Blazed1979 said: »
Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald.
Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives!
Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned.
California Debates 'yes Means Yes' Sex Assault Law |
||
|
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
California debates 'yes means yes' sex assault law
California debates 'yes means yes' sex assault law
Blazed1979 said: » Sorry to ruin your childhood memories Ram & Mald. Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives! Oh wait. Nope. Not really concerned. Ramyrez said: » true. Courtney Cox too. I can live without Lisa Kudrow though. Finally some Monica love! Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Ok let me try it this way, I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally). BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't). And yet you don't see any potential for abuse? They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. Obviously to Jassik, broad definitions = clearly defined. Ramyrez said: » Oh no, an aging woman has a wee bit of cellulite! The horror! She's hiddeous! Turn away, flee for your lives! shoot, looks good to me. idk who she is or wtf Ram & mald is though, am I missing something important? Lakshmi.Flavin said: » No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was. Either way, my point stands. Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Ok let me try it this way, I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally). BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't). And yet you don't see any potential for abuse? They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? Ramyrez said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was. Either way, my point stands. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Ok let me try it this way, I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally). BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't). And yet you don't see any potential for abuse? They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? I haven't had a drink in over 12 years and I don't sleep with strangers, or people I am not entirely comfortable with for that matter. But I'm in my mid 30's and way past the raging hormones of my teens to mid/late 20's. I know how a bunch of young men are going to be criminalized as a result of this, even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions. Blazed1979 said: » Ramyrez said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was. Either way, my point stands. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Blazed1979 said: » Ramyrez said: » Lakshmi.Flavin said: » No? I had to shoot myself the link on my phone and open it, I didn't look at it long or closely once I saw what his point was. Either way, my point stands. Blazed1979 said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Ok let me try it this way, I think we all clearly know what non consensual sex is (I hope anyways). Is there any difference in the amount of actual "non consensual sex" that has happened from the day before the law was passed to the day after the law was passed? NO (generally). BUT by changing the LEGAL definition, more people are engaging in non consensual sex today than the day before the law was passed. If two people are heavily intoxicated they, by this law cannot consent to sex. Therefore when they inevitably do have sex, they have just committed a crime (even though we all know they didn't). And yet you don't see any potential for abuse? They didn't change the legal definition, they just more clearly defined it. Having sex with someone who is incapacitated has always been illegal, as it is not consensual is they cannot give consent. It's no different than saying that because a man can overpower a woman that it is consensual because she didn't stop them. Nothing has changed. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? I haven't had a drink in over 12 years and I don't sleep with strangers, or people I am not entirely comfortable with for that matter. But I'm in my mid 30's and way past the raging hormones of my teens to mid/late 20's. I know how a bunch of young men are going to be criminalized as a result of this, even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions. Don't you mean you're just so awful in bed that your partner will have to cry rape instead of living with the shame? Gawd, grow up already! Ragnarok.Nausi said: » You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret. Blazed1979 said: » I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. "I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary" No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words. Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret. Blazed1979 said: » I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. "I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary" No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words. Your honor, "I was totally smashed, I was incapacitated". Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret. Blazed1979 said: » I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. "I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary" No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words. Your honor, "I was totally smashed, I was incapacitated". "Your honor, she initiated it and clearly enjoyed it until her friends found out." Innocent until proven guilty, she would have to prove she was incapacitated. Quote: even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions. Criminal -- maybe not. "Bad" -- subjective. "Love 'em and leave 'em" is pretty *** terrible, in my opinion, unless it's a mutual understanding of consequence-free sex in the first place. Then again, if you enter into that without knowing and trusting the person first, you're an idiot. To be fair Ramyrez I don't think any single and drunk male or female is lookin for spouse material in a bar
