California Passes Affirmative Consent Bill; Rape Apologists Retreat Into Fantasy

[ismnotwasm]

Hot damn

In a landmark piece of legislation, the California Senate yesterday passed an “affirmative consent” bill for colleges throughout the state. The first of its kind, SB 967 explicitly requires schools to adopt a standard of affirmative consent, defined in the bill as:

Affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
The bill goes on to describe in detail what does and does not count — protecting, for example, people who are raped while incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication. If signed by Governor Jerry Brown, the bill will require all public colleges and other institutions receiving state funding for student aid to implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.


This image represents both affirmative consent and how I feel about this bill. Via Shutterstock.

Unfortunately, many news outlets have ‘balanced’ coverage of this important piece of anti-rape legislation by giving concerned citizens and rape apologists a platform to propagate misinformation.

The Washington Post included the following quote:

“I feel like their hearts are in the right place, but the implementation is a little too excessive,” Henry Mu, a 24-year-old biology major at California State Long Beach told the Press-Telegram. “Are there guidelines? Are we supposed to check every five minutes?”

http://www.autostraddle.com/california-passes-affirmative-consent-bill-rape-apologists-retreat-into-fantasy-252946/

[NYC_SKP]

1. “Are there guidelines? Are we supposed to check every five minutes?”

If you have to ask, then you need to pull up your pants and make sure that your "date" has a ride home or is otherwise in good hands.

Because your hands are not good.

Seriously,

[littlemissmartypants]

2. My guess is Henry is a virgin.

No offense to those saving themselves...

WTF, indeed.

[theHandpuppet]

4. I never considered that possibility

I just figured he's never spent more than five minutes on any woman, so how would he know?

[ismnotwasm]

6. LoL

[Kath1]

7. LOL!

I think your being a little bit too "hard" on him.

[Kath1]

8. LOL!

"No offense to those saving themselves... "

None at all, but Henry needs to wake up.

[Sopkoviak]

3. I think I saw that movie

[ismnotwasm]

5. Non sequitur

And kinda creepy, given the topic

[JTFrog]

11. I accidentally alerted on that.

Yes, it's possible. I had a bad alert yesterday and I was checking to see if my alerting privileges were back yet and I accidentally hit send instead of cancel and it went with no comment. So pissed at myself for that. But hey, it was an honest mistake. Here were the results:


On Sat Aug 30, 2014, 12:29 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

I think I saw that movie
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=49823

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Aug 30, 2014, 01:08 PM, and voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not even a comment fro the alerter as to why it was alerted.


Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Since the alerter did not comment, neither will I.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No comments by alerter = no hide


Apparently the alerting comments are much more important than the offending message.

[ismnotwasm]

13. It's a baiting comment

Typical

[Nye Bevan]

10. Hint to whoever alerted on this post:

many jurors take exception to alerts in which the alerter cannot be bothered to provide a comment. It was 4-3 to leave.

[JTFrog]

12. I'd hate for them to have to use their own judgment. n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

9. ...