It's not a determination of guilt, CM ~ and unless you're a current college student in California or New York, it will never affect you personally in any way ~ see my #20 post above ~

Sooz

It wasn't about it affecting me sooz.

If a college uses that criteria to impose a penalty then the same problem arises as far as I can see.

Its fine as a slogan. Lousy as a principle of judgment.

If this criteria were being used to impose a penalty, I'd agree ~ I could be misreading, but I read both of the print articles to be saying that this creates criteria to use in determining whether or not to investigate sexual assault claims ~

Sooz

And, in practice, doesn't that imply that this is the criterion to determine whether or not a crime has been committed? And hasn't that criterion now embodied in legislation.

Consider this scene between a college disciplinary committee and a student:

Chairman: Did ...... actually say "yes".
Student: No, she didn't.

Is that an admission of guilt?

But don't get me wrong sooz. My objection is to the possible consequences of the legislation, not to the attempt to deal with a very serious problem.

The way the law is written it means that the accusation automatically makes the accused guilty unless he/she can prove the other gave full consent. The saving grace of it is that it can work both ways. She accuses him. He accuses her. Then they can both try to prove their innocence.

Excellent illustration of good intentions causing unintended consequences.

The other side of this is the question of what can be done.
Its an incredibly difficult area because of the reluctance of so many victims to actually report the crime and to go through with prosecution. Much can be done there in the , but I'm not sure its a legislative matter.

But what certainly does need to be done is to hold the Colleges more accountable. They have often tried to sweep this under the carpet in order to try and preserve their reputation. But if a crime has been committed they don't have the power to deal with it themselves and they should be obligated to report it to the civil authorities.

I am NOT trying to be snarky here nor am I trying to blame the victim.....but........

In today's rapidly expanding forensic methods, and IF a woman reports a rape immediately, can they not determine if she really was raped? Bruising, defensive marks etc.

Perhaps a strong campaign to encourage women to report a rape and get examined right away would be helpful too.

Below is an example of how forensic science has advanced in regards to some recent work:


http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/09/us/pennsy ... Stories%29

That just blows me away!

I think they can certainly find evidence to support a case, but "proof" is another matter. Human sexuality is so damn complicated!

It's funny you should say that because I was just thinking about how things were in "my" day and before. I participated in some really good, heavy "petting" sessions with a few boys as a teen. With the new laws/resolutions, that could be construed as actions that imply consent for intercourse.

Back in the stone age I never had a guy expect sex because of that. Well, to be honest, only one guy did. He called me a tease and a bitch, but I wore that as a badge of honor. Ha! It was mostly understood that it was a way to explore sexuality and to exercise control.

Not only is sex complicated, but very different in today's world. More casual sex or hook-ups (unless I lived under a rock back then). I didn't btw. We girls talked about sex a lot and those who had experience it were not shy about telling.

With the new laws/resolutions, that could be construed as actions that imply consent for intercourse.

But it was in my day Roseanne. Often. It was just swept under the carpet in one way or other. Often by shaming the girl (and it was often a girl).
In fact, its my understanding that it was precisely that kind of thing that led to the whole "no means no" campaign.

A good article about this and good advice. My biggest worry has been, and is, the multitude of nuances that young people can't pick up on. This article explains my worry about "muddy waters" in it's description of non-verbal consent. I do like the part about acquiescence and the example is good, but it needs to be taught, imo. IOW, the whole discussion about sex and rape should be re-geared to include this new "yes means yes" paradigm.

Was That A Yes? What Consent Really Looks Like

When I was growing up, sex education consisted of learning dozens of creative ways to say no to sex. In one particularly memorable lesson, a singing dance troupe did a whole routine to New Kids On The Block’s "You Got It (The Right Stuff)." Predictably, they replaced the Oh Oh Ah Oh Oh refrain lyrics with a series of barely melodic Nos and Nays. Our all-girls class (I don’t know what they did with the boys that day) received the message loud and clear: sex is bad, but fear not, there are plenty of creative ways to rebuff boys’ inevitable advances.

The Just Say No message was further established in high school gym class. I attended a public school in a major urban centre, but our physical and health education classes were still sex-segregated, outdated and out of touch with our lived realities as urban teens in the 90s. Each year, we practiced saying no to sex through partnered role plays that included dated references to “going steady”, drive-ins and even soda shops.

When it comes to sex, however, No Means No simply doesn’t cut it. Not only is this message shrouded in sexist messages of a gender binary in which men pursue sex and women responsibly guard the gates, but it also erroneously suggests that the absence of protestation is tantamount to consent. Fortunately, California is changing this standard with the passing of a Yes Means Yes bill.

The bill, SB-967, which was passed last week, applies to college campuses and requires affirmative consent by all involved parties when engaging in sexual activities. This standard may be met through specific verbal communication and/or nonverbal cues and gestures.

While groups working in the field of sexual health, anti-violence and campus safety welcome the shift to affirmative consent, critics suggest that the new minimum standard could result in more sexual activity being classified as sexual assault -- which is exactly the point. If you have a problem with the requirement that your partner express (verbally or nonverbally) an explicit desire to engage in a sexual act with you, it’s time to reframe your concept of consent.

The fact that people are up in arms over the requirement that all parties agree to engaging in any sexual activity is exactly why the shift to a Yes Means Yes paradigm is so important. Saying yes to sex doesn’t have to be boring or clinical and the suggestion that soliciting or providing an enthusiastic expression of desire kills the mood is simply ludicrous.

