Connecticut Outlaws College Sex

Posted on | May 7, 2016 | 236 Comments

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.

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Comments

236 Responses to “Connecticut Outlaws College Sex”

Fail Burton
May 9th, 2016 @ 6:21 am

None of the argument below have anything to do with 150 daffy legislators. It is obvious they have had certain feminist concepts mainstreamed into their consciousness using the dishonest methods supremacists always use to get their points across. The problem isn’t that those legislators have read Shulamith Firestone, Susan Brownmiller and Judith Butler but that they haven’t. They have no idea how much they are being lied to and are a generation of extremely naive people who seem to genuinely accept anything feminists say at face value and with good will.

It is simply a generational failure of perception. These people just cannot conceive of women, gays or non-whites acting a role analogous to neo-Nazis. Orwell warned of that failure of perception and it has been ignored and misunderstood as a novel warning of fascism. If that was the case, why didn’t Orwell just write as essay warning against fascism?

This is the same agonizing process we went through with Vietnam. We were trapped in our identity. We figured we are Americans and therefore good and so if we are in Vietnam it is good; end of story. We could not conceive of us being the bad guys. Now it will take another generation and perhaps years to demonstrate Orwell’s lesson: sometimes your big brother is a massive prick. Women, blacks and lesbians can be as evil as anyone else. There’s your equality.
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 6:21 am

Some of them, yes.

And some would fight.
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 6:27 am

And I will trust my neighbors.
Maggie's Farm
May 9th, 2016 @ 7:24 am

Monday morning links

Image stolen from Ace Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband Toxic relationship habits most people think are normal NC Gov Responds To ‘Bully’ DOJ Threat Over Bathrooms Why Big Tobacco Loves the New FDA E-Cig
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 10:40 am

You still don’t get it.

It’s not about what Americans would choose.

It’s about what you would choose.

Right here. Right now.

Knowing what you know, what’s the World you’d rather live in?

What’s the place you want to wake up in tomorrow?

Choose.

And make it a damn good one.
Doug Clement
May 9th, 2016 @ 10:46 am

Sucker
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 11:23 am

Perhaps.

Or maybe the worth of a man is found in the lives he touches.

Do you have someone you can trust?

Do you have someone you can trust to give you truth?
Finrod Felagund
May 9th, 2016 @ 12:33 pm

See prior comment about you not lasting long here, what with your hatred and all.
Finrod Felagund
May 9th, 2016 @ 12:33 pm

Neither from a leftist like you. I wouldn’t touch you even wearing a full body condom, the risk of catching something would be too high.
Finrod Felagund
May 9th, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

Sadly, some people want peace and order more than they want liberty. They want to be ruled.

I don’t understand them,
tout venant
May 9th, 2016 @ 12:44 pm

Be correct: ‘cavemen’ were very practical people.
petetheelder
May 9th, 2016 @ 1:45 pm

A woman accusing a guy she never met of rape has happened multiple times in well publicized cases already.

Lena Dunham accused a guy she never met of raping her since he was a republican, when it was actually some liberal guy who supposedly did it.

And then with the University of Virginia Jackie Coakley rape hoax there is no indication she knew any of the fraternity members she accused.

And there was the case in England recently where an actress (who was never named in the media) accused some random guy of raping her when he lightly bumped into her at a busy train station. The prosecutors took that one to court even though they had clear video that all that happened was he walked by her and accidentally made slight contact.

And there was Tawana Brawley who accused several men she had never met of rape.
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 2:34 pm

But I asked if you had someone…

That is one level of the question.

On another level it is me disproving your statement. I’m a libertarian, I asked about you. I want you to acknowledge certain truths that you already knew. I’m the guy who told you where I find the worth of a man.

So we return to the question.

Do you have someone you can trust to give you truth?
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 2:35 pm

Freedom is scary stuff.
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 2:37 pm

Including yourself?
MC227
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:01 pm

This about the same thing it is always about “why should he have fun but not me.” They have torn down every man club, everywhere men congregate, all traditional man places. They are like the old shrew that can’t stand anyone else having more, having better or having fun. The sad thing it is a relative few feminazis dictating to everyone else and we allow it to happen.
Doug Clement
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:09 pm

You know what, I like the way you think…I apologize for being a dick…We’ll talk again.
Finrod Felagund
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:23 pm

Your hallucinations are cute. Mind if I cite them in my next paper?
Doug Clement
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:30 pm

{You can’t take a hint, can you, Doug? Get out and stay out.]
Wombat_socho
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:52 pm

Actually, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t think either Smitty or Stacy would qualify as fundamentalists, though I won’t presume to speak for them.
Wombat_socho
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:52 pm

Quit feeding the troll.
Wombat_socho
May 9th, 2016 @ 3:54 pm

Stop feeding the trolls, Neo.
NeoWayland
May 9th, 2016 @ 4:01 pm

I know, it’s a really bad habit.

I can’t help but think some of them might be worth the trouble.

