Dennis Prager says women campus assualts lie

[Zixinus]

Are you sure that men who are forward with women are ALL pathetic? also, I said "some kind of touching at some point" you equated that with molestation.... perhaps we're not talking about the same things, no?

I am saying that the attitude that "women should just put up with it" only benefits pathetic males. Why should this attitude be somehow socially valid or be acceptable?

The difference between these pathetic males and men who are forward is that the forward-acting men are still acting with consent, that is they are doing something that the woman in question asked for or expected to get. The difference merely is that they got a little more than they expected.

also, I said "some kind of touching at some point" you equated that with molestation.... perhaps we're not talking about the same things, no?

That is a risk when you are writing unclear and confusing sentences, yes. Because the way I could phrased what you written seems to be about that I should accept that women should put up with unwanted and unasked for touching because that is the only way I will get some? Even though my sexual habits weren't the point of discussion?

The original discussion was ABOUT drunk clueless college students, not those in established relationships. Those in established relationships don't have to worry about such things... supposedly.

Really? Because the original topic seems to me to be about a asshole politician dismissing, deliberately misunderstanding and lying about the statistics of large number of women getting raped while attending college and dismissing the federal program trying to fix that.

[Covenant]

I also find the idea of a "man who acts forward" to be somewhat antiquated. What do you consider to be "forward" really? The general definition is being too intimate too quickly, usually verbally, when you say something. Often paired with "I hope you don't think I'm being too forward, but" as in:

"I hope you don't think I'm being too forward, but I'd like to take you out for coffee some time."

Not "I hope you don't think I'm being too forward, but I'm grabbing your ass."

Forward, in this sense, is useless because it no longer means anything. What is "too forward" will depend on the person. There is no standard to apply to everyone, except a "hands off, act polite, affirmative consent" policy which is what is making so many people act as if we've forced them to give up the idea of procreation.

[TheHammer]

The problem I have isn't calling guys who get girls blackout drunk rapists. Because they are. The problem is expanding the definition of rape such that a guy doesn't know, and can't know if an act is rape, because it hinges on a mental state that he doesn't know: the girl's reaction once she gets sober. The phenomenon is called beer goggles for a reason. Just because a girl has had a couple drinks doesn't mean she cannot consent. But if you define rape such that regret afterward is a retroactive cancellation of consent, then how can a guy avoid it?

Was the girl who was "blackout drunk"* forced to drink that alcohol? A girl who is blackout drunk isn't unconscious, she simply isn't going to remember what she did the next day. From outward appearances, a "blackout drunk" girl might appear to be fully aware of what's going on around her, actively participating in whatever is going on. And if she happens to be horny in that state, and some guy who himself has likely been drinking happens to meet what she is looking for in the moment, suddenly he's a rapist if they have sex? That's bullshit. What if they both have regrets the next day? Did they rape each other? Unless the guy "put something" in her drink, if the girl has regrets the next day about who she slept with, then she just needs to chalk that up to "she fucked up", same as a guy would if he got hammered and banged some chick and regretted it.

*Blackout drunk isn't the same as being passed out drunk and the two terms should not be conflated or confused.

[TheHammer]

Simon, the reason you see such a knee jerk reaction to this issue is that often times men being accused of rape are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Do you actually have any evidence that this is the case? Beyond media sensationalism, which isn't exclusive to rape (it happens for any high-profile crime ... remember George Zimmerman?), I have never seen any evidence that men accused of rape are treated worse than alleged criminals of any other class. This just feels like a vague appeal to a group that doesn't actually exist, like people earlier in this thread referencing "crazy feminists who think ALL men are rapists".

I was referring to media sensationalism, and the "court of public opinion" for the most part as being reasons behind the knee jerk reaction.

However, that being said, in the same posting you quoted from I cited California's "Yes means yes" law which does in fact put the burden of proof on the accused.

[Terralthra]

However, that being said, in the same posting you quoted from I cited California's "Yes means yes" law which does in fact put the burden of proof on the accused.

You can't say it puts the burden of the proof on the accused when the law doesn't apply in criminal court. The "Yes means yes" law is a law which requires that colleges use that standard when educating students and in their own policies. In terms of the law regarding rape cases in criminal court, it doesn't change a thing (and, in fact, "affirmative and ongoing consent" was already the standard for criminal law, so your bullshit complaint is bullshit in two different ways).

[TheHammer]

However, that being said, in the same posting you quoted from I cited California's "Yes means yes" law which does in fact put the burden of proof on the accused.

You can't say it puts the burden of the proof on the accused when the law doesn't apply in criminal court. The "Yes means yes" law is a law which requires that colleges use that standard when educating students and in their own policies. In terms of the law regarding rape cases in criminal court, it doesn't change a thing (and, in fact, "affirmative and ongoing consent" was already the standard for criminal law, so your bullshit complaint is bullshit in two different ways).

The various articles (CNN, Time et al) I've read have presented it as a redefinition of what consent is, and thus implied they could be used in criminal cases. If that's not accurate then I withdraw that specific point.

Regardless however, the wording of the law certainly increases the perception that court of public opinion tends to view someone accused of rape as guilty until proven innocent. And its because of that perception that you get a knee jerk reaction from men whenever someone tries to define rape/sexual assault in ambiguous circumstances. Especially when those circumstances (such as whether or not someone was drunk) don't appear to be applied equally to both genders.

[Terralthra]

To clarify for everyone involved, the law (in California) regarding consent is and has been for quite some time:

In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, "consent" shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.

A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.

Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility of evidence or the burden of proof on the issue of consent.
...
In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of consent, is not sufficient to constitute consent.

"Positive cooperation in act or attitude" is the key phrase. Absence of a no, in other words, is not sufficient for consent, under CA law, and so it has been for a while.

Blackout drunk is neatly covered under (4)(b):

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
...
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

Someone who is blackout drunk pretty obviously falls under that section, to me, though maybe I can't fully wrap my head around the entire issue, since the rather obvious "don't fuck someone if you can smell the booze on their breath from the other side of the room and they're incapable of walking without staggering" has apparently not occurred to TheHammer. People don't go around blackout drunk and no one can tell.

[Channel72]

An obvious solution is to not have sex with anyone who's drunk. The correct attitude is if its ambiguous weather there's consent, don't do it. Frankly, if you have sex with someone who's drunk and get accused of rape, I don't have much in the way of sympathy.

Yeah, I agree. Although your suggestion regarding alcohol is probably not so realistic - many social situations that lead to sexual encounters often involve alcohol, and it can be difficult to tell how drunk a person really is based on nothing but external observations. Plus, alcohol is really an integral part of how many people socialize.

I think a good rule is simply not to have sex with anyone the first time you meet them - and ideally to postpone sex until you really know them pretty well and a solid emotional connection has been established. This might sound a bit conservative in 2014, but I think it's a very good practice that avoids a lot of potential problems or misunderstandings.

[Simon_Jester]

I considered responding to cmdrjones, but he's a babbling idiot and most of what he and his respondents have said is sort of a tangent.

Well, it's probably an uphill battle because, in the popular mindset, rape is a crime that is right up there with murder in terms of severity...

So naturally men don't want to be associated with that, or even consider that any sexual encounters they've had with women are anything remotely like that. The long-term solution is a cultural shift via education, but it's going to be an uphill battle because the word "rape" is an extremely powerful word which will constantly act as a stumbling block in this conversation. It's going to be difficult to equate persistently pressuring a woman to have sex, and like - violently assaulting and sexually brutalizing a woman. Since the word "rapist" conjures up the latter scenario this sort of resistance is expected.

Fair enough, but on a forum like this I'm used to expecting people to be able to think on a college level; we should know better than to freak out because our colloquial idea of what "rape" means doesn't line up either with the dictionary definition or with what kind of coerced sexual activity actually happens and has real effects on women.

The problem I have isn't calling guys who get girls blackout drunk rapists. Because they are. The problem is expanding the definition of rape such that a guy doesn't know, and can't know if an act is rape, because it hinges on a mental state that he doesn't know: the girl's reaction once she gets sober. The phenomenon is called beer goggles for a reason. Just because a girl has had a couple drinks doesn't mean she cannot consent. But if you define rape such that regret afterward is a retroactive cancellation of consent, then how can a guy avoid it?

Fair enough, but no one's seriously proposing to enshrine such a definition of rape into criminal law.

What is being proposed is that, for purposes of rape education, which is NOT criminal law and IS purely intended to train guys on what does and does not constitute unacceptable sexual conduct... well, "yes means yes." "Maybe" does not mean yes, silence does not mean yes, "yes" means yes.

