The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Connecticut Outlaws College Sex

Posted on | May 7, 2016 | 236 Comments

“Affirmative consent”:

If you’re a college student in Connecticut and want to have consensual sex, you might want to leave the state to do it.
The Legislature approved an “affirmative consent” bill Wednesday night that now goes to Democratic Gov. Dannel Malloy, a proponent of the idea that sex is rape if one partner does not get the other partner’s repeated and mutually-agreed upon consent throughout the act.

The problem with “affirmative consent” is that such laws make it practically impossible to use circumstantial evidence as a defense against an accusation of rape. It is not enough to show that a woman voluntarily went to a man’s dorm room with the intent to have sex; it must be shown that she agreed to engage in specific sex acts. Thus, “affirmative consent” shifts the burden of proof so decisively against the accused that the accusation alone suffices as proof of guilt. All sex is effectively illegal, requiring only an accusation to make your hookup a crime.

Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner:

From the moment the students are about to touch, they would have to ask: “May I kiss you?” “May I touch you here?” etc. . . .
The policy decouples context from the totality of the sexual experience. If a student fails to ask for permission before one escalation, but asks for it for a different escalation, the entire encounter can be considered sexual assault. If a student has been drinking (the bill doesn’t require an accuser to prove they were incapacitated), then all consent is negated. Further, once someone is accused, their level of intoxication doesn’t matter, even if under the same policy they could be considered too incapacitated to consent. . . .
Past sexual encounters between two people also don’t count as consent, so even people in years-long relationships are required to follow these rules or they’ve committed rape (unless, of course, no one reports it).
That’s the thing about these policies: No one has sex this way, which means every student (even the accusers) are sexual assaulters and sexual assault victims. . . .
All an accuser has to do is claim they were too drunk and that they were not asked for consent and the accused is considered guilty, thanks to pressure from the federal government. Following this policy to the letter means nothing if an accuser claims one did not follow it precisely.

Greg Piper at the College Fix:

Only one lawmaker opposed the bill, Republican Sen. Joe Markley, saying it creates an uneven playing field between college students and others, the Hartford Courant reports:
“It criminalizes what many of us would consider entirely normal,” Markley said. “Almost any of us would say that we have done things under this policy which do not correspond to affirmative consent. To ask to change that behavior would ask to change human behavior.”

It’s 2016, and “entirely normal” human behavior is a crime.

Remember, guys: Never Talk to a College Girl.

UPDATE: Reporting another “John Doe” case, this one involving the University of St. Thomas, a Catholic school in Minnesota, Greg Piper remarks:

It should be abundantly clear by now that any disputed sexual contact between male and female college students will get the male in trouble, even if the female initiated sex and hard evidence contradicts her account.

To repeat what I have said before:

The more I read about the current climate on America’s college and university campuses, the more convinced I am that no man smart enough to go to college would ever be stupid enough to date a college girl.
Feminists have ginned up a frightening hysteria of anti-male fear among female students. Any boy who kisses a girl on campus could be expelled for sexual assault, and even speaking to a college girl might result in accusations of harassment.

Never Talk to a College Girl. Warn your sons, America.

 

Comments

236 Responses to “Connecticut Outlaws College Sex”

  1. News of the Week (May 8th, 2016) | The Political Hat
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:02 pm

    […] Connecticut Outlaws College Sex The problem with “affirmative consent” is that such laws make it practically impossible to use circumstantial evidence as a defense against an accusation of rape. It is not enough to show that a woman voluntarily went to a man’s dorm room with the intent to have sex; it must be shown that she agreed to engage in specific sex acts. Thus, “affirmative consent” shifts the burden of proof so decisively against the accused that the accusation alone suffices as proof of guilt. All sex is effectively illegal, requiring only an accusation to make your hookup a crime. […]

  2. Scuttlebuttin'
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:10 pm

    Those quaint notions have been AWOL from Title IX sinkholes for over a decade now.

  3. Scuttlebuttin'
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:15 pm

    Here’s what is nonsense: how do you prove “consent” to a verbal contract anyhow? That’s not even to delve into the wonderful legalistic snake move of “well, I consented, but felt coerced”, e.g. a common move to throw out prenups.

