MrOrioye: So many rape cases ahead. I hope black musicians and celebrities use their senses in cali.

CFCfan:
She can agree by writing it out. The law says "affirmative, conscientious" consent. So if both parties sign a contract to mess themselves; in the law court that contract will be regarded as a valid 'yes' or consent.
Nawa oh. All these grammar because of konji

Sagamite:

How can it be in the best interest of men?

By women having the liberty to create false accusations at their whim?

And if California is like the moronic sexist UK, she can make her false accusation with complete anonymity while his name is plastered in the papers and on the internet for eternity?

Consent would be clear cut for who?

patrickmuf: What if she says yes and goes on to deny? A very senseless law...

Sagamite:

So they should sign a contract?

Sixix:

Well, In law you can't just accuse someone, your accusations have to fulfil the conditions laid down by law. The law stipulates that she has to be 'affirmative, conscious, and voluntarily agree' . Before the court would agree with the defendant she has to be able to CONVINCE (beyond reasonable doubt) the court that she did not give consent as per the definition in the statutes and its legal interpretation, note that every tiny bit of info leading to the issue in dispute would be analysed.

The interpretation the writer gave the definition may (in my opinion 'will') not be used. Law can be interpreted in various ways. For instance the brief explanation of what would not count as affirmation and voluntary agreement did not include affirmation by positive reaction, it however stated that ' silence or a lack of resistance ' should not be counted as affirmation or voluntary agreement. The rest is left for the Judges to interpret as they deem fit.

The law has always been a double edged sword, welcome to life

Sagamite:

Will they both have to make sure their lawyers are present so that the lawyers can analyse the contract as genuine, valid and well written?

When you meet a girl and it seems action will take place tonight, ........call your lawyer first.

A purely daft law!

I can't stand fcktards. This is what we get when fcktards are allowed into the decision-making or policy-setting process.

deols:
What part of that don't you understand?

Sixix:

UK legislators will never pass this kind of law, that is US for you, the only state you can make millions if the coffee you bought was too hot

And this law screams political pressure

all4naija: Wow! They should also extend this to young girls coerced into p o r n.

all4naija: Wow! They should also extend this to young girls coerced into p o r n.

Now we all know based on the process of sex with most women, that is a moronic requirement.

Secondly, how can a law make sense where it states "silence or a lack of resistance" cannot be regarded as consent, but instead raape?

Which people, in their right frame of mind, that is about to be "raaped" or about to have sex she does not want will remain silence or lack resistance without a weapon to her head?

Sagamite:

You must be joking!

The sexist, Theresa May, will propose and sign this law in an instance.

Sagamite:

The part you think blurred lines is a synonym for contract.

Sixix: I partly agree with the interpretation of the bolded but you also have to interpret and define what silence is. And I believe that it would be given the ordinary interpretation.

I am yet to agree with the label Yes means Yes, from my own point of view the law is misconstrued. I will wait for the legal interpretation before making assumptions

Sixix: , say no to pre-marital sex

deols:

No. I didnt mean that blurred lines is a synonym for contract.

When Yes means Yes. The lines are clear and not blurred.

You can listen to Robbin Thicke's blurred lines to understand what I mean.

caseless: consensual agreement btw both party.
Sexual cohesiveness btw the opposites.
They mean, sexual principle of reciprocity.
Infact, they mean no sexual militancy and insurgency.
They mean holo-sexual relativity.
I swear, they mean effusion of 'yeses'.
They are saying sexual desiderata . What the law preaches is romantic uniformitarianis. Infact, it encourages holo-hayalenal sexual acceptance. The law is frictional to rapemaniac, the law envices posterior and anterior compromise, they mean conspicous YES, as in, existentialistic YES is the case here. Like 'hemorhagic yes' is what they're talking about...Etc.
Hope u understand now.

Sagamite:

And what I asked you was that:

So they should sign a contract?

So there is zero blurred lines.

Jesuspistol: Mheeeen...Carlifornia prostitutes are about to experience a BOOM in business!!

Jesuspistol: Mheeeen...Carlifornia prostitutes are about to experience a BOOM in business!!

deols:

Structure your question better next time.

They actually should be married before it. So, Yes! A contract should be signed.

Sagamite:

Let me first pack the religious dogma.

I will take it a bit intellectual.

So you don't think a "No" (that is raape) can exist in marriage?

I don't think silence can be ambiguously interpreted when it comes to the use of vocal cords.

If they did not want to say it is raape if she did not explicitly state "yes" or something affirmative, then silence would not be in the law.

That is a catch them all phrase that ensures women have no responsibility except they choose to.

Typical.

'effectively requires the presence of a “yes” rather than the absence of a “no”

The law’s defenders, such as feminist writer Amanda Hess, dismiss as hyperbole claims that it would turn people into unwitting rapists every time they have sex without obtaining an explicit “yes” (or, better yet, a notarized signature) from their partner. Hess points out that consent can include nonverbal cues such as body language.

Yet even after those revisions, one of the bill’s co-authors, Democratic Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune that the affirmative consent standard means a person “must say ‘yes.

http://time.com/3222176/campus-rape-the-problem-with-yes-means-yes/

What kind of proposal is that?

Don't let me send my babalawo after you o.

Sixix: She may not say anything but if the guy touches her in a her intimate manner and she responded in a like manner, that is explicit consent...I don't believe they will make that type of law

Sixix: I won't interpret it as a oral no or yes

Sixix: The bolded is my interpretation however

Sixix: Well, this is crazy

Sixix: Just like the paper said, the law is ridiculed with ambiguity, I will wait for the legal interpretation from the court because the above interpretation is too illogical to follow (putting human behaviour into consideration)

Sixix: To be on the safer side of course

deols:

Well,a Yes means Yes. There are no blurred lines and all of those should dogmatically come after marriage.

Now D!

Sagamite:

So you admit marriage is not a panacea?

Neither does it give any justification that this law is not stuuupid?

Now secondly, if people do not have your religious beliefs and dogma, they should not be allowed to have sex?

deols:

The law does not say they should not have sex. It says they should seek her consent. I think the law is OK. So many people taking advantage of some girls' naivete wont av an excuse.


Once you agree to marriage, you have agreed to sex. Your partnee has as much right over your body as you have over theirs. This law cant hold in marriage.

In marriage, the possible law would be, No means no. And silence and lack of resiatance, no.

CFCfan:
As at now, the law only applies to university students.

deols:

Then, the consent should be sought, thouroughly so.

CFCfan:
Yeah
But the ambiguity could arise if a student from a private university doesn't get an oral consent from another student of a California state-funded school. And they both have intimacy outside a public university.
The male student from the private school could claim that he is not bound by this latest law, since he isn't from a state-funded school.

deols:

The law does not say they should not have sex. It says they should seek her consent. I think the law is OK. So many people taking advantage of some girls' naivety wont av an excuse.

deols:
Once you agree to marriage, you have agreed to sex. Your partnee has as much right over your body as you have over theirs. This law cant hold in marriage.

In marriage, the possible law would be, No means no. And silence and lack of resiatance, no.