It seems that there also needs to be legislation that if a student goes to a school official (or employee of any kind) and claims to have been sexually assaulted, the employee needs to be obligated to contact law enforcement.
> Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous.
It seems that the new contention point will become what 'non-verbal, yet unambiguous consent' is, since it seems difficult to define fully and concisely.
Quote: "Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous."
Which means nothing has changed -- non-verbal consent has always been a possibility, and later, a reason to argue in court about whether non-verbal consent had been given. Non-verbal consent in the relations between the sexes has always had the standing of a verbal contract in business -- as San Goldwyn supposedly said, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. (In keeping with our topic, Goldwyn didn't actually say that.)
I have some advice for young people who may be navigating their way around this issue for the first time -- here are the rules:
1. No means no, absolutely, full stop. Never ignore this signal, ever.
2. Yes means maybe.
3. There is no "yes means yes" -- it doesn't exist.
No matter how many laws are passed, no matter how clear the signals, a person can always claim that something happened that differs from your recollection, and that can sometimes lead to a huge raft of trouble.
The concise way of describing such situations is, "He said, she said." This new law doesn't (and can't) change the fact that some sexual encounters will end up being a case of "He said, she said."
4. No followed by "non-verbal yes" means no. (see #1)
5. No followed by yes means assume no, except for painfully clear yes
I mainly wanted to add my #3 even though "Never ignore this signal, ever." is pretty clear. For 4 and 5 I just wanted the list to be closed under "followed by".
Startup idea: a cell phone recording app that begins recording with two thumbprints and then only plays back with both thumbprints. Identity tied to the act of consent and to the act of reviewing consent.
If it isn't around by the time my boys are in college, I might have to build it...
> Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent
The "drunk" part of this has some potentially serious problems. It's fine in the case where someone deliberately gets someone else drunk in order to inhibit that person's judgement so that they will agree to sex. Doing that to someone is vile. Same if someone finds a drunk person, recognizes that they are in an impaired state of judgement, and takes advantage of them.
However, what about the case where both parties are drunk, both parties got drunk voluntarily, and neither party is intending to use the other's drunken state to take advantage of them? You simply have drunk A ask if drunk B would like to have sex, and drunk B says yes, and they proceed to clumsily do so. If B's drunk state makes it so B cannot give consent, I think an equally good case can be made that A's drunk state makes it so A cannot recognize that B's "yes" is not valid.
In general, drunk people pose thorny legal problems, especially when they interact with other drunk people.
7 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 23.6 ms ] thread> Lawmakers say, however, that consent can be non-verbal, if it is unambiguous.
It seems that the new contention point will become what 'non-verbal, yet unambiguous consent' is, since it seems difficult to define fully and concisely.
Which means nothing has changed -- non-verbal consent has always been a possibility, and later, a reason to argue in court about whether non-verbal consent had been given. Non-verbal consent in the relations between the sexes has always had the standing of a verbal contract in business -- as San Goldwyn supposedly said, a verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. (In keeping with our topic, Goldwyn didn't actually say that.)
I have some advice for young people who may be navigating their way around this issue for the first time -- here are the rules:
1. No means no, absolutely, full stop. Never ignore this signal, ever.
2. Yes means maybe.
3. There is no "yes means yes" -- it doesn't exist.
No matter how many laws are passed, no matter how clear the signals, a person can always claim that something happened that differs from your recollection, and that can sometimes lead to a huge raft of trouble.
The concise way of describing such situations is, "He said, she said." This new law doesn't (and can't) change the fact that some sexual encounters will end up being a case of "He said, she said."
The tl;dr: no means no, and yes means maybe.
2. Yes means maybe.
3. Yes followed by no means no. (see #1)
4. No followed by "non-verbal yes" means no. (see #1)
5. No followed by yes means assume no, except for painfully clear yes
I mainly wanted to add my #3 even though "Never ignore this signal, ever." is pretty clear. For 4 and 5 I just wanted the list to be closed under "followed by".
If it isn't around by the time my boys are in college, I might have to build it...
The "drunk" part of this has some potentially serious problems. It's fine in the case where someone deliberately gets someone else drunk in order to inhibit that person's judgement so that they will agree to sex. Doing that to someone is vile. Same if someone finds a drunk person, recognizes that they are in an impaired state of judgement, and takes advantage of them.
However, what about the case where both parties are drunk, both parties got drunk voluntarily, and neither party is intending to use the other's drunken state to take advantage of them? You simply have drunk A ask if drunk B would like to have sex, and drunk B says yes, and they proceed to clumsily do so. If B's drunk state makes it so B cannot give consent, I think an equally good case can be made that A's drunk state makes it so A cannot recognize that B's "yes" is not valid.
In general, drunk people pose thorny legal problems, especially when they interact with other drunk people.