Gov. Brown Signs Bill Telling College Kids Where, When to Have Sex

Wikimedia Commons

California Gov. Jerry Brown affixed his signature to SB 967—the "Yes Means Yes" affirmative consent bill—which will require colleges to police their students' sex lives.

Some congrats are in order, I suppose? To collectivist feminists, doomsayers of the "rape is an ever-worsening epidemic" variety, and other puritans: Your so-called progressivism has restored Victorian Era prudishness to its former place as a guiding moral compass. Well done, liberals.

The law instructs colleges to define consensual sex under strict terms brilliantly thought up by the California legislature. It also requires university administrators to investigate accusations of sexual assault under a set of terrible procedures that short-change victims by denying them fundamental due process rights. The law specifically establishes the "preponderance of evidence" standard, which mandates convictions for accused students deemed 50.1 percent likely to be guilty by the campus judiciary body.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Kevin de Leon, celebrated the news of Brown's signature, according to the Associated Press. "With one in five women on college campuses experiencing sexual assault, it is high time the conversation regarding sexual assault be shifted to one of prevention, justice, and healing," said de Leon, citing a statistic that is at least dubious, if not entirely wrong.

At least entrepreneurs are hard at work inventing something to lessen the blow (or allow the blowing, or whatever). Good2Go, the affirmative consent iPhone app, theoretically eases the process of inviting a partner to bed, though Greg Piper of The College Fix has published a lengthy criticism of this thinking here.

If universities don't comply with the government's demands regarding students and sex, they could face losses of funding or lawsuits. But if they do comply with the the government's demands, they will probably face more lawsuits from students unfairly convicted of sexual assault under farcical campus judiciary proceedings.

Either way, colleges are fucked.

Comments

[Bardas Phocas]

The Government Man knows what he's talkin about.

[Florida Man]

I don't think I have ever asked for "consent". You lean in for the kiss and things progress naturally from there. I can't imagine anything less hot than signing a contract before having sex.

[Almanian!]

FINALLY - a truly-effective method of birth control

[Heroic Mulatto]

I can't imagine anything less hot than signing a contract before having sex.

Think of it as a BDSM-type fetish.

[Florida Man]

I guess if she is dressed as a naughty lawyer.....

[Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!]

Go on...

[Rich]

"Perhaps *this* will refresh your memory!"

[Florida Man]

She just passed the bar and you're her first client, so she is a little nervous, but excited. Turns out the form wasn't properly notarized so you have to wait 3 hours making small talk because the local clerk of the court is sick so you have to take a bus across town and take a ticket for the next available window. Anyways your as soft as warm ice cream now and the fees have emptied your wallet so you go home and masturbate to the sears catalog.
The End.

[Heroic Mulatto]

Still better erotica than 50 Shades of Grey.

[Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!]

Zing!

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Based on the reviews I've read, the San Diego telephone directory for 1957 is better erotic than 50 SHADES OF GREY.

[Pulseguy]

And...let's face it the Sears catalog is pretty sexy.

It is a question of context. Wide open porn on your computer...well we expect that. Nipple bumps in a Sears catalog. Awright!!

[WTF]

The signed contract wouldn't even matter, as consent can be withdrawn "at any time".

[Agile Cyborg]

You are el correcto:

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

[Invisible Finger]

Can't wait for the first trial based on nitwit jurors and government officials trying to figure out if one party said "Don't. Stop!" or "Don't Stop!"

[Kure'i]

"'Yes' meanT 'Yes, until I telepathically communicated 'no.'"

Ladies, Gentlemen, Cisgenders, Transgenders, Bisexuals, Gays, Lesbians, and supposed-heteros of the Jury, please deliberate.

[Lord Humungus]

You know who else had to withdrawal?

[Heroic Mulatto]

One of the few sectors of growth in the higher ed. industry lies in online classes, especially those outfits that only offer online degrees.

I wonder why.

[WTF]

Seriously, if I were of college-age, as a male I wouldn't even consider setting foot on campus.

[Florida Man]

Yup, just go to the college bars.

[Rich]

In the bar, students are people. They're PEOPLE!!

