'Yes Means Yes' Supporters Want Students Signing Sex Contracts
Naive U. of Minnesota students don't realize sex is about to get more confusing.
The
proposed policy
is currently under review for another 30 days before it becomes official. Its language is fairly standard, which leads me to believe that it will suffer from the same problems as other “Yes Means Yes” policies:
- It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent.
- A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent.
- The existence of a present or past dating or romantic relationship does not imply consent to future sexual activity.
- Consent must be present throughout the sexual activity and may be initially given, but withdrawn at any time.
- When consent is withdrawn all sexual activity must stop. Likewise, where there is confusion about the state of consent, sexual activity must stop until both parties consent again.
- Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity.
“It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent.” But isn’t that redundant? All parties to a sexual activity must be willing participants in the first place, or else they are victims of rape under any standard. That’s what consent is: agreement to engage in sex. I presume the policy’s authors mean to say that it is the responsibility of each person who wishes to
initiate
the sexual activity to obtain consent. But such a requirement is at odds with the reality of human sexual activity—the initiating party is not always so clearly defined, especially when alcohol is involved (as it often is).
Equally troubling is the mandate that each and every sexual act be hammered out beforehand.
May I touch your hand? What about your wrist? May I touch your shoulder? May I kiss this spot on your neck? May I kiss this other spot on your neck? May I kiss the first spot again while I touch your hand?
Nobody is going to do this. Does that mean everyone is a rapist?
Despite these obvious issues—issues inherent in all “Yes Means Yes” campus sex standards—most students and administrators at the University of Minnesota seem genuinely excited about affirmative consent. An excellent
Star Tribune report
quotes Alison Berke Morano—a Floridian political strategist and founder of the Affirmative Consent Project—as expressing relief that the burden will no longer be on accusers to “prove that it happened”:
The problem, Morano said, is that the burden in cases of alleged sexual assault has been on victims to prove they were victimized.“The accuser is always the one who has to prove that it happened,” she said.
It’s of course
entirely appropriate
for the burden of proof to fall upon the accuser. That’s precisely how adjudication works. Morano doesn’t seem understand this, although her group’s website makes her case so badly that I have to wonder whether she’s actually a deliberate parody of a “Yes Means Yes” supporter. (You can buy her nifty t-shirts—which depict actual sex contracts—here.)
The Minnesota students and administrators are equally mixed up:
Joelle Stangler, student body president at the U, said that’s why students themselves have been demanding the change.“Really, there’s been a lack of due process for victims forever,” she said. “We’re now shifting and rebalancing, where both parties need to be able to demonstrate there was consent.”Kimberly Hewitt, who’s in charge of investigating sexual assault complaints at the U, said the new rule could help clarify what is often a murky situation.She noted that colleges are required by federal regulations to investigate all such allegations, whether or not they’re reported to the police.“Most sexual assault investigations that we do … are complicated,” said Hewitt, vice president of equal opportunity and affirmative action. “It’s a college campus, so in many cases there’s alcohol involved. People may or may not be in a relationship … They’re all individual, and they’re all really complex.”The rule change, she said, might make the investigator’s job a bit easier.“It could be more clear to say, ‘Tell me how you understood that you had permission to do this?’ ” she said.
The new policy will only make things easier for adjudicators to the extent that everyone accused of sexual assault will very likely be technically guilty, since no one is going to sign a detailed consent contract before engaging in sex.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report
abuses.
-
"Nobody is going to do this. Does that mean everyone is a rapist?"No, just the males.
-
Sounds like a man can be raped if the woman fails to get his John Hancock before getting his John Hancock.
-
Sounds like a man can be raped if the woman fails to get his John Hancock before getting his John
HancockThomas
FTFY -
I think its important that we remember that *consent matters* even if its Neil Rogering Bob
-
I thought it was his Bob Thomas? I'm losing the ability to keep up with all the slang for my wang.
-
"Big Jim and the twins".
-
Yes means, "Yes, we're all rapists".
-
Indeed, there is a lurking beast, an abominable criminal thug in each of us that needs to be restrained, and this is why we have a strong system of ordered liberty in the USA. Now that affirmative assent is required for rape, it should also be required for threats and satire. That way we could consolidate some of the advances made by New York's eager team of prosecutors who specialize in these matters. See the documentation of America's leading criminal satire case at:Yes, I applaud affirmative assent, not only for rape, but also to help restrain some of the urges driving the fiendish trolls of the Internet. In could help out not only in New York, but in Texas too, where prosecutors know how to take a stand when it needs to be taken. See:(Reason has posted no updates on this Texas case, but it is still "unresolved" as of today, which is one more piece of evidence that the American system is working smoothly, exactly as our great founders intended.)
