MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Future of Sex Is Terrifying

Proposed changes to U.S. sex-crime laws seek to set new sexual norms by criminalizing ordinary behavior.

Wiros/FlickrWiros/FlickrForget sex robots, virtual reality porn, and any of the other technological advances feared capable of disrupting current sexual mores. The biggest threat to sex as we know it is the coming revision of U.S. sex-crime laws. For a glimpse into this frightening future, look no further than Judith Shulevitz's latest in The New York Times. Shulevitz chronicles how "affirmative consent" (the principle, often referred to as "yes means yes," that the mere absence of a "no" is not sufficient permission to proceed sexually) has been quietly spreading from California universities to colleges across the country, and could soon mutate out of academia entirely.

The American Law Institute (ALI)—a respected body of professors, judges, and lawyers that draft model laws oft adopted in whole by state and federal government—has spent the past three years deliberating over sexual assault statutes (an area it hadn't revisited since 1962). A draft of the group's recommendations, released in May, endorsed "the position that an affirmative expression of consent, either by words or conduct, is always an appropriate prerequisite to sexual intercourse, and that the failure to obtain such consent should be punishable under" criminal law.

"The traditional premise in the law has been that individuals are presumed to be sexually available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, at any place—in the absence of clear indications to the contrary," states ALI. The new model "posits, to the contrary, that in the absence of affirmative indications of a person’s willingness to engage in sexual activity, such activity presumably is not desired."

To this aim, ALI proposes establishing the new crime of sexual intercourse without consent, a misdemeanor, which takes place when a person "knowingly or recklessly has, or enables another person to have, sexual intercourse with a person who at the time of the act of sexual intercourse has not given consent to that act." (This is, of course, absent any sort of force, coercion, or indication the victim protested/resisted, which would remain felonies.) It would also expand the definition of criminal sexual contact to include any unconsented to contact with any body part if the perpetrator intended the touch amorously or lustfully.

"To be sure, the individual’s passivity might signal willingness, but it also could signal simply a terrorized inability to react to the situation," notes ALI in discussion of the draft (emphasis mine). This is obviously quite a departure from a standard that relies on protestation ("no means no"), either verbal or physical; there's little ambiguity in saying "no" or "stop" or physically pulling away. The absence of such things, the drafters of the new framework admit, is full of ambiguity—hence, their desire to create a universal "presumption of unwillingness." This, they say, will actually make things more clear, especially in cases where alcohol is involved.  

The difficulty of identifying nonconsent in cases of heavy drinking flows directly from one fundamental but entirely unnecessary commitment—the law’s prevalent assumption that passive or ambiguous behavior ordinarily can be treated as consent to have sex, until an individual has taken clear steps to indicate the contrary. Because the passive behavior of a sober person traditionally has been equated with consent and because the passive behavior of an extremely intoxicated person cannot be, the [current] law imposes upon itself the nearly impossible task of determining the genuine meaning of a person’s behavior when docile or unresponsive actions occur under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

[...] Because the harm of erroneously presuming willingness in such cases vastly outweighs the harm of erroneously presuming unwillingness, the law should never treat ambiguous behavior as equivalent to consent, whether the individual in question is intoxicated or not.

The draft guidelines drew strong criticism from some members, including law professors and lecturers from the University of Pittsburgh, Duke University, Rutgers, Harvard, and Georgetown University. "If there is political consensus on anything in the United States today, it is the consensus that our government has overcriminalized and overincarcerated the American public," they write. Yet "against this political consensus and judicial backdrop, the current ALI draft is an extreme deviation, focused on expanding criminal sanctions for sexual behavior." 

Among other new crimes the draft creates is sex "between professionals (mental health providers, lawyers, executives, etc.) and those under their supervision or in their care," note the dissenting ALI members. In addition to creating new sex offenses, the new draft would also elevate penalties (up to life imprisonment) for all sorts of sexual conduct.

txspiked/Flickrtxspiked/Flickr

"For example, [the draft code] elevates rape to the level of first degree murder if the rape occurs in conjunction with a commercial sex act," they note. It "elevates rape to the level of first degree murder if the rapist utilized a lookout. Many other elevations are found throughout the draft without any demonstration of need for even longer sentences in a prison system that is already over-burdened with geriatric prisoners." Hyperbolic penalties also aid prosecutors in coercing pleas to lesser offenses.

(It's key to remember, as Shulevitz pointed out, "that people convicted of sex crimes may not only go to jail, they can wind up on a sex-offender registry, with dire and lasting consequences" including extreme restrictions on where they can live.)

"None of this is inadvertent or the result of loose drafting," the lawyers and professors suggest.

To the contrary, the intentionality of the draft is fully disclosed in the announcement that its purpose is to create very expansive statutes and standards with a "default position" of overcriminalization:

[T]he appropriate default position clearly is to err in the direction of protecting individuals against unwanted sexual imposition. ... Of course, a legal standard requiring the affirmative expression of consent to sex will—inevitably—entail many false negatives, in the form of findings of unwillingness when in fact passionate desire was present. But the contrary standard now prevalent in American law will—just as inevitably—entail many false positives, assumptions of willingness and subsequent sexual intrusion when such intimacy was entirely unwanted. Section 213.2(2) reflects the judgment that the harms that arise under the latter standard present far greater reason for concern. 

The draft also expressly states that its intention is to equate silence with unwillingness and criminal victimization:

The argument has been made—and no doubt will be repeated—that equating silence with unwillingness ... "patronizes" or "infantilizes" women, treating them as if they were incapable of expressing their own desires. 

The draft defends this rule by equating it to a doctor obtaining "informed consent" before performing surgery ... but it does not acknowledge any of the differences between the risks of surgery and ordinary human contact. Most importantly, the claimed analogy fails to recognize that medical informed consent is a precaution chosen by the doctor as a safeguard against possible civil damages for malpractice, not as a required behavior to avoid criminal liability.

The draft also acknowledges that it is not reflecting any existing social norm or consensus about behavior that should be deemed so extreme as to warrant criminal sanction. Instead, it clearly states that its intention is to coerce conformity to its own choice of new norms for behavior

The dissenting memo, ultimately signed by about 70 ALI members and advisers, prompted "some highly instructive hell" to break loose, writes Shulevitz in the Times. 

In [the memo], readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: "Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of Criminal Sexual Contact' under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a)."

Far-fetched? Not as the draft is written. The hypothetical crime cobbles together two of the draft’s key concepts. The first is affirmative consent. The second is an enlarged definition of criminal sexual contact that would include the touching of any body part, clothed or unclothed, with sexual gratification in mind. As the authors of the model law explain: "Any kind of contact may qualify. There are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched." So if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal. "With passivity expressly disallowed as consent," the memo says, "the initiator quickly runs up a string of offenses with increasingly more severe penalties to be listed touch by touch and kiss by kiss in the criminal complaint."

The obvious comeback to this is that no prosecutor would waste her time on such a frivolous case. But that doesn’t comfort signatories of the memo, several of whom have pointed out to me that once a law is passed, you can’t control how it will be used. For instance, prosecutors often add minor charges to major ones (such as, say, forcible rape) when there isn’t enough evidence to convict on the more serious charge. They then put pressure on the accused to plead guilty to the less egregious crime. 

Shulevitz thinks the draft code "points to a trend evident both on campuses and in courts: the criminalization of what we think of as ordinary sex and of sex previously considered unsavory but not illegal." Indeed, we can see this in many areas relating to sexuality, from laws addressing "nonconsensual pornography" (aka "revenge porn") to those criminalizing patrons of prostitution as "sex traffickers" and teens who sext each other as "child pornographers."   

Unsavory as some of this may be, police and prosecutors are supposed to keep us and our property safe, and punish those who threaten this safety; increasingly, though, we want them to institute new social-sexual norms, ones that have failed to flourish under regular conditions. It is a lot easier to simply declare things illegal than it is to shift actual behaviors and beliefs on a widespread basis. But at the end of the day, you tend to wind up with more people in jail, more lives ruined, and no less of the undesired activity (see: drugs).

We also risk diluting the perceived import or impact of an undesired act. It's like the kid who doesn't heed any advice against doing meth because DARE also told him that marijuana would make him a three-eyed amputee after one joint; that didn't happen, and hence the whole oeuvre of anti-drug messages loses credibility. If we start legally defining everything from a therapist sleeping with a consenting patient to an unwanted kiss or caress as criminal sexual assault, I fear a lot less of the public will be inclined to take any rape claims seriously. And why should they? People feel tricked when they encounter media, movies, and reports on rape that only casually and belatedly reveal their sexual assault definitions include all "nonconsensual touching" and sex while intoxicated. It's not that this activity is necessarily to be encouraged, just that it's seen by most as qualitatively different than how they are viewing rape.