[masculistman]

That won't help. The fact they are both students means the college can stick its nose in it. Not only that but a third party, feminist social justice warrior, can file on behalf of the accuser. I know,I read the text of the bill and we tried like hell to keep this from becoming a law: http://mensrightsboard.blogspo.....h?q=sb+967

[FUQ]

How many parents are not going to even take a chance of having their money thrown away when little Jonny is convicted of rape and thrown out?

[db]

Hahaha, like parents can even conceive of the idea that their kids could do something against the rules, let alone something actually criminal.

[WTF]

Except they don't have to actually do anything wrong, they only need to be accused.

[Agile Cyborg]

You're on a roll this fine sunny morning. Nothing in that anti-sex law offers any sort of protection from false accusations.

The accused exists. Period. And the accused must be stopped. Period. The fact that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt has literally been scrubbed from the law by this legislation which is nothing more than an acrimonious, hateful, and spiteful attack on human sexuality.

[C. S. P. Schofield]

Actually, if the requirement that guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt had been scrubbed from the law, this bill would actually be BETTER than it is. They have required colleges to ignore reasonable doubt, while failing to change the actual legal standard, which means that the colleges are going to get sued into true stone age for civil rights violations.

Actually, if my son were victimized by this idiocy, I would try to find a way to sue the state of California, the individual Legislators who voted for this abortion, the "Women's Rights" groups that pushed for it, and the nitwits Governor who signed it into law. Sadly, although they should be the ones held responsible, they probably won't be.

[Faceless Commenter]

How many parents are not going to even take a chance of having their money thrown away when little Jonny is convicted of rape and thrown out?

Isn't there a tacit exemption for lefties and their pets of color?

[triclops]

It's the same exemption the statists always use: selective prosecution.

[Bardas Phocas]

Remember, this is all becuase of the rape epidemic on campus. Those places are total RapeCamps and the college presidents are Rape Lords.

Do you want to send you nubile young daughter to such a place? Do you want to pay for your daughter to attend a Rape Camp?

[db]

Am I Bing Crosby?

[Certified Public Asskicker]

As Iowahawk put it:

"If I understand college administrators correctly, colleges are hotbeds of racism and rape that everyone should be able to attend."

[craiginmass]

"Do you want to send you nubile young daughter to such a place? Do you want to pay for your daughter to attend a Rape Camp?"

Send them to Smith up this way - that way they get the best of BOTH worlds.

[craiginmass]

"Seriously, if I were of college-age, as a male I wouldn't even consider setting foot on campus."

Maybe not foot, but definitely cock....

[Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!]

Well, we were warned. The SOCONZZZZ took over and now we are paying the penalty.

[Doctor Whom]

Your so-called progressivism has restored Victorian Era prudishness to its former place as a guiding moral compass. Well done, liberals.

Paging Margaret Atwood. Margaret Atwood, please pick up a white courtesy phone. No, not a brown one; those are reserved for aunts.

[sylviagraydoc]

my friend's mother makes $89 /hr on the laptop . She has been fired for seven months but last month her paycheck was $12624 just working on the laptop for a few hours. see this site ....

???????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Swiss Servator, Grundgesetz!]

"fired for seven months"

Monthly firings?

[Auric Demonocles]

To go along with the "few" 142 hours.

[Brendan]

I'm going to chalk this up to Obama Math.

[Sevo]

Uh, 57 somethings....

[?rboles de la Barranca]

She's obviously a cheap slut if she's working for that kind of chump change.

[Iron Sun 254]

So you know how to make $89 and hour on a laptop but instead of doing this magic job, you're here telling everyone else about it.

Seems legit.

[Iron Sun 254]

AN hour. ugh.

[masculistman]

Sylviagraydoc will let you stick it in her butt for only $89/hr.

[Mongo]

Gov. Brown tells college kids where to have sex

You mean, like in the butt or something?

[Otisjay]

what what?

[Agile Cyborg]

As long as my cock in your ass isn't a result of your reckless decision to consent to have my cock in your ass.

If you were merely reckless in agreeing to a butt-fuck then I'm an instant rapist if you wish to accuse me of said crime.

[Harvey_birdman]

The back of a Volkswagen.

