Reminds me of this skit. You have to think that a bill like this won't get too much traction. Besides if you had to file these contracts with the school it would lead to a paper trail of sluttiness, and feminists wouldn't want that kind of judgement.
Written consent required for sex on campus.
Reminds me of this skit. You have to think that a bill like this won't get too much traction. Besides if you had to file these contracts with the school it would lead to a paper trail of sluttiness, and feminists wouldn't want that kind of judgement.
Quote: (06-05-2014 05:27 PM)Lufty Wrote:
Besides if you had to file these contracts with the school it would lead to a paper trail of sluttiness, and feminists wouldn't want that kind of judgement.
I can imagine "creepy" and "pervy" school administrators going through the files while jacking off.
![[Image: tard.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/tard.gif)
Take care of those titties for me.
This'll be useless since then the next logical step is to claim that the guy coerced the girl into signing the form.
So, in other words, all sex without the form is automatically rape, and some of the sex with the form is rape.
RAPERAPERAPERAPERAPE
So, in other words, all sex without the form is automatically rape, and some of the sex with the form is rape.
RAPERAPERAPERAPERAPE
Check out my occasionally updated travel thread - The Wroclaw Gambit II: Dzięki Bogu - as I prepare to emigrate to Poland.
![[Image: image0013575169685904f41cb.gif]](http://static.lockerz.com/decalz/W600/image0013575169685904f41cb.gif)
Take care of those titties for me.
Reminds of this classic scene:
If this shit passes, it means that guys on campuses in California won't be able to score as much tail. This means that the girls will be hornier. You know what this means for gaming girls in university in Cali for you players out there... ![[Image: pimp.gif]](https://rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/new/pimp.gif)
In all seriousness though, this will only hurt the betas, who'll be more sexless than ever. Girls will rationalize not giving "verbal or written consent" to alphas. Its just going to stratify the sexual hierarchy and make it even more favorable to alphas.
I'm surprised at the amount of compliance we're seeing from betas. They're playing a game of prisoner's dilemma where they keep playing a cooperative strategy while everyone else plays a non-cooperative strategy. They're going to lose while everyone else wins and they still don't change their strategy.
Any society that cannot keep its beta males happy will rot and decay. We're already seeing it in Black neighborhoods. Even white neighborhoods are starting to resemble the hood in some ways. The proportion of single moms are increasing, girls want to date the top guys, the list goes on. At least White America has money so you won't see it become a hellhole. However, you will see a rapid increase in spending and decrease in savings, fewer families & more baby daddies. That means less investment, which is the most important, if not the only, factor in any nation's long-run welfare.
The betas will get pissed. They will accept our views & you will see more net emigration by Americans who have the money to get out. All because the little cocksucker politicians want to get reelected instead of actually serving the nation.
In all seriousness though, this will only hurt the betas, who'll be more sexless than ever. Girls will rationalize not giving "verbal or written consent" to alphas. Its just going to stratify the sexual hierarchy and make it even more favorable to alphas.
I'm surprised at the amount of compliance we're seeing from betas. They're playing a game of prisoner's dilemma where they keep playing a cooperative strategy while everyone else plays a non-cooperative strategy. They're going to lose while everyone else wins and they still don't change their strategy.
Any society that cannot keep its beta males happy will rot and decay. We're already seeing it in Black neighborhoods. Even white neighborhoods are starting to resemble the hood in some ways. The proportion of single moms are increasing, girls want to date the top guys, the list goes on. At least White America has money so you won't see it become a hellhole. However, you will see a rapid increase in spending and decrease in savings, fewer families & more baby daddies. That means less investment, which is the most important, if not the only, factor in any nation's long-run welfare.
The betas will get pissed. They will accept our views & you will see more net emigration by Americans who have the money to get out. All because the little cocksucker politicians want to get reelected instead of actually serving the nation.
What will qualify as written consent? Can I just have her right yes on a napkin or will I need a specific legal document signed and witnessed?
"The Carousel Stops For No Man" - Tuthmosis
Although this is obviously ridiculous, it was the next logical step.