-
6/10 good ole fashion crazy
-
Indeed, and an even greater menace has now suddenly arisen out of the blue to strike our great nation, for the Fiscal Times and other media outlets are reporting that Senator Richard Durbin (described in news reports as a "senior U.S. lawmaker") has been impersonated without affirmative assent. I don't know which is worse, impersonation or rape (without assent, of course). See:Thank God we have the CIA and the FBI to track down the devious criminals who go about disseminating such treasonous forgeries. Obviously no parody involved in such letters, or Reuters would have made that clear. Heck, they should arrest the press for informing the public about this at all. Even if it is a parody, it's too deadpan and should be prosecuted under the precedent set in America's leading criminal satire case, because the author's intent was undoubtedly to harm the Senator's reputation.
-
Yet again, my initial comment was marred by a typographical error ("in" for "it") due to the casual sloppiness of my amanuensis. There is no excuse for such errors, known as they are to provoke a subtle triggering impact on the minds of readers. I will fine him accordingly. Perhaps report him to the authorities as well if he continues.
-
Howsabout this for a policy:"It is the responsibility of every student to communicate their decision whether or not to have sex with any person clearly. The student may do so through verbal or non-verbal means, which include, but are not limited to, spoken words communicating such decision, or a knee to the groin, at the discretion of the student wishing to communicate their decision."It is the responsibility of every student to honor any other student's decision, as communicated to them, to hot have sex."Seems to me that covers it.
-
to hot have sexclassic
-
John done rubbed off on me.Wait, that sounds wrong . . .
-
Did you explicitly tell him it was okay to rub off on you? OMG you've been raped!
-
You and your iron something-er-other
-
Why don't they just go ahead and prohibit all sex between students? That was the rule while I was going through my training in the Air Force. People still did it, but when they got caught they were both punished (although the guy always got a harsher punishment).
-
If they did that, how could they coddle the women(I could say woman-child, but that might be seen as sexist) while simultaneously empowering them to have consequence-free sex? HOW!?!
-
They can still have all the sex they want with their professors, and guys who don't go to their college. It's just that with all these idiotic rules it's to the point that the only 'safe' way college students can have sex is if a school employee observes the full act while ensuring the guy doesn't get out of line. I hope I didn't just give them any ideas...
-
"Yes, I'm here to apply for the Observing College Coeds Consentual Sex Acts job."Solid start to a porn movie if I ever heard one.
-
Wait, I see the logic in this. This is all intended to solve the assortive mating problem - college males need to be banging non-co-eds because otherwise we have too much inequality.
-
More than likely this applies to students generally, regardless who they are banging. So student with non-coed still must follow the policy and faces discipline if non-coed decides to fuck
himthe student over. -
there’s been a lack of due process for victims foreverThat's because due process is what the accused gets before punishment is meted out. Since the accuser is not at risk of being punished, "due process" for the accuser is a non sequitur.And, yes, this is turning into a pet peeve on par with referring to non-cops as "civilians".
-
So much this.
-
As a military veteran, I take particular offense that cops think they're akin to the military. Sure, they sometimes risk their lives but at no time are they ever expected to give their lives for anyone, or anything. Cops can quit at any time without repercussions whereas soldiers have a choice of dying in battle or going to prison (and being potentially executed).
-
I was walking around Downtown Chicago this past weekend and the police looked incredibly militarized.
-
I once dressed like a Hare Krishna for Halloween--doesn't mean I am one.
-
Well, that's the thing, isn't? The entire tradition of civilian police in the Anglosphere has been a contrast to the gendarmerie/carabinieri police as a branch of the armed forces tradition of Continental Europe.
-
"I was walking around Downtown Chicago this past weekend and the police looked incredibly militarized."And yet 10 people got shot to death. Mostly gangs on the South side.
-
Kind of like how on the Sopranos members of the Mafia refer to people who aren't involved in organized crime as "civilians." Interesting parallel.
-
It's a complete and deliberate redefinition of the centuries-old concept of what actually constitutes due process, and it's the same kind of destruction of plain language that's been going on in universities ever since Marxism became the common cultural feature there.The Duke lacrosse players survived their ordeal because they were from generally well-off families and could afford good lawyers. Your average middle-class or lower-class male, however, doesn't stand a chance in this kind of environment. They may figure out that even talking with a female student in any sort of romantic context could potentially put them in danger of losing their future and reputation.I don't really think these idiots have any clue as to the kind of potential shitstorm they're brewing. This is going to get a lot worse now that places like Columbia are actively allowing women to lie about getting raped and give them college credit for those lies. It's not likely that young adults are going to want to stop fucking, so eventually, college males are going to come to the conclusion that the only way to effectively fight back against this sort of presumptive, punitive policy is with blunt, naked force, especially if their lives are ruined and they feel as if they have nothing to lose anymore.
-
Interesting.../Preet
-
"college males are going to come to the conclusion that the only way to effectively fight back.."is to avoid college females.
-
Maybe the contract should be published in Marxanto…
-
The contract would be worthless. There is nothing to stop the girl from saying 'I changed my mind' after the fact and going after the guy anyway. Smart college age men are going to start going after the cute waitress at the Waffle House and leave the college harridans alone.