[Rasilio]

This seems appropriate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS8GmwmeWQ

[Agile Cyborg]

(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.

Recklessness?!! A RECKLESS decision by a man or women to fuck someone can now become a legal determiner of viable rape or sexual assault?!!! The people writing this law have literally blown a hole in human sexual relations that is beyond anything considered rational or ethical.

HOW in the LIVING FUCK can I determine whether your consent to fuck is a result of your own RECKLESSNESS?!!- a behavior that has, in most cases, zero visible readings to it.

WHAT constitutes recklessness?

WHAT are the signs that a typical man or woman is being 'reckless' during an unfolding sexual encounter?

I'm literally stunned by the abject depth these depraved lawyer types will descend to to entrap people over sex.

[some guy]

recklessness

Might that one word be a death sentence for this law in the CA supreme court, or SCOTUS? Wouldn't even the most progtard of judges make them re-write that to something not so arbitrary?

/legit question, I'm no legal scolar.

[Faceless Commenter]

Pity the wretch who gets standing to sue.

[Pulseguy]

any married woman going to school is by definition being reckless if she has an affair.

Therefore, anyone having sex with a married woman, who knew she was married, has to recognize her recklessness in this situation, and if he doens't - he raped her.

This is very reasonable.

[Pulseguy]

And, if a student has sex with a teacher, obviously the student raped the teacher, because a teacher having sex with a student is really being reckless.

[Faceless Commenter]

who knew she was married

There you go with your rapey loopholes that allow men to weasel out of prosecution. What if he DIDN'T know she was married? WHY didn't he know? Because he FAILED to ask, obviously!

[Loki]

A RECKLESS decision by a man or women to fuck someone can now become a legal determiner of viable rape or sexual assault?!!!

FTFY. As we all know, only men are capbable of committing rape.

WHAT constitutes recklessness?

In the case of the man, any heterosexual act is "reckless" dus to the facts that:

1) All men are reckless and
2) All heterosexual sex is rape.

The irony is that they now have managed to make any and all sex a reckless act in that if you're a dude you could end up accused of rape and kicked out of school.

[creech]

Good thing the law grandfathers previous conduct or I'd bet virtually the entire legislature will have violated this law sometime in the past.

[craiginmass]

"Good thing the law grandfathers previous conduct or I'd bet virtually the entire legislature will have violated this law sometime in the past."

Yeah, the Govinator definitely gave it to his help and many of his fans regularly. Still, he was a hero because he said he'd take his KNIFE to the budget.

[Sevo]

craiginmass|9.29.14 @ 10:06AM|#
..."Yeah, the Govinator definitely gave it to his help and many of his fans regularly. Still, he was a hero because he said he'd take his KNIFE to the budget."...

Lefty asshole says 'Look over there!'
Way to go, asshole!

[craiginmass]

If only kids would listen to the "values" voters and the GOP the problems would be solved in two ways.

1. They'd not have sex until married.
and
2. If they did, the woman would get preggy and likely force a marriage.

Either would have the "values" GOP jumping for joy!

[Agile Cyborg]

On a similar note if the government makes humans fucking a very difficult proposition indeed the Feminist masses are jumping for joy.

So, in 2014 the right-wing extremist and the feminist brigades once again team-up over their intense hatred of open sexuality.

Sex is to be skillfully-managed, hyper-controlled, and intensely-scrutinized for legality and morality for it to be considered an approved behavior.

Fuck passion and all of that- sex has entered the cold and bland age of hpyer-legalism.

[Pulseguy]

Although to be fair if you want passion you should avoid North American women anyway. For that, you gotta go ethnic.

[Jorono]

You are such a douche. Seriously, can you ever get over the TEAM aspect of this?

Can you ever just admit when your team fucks something up instead of, "But hey!, Look at the repubs, they're stupid too!"

Grow up.

[craiginmass]

"Can you ever just admit when your team fucks something up instead of, "But hey!, Look at the repubs, they're stupid too!""

Does it hurt to realize that you "libertarians" - and it's in quote on purpose since most here readily admit the GOP is MUCH closer to their way of thinking - end up being on the 100% opposite and wrong side of stuff like birth control, reproductive freedom in general, the war on drugs, etc.???

