.

It is state wide. The law mandates that colleges that receive funding from the state department of education (read: nearly every college in the state) adopt disciplinary policies that reflect affirmative consent.

Yep. Of course, how that's going to play out in an actual legal interpretation sense is not really clear, but the logical extreme of it would be something like having to get a yes before kissing her, then a new yes before feeling her up, then a new yes before unzipping her pants, etc. It's unlikely it will be enforced in that kind of nonsense way but that IS a valid interpretation of the law.

It is how the schools are interpreting the law so, yeah, that's how it is given that the schools act as quasi-judicial bodies in conducting disciplinary reviews. Of course an appeal to higher courts could be possible, but there's a strong inclination to accept the findings of the school.

"I'm going to kiss you now. Would you like me to proceed?"
"Yes"
(etc.)

Your lampoon of the law is well made, but I'd like to present an alternative take. Simply put, receiving enthusiastic consent during sex is awesome! When you know that you are making your partner feel good it is fantastic.

How about instead:
"Being close to you is so nice, how would you like me to kiss you?"
"Mmm... yes."
"You know, I'm pretty good with my hands as well as my lips."
"Put them on me."
etc.

So it doesn't have to be as robotic as it seems at first blush. Although it does obviously create an additional barrier to what is generally thought of as a spontaneous act.

I think there are potential problems with the law. The seeming emphasis on verbal consent is a bit worrisome. If a party says she wants to put her hands on another and the recipient grabs her hands and puts them on himself, that would seem to be consent, but it obviously isn't verbal. It also creates an potential problem for deaf students.

There will also need to be a bit of education for not just sexual initiators (men, generally), but also for recipients (women, generally). Education will need to be provided to recipients so that they understand that it is upon them to provide consent.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's not every 10 seconds, Ryika. It's with parties that are intoxicated enough that they lose the ability to consent. It's moving between stages of intimacy. It's probably shifting coitus positions. It may be inconvenient or impossible to prove. It may be fuzzy with drugs and alcohol, but society has been determining that "oh, I didn't know she didn't want to be penetrated from behind" is no longer an adequate excuse. Affirmative consent must be acquired and maintained.

 

[Nexlev]

Ok, "punishable sexual violence" then. Rape is more frequently a colloquial umbrella term than it is a legally meaningful word.

colloquial: (of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.

Rape, in colloquial terms, is the violent forcible taking of sex.

At least, that is the way most people I know understand it, and the observable trend for people to point out the absurdity of affirmative consent definitions shows a disconnect with the colloquial definition of rape.

YMMV, but from my point of view, the affirmative consent standard is only accepted by a small segment of the population: young, formally educated, middle/upper class.

 

[Nexlev]

It's not every 10 seconds, Ryika. It's with parties that are intoxicated enough that they lose the ability to consent. It's moving between stages of intimacy. It's probably shifting coitus positions. It may be inconvenient or impossible to prove. It may be fuzzy with drugs and alcohol, but society has been determining that "oh, I didn't know she didn't want to be penetrated from behind" is no longer an adequate excuse. Affirmative consent must be acquired and maintained.

No, Farm Boy, society has not determined this. On what basis do you belief this standard has been decided? It is not reflected in the legal code, nor is it a popularly accepted colloquial definition of the term.

 

[Farm Boy]

We're talking about sexual violence. The punishable taking of sex. Young upper class people always receive more protections from the law than other in practice. In this instance, in this time, they formally receive more protections under the law than their lessers as well. This is how things progress.

Society is progressing in that direction, Nexlev. Californians and New Yorkers(?) have adopted these definitions for a subsection of the most protected members of their society. This may stop, or reverse, but the momentum is observable. Again, this isn't new or shocking. As conservatism stops being able to maintain control of regulation of sexual behavior, more progressive forces will take the reigns.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I still think what she did was wrong, and that's one of the cases where the 'yes means yes' laws would have actually been applicable.

Except even in cases where it might be applicable it's still a stupid law because it's completely unenforceable. If you say she did that without consent, and she says she had consent, and you were not filming the entire encounter, how exactly are you supposed to prove your case (keeping in mind that it would be up to you to prove because of the presumption of innocence that our legal system runs on). I'm honestly asking you, if you had wanted to charge her with something and had to prove that it happened how you said it happened, how would you do it?