-
Yep. These policies are really "Yes means yes until its turned into a No at any point in the future".At that point the victim is just believed because "victim" and the accused is booted out of school.Men need to get the fuck away from colleges trying to pull this shit. That absolutely draconian policies like this can be implemented at American colleges today make me fear my country is already lost. And this is all due to the Great Leader's Dear Comrade (err sorry, Colleague) letter.
-
I'm wondering if somewhere in the depths of these leftoid minds, they are trying to stop romance on college campuses. College is basically the only place in which there is a congregation of males and females together of the proper age and social class to propagate marriage and families. It is a well-established fact that single women are much farther left politically than married women.Maybe (just maybe) part of the reason for this is to increase the percentage of unmarried women.
-
That would be the way fucking Marxists would think.Funny how all the dystopian novels understand that actual human romantic love needs to be destroyed before utopia can be realized.
-
"That would be the way fucking Marxists would think."
Pretty sure with rules like these they aren't fucking anymore, just plain old non-fucking Marxists. Lol. -
I fear for my grandsons.
-
Are they already born? If so I guess you should start doing them (and me) a favor and advocating for improved male prison conditions.
-
you'd like to withdraw consent? have you completed, notarized, and delivered the appropriate forms?
-
A 27b/6 form?
-
No, a 6\b72 form.
-
No, no, no. Consent requires forms. Saying just just requires the woman to say (again at any time) "I said No" even if its a lie, because victims don't lie.
-
I did not consent to late PM links.
-
Remember kids, it is the man's responsibility to obtain affirmative consent from the woman but the woman is under no obligation to make her lack of consent known. Nope, women are just too fragile and too biologically inferior to men to expect them to express their denial of consent.This policy is of course a complete lie. The people who wrote it don't believe a single word of it. The entire thing is just an elaborate lie to ensure any man accused of sexual assault is convicted. Taken as a truthful expression of the views of its authors, however, it is without question one of the most misogynistic and dehumanizing policies I have ever read.
-
That is what honestly yanks my chain, Feminists make such a huge deal that women are treated like children and that they should be viewed as independent and strong. But yet they advocate for these sort of policies that turn would virtually turn women into children. It's absolutely nuts.
-
They also
brainwashlobby heavily against women carrying guns. -
Their whole existence depends on victimization, so of course they wouldn't want women to be able to have an equalizer.
-
Well now we can all see that EdWuncier propagates rape culture for pointing out any kind of conflict in feminist ideology.
-
Feminism has been infected with Marxism. They've simply changed terms, "Bourgeoisie" is now, "Straight White Male". " Proletarian" is now "Minority".
-
"The entire thing is just an elaborate lie to ensure any man accused of sexual assault is convicted."The Progressive Theocracy is consistent in abusing it's enemies.Men are generally more supportive of liberty than women, therefore the power play for the Progressive Theocracy is to empower women and disempower men.
-
Pretty much that. Same thing with whites, I think, though maybe less so. Not really racism or sexism per se, just targeting their perceived enemies. Conservatives are sometimes guilty of the same with minorities, and libertarians with women.
-
let's just give women a 48-hour window when they can hunt down and shoot their sexual partners without explanation -- after that you, you have to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Or "The Burning Bed Act".
-
I never thought that I would see the day when fucking in college would require the same amount of paperwork that starting a business in Chicago involves. Scary times, indeed.
-
Hello, online education!With all that fuss over sex, they may as well ban extramarital sex altogether while letting married students shtupp each other all they want...But of course that would endanger the university's tax exemption.
-
uh no. As far I as I can tell, married students are not exempt.
-
I was talking about a hypothetical policy.But it doesn't surprise me that they're going to lower marriage to the same level as a one-night stand or two students playing house.
-
"The existence of a present or past dating or romantic relationship does not imply consent to future sexual activity."
-
Well, if they're going to call marriage a "dating or romantic relationship," then screw them.
-
But, married students are licensed, and we know that makes a huge, huge difference.They don't say "The existence of a present or past dating or romantic relationship,or a relationship licensed by the state, does not imply consent to future sexual activity."That omission is crucial, my friends. Dating or romantic relationships aren't real, because they aren't licensed. A marriage is real by virtue of the state stamp of approval.I don't think we can lump a state-approved relationship in with all those other, more imaginary relationships. If you're married, I think the license is probably a standing consent order, allowing either partner to get sexay on the other one unless and until the state revokes the license.
-
OK, but I would speak in terms of the marital relationship, not in terms of marriage licenses, because they're different. Marriage licenses are created by the state so as to gather information and fees about who's getting married in their jurisdiction. Marriage is a relationship pre-existing the state, and not depending on the state for its validity. There's no automatic requirement that you have a license - e.g., in common-law marriage states.If a state dares to require a civil marriage license as a precondition to getting married, I'd totally oppose this. The remedy for a couple's failing to get a license should be limited to fining the officiant, not invalidating the marriage itself.