And police seem unlikely to just seamlessly adopt new standards. It wasn't too long ago that neither cops nor anyone else took rape seriously unless it involved a sort of perfect victim and violent force. Things may have gotten better, but we're still not exactly winning on getting police to process rape kitsinvestigate rape allegations, or refrain from raping people themselves. What makes people think that widening the scope of things they have to investigate as sex crimes will increase cops' aptitude to take rape investigations seriously and treat rape victims with seriousness and respect?

Shulevitz writes that thus far, "no one seems sure how affirmative consent will play out in the courts. One Harvard law professor told her that it's a workable standard only "if we assume it’s not going to be enforced, by and large." Of course, "selectively enforced laws have a nasty history of being used to harass people deemed to be undesirable, because of their politics, race or other reasons," Shulevitz notes.

"As with other areas of criminal law," caution the dissenting ALI members, "expanding the statutes in the ways set forth in the draft would fall particularly hard on individuals of color who are represented disproportionately at each stage of the criminal justice system." American law enforcement "has an unfortunate history of excessive punishment in the name of protecting women especially when issues of race are present."

People who want to solve social problems by reflexively invoking the power of state justice often overlook exactly whom and what systems will be enacting this justice, and how they've historically operated. It's not going to be pretty, or just, to turn virtually everyone into potentially prosecutable sex criminals.

Photo Credit: txspiked/Flickr

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.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Have the people who wrote this nonsense ever actually been on a date?

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    These people are the top 1% from the top 1% of law schools who go on to have the top 1% jobs in academia, government or the private sector.

    So no, these fucking tools have never been on a date.

  • Agammamon||

    But they did get pressured into mostly anonymous and meaningless sexual encounters in frat house closets by their peers - and they didn't even get a text the next day.

  • Quixote||

    This is excellent. Affirmative assent should also be required from each individual whose name anyone wishes to use for the purposes of engaging in satire through electronic or other means. See the lengthy list of actual examples at:

    http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpr.....rsonation/

    I don't know which is worse, unwanted sexual overtures or unwanted parody. I've even heard it said that a parody by the ancient Greek author Hipponax drove at least two persons to suicide. The most rigorous methods should be used to stamp out all such conduct from American society. Prosecutors in New York have made some progress with criminalizing inappropriately deadpan satire, and hopefully they will be able to handle sex (both on and off campus) with the same level of competence.

  • Agammamon||

    Can you, you know, try to *not* push this in every thread you show up in.

    At least in the woodchipper-gate threads there was a link, tenuous though it was.

    Here, you're just plainly forcing it.

  • Quixote||

    With all due respect to my noble interlocutor, the connection was arguably somewhat more difficult for a number of readers to discern there, although it was certainly not tenuous. Here, under the rubric "criminal justice," we are plainly dealing with the alleged over-criminalizing of America, one of my favorite topics. Certain forms of conduct that we many of us don't like trigger feelings of discomfort, and should be criminalized for the sake of a cleaner, limper, better America. Prosecutors in New York have considerable expertise in applying the kind of laws we need to purge our society of unwanted contact, physical or verbal, sexual or otherwise; I recommend that legislators make full use of that expertise in the months and years ahead.

  • Quixote||

    Oops, I forgot to put "many of us" in parentheses. I must be getting careless in my decrepitude... Hopefully I haven't triggered any discomfort with the error. These things are of course subject to a small fine, but unfortunately I don't have any money to pay with.

  • D. M. Michell||

    "Certain forms of conduct that we [sic] many of us don't like trigger feelings of discomfort, and should be criminalized for the sake of a cleaner, limper, better America."

    Well, yeah of course. And that is something like why the Harrison Narcotics Act got passed. Religious groups lobbied Congress to make certain drugs illegal because they were immoral. Here Congress wants to make illegal normal human behavior because it *might* be immoral, as in non-consensual sex. Of course, the HNA took away much of what we once called our inalienable rights and slowly, through the decades Congress and do-gooders have chipped away even more of them as this legislation will do. Today, in America, we are free...free to do whatever the government allows us to do.

  • Quixote||

    D. M. Mitchell's proposal merits a further comment, clarifying that our rights are indeed inalienable—as long as we exercise them within the bounds of civility. And in this regard, it is important to note that the America's uncivil youngsters are still, at least nominally, allowed to engage in conduct that causes only temporary discomfort, a situation that will hopefully change in the years to come as prosecutors, judges, and criminal court juries examine more CIWAA cases—i.e., cases involving allegations of sexual or satirical contact initiated without affirmative assent—and gradually redefine the line between the merely temporary and that which is a bit more than temporary.

  • Quixote||

    P.s. these principles have now been implemented in New Zealand, where new leglislation criminalizes trolling engaged in without affirmative assent. See:

    http://thelibertarianrepublic......w-zealand/

  • Mark22||

    Well, they have been on "dates", but they are more like corporate mergers.

    Example: the Clintons, which are married for political reasons, but seem to get their jollies with other playmates.

  • Antilles||

    Ironically, the people who come up with this nonsense will never be held to the same standard as us peons. They, their friends, and immediate family will all get a pass.

  • WoodchipperPatriarch||

    The people who wrote this nonsense are nihilists, bored with sex and life in general. What they need to become aroused is so far outside the bounds of decency that these laws won't make any difference to them.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. The people who wrote this nonsense are would-be aristocrats. They firmly believe taht the standards they are promulgating will be A Good Thing .... for all us peasants. And that they will, of course, be part of the elite of a society in which the Ruling Class has very different standards fromthe Lower Orders.

    They have learned absolutely NOTHING from the way the Soviets, the Maoists, the Castro regime, and Pol Pot's adorable vermin liquidated the Intellectual class.

  • JWW||

    Whaddya mean they learned nothing. They certainly learned "it's good to be on top" ( of the bueuracracy, of course)

  • PM||

    Say what you want about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So's anarchy from what I hear.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The "sex affirmative" advocates of the next 50 years are going to make the prudish 19th century Victorians seem like free love swingers by comparison.

  • Mark22||

    No more "close your eyes and think of England" I guess.

  • Fizban||

    ^Bwah ha ha!
    Can you close your eyes and thing of England?
    - Absolutely not!
    Well, can you close your eyes and pretend to see Russia from your house?
    -Yeah baby, yeah!

  • gaoxiaen||

    I guess I got the wrong idea at first glance. Handcuffs, terrifying, seems like a usual Saturday afternoon.

  • Idle Hands||

    I'm still confused as to how this actually fixes any problem in regards to rape? All it does is creates another way for the gov. to have unconsenual sex with me at the request of another person.

  • BuSab Agent||

    It doesn't. It's about the feelz. But of course if this crap gets enshrined in law, the designers and builders of the ox-goring machine will pretend innocence and bewilderment when the machine gores oxes, because intentions.

  • Marshal||

    I'm still confused as to how this actually fixes any problem in regards to rape?

    Maybe you're confused about the goal.

    From the ALI memorandum:

    Consider the same couple, but now Person B responds to the criminal hand-holding by pausing to kiss Person A on the cheek. Person A remains guilty since there is no mechanism for retroactive consent, but now Person B is also guilty because Person A has not expressed prior positive agreement for this particular escalation. Under this scenario, the actions of both A and B would satisfy the elements of the offenses. Thus, they would be adjudicated as sex offenders, would be required in many states to register as such and would suffer the other collateral consequences of conviction for a sex offense.

    Questions:
    1. Has there ever been a sexual encounter where every escalation was affirmatively consented to?

    2. I was unable to read the draft without an ALI account. But the California Law of the same name includes the requirement that consent be "ongoing" throughout the act. Which means no matter what proof you offer as evidence of consent you cannot prove she consented the next instant and are thus guilty.

    So if the goal is to criminalize effectively all sex a woman desires a man punished for this would be an excellent law.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Has there ever been a sexual encounter where every escalation was affirmatively consented to?"

    Next up - any explicit request for escalation will be prosecuted as harassment.

  • GamerFromJump||

    "So if the goal is to criminalize effectively all sex a woman desires a man punished for this would be an excellent law"

    Okay, who snitched on the plan?!

    /feminism

  • ||

    The new model "posits, to the contrary, that in the absence of affirmative indications of a person’s willingness to engage in sexual activity, such activity presumably is not desired."

    Everything which is not expressly allowed is forbidden?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Everything which is not expressly allowed is forbidden?

    I just thought that was a Progs natural view on rights in general.

  • X[redacted]s||

    MOUTH SAY "NO," STEVE SMITH ONLY HEAR "YES."

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I wonder what standard of proof will be established for consent. I suppose if the progs have their way no proof will be needed.

  • Lee G||

    I propose the presence of a government regulator to witness and mediate during the act.