    @RS – They’re always living in fear of being considered the town pump, so that only really means all the damn time.

  4. Gringao
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:16 pm

    I haven’t read all the way down, but I’m sure someone else here pointed out that even “affirmative consent” is a useless mechanism insofar as A – it’s still a he said/she said situation unless there’s some recording or signed contract and B – even then, consent can be withdrawn at any time.

    Just more fun and games at Orwell State.

  5. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:19 pm

    You assume wrong.

    See, that is why I said most.

    Pay attention, this is one of those lesson dohickies you may have heard about.

    One of the marvels of the internet is that you can get a pretty good idea of how much it once took for people to provide for themselves and their families. And then there are the extras. Good luck finding an American family that doesn’t have at least one phone and one television set.

    That doesn’t even allow for the widely available advances like air conditioning, clean water, electricity, fresh vegetables in the grocery store, and allergy medication.

    Our poorest people live better than kings did a century ago, and it all happened because of the free market.

  6. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:24 pm

    Actually, I do talk like that everywhere.

  7. Gringao
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:25 pm

    Precisely, and exactly why this is being implemented on campuses where their own, extrajudicial star chambers hold sway, not pesky courts with actual rules and procedures. They can wing it and turn proceedings into academic simulacra of the kangaroo courts of “The Dark Knight Rises,” where guilt is a given and only punishment form is decided

  8. Gringao
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:27 pm

    Anonymous coupling, abortion and the odd bastard born and reared by the cold hand of the State.

  9. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:29 pm

    Ah, you rewrote your post.

    For the record, your original post was ?I assume you’re filthy rich.?

    If the “free market dissolves the line between rich and the poor,” then by definition you can’t have a “permanent underclass.”

    Without government interference, most people don’t stay poor. Their children do even better.

    You may have heard of that one too. It’s called the American Dream.

  10. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 7:58 pm

    It makes me all sorts of fun at parties.

    That, and I have this disturbing habit of giving truthful answers.

  11. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:03 pm

    *shrugs*

    It really depends on if you think government should control people or not.

    Before government got involved with everything from corn subsidies to banking, the American Dream happened daily for millions of people.

    The best argument I can make for liberty didn’t originate with me.

    ?The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.?

  12. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:08 pm
  13. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:13 pm

    Whatever you say, snow flake. Like I said, living in your little coffee house echo chamber makes it really easy to come up with really stupid ideas. I don’t have opinions online that I won’t express in person.

    You have no problem with government forcing your opinions, but you have a problem with a smaller government that lets people make up their own mind and live their own life? Totally makes sense.

  14. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:17 pm

    Except we know that the free market does those things far better than government ever has.

    Healthcare costs are high because government subsidizes it. It’s also less available. The VA system and Obamacare are ample proof of that.

    How many years have cities been trying to get light rail lines up and running? How many billions of dollars has that cost?

    Food costs: do you have any idea how much it takes to get things like fresh celery and edible meat to my spot in the high Arizona desert? One of the things that drives food costs higher is zoning regulations against big box stores.

  15. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:25 pm

    Rambling retard. That’s some super special spellin’. Bye-bye, snowflake.

  16. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:32 pm

    Oh, dear. Snowflake learned a dirty word. What a potty mouth.

  17. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:38 pm

    *sighs*

    It’s Flint, Michigan. At least get the spelling right.

    Tell me, how was the free market responsible for a government appointed emergency manager, two state agencies, and the EPA?

    Arizona is not a racist state.

    It’s the only state to ever hold a public election for MLK day.

    Twice.

    And going by the raw numbers, it won both times.

  18. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    May 8th, 2016 @ 8:41 pm

    You said you were leaving. I was just waving bye to our precious little safe spacer.

  19. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:02 pm

    Prove that Arizona is a racist state. Or be still.

    I’ll admit we have one very racist sheriff who has political connections up the wazoo. Stars above, I’m glad it’s not my county.

    It was two elections. For years, Arizona was called racist because of the way the first election happened. Why do you think I wrote that piece in the first place?

    “You also allow people to carry guns into bars…”

    This is wrong how?