-
nb - It will be difficult to find an officiant who will marry you without a license. Most churches cooperate with the government in getting licenses, and the government in turn recognizes the marriages so performed by the church in accordance with its own rules.
-
its own rules = the church's own rules.
-
Of course they are because feminists, err Marxists hate marriage.
-
Though oddly enough they seem to like alimony.
-
Doesn't seem to be an issue for BYU,
-
The mind numbing nonsense at today’s “colleges” is both laughable and terrifying.Anyone, student or parent, that actually pays money to these “institutions” is a stupid sphincter.You are a sucker and a dumbass.
-
A detailed signed contract wouldn't actually help an accused since the accuser could just say she withdrew consent.
-
rape is whatever a woman says it is
-
Unless she later recants and says she wasn't raped, then it's whatever the 'victim advocate' she first told says it is.Really, let's just have all men sent to prison as soon as they reach puberty, where they can work in factories and, of course, at any point they can choose to leave on the condition that they get chemically castrated. Needless to say the population will be sustained through mandatory sperm donations by all right thinking males/inmates.Is anyone else a little saddened just that it's getting harder to come up with farcical dystopian scenarios, because the old farcical dystopian scenarios just keep coming true?
-
" (You can buy her nifty t-shirts—which depict actual sex contracts—here.)"Ugh, the cisheteronormative presumption there is like I can't even
-
You forgot to add 'shit lord' in there.
-
"The problem, Morano said, is that the burden in cases of alleged sexual assault has been on the victims to prove they were victimized."Even if you accept all of the other stupidity attached to this concept, how does this change anything? In the past, Person A says they were victimized and Person B says that it was consensual. Now, Person A says that they were victimized and Person B says that they received clear, unambiguous consent for every single thing that they did.The burden is still on the alleged victim to prove that they were victimized. Or, did I miss something that mentioned they were also agreeing to a new standard where all sex would be assumed to be non-consensual and the burden is on the accused to prove their innocence?That'll work really well.
-
Now, Person A says that they were victimized and Person B says that they received clear, unambiguous consent for every single thing that they did.Since the woman can withdraw consent at any time, it is not possible for a man to EVER prove that the woman gave clear and unambiguous consent for every single thing that they did.
-
And any guy claiming that he actually got affirmative consent at every stage won't be believed because everyone knows that no one would actually do that.
-
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!Whenever I read articles like this I always think of this scene from A Man for All Seasons (1966). -
I love that scene.
-
Nice version of Catch-22. Anyone who doesn't claim to follow the law is clearly guilty of the crime. Anyone who claims to follow the law is clearly lying because compliance is impossible. Therefore, they are clearly guilty.
-
Now, Person A says that they were victimized and Person B says that they received clear, unambiguous consent for every single thing that they did. The burden is still on the alleged victim to prove that they were victimized.Nope, the burden is on the accused to prove that they had consent. That's the pernicious thing about these policies: they flip the burden of proof. Note the first line in the new policy:It is the responsibility of each person who wishes to engage in the sexual activity to obtain consent.It is your responsibility to get consent; you have to prove you got consent.
-
Simple, all the man has to do is say he never wished to engage in sexual activity but the woman pushed it on him.
-
Yep, that's the only possible strategy. "She did blah, and I never consented to it."Of course, this just makes both of you rapists, but Mutual Assured Destruction is a viable strategy.
-
It's hardly mutual though, since we all know almost no woman will be punished under this standard. The bias of the title IX investigators is (basically per the job description) not merely 'pro-victim' but pro-woman/anti-man.In fact it's almost insulting that they even bothered to frame it as a gender neutral law. Let's not bother with the formalities, really.
-
Well, Mr. Smarty Pants Lawyer, it doesn't say who you need to get consent from does it?"Your Honor, my buddies Sven and Ole over there both gave me a thumbs up when I told them I was going to go hit on that fat sweat hog at the bar wearing a Gopher sweater. I figgered I was good to go on the consent deal because they are the ones who's opinions I care about."
-
"and if you'll just put your Jane Whorecock right here..."
-
This and the sex offender registry article, as well as keeping kids in the house because STRANGER DANGER! I blame almost entirely on Law & Order SVU. There were jokes in the other thread, but I bet I could track all this bullshit back to when that show began.
-
ideas so stupid they could only come from academia.
-
Never forget these policies all stem from a letter from the Obama Administration!NEVER FORGET.
-
A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent.I seriously doubt the imbeciles that wrote this have ever had sex. Even my lefty gf doesn't expect me to *ask* before we do it. We just start kissing and grinding and one thing leads to another (unless one of us voices or otherwise shows opposition, which is the only notable way to withdraw consent). IOW we do it like normal people. Also, like dealing with cops, it appears that *not* resisting is now equal to resisting.