Cerberus.Anjisnu said: » To be fair Ramyrez I don't think any single and drunk male or female is lookin for spouse material in a bar I don't think you're familiar enough with the rural portion of the country's population. Ramyrez said: » Quote: even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions. Criminal -- maybe not. "Bad" -- subjective. "Love 'em and leave 'em" is pretty *** terrible, in my opinion, unless it's a mutual understanding of consequence-free sex in the first place. Then again, if you enter into that without knowing and trusting the person first, you're an idiot. Intent is important but just because you didn't go into the act with the intention of raping someone doesn't mean you didn't actually end up raping someone. Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » You can easily take the "what if she regrets it" out of it. They don't understand that if she says that now, and you participate, you've just legally raped her (and that wasn't the case before). Why can't I be pissed off that I'm now participating in something illegal that wasn't illegal yesterday? No, under the law she would have to be legally incapacitated, physically deprived of ability to resist, for it to be considered rape, regardless of regret. Blazed1979 said: » I read the OP a few days back, not going to read it again, I'm busy looking at pics of Nude celebs - but I seem to recall the proposed law being very vague. Not everyone reacts to alcohol the same. We can all attest to this. Also its shy of being accurate enough to protect the rights of males. What if she says "I wanna go out drinking till im trashed and then have sex with you" gets incapacitated and the next day regrets it and said she never gave consent? Its too vague. "I don't remember what it said and I'm too lazy to reread it, but I'll say it's too vague because I like to be contrary" No, it's not vague, it is pretty specific in regards to what constitutes rape and what doesn't. The only thing that's vague is some people's understanding of the meaning of words. Your honor, "I was totally smashed, I was incapacitated". "Your honor, she initiated it and clearly enjoyed it until her friends found out." Innocent until proven guilty, she would have to prove she was incapacitated. Odin.Jassik said: » "Your honor, she initiated it and clearly enjoyed it until her friends found out." Innocent until proven guilty, she would have to prove she was incapacitated. Ramyrez said: » Except she ALWAYS wins. Women always win in the court of public opinion. She beats you unconscious, and everyone just says "you must of done something to piss her off", you slap her and your this evil man who deserves to be punished. There is a reason that while men are the victims of 40% of domestic abuse, they never get any sort of legal protection and the man always gets handcuffed and brought to the police station, even if he's bleeding and bruised. Female privilege is rampant right now and the liberals have altered the narrative in such a way that it's politically incorrect to point that out. It's not politically acceptable to hold a women accountable for her actions. That is some scary sh!t right there. Have you guys ever been in a court room? lol...
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances: (A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused. (B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented. (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence. (4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances: (A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious. (B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity. (C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition. Pulled this from the text of the law, doesn't the bold part mean that if the accused had been drinking, that they are unable to determine affirmative consent? Man, this thing is worse than I thought. IDK what's going on in your heads', but the realistic scenario is she might make a comment to her friends about your performance. Worse case, she might say you have a small *** during the gal-gab.
Continue your freak out session though. Lakshmi.Saevel said: » Ramyrez said: » Except she ALWAYS wins. Women always win in the court of public opinion. She beats you unconscious, and everyone just says "you must of done something to piss her off", you slap her and your this evil man who deserves to be punished. There is a reason that while men are the victims of 40% of domestic abuse, they never get any sort of legal protection and the man always gets handcuffed and brought to the police station, even if he's bleeding and bruised. Female privilege is rampant right now and the liberals have altered the narrative in such a way that it's politically incorrect to point that out. It's not politically acceptable to hold a women accountable for her actions. That is some scary sh!t right there. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » Ramyrez said: » Quote: even though they never had any criminal or bad intentions. Criminal -- maybe not. "Bad" -- subjective. "Love 'em and leave 'em" is pretty *** terrible, in my opinion, unless it's a mutual understanding of consequence-free sex in the first place. Then again, if you enter into that without knowing and trusting the person first, you're an idiot. Intent is important but just because you didn't go into the act with the intention of raping someone doesn't mean you didn't actually end up raping someone. I'm not against people engaging in random hookups, per se. Like you said, consenting adults. I'm just the kind that would be a bit paranoid about sleeping with someone I don't know at least to some degree. Those seem like the situations -- to me -- where you really might end up with false rape requests. That or sleeping with people you know you shouldn't, like people who are in relationships already. Ramyrez said: » It was his fault he got accused of rape, he shouldn't have had consensual sex with that girl. She had a boyfriend, you know he was looking for trouble. Leviathan.Comeatmebro said: » Ramyrez said: » It was his fault he got accused of rape, he shouldn't have had consensual sex with that girl. She had a boyfriend, you know he was looking for trouble. Between us, one of us has had a house burned down because a friend slept with a girl who was romantically entangled otherwise, and he knew it. I don't blame anyone but the arsonist. But it could have been avoided if said friend found somewhere else to whet his willy. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||