  • LarryA||

    I wonder what standard of proof will be established for consent. I suppose if the progs have their way no proof will be needed adequate.

    The "standard of proof" here is "No matter what she does or says or signs during the encounter, if she later complains, she didn't consent."

  • ||

    Proof is white male pwivilege.

  • JWW||

    +1 thread winner

  • buybuydandavis||

    "standard of proof "

    Standards? Witch hunts have standards?

  • Mark22||

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    So is Judith Shulevitz no longer writing for the New Republic? The last article I see from her is from December of last year but I can't find proof she was one of the people who quit.

    If she left and they replaced her with Elizabeth Stoker Breunig and Jeet Heer, there is no better symbol of the intellectual decline of TNR. Shulevitz has always been one of the more reasonable center left writers out there.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Seems like a reasonable deduction

  • tarran||

    I went to high school with Peter Beinart.

    The guy was a smug douche who wasn't half as smart as he tried to present himself. Having debated a few issues with him, I remember him as a guy who mistook facile rhetoric for rigorous argument. I admit when I found out that somehow he had landed the chief editor gig there I burst out laughing at the poor investors who had just fucked up.

  • ||

    Did he have the same punchable face?

  • tarran||

    He looks exactly the same on his Wikipedia bio as he did in high school.

    My primary memory of interacting with him was the episode where he accused me of antisemitism for asserting that the U.S. should treat its alliance with Israel the same as any other ally and if they were harming U.S. interests, be prepared to walk away. He had a smug little smile, as if he had just moved a pawn and had doomed my king. I contemptuously and without missing a beat asked, "what the fuck does religion have to do with international policy? Anti-semitism means something, you know. and it isn't 'I disagree with Israeli foreign policy'." The smile disappeared, the color drained from his face and he got all flustered and defensive.

    Ironically, he later came to oppose the settler movement while remaining a devoted zionist. Maybe he had become a self-hating Jew.

    I had a cordial relationship with him, and we did hang out a few times due to our having some mutual friends. But I considered him a shallow regurgitator of other people's ideas rather than a thinker.

  • MarkLastname||

    "I remember him as a guy who mistook facile rhetoric for rigorous argument."
    The real question is, how many journalists today are not well described by this statement?

  • Homple||

    "Jeet Heer"?
    "Yeah, the pulled pork sandwich is ok".

  • gaoxiaen||

    +1 side order of your choice

  • Mr. Paulbotto||

    You know who else harassed people he deemed to be undesirable, for politics, race or other reasons?

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Our neighbourhood cat harasses cats he deems undesirable. Except the one gray cat that kicks his ass

  • ||

    Tony?

  • JRS1001||

    agreed - haven't seen him spewing his vomit filled rants much of late though

  • ||

    a misdemeanor, which takes place when a person "knowingly or recklessly has, or enables another person to have, sexual intercourse with a person who at the time of the act of sexual intercourse has not given consent to that act."

    So...if I am about to get it on, but I don't give affirmative consent and instead just go along with it, does that mean I have enabled someone to have sexual intercourse with a person who at the time of the act has not given consent?

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    What if I introduced the two people who had said act? Have I enabled the act? What if I invite one of said people to a party where said person gets too drunk? Am I a rape enabler?

    I have enabled so many rapes. I am disgusting.

  • ||

    Always the bridesmaid, never the bride, huh, Irish?

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    I touched a boob in the 7th grade, man. I even got affirmative consent and everything.

    I don't understand why people keep telling me it's weird to be on a 14 year dry spell.

    Plus, a girl actually looked at me in the Dunkin Donuts line this morning, so I'm like 95% sure she's into me.

  • ||

    That doesn't sound like affirmative consent to me, rapist.

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    There's an Irish cream donut joke to be made here but I'm just too goddamn highbrow to be the one to make it.

  • bacon-magic||

    She has a tip jar in front of her. Just sayin'.

  • Jerry on the sea||

    the principle, often referred to as "yes means yes," that the mere absence of a "no" is not sufficient permission to proceed sexually

    No wonder John Roberts and his wife thought it was better to adopt.

  • BearOdinson||

    "But the contrary standard now prevalent in American law will—just as inevitably—entail many false positives, assumptions of willingness and subsequent sexual intrusion when such intimacy was entirely unwanted. Section 213.2(2) reflects the judgment that the harms that arise under the latter standard present far greater reason for concern."

    Well so much for its better to let 10 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man. Of course, men are all guillty of unwanted sexual contact so we should all just go to jail. Or die. Or both.

  • Lee G||

    The real intention is to be vague and arbitrary, thereby leaving the accuser (and therefore the government) room to twist the interpretations as they see fit.

    If the language in the ACA concerning the states can be interpreted as the opposite of what it actually says, then this legal language will be contorted a thousand different ways to serve the interests of the prosecutor.

  • OneWingedShark||

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

    ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    I think that is an apt description of what's going on.

  • Marshal||

    We don't apply this reasoning to murder, but sex while confused is so scary we'll undermine our entire legal system.

  • ||

    I have to be honest, this is getting really 1984. It sure seems like an early salvo towards having government control of sex. Because for the power-hungry scum who gravitate to the government, what would be more intoxicating than having power over other people's sexual proclivities and actions? There's really not much. They've already taken control of people's children to a certain degree.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Yortuk Festrunk: Poor foxes. Every time they are having sex, they must go to the closest national monument.

  • DesigNate||

    If they try to interfere with Mrs. DesigNate and my sex life, somebody is going to find themselves in a woodchipper.

    (The preceeding statement is merely blustering and should not be taken seriously by any fucktarded US Attorney's office.)

  • Inigo "Chip" DuBois||

    That book was my first thought too as I read this article.

    And it's not the only book about a dystopian future under a totalitarian government that seeks to control sex along with everything else. Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" is another one. I'm sure I could come up with some more.

    It's really sad to think I'll live to see this kind of science fiction become reality instead of the interplanetary travel type.

  • Kristen’s Vermeer||

    This law is gonna ratchet up the revenge litigation industry to ELEVEN!

  • Kristen’s Vermeer||

    (I should say, hypothetical law as it seems to be a bunch of bloviating lawyers and academics so far)

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    IANAL, is it really possible to change the law so that rape conviction is possible just based on "he said, she said"? Because otherwise how is it different from any other rape conviction, using forensic evidence?

  • Kristen’s Vermeer||

    They've already done that on most college campuses. The article is suggesting that anti-due-process regretful drunken fling prosecutions may be coming to a criminal court near you.

  • OneWingedShark||

    IANAL, is it really possible to change the law so that rape conviction is possible just based on "he said, she said"?

    If you hold the jury instructions that they must render a verdict based on what the law says and cannot question the legitimacy/applicability of the law, then it becomes as simple as loosening the definitions of 'rape' in the law.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    I think that was the purpose.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    To clarify:

    When you have lemons, make lemonade.

    When you have an oversupply of lawyers, make more law.

  • ||

    "The traditional premise in the law has been that individuals are presumed to be sexually available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, at any place—in the absence of clear indications to the contrary," states ALI. The new model "posits, to the contrary, that in the absence of affirmative indications of a person’s willingness to engage in sexual activity, such activity presumably is not desired."

    The real question is, why limit this to intercourse? Why can I not have anyone prosecuted for harassment who presumes I am verbally available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, in any place? Please, don't talk to strangers. They may be too terrorized to say no and run away.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Oh an upside. This would mean I could sic the cops on that asshole who insists on talking to me at parties even though I could gladly live the rest of my life without ever talking to him (actually just standing there receiving his verbal diarrhea while furiously thinking of an excuse to walk away) again.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That is the last time I talk to you at a party!

  • BuSab Agent||

    Don't worry I would never actually sic the cops on you, because I'm not actually Evil I just pretend to be so on the Intertubes.

  • BuSab Agent||

    That asshole (hubby if you're is reading HnR today, you know EXACTLY who I mean) also works for the EPA and is the douchiest douche who I have ever met IRL.

  • ||

    We just have to educate people about the horrors of social-rape, BSA.

  • BuSab Agent||

    I prefer my solution. Douche is a compulsive one-upper. There's another compulsive one-upper who often attends the same parties. I have become a master at maneuvering them together. A one-up singularity them forms and I can safely walk away without either of them noticing.

  • ||

    There really is nothing like siccing two (or more) compulsive competitives on each other. They just get lost in their own little one-upping world for a while.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yeah, but I regularly sic two-uppers on each other.

  • BuSab Agent||

    *Quietly walking away*

  • ||

    I see what you did here.

    And it was glorious indeed.

    This wins the internet for the day. Maybe the week.

    Hats off BuSab

  • WoodchipperFocus(ed)||

    I second this. *applause*

  • ||

    That's nothing. You see this scar?