This has the positive side effect that if you follow this simple rule, no one can justifiably accuse you of rape in a court of law after the fact and expect the accusation to have any chance of sticking, unless there is massive evidence of some other kind against you for some bizarre fluke of bad luck.

The whole "what if women who regret sex start accusing men of rape" thing is a red herring.

[Kon_El]

Someone who is blackout drunk pretty obviously falls under that section, to me, though maybe I can't fully wrap my head around the entire issue, since the rather obvious "don't fuck someone if you can smell the booze on their breath from the other side of the room and they're incapable of walking without staggering" has apparently not occurred to TheHammer. People don't go around blackout drunk and no one can tell.

I can't tell you how many times I told the tale of a night of drinking to some of my old roommates who didn't seem overly impaired while partying. It is very possible to be blackout drunk without appearing to any more intoxicated than someone who has had a few beers. This sort of thing is especially common among people who drink to excess on a regular basis. Like collage students have a tendency to do.

[TheHammer]

To clarify for everyone involved, the law (in California) regarding consent is and has been for quite some time:

In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, "consent" shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will. The person must act freely and voluntarily and have knowledge of the nature of the act or transaction involved.

A current or previous dating or marital relationship shall not be sufficient to constitute consent where consent is at issue in a prosecution under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289.

Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility of evidence or the burden of proof on the issue of consent.
...
In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, evidence that the victim suggested, requested, or otherwise communicated to the defendant that the defendant use a condom or other birth control device, without additional evidence of consent, is not sufficient to constitute consent.

"Positive cooperation in act or attitude" is the key phrase. Absence of a no, in other words, is not sufficient for consent, under CA law, and so it has been for a while.

Blackout drunk is neatly covered under (4)(b):

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
...
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

Someone who is blackout drunk pretty obviously falls under that section, to me, though maybe I can't fully wrap my head around the entire issue, since the rather obvious "don't fuck someone if you can smell the booze on their breath from the other side of the room and they're incapable of walking without staggering" has apparently not occurred to TheHammer. People don't go around blackout drunk and no one can tell.

Actually you're wrong. People can be blackout drunk and its not possible for others to tell. Ask anyone who has ever drunk texted before, woken up the next day and read the texts wondering who the hell wrote them. They are often detailed and coherent, but the person who sent them doesn't remember doing so.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800062/

For a long time, alcohol was thought to exert a general depressant effect on the central nervous system (CNS). However, currently the consensus is that specific regions of the brain are selectively vulnerable to the acute effects of alcohol. An alcohol-induced blackout is the classic example; the subject is temporarily unable to form new long-term memories while relatively maintaining other skills such as talking or even driving.
...
An alcoholic blackout is amnesia for the events of any part of a drinking episode without loss of consciousness. It is characterized by memory impairment during intoxication in the relative absence of other skill deficits. It is not to be confused with ‘passing out’ [9]. Early documentation from Alcoholics Anonymous describes a variety of blackout behavior, especially in the en-bloc type, which includes driving for long distances or carrying on apparently normal conversations at parties. Subjects often report waking in strange places without any memory of how they got there.

Say you're at a frat party, you sit down on a coach next to a pretty girl and start up a conversation. She's been drinking - but hey so have you, that's what you're there for right?. You're flirting, she's flirting back and seems really into you. One of you suggests that both go back to your dorm room and obviously you both agree. She wakes up the next day, doesn't remember how she got there - suddenly you're a rapist. You didn't give her the alcohol, you didn't drug her, you didn't force her to do anything, in essence you did the exact same things that she did but "you're a rapist". I think you can see why that's a problem.

Saying "Don't have sex with someone who has alcohol on their breath" is not a realistic standard, nor could it be evenly applied since most likely both persons will have been drinking if one of them has been.

[Grumman]

The problem I have isn't calling guys who get girls blackout drunk rapists. Because they are. The problem is expanding the definition of rape such that a guy doesn't know, and can't know if an act is rape, because it hinges on a mental state that he doesn't know: the girl's reaction once she gets sober. The phenomenon is called beer goggles for a reason. Just because a girl has had a couple drinks doesn't mean she cannot consent. But if you define rape such that regret afterward is a retroactive cancellation of consent, then how can a guy avoid it?

Fair enough, but no one's seriously proposing to enshrine such a definition of rape into criminal law.

But what they are proposing isn't much better. Throwing million dollar fines at any college that doesn't destroy your career before it starts based on 51% certainty is going to make the idiocy of Zero Tolerance that much worse.

