Sunday, June 8, 2014

Affirmative consent

This smacks of some world-class black-knighting to me:
A newly amended bill from a California lawmaker would require college students to stop in the heat of passion and establish verbal or written consent before having sex anywhere on campus, reports L.A. Weekly. SB 967, amended last week by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), would mandate that college students obtain "an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."
Women are constantly whining about consent and attempting to transform it into a nebulous concept that can be ex post facto withdrawn at will. The law is a brilliantly subversive notion, because female competition being what it is, women will start competing to preemptively offer consent.

I suspect de Leon actually thinks he is white-knighting and addressing a Very Serious Problem, but then, those who don't understand Game often find themselves facing the unintended consequences of their actions.


mickeypavic said...

Cant wait for the first rescinded consent rape case....does verbal retraction have preeminence over written consent?

mickeypavic said...

Marriage 1.0
Marriage 2.0
Written consent

Why do I have a sneaking suspicion written consent will eventually involve some form of monetary compensation down the track.

Doom said...

I have to wonder if parents, of an underage but eligible sex partner, can give consent without consulting the 'partner'. Especially with the Romeo and Juliet law, despite their age of consent being 18. Loopholes are so easy to spot.

John Cunningham said...

An effective alternative to a written consent is a video recording of the encounter. a gang rape charge was thrown out after one of the guys produced a recording from his smartphone showing that the girl was as enthusiastic and “into it” as the 5 guys she charged with rape.

Anonymous said...

Think you are underestimating the legal agenda, the point is to require men to prove beyond doubt in court that she said yes. The only possible defense will be to prove that you weren't at the place and time. A recording device could foil the charges, but I predict that making such a recording will itself be declared to be form of rape

Daniel said...

Why so spastic? Fraternity houses are now going to have consent forms at the door. The ladies will be fighting each other to fill it out first. May as well call it a Sex Green Card.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Leon thinks he's addressing a real problem. This is exactly what feminists want.

Salt said...

In writing I hope, and notarized.

liberranter said...

SB 967, amended last week by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), would mandate that college students obtain "an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."

Oh, but why limit the applicability of this to college students? Why not EVERYONE? After all, rape/withdrawn consent isn't just the province of college students. Isn't this a society-wide issue, affecting people of ALL ages/socioeconomic stations? This has to be followed to it's logical conclusion.

Retrenched said...

Rape is a crime with a continually expanding definition, an ever-lowering burden of proof, and no statute of limitations.

At this rate, by 2050 every western male over the age of five will be a convicted rapist.

Retrenched said...

And it's not like these consent forms are going to save any man from a rape rap either. All the girl would have to say is 'but I was pressured into signing it/drunk and/or stoned at the time/ I was confused and didn't know what it was' and there goes your formal, notarized consent right out the window.

American courts don't even expect women to honor their marriage contracts; how much more easily would they be let out of these?

Bob said...

Think it's a matter of them wanting to be able to spot the alphas easier?

As in the "loose cannon who doesn't play by the rules" type

Wonder if signing it for a man would actually lower his status

T.L. Ciottoli said...

Oh this will be fun.

It is just a reversion back to the norm of what marriage always really was: sex with contractual, written consent. It included the consent of all parties who would be affected by the consequences of sex, namely the parents, immediate family members, and then the community at large. It never was and never should be a merely 'personal' act, merely the private decision of two supposedly consensual adults.

But in this case some people in the West are reverting back to the norm by way of liberalism through statism rather than by way of conservatism or traditionalism. The libs are stumbling back towards the rigidity of social interaction between the sexes that they were supposed to have revolted against. Too rich. Too. Rich.

Just the same as the libs aligning themselves with Islam and Muslims, a culture far more savage, intolerant, unforgiving, and repressive than anything they revolted against in their own Western, Christian culture, even in the worst of times. Now in their desperation for definition, meaning, and control in their lives, in their desperate attempts to play god and shape the world in their own utopian image, they seek to legislate the very sexual acts they supposedly fought to liberate.

The irony will be lost on them. Guaranteed.

S. Thermite said...

They could make the form like one of those handgun sales record with carbon-copies- the pink copy goes to the girl, goldenrod to the guy, and the original gets mailed to Social Services in case there's a question about paternity 9 months later...

T.L. Ciottoli said...

The forms will be issued at birth, guarded by the parents (hmmm, no, musn't let that happen... guarded by the Community Sex Officer down at City Hall) until the appropriate age (10,15,18?)

Her packet of forms (with carbon copies as Doorstop suggested) will provide her date of birth (horrors!) and will be numbered, making her N-count verifiably clear to each and every one of her potential sexual partners.