If anything though, there might be a silver lining.
Requiring written consent could save a lot of young guys from ruined lives through false rape charges.
If anything though, there might be a silver lining.
Requiring written consent could save a lot of young guys from ruined lives through false rape charges.
PM me for accommodation options in Bangkok.
lol this will backfire.... people will be taking photos and sending the shit all around town to prove they fucked somebody... and when the girl is embarrassed she cant do shit about it.
Quote: (06-05-2014 09:11 PM)dreambig Wrote:
Although this is obviously ridiculous, it was the next logical step.
If anything though, there might be a silver lining.
Requiring written consent could save a lot of young guys from ruined lives through false rape charges.
This is what I'm thinking. That is until the rules are changed to mean that a written "yes" can be revoked for a period 72 hours after sex.
I'm thinking business opportunity here. A mobile sex notarizing service. We provide the paper, you provide the rubber.
Quote: (06-05-2014 09:11 PM)dreambig Wrote:
Requiring written consent could save a lot of young guys from ruined lives through false rape charges.
Due to phasing in the bill consent can be revoked at anytime, so she can just say that she revoked that consent and he didn't stop. With these sort of laws "rape" will still be alive and well.
It's tough to say what you can do to help this sort of thing. I know a friend who after drunkenly hitting on a girl at our university, was placed on a campus safety watch list. They lived in the same dorm and whenever he entered the dorm she got a text telling him that he was in the building. It is my understanding that he never got a trial( of some sort) and this sort of thing is very easy for any girl to put on any guy at the school, in fact RAs are trained to encourage girls to do it.
With these sort of resources available to women at college campuses you'd think that administrators would start to focus on girls helping themselves avoid these sorts of things. Teach girls to drink responsibly, maybe a bit of self defense training. The problem I see at my school is that girls get insanely drunk and just assume that the world is a friendly and safe place. No unreasonable law is going to fix stupid.
While I'm not trying to blame victims I don't think that a very drunk man stumbling around a sketchy neighborhood deserves much sympathy when his wallet gets stolen.
Women need to take steps to help themselves rather than relying on the government to wave a magic wand that will "make everything better."
A link to the actual law: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/...20140SB967
Some excerpts:
This is fucking insanity!!!
Some excerpts:
Quote:Quote:
An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. “Affirmative consent” is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior, expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions. an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. For that reason, The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be present ongoing throughout a sexual activity, and at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the sexual activity. If there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved. encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
This is fucking insanity!!!
Take care of those titties for me.
Quote:Quote:
The Volokh Conspiracy
YOU are a rapist; yes YOU!
BY DAVID BERNSTEIN June 23 at 11:19 AM
Cathy Young has an excellent column in Reason.com about a bill in California that would require universities in that state to use an “affirmative consent” standard for evaluating sexual assault complaints in the campus disciplinary system for complaints involving students. Two obvious questions arise: (1) Why just on campus? If this is a good idea, why not make it part the tort system? If that’s too drastic, let’s start, with say, members of the California legislature. For internal disciplinary purposes, their sexual activity should be governed by the same standard they want to impose on students. What plausible grounds could they have for rejecting application of a standard they would impose on students to themselves? (2) If we’re limiting things to campus, why just students? Why should students be judged under this standard, but not faculty and administrators? It’s hardly unheard of for professors, administrators, and even law school deans to engage in sexual relationships of dubious morality. The answer is that it’s not a good idea, and it’s a product of the current moral panic over the hookup culture.