[Terralthra]

Someone who is blackout drunk pretty obviously falls under that section, to me, though maybe I can't fully wrap my head around the entire issue, since the rather obvious "don't fuck someone if you can smell the booze on their breath from the other side of the room and they're incapable of walking without staggering" has apparently not occurred to TheHammer. People don't go around blackout drunk and no one can tell.

Actually you're wrong. People can be blackout drunk and its not possible for others to tell. Ask anyone who has ever drunk texted before, woken up the next day and read the texts wondering who the hell wrote them. They are often detailed and coherent, but the person who sent them doesn't remember doing so.

Wow, what a staggering counter-argument. "I couldn't tell they were drunk from the texts they were sending me from a different zip code, therefore there's no way I could tell in the same room!" It's a good thing I mentioned smelling like booze from across the room and staggering, rather than the coherency of text messages (a medium well known for its excellent grammar otherwise, right?).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800062/

For a long time, alcohol was thought to exert a general depressant effect on the central nervous system (CNS). However, currently the consensus is that specific regions of the brain are selectively vulnerable to the acute effects of alcohol. An alcohol-induced blackout is the classic example; the subject is temporarily unable to form new long-term memories while relatively maintaining other skills such as talking or even driving.
...
An alcoholic blackout is amnesia for the events of any part of a drinking episode without loss of consciousness. It is characterized by memory impairment during intoxication in the relative absence of other skill deficits. It is not to be confused with ‘passing out’ [9]. Early documentation from Alcoholics Anonymous describes a variety of blackout behavior, especially in the en-bloc type, which includes driving for long distances or carrying on apparently normal conversations at parties. Subjects often report waking in strange places without any memory of how they got there.

Say you're at a frat party, you sit down on a coach next to a pretty girl and start up a conversation. She's been drinking - but hey so have you, that's what you're there for right?. You're flirting, she's flirting back and seems really into you. One of you suggests that both go back to your dorm room and obviously you both agree. She wakes up the next day, doesn't remember how she got there - suddenly you're a rapist. You didn't give her the alcohol, you didn't drug her, you didn't force her to do anything, in essence you did the exact same things that she did but "you're a rapist". I think you can see why that's a problem.

Yes, I can, indeed, see why that's a problem, but the problem I see is "a culture in which drinking to the point of blackouts is the standard social activity for people who have no idea of their tolerance for psychoactive drugs." I'm guessing you see a different problem?

Saying "Don't have sex with someone who has alcohol on their breath" is not a realistic standard, nor could it be evenly applied since most likely both persons will have been drinking if one of them has been.

That isn't what I said, but feel free to keep strawmanning if it makes your argument easier.

[Simon_Jester]

Thing is, fixing the "college students drink too damn much" problem is, while related to the "rape rates are high" problem, not something that can be directly addressed by the same means.

But what they are proposing isn't much better. Throwing million dollar fines at any college that doesn't destroy your career before it starts based on 51% certainty is going to make the idiocy of Zero Tolerance that much worse.

Uh... I think they're proposing this as a basis for rape awareness education, which is a very different animal than having universities be required to summarily expel anyone accused of committing regretted-morning-after-sex.

It is right and proper to say "you really ought to stick to a standard of only having sex that the other party is actively cooperating with and explicitly consenting to." It is also right and proper to show at least some caution in convicting people of rape on minimal evidence (whether criminal or civil penalties are being applied).

[TheHammer]

Someone who is blackout drunk pretty obviously falls under that section, to me, though maybe I can't fully wrap my head around the entire issue, since the rather obvious "don't fuck someone if you can smell the booze on their breath from the other side of the room and they're incapable of walking without staggering" has apparently not occurred to TheHammer. People don't go around blackout drunk and no one can tell.

Actually you're wrong. People can be blackout drunk and its not possible for others to tell. Ask anyone who has ever drunk texted before, woken up the next day and read the texts wondering who the hell wrote them. They are often detailed and coherent, but the person who sent them doesn't remember doing so.

Wow, what a staggering counter-argument. "I couldn't tell they were drunk from the texts they were sending me from a different zip code, therefore there's no way I could tell in the same room!" It's a good thing I mentioned smelling like booze from across the room and staggering, rather than the coherency of text messages (a medium well known for its excellent grammar otherwise, right?).