  • gaoxiaen||

    Who cut your nipple off?

  • farm animal of war||

    Here is the deal: you can just walk away. I know it will feel harsh and awkward at first, but it is hands down the most effective tool for reducing the presence of assholes in ones life. It has more power than an entire book's worth of polite hints.

  • BuSab Agent||

    Sure and I do, however,I see you were oblivious to the fact that the dude works for the EPA. There aren't certain categories of petty bureaucrat whom you must NEVER publicly snub, not if you want to stay financially solvent and out of prison.
    Sure you may eventually be vindicated, but enduring a modicum of verbal diarrhea is definitely better than being raked over the coals by a little man with a chip on his shoulder. Short (not conclusive) list:
    DMV employees
    Cops
    Judges
    DAs
    Code Inspectors
    CPS workers
    U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York...

  • BuSab Agent||

    er *are categories*
    EDIT BUTTON NOW!!!!!

  • BuSab Agent||

    And of course your tolerance for injustice may be zero and your individuality and social autonomy un-impeached. Good on you! But I would really, really, really prefer that my driveway NOT be redefined as a 'wetland' because it floods during heavy rainstorms and some dumb ass geese have splashed around in the puddle.

  • ||

    Why can I not have anyone prosecuted for harassment who presumes I am verbally available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, in any place?

    Oh! You mean sexual harassment.

  • buybuydandavis||

    And never give anyone a ride.

    If you're not getting ongoing affirmative consent, you're a kidnapper!

  • BearOdinson||

    And if the guy is drunk and the girl is drunk, the girl can't give "consent". But the guy can???? If they are both intoxicated, the same standard should apply. Except that, well GUY BAD. GIRL GOOD.

    And as we all know, no woman has EVER lied about being forced, or coerced to have sex........

  • Antilles||

    It's sexist to hold women to the same standard as men. Just because.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Except that, well GUY BAD. GIRL GOOD."

    Now you're catching on.

  • Win one for the chipper||

    If they outlaw sex between executives and their employees, there won't be anyone left to run the companies

  • Marshal||

    Or the country. I wonder if they understand this would have made the Clewinsky Affair a crime.

  • Mark22||

    The President is special. His Holiness can do no wrong.

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    "Because the harm of erroneously presuming willingness in such cases vastly outweighs the harm of erroneously presuming unwillingness, the law should never treat ambiguous behavior as equivalent to consent, whether the individual in question is intoxicated or not."

    I guess we're just going to gloss over the "harm" inflicted by the state labeling someone a sex offender all because someone can't be bothered to say "no."

  • Marshal||

    someone can't be bothered to say "no."

    Is this such a big deal? I never noticed anyone having trouble saying no.

  • ||

    I never noticed anyone having trouble saying no.

    Don't worry Marshal, someone is bound to say "Yes" sometime...

  • MarkLastname||

    Science has confirmed beyond doubt that being inappropriately touched is, for a woman, far more traumatic than being sent to prison for 5 years to be repeatedly raped by your celly as a man. Kind of an apples and oranges deal, ya see?

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    ""As with other areas of criminal law," caution the dissenting ALI members, "expanding the statutes in the ways set forth in the draft would fall particularly hard on individuals of color who are represented disproportionately at each stage of the criminal justice system." American law enforcement "has an unfortunate history of excessive punishment in the name of protecting women especially when issues of race are present.""

    Yep. Sort of like how all those people who want to criminalize 'cat calling' never consider that the people who actually engage in cat calling are disproportionately poor blacks and Hispanics.

    But they're in favor of prison reform and want less incarceration. They'll even tell you so themselves!

  • JRS1001||

    So what you are saying is that American women are to delicate and frail to tell a guy that they don't want to go any further than kissing.

    Total pile of TORO CACA

    I guess that younger adults and teens are abdicating authority and responsibility for everthing and wish to live in a perpetual state of pre-adolescence where they can remain in their safe zones insulated from the rigors of being an adult ( having to make adult decisions, make adult choices and having your ideas challenged on their merits).
    The Left establishment especially the colleges are oh so willing to provide these children with their pink clouds as long as they accept as undisputed fact all left wing dogma.

    If I remember correctly, in generations past men as young as 15 fought and died defending freedom and women saw their brothers, fathers and husbands come back from wars crippled or in body bags. Now college kids have to hide in safe zones from dissenting comments from Ann Coulter.

  • ||

    They're also too delicate and frail to say they don't want to kiss. Or hold hands.

  • JRS1001||

    If they are too frail and delicate they why the hell do we want one as a senator, governor congressman or heaven forbid - PRESIDENT. (yes I'm calling you out Hillary - you incompetent coat tail rider who would be a complete unknown if it weren't for being married to Bill)

    Can't have it both ways - either you are able to handle yourself in tough situations with tough decisions or you can take off your shoes and go back to the kitchen.

    Feminists have always wanted both ways - treated like a weaker woman when it is to their advantage them but rewarded like a man even if their work is inferior.

  • ||

    I don't think that's an example of wanting it both ways; that seems like two examples of being treated as the weaker gender.

    Regardless, only some feminists act like that. Some of us just think we're morally equal to men.

  • JRS1001||

    Bull shit nikki!

    - I see it all of the time with women. they want equal pay but don't want to be held to the same standard as men. Same as far as dating goes. They claim to want to be equal in the relationship but still expect men to pay for everything. Huge double standard.

  • ||

    I'm saying that being "rewarded like a man even if their work is inferior" is being "treated like a weaker woman when it is to their advantage." There's no "both ways" there; those are two examples of the same thing.

  • JRS1001||

    men are naturally inclined to help women and take care of them. Women have learned to exploit that and men are expected to do more work ( especially if the work is physical) for the same pay.

    So what I am saying is that women use the "I'm a woman and weaker" clause when it works to their advantage but use the I'm your equal" when it is to their advantage. The two are incompatible. Either you are my equal or you are inferior but not both at the same time.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    men are naturally inclined to help women and take care of them.

    - about 10,000 Yazidi women

  • JRS1001||

    I don't consider the sick fuckers in ISIS to be men.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    And I was mocked for my Fleshlight investment.

  • BearOdinson||

    When VR truly comes of age, if I wasn't married, the only reason to leave the house would be to go to work to pay for my VR Porn. And maybe some food occasionally.

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    Clark, that's the gift that keeps on giving the ENTIRE year.

  • JRS1001||

    this is also why there is more porn.
    Sex with a real live woman has become more trouble than its worth not to mention potentially damaging to your reputation, income and legally liable.

    Can't wait till they start pushing this crap in elementary any middle schools - gonna have some amazingly screwed up kids and a lot of 40 year old virgins like they have in Japan

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnlaUCKu3MA

  • ||

    Sex with a real live woman is absolutely not more trouble than it's worth. Stop being hysterical. This shit is scary, yes, but hyperbolic ridiculousness about all sexual encounters is absurd. Just don't hook up with someone who is such an asshole that they would use this against you in some way. It's really not hard.

  • Idle Hands||

    That last part seems to imply that it would be irresponsible to have anonymous sex with complete strangers, where is the Epi I used to know?

  • ||

    Well, Idle, I guess the question is...why wouldn't you want to have sex with someone you can't see?

  • Agammamon||

    See, that's how Epi does it. Through a hole in the restroom wall. After all, a mouth's a mouth and your 'partner' never knows who you are.

  • gaoxiaen||

    All cats are black in the dark.

  • JRS1001||

    yep ask Paul about how well that went for him up at Columbia. While his is an extreme case - granted, the whole women and dating thing is completely out of wack. Because of how the twat who accused him was triumphed you are going to see more women pull the same stunt to become a feminist hero.
    By the way - its not hyperbolic ridiculousness- its the modern reality of dating. Men are in fact finding that the whole process including the marriage part is not only impossibly complex but not very rewarding either.

  • ||

    Just don't hook up with someone who is such an asshole that they would use this against you in some way.

    Which, in practical terms, means: don't hook up with anyone. Except if someone is an outstanding judge of personality and character, it takes several meetings and considerable time spent together doing innocuous things in order to be able to form an opinion of any validity about the other person's assholishness. I don't think that psycho/sociopaths, BPD sufferers and narcissistic personalities can hide themselves over several meetings stretching for, let's say, a couple of months. At least not from discerning people.

    This isn't something easy to do, especially for young people; that's why it used to be an expectation forced on them by societal pressure. Now the law will pressure them to adopt such strategy -- because the unwary will risk to be subjected to a nasty criminal process.

  • Akira||

    "I don't think that psycho/sociopaths, BPD sufferers and narcissistic personalities can hide themselves over several meetings stretching for, let's say, a couple of months. At least not from discerning people."

