Stupidest law I've heard of in quite a while...

[Archae]

Kathleen Parker at the Washington Post wrote about it.

"Elsewhere the zeitgeist was buzzing about proposed legislation in California that would codify the terms of consent in sexual relations among college students. Saying "yes" apparently isn't good enough. Now yes needs to be persistent throughout the act."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-sex-after-drinking-and-the-war-on-men/2014/02/21/f2738d36-9b46-11e3-9080-5d1d87a6d793_story.html

So in other words, I'd have to say:

"Can I...?" "Yes"
"Can I...?" "Yes"
"Can I...?" "Yes"
"Can I...?" "Yes"
"Can I...?" "Yes"
"Can I...?" "Yes"

Ad infinitum...

[Major Nikon]

1. It works both ways so the other party has to be asking you as well

Affirmative consent reduces the act of sex to a contractual arrangement. Best to get a notarized statement and have at least 3 witnesses while yer at it.

[petronius]

6. Here's a link to the actual bill:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. “Affirmative consent” is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior, expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions. It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. For that reason, relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be present throughout sexual activity, and at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the sexual activity. If there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

It's not exactly Cherry 2000...

[Cirque du So-What]

2. Are you buying into Kathleen Parker's BS? Really?

Quoting an Ann Coulter wannabee? The darling of FreeKKKRepubliKKK? ?Really?

How far this place has sunk

Is it really so important to keep stirring the shit over some imaginary 'war on men' by posting the execrable ruminations of this vacuous twit?

What, praytell, is sofa king bad about this language - from the actual text of the actual bill itself?

Consent must be present throughout sexual activity, and at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the sexual activity. If there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

It in no way resembles what Kathleen Parker - and now you, apparently - feverishly insist.

[Archae]

3. A stupid law is a stupid law.

And even if this Parker woman is a Coulter wannabe, this law is simply stupid.

You know, broken clocks being correct twice a day...

[Squinch]

14. The wording of that law essentially says, "If either party changes their mind

and says stop, then stop."

Good God! The suggestion that this is some kind of persecution of men is just jaw dropping.

You are right. How far this place has sunk.

Thanks for posting the actual wording of this completely benign bill.

[ZombieHorde]

4. That is not what the bill says.

The bills says if either partner stops consenting during sex, or becomes unconscious, then the sex needs to stop.

[gollygee]

5. You don't have to continually ask

You have to continually have consent. If at some point you question whether you still have consent, you should ask to make sure, but my guess is that you know when your partner is consenting to sex because she shows you or expresses consent in some other way than with "yes." That kind of show of consent works too.

The point is that if someone stops consenting during sex, it stops.

[Archae]

7. Been there, done that...

Had the blue balls to show for it!

I'm sure I'm not the only guy here who's gone out with a "tease."

But unlike the "entitled class" of team sports players in say football and basketball, if the woman says no, I do accept it.

And I've never wanted to go out with a girl who was so drunk she passes out.

But I'm not going to keep asking her, like I said in the OP.

[Lex]

8. As was already stated to you, you don't "have to keep asking her."

[pnwmom]

9. No, that's not what the law says. That's what Kathleen Parker, noted conservative,

is pretending it says.

The point of the law is that even after a person has consented to sexual activities, s/he can withdraw consent to further activities. Does anyone here really have an issue with that?

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

"Consent must be present throughout sexual activity, and at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the sexual activity. If there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved."

[Scootaloo]

10. How many ties will it take pointing out that Parker's claims are BS...

For it to sink into Archae's head?

[Archae]

11. It looks like Parker is blowing this out of proportion.

If she is a conservative, that would be standard M. O.

While this law isn't what I thought it would be, (like I said in the OP,) the whole question of consent is a murky one.

Especially in the "throes of passion," so to speak.

[Squinch]

15. No. The question of consent is not a murky one. If you don't know if you have consent, then you

stop.

Are you seriously arguing anything else?

[Gravitycollapse]

17. Your post is the equivalent of a magician being caught revealing the trick...

who then tries to throw a smoke bomb in order to escape.

"...the whole question of consent is a murky one."


*smoke bomb*

Shit, shit, wait, where did Archae go?

[Scootaloo]

18. No, it's really not "murky"

What the law says, pared down to spoken english-ese, is "If they say stop, consent has ended and you stop doing that." it takes common sense and simply applies a penalty if you behave senselessly.

[LeftyMom]

12. Enthusiastic consent? Communication? What is the world coming to?????

If you're not making sure you're partner is having at least as much fun as you are you're doing it wrong. That doesn't mean filling out forms in triplicate, it means "hey, what if I? Oh, you like that do you?" etc.

[Squinch]

16. The wording doesn't even require that. Basically the wording is saying, "if either party says stop,

then stop."

The rest of this is just someone's persecution complex.

[rrneck]

13. Some college tried that in the eighties

and the entire process got incorporated into hookup culture.