• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California bill requiring college students to give consent before sex becomes law

Taylor said:
So Californians can't legally consent to sex when they're drunk? Yes means yes except when yes means no?
Click to expand...

From the article

the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity."
Click to expand...

Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
Click to expand...

Nope, someone who is drunk cannot give consent, so it would be considered rape. And we know that drunk college kids are oh so going to be the model of restraint and intelligence.
 
Ikari said:
Nope, someone who is drunk cannot give consent, so it would be considered rape. And we know that drunk college kids are oh so going to be the model of restraint and intelligence.
Click to expand...
And when both participants are drunk (a likely scenario), are we to assume that only men should be held responsible for their decisions? Or if neither is able to give consent, do the penalties simply offset?
 
Taylor said:
And when both participants are drunk (a likely scenario), are we to assume that only men should be held responsible for their decisions? Or if neither is able to give consent, do the penalties simply offset?
Click to expand...

I myself was wondering if this were going to go the other way too. What if the dude is drunk and the chick is sober...rape? Dude can't consent.

I'm not sure where this is going to end up, but it's going to be a mess.
 
Taylor said:
And when both participants are drunk (a likely scenario), are we to assume that only men should be held responsible for their decisions? Or if neither is able to give consent, do the penalties simply offset?
Click to expand...

Only if you want to believe what some journalist says and ignore that the law doesn't say someone who has been drinking is not capable of giving consent.
 
Tameamea said:
Link

I just wonder how they are going to make it work. I mean, how two people are going to express or confirm their mutual consent before sex? Cause all these nods and movements are not solid especially when you are drunk. You need something more trustworthy, something that would prove you were serious – the next morning.
I suggest some fast sex consent services, preferably automatic, than would scan you two and print a written consent.
Click to expand...

Hint: If your partner's drunk, it's probably not consensual.
 
Ikari said:
Nope, someone who is drunk cannot give consent, so it would be considered rape.
Click to expand...
I feared I was wasting my time posting a link to the actual bill (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967);

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
Click to expand...

For the hard of thinking, drunk doesn't automatically mean incapacitated. A person can consent to sex if they're drunk. A person can't consent to sex if they're incapacitated.
 
Ikari said:
From the article





Nope, someone who is drunk cannot give consent, so it would be considered rape. And we know that drunk college kids are oh so going to be the model of restraint and intelligence.
Click to expand...

I guess the girl will now have to sign on the dotted line on his condom, before he mounts her.
 
HonestJoe said:
I feared I was wasting my time posting a link to the actual bill (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967);



For the hard of thinking, drunk doesn't automatically mean incapacitated. A person can consent to sex if they're drunk. A person can't consent to sex if they're incapacitated.
Click to expand...

Where's the definition of "incapacitated" in the legislature? Because based on (B), they stated that while "incapacitated....complainant could not understand the fact...". That reads to me that you can be awake and alert in order for you to not understand something..
 
HonestJoe said:
I feared I was wasting my time posting a link to the actual bill (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967);



For the hard of thinking, drunk doesn't automatically mean incapacitated. A person can consent to sex if they're drunk. A person can't consent to sex if they're incapacitated.
Click to expand...

so who determines whether or not she was so ****faced she could or couldnt consent?

he says she nodded yes....she doesnt remember crap

damn glad i am out of college, and so are all my kids

i agree we have a sexual assault problem on campuses, but i dont think this is the answer
 
Samhain said:
Where's the definition of "incapacitated" in the legislature? Because based on (B), they stated that while "incapacitated....complainant could not understand the fact...". That reads to me that you can be awake and alert in order for you to not understand something..
Click to expand...

What is "reasonable doubt"?

The law is riddled with terms that are inexact and left to interpretation based on the facts specific to an event.
 
gdgyva said:
so who determines whether or not she was so ****faced she could or couldnt consent?

he says she nodded yes....she doesnt remember crap

damn glad i am out of college, and so are all my kids

i agree we have a sexual assault problem on campuses, but i dont think this is the answer
Click to expand...

The door swings both ways. "She assaulted me while I had whiskey dick".
 
Deuce said:
Oh great now were going to have idiots presenting their absurd interpretations of this law again.
Click to expand...

Do you have no sence of humor at all?

The German said:
From what I read, the main problem are not the existing laws, but the fact that authorities ignored cases of sexual assault and didnt take victims serious.

So this is just what my German-English dictonary translates as "tokenisitik".

It serves no purpose other than attempting to create the illusion that something is done about the problem.

Whilest the real cause of the problem is ignored.
Click to expand...

I've got exactly the same feeling. Like they're imitating activity. I wonder what the results of this legislation would be...

herenow1 said:
The new slogan is yes means yes, bc "no means no" did not prevent rapes. I hope they didn't waste money on this!
Click to expand...

I'm sure they did! And they are very proud of that.

sangha said:
Are you suggesting that you don't know if the person you are having sex with has actually consented to have sex with you?

Because if you don't, the law isn't your only serious problem.
Click to expand...

Just curious why you needed to get personal and to diagnose me. Still, you are obviously not House M.D.
And if you haven't noticed, I was talking about the law, not my personal experience. Be attentive, use the context.