  20. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:04 pm

    And why haven’t you responded to the bits about Flint?

    Or for that matter, the bits about the free market?

    You wouldn’t be trying to distract me, would you?

  21. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:05 pm

    Well, the meals on wheels truck comes by once a day, but other than that, it’s me and my cats.

  22. Squid Hunt ?Patriarch
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:05 pm

    If you thought that your state of offense was a valid argument, what else am I to think?

  23. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:25 pm

    If you hate Christianity, you’re on the wrong website, Buckaroo.

  24. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:34 pm

    No.

    As my continued presence proves.

    Do you have any idea how many purely “Christian” sites would have banned me as soon as they looked at my description as a pagan philosopher?

    To their credit, I got to stick around. I don’t agree with them always, but we’re upfront about that.

  25. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:34 pm

    You have to at least be respectful, which you aren’t being. You’ll either give up and wander off soon or you’ll get banned, I’m figuring,

  26. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:39 pm

    I’m pretty sure it’s because you’ve run out of arguments.

    If you really knew anything about libertarians, you would know that we spend a lot of time having our points challenged by almost everybody.

    Which means some of us get really really good at debating.

    It’s how I can point out that you’ve run out of productive things to say, and all you have left is personal attacks.

  27. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:39 pm

    You have a strange definition of ‘force’, and you forget who owns most of the guns in this country.

  28. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:43 pm

    It never had anything other than leftist talking points from the very beginning. Silly bugger.

  29. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:45 pm

    There was a guy I knew some decades ago. 2nd degree blackbelt at sixteen, ended up being a student instructor when he went through Marine boot camp. He never bragged about it, but I’m pretty sure he could kill with his bare hands.

    Now I don’t have his expertise, but offhand I can think of about six different ways to kill with things found in a bar. If it were a grocery store there’s at least a dozen.

    What makes a gun worse? Is it the gun or is it the person?

  30. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:46 pm

    Leftists think guns are magic wands made of metal. They’ve been trained to fear them at all costs and to never question that fear.

  31. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:50 pm

    The people who want to control other people’s access to guns are always authoritarians, totalitarians and fascists. Which one are you?

  32. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 9:51 pm

    All laws come from morality. Why is your morality valid and Christianity is not?

  33. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:02 pm

    You have a problem, then, since all the moderators here fall under that label.

  34. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

    Except I despise guns.

    I do support freedom though.

  35. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

    Your leftist buddies want to take our guns away. We’re not going to let them. Sucks for you.

  36. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:05 pm

    You think your religion is more important than our religion.

    Yawn. Wake me when you try to force a Muslim bakery to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.

  37. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:10 pm

    But I am here debating you.

    Interesting how you’ve gone from carrying a gun to taking out everyone in a bar.

    How many times has that actually happened?

    Do you know what is the number one thing that discourages gun crime? Not knowing if the other guy is armed or not.

  38. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:25 pm

    Wow.

    You’re just convinced that people can’t be trusted to do the right thing, aren’t you?

    So why should I trust you?

  39. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:36 pm

    You haven’t read much that Stacy has written, obviously.

  40. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:38 pm

    You’re a leftist, leftism is your religion. I’m yawning because you’re boring. You’re a garden-variety idiot leftist with the same slurs and slanders as all the other idiot leftists that come drooling in here now and then.

    Bored now.

  41. Fail Burton
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:38 pm

    Not exactly. Those “loony leftists” are doing the bidding of loony gay feminist dogma because they naively believe in rape culture. Lesbians and transgender know damn well they won’t be prosecuted under this law.

  42. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:45 pm

    ?I loathe guns. If I could, I would not only destroy all existing guns but I would eradicate the memory of anything associated with guns. Even though I am a Red-Blooded American Male® and I like watching things go boom, I despise guns with a burning hate that I can’t even begin to describe.

    But aside from some people feeling threatened by the mere presence of guns, there are two and only two groups that benefit from an unarmed but law-abiding populace.

    The first are criminals. The second are politicos and the law-enforcement officers that act against freedom.

    That’s it. Try as I might, I can’t find any other groups that benefit from an unarmed populace.