That's my point - "look over here" aside. Taken in the aggregate, the Koch billions hide behind the facade of being Libertarian when on the ground all this money elects REPUBLICANS....who are on the wrong side of many such issues.

This is a very foundational point....IMHO. It's not something to gloss over and pretend as if it's not there. Reason spends a lot of words criticizing policy without noting that the impetus for such policy is the very people they support (or at least the Kochs's money supports).

[avocats]

Libertarians on the wrong side of birth control, reproductive freedom, freedom in general and the war on drugs? Which libertarians have you been talking to??

[masculistman]

Whom do you support? Obama,Reid,Pelosi,Hillary?

[Mark22]

The traditional view is that you get signed, informed consent form for sex. We called a "marriage". It just didn't punish failure to comply in as draconian a manner as these new laws.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

That's MOSTLY Bullshit.

[Sevo]

craiginmass|9.29.14 @ 10:03AM|#
..."Either would have the "values" GOP jumping for joy!"

Lefty asshole says 'Look over there!'
Way to go, asshole!

[Spyrius Droid]

False dichotomy- there are more than two ways to approach a problem.

Social ills are not simply a question of a Republican solution or Democratic solution. No government is a solution. Statists can't seem to understand that though.

[jdd6y]

I'm confused. I've read the bill. It just seems like a bunch of b.s. This is not a criminal law. It requires a "policy" that requires a bunch of rules. It doesn't say what the result of violation of those rules might be. And the same problems that prosecuting rape has will still happen. It is still a he said/she said.

The one thing that I think it will cause is the possibility of a bunch of lawsuits against colleges. Administrators who are going to enforce this are likely the same retards that I dealt w/ at a UC. They will probably call someone a rapist, even thought violation of these policies does not make you one under the actual criminal law. I'm certain inconsistent due process will be applied. I'm also certain the due process lawsuits will fly when a kid is kicked out of school without real due process based on the extreme cases, i.e., withdrawn consent.

Pretty stupid.

[Faceless Commenter]

I haven't read this particular law, but I've heard of campus policies where the process is to kick a guy out of school if he's found guilty by some rape review board. It's a condition he effectively agrees to when he enters the school, so there's something binding there. I don't know that a lawsuit will get you him of it. Of course it's idiotic to sign such a contract, but if you do, well...

[MegaloMonocle]

I don't know that a lawsuit will get you him of it.

There have been a number of successful lawsuits against various universities over exactly these kinds of policies.

[Faceless Commenter]

I deleted the wrong word. "I don't know that a lawsuit will get him out of it."

It's the "due process lawsuits" that I see as problematic. These aren't laws, but policies and regulations, which students agree to when they enter a college. I'd like to know the basis of the successful lawsuits.

[avocats]

I love the due process lawsuits, because the accuser has his life ruined and no recourse. Not sure about the "voluntary" policy aspect, but schools run by governments should not be requiring waiver of due process in order to attend college.

[Kure'i]

Not familiar with these suits or cases, but they sound like contracts of adhesion.

[avocats]

The real issues arise when the school immediately takes action against the accused, even barring him from campus, without due process. Even the feds--who have been batshit crazy on these issues-have backed away form the 50.1% preponderance standard.

Rape and sexual assault are crimes and need to be addressed in the criminal justice system. Victims must complain and the accused must be given due process. Schools are the worst at handling these issues.

[Paul.]

By the way, that Good2Go app is entirely retarded, and Greg Piper's criticism of it is spot on.

[Mark22]

It's not a real app. Really, it can't be.

[Paul.]

My body, the school administration's choice!

[NDaBoonies]

"Either way, colleges are fucked." Or not. Governor Brown just put a stop to it.

[Eggs Benedict Cumberbund]

Fucking Progs their totalitarian bullshit knows no limits.

[Eoghan Hughes]

Part 1 of 4

I'm not really sure where to start with this. As a historian I have the urge to start with your description of the Victorian Era- which is enough to show you do your basic history reading on HBO. (PS just read some Algernon Swinburne, or Richard Marsh's the Beetle, just a creative start in the right direction.)