Unrepresented said:
Hint: If your partner's drunk, it's probably not consensual.
Click to expand...

But how can you eveluate? One glass of wine - drunk or not drunk enough? Can give consent or not? Two glasses? A bottle? Where's the line? And what if both have consumed some amount of alcohol?
Hint is not enough, I'm confused... ;)
 
Tameamea said:
Just curious why you needed to get personal and to diagnose me. Still, you are obviously not House M.D.
And if you haven't noticed, I was talking about the law, not my personal experience. Be attentive, use the context.
Click to expand...

I didn't get personal or diagnose you. I asked a question which addresses the point you made about being unclear about whether there was consent.

And if you haven't noticed, my point (like yours) applies to all so take your own advice about context.
 
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
Click to expand...

"Incapacitated" is the key word here. The reports about a drunk person not being able to consent are incorrect, although, I do see the potential for abuse here depending on how "incapacitated" is interpreted.
 
Tameamea said:
Link

I just wonder how they are going to make it work. I mean, how two people are going to express or confirm their mutual consent before sex? Cause all these nods and movements are not solid especially when you are drunk. You need something more trustworthy, something that would prove you were serious – the next morning.
I suggest some fast sex consent services, preferably automatic, than would scan you two and print a written consent.
Click to expand...

That is the really strange thing about this consent legislation. In essence two drunk college students having sex are BOTH guilty of rape.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967



"Incapacitated" is the key word here. The reports about a drunk person not being able to consent are incorrect, although, I do see the potential for abuse here depending on how "incapacitated" is interpreted.
Click to expand...

It is interpreted by the school's adminstration based on the "preponderance of evidence" (another of those imprecise terms that riddle our legal code).

If a student doesn't want to be subjected to the "whims" of a school's adminstrative staff, they can enroll elsewhere

jmotivator said:
That is the really strange thing about this consent legislation. In essence two drunk college students having sex are BOTH guilty of rape.
Click to expand...

That has always been true, both before and after this law and both in and outside of college.

The same can be said of assault. Two people can get into a fight with no witnesses and accuse the other of assaulting them. In that case, it's "he said, he said" just like a rape accusation
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, those little floppy definitions certainly aren't going to blow up in our face. Oh wait...that's exactly what it'll do.
Click to expand...
What do you expect, an exact blood alcohol limit at the point of penetration? All laws (pseudo-legalistic rules) will inevitably have somewhat open definitions. In part it's a good thing since there should always be some scope for judges and juries to interpret based on the specific circumstances.

The only point I was making is that this law (like most others) is significantly more solid and structured than many people are imagining based on their reading of a brief news article.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967



"Incapacitated" is the key word here. The reports about a drunk person not being able to consent are incorrect, although, I do see the potential for abuse here depending on how "incapacitated" is interpreted.
Click to expand...
Yes means yes if you're drunk and capacitated but yes means no if you're drunk and incapacitated, so all the guy (or gal) needs to do is determine whether or not their partner is able to make rational decisions. Clear as mud.
 
Now that this bill has passed, let's look at two scenarios.

First, a student at some state college goes to a frat party and hooks up with someone. They both get drunk and end up having sex. The next day a complaint is filed and it is later determined by "someone" that the girl was too drunk to give proper consent.

Second, a guy(not a student) goes out to the bar one night and hooks up with someone.(also not a student) They both get drunk and end up having sex. The next day the girl files a complaint with local authorities.

What happens differently under scenario #2? Are the same standards of consent applied in both cases? If they are, is it law enforcement that is making the determination in both cases? I guess what I am getting at is are colleges, because of this law, being asked to more or less "investigate" criminal matters?


sangha said:
.....
Click to expand...
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Now that this bill has passed, let's look at two scenarios.

First, a student at some state college goes to a frat party and hooks up with someone. They both get drunk and end up having sex. The next day a complaint is filed and it is later determined by "someone" that the girl was too drunk to give proper consent.

Second, a guy(not a student) goes out to the bar one night and hooks up with someone.(also not a student) They both get drunk and end up having sex. The next day the girl files a complaint with local authorities.

What happens differently under scenario #2? Are the same standards of consent applied in both cases?
Click to expand...

Both before and after this law passed, the legal code applied the same standards regardless of gender

If they are, is it law enforcement that is making the determination in both cases?
Click to expand...

This law is about sexual assault on campus and how the administration of those colleges deal with it, so it has no effet on how law enforcement deals with the issue.

I guess what I am getting at is are colleges, because of this law, being asked to more or less "investigate" criminal matters?
Click to expand...

Colleges were investigating sexual assaults on campus before the law was passed. This law doesn't change that nor does it require them to do anything
 
jmotivator said:
That is the really strange thing about this consent legislation. In essence two drunk college students having sex are BOTH guilty of rape.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid there is this problem of a man being always guilty for sex with a woman. You know, some of the feminism activists even say that there's no such thing as reverse chauvinism, and, consequently, 'reverse' rape.
I didn't like this law because it, in fact, has nothing to do with justice in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom