'Sex While Drunk Is Now Legally Rape In California'?

DoYouEvenLift

I can't embed URLs yet but hopefully someone can repost the link properly:

thoughtcatalog . com/janet-bloomfield/2014/10/sex-while-drunk-is-now-legally-rape-in-california-seriously-it-is/


If this came to be here, we'd have a whole lot of rapists walking around.

So, how many of us would be considered rapists in California?

ancapailldorcha

Here we go:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29406138

Looks like it's getting worse for guys in the US. Can't see too many women being prosecuted for this funnily enough. Surely it'll be full of holes. Drunk for example is a subjective state and can't really be empirically defined.

johnnyskeleton

1) this doesnt change the law substantively, its a political statement to raise awareness of the law rather than the law changing;

2) the law on this issue is more or less the same here;

3) mere inaction has never been, and should never be, accepted as being a basis to believe a person is consenting;

4) if you arent sure if a woman is consenting, shes probably not consenting;

5) drunk in this scenario doesnt just mean a bit tipsy and doing something you regret.

DoYouEvenLift

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Here we go:

www bbc co uk/news/world-us-canada-29406138

Looks like it's getting worse for guys in the US. Can't see too many women being prosecuted for this funnily enough. Surely it'll be full of holes. Drunk for example is a subjective state and can't really be empirically defined.

It's interesting to go along with the whole feminism and equality movements though. If we're to be seen as equal then why is it possible for men to be more accountable while drunk than the women in these scenarios? Does this not contradict the entire point of gender equality and imply that men are actually higher than women? Especially so if feminists themselves are actually supporting these kind of laws.

Carlos Orange

Seems to be going that way. You can see an interesting case study detailed here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/occidental-sexual-assault-2014-9

DoYouEvenLift

psinno wrote: »

Seems to be going that way. You can see an interesting case study detailed here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/occidental-sexual-assault-2014-9

Funny how that played out, I remember it, poor kid. She claims he sexually assaulted her yet waits a week to come forward when evidence is basically gone at that point but instead of going to the police goes to the school. So the guy is kicked out of school because they gather he's actually guilty of sexual assault yet he wasn't actually arrested, trialled and charge by the actual law. Seems to me like this girl regretted it and felt ashamed, probably as her friends found out and disapproved, and wanted to save face.

iptba

psinno wrote: »

Seems to be going that way. You can see an interesting case study detailed here.

http://www.businessinsider.com/occidental-sexual-assault-2014-9

Yes, I've read quite a few articles in recent months about kangaroo courts popping up on US campuses and male students not being afforded due process. For example:

More college men are fighting back against sexual misconduct cases
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sexual-assault-legal-20140608-story.html#page=1

SEXUAL-ASSAULT ‘MOMENTUM’ IS TRAMPLING DUE PROCESS, LAWYERS TELL SENATORS
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19583/

Mothers for Due Process
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/384780/mothers-due-process-caroline-kitchens

The Other Side of Title IX
A warning to higher-education administrators.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304393704579529714129190136

No Trial? No Jury? No Witnesses? No Attorney? Student Expelled Anyway
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/08/no-trial-no-jury-no-witnesses-no-attorney-student-expelled-anyway/

Illegals Crossing Border Have More Rights Than College Students Accused of Rape
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/191896/

Mammas, don’t let your boys grow up to attend California universities and colleges [Darleen Click] http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54991#sthash.9rELmzuG.dpuf

Lux23

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) this doesnt change the law substantively, its a political statement to raise awareness of the law rather than the law changing;

2) the law on this issue is more or less the same here;

3) mere inaction has never been, and should never be, accepted as being a basis to believe a person is consenting;

4) if you arent sure if a woman is consenting, shes probably not consenting;

5) drunk in this scenario doesnt just mean a bit tipsy and doing something you regret.

Here, here it is really shocking how some men automatic reaction to something like this is 'oh those damn feminists, they want to ruin fun for everyone'.

Seriously?

Lux23 wrote: »

Here, here it is really shocking how some men automatic reaction to something like this is 'oh those damn feminists, they want to ruin fun for everyone'.

Care to show where anyone has stated "oh those damn feminists, they want to ruin fun for everyone" ?

Lux23

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

It's interesting to go along with the whole feminism and equality movements though. If we're to be seen as equal then why is it possible for men to be more accountable while drunk than the women in these scenarios? Does this not contradict the entire point of gender equality and imply that men are actually higher than women? Especially so if feminists themselves are actually supporting these kind of laws.

Here.

Seriously?

Lux23 wrote: »

Here.

Not seeing it, someone asking for equal treatment is "they want to ruin fun for everyone" ?

Memnoch

Seriously? wrote: »

Not seeing it, someone asking for equal treatment is "they want to ruin fun for everyone" ?

Touché. That's the modern feminist perspective. It's not really about equality anymore, sadly.

Carlos Orange

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Seems to me like this girl regretted it and felt ashamed, probably as her friends found out and disapproved, and wanted to save face.

She may well genuinely believe she was raped but that doesn't make it so. Laws should be applied in a gender neutral manner. They were both raped or no one was. In this particular instance, based on what I have read.

AndreaCollins

Memnoch wrote: »

Touché. That's the modern feminist perspective. It's not really about equality anymore, sadly.

A lot of feminists have unfortunately used the whole feminist thing a bit too weirdly to the point where its kind of like being a feminist is seen as being anti men by a lot of people these days. I suppose you get extremists in a lot of areas in life but this is one area that they have had a negative effect.

Seriously?

Came across a rather shocking statistic today:
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-53-rape-cases-filed-between-april-2013-and-july-2013-false-delhi-commission-of-women-2023334

Very surprised at the source, if it was a western woman’s advocacy group it would have been hushed up.

ancapailldorcha

AndreaCollins wrote: »

A lot of feminists have unfortunately used the whole feminist thing a bit too weirdly to the point where its kind of like being a feminist is seen as being anti men by a lot of people these days. I suppose you get extremists in a lot of areas in life but this is one area that they have had a negative effect.

The things is when one of these extremists suggests, say culling men or that men accused of rape should be named and shamed the majority of actual feminists stay silent which is why a lot of men will reject the label.

fits

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The things is when one of these extremists suggests, say culling men or that men accused of rape should be named and shamed the majority of actual feminists stay silent which is why a lot of men will reject the label.

that's a bit of a strawman now. I don't expect the men of the gentlemens club to condemn the extreme mra folk. ( and a good thing coz it doesn't happen). Loonies be loonies yo.

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

that's a bit of a strawman now. I don't expect the men of the gentlemens club to condemn the extreme mra folk. ( and a good thing coz it doesn't happen). Loonies be loonies yo.

I don't spend time on the MRA forums and such. They tend to be marginalsied though not without good reason from some of the stuff I've read.

nc19

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I can't embed URLs yet but hopefully someone can repost the link properly:

thoughtcatalog . com/janet-bloomfield/2014/10/sex-while-drunk-is-now-legally-rape-in-california-seriously-it-is/


If this came to be here, we'd have a whole lot of rapists walking around.

So, how many of us would be considered rapists in California?

A lot of wedding night rapists around id say


feckin 'merica

ridiculous country.

Ya cant ride a willing young one with a few shandys in her but you can give an uzi to a 9yr.....

Frank Lee Midere

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) this doesnt change the law substantively, its a political statement to raise awareness of the law rather than the law changing;

It's a big change. Al least for universities.

2) the law on this issue is more or less the same here;

Irish law assumes some kind of guilty mind.

3) mere inaction has never been, and should never be, accepted as being a basis to believe a person is consenting;

That's going to ruin a lot of morning blow jobs. Basically it looks like all new sexual acts or positions are illegal unless verbally consented too.

4) if you arent sure if a woman is consenting, shes probably not consenting;

And gender neutrality be damned.

5) drunk in this scenario doesnt just mean a bit tipsy and doing something you regret.

Drunk in this scenario has not been defined.

fits

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't spend time on the MRA forums and such. They tend to be marginalsied though not without good reason from some of the stuff I've read.

I don't spend time on feminist forums either, even though Id call myself a feminist, yet by your reckoning, we should be seeking out and condemning the loony stuff. I just don't read it, or think its relevant to my life.

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

I don't spend time on feminist forums either, even though Id call myself a feminist, yet by your reckoning, we should be seeking out and condemning the loony stuff. I just don't read it, or think its relevant to my life.

By not condemning it, feminists appear to be anti-male which is why a lot of us will insist on refusing the label. MRAs have no problem putting people of both genders off as their agenda seems to be attacking feminism as opposed to doing anything constructive for men which is a shame.

catallus

The adoption of this law is just the continuation of the anti-human agenda by the elites.

It undermines true feminism by treating women as defenceless objects whose independence has to be curtailed in the name of their own safety and it places too much responsibility on men, which I would view as being entirely unfair and a tacit upholding of patriarchy.

iptba

The author is a woman*. She looks at the issue a little differently from other articles I've read on it.

The Left's Creeping Totalitarianism on Affirmative Consent
Depriving men of their due process rights won't help women
Shikha Dalmia | October 21, 2014

http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/21/the-lefts-creeping-totalitarianism-on-af

* I couldn't tell from the first name.

Pat Mustard

This thread has some of the most badly researched nonsense that I've seen in quite some time.

Here is the bill in question:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

This will require Californian colleges to adopt affirmative consent standards with regard to sexual activity, in order to receive funding. See here:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

In order to receive funding, colleges in California must adopt certain policies, to include:

A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

A number of circumstances are described, which include:

The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

The bill seeks to impose college policy that sex with an unconsenting, incapacitated complainant should be against college policy.

This bill does not say that sex while drunk is rape. It doesn't say that or anything remotely like that at all.

Carlos Orange

The Mustard wrote: »

The bill seeks to impose college policy that sex with an unconsenting, incapacitated complainant should be against college policy.

What does incapacitated mean to you?

Does your definition concur with how it is interpreted in cases such as the one I referenced?

http://www.businessinsider.com/occidental-sexual-assault-2014-9

Pat Mustard

I made my point about drunk sex not equalling rape.

What is your point?

iptba

The Mustard wrote: »

I made my point about drunk sex not equalling rape.

Is your point to make a distinction between rape and something being against college policy? i.e. do you believe drunk sex can be against college policy?

tritium

The Mustard wrote: »

This thread has some of the most badly researched nonsense that I've seen in quite some time.

Here is the bill in question:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

This will require Californian colleges to adopt affirmative consent standards with regard to sexual activity, in order to receive funding. See here:



In order to receive funding, colleges in California must adopt certain policies, to include:



A number of circumstances are described, which include:


The bill seeks to impose college policy that sex with an unconsenting, incapacitated complainant should be against college policy.

This bill does not say that sex while drunk is rape. It doesn't say that or anything remotely like that at all.

Interesting! The info you've provided implies the bill is gender neutral. Very positive if it turns out to be the case as it may actually protect both men and women from sexual violation as opposed to pandering to gender hate speech ( which a number of US colleges have done)

Wibbs

Ardle1, You think that's a post worthy of the effort of typing? More of that and bans will be handed down. Post deleted.

Pat Mustard

iptba wrote: »

Is your point to make a distinction between rape and something being against college policy? i.e. do you believe drunk sex can be against college policy?

The title to the thread and argument was that sex while drunk is rape, legally. My point is that this is not the case.

I'm not what you are asking about college policy. Do mean to ask whether I think drunk sex should be against college policy or do you mean to ask whether it actually is against some college's policy? In any event I don't see that the wording of the Californian senate bill imposes such a policy.

In short, it doesn't say that.

iptba

Some quotes that give an insight into how some are approaching the issue of sexual assault in US colleges
http://www.cotwa.info/2014/11/add-these-to-misandry-hall-of-fame.html

laoch na mona

honestly it's a positive step, anything that helps move past any idea of consent being a grey area is welcome. Whats need is steps like this which encourage people to not try get with people who are clearly out of it.

iptba

This article discusses how an "informal complaint" under a US university's policy had a very negative effect on this man's life. He explains how he was denied the opportunity for it to be made a "formal complaint".

A sexual harassment policy that nearly ruined my life

November 3

[..]

The complaint lodged against me caused me and my family immense grief, and as a simple Google search of my name reveals, its malignant effects have not abated. It cost me my reputation and credibility, the opportunity to become a Rhodes scholar, the full-time job offer I had worked so hard to attain, and the opportunity to achieve my childhood dream of playing in the NFL. I have had to address it with every prospective employer whom I’ve contacted, with every girl that I’ve dated since, and even with Harvard Law School during my admissions interview. It is a specter whose lingering presence is rooted in its inexplicability.

In closing, the reader might note that I have yet to even address the question of whether I was innocent of the accusation. I was. But it does not come up at any point above for the same reason that it never came up in any of the actions taken against me — because by the nature of the proceedings that follow from these new policies, it simply does not matter.

The denial of due process rights under these new procedures renders them dangerous and liable to severe abuse, and they are unworthy of the distinguished universities that have adopted them.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/03/sexual-harassment-policy-that-nearly-ruined-life/hY3XrZrOdXjvX2SSvuciPN/story.html?event=event25

Pat Mustard

Shocking stuff iptba.

Its chairman, a professor with no prior experience handling dispute resolution, told me that I could have a faculty adviser present but no lawyer, and instructed me to avoid my accuser, who, by that point, I had neither seen nor spoken to in weeks. The committee imposed an “expectation of confidentiality” on me so as to prevent any form of “retaliation” against my accuser

That was an absolute no-win situation. They told him that he wasn't allowed to bring a lawyer. Maybe he should have had his lawyers look for a court order forcing the college to allow them to appear. There was no formal complaint initially, so there was no possibility of clearing his name. Appalling treatment by the college. It seems very short sighted of people to withdraw a scholarship and a job offer on the basis of an accusation which never even went to the police.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/sports/ncaafootball/at-yale-the-collapse-of-a-rhodes-scholar-candidacy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Like many colleges and universities, Yale offers accusers a choice between making a formal complaint and an informal one. This student chose the informal process. In that process, an individual or a few members of the committee are charged with resolving the issue, without a full investigation or a finding of guilt or innocence. The most significant outcome might be an agreement to move the accused to a different dorm.
(With a formal complaint, there is a five-member hearing panel that hires an outsider to conduct an investigation and produce a written report recommending punishment up to expulsion.)

Witt’s accuser has not gone to the police, nor filed what Yale considers a formal complaint.

Seriously?

This is an issue which has really blown up in the media this year, primarily because these guys are now taking to courts to clear their name.

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/list-of-lawsuits-against-colleges-and-universities-alleging-due-process-violations-in-adjudicating-sexual-assault/

Many are also suing under the Title IX laws which can have a direct effect on the federal funding these colleges receive, that it seems is also getting the attention of the media.

Seriously?

laoch na mona wrote: »

honestly it's a positive step, anything that helps move past any idea of consent being a grey area is welcome. Whats need is steps like this which encourage people to not try get with people who are clearly out of it.

That would be fine if both parties where required to be equally responsible when it comes to obtaining consent, right now the ability to grant consent is treated as only relevant for the female.

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

honestly it's a positive step, anything that helps move past any idea of consent being a grey area is welcome. Whats need is steps like this which encourage people to not try get with people who are clearly out of it.

How is putting the onus of consent exclusively on the male a positive step? How is it positive to only hold one gender responsible for their actions while drunk? How is positive to run roughshod over civil liberties and invoke a guilty till proven innocent mantra as many US colleges have?

newport2

tritium wrote: »

How is putting the onus of consent exclusively on the male a positive step? How is it positive to only hold one gender responsible for their actions while drunk? How is positive to run roughshod over civil liberties and invoke a guilty till proven innocent mantra as many US colleges have?

Because that absolves women of all responsibility and makes the only possible person at fault a man. Unfortunately, this is the way a lot of people appear to think things should be in life. It simplifies the man = bad, woman = good mantra.

Carlos Orange

tritium wrote: »

How is putting the onus of consent exclusively on the male a positive step? How is it positive to only hold one gender responsible for their actions while drunk?

It is interesting how old school sexist it all is. It gives women so little agency in the world.

laoch na mona

tritium wrote: »

How is putting the onus of consent exclusively on the male a positive step? How is it positive to only hold one gender responsible for their actions while drunk? How is positive to run roughshod over civil liberties and invoke a guilty till proven innocent mantra as many US colleges have?

I never mentioned anything about one gender or the other, if that is how this law is implemented than that's ridiculous. it is highly unlikely that is the case as it would mean only straight women can be victims which is pure stupidity anyone can unfortunately be a victim.

I view this as a positive development as it is a step away from victim blaming such as this fine example from the NHS http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1940614/thumbs/o-NHS-570.jpg?6

I really shouldn't have to point out that I don't think only women can be victims

newport2

laoch na mona wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about one gender or the other, if that is how this law is implemented than that's ridiculous. it is highly unlikely that is the case as it would mean only straight women can be victims which is pure stupidity anyone can unfortunately be a victim.

I view this as a positive development as it is a step away from victim blaming such as this fine example from the NHS http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1940614/thumbs/o-NHS-570.jpg?6

I really shouldn't have to point out that I don't think only women can be victims

That NHS poster is a disgrace, hadn't seen it before

laoch na mona

newport2 wrote: »

That NHS poster is a disgrace, hadn't seen it before

yeah its pretty vile

Potatoeman

laoch na mona wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about one gender or the other, if that is how this law is implemented than that's ridiculous. it is highly unlikely that is the case as it would mean only straight women can be victims which is pure stupidity anyone can unfortunately be a victim.

I view this as a positive development as it is a step away from victim blaming such as this fine example from the NHS http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1940614/thumbs/o-NHS-570.jpg?6

I really shouldn't have to point out that I don't think only women can be victims

I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing to make people aware of. Victim blaming is different from making people aware of risk. If it stops even one rape it is a good thing.

If it was to raise awarness about breakins would it be victim blaming too?

newport2

Potatoeman wrote: »

I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing to make people aware of. Victim blaming is different from making people aware of risk. If it stops even one rape it is a good thing.

If it was to raise awarness about breakins would it be victim blaming too?

I think things have gone overboard with good intended advice being taken as victim blaming, BUT.....

The example in LNM's post is fairly directly implying that if you drink and get raped, it's partly your own fault for drinking.


Saying that 1 in 3 people who get broken into were drinking that night is probably true in Ireland. What's the point of saying it though? Everyone should stop drinking?

laoch na mona

Potatoeman wrote: »

I dont think that is necessarily a bad thing to make people aware of. Victim blaming is different from making people aware of risk. If it stops even one rape it is a good thing.

If it was to raise awarness about breakins would it be victim blaming too?

the thing is the onus should not be on the victim to prevent rape, same as it should not be on home owners to prevent break ins

tritium

laoch na mona wrote: »

I never mentioned anything about one gender or the other, if that is how this law is implemented than that's ridiculous. it is highly unlikely that is the case as it would mean only straight women can be victims which is pure stupidity anyone can unfortunately be a victim.

I view this as a positive development as it is a step away from victim blaming such as this fine example from the NHS http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1940614/thumbs/o-NHS-570.jpg?6

I really shouldn't have to point out that I don't think only women can be victims

I never said you did. My point is that the way this principle is applied in the US is completly discriminatory (interestingly as the Mustard posted, the letter of the law isn't meant to be that way). There's been a pretty well publicised backlash against the trend on US campuses to actively presume male guilt in any sexual encounter. We've had the facepalm moment where a senior faculty member of one US college openly stated that the onus was on men but not women to seek consent. A number of cases are currently before the courts for violating the rights of the accused on multiple levels.

The reality is that there is a grey area in what would be called sexual crimes in these situations. Its the case where both parties give drunken consent. There's a major difference between a sober or near sober person taking advantage of someone who is wasted and two wasted people ending up in bed together. The latter has only two possibilities either both committed an offence or neither did. Attempts to disempower women under the guise of protecting them won't change that.

OldNotWIse

psinno wrote: »

She may well genuinely believe she was raped but that doesn't make it so. Laws should be applied in a gender neutral manner. They were both raped or no one was. In this particular instance, based on what I have read.

It's legally impossible for a man to be raped.

Potatoeman

newport2 wrote: »

I think things have gone overboard with good intended advice being taken as victim blaming, BUT.....

The example in LNM's post is fairly directly implying that if you drink and get raped, it's partly your own fault for drinking.


Saying that 1 in 3 people who get broken into were drinking that night is probably true in Ireland. What's the point of saying it though? Everyone should stop drinking?

It increases risk as it dulls your senses and impairs your judgement. You might put youself in situations you would not have while sober.

Even victims should analyse their actions to see if there was something they could have done differently. If I leave my front door open im more likely to get robbed as many crimes are crimes of opportunity.

Potatoeman

laoch na mona wrote: »

the thing is the onus should not be on the victim to prevent rape, same as it should not be on home owners to prevent break ins

Do you lock your front door?

tritium

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's legally impossible for a man to be raped.

Its legally impossible in Ireland for a man to be raped. This case happened in the US

Thankfully other jurisdictions don't have the same asshat definition that we do (albeit they have their own issues, especially when you see rape reclassifed as 'forced to penetrate and then ignored in studies by a major government agency)