All UVa frats on suspension

Parents Forum
2461

<p>^^^^The laws vary. Some states have NO parental consent exception. In my state, a parent can allow a child to drink alcohol, but the parent MUST be present and within eye’s sight of the drinking child.</p>

<p>Some states allow parents to supervise drinking at bars, some must be at home, there are some religious ceremony exemptions as well in many states. </p>

<p><a href=“https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/state_profiles_of_underage_drinking_laws.html”>https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/state_profiles_of_underage_drinking_laws.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2462

<p>I also linked an explaining article. Ultimately underage drinking regs and defs depend on each state. But awc acknowledged that.</p>

2463

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s quite simple. Positive cooperation is subjective. It’s what someone perceives, and perceptions are tricky (“She Was Just Asking For It”). Affirmative consent is objective. It’s something one can prove beyond a shade of doubt. I am not sure why it is so complex. </p>

<p>Let’s put it this way. If a man believes that there is positive cooperation, but the woman says no, shouldn’t the man stop? The answer, of course, is yes. What the man perceives is completely irrelevant. What that woman says is the only thing that matters. Same for affirmative consent. </p>

<p>Do you really not get it? The way to get <em>continuous</em> affirmative consent is to do what alh said a while back on this thread, to be engaged in continuous communication throught the sex act and check that you partner is in bliss throughout. It requires putting your partner’s pleasure over yours. It requires deeply caring about your partner. All those can be wonderful things in a loving, commited relationship, but it is plain nuts to criminalize any behavior that is lacking in those things. Sometimes sex is just sex. Nay, often sex is just sex. That may be uncouth and crass to you and hurt your fine sensitivities, but it’s not criminal.</p>

<p>I think this is one of the key issues here. People are not comfortable with the hookup culture where two strangers who care nothing for each other are mating just to get off, from purely selfish motives. But that’s the reality on the ground, and women love it just as much as men do (otherwise it wouldn’t be a thriving culture). In the context of that, continuous affirmative consent is as out-of-date as Victorian courtship.</p>

<p>PS: I am OK with one time affirmative consent at the start and then reverting to No mean No. Is that acceptable?</p>

2464

<p>

</p>

<p>What’s an example of positive cooperation that is not affirmative consent, and why would affirmative consent be any easier to prove? If she says Yes, I assume that counts as affirmative consent. But one of the people can lie about whether she said Yes, just as they can lie about whether she indicated her consent in some non-verbal way. I don’t see the difference there. People can lie.</p>

<p>Also, nothing about SB 967 requires that affirmative consent be given verbally.</p>

<p>I’m still not understanding what would be positive cooperation but not affirmative consent.</p>

2465

<p>SDWY, you make a lot iof assumptions.</p>

<p>I thought I was ok with hook up sex. I am fine with sex for sex sake. I told my daughter sex is one of the greatest activities people engage in. Never told her bs. She decides the moral issues for herself.</p>

<p>However, after reading your posts, I think I find some of the hook up activities objectionable. I don’t like the objections to consent.</p>

<p>Drunk sex is ok but too drunk sex is not ok.</p>

2466

<p>Here are my thought on why we need “yes means yes” laws:</p>

<p>-A person does not have to be unconscious to be unable to give consent. I think even SW and AW would agree on that if we use an extreme example like a paralytic drug or a mind altering drug. And, since alcohol is a drug it logically follows that a person can ingest so much that they are unable to consent. To me this is the same as a guy giving a roofie and then consummating. When someone is in a stupor they obviously can’t consent.</p>

<p>And…since there is no way that you are going to be able to measure where along the “drunk continuum” a person is, it should therefore be considered rape if you don’t get a “yes” response. </p>

<p>Here are my thoughts on why we need a “no means no” law:</p>

<p>-“Yes means yes” would criminalize consensual sex between consenting partners where verbal consent wasn’t obtained. </p>

<p>In looking at the two different options I can’t see why you wouldn’t agree that “yes means yes”. Do you really think your spouse or significant other is going to accuse you of rape the first time you don’t ask permission? It isn’t going to happen.</p>

<p>It’s quite simple- Pass “yes means yes” laws and then if you are going to have sex, get written permission or get it on video in cases where you don’t trust the other person implicitly.</p>

2467

<p>

</p>

<p>More or less, but affirmative consent for escalations. You’re OK with kissing and snuggling, but all of a sudden your partner whips out the strap-on and starts anal sex … she should be getting some kind of consent for that. </p>

2468

<p>

</p>

<p>We are talking about the spirit of the law here, and not the procedural ease to prove or disprove a case, which is a whole different matter. Rape is always he said she said, regardless of what standards we apply. So let’s keep the lying separate. Let’s focus on the spirit of the law. </p>

<p>As for positive cooperation that is not affirmative consent, I just know that I can’t read minds. I am a simple person. I need women to tell me what they are thinking. Is that really too much to ask for? </p>