-
"IOW we do it like normal people."Just more proof that Rape is a patriarchal-enforced norm
-
Of course! Feminists know there are only two ways to make the rape culture bullshit about rape being normal in society a reality: 1) they can get men to start raping a whole lot more (a difficult task I imagine) or 2) with a few pieces of paper, they can redefine rape to include what is in fact normal sexual behavior. Success!
-
I seriously doubt the imbeciles that wrote this have ever had sex. Even my lefty gf doesn't expect me to *ask* before we do it.They're not trying to create rules that work given actual sexual behavior. They're trying to set up rules that effectively mean accusation = guilt. They believe men should be expelled whenever a woman complains, and the small number of people wrongfully expelled are an acceptable cost of their preferred policy.
-
" Even my lefty gf doesn't expect me to *ask* before we do it."Of course not! The rules wouldn't be any good if you actually obeyed them!
-
Not that there is any fear of this happening anytime soon, but I PITY the man that would out a contract such as this for me to sign.
Poor guys, their confusion is about to increase exponentially...especially when the sex that was so explicitly agreed upon is terrible. -
I will rehash a joke from a dozen threads ago =(Real Conversation in the Future)"Do you remember your first kiss?"
"Do I! I still have the paperwork!" -
:0)But as sad as it is funny...
-
1. what if your drunk when you sign it?
2. what if you change your mind after signing it? Did you just sign a permission slip to be raped? -
The rules are being written so that a woman can claim rape at any time it pleases a woman to do so. There is no way for a man to ever prove there was clear and unambiguous consent.
-
And notice Kinneth, the man has to prove his innocence. The state doesn't have to prove guilt much less prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Does the man have to get consent with every stroke ?
-
Give it a few years and he'll need consent to look in her general direction. Getting a boner without the consent of the woman causing it is clearly a kind of rape.
-
You might want to start drawing on your latent bisexuality and have sex with men. It's a lot less trouble. Heck, you can even get married now.
-
Yeah, but "traditionally" only really have to marry if you knocked him up.
-
Well, if you're lucky, you'll have a lot of fun trying. And this is the 21st century; marriages don't have to be all that "traditional" anymore. Live a little.
-
What was all this talk I used to hear from liberals about the government getting out of our bedrooms? And now they not only want the government in their bedrooms, but completely up their arse?
-
That was for something COMPETELY different. So, it's totally fine.
-
And keep your laws off my body (abortion) but...ACA! They are a fickle bunch.
-
I'm so glad my campus dating experiences were 20 years ago, and not in this laughably absurd age.
-
You must have gone to a conservative school.I can count the number of "dates" I had (defined, for college purposes, as going off-campus with the lucky female of the opposite sex for a meal or entertainment event) on one hand.Very few sexy-times were preceded by a "date".
-
The young entrepreneur who creates the first realistic sexbot and successfully manufactures and sells them is going to make Bill Gates and Google Execs look like peasants.Then the poor feminists are going to try to get the sexbots banned.A lot of things you can't predict, but this one is easy.
-
And if her eyes beam COD, Halo, LoL, and WoW games from her eyes directly to his why would any college male even move?Cant wait for this policy to go nationwide. A few guys get nailed by this on every campus, then...College males everywhere start freaking out, read the law and stay in. Plenty of Vid games, porn, and bro downs on campus now. Who will host the parties? who will buy the coeds booze? who will make parties fun? Add in these sexbots and men won't be seen after class.
-
And where will they get their Mrs degrees?
-
Liberation through micro-management.
-
Alison Berke Morano—a Floridian political strategist and founder of the Affirmative Consent Project—as expressing relief that the burden will no longer be on accusers to “prove that it happened”
At least they're finally starting to admit that their real beef was really with the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. How about we just ban men? Wouldn't that be even simpler? -
This is like a Abigail Williams' wet dream. She was born in the wrong century.
-
She would love the shit out of Title IX.
-
I hope when the push comes to make this federal law, some troll will name it after whoever accused Emmett Till.
-
The "Save our Carolyn Bryant Act"?
-
This is like a Abigail Williams' wet dream
That is wrong on so many levels. -
A poor solution to a non-problem. Typical of life under Obama.
-
Does being married indicate consent?
-
Under these rules, I doubt it.
-
Okay. Never leaving house. Will get work-from-home job, will cut off all contact to outside world. They want me to become a hard-core agoraphobic shut-in? No problem, feminists. You can't call me a rapist for never leaving my apartment!
-
You can't call me a rapist for never leaving my apartment!You seriously underestimate them.
-
Indeed. By denying them your attention, you are not affirming the value of their existence, and by isolating yourself, you are allowing a rampant patriarchy to go unchallenged.I really wish I was just making this up.
-
No, seriously. I cannot remember where or under what circumstances but a couple years ago some government agency included in the definition of domestic violence a man deliberately withholding sex as a form of control.