    Dunno, man... I like to think so, but sociopaths tend to be master liars and manipulators. Especially if they have a pretty face and a nice body. Most males (and I say this one myself) will do some very foolish things for a piece of ass.

  • MarkLastname||

    A typical sociopath has had a lifetime to learnt o fit in with normal people. You're almost certainly not going to know if the girl you're hooking up with is a sociopath until after the fact. Pretty sure she'll be self aware enough to avoid talking about murdering kittens for fun the first time you meet her.

  • ||

    Pretty sure she'll be self aware enough to avoid talking about murdering kittens for fun the first time you meet her.

    But psycho/sociopaths are subject to frustration, too: denying them things in one's power to grant can bring out their darker sides.

    Plus their charisma & charm can have a bit of a fakey tint to it.

    All right, maybe I was a bit overly optimistic here. Still, the more contact there is before getting on with heavy petting, the greater the chance of sensing something dissonant in the prospective partner's mien.

  • ||

    Especially if they have a pretty face and a nice body. Most males (and I say this one myself) will do some very foolish things for a piece of ass.

    Myself included; that's why I put there the first half of the first sentence of my second para.

  • BearOdinson||

    What the fuck ever happened to guy and girl are making out in the back seat, he feels her up, she puts his hand back on her waist, he tries again, she yells or slaps him and says "I am not that kind of girl". Then one of two things happen:
    1) He feels shame because he really isn't a bad guy, and takes her home.
    OR
    2) He really is a bad guy and rapes her. In which case, there should be signs it was forced (I realize how difficult it could be to prove it!!) And the guy should be castrated and hung out to dry.

  • Aleyn||

    Another side to your example, guy and girl are making out in the back seat, all escalations have been verbally consented to so far. He has his hand on her waist, she puts his hand on her breast or genitals without explicit permission, and she is now guilty of sexual assault.

  • ||

    Mars looks better everyday.

  • JRS1001||

    so do other countries where this crap hasn't spread..............yet

  • Certified Public Asshat||

    Related (and you thought Bok was bad):

    What If We Treated All Consent Like Society Treats Sexual Consent?

    Feminist Comics, hilarious!

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    My eyes hurt.

    Also, almost every single of one of those deals with retracting consent. I don't know of any respectable person who thinks you shouldn't be able to say "stop" once you've started. As far as it pertains to "affirmative consent," it's one long non sequitur drawn by a retarded lemur.

  • LarryA||

    almost every single of one of those deals with retracting consent

    "You tell the victim to 'retract consent?' That's Victim Blaming!"

  • MarkLastname||

    In reality, if we treated all consent like we treat sexual consent, every time someone gets in your car, and you drive them somewhere and drop them off, if they didn't continuously consent to it the duration of the drive, you have kidnapped them.

    There is no other action in life that requires so stringent criteria to meet the legal definition of consent as sex. If we applied those rules across the board, we would all be guilty of kidnapping, battery, and larceny every day.

    But then again feminists, being so horribly addicted to paint chips, cannot grasp that.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What world do these people live in? Some variation on every single one of those situations have actually happened to me in real life.

  • ||

    Some variation on every single one of those situations have actually happened to me in real life daily.

    FIFY. "You're a man, right? Defend/threaten/physically correct/kill this shit." going unsaid by women *occasionally*. I can't even count the number of times "Move/lift/carry/hold this shit." goes unsaid women in any given day/week.

    The freaking hilarious part of it is, just like with affirmative consent, there's nothing criminally or even morally wrong with some of these. Playing music at night is not a crime, guilt-tripping someone for putting you out is not a crime...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why, just yesterday my wife didn't ask my consent before handing me a picture to hang on the wall!

  • lap83||

    Those are all great examples and they all illustrate things that happen all the time with sex. For example, I hate when my exes sneak through the window and try to have sex with me. Damn Society!

  • Irish Says Enough Woodchippers||

    I apologize and apologize and apologize and it's never enough.

    I'm a sad, sad sex bear.*

    *I just realized H&R's inside jokes might be confusing to outsiders. This is why Postrel hates us.

  • Lady Dalrymple||

    "This is why Postrel hates us me". FIFY

    She doesn't hate all of us.

  • Agammamon||

    teacher's pet teacher's pet teacher's pet!

  • lap83||

    Wait, you're not actually a sex bear?

  • ||

    What If We Treated All Consent Like Society Treats Sexual Consent?

    I ENTHUSIASTICALLY DISSENT FROM THE STATE, BITCH

  • ||

    Oh, but Nicole...that doesn't count. Sorry.

  • ||

    But I'm being motherfucking raped!

  • ||

    They really, really don't care about collective rape, Nicole. Sorry. If it's any consolation, I'm being raped too. And since I'm not a chick, I don't secretly like it.

    OH SNAP

  • ||

    So that's why carceral feminists are so...carceral...

  • ||

    Shhhhh! It's a secret!

  • Agammamon||

    Its only rape if you're allowed to say no.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No you are not. You gave unconditional consent to the government previously. It was on that social contract you signed way back when.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ant1sthenes||

    Uh, we'd be libertarians? Or we'd vote on how often women, uh, pay their fair share. Government is just another word for the things we all do together, baby.

  • Mark22||

    I didn't know that any of those faux pas resulted in multi-year jail terms. Geez, you learn something new every day.

  • Mattnad||

    Those comics deal with parallels to what we'd usually agree falls into sexual IF they refer to sex. But this proposed law outlaws behaviors like..... stroking your partner to see if they are interested in sex, kissing your partner good morning, without asking first.

    I can't remember how many times I've kissed my wife without asking first. Yes, I didn't get affirmative consent, and just assumed she'd be OK with it. As it turns out, there were a couple of times where she was quietly pissed off at me for something, and it was not welcome.

    Of course she didn't make a big deal out of it (she did give me hell about something else though).

    The big problem with these laws is what affirmative consent covers: when touching someone's hand can make you a sex offender, we've lost our minds.

  • John||

    You have to understand that affirmative consent robs the accused of their right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Traiditionally, the elements of rape are

    1. penetrative sex
    2. done with some force no matter how small
    3. without the consent of the victim.

    The government has to prove all three elements. In many rape cases there is no dispute about whether there was sex or some measure of force. The only issue is consent and the government has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Affirmative consent turns that on its head. Under affirmative consent, the government doesn't have to prove the victim didn't consent, only that they didn't "affirmatively consent".

    Understand, no matter what the law says, consent is always going to be a defense to rape. All affirmative consent does is lower the standard of proof and turn consent from an element of the crime to effectively an affirmative defense. Since the government only has to prove their was no affirmative consent, the existence of consent in fact becomes an affirmative defense. Defendants have to prove affirmative defenses by a preponderance of the evidence. So the net effect of affirmative consent will be to require most defendants to prove their innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.

  • BearOdinson||

    What is the problem? No woman has EVER lied about being raped. And besides all men are rapists, eventually. And according to modern feminism, all penetrative sex is rape.

  • kinnath||

    The only viable solution is going to be prostitution -- with a paid contract with all the details of consent and withdrawal of consent written in triplicate.

  • Lee G||

    TRAFFICKER!

  • Akira||

    "It was signed under duress! I was so paralyzed with fear that I picked up the pen and signed my name on every form!"

    - SJW prostitute

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    So the burden of proof is on the accused.

    That seems fair...

    \sarc

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I still wonder that, actually.

    Especially how it could be more popular than Pumped By A Pterodactyl: M/F Dinosaur Erotica (Dionna Does Dino Valley Book 1)

    I mean

    Dionna Donalson is a 27-year-old champion rock climber who likes things spicy in the bedroom. When she is offered $10,000 to attend a secret meeting, she can hardly resist. She finds herself whisked away by private jet to the remote Bolivian Andes where she is met by the young, handsome professor, Liam Tomlin. He reveals to her the world’s greatest secret; a valley full of cloned dinosaurs. Professor Tomlin has a job for Dionna, a job only a woman with her expertise can manage; sneak into a Pterodactyl’s nest and steal an egg. But Dionna is about to get a whole lot more Pterodactyl than she bargained for.
  • lap83||

    My favorite thing about those books is when people leave poor reviews, as if they were expecting something other than what the cover obviously conveys.

  • lap83||

    although this critique for "Taken by the Pterodactyl" makes a good point.

    "I am very upset because a pterodactyl is technically not a dinosaur it is a pterosaur. This should be classified under pterosaur erotica."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • lap83||

    Usually I don't even read one star reviews on anything unless I want to scoff or laugh. Nuanced reviews that you can actually glean information from tend to be two or three stars.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    This bitch couldn't even be bothered to think up her own twist on an old formula.

    Indeed. Which is why I have a hell of a lot more respect for something like Hooked by the Merman. Because, merman.

  • Lee G||

    Upside: There will be a lot more amateur porn as more and more guys videotape consent.