I can think of hundreds of ways to express consent and enhance the sexual mood. From enthusiastic moans and sultry nods to dirty whispers and commanding hand gestures, the possibilities are endless. A partner might consent by pulling you closer, wrapping his/her legs around you, smiling and exhaling with pleasure, kissing you harder, tearing his clothes off or simply screaming, “I want you now!”. None of these actions is a universal sign of consent to any particular activity on its own and you always have a right to withdraw consent, but they are examples of how an enthused partner might act. If you notice that your partner starts to pull back, cover up, slow down or withdraw in any way, it’s likely that s/he isn’t comfortable with how things are progressing, so a check-in is in order.

What Consent Really Looks LIke

If you happen to be unsure of what enthusiastic consent looks like, a simple “Do you want to _______?” or “Would you like it if we _________?” can help you to better understand your partner’s desires. Other ways to secure consent involve telling him/her to nod if it feels good, ensuring that your partner is engaged (e.g. s/he’s kissing you back or grinding against you), making eye contact to check-in and making a conscious effort to gauge your lover’s level of pleasure and enthusiasm. In many cases, you don’t have to stop what you’re doing and have an entirely separate conversation about consent, but if you want to, there’s an app for that.

To be clear, “I don’t know.”, “Um…”, “Maybe.” and similar responses do not qualify as consent. And if you have to pressure someone into trying something, they’re also not offering enthusiastic consent. Take this example from Scarleteen:

“You're making dinner for someone, your favourite spaghetti sauce, which you’re intensely proud of. But as it turns out, they are allergic to tomatoes. You ask them if they’re sure, and they assure you they are. You suggest maybe it’s different with your sauce somehow. They say, again, that they’re pretty sure they’re still going to be allergic. But you worked all day on the sauce, feel like they at least owe you one spoonful to see how great it is, so you ladle it unto their plate anyway, and in time, your nagging gets to tiresome that they go ahead and take a spoonful, even knowing they’re likely to feel sick very shortly.”

This scenario clearly illustrates the difference between consent and acquiescence and the same principles should be applied to sexual interactions.

Enthusiastic consent not only ensures that all parties are protected, but it makes for hotter sex too. After all, what’s sexier? A lover who acquiesces to your advances or one who’s dripping with desire?

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/lifestyle/rela ... ar-AA6NhTt

Still won't work, can't work and will be legally challenged at the first opportunity regardless of the good intentions.

The fact that people are up in arms over the requirement that all parties agree to engaging in any sexual activity is exactly why the shift to a Yes Means Yes paradigm is so important.

So who exactly is "up in arms over the requirement that all parties agree to engage in sexual activity"?
Just wondering ....

Seems to me that what is described as "non-verbal consent" is open to just as much subjective interpretation as it always was. In other words it solves nothing.

Could easily open the floodgates to false accusations, though.

Reality is that "false accusations" are remarkably limited ... mostly because no one wants to jump thru the hoops of trial in front of family and friends ~ and don't kid yourself: victims [real victims] are as much on trial as the accused ~ so why do you think "false accusations" will become an "open floodgate"?

Sooz

Seems to be a low burden of proof with vague criteria.

It happens sooz. I've seen it.

Rape is terrible crime. It can destroy people's lives.
So is falsely being accused of rape by your 14 year old step-daughter. That happened to a guy I knew.

Seems false accusations are already at 8-9%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation

I think on Person of Interest last night a girl told a cop she'd report that he touched her if he didn't let her go. I am sure the threat of "false accusations" is used across the board and way before court dates are scheduled.

Of course "rape is a terrible crime" and yes, "it can destroy people's lives" of both the victim and the [falsely] accused ~ oskar's comment shows "false accusations" being higher than I thought, but still under 10% ~ there will always be "bad actors" out there, trying to beat the system ~ and I'm willing to bet far more than 10% of all rapes/assaults go UNreported ~

Sooz

Sooz

And I think you are almost certainly right about the unreported rapes sooz.
But i'm not sure how the "yes" means "yes" ruling is going to do anything to change that.

The main victims of false accusations will be men. Therefore nothing more than collateral damage and unimportant under the "new paradigm". Oh, and don't protest. You will be accused of being a misogynist or, better yet, a contributor to the "culture of rape" if you do.

Because most rapists are men. Remember that the main victims of rape are women.

There are false accusations all the time for many crimes. Fraud, theft, rape, sexual harassment and even murder. That doesn't diminish any crime because for every false accusation, there are many true ones. For every wrong conviction, there are many right ones. However, being perceived as someone who tries to divert the issue with an argument about false accusations every time a certain issue is brought up is disturbing.

Would you be as vehement (or protest as loudly) about a person being falsely accused of fraud? That can ruin a person's life. They can lose their career, fortune and family the same way as a person falsely accused of rape.

I like you jim. But your constant mini-rants about false accusations every time rape is the subject is worrisome.

....and what you say is exactly what I rant about. It's exactly like the right wing's cheering for the death penalty. It's like "ahhhh ....so what. A few innocent people get killed. Who cares? God'll sort 'em out." I rant about that too. Also, when it comes to fraud, I haven't got a lot of sympathy for the woman who got seven years for filing the false liens either.

Maybe what could put a damper on the false accusations would be prison sentences equal to those applied to rapists and a "False Accusation Registry" so everyone could be aware of their propensity to lie.