-
University of Michigan again. September 2014
-
Okay. Never leaving house. Will get work-from-home job, will cut off all contact to outside world. They want me to become a hard-core agoraphobic shut-in? No problem, feminists. You can't call me a rapist for never leaving my apartment!
-
Okay. Never leaving house. Will get work-from-home job, will cut off all contact to outside world. They want me to become a hard-core agoraphobic shut-in? No problem, feminists. You can't call me a rapist for never leaving my apartment!
-
Okay. Never leaving house. Will get work-from-home job, will cut off all contact to outside world. They want me to become a hard-core agoraphobic shut-in? No problem, feminists. You can't call me a rapist for never leaving my apartment!
-
Nobody can hide from the sqrls
-
Just give the lovely ladies condom packages with YES printed on them. Then when they hand one over to a lucky guy, he's got the contract right there on the floor next to his pants...
-
No, you can bet they'll have 'Yes' printed on one side and 'No' printed on the other.
-
All sex should be videotaped so that a jury can decide, at each moment of interaction, whether or not consent was given.
-
Permission to videotape must be done in triplicate, each copy independently notarized in front of three impartial witnesses.
-
Why do you think the same shitheels want ban "revenge porn"?
-
Would publishing the signed consent forms be considered "revenge porn"?Think of it: future boyfriends could get a complete record of every sexual act a woman has ever engaged in.
-
Afraid not. All consent forms will of course have to be stored, not to mention analysed for authenticity, digitized, and maintained should they become necessary. Suffice it to say a lot of government jobs will be 'created.'
-
Well, the young men at that college have at least two names of women to never, ever, ever date. Or even look at, really.
-
Not looking at them is a micro-aggression.Looking at them is also a micro-aggression.Even thinking about looking or not looking at them is a micro-aggression.The inquisition and the Salem witch burners had nothing on this bunch.
-
Refusing to have sex with them is rape.
-
Well, wasn't one guy who passed out kicked off campus for raping the chick who blew his comatose self?
-
That's different. His cock was just asking for it.
-
FFS, as a U of MN alum I guess this finally settles that I'm not going back for that masters or doctorate in Philosophy. Two years ago on campus I never heard anything about 'yes means yes' movements or policy changes or rampant sexual assaults. But 'Minnesota Nice' brings out all the worst PC tendencies. I thought my sex life couldn't get much worse in this state, I was wrong.
-
Yeah, consent in Minnesoda is especially troublesome given the amount of clothes we wear most of the year.Lena, may I remove your parka?Lena may I remove your pull over fleece jacket?Lena may I remove your wool bib overalls?Lena may I remove your cable knit sweater?Fuck it Lena, I'm just gonna go beat off. Besides your ass is an axe handle and a half across.
-
They’re all individualI'm not.
-
I'm pretty sure everybody will continue to get laid as often as is practical in college, the same as it always was. There will always be some collection of whining pissants accusing everyone of hurting someone's feelings, the same as always. Most of the kids will be just fine. The rest are casualties in the incessant liberal war on freedom. Same as always.I say, "fuck 'em". When I was single, there wasn't a lot of debate going on about consent, just a smiling rush to get undressed when the moment called for it. It wasn't necessary for me to get a permission slip from someone who was trying to get my clothes off, I readily cooperated. This just gives control freaks another illusion of control. There will always be some vocal minority bitching about sex, generally, they're not getting much of it and think others shouldn't be either. Once again, "fuck 'em".
-
The problem is that the "affirmative consent" crowd essentially wants to recalibrate our justice system into something like this: a woman can have sex with a man and act totally enthusiastic about it before, during, and after, but at any time she wants, she can decide that she didn't consent (but of course, she was too terrified to make her non-consent known in any way) and have that man thrown in prison for rape. It's a blank check for women to get back at their ex-boyfriends or ex-lovers.When you put that option on the table - to have a person's life ruined on a whim - the human tendency is to abuse it. Not strictly female tendency, human tendency. There will be widespread abuse of this, and a lot of innocent men will end up in prison, where they are likely to suffer REAL rape, not just once, but repeatedly for years and years with no chance to escape.I know it seems like we're safe - I do my classes online - but this won't stop at the border of campus property. Already, some group has recommended that these rules be enacted as federal law (Reason reported on it a few days ago).If this crap is not nipped in the bud, this country is headed in a very bad direction.
-
The only real solution is MAD. The way the proposed laws are constructed, two people can rape each other, so if a woman files "technical rape" changes, just file them right back. Sure, due to sexism, it might be harder to get a conviction even when she is guilty by the letter of the law (and she will be, since it is basically impossible not to be), but it's about the only shot of derailing the stupid train.
-
"When you put that option on the table - to have a person's life ruined on a whim - the human tendency is to abuse it. Not strictly female tendency, human tendency. There will be widespread abuse of this, and a lot of innocent men will end up in prison, where they are likely to suffer REAL rape, not just once, but repeatedly for years and years with no chance to escape."Vaginas never abuse their power, only penises do, because penises are EVIL EVIL EVIL.