<p>I can give you graphic details of where I personally thought I have positive cooperation, the woman agreed that her actions indicated positive cooperation, but her discomfort was rising till she suddenly had to stop.</p>

<p>Of course, when she said No I stopped immediately.</p>

2469

<p>

</p>

<p>She wouldn’t have to. I will say No (though I may not). No means No covers that. She just has to stop if I say No. If I don’t say No she should carry on. She has my full permission.</p>

<p>Does that work for you?</p>

2470

<p>

</p>

<p>For ANY level of alcohol or drug consumption, right? Better safe than sorry? And even if you get an Yes response, it is better to treat it as a No because who knows, the woman may look and seem OK, but you never know how much impaired she is. So, to be on the safe side, if you know that the woman has taken ANY amount of drugs or alcohol or prescription medication, stay away from her. Don’t even bother asking for an Yes as that may actually be a No.</p>

<p>I would like to know your thoughts on this. This, at least, is how I see it, as I have no wish whatsoever to inadvertently rape someone under the Yes means Yes standard, and not just because the consequences for me would be horrible, but because rape is not just something I want to commit. I would like to see how others here interpret it. It’s quite clear how the analysts interpret it (they are with me). </p>

<p>Bottom line, under Yes means Yes, I am not having sex with a woman who has taken any amount of alcohol or drugs, or who takes a prescription medication routinely that may have a potential side effect of impacting her state of mind. Would that not be the right thing to do to stay on the right side of the law? That’s what Ezra Klein said, that Yes means Yes would send a shiver down the spines of men who want to have sex.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How many college kids have spouses or significant others? Why give an example from a population that are not even impacted by Yes means Yes laws? Most college sex is with mere acquaintances, or with perfect strangers. Your point is a complete strawman.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You forgot the need for <em>continuous</em> affirmative consent. So you have to videotape the whole thing. You really want that?</p>

2471

<p>Advocates trying to legislate sex between college students and redefine rape into other things are doing an excellent job ensuring that having sex is just as complicated as filing taxes. There will be so many “if, and, but” caveats to be interpretated that people will just assume that if a person or the State wants to call something is rape, then they will be able to find it in the laws. </p>

<p>Therefore, as with taxes, people will go with just the basic level of information and let the chips fall where they may, if a problem does arise. People will rightly deduce that no one will really have clue what anything means during sex simply because everything could easily be interpretated differently by a court, a lawyer, or an administrator, no matter what you say. </p>

2472

<p>

</p>

<p>Ok. Good. We aren’t talking about legal proceedings here. We are still at he said/she said. We don’t need to set up a defense fund for the guys.</p>

<p>We just have to make sure guys can keep screwing. I doubt this is a problem. :)</p>

2473

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not too much to ask for, but if you require a woman to tell you what she is thinking, then you’re going to have to ask her. It’s not open season on her body. If you’re drunk and all of a sudden a guy puts his *** in your ***, and then he says you didn’t say No, I don’t imagine you’re going to think it’s just one of those things, too bad. Rather, you’ll think, how dare he do that?</p>

2474

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t have a problem with this. Why would I? She gave positive cooperation, then she changed her mind, you stopped, why would this be an issue? (Oh and please, no details. TMI.)</p>

2475

<p>

</p>

<p>See, you change situations fast. We were talking about a man and a woman first consenting to have sex. Then one side does something the other may not potentially like, and in your example it was strap on anal sex. I said that the woman doesn’t have to ask me if I would like to take a strap on up my rear end, if she springs it on me I am pertfectly capable of saying no. All I need is that she puts it away when I say no. Similarly, if I go from one sex act to another, when the first one was fine and the second was not, I want the woman to say No. </p>

<p>This, by the way, is the No means No standard. Nothing ambiguous about it. </p>

<p>From that, you jumped to a case where I am sitting at a bar, drinking my beer, and reading my book, when all of a sudden a dude jumps in and tries to buttrape me. Is that even a comparable case? Seriously? Of course that’s attempted rape. What does that have to do with the previous case we were discussing, when the man and the woman voluntarily agreed to have sex and had a serious of acts that both enjoyed, and then one tried something the other didn’t like? </p>

<p>Why do you make such strawman arguments and comapre two situations that have nothing in common?</p>

<p>By the way, there has been times when I was in a public place, sitting quietly, drinking my beer, and reading my book, when all of a sudden a girl I knew as a pure friend of a friend walked in completely sloshed, jumped on me, and gave me a big hug, a huge ass grab, and a sloppy drunk kiss. I was annoyed, but I didn’t immediately go into the mode, “How dare you do that! This is my 5-day unshaven beard, not yours. It’s not for you to slobber on. And this rancid smell that is coming from me? I cultivated it carefully by not showering for a week. It is not for your enjoyment. I am not your sex toy. Down with rapists and sexaul assaulters! We need Yes means Yes. This girl has to be thrown out of school tmrw with Rapist tatooed on her forehead!”</p>