Your attempt at obfuscation here is rather pathetic. The point is that a persons actions continue on as if they were in control of their faculties, able to carry on conversations and making decisions whether or not they remember it the next day. Anyone who has been drinking can smell like booze, and the human nose is not a breathalyzer and staggering is likewise an inaccurate indicator of whether or not someone is drunk. Sure it might be a clue, but if someone staggers but is otherwise able to carry on a conversation its not as though its a conclusive piece of evidence that they are not in control of their own actions.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800062/

For a long time, alcohol was thought to exert a general depressant effect on the central nervous system (CNS). However, currently the consensus is that specific regions of the brain are selectively vulnerable to the acute effects of alcohol. An alcohol-induced blackout is the classic example; the subject is temporarily unable to form new long-term memories while relatively maintaining other skills such as talking or even driving.
...
An alcoholic blackout is amnesia for the events of any part of a drinking episode without loss of consciousness. It is characterized by memory impairment during intoxication in the relative absence of other skill deficits. It is not to be confused with ‘passing out’ [9]. Early documentation from Alcoholics Anonymous describes a variety of blackout behavior, especially in the en-bloc type, which includes driving for long distances or carrying on apparently normal conversations at parties. Subjects often report waking in strange places without any memory of how they got there.

Say you're at a frat party, you sit down on a coach next to a pretty girl and start up a conversation. She's been drinking - but hey so have you, that's what you're there for right?. You're flirting, she's flirting back and seems really into you. One of you suggests that both go back to your dorm room and obviously you both agree. She wakes up the next day, doesn't remember how she got there - suddenly you're a rapist. You didn't give her the alcohol, you didn't drug her, you didn't force her to do anything, in essence you did the exact same things that she did but "you're a rapist". I think you can see why that's a problem.

Yes, I can, indeed, see why that's a problem, but the problem I see is "a culture in which drinking to the point of blackouts is the standard social activity for people who have no idea of their tolerance for psychoactive drugs." I'm guessing you see a different problem?

There are a variety of problems that might lead up to the situation, but since this entire discussion is centered around what is and isn't considered rape, the obvious problem referenced her is an unequal application of the law and potentially life ruining circumstances for an individual who did not deserve it. If you're wanting to change the "alcohol culture" of American colleges, then good luck buddy.

Saying "Don't have sex with someone who has alcohol on their breath" is not a realistic standard, nor could it be evenly applied since most likely both persons will have been drinking if one of them has been.

That isn't what I said, but feel free to keep strawmanning if it makes your argument easier.

Let me rephrase, your expectation that individuals who have been drinking be capable of determining whether or not someone else who also has been drinking is current in a state of mind that will result in an alcoholic blackout, or in the state of mind that they are just having a good time is an unrealistic one.

[Beowulf]

Thing is, fixing the "college students drink too damn much" problem is, while related to the "rape rates are high" problem, not something that can be directly addressed by the same means.

But what they are proposing isn't much better. Throwing million dollar fines at any college that doesn't destroy your career before it starts based on 51% certainty is going to make the idiocy of Zero Tolerance that much worse.

Uh... I think they're proposing this as a basis for rape awareness education, which is a very different animal than having universities be required to summarily expel anyone accused of committing regretted-morning-after-sex.

It is right and proper to say "you really ought to stick to a standard of only having sex that the other party is actively cooperating with and explicitly consenting to." It is also right and proper to show at least some caution in convicting people of rape on minimal evidence (whether criminal or civil penalties are being applied).

Rape accusations do not necessarily have to result in criminal or civil proceedings. By making people aware of a lower standard to be called rape, you make it more likely for someone to be accused of such in their own social circles. And rape is guilty unless proven innocent in the court of public opinion.

Also, the CA "Yes means yes" law is explicitly targeted at college disciplinary proceedings.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, if we're just talking about getting accused of rape in one's own social circle... I'm a little confused here.

If men are worried that women will spread rumors that the consensual sex they now regret was rape... that can already happen. That's not new, and it's always been relatively rare. Why are you treating this like that's a new problem

If men are worries that they'll have to play a game of simon-says in every sexual activity... that sounds like an idiotic parody of what the California law is actually talking about. Affirmative consent is something quite different than either "sex with regrets is rape" OR "she didn't say simon-says, therefore it's rape." It's "if she wasn't actively assenting and participating in the sex, then it's rape."

In my opinion, it's not reasonable for men to expect the right to treat the absence of refusal as being consent by default, and men have no legitimate interest in demanding this right.