But I really just want to jump to the meat of the matter- and that is your honestly flippant response to a bill passed to 'protect' students from rape.

I should start by admitting that I only studied in California for a single year- at one of the more 'liberal' campuses I guess- but during that time I met at least three girl who was open about being raped. And I don't remember exactly how many people I met there but that might be slightly in the scale of 1 out of 5, maybe even one out of every 4. But yeah, of course I could be wrong there- statistics like this are always 'dubious' as you said- cause many students, male and female, never report rape to anyone but there closest friends, sometimes not even them.

[GILMORE]

"Eoghan Hughes|9.29.14 @ 12:21PM|#

I'm not really sure where to start with this.

This is a sign you aren't thinking rationally and are preparing to engage in a rhetorical-appeal-to-FEELS-laden rant. Usually the best thing to do is walk away, and meditate on why the hell you waste so much of your life energy being "Outraged On the Internet"

[GILMORE]

" the meat of the matter- and that is your honestly flippant response to a bill passed to 'protect' students from rape."

Actually, being "flippant" wouldn't be the "meat of the matter" at all, would it?

because that's just a 'perceived attitude', and not any substantive comment made. You are starting with rage over a person's "failure to feel correctly", which frankly is a problem with YOU, who seems to think There is Only One Way To Talk About Rape Panic. By Pretending to Be Very Concerned. Because This is How We Show Ideological Unanimity.

I will skip any comment on your jump from 'pathetic appeal' to 'meaningless anecdote', because it is too stupid to take seriously.

[masculistman]

A lot of women claim to be rape without actually having been raped. I think it is a status symbol to them. It makes them feel desired.

[Eoghan Hughes]

Part 2 of 4

Oh, and another interruption! Sorry I promise I have a point. But I was just wondering who you mean by 'collectivist feminists'? Are we talking hardcore feminists or just anyone that opposes rape? You're gonna need to be more specific please, because currently at least half of the planet's population might be considered a feminist by your standards. That's not even taking into account that half the population of the planet is currently in a inferior position to men. There's plenty more than you who would disagree with me on that point, but I stand by it. There are enough glass ceilings and disproportionate pay gaps even in my country to convince me. But anyone, just who do you mean by 'collective feminists'- because I'm gonna say it- it seems like the kind of statement that is used these days to make people feel guilty for having feminist views- and cows them into silence. Well that's what it sounds like anyway.

[GILMORE]

" I promise I have a point."

Which is odd, because you started off saying you didn't know what it was going to be.

" I was just wondering who you mean by 'collectivist feminists'"

Jezebel and Amanda Marcotte.

next question.

The rest of this comment is effectively, "Uh, THERE ARE LOTS OF WOMEN!!"

Which doesn't really speak well to the promise of there ever being a point buried somewhere.

[masculistman]

Feminism is a female supremacist movement. I believe in requiring women to sign up for selective service just like the men and I believe female killers should get the death penalty if male murders receive it. Complete equality. Something feminists oppose.

[Eoghan Hughes]

Part 3 of 4

But really now I'm tackling the issue, no more excuses- What exactly is your problem with this bill? Are you honestly saying that in a situation where the 'preponderance' of evidence suggests a student has been raped- the campus authorities should do nothing? Because that's what they have been doing for years and it certainly hasn't done any of the victims any favors so far. What are your views on how campus rape should be dealt with? I see on Linkdin that you were President of the Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity, so I'm sure you have no small amount of experience dealing with the perceived rape culture that is permitted on US campuses country wide. Maybe, just maybe, when only 'Yes means Yes', people you may know will no longer have to fear any accusations- Yes will mean Yes, and Yes only- not much room for error there, I don't think?

But if you are so sure that this will turn California into your nightmare distorted version of the Victorian world, why, with this bill passed- don't you just leave? Jut a suggestion.

[TxJack 112]

50.1% is not a preponderance of the evidence. 90% would be that qualification. Why does someone have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court but suddenly we are ready to convict them of a crime for all practical purposes on much less evidence? The damage is the same. Why is a school convicting anyone of a what is a criminal violation? The claim a woman does not want to go through a criminal trail is hogwash because if you are claiming you are a victim of a crime, the accused has a right to face his/her accuser, or is the Constitution not part of this equation?