<p>I just pushed her away and went back to drinking my beer and reading my book instead.</p>

2476

<p>Advocates trying to legislate sex between college students and redefine rape
Legislating sex? Or focusing on what’s wanted versusunwanted sex? And, yes, what’s just plain vague. Who gets to say when one or the other doesn’t want it? The other person in the room? Scary as it may sound to some, it’s not posters here, except in their own real lives.</p>

<p>Plus, I think the people who are redefining rape are on this thread. You’re saying sex is rape. And then some are saying it’s not feasible that both parties should clearly want it, thus it’s all over, kids. And in the middle, those who say, some gray is fine. </p>

2477

<p>

</p>

<p>This is precisely how No means No works. So you are for it and think it is adequate?</p>

2478

<p>And I’ve had enough of the graphic examples… What value does it add to this thread when some trot out sucking or bare breasts, lap dances, etc, and now strap-on anal sex?</p>

<p>Can you discuss this without the examples or is that part of the fascination?</p>

<p>But folks, you can decide if the graphics are worth responding to, at all. We’re going circular and are currently forced into using our “nice words” to rebut, rather than calling a spade a spade. </p>

<p>That’s not working. So, the decision to engage with the specific graphic examples and that debating style is yours. I don’t need all that to discuss the two or three primary issues here. </p>

2479

<p>I think there’s a lot of confusion here about what the general California rape statute says. It does NOT say that sex without affirmative consent is rape. It says that nonmarital sex with a person is rape in seven specific circumstances (there is a difference section for marital rape): (1) mental disability or similar condition rendering the person incapable of legal consent, (2) accomplished against a person’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, (3) the person is drugged or intoxicated to the point of being unable to resist, and the accused knows or should know that (this is the one I quoted before), (4) the person is not conscious at all of the nature of the act (this includes the obvious passed-out victim, as well as some subtle things like women thinking they were having a gyn exam), (5) the accused has fraudulently pretended to be someone else in order to get the person to “submit”, (6) the act is accomplished against the person’s will because of a threat that the accused will cause harm to the person or someone else in the future (i.e., not an immediate threat of harm), and there is a reasonable possibility that the accused could carry out the threat, and (7) the accused threatens the person with arrest or similar official action.</p>

<p>The section on “consent,” which CF quoted, applies if consent is an affirmative defense to any of the foregoing, but consent is not independently an element of the crime, except maybe in (2), (6), and (7), where the act must be “against the will” of the victim. But if there is no force, duress, threat, or fraud (or similar), and the supposed victim is not effectively incapacitated, sex without consent is not rape.</p>

<p>I would need to do a bunch of research on case law to parse the subtleties of this statute, but a few things are pretty clear. In the case of drunk sex, if the victim is not unconscious or intoxicated to the point of being unable to resist, there has to be force, etc., for it to be rape. If the victim is conscious but unable to resist, and there is no force, etc., the prosecution would have to prove that a reasonable person would have known the victim was that drunk, but it would not be a defense for the accused to claim he was too drunk himself to be able to tell. What I don’t know is just how liberal courts are in interpreting “force” and similar words. Is undressing someone gently “force”? If so, then almost any sex without affirmative consent could be rape. If more is required to be “force”, then ambivalent sex would clearly not be rape. And the way the statute is structured, in those situations lack of consent would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which as a practical matter is probably more consistent with “no means no” than “yes means yes,” no matter what the defnition of consent.</p>

2480

<p>"By the way, there has been times when I was in a public place, sitting quietly, drinking my beer, and reading my book, when all of a sudden a girl I knew as a pure friend of a friend walked in completely sloshed, jumped on me, and gave me a big hug, a huge ass grab, and a sloppy drunk kiss. I was annoyed, but I didn’t immediately go into the mode, “How dare you do that! This is my 5-day unshaven beard, not yours. It’s not for you to slobber on. And this rancid smell that is coming from me? I cultivated it carefully by not showering for a week. It is not for your enjoyment. I am not your sex toy. Down with rapists and sexaul assaulters! We need Yes means Yes. This girl has to be thrown out of school tmrw with Rapist tatooed on her forehead!” "</p>

<p>This is all so repulsive and disgusting. I think some people may be delusional about how much of a chick magnet they really are. </p>

<p>Never been so glad in all my life I never liked the drinking-booze-at-a-bar OR the frat-party scene. </p>

<p>The NZ video is disturbing, but really - so is the idea of being like the kind of girl who downs shots at the bar with her buddies and then goes home with a guy. I’m very glad I’m not like that, nor are my kids. If it’s “square” and dated to prefer sexual activity in the context of committed relationships and not requiring alcohol as foreplay, then count me as square and dated. </p>