I’ll play by the rules.
Finrod Felagund
May 9th, 2016 @ 4:03 pm

My mistake, and my apologies, though I’m sure the distinction is lost on our leftist interloper.
Joe Joe
May 9th, 2016 @ 5:03 pm

1. The book is an academic work published by a university press, is thoroughly referenced and cited, and based on government records, many declassified. If you choose to ignore that, that’s your problem, but your opinion on the scholarship is, at best, misinformed.

2. My basic claim (supported by that book) is that global planning behind the scenes is inherently anti-democratic and that global goals drive the culture, as opposed to being driven by it. Consent is either manufactured by propaganda techniques–going back to the Creel Commission–or the appearance of consent is created, while real public dissent is quashed by Federal threats and lawsuits. (See North Carolina today.)

3. I did not make claims as to the recolonization of Vietnam. I made claims as to garnering support for American involvement in the Vietnam War and for general global activities in Asia.

Your basic claim at the beginning of all this is that we the people are to blame for the cultural shift that is destroying the country. I am showing you that this is largely NOT the case. I have given you a couple of examples, one past and one present. I am asking to watch North Carolina and how true public dissent is being quashed by the Feds and the media creates a false impression of universal consent. One more thing: the transgender policies are not coming out of the blue: they have been attached to monies coming from the “VIolence Against Women” act:

https://www.facebook.com/deann.simmons1/posts/1176994405659022?fref=nf

There has not been a great cultural cry for biological males to use restrooms and locker rooms of women and little girls. This is coming from the top down, not the bottom up.
Joe Joe
May 9th, 2016 @ 5:08 pm

I’ve been on college campuses for 30 years. The ideas that were disseminated 40-50 years ago in women’s and black studies are now what is being parroted by the “kids” of Black Lies Matter and feminist “Rape Culture” types. The 60s counterculture was largely created IN universities. It didn’t come from the kids themselves. That’s what you saw on TV, just you’re seeing it today. Universities are centers for intelligence work, for the shaping of national consciousness.
robertstacymccain
May 9th, 2016 @ 6:25 pm

No, they’re abolishing marriage. Except for gay marriage, which will soon be mandatory.
Jeanette Victoria ?????????
May 9th, 2016 @ 6:59 pm

Ah no heterosexual sex because that is oppressive
Bill Adams
May 11th, 2016 @ 12:38 pm

You can buy a video camera that looks like a ball point pen on Ebay for about 10 bucks. Record it.
Scuttlebuttin'
May 11th, 2016 @ 5:22 pm

As long as you get consent for that too.
Bill Adams
May 12th, 2016 @ 1:00 pm

You can claim she consented before the video started just as easily as she can claim she didn’t consent to sex. I rather face whatever charges come with illegally taping my “activities”, than her rape charge. Besides, as soon as she finds out there is a video, she will suddenly remember consenting to consensual sex.
Scuttlebuttin'
May 12th, 2016 @ 2:20 pm

“You can claim she consented before the video started just as easily as she can claim she didn’t consent to sex.” So you’re back at the same place, except with the additional civil and criminal liabilities of illegal “wiretapping” charges? In these cases of sex and he said/she said, who are we told to believe? The law won’t save you.

“Besides, as soon as she finds out there is a video, she will suddenly remember consenting to consensual sex.” You cannot be serious. The first thing that would happen would be furious attempt to suppress the evidence.
Jesse James
May 13th, 2016 @ 11:23 pm

Meh. A zero sum game won, in humanity terms, is our extinction. I do not think humans want to be extinct, and can only suffer from our own stupidity so long before the dam holding reason back cracks like a feminist cougar after menopause, and a boxed wine binge. Eventually, that little animal nipping at the elephant’s hoof, gets stepped on.
Jesse James
May 13th, 2016 @ 11:29 pm

Yeah, dodging sabretooth tigers, living in caves without the benefit of modern weapons wielded by men willing to die for you for nothing, and not possessing a modern medical system that can hide all the diseases of bad choices, most indefinitely, have a tendency of making one very, very practical.
Nowadays, our seeming inevitability complex produces “Chanty Bix” personas the world over at an alarming rate. I’m actually happy to see women get these top positions amidst great fanfare by top political types. So when it fails, not if, they will have a really hard time convincing the public they’re not full of crap. Of course, Hillary is still a viable candidate so ..soo..I….I coulllddddddd be wronnggggahhh?
Jesse James
May 13th, 2016 @ 11:31 pm

Irrelevant. The point of the feminist inspired legislation is to remove trust between heterosexual couples, thereby increasing the chances, in their minds, of more “targets of opportunity” in some lesbo biker gang crap hole that no respectable woman wants a part of. Unless there are no men willing to buy her drinks anymore, at which point the violently abusive butch male wannabe will certainly do.
tout venant
May 14th, 2016 @ 5:20 am

It was irony (and by the way, cavemen WERE really intelligent and carrying if you study anthropology, but it’s not the point.)
I agree to give women equal opportunity, but we have to get rid of congnitive dissonance (and lobbying) that prevents the most of us to criticize wrong stats, comon cruelty and privilèges.