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.
It won’t be long before heterosexual marriage gets the same sort of consent laws. Regardless if you’re gay, straight, Democrat, or GOPer, you should shun this vitriolic legislation all over the country. It starts, like No-Fault Divorce did under Governor Reagan in Cali in 1969, and 20 years later, all the states were aping California’s lead. The same thing is happening here. Also, Gloria Allred, using the idiot Cosby, got the statute of limitations curbed in California for sexual assault. Pretty soon, trial attorneys will be citing that legislation for everything from car accidents, to insulting a police officer.
It starts out small, then escalates to a giant snow ball, then continues to roll down the mountain of idiocy until it smacks all of society into an truly uncomfortable, and tyrannical state.
One case, Cosby, and one crime, rape, does not constitute a war on all men. Watch, when Cosby dies, and the witch hunt that has surrounded him blows over, it will come out that most of those women lied. A few will be plausible, an one or two true. However, in order to save the one or two, the state governments, in order to make governing easier, will apply this case, and this legislation of “Yes means Yes” consent nonsense to us all and ever everything. I hope it is feminists who get hit with it first!
At a few traditionally all black colleges, the ratio of women to men is 75/25. So for every one college degree bound black man, is several child bearing/wanting black women who may have to be part of a haram in order to lock one guy down. Of course, it will only get worse at all college campuses as men as a whole, upon hearing this nonsense, will avoid sexual relations with college women altogether. Honestly, even college women have to realize they are under no real rape culture. It is merely hysteria. And considering that college literally reduces their prime fertility years from child bearing exponentially, and pushes them further out of the dating market, they would be wise to tell these idiots what thy actually think. That not all men are bad, and rigging the whole system for revenge against all men to satisfy a few jilted lovers, or women who suffer from “poor decision making complex” is a terrible idea that will cost all of them. We men are waking up. Good luck in the future ladies Vasagel, artificial wombs, and surrogacy are going to be big deals in your life real soon!
Actually, you misunderstand your own evo-psyche arguments. The fact is, in your argument, is that 80% of women will spurn 80% of men (give or take), to take turns riding the “carousel” of alpha short sticks and spurn the hapless “beta males”. That said, it leaves 80% fighting over 20%, and the 80% of women with a remote chance or better being spurned. The fact is, a few hot women will have no problem getting a date and keeping it. The majority of men who figure this out, will ONLY reciprocate with women who are not in college at that school. I do not see this turn of events reaching it’s inevitable logical conclusion unabated. I see men and women waking up and realizing they have been had.
https://youtu.be/Fa0g5Fzget4
“You must remember this, a kiss is just a kiss…”
Unless there’s no verbal consent, then it’s RAPE!!!!
Romance, just more collateral damage of the SJW onslaught. How sad.
Nah. The result they’re aiming for is kissing the byootocks of a loud and annoying radical special interest group; a group that cares nothing about rape, but only vengeance against men who won’t have sex with them because they are unattractive both inside and out. And corrupt politicians don’t actually give a rip about the people involved or their constituents, because those losers aren’t loud enough and don’t get media attention because they’re heterosexual and mostly (perhaps 100%) white.
I just got back from seeing Captain America Civil War (loved it!), and no spoiler, but at one point, a character said (paraphrasing here), “If a country is defeated by an enemy, it can always rebuild. But when it crumbles from within, it’s dead forever.”
Sadly, we’re witnessing option 2 here and now.
Actually it appears to amount to the same thing.
Wonder what this type of legislation will do for the Hollywood B-celeb “leaked” home porn video cottage industry?
Very naive. Video will prove nothing. She will say “he forced/threatened me to act that way on camera/ I was under duress/ I changed my mind, it was rape” etc. and it’s over.
Do not go to college. It teaches you nothing and wastes your money (I taught at one for 9 years I know what I’m talking about). Stay away from women.
GO MGTOW, SAVE YOUR LIFE AND MONEY
Absolutely. As with this law, nothing could possibly go wrong there.
Seriously, is there nothing the government will not try to legislate?
every college then now and in the future, that is for the guy with enough brass.
Actually I don’t think they could see your hand if you used it to shove a french fry up their nose.
As well as “I was drinking earlier in the evening and was unable to give informed consent.”
There is literally no way to reasonably and effectively manage compliance. Which means, all sex with college girls is hereby illegal. Now, I’m not at all against abstinance; in fact, I’m for it, but I am against over-reaching government regulation.
This is why the ratio of women to men in college is around 60/40 and growing wider. Never mind avoiding college women, more and more men are avoiding college itself altogether, and marriage, and citizenship if they can find a sane place overseas.
Eeyup. But no asterisk needed, because of course this only applies to white guys, the default assumption for all legislation forward-going. What’s mind blowing is that these laws are being passed by white guys.