    Or is that a downside?

  • John||

    But that won't help. That will just get them a revenge porn conviction.

  • John Titor||

    I will be laughing my ass off in hell if we get to the point where you require a marriage contract as consent.

  • Catatafish & Woodchips||

    The circle is almost complete. "Feminists" are just a few logical steps away from demanding supervised bundling.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    No THAT would be social justice.

  • Mattnad||

    Consent can be withdrawn at any time, silently, per the ideas behind this. The only defense is a video taped record of every thing that's said and done. Many cameras to get all the angles.

  • fieryscribe||

    The obvious comeback to this is that no prosecutor would waste her time on such a frivolous case.

    Really, now?

  • JRS1001||

    yep - there has already been plenty of political pressure to start prosecuting these types of cases. That is why there is a rush on the Leftist side to redefine everything in a matter that puts all of the burden on the male and removes it from the woman.

  • LarryA||

    [Long list of cases where prosecutors did exactly that.]

  • SugarFree||

    Now that they've got "yes means yes" underway, the next step seems to be criminalizing qualified "yeses" as well.

    What they are doing is seeking to eliminate all possibility of acting in good faith. If someone tells you "yes" you can still be a rapist if in their minds they weren't completely enthusiastic concerning the act.

    This obliterates mens rea. Despite assurances at the time of the act, all sex acts can be called rape after the fact and you can have no good faith defense whatsoever.

    Even the jokingly suggested sex contracts are useless if the accuser can claim it was signed under duress. And filming does nothing given the old cop fallback of "you didn't see what happened before the camera was turned on."

  • Lee G||

    They're moving away from a force-based definition of rape. Or at least, the definition of force is now so watered down as to be meaningless.

  • ||

    Well, it's more of a morphing of the word rape from meaning "forced penetration" to "anything that made me uncomfortable or that I regret". And obviously the point is to co-opt the negative connotations of the word "rape" to bring its power to accusations of "made me uncomfortable". It's just word re-branding, which is a very common tactic. Just like "racist" basically means "I don't like you" at this point.

  • Lee G||

    So I have been raped.

  • rudehost||

    racist!

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    You are SO going to regret doing my mom.

  • ||

    Wait, so she raped me?!? I'll see her in court!

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    Take my mom. Please.

  • gaoxiaen||

  • ||

    What's weird is that the people who are into this shit are not the ones who are so terrified of the existence of the Other that they...you know...turn into me. They fucking love community and society and...they want to make it...way more terrifying. You are always a hostage to the Other in this world.

  • John||

    Affirmative consent makes rape a general intent crime. That means mistake of fact is no longer a defense. So, a man could prove that he actually and reasonably thought the woman was consenting and he still would be guilty of rape. Worse still, the fact that he thought that would no longer be relevant so he couldn't even bring it up at trial.

  • ||

    According to the scum-idiot-retards in ALI I'm a verrryyyy bad boy and should be thrown in prison.

    Drugs and sex lands you in prison in the good old USA, eh?

  • John Titor||

    We're not much better up here, Rufus. Have you seen the recent Ontario government's plan for sex education or the bloody constant anti-date rape ads? It's like they don't understand how real people operate.

  • ||

    Oh, I thought that was always discounted in my comments.

    Low-grade people are infiltrating and getting all the top positions looks like.

    It's no wonder you can't say 'I believe the most experienced or qualified person should get the job' because all the scum bag losers now get them.

    Very scary times.

  • JRS1001||

    you are not alone -they have criminalized almost all behavior and made former misdemeanors in to felonies

    we are all criminals now

  • Ivan Pike||

    I am soooo glad I am married.

  • Lee G||

    Marriage law does not confer a right to sexual relations.

  • BuSab Agent||

    This is true. However after 30 years of marriage, my husband and I pretty much share a brain and I can tell with absolute certainty whether or not he's in the mood.

  • ||

    Sounds like a perfect recipe for a rape prosecution down the road.

  • ||

    Brainrape!

  • BuSab Agent||

    I'm going to end up in a camp one way or another, at this point the exact mechanism by which TPTB do it doesn't really matter. Raping my husband at least is a much cooler crime for bragging rights in the clink than owning a robin's feather or forgetting to dispose of that florescent light bulb properly.

  • BuSab Agent||

    *Now I've got "Alice's Restaurant" stuck in my head.*

  • DenverJ||

    Absolutely, and doesn't take 30 yrs to develop. After 7 yrs of being together, 5 institutionally, we became one brain with two half's. Hell, when she died, I became obsessed with a drop of red paint on my New Balance shoes, because, for the life of me,I couldn't remember painting anything red after we moved to OK, but I knew for a fact she bought those shoes for me after we moved to OK, and she would remember the details.
    But she died, taking her half of the memories, the common brain, with her. So. I will never know where the hell that drop of red paint came from. Never. She took that knowledge with her, and I will never know. She also took care of paying the bills, so, yeah, that made it harder.
    But that's not where this law is aimed. This is 100% aimed at young single males. The idea is that the fairer sex is always innocent ; that if she claims victim status, then he has no defense.
    I'm single now, and it's been close to a year; I could date again, maybe.
    Thankfully, the women of my generation only think this crap, they haven't developed a knee jerk reaction to actually prosecute.
    My younger brothers: My heart bleeds for you.

  • DenverJ||

    Absolutely, and doesn't take 30 yrs to develop. After 7 yrs of being together, 5 institutionally, we became one brain with two half's. Hell, when she died, I became obsessed with a drop of red paint on my New Balance shoes, because, for the life of me,I couldn't remember painting anything red after we moved to OK, but I knew for a fact she bought those shoes for me after we moved to OK, and she would remember the details.
    But she died, taking her half of the memories, the common brain, with her. So. I will never know where the hell that drop of red paint came from. Never. She took that knowledge with her, and I will never know. She also took care of paying the bills, so, yeah, that made it harder.
    But that's not where this law is aimed. This is 100% aimed at young single males. The idea is that the fairer sex is always innocent ; that if she claims victim status, then he has no defense.
    I'm single now, and it's been close to a year; I could date again, maybe.
    Thankfully, the women of my generation only think this crap, they haven't developed a knee jerk reaction to actually prosecute.
    My younger brothers: My heart bleeds for you.

  • Rich||

    *** rising intonation ***

    What about *Sharia* marriage law?

  • Lee G||

    You only have to make sure they don't have hair on their face first.

  • Rich||

    "Pluck you, that's why."

  • Ivan Pike||

    Marriage law does not confer a right to sexual relations.

    No it doesn't, but I've been married long enough that I don't worry about things like this.

  • Lee G||

    Ahhhh, a member of the patriarchy. Are you a card-carrier?

  • BuSab Agent||

    Me too. I will never release my trophy husband, the dating world is becoming much too horrible and frightening to contemplate.

  • JRS1001||

    agreed - Its the same on the male side of the equation, except we can be falsely accused of rape by a pissed off bunny boiler.

  • ||

    I wouldn't be surprised one day Mattress Girl gets married and does just that - takes her husband to court for fucking her wrong.

  • Lee G||

    And she will be heralded as a symbol of oppression for it.

  • lap83||

    Not to blame the victim, but...should a guy that marries her expect anything less to happen?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Some people just look at a reverse centaur like her and think that they can tame that bronco.

    Yes, I'm going to take every opportunity I can get to state that she looks like a horse.

  • bacon-magic||

    Quit horsing around- Paul's memo.

  • grrizzly||

    Marriage is nothing. The only safe heaven at the moment is (male) gay sex. In every case the victim is always a woman and the perpetrator is always a man. That determines who is at fault. There's no possible victim when it's guys only.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Enough with your opportunism!

  • John Titor||

  • LarryA||

    There's no possible victim when it's guys only.

    That's true only as long as your man believes he's a man.

  • BuSab Agent||

    That's a whole 'nother can of intersectional worms isn't?

  • JRS1001||

    hope you stay that way - Happily!

    Because dating is a bitch especially after 35

  • Antilles||

    Bring on the realistic sex robots! What are women going to do when they realize they're no longer needed?

  • LarryA||

    "Your Honor, a 'realistic sex robot' lacks the legal ability to consent, and yet is designed to appeal to prurient interests. Any physical contact with her is therefore rape."

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I always felt that sex with robots or VR sex would be a major detriment to society until this moment. Suddenly it's dawned on me how pragmatic and moral it would be to forego the real thing for the walking fleshlight.... F.... I also just realized that robo-sex is going to be demonized and criminalized moments after it becomes a thing. The rational consideration must be which danger has the stiffer penalty? Cavorting with a machine or a woman?