[General Zod]

As long as a man is popular enough his reputation is going to be just fine whether the rape accusations are true or not. Especially for athletes and film makers. If anything I hear more cases where women who came forward had their reputations completely ruined.

[amigocabal]

Well, if we're just talking about getting accused of rape in one's own social circle... I'm a little confused here.

If men are worried that women will spread rumors that the consensual sex they now regret was rape... that can already happen. That's not new, and it's always been relatively rare. Why are you treating this like that's a new problem

If men are worries that they'll have to play a game of simon-says in every sexual activity... that sounds like an idiotic parody of what the California law is actually talking about. Affirmative consent is something quite different than either "sex with regrets is rape" OR "she didn't say simon-says, therefore it's rape." It's "if she wasn't actively assenting and participating in the sex, then it's rape."

In my opinion, it's not reasonable for men to expect the right to treat the absence of refusal as being consent by default, and men have no legitimate interest in demanding this right.

The people who voted for the law do not understand what it implies.

http://www.presstelegram.com/government ... l-assaults

When asked how an innocent person is to prove he or she indeed received consent, Lowenthal said, “Your guess is as good as mine. I think it’s a legal issue. Like any legal issue, that goes to court.”

[Simon_Jester]

Since the existing principle of "innocent until proven guilty" remains in place in the courts, as a legal issue, and no one is proposing to change that, I think this is less of an issue than you make it out to be.

Also, nothing in that article actually gainsays my point, which is that affirmative consent means that your partner in a sexual activity is an actual partipicant in the activity. Rather than you going "you didn't say no and you haven't broken up with me so you must want to sleep with me!" and interpreting that as consent.

[Terralthra]

And, as I pointed out, the actual criminal law in California already defined consent as "active cooperation in act or attitude" for years before the "yes means yes" law was passed. So I really don't know what anyone is arguing about, except TheHammer, who really wants to be able to safely fuck blacked out people. I'll get back to that argument when I'm feeling masochistic enough.

[cmdrjones]

God you're stupid. Or, more likely, you're a rape-defending liar. Well, I guess you could be both.

Marriage has legal benefits. It also has symbolic (and in some cases religious) meaning. It is not in any way just about sex.

Clear now?

"Just" <--- yet there it is.... why do you think those legal benefits arose in the first place?

[cmdrjones]

As always... Cui buono?

The money for all of these womyns studies this and take back the night that have to come from somewhere, right? If the problem is SOO severe, then we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW (tm) TEH WIMMINZ IZ DYING!!!

Hey new guy, learn how to talk in an adult manner.

So far your record in this thread contains of a lot of shitposting and my limit with idiots coming in here is about used up.

Ok got it. Then Marriage has no meaning because it is no different than being sinlge. Thank you.

Are you a fucking idiot, visually impaired or else? Please explain to me how you just managed to miss the reply by covenant to the benefits marriage implies. If I see another shitpost of yours in here I'll toss the whole thing out.

"Learn to talk in an adult manner..."

"Are you a fucking idiot...?"

Where do you come from, may I ask?

[amigocabal]

And, as I pointed out, the actual criminal law in California already defined consent as "active cooperation in act or attitude" for years before the "yes means yes" law was passed. So I really don't know what anyone is arguing about, except TheHammer, who really wants to be able to safely fuck blacked out people. I'll get back to that argument when I'm feeling masochistic enough.

So what was the purpose of the law, and why only apply it to college students? Surely the legislators were aware of Iniguez.

[Terralthra]

And, as I pointed out, the actual criminal law in California already defined consent as "active cooperation in act or attitude" for years before the "yes means yes" law was passed. So I really don't know what anyone is arguing about, except TheHammer, who really wants to be able to safely fuck blacked out people. I'll get back to that argument when I'm feeling masochistic enough.

So what was the purpose of the law, and why only apply it to college students? Surely the legislators were aware of Iniguez.

The purpose of the law was to incentivize colleges to teach consent better to their students. I can't believe this is difficult for you to understand. Whether or not you want to call it "rape" or "sexual assault" or whatever, surely you will be willing to admit that there is a lot of shitty sexual behavior going on at the college level? Behavior that is less than what we would all wish for? NMN campaigns and so on aim a lot at the behavior of victims. YMY campaigns try to aim at the decision-making of those who violate and claim they didn't mean to, or rationalize by saying "they didn't say no."