Somebody needs to tell Barney to put the bullet back in his pocket. Like maybe a buncha fed-up voters.
We may get to find out. A college basketball player, I think in Kansas is suing the school and the Department of Education.
Wonders.
Not one damn thing.
Two comments:
1. Approving every single act:
I think a lot of this comes from the promotion of anal sex in porn. Mattress Girl and many other cases I have read about involve anal sex.
2. Dating girls off campus:
UT-Austin seeks to expel male student for alleged off-campus sex assault with non-UT student
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26456/
Well one would have to have a white board in view of the camera but close enough to be reachable to the couple then two columns listing his and her questions. Each participant would each have a green and blue marker and as the questions are asked mark a green check for affirmative and red for negative. Then they could whisper the questions and thereby avoid the embarrassment of having the questions recorded.
And to think someone once said pantyhose ruined foreplay.
White yes ”guys” nah.
Limited goverment, respect of individual rights and private property is the only reasonable form of government.
That may not matter. Schools are already getting involved in off-campus issues involving non-students if a single student is involved:
“UT-Austin seeks to expel male student for alleged off-campus sex assault with non-UT student”
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/26456/
Don’t worry. That’s all coming soon. Regarding the marriage thing, that’ll be legislated after liberal apostate churches conduct enough of them so that the concept is no longer so shocking to secular people. Then there will be griping about the fundamentalist churches refusing. Which is why those churches need to prepare now so they’re ready when they lose their 501(c)(3) status. And also to start forming small home study groups, because it’ll come to that eventually.
As for the kindergarten, there’s not much to be done about that, because when the *cough*teaching*cough* gets too offensive for religious people, homeschooling will be outlawed. Of course, Muslim schools will be exempted from those requirements; they’ll only apply to Christian schools, and perhaps Jewish. Non-religious parents of children going to public schools already don’t care for the most part, so no worries there.
http://paganvigil.com/miPictures/kYFHOstamp.gif
Not just for libertarians.
“Watch, when Cosby dies, and the witch hunt that has surrounded him blows over, it will come out that most of those women lied.”
I agree.
Well, exchange students won’t be affected unless they’re European, or maybe Japanese.
They won’t back off they’ll sue his estate.
Unlike the others on this board, I don’t think it is about stopping sex or entrapping beta males. I think it is about undermining the presumption of innocence explicit in the Constitution. “Innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of free men. The current powers that be clearly want “guilty until proven innocent”, even if “until” is never.
Look at Canada right now. The parents in Quebec are fighting like mad against programs that introduce homosexuality in kindergarten.
That’s why Trump got the support he did.
“I think a lot of this comes from the promotion of anal sex in porn. Mattress Girl and many other cases I have read about involve anal sex.”
Me, you and radical feminists like Professor Gail Dines all agree about the connection between (a) hardcore porn and (b) the trend toward anal sex and other deviant acts being “normalized.”
Let’s not kid ourselves: John “Buttman” Stagliano started a trend (so-called “gonzo” porn) in the 1990s, and the Internet has made that vile stuff widely available to teenage boys whose earliest ideas of what “sex” is like are inspired by genuinely depraved scenes of sordid degradation.
As bad as things were in the 1970s, teenage boys didn’t have access to hardcore porn back then. However they might have been corrupted by Playboy or Penthouse, the average teenage boy never saw anything more explicit than that, and probably never even imagined some of the sick sadistic stuff that is now popular in online pornography. The “Belle Knox” saga sort of woke me up to this problem, as she described her own experiences.
I kind of agree with that, in the sense that all evil things the gubmint does starts by mainstreaming what seems to the ignorant to be “no brainers” (such as “protecting our little princesses from rape”), then applying the same irrational boiling-the-frog “logic” to other legislation. Until the oblivious wake up one day wondering how it came to this, but by then, it’s too late.
They’re going to lose, but I wish them luck with that.
We need more libertarians that are interested in liberty regarding stuff other than pot legalization.
Most people also need the word “liberty” fully explained to them.
Don’t suppose that kid is non-white, eh? That would be real helpful.
Well, in all fairness, sometimes people aren’t exactly rational after using cannabis. But then I’ve seen folks who aren’t exactly rational after a couple of beers either.
Yes, we certainly need more people interested in liberty.
Exactly, those are the two most interested in American Education. I think the Japanese actually spend more. Foreign students add a big chunk to local economies, on top of tuition etc.
That’s the scary truth.
Porn is addictive, and, as you know, heavy users (thanks internet!) require images that are increasingly more depraved (way, WAY more depraved than anal sex) in order to get off. And it’s not just males either, but increasingly more females, too. I’ve heard terrible things in my counseling ministry, like marriages breaking up because one of the partners can no longer enjoy sex with their spouse. Plus, sex is a powerful and visceral motivator, and it’s hard for porn addicts to kick their habit.