-
"... the human tendency is to abuse it. Not strictly female tendency, human tendency."Yes, exactly. Power corrupts, and absolute power (which we are approaching here) ...Of course, the (often unspoken) assumption here is that Women are basically "good" and neither lie nor harbor much in the way of hatred, impulses of revenge, and so on. Alas, there are already innumerable cases of this kind of abuse documented. "Affirmative consent" is just atrocious law. Horrible.
-
Yep, a woman falsely claiming rape is literally in the first book of the bible (Genesis 39), this is totally a brand new thing....
-
If this crap is not nipped in the bud, this country is headed in a very bad direction.
As a gay man, I'm not sure it's all bad when straight men are forced to look for alternatives... Maybe it's time to vote for Democratic SJWs and feminists? :-) -
Man, I'm glad I went to college in the 1970s.These people are just too uptight with may I touch your bosoms - er - which one? May I put my tongue is your mouth - have you brushed your teeth?
-
Same logic can be applied to muggings. Someone should try it out.
-
University of Minnesota? So what? Who gives a shit about fat pale people who talk weird wanting or not wanting to have sex with other fat pale people who talk weird? When this policy comes to Boulder or Austin, I'll get worried.
-
I have no doubt whatsoever that this policy will be in Boulder AND Austin by next year. No doubt at all.
-
And will be adopted in criminal law by many states within a decade. If Hillary wins make that within 5 years.
-
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
-
This is precious: women documenting in writing that they intend to have sex with a man. This should give endless opportunities for slut shaming and blackmail. There will be quite a few men who will just get off on getting the signature and then... leaving. I like it! This should be fun to watch!
-
That brings up an interesting question: Does forging one of these contracts 'on a woman's behalf' technically constitute rape? Paper rape? Paperape?
-
Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other forms of sexual activity.So do I need a contract for each tit? I would argue that the tits constitute a unit unto themselves. Do I need one contract for sucking the tits and another contract for fucking the tits?
-
Well, what if one tit is a ptsd trigger? Gotta think about this things.Without killing your boner.
-
No decent person really disagrees with the policies listed. What's the rebuttal? "But I should be able to continue to fuck her when she wants to stop"?Still, the formalizing of the often ambiguous and negotiation-like process that is fucking in college is due its ridicule. Stop letting rapists off the hook if that's the problem. I'm not a fan of molding the bill of rights to fit crimes based on their emotional component.
-
"But I should be able to continue to fuck her when she wants to stop"Well, let's say that if there is nothing preventing her from saying she wants to stop, and you have no way of knowing she wants to stop because she doesn't indicate that she wants to stop, then you shouldn't face any legal consequences for failing to stop, regardless of what she wanted inside her head. If that makes me a rape apologist, so be it.
-
Well, it doesn't become OK to shoot someone if the victim fails to protest. Everyone agrees on the principle. But it's of course ludicrous to parse normal sexual encounters for their negotiations and hesitancies and define rape down to mean something that it's not, and unconstitutional to empower alleged victims with less due process than those of any other violent crime get.But I really don't think we're teaching a generation of young women than a bad hookup equals rape. I think this is overblown, men-as-true-victim anecdotal stuff you guys get off on. You had millenia to rape women with impunity. But let's be sure to be laser-focused on any inch of overstepping on the part of rape victim advocacy!
-
"Well, it doesn't become OK to shoot someone if the victim fails to protest."It's reasonable to assume a person doesn't want to be shot. It's not reasonable to assume that a person who has provided clear, verbal consent to fuck has withdrawn it without some supporting evidence."You had millenia to rape women with impunity."Is this a vampire board or something?
-
"But let's be sure to be laser-focused on any inch of overstepping on the part of rape victim advocacy!"This isn't rape victim advocacy, this is typical Marxism. Use a sympathetic cause to push an ulterior agenda of totalitarian statism.With civil rights, it was creating an exception for basic rights like freedom of association if you could link them to commerce. Since everyone needs to either rely on direct payment from the state (paycheck or welfare) or else engage in commerce to survive, that alone provided a great deal of leverage in curtailing freedom.With gay marriage, it's setting up the legal basis to allow certain religions to be privileged by the state, in order to pressure them into becoming mouthpieces for the state, and to establish the legal precedents needed to curtail the influence of other religions in politics. The sort of totalitarian statism desired by the Marxists needs to rely on religious or cult psychology for its survival, which is harder with people who have a pre-existing faith.With this, it's undermining due process, and establishing a set of offenses so nearly universal that nearly anyone could be prosecuted at any time, with the punishment including a lifetime set of sanctions (ie the sex offender registry) -- it's another tool for the statists to employ to destroy their enemies. If you think the state won't use female agents to entrap and destroy its enemies under these laws, just look at Julian Assange.
-
I know its Tony, but....are you really this fucking stupid? You have got to be satire embodied, right, right?