[Iron Sun 254]

The definition of "preponderance of the evidence" is enough proof that it is more likely than not that it happened. 50.1% is cutting it close, but it satisfies the requirement.

[MegaloMonocle]

Yeah, the rule of thumb is that 90% is "no reasonable doubt", and 50.1% is "preponderance of the evidence".

[Pulseguy]

50.1% that a rule was broken is not preponderance of evidence a person was raped.

The rule is an administrative convenience that might or might not apply in that particular situation.

If a guy asks a woman if she wants to have sex and she responds by grabbing him and kissing him intently, whilst pulling her pants off, according to this rule she was raped. Because there was no verbal assent.

Of course a date rapist is going to claim there was verbal assent. I don't see it helping that particular situation. Which is the situation that they are trying to deal with.

[avocats]

Not sure where you get your legal interpretation but preponderance is anything above 50% (more likely than not).

And yes, rape and sexual assaults are crimes, and victims of crimes need to report crimes and participate in the prosecution of them. Schools are in no position to make the judgments necessary and have demonstrated time and time again that they have no clue about Constitutional requirements.

[masculistman]

No,but they are the homes of big feminism and big feminism hates men.

[GILMORE]

" now I'm tackling the issue"

You really DO take a lot of time to get worked up, don't you.

Also, this sounds something like a false-promise based on previous experience.

"What exactly is your problem with this bill?"

Reason has written extensively about the Problems With This Bill

You are too lazy to read, and actually rebut those pieces? I guess you are.

"I see on Linkdin that you were President of the Phi Sigma Kappa fraternity"

So the "meat" of your comment was to go, "uh, DUH?!" and pretend there was never any prior criticism of Affirmative Consent.

The 'sauce' on this meat is apparently 'jump straight to lame ad hominem and insinuation'.

Your entire argument is, "MOAR LAW MUST BE GOOD BECAUSE RAPE"

Where did you graduate from college again? You should ask for your money back.

[GILMORE]

"if you are so sure that this will turn California into your nightmare distorted version of the Victorian world, why, with this bill passed- don't you just leave? "

Do you object to NSA surveillance?

What are you still doing here?

Do you object to war in Iraq v2.0?

Why are you not packing your bags?

Where did you ever get the idea that this was "an argument"? Again - every comment out of your mouth is like a "greatest hits" of Rhetorical Fallacy. Who gave you a degree in *anything*, and pays you money that involves using the English language?

" your nightmare distorted version of the Victorian world,"

Because if there isn't a LAW FOR EVERYTHING, we live in SOMALIA.

How old are you?

Has the fact that "Sexual Assault" has been in steady decline for 20+ years sans any dubiously enforceable, invasive laws, completely passed you by?

Why let *facts* get in the way of a good *feel*?

[Mark22]

Are you honestly saying that in a situation where the 'preponderance' of evidence suggests a student has been raped- the campus authorities should do nothing?

It should notify police and otherwise keep out of it.

What are your views on how campus rape should be dealt with?

By the police and by the courts.

But if you are so sure that this will turn California into your nightmare distorted version of the Victorian world, why, with this bill passed- don't you just leave? Jut a suggestion.

In fact, people are leaving California in large numbers. Legislation like this is just a symptom of much deeper problems.

[Eoghan Hughes]

Part 4 of 4

Oh, and just to address the tasteless and humourless joke about 'colleges' being 'fucked' at the end- be a grown up and don't insert a clearly inflammatory joke at the end- I may not be a journalist but I've taken enough classes to know that that's not journalism and that's no kicker.

Keep it real Robby Soave, former President of Phi Sigma Kappa,

Eoghan Hughes

[Pulseguy]

No one is concerned about real rape. People are concerned about 'change of mind' rape. And, 'I sort of regret this' rape. And, most of all 'that ratbag won't call me back' rape.

Also, in your short, short history of sexual escapades, when has it not just progressed from kissing and touching and never actually been a point where each person stopped and said 'Yes', and 'Yes'. Sometimes there is a question about it, as in 'are you sure?' But, from my experience she answers that by grabbing me and pulling me towards her and kissing me passionately. Maybe I get a nod, which I interpret to be a 'yes'. Legislation that doesn't actually fit real life situations is bound to get false convictions, and those are terrible.