But at least the affirmative consent standard leaves room for a defense that the complainant provided appropriate non-verbal cues that signified consent. By contrast, the Office on Violence against Women, a U.S. Justice Department subsidiary, informs us on its home page that “sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the *explicit consent* of the recipient.” This is not, in fact, the legal standard in any jurisdiction in the United States, and it’s not because it’s completely absurd. The vast, vast majority of “sexual contact or behavior” is initiated with only *implicit consent.* [UPDATE: There is one type of sexual relationship that, as I understand it, involves primarily explicit consent--the relationship between a prostitute and her (or his) clients, with exact sexual services to be provided determined by explicit agreement in advance.] The DOJ website definition makes almost every adult in the U.S. (men AND women)–and that likely includes you, dear reader–a perpetrator of sexual assault. Just leaning over to give your date (or your spouse) a kiss without asking first and receiving a yes comes within stated definition of sexual assault, regardless of how many times you’ve done it before without objection.
In fairness, the examples the OVW gives–forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape–are proper, at least if we assume they mean “nonconsensual fondling.” Nevertheless, it’s embarrassing that DOJ allows such an inaccurate and ridiculous definition of sexual assault to be on its website.
UPDATE: A reader points to a very funny video, elaborating on what would happen under an “express consent” standard. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--u_puz...86F51C4D8B
Take care of those titties for me.
Quote:Quote:
So if Katie McDonough, an assistant editor at Salon, finds herself feeling angry all the time, as I very much suspect she does, it’s not because conservative columnist George Will pretended “rape never happens,” because that never happened; it’s not because Will claimed that being a rape victim is a “coveted status,” because Will never did; it’s not because Will feels uncomfortable discussing sexual assault, because he very obviously does not; it’s because she’s ashamed of herself for deceiving her audience by distorting Will’s words, thoughts and intentions, as she very well should be. Shame and self-disgust sometimes make you lash out at other people to keep you from facing what you’ve done yourself.
Will wrote a June 6 column for the Washington Post, expressing a bit of schadenfreude at the fact that universities, hotbeds of leftism, are now being hoist by their own leftist petard through government interference. Colleges, Will wrote, “are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (‘micro-aggressions,’ often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.” There is no way this can be taken to mean that actual victims of rape have a coveted status and it’s disgusting to say so.
Will goes on to point out that Obama’s feds are now threatening to withdraw funding from universities if they don’t deprive men who are accused of sexual misconduct of their basic rights to due process. Will pointed out that the drink-and-hook-up college culture causes there to be many gray areas in people’s sexual relations — which seems to me undeniably true. And rape being such a serious crime — second only to murder, as Will rightly pointed out in a later interview — a man accused of rape, like a man or woman accused of murder, must be assumed innocent until proved guilty and given every chance to defend himself. This is basic American justice. That the government wants to deny that justice to those accused of sexual crimes is plainly foul and unfair. Where’s the offense or controversy in saying so?
http://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2014/06/...epage=true
I believe a sex slave contract is part of the premise of 50 Shades of Grey. In the book, the man refuses to have sex until the woman signs.
If you wanted to have fun with this, you could.
If you wanted to have fun with this, you could.
Read my work on Return of Kings here.
Fellows, a great precedent has been set. If a signed contract is required to have sex, then what stops men to ask for a signed contract for unplanned pregnancy? A contract that would state that in case pregnancy happens, he never agreed to be responsible for the children.
I'm not surprised it's a man sponsoring thie bill. I was visiting back home a couple weekends ago and met up with an old work buddy at a local pub. He has two daughters, one in college and the other in high school.
He was talking about his younger daughter (14-15) and how she's going to be a handful for guys because she's so pretty and she thinks she's too good for any of them.
I told him she would be better off learning some humility and how to cook and clean. He just about lost his lunch right there and blew his top. "My daughter will never cook and clean for a man!!, He will do the cooking and cleaning. She's too good for any of them. Whoever dates her better worship the ground she walks on. That's what I teach her, and she listens!"
For me it was like seeing Freddy Kruger come to life in front of me. I started smiling and saying, "Oh ok, well you know best." And then he went off for another 10 mins or so whle I watched in part amusement and horror.
One of the problems with modern day women is they are being raised by Fathers who want to keep them as Daddy's little innocent little girl that no other man can ever possess, and teach them that men should bow to them, etc.
I think they do this because their own wives lack femininty so the man tries to have and preserve that through their daughter. He's really doing her a huge disservice in the end