-
So, sexual activity, for women, is akin to being shot? Something that's basically inherently criminal except in extreme circumstances?What next, giving your wife a back rub without her consent is akin to stealing someone's car and just saying you were borrowing it because they didn't say 'stop'? Holding a woman's hand without her explicit consent is like beating someone with a tire iron because they didn't protest? Do you seriously make no distinction between any kind of action and any other kind of action? Did you even try to read the article, as it's pretty clear that this measure goes waaaay beyond continuing to have sex after the woman changes her mind and makes it known.Has anyone told you today how stupid you are? You are really really fucking stupid. ANd the bit about "stop letting rapists get away with it." You sound like Exra Klein. No doubt fucking over a bunch of innocent men will make the world a much better place. 'Tell those actual rapists we won't stop punishing innocent men until they turn themselves in.' That'll teach'em.God, you are just so dumb and lacking in character. Just soooo dumb.
-
Well, it doesn't become OK to shoot someone if the victim fails to protest
That's a lousy analogy because shooting someone is illegal regardless of consent of the victim.For anything where consent is a determining factor, unless you can prove in court beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was withdrawn, you shouldn't be able to convict someone. That is, the woman's word should never be enough to convict anybody of rape. -
No decent person really disagrees with the policies listed.No decent person lists such policies.
-
No decent person really disagrees with the policies listed. What's the rebuttal? "But I should be able to continue to fuck her when she wants to stop"?
Once two people are having sex in a private space, it is pretty much impossible to prove withdrawal of consent. So, once two people voluntarily enter a private room and start having sex, and there are no signs of force or violence, nobody should ordinarily get convicted of rape. Men or women who don't like that reality need to avoid having sex in private with people who they don't trust. It's, you know, the real world.Stop letting rapists off the hook if that's the problem.
Criminal convictions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; a lot of rapists are going to get off the hook if we want to continue to be a nation of laws. -
Time for guys to start charging women with rape for not getting their clear consent. Stop the one-way BS.
-
But that would require that the courts treat men and women equally... We all know that's not going to happen. It's clear that this is another one of numerous female entitlements enforced by law.
-
"Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex"
-
The quote is from Susan Wasiolek, as to the disciplinary consequences if a male and female student, drunk off their asses, have sex.
-
Wasiolek = then-dean of students, Duke University
-
Feminism is about equality. Lolz.
-
So, Wasiolek is saying that women are weak, inferior creatures, prone to hysteria and impulsive behavior, who need special protection? Geez, where have I heard that before?
-
Sounds like these guys could all learn a bit from the SM concept of "safeword"; the idea being everything means "yes" except that one word which is an unequivocal "no" which when uttered brings an immediate stop to the activity at hand. Of course, that would require the university busybodies to understand that the normal state of human sexuality (particularly from ages about 15 and upwards) is YES!!!
-
Sounds like these guys could all learn a bit from the SM concept of "safeword";
Let's use "Hillary" as the universal safeword. That brings all sexual activity or arousal to a grinding halt. -
I don't understand what will be in these contracts. Will it consist simply of an affirmation of the Rules, as summarized above? If so, it is worthless, because what counts are the specifics of the encounter. But since the specifics of the encounter can change at any time, it's worthless no matter what. Or have I misunderstood something?Ultimately, contract or no contract, there is no way of avoiding "he said/she said" in the case of most date rape encounters. Or at least, absent an audio recording of the entire thing there isn't. What a sad, sad development that can only create a multitude of new injustices.
-
This is a "contract" that one privileged party can unilaterally rewrite the terms of at any time they please. Like the social contract, or marriage, or your credit card contract. You know, not a fair contract at all.
-
This sexual encounter is being audio and visually recorded to monitor legal compliance. If you do not wish to be recorded leave now.
-
What ridiculous times we are living in. My advice to young men entering college today is simple: don't date and don't hook up. Focus on your studies. Hang out with your guy friends. You can start dating after graduation. Today's colleges and universities are run by people who believe every man is a rapist. Don't give them the slightest opportunity to use their systems against you.
-
And find the nearest safe hooker.
-
The women are smarter and more available during college. After you graduate it is slim pickings by comparison.
-
Indeed. After college they're almost all either married or almost married. And it gets a lot more expensive after college.
-
Nothing really changes in this. She can still claim she didn't agree after the fact, and he can still claim she said clearly, emphatically 'yes' at all stages of the process.It is exactly the same.He: "I asked her if I could stick my penis in her. She said 'yes'."She: "I changed my mind half way through and asked him to stop, and he didn't."
-
This is how feminists ensure that even the pretty girls can't get laid
-
"A lack of protest, the absence of resistance and silence do not indicate consent."So...... after I sign the consent contract and receive compliments about "the best sex of my life" from my partner, who has NOT been physically or mentally assaulted any way, I can still be charged with rape?
-
Look on the bright side: this is the end of pre-marital sex! Thank God!