After every 5th form, the packet will include a reminder to be tested at her local clinic for venereal diseases and various psychological disorders, and will also include general reminder to stop whoring around, increasing in verbal and rhetorical intensity until form 50, at which point, for the purposes of saving taxpayer money, the Whoring Advisory pages will cease, having been clearly ineffective.

xxxx said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
xxxx said...

The thing will be as follows:

1) For alphas, women will be enthusiastic to sign consent forms.

2) For betas (most men), women will play plausible deniability until the sex. Afterward, they can decide if they can sue the beta because of lack of consent. Betas who are not willing to have sex this way won't get laid, period.

It is only a step forward towards a better ability for women to use men as they want. The ability for a women to ruin a man's life only because of a whim.

brian said...

Well, any man who signs is clearly a beta, and so the tingles disappear. And when the girl says "No, you don't have to sign that", well, we know how that ends up.

And that's how you make the rape statistics match the hype you've been peddling for 40 years.

Bob said...

Reminds me of this satire vid: (A couple needing lawyers in the bedroom to agree consent for every act)

Amusing how this is becoming true heh.

Like I said it's another step to where the only guys being able to do anything at all (and getting the rewards from doing so) are guys who don't play by the rules, ANY rules.

Amusing at all the campaigns against rape, which is already a crime. It's not like they go on mass campaigns about anti-stabbings and muggings is it, it's not like the criminals are actually bothered. No, this is just to affect everyone else, who means no harm in the first place. Another shit-test that will only lead to more Elliot Rodgers.

patriarchal landmine said...

women must really want all their rights and privileges destroyed, because you could not find a better way to make that happen.

S. Thermite said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
S. Thermite said...

"Her packet of forms...will provide her date of birth (horrors!) and will be numbered, making her N-count verifiably clear to each and every one of her potential sexual partners."

I like the way you think, Vashine. It brings to mind the analogy of how only a fool would expect a buyer to pay the original factory price for a 10-15 year-old car that's been loaned, leased, rented, and/or sold to multiple previous drivers, and only a total fool would expect such a buyer to vow never to drive any other car afterwards.

APL said...

Of at a tangent, but interesting I think.
The BBC aired a series of programms about life in the Middle Ages, the second of the three, 'A Good Marriage' revealed that for a couple to get married in the Middle Ages in the United Kingdom, it required only the consent of both partners and a witness. The 'ceremony' could take place in a Pub, the street or back room of your own house.

It was only the intervention of the Church that elevated the significance of Marriage to something other than a straight forward contract between two consenting partners.

APL said...

"couple to get married in the Middle Ages in the United Kingdom"

Of course that should read 'England' as the United Kingdom had not been invented then.

En-sigma said...

Sounds like a major c-blocking. Courts have already established that consent cannot be given when drunk, so this agreement would have to be made pre-drunken stupor, and the whole reason for a woman drinking is so she can blame her "indiscretion" (read: giving away what men hold un-giveawayable(see if your wife lets you use THAT in scrable)) - she relies on alcohol in order to be free. Yikes. How much did he have to drink before he was talked into sponsoring that bill?

Harambe said...

Guy: "Do you want me to fuck you?"
Girl: "Yes!"
Guy: "Do you WANT me to FUCK you?"
Girl: "Yeah give it to me good!"
Guy: "Right, if you would just sign here, here, here, and initials here and here..."

hank.jim said...

The problem with these laws is it will AGAIN be prosecuted unequally. No one takes seriously man rape. If men don't give consent, is it rape? Women are more likely to make the accusation. The law will make non-consent the issue, but I still think defining what is consent to be the bigger issue and continuing to giving consent to be ridiculous.

"women will start competing to preemptively offer consent." And as easily withdrawn.

michael savell said...

I thought our masters and mistresses were against porn but here they are,willingly promoting female domination.
Irrespective of what you say,she said,she signed ,only her last police statement will be accepted in court so this is really saying"If you have sex it has to be on her terms and the way she wants it"so I hope you young guys have learned how to kiss ass.

Ron said...

This is not about women, this is not about men. Vox rightly notes that women will be clawing each other to sign those forms. But this will only be for the top 1-10% of men. For the rest these forms will not be signed and it will be used as one more impossible legal requirement to convict the masses.

But that's not the real purpose of the proposal, because the law has no chance of passing. The actual purpose of the law is to change the discourse so they can pass a less insane law meant to control the common man. Here is the trick: the masses will never accept "B", so the lawmakers propose "C" which is a totally insane version of "B". The republicans argue against "C" and attempt to compromise with the more reasonable version "B". The democrats grudgingly after much hysteria, "give in" to B which was what the lawmakers wanted all along.

That's the trick, and I think that's exactly what's being played here. So,e other less psychotic law or set of regulations will be proposed, when really we should be scrapping all of these insane sick laws

Post a Comment