And, I know a ton of women who have been date raped. It won't stop that. Not from what I have heard. The women who told me about it eventually got tired and said 'yes'.

[rob_s]

'Also, in your short, short history of sexual escapades'
Are you for real? How old are you? When you've finished giving us your best version of a "fifty shades of grey" look at your own love live, maybe you could tackle the issue being put to you.

'Legislation that doesn't actually fit real life situations is bound to get false convictions'
Wake up, the world isn't perfect and neither is the legal system. But by your tone you seem to think we should stop trying to improve it and regress to some kind of honour system whereby criminals would simply admit their wrong doings.

'It won't stop that. Not from what I have heard' what exactly have you hear Pulseguy? Please shower us in your obvious knowledge on the issue. Fortunately for everybody else in California, legislation isn't passed on the merits of "my friend told me..." it is based on research and speaking to experts in the field, which by your clear lack of compassion, I can tell you are not.

[Pulseguy]

63. I just did. This doesn't improve anything. By my tone? I never even remotely implied we need an honour system whereby criminals admit their wrong doings. I want a system that is precise and accurate, not involving words like 'recklessness'.

But, from your spelling I'm going to suggest you're a Canadian. And, Canada has been messed up in this area for a long time.

I've spoken to a number of women who have been date raped. I think it is a huge issue, and it should be dealt with. I don't think this legislation will improve anything, and likely will make it worse.

Legislation often does that, or perhaps you're not aware? Intentions don't count. It is the effect of the words written put into action that means anything.

[masculistman]

Canadian "men"? are totally emasculated.

[masculistman]

Dude you are so brainwashed by feminist propaganda it is not even funny.

[triclops]

Your rambling is hard to parse, but I tried.
A "collectivist feminist" is exactly that. Someone who is both a collectivist and a feminist. If it's still confusing, look it up. That you assumed it meant "hardcore" leads me to wonder about your comprehension.
The problem with these laws is that they are based on a conceptualization of consent that is absurd.

It's hard for me to understand how thinking that stupid, unenforceable laws are a bad idea is quickly assumed to be just veiled apologies for rape. It's like some people's minds can only see "good guys" and "bad guys".

[Iron Sun 254]

They don't need to produce a "preponderance of evidence" that rape has occured, just that it occued according to the guidlelines of the law. A woman who really wanted to have sex at the time and did not change her mind during the act and really enjoyed it but did not give verbal consent was still raped based on this law. AND according to the law, the man was raped too. Think about that. If a drunk man initiates sex with a sober woman, even if both parties give consent, she's still a rapist.

[Bubba Jones]

This is the real problem. Two drunks orgasm in a parking lot.

Only the man gets expelled.

[Pulseguy]

Good point. The guy has to give verbal consent too. His erection and insertion is not good enough to indicate consent, unless he speaks it.

[GILMORE]

translation:

"I have no sense of humor"

California aside = 'you, Eoghan Hughes, are well and truly *fucked*'

because you have managed to post a few hundred words without a single defensible sentence in the lot of it. It is some of the most senseless, idiotic gibberish i have ever seen, and the fact you needed to try and cap off with the admonition that 'AND using dirty words is naughty!' is just a hilarious cherry on top.

[Pulseguy]

This is a great piece of legislation. It will save California hundreds of millions of dollars. What young men will ever want to go to any UCal now? You'd be insane to.

A couple of bogus convictions of rape, and 1000s of young men will transfer out of state.

[TxJack 112]

There is no way this law will stand up in court. You cannot convict someone of a crime, even if only at a college on only 50.1% certainty. That standard is so low it will ensure the lives of many young men will be destroyed. The sad part is I think what will ultimately kill the law is when high school athletes refuse to sign with California universities and they all start losing millions is broadcast money.

[Bubba Jones]

It's not a crime. It's misconduct subject to administrative penalty.

But only for men.

[MegaloMonocle]

Oh, pish. Franchise athuhletes aren't going to be subjected to Rape Court. Not even in CA.