  • Rich||

    the law should never treat ambiguous behavior as equivalent to consent

    When the Supreme Court generalizes this to "The Law", there will be some *fantastic* unintended consequences.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    "knowingly or recklessly has, or enables another person to have, sexual intercourse with a person who at the time of the act of sexual intercourse has not given consent to that act."

    Also note the third party liability implied in "recklessly enables another person to...". If you throw a party and someone gets drunk, leaves, and gets taken of advantage someplace else later that night, you're now liable for it.

  • Rich||

    And, speaking of "reckless enabling", don't forget about *porn*.

  • GILMORE, LVL20 Blowhard||

    " the mere absence of a "no" is not sufficient permission to proceed sexually"

    (fast forward to the future)

    "Do you remember your first kiss?"
    "Do i! I still have the paperwork!"

  • JRS1001||

    you do remember the case of the little boy who was treated like a sexual miscreant because he was kissing the little girls in his ( I think it was kindergarten) class.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    When I was 5 a little girl in my kindergarten class would try to kiss me often. To this day I still remember how uncomfortable the whole thing made me. Thank god that was 20 years ago, the thought that today if I were 5 and I said something to my teacher something bad might have happened to the poor, dumb, girl. Children are the world's greatest imitators -- evolutionary strength for surviving in a state of nature -- that little girl probably just had affectionate parents who kissed often or something.

  • Rt. Hon. Judge Woodrow Chipper||

    The traditional premise in the law has been that individuals are presumed to be sexually available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, at any place—in the absence of clear indications to the contrary

    Not wearing a chastity belt is a choice one makes for themselves.

  • Marshal||

    Consider that Title IX prohibits race and gender discrimination yet the government has concluded it requires schools to use the preponderance of the evidence standard to adjudicate campus sexual assault cases.

    But we're supposed to rely on government restraint? Where do these people live?

  • SIV||

    Libertarian moment?

    Fucking SoConzzzz?

    We're more free now than we'll ever be in the future.

  • Agammamon||

    Forget sex robots, virtual reality porn, and any of the other technological advances feared capable of disrupting current sexual mores. The biggest threat to sex as we know it . . .

    No, let's not forget the sex robots et al. *because* the future of 'sex as we know it' is under threat. These will be the only things to save us.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "The traditional premise in the law has been that individuals are presumed to be sexually available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, at any place—in the absence of clear indications to the contrary,"

    No, there's a traditional premise in the law known as the presumption of innocence, you drooling retards! Now, fuck you and the horse you rode in on, assuming of course that it's a consenting adult horse.

    Holy shit, I'm not exactly Don Juan, but this proposed new law of theirs would keep me in prison for years.

  • Agammamon||

    Plus, the traditional premise of the law is not " that individuals are presumed to be sexually available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, at any place—in the absence of clear indications to the contrary" but that individuals are a) capable of articulating their lack of consent and b) capable of giving blanket consent to someone without having to be explicitly asked before each time.

    The traditional premise of the law has also been that its not illegal to *ask* if someone's DTF (unless you're gay in an airport bathroom).

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I once grabbed my girl and [please deposit $100 for more details]...she neither objected or expressed consent at the time, but she *did* allude to it, favorably, on her blog. So should I be on the sex offender registry?

  • Agammamon||

    Of course.

  • JPyrate||

  • JRS1001||

    the traditional approach is that you are innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the accuser and the prosecution.
    They want to take that away and make it so that the accused must prove that he had "affirmative consent" which in absence of a written contract is difficult to prove. They also want to try these cases with college administration where the legal rules are much looser and the burden of proof is much less.

    So what they are trying to do is turn our legal system around 180 degrees because they know that it is difficult to accuse someone of non-forceable or intoxicated "rape" and prove it in court.

    this of course, abrogates women from any responsibility in the matter -(not being responsible for drinking too much or being in a social situation where loose sexual conduct occurs). Feminist women like to not have any responsibility for their sexual conduct - that is why they favor abortion as well.

  • Agammamon||

    Here's another thing these people don't seem to understand about sex - its not all about *sex* as pleasure.

    There are bonding and emotional maintenance issues involved too.

    You're SO may want ot have sex with you, but not *right now* - but you really, really do, so they slip off into the supply closet with you. Since they're not 'enthusiastically' consenting, are you now a rapist?

    What about, say a guy with a girl who takes a long time to finish. He's done but she's still on the track so he does what he needs to to get her to the finish line - but he's not necessarily enthusiastic about it. He might be thinking 'c'mon! Silicon Valley's on and I forgot to set the DVR.' But he's doing what he needs to to maintain the relationship. Is she a rapist?

    Or do they expect that couple's will refrain from even touching each other of a month at a t time so that everyone's enthusiastic about the sex when it happens?

  • ||

    This has been my standard reply to the affirmative consent laws. By many facets of the definition, my wife and I have been raping each other for years.

  • Kevin Sorbos Manful Locks||

    "Or do they expect that couple's will refrain from even touching each other of a month at a t time so that everyone's enthusiastic about the sex when it happens?"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFQctXXYq-E

  • bacon-magic||

    Your Honor! That MAN told me "just the tip". I demand you sentence him to life in prison!

  • toolkien||

    I think I'm going to go long on rope, quicklime, shovels, and develop an app for the best spots for shallow graves. I don't see much other outcome if saying hello in a bar is eventually going to lead to a sex registry at best or hard time at worst. A patriarchal society worked because men were the stronger sex. If they're trying to forge some sort of Matriarchal Society, it simply doesn't have the beastly Force to swing it, and those Forces are going to manifest themselves in all sorts of uncivil ways. If failing to get authorization for sexual advance in triplicate and notarized will lead to a ruined life, I can foresee a large contingent who will take the easy road with a tidying up of loose ends.

    Of course being satirical (for any John Q. Laws who might think I'm making specific threats), but the notion is valid. Screwing the lid down tighter and tighter on society is going to have unintended consequences. This cute matriarchy we've developed isn't going to last. We're coming to the end game of our economic/fiscal/monetary smoke and mirrors. We're heading into some much bleaker times. Times where carrying mattresses and kangaroo courts railroading males off of college campuses are going to go by the wayside. When the shit hits the fan, pink ribbons are going to be at the bottom of the shopping list. I certainly wish such times weren't coming, but at least there's a silver lining that a lot of special snowflakes are going to melt away.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "but at least there's a silver lining that a lot of special snowflakes are going to melt away."

    That sounded to me like a threat to murder people with a flamethrower or possibly ovens. I'm calling Preet.

  • JRS1001||

    news flash toolkien

    Men still are the stronger sex and always will be. Men are the reason that things get accomplished. While women bitch moan and complain and discuss, men go ahead and build it just like we have for thousands of years. we also understand the value of rules and the literal meaning of things. I wasn't until feminism that the meaning of things like the constitution got "interpreted" to mean whatever the person in power wants at any given time.

    This is why the vast majority of Libertarians are male - because you actually have to understand principles and logic - not make decisions based upon "feelings"

    Liberalism and feminism are female and rely on feelings - that is also why their ideas don't work in reality and rely on false environments like academia and government to exist.

  • ||

    I disagree to a point.

    Women are the reason things get done. Not women themselves, but the fact that women have something that men crave.

    If it wasn't for men trying to lure women into their beds men would still be living in caves.

    And loving it.

    But I agree totally with your last sentence.

  • fleshy wavefunction||

    Brawndo has what men crave.

  • rudehost||

    Disappointed that mine was merely the second idiocracy reference in this thread.

  • LarryA||

    When the shit hits the fan, pink ribbons are going to be at the bottom of the shopping list.

    If feminists want to learn about the other side of male privilege, they should check out the percentage of women and children in every class of passengers that made it off the Titanic, and what percentage of men went down with the ship.
    http://www.historyofthetitanic.....ivors.html

  • Trigger Hippie||

    Just to cover my ass, I'm going to start texting my buddy's hot wife after a fruitless Saturday night asking permission before using her mental image for masturbatory purposes while using my using my own despondent tears as lubricant.

    Now that I think about it, that may open me up to a whole new smorgasbord of legal and personal issues.

  • ant1sthenes||

    Let's call affirmative consent what it will really be in practice: "A man's consent counts legally all the time. A woman's consent counts legally, sometimes".

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.online-jobs9.com

  • Richard McCargar||

    When a woman who has been drinking, gets into a car and drives, has an accident, she will be charged as responsible for her decision making prior to drinking.

    If a woman has a few drinks with a man who is also drinking, and later has sex with the man, if she later regrets it, she is not only not responsible for her own actions, she can have him arrested for rape.

    How is this ethical? How is this equal protection? How is this lawful?

