Affirmative consent required or you're a rapist

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I guess that the bottom line with sex is to know the person you're having sex with and don't proceed if there's any question at all if there is as to intent. I can think of several occasions in the past when I could have been called a rapist if it comes down to 'well maybe' and several when we were both drunk on our asses. If merely talking a woman into having sex constitutes rape I can't think of a hell of a lot of men not guilty of rape.

[Green Bottle]

Going back to his hotel room was her first mistake, coming out of the bathroom and handing him a condom was her second, if she had any doubts she should have done neither.

Handing him a condom in my view constitutes acceptance on her part. Guilt afterwards is not rape.

Agree, not guilty.

[PopeyesPappy]

What is muddy about it? The man has not made any statements so there is no one contradicting her testimony.
IMO it comes down to "affirmative consent". All the talk about her handing him the condom avoids the discussion I was hoping to have on the necessity of having affirmative consent as a legal principal as has already been passed in California.

I completely agree. BUt "no means no" takes care of these situations by still making it clear that those cases are clearly sexual assault. I think if the women were incapacitated in some way, then you would dispense with having to actually indicate "no" but I believe there is already legal precedent  in those situations.

In the past, men had used the defence that since the women came back to his room with him, whatever happened next was consensual. This is pure BS and "no means no" as a legal principal is meant to clarify this.
I don't know what requiring affirmative consent does other than bring a lot of confusion to the real problem of sexual assault. Affirmative consent is what muddies the waters IMO.

This quote about affirmative consent is talking about information provided during a student orientation lecture at UC Berkley.

Instead of waiting for your partner to say "no," speakers onstage told students, you should seek an explicit "yes." It could come in the form of a smile, a nod or a verbal yes, as long as it's unambiguous, "enthusiastic" and ongoing.

My problem with that is unambiguous, "enthusiastic" and ongoing can be subjective. In the case of the OP handing the guy a condom could easily be understood by the guy as consent without some other clues that sex is unwanted. If a situation is going somewhere a person does not want it to go, then at some point that person has the responsibility to tell other individuals involved they do not wish to participate.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I've been accused of mental rape just for looking at a woman. She was probably technically right, but..... :trunksthing:

[GrinningYMIR]

Son the consensus is that it's better off to stay at home and whack off than to try sleep with a person

[kilodelta]

Tentacle porn never hurt nobody, yo' know wut I'm sayin'.

[Aletheia]

I fail to see how this can overcome a "he-said, she-said" scenario, particularly where a man says that she never said "no" (or yes for that matter). It is understandable that something needs to be done to help those who may be forced or exploited for sexual gratification, but this affirmative consent seems to be at odds with how people actually initiate courtship (if you want to call it that), insinuate the desire for sex, and imply their consent.

It seems more intuitive to try to construct laws around our behaviors, especially in matters of sex, rather than have it run counter. I see a lot of hapless men going to jail for simple mistakes, and I see a lot of women eager to use an unfair advantage. This isn't to say there won't be men with horrid intentions or true victims in need of the law's protection, but this particular piece of legislation seems too broad and will hurt a lot of innocent people in the process.

[SGOS]

Good Grief!  This is scraping the bottom of absurd.

[Jmpty]

Makes me glad I'm old and married, but I do have a son.

[Berati]

this affirmative consent seems to be at odds with how people actually initiate courtship (if you want to call it that), insinuate the desire for sex, and imply their consent.

Makes me glad I'm old and married, but I do have a son.

I’ve been married over 25 years and now it’s all affirmative consent. “Hey, you feel like messing around?”

When we first met, it was all breathless necking and groping and fucking without a word being said.
I didn't realize it at the time, but I accidently raped my girlfriend.

[Solitary]

When I was young it was assumed that when a women or girl said no she meant yes. I think this law is good, because it prevents man from using date rape drugs, or raping an unconscious women, or girl, that has drank too much, from getting away with raping her. I'm not talking about her being drunk and more willing, but that is a fuzzy issue, that isn't if she says yes, YES, Oh my God, "YES"!

[Aletheia]

Why do I get the feeling that sex will eventually have laws applied to it that are suspiciously similar to the laws applied to the buying/selling process?

"....according to section 2 paragraph 3 of the Caveat Emptor Coitus..."

or

"....according to section 1 paragraph 5 of the Caveat Venditor Coitus..."


Bloody hell, the law will make prostitutes of us all once sexual acts are reduced to mere transactions. 

[aitm]

perhaps after she brought out the 4th condom she might have said no.

[Mermaid]

She's doing a disservice to actual rape victims.

I do not know about the details of this case other than what's in this thread, so I can't comment. But I do agree with this sentiment very much if she is lying.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What's next?  "I know I said 'yes', but I meant 'no', so therefore he raped me"?