[Faceless Commenter]

The law's immediate obligation is on colleges, not students, and the requirement is that they establish policies, which students agree to when they enter. Policies aren't laws, so they can't get a guy jailed -- but they can get him expelled. If a guy gets tossed out because some rape review board with a presumption of guilt wasn't convinced by his howls of innocence, well, there's always his signature on some dotted line indicating that he agreed to abide by these policies and regulations.

I don't think your ending is "sad." I'd chuckle in grim satisfaction to see scads of top high school athletes turn down California colleges to play for Texas.

[masculistman]

Bitch slap Texas.

[Bubba Jones]

Will men be able to "share" their list of conquests or post them to facebook?

Will men really refuse to have sex with women who decline to log every sexual event in a central database?

Will this get hacked and published in the school newspaper?

[Faceless Commenter]

With a database like that, who would need sex anyway?

Tiffany WILL:
- talk dirty
- kiss
- rub your crotch
- allow you to rub her crotch
- allow you to rub her boobs
- take off her top
- suck it

Tiffany WILL NOT:
- swallow it
- take off her underpants
- let you penetrate her ANYWHERE with ANYTHING
- let you touch her ass (go figure)

Etc for Brittany, Ashley, Brooke, Carmen...

[Tony]

What do you do in the event of an orgy? Will there be a lot of affirmative shouting across the room? That sounds like a bureaucratic nightmare. I miss college, but I went in a time when you could drink and have sex at the same time. When one was often required for the other to happen. I feel I should be more traumatized by all the raping that went on during my college years.

I suggest that this law will not reduce the number of rapes (by the traditional definition) in California.

[GILMORE]

Dear California (and Eoghan Hughes)

When Tony Thinks You Are Retarded, You Are In Serious Trouble

[masculistman]

What's wrong with Tony?

[Loki]

Either way, colleges are fucked.

Yes, but did they consent to it or not?

[Mark22]

They have been begging for it!

[Pulseguy]

The use of the word reckless is hilarious.

Sex is often reckless. It got me married twice. Can't get much more reckless than that.

[mad.casual]

Sex is often reckless. It got me married twice. Can't get much more reckless than that.

One of the broodlings was the result of... less consequence-oriented sex. Which puts him in with some 30% of the US population that falls in the 'unintended but not unwanted'.

[Coeus]

more about consent...

Frankly, sometimes I think we should ditch the term "consent" altogether. It feels like a carryover from the old male-aggressor/female-gatekeeper model of (hetero) sex, and, even with the addition of adjectives like "affirmative" or "enthusiastic," retains this contractual connotation that, I think, detracts from the shift we're actually trying to make here. The point is that people shouldn't be "consenting" to sex as if they're acquiescing to a request to borrow your damn toothbrush. We are talking about sex, for fuck's sake. Probably the single most universally beloved activity in the world. Of course "consent" should be affirmative; it should be excited, joyful, ecstatic. In a culture that really, truly recognized women as sexual agents with desire of their own, there'd be no question about that.

And if it's not excited, joyful and ecstatic, then you're a rapist (if you're a guy).

[steve baker]

The last three words say it all.

[garyamphlettedy]

My buddy's mother makes $83 /hour on the computer . She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her income was $16557 just working on the computer for a few hours.
you can check here ---------- http://www.jobsfish.com

[masculistman]

Still making gay porn,gary?

[Cody Morse]

The article's title is misleading because you never tell us when and where the kids can have sex. Care to explain?

[Richard Rider]

Because of the inevitable problems with "he said, she said" disputes in sexual matters, I think what's needed is -- before coitus (or whatever clearly defined variation) is attempted (first OR subsequent times) by unmarried partners -- we need a WITNESS ON SITE to verify mutual consent. Such witnesses could be "on call" -- perhaps pre-positioned in ambulances or fire stations.

Of course, a drug and alcohol test would be mandatory, to ensure no diminished capacity by the parties to the contract. The actual consensual paperwork (properly witnessed by a notary) would be minimal, I'm sure.

While the sexual stimulus doubtless would suffer, the economic stimulus of employing millions of such folks is undeniable. Just ask Paul Krugman!