  • JRS1001||

    its not Richard. and that is what we have been discussing on this blog.
    Women do not want to be accountable for their sexual actions hence why feminists support abortion

  • JRS1001||

    its not Richard. and that is what we have been discussing on this blog.
    Women do not want to be accountable for their sexual actions hence why feminists support abortion

  • JPyrate||

    Choose your women wisely. Just like women should choose where they party.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f55CqLc6IR0

  • ant1sthenes||

    "posits, to the contrary, that in the absence of affirmative indications of a person’s willingness to engage in sexual activity, such activity presumably is not desired"

    said the Junior Anti-sex League

  • ||

    It will work itself out. Men who date and sleep with batshit insane SJWs will be punished and destroyed and those who don't won't.

  • ||

    Batshit insanity disguises itself in the most insidious ways.

  • Akira||

    Before you attempt any physical intimacy with a girl, ask her on a date to the gun range. That should weed out 99% of the SJW bunny boilers.

  • BuSab Agent||

    UH no. It's why gun control despite being perennially brought up, keeps failing. Many otherwise ardent progs are ALSO gun "nuts". Gun ownership, despite what the gun banners would have you believe, doesn't break cleanly along those lines.

  • JPyrate||

  • ||

    Do you have my permission to pee in your butt? Sounds nice when I say it out loud.

  • ||

    In case you're wondering. It makes sense.

  • ||

    Do you have my permission to pee in your butt? Sounds nice when I say it out loud.

  • ||

    Also should we really be giving a shit about the the ancient and wise college pick-up/swinger culture that may or may not have existed for all of 30 years?

    Who cares if it gets dismantled.

  • Akira||

    The problem is that it's not limited to colleges. This article shows that the "affirmative consent" mindset is now attempting to break out of the campus setting. If this is not stopped, it could very well end up as state law. I don't think laws like these would be too hard to pass in ultra-proggie states, especially since any opponents can be accused of wanting to let violent rapists off the hook.

  • JPyrate||

    ENB. Now I Know you have been hanging out with AC. =D

  • ||

    I am gobsmacked that adult , supposedly educated, people can come up with such a batshit idea. Who the phuc are the people at ALI ? Is this some non profit working on taxpayer grants ? Private donations ?

    And why would this affect minorities more so than non minorities ? Are minorities devoid of agency ?

    It is effing insane that these kind of ideas are becoming mainstream.

    If a man is strictly obeying this law while having sex does he still have to obtain specific consent to orgasm ?

    If he is wearing a condom does that change the answer since his sperm doesn't touch the woman ?

    The people who came up with this are batshit crazy. I can't truly believe that someone with this thought process can actually live in society on their own.

  • JPyrate||

    "Are minorities devoid of agency ?"

    Remember. You are asking that question, to people who have a philosophy that denies agency, for adults, and children who have a limited agency.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "Who the phuc are the people at ALI ?"

    Uh, this one might be my bad. When I was a kid, some old guy gave me a movie ticket that he said used to belong to Harry Houdini, said he wanted to take me to see some action movies. I figured he was a pedo, so I ran like hell, and kept the ticket as a reminder of what sort of pervs were out there. A few years back, I was reading some Ayn Rand novels, and I need to break around page 7000, so I looked for a bookmark, and what do you know? I found that old ticket. Probably should have used something else, in retrospect.

  • JPyrate||

    He was either a Progressive College Professor, or a Catholic Priest.

  • ||

    No JPyrate, it just sounds like someone who cashes a check from ALI or affiliates.

  • PM||

  • rudehost||

    "[T]he appropriate default position clearly is to err in the direction of protecting individuals against unwanted sexual imposition. ... Of course, a legal standard requiring the affirmative expression of consent to sex will—inevitably—entail many false negatives"

    Better to let 1000 innocent people rot in prison than to let 1 guilty person go free. Idiocracy is upon us.

  • JPyrate||

    "The traditional premise in the law has been that individuals are presumed to be sexually available and willing to have intercourse—with anyone, at any time, at any place—in the absence of clear indications to the contrary," states ALI. The new model "posits, to the contrary, that in the absence of affirmative indications of a person’s willingness to engage in sexual activity, such activity presumably is not desired."

    It's a dark day for "Safe Words"

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    A Progressive is someone who lays awake at night worrying that someone, somewhere, is having fun
    - and it must be stopped!

  • rudehost||

    Mostly they worry somebody might be doing something without permission. They are OK with carefully regulated fun as long as it is something they like to do.

  • JPyrate||

  • buybuydandavis||

    "yes means yes,"

    No it won't. It will mean "I felt pressured to say yes".

  • JPyrate||

  • flyfishnevada||

    Forget gay marriage and civil unions. Wait to you see the new sexual consent contracts. Why bring a chaperone on a date when you can bring your attorney?

  • JPyrate||

  • Brochettaward||

    All of this mental gymnastics aside, what stops a man from simply lying and saying she said yes to everything?

    The thing about a criminal case, unlike the kangaroo courts they want in colleges, is they still need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, they can water down the standards more, but I don't see how they have fundamentally changed the fact that these cases remain a he said, she said matter.

    Juries are stupid, but not that stupid.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Depends on the jury. Dumb defense lawyer, sick prosecutor...

  • MarkLastname||

    Easy: tell the juror that 99% of female rape accusers are telling the truth; ergo, if one accepts that 1% isn't enough for reasonable doubt, then "statistically" the accusation itself (from a woman, of course; women never lie, only me do because patriarchy) is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

    Jurors will believe what they're told to believe.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Yeah, that's insanity...just like most of what the federal government seems to be worried about these days. Bad enough that there is a body of federal criminal law to begin with. We might as well get rid of the states and leave everything to the imperial city on a swamp.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The word 'terrifying' is a precise adjective, ENB. This blasphemous assault on organic human relations reveals the vicious regulatory monstrosity that Libertarians are battling every single fucking day.

    The stars and stripes fly grandly on the jet streams of time reflecting majestic ideals in the hearts and minds of millions of patriotic Americans but within the fabric of this fluttering symbol of freedom lurks a dark leviathan that threatens the very existence of the human condition.

    Our legal and prison system is already a violator of human rights on a massive scale. Granting the state microscopic levers to tyrannically nit-pick every shade and twitch of sexuality will guarantee with not a single fucking shred of doubt in my mind that America has willfully placed both of her feet directly on the hot ash of totalitarianism.

    The crooked timber will have rotted to its fullness. The sandwich boards become hiding places.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Fuck the ALI! Iron-fisted fuckchucks every last one of you! In praise of sexuality a round of titties to stab your loser eyeballs: https://vimeo.com/96111443

  • agmike98||

    Clearly, the only rational response is to be the first to file charges after the sex act occurs.
    I imagine a sweaty couple wrestling past each other for their phones immediately after consummation.

  • Suellington||

    The Sex Contract is the name of a very good book on the physical anthropology of sex. We, unfortunately, may be headed for more of a progressatopia of Chappele Show proportions.

    I'm sure it's been posted, but it is hilarious if you have or haven't seen it.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk

  • WTFrontyardAmerica||

    Next up -background checks for sex toys and porn.

  • Michael Price||

    "Of course, "selectively enforced laws have a nasty history of being used to harass people deemed to be undesirable, because of their politics, race or other reasons," Shulevitz notes."

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

  • bvandyke||

    I'm a 80's teenager. I remember the "right" from the 80's preached that Sex was evil, Drugs were evil, Rock-n-Roll was evil, Video Games were evil, etc, etc. And I thought it was bad.

    Go figure, the "left" now has gone way, way beyond that. At least in the 80's it seemed the "right" was defending their morality, now the "left" is just blatantly trying to grab all the power they can and put the U.S. people under their heel.

    I feel sorry for my 14 year old son. To succeed he now needs to become a transgender, celibate, trans-racial liberal cop that does not go to college.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I suppose everyone who has ever lived has done so under the rule of an oppressive government. I should be thankful that tossing men on the rack is no longer fashionable. Was America ever great? Or am I finally tearing away the deeper levels of my indoctrination?

  • woodNfish||

    Is it too late to kill all the lawyers?

  • CraigL||

    Ironically, in the real world the surest way to NOT get laid is to constantly ask permission. Even for the married, asking for sex verbally spoils the moment. These people are living in kookoo land.

  • Claire53||

    That's what I always say. Geesh - I'm glad I'm a baby boomer and know life and sex and seduction before this insanity.

  • Claire53||

    How odd - a new crime of “sexual intercourse without consent.” Really? Isn’t that the definition of rape? Hasn't it always been the definition of rape? And this business about the "presumption of willingness" in current law. This is news to me. I always thought the presumption was ALREADY unwillingness. That’s what the art of seduction is for for Christ’s sake.

  • lfstevens||

    This struggle is more about the culture than about the law. The Supremes have now abandoned the Constitution and the law in favor of going with the cultural flow. It appears that we're in for quite a ride.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online