    Now with an armed populace, the entire equation changes. To start with, criminals grow nervous, which reduces the need for a militaristic police force.?

  43. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:53 pm

    If a society exists without the threat of force, it must exist on trust.

    There is no other basis that works.

    Make your choice.

  44. Fail Burton
    May 8th, 2016 @ 10:59 pm

    My head is not in the sand. What are you stipulating; that this is still the ’40s but a few shadowy figures are overriding that cultural consensus? This is the result of a cultural consensus. If people were opposed to these things in numbers they would rebel. No one sat down for Prohibition or laws against smoking weed, they just privately refused to obey. So just refuse to obey. Either you have fellow travelers or you don’t.

    Were I determined to fight this I’d hit ’em where they are most vulnerable. Much of this today is coming from one single source, and that is gay feminism. Educate the public about what that really is and then trust them. If they get it – great. If they don’t – they deserve what they get. Keep your head down, find a few allies and live your life as you see fit. Withdraw from the system. I didn’t need America to collect comic books. I just collected them.

  45. Finrod Felagund
    May 8th, 2016 @ 11:17 pm

    I loathe that Trumpsucker, fuckwit.

    Go die in a fire, slowly and painfully.

  46. NeoWayland
    May 8th, 2016 @ 11:35 pm

    Oh my.

  47. Joe Joe
    May 8th, 2016 @ 11:36 pm

    The cultural consensus is generally opposed to these things. When the consensus is powerful, the Federal Government steps in to threaten and strongarm, like the are doing with North Carolina right now. Or the judges step in like they did in the CA Prop 8 case.

    I am stipulating that it comes from the top and not the bottom. And there is plenty of proof of that.

    This little book: http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-Orientalism-Middlebrow-Imagination/dp/0520232305

    This book is about musical theater, something so innocuous as to seem utterly disconnected from any government action. And yet, it traces the connections between Anglo/US policy in Asia to musicals like “The King and I”. What you find out is that the mid 19th century diary of Anna Lianowens (“An English Governess in a Siamese Court”) finds its way into the hands of an American missionary couple in Siam. The wife (Margaret Landon) rewrites it as “Anna and the King of Siam” (1944). Her husband works for the OSS and then the CIA through the post WWII and the Vietnam era. “Anna and the King of Siam” becomes a movie (1946), a Broadway musical (1951), and then a film (1956). American foreign policy–i.e. the subjugation of Southeast Asia–becomes popularized in a musical–a British story with an American overlay–which depicts grateful primitive southeast Asians being led into modernism with Anglo/American help.

    There are some excellent scholarly papers that show how such propaganda–because that was what it was–prepared Americans for extensive involvement in Asia, from the running of Japan, to the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The American people are natural isolationists, and no one wanted to send their kids to war after WWII. Popular “middlebrow” entertainment, however, created the environment for widespread support, until the anti-war movement really got going in the 1960s. But the US was already there by that time.

    The book (above) is documented with many declassified discussions of US globalists behind the scenes, trying to figure out how to popularize the notion of Western hegemony in Southeast Asia. It was their agenda, their wars. The American people were not privy to any of it. Not in the least a “consensus.”

  48. Fail Burton
    May 9th, 2016 @ 5:56 am

    The media and colleges didn’t disseminate those ideas but were behind the curve. It was a new generation of kids who wanted that stuff and eventually they were catered and marketed to. How long did it take for the first college course in sci-fi lit to occur? When did The Beatles finally get accepted? Who demanded Bonnie and Clyde rather than covered belly buttons? If this is a failure it was a shared failure initially resisted by parents who were finally worn down and then who lost all influence when their kids left home.

  49. Fail Burton
    May 9th, 2016 @ 6:09 am

    You have your history mixed up. The history of the re-colonization of Vietnam begins at the Potsdam Conference before WW II is even over. You may not have noticed it but we left Japan as soon as we could. Vietnam was a mess, no doubt. Blaming it on a silly book is idiotic. And again, no one is denying people connive. What I am denying is that conniving equals a done deal.

  50. NeoWayland
    May 9th, 2016 @ 6:20 am

    I know.

    That’s just sad.