Really, it’s just sickening. And literally satanic, I’m afraid.
Lesbians are now taking over sororities, too. Because nobody wants to be accused of homophobia, see, trendy sorority chapters on “progressive” campuses consider it obligatory to have at least one or two “out” lesbian members. Well, these girls move up in the hierarchy, and when the next rush season comes around, they’re assessing the freshmen girls as potential girlfriends. So you let one or two lesbians in the sorority, and in two or three years, you’re likely to have a half-dozen lesbians, and the whole atmosphere of “sisterhood” is changed to something rather different. Word gets around campus, and hetero girls become somewhat reluctant to pledge certain sororities, and the social prestige of the chapter invariably suffers.
There is a reason behind some forms of discrimination. Not all prejudice is irrational, and I cite here just one obvious example of why issues of gender and sexuality are not analogous to issues of race. Certain institutions and organizations are all-male or all-female for a reason, and tolerance toward homosexuality has feasible limits because, unlike race, homosexuality is a behavioral phenomenon. I cannot become Chinese, but I could be (and certainly was, in my youth) an object of homosexual interest. While I am capable of turning down a proposition without being offended, it is a fact that some homosexuals are predatory in their pursuits, and that some vulnerable young people are quite literally recruited into homosexuality in this manner. The “born that way” rhetoric of the LGBT activist cadre never deceived me, and the accusation of “ignorance” — as if there are no heterosexuals with direct knowledge of gay culture — always made me laugh. Am I prejudiced against homosexuals? Am I a bigot? A hater? Am I deluded by an irrational “phobia”? No, I am realistic and unwilling to pretend that I don’t know what I actually know. The claim by radical feminists that sexuality is “socially constructed” is bogus, of course, but we cannot deny that social trends and attitudes influence sexual behavior. Well, if the prevailing trends and attitudes are an endless pep rally for Gay Pride, with Hollywood, the news media and the education establishment all shaking their pom poms as cheerleaders for Team Queer, exactly what do we expect the result to be?
If you’re running a three-card monte hustle and looking for a chump, look elsewhere.
You don’t fool me.
How is affirmative consent established within marriage? As the legislature has passed regulation in one venue and Universities are going off-campus to enforce it in others how long before legislatures bring such law to the marriage bed? I realize I’m suggesting a domino effect. Is that so far from likely? Won’t feminist interests encourage the extension?
[…] AS I have said before, the Left will, if allowed, empower the State to enforce “equality”, and when the State is given that much power liberties are lost. This, of course pleases the left to no end, as individual liberties are at the top of their hit list. And the war on gender is not the only path they are using. Oh no, they are, as The Other McCain notes, in the process of regulating sex […]
Why would 150 legislators do that, 40% who are GOP? That makes no sense. What does make sense is that Americans are living increasingly shuttered and urbanized lives where idiocy is easily mainstreamed through their car radios and TVs. “Rape culture”? Sure, why not? As Catnip the Cat said “Dat sounds logical.”
Why? Because that is what the UN wants. The American Constitution is incompatible with a socialist world. A new constitution has already been written:
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?72860-Revolutionary-Communist-Party-tours-colleges-with-new-US-socialist-constitution
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27099/
David Horowitz calls the “rights” in such socialist/communist constitutions “paper rights”–in other words, rights that don’t mean anything realistically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBucK8YQf08
John Kerry has been telling students to prepare for a world without borders:
http://www.weaselzippers.us/270174-john-kerry-tells-college-students-prepare-for-a-borderless-world/
First up, the North American Union; then larger regions. Right now, the American Constitution is incompatible with those of Canada and Mexico. Our Bill of Rights in particular is a major incompatibility, especially when it concerns the First and Second Amendments, as well as due process and rights of the accused. That is why feminist “rape culture” and Black Lies Matter is doing its damnedest to undermine the criminal justice system.
“Affirmative Consent” (Yes means Yes) is the first encoding in US law of a complete violation of due process and rights of the accused. If we let this pass–in the mistaken notion that women are being raped left and right on college campuses–then other laws in other areas will break down those rights.
Yes. I think you’re on the right track.
You’re absolutely right.
Well, there is that.
Wanting something and convincing people are two different things. That’s why I always laugh at “cultural Marxism.” Is that how easy it is to topple a national culture? Just introduce some abstract art and other tomfoolery?
There’s something else at work when 150 members of a legislature vote on such an insane law and it has nothing to do with the U.N. The biggest sea change in America the last decade has been this weird resurgence of feminism sold as the next great barricade one must man to set right all America’s past sins.
Whoever those legislators are they are not living in the real world. No factory worker or farmer would ever even think such a bill worth passing.
Behold the neo-Puritanism and hatred of sexuality of modern feminism.