I can't think of a way unless you think you can subpoena Severus Snape to bring in some verita serum.

 

[sophie]

It's also important to remember that affirmative consent laws also accept nonverbal forms of consent. Enthusiastic reciprocation is a form of consent. It's not so much an imperative to ask the girl what she wants every 10 seconds (although there are ways to do this as BvBPL points out) so much as a mandate to be aware of how the partner is feeling and responding to things and a legal requirement to back the [copulation] off when she's saying no or displaying signs of not being into it.

It's more just a reminder that consent is NOT a one time thing and can be revoked at any point by either party throughout the act.

 

[warpus]

Another problem with this law is that men are usually assumed to be sexual initiators, but that isn't always the case. There are cool women out there who aren't afraid to initiate sex themselves, you know, and a court it seems would assume that they wouldn't do that, due to their gender.

@Owen Glyndwr

If the on-going consent doesn't have to be verbal, but rather body-language like, then that's fine by me. You can usually tell if your partner is into it or not and can definitely can usually tell by body language if they do not want you to continue, even if they do not verbalize that.

 

[Ryika]

"oh, I didn't know she didn't want to be penetrated from behind" is no longer an adequate excuse.

I'm not sure what society you're talking about, but in the one I live in this would work like this (assuming she can give meaningful consent):

- He tries to have Analsex with her
- She either...
...doesn't give signals that should make him understand that she doesn't want Analsex; this is not considered to be rape.
...does give signals that should make him understand that she doesn't want Analsex, in which case he either realizes them and stops immediately, does not realize them but has reasonable grounds to claim that he legitimately didn't realize them, or it would be rape.

Affirmative consent as in "The partner has to give a verbal yes" is not a thing, more so, it is made fun of and mocked. And thank the gods it isn't law, sucking the fun out of the act of sex just to prevent a few "I didn't want it, but I also didn't signal that I didn't want it."-cases would be an extremely unproportional response.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

It's also important to remember that affirmative consent laws also accept nonverbal forms of consent. Enthusiastic reciprocation is a form of consent. It's not so much an imperative to ask the girl what she wants every 10 seconds (although there are ways to do this as BvBPL points out) so much as a mandate to be aware of how the partner is feeling and responding to things and a legal requirement to back the [copulation] off when she's saying no or displaying signs of not being into it.

That makes the law even worse though because this is such subjective "fuzzy logic". How can you possibly enforce a law in any kind of just manner that relies on people's interpretation of non verbal body language? How can you quantify which forms of body language qualify as consent and which don't when every person's body language will be slightly different?

This is a law that can only be ruled on, at least in some cases, using subjective feelings instead of standards of evidence.

 

[Nexlev]

We're talking about sexual violence. The punishable taking of sex. Young upper class people always receive more protections from the law than other in practice. In this instance, in this time, they formally receive more protections under the law than their lessers as well. This is how things progress.

Society is progressing in that direction, Nexlev. Californians and New Yorkers(?) have adopted these definitions for a subsection of the most protected members of their society. This may stop, or reverse, but the momentum is observable. Again, this isn't new or shocking. As conservatism stops being able to maintain control of regulation of sexual behavior, more progressive forces will take the reigns.

I understand where you're coming from, I'm not trying to deny signs that things are moving in that direction. I merely think you are overstating the inevitability of this "progress".

For example, though these standards are new, there has already been legal challenges to their constitutionality. Last July, a judge ruled that the punishment of a student by the University of California, San Diego violated his due process rights. Last August, a judge over-ruled the punishment of a student by the University of Tennessee, Chattanuga on similar grounds.

I see this more as an ongoing and intense debate, than a "momentum". There is a lot of push in this direction, but also a lot of push in the other direction. I think "liberals" should be careful what they ask for. I wonder if they'll still see these laws as progressive when they are being disproportionately applied to young black men, and causing the most harm to those who can't afford the means to defend themselves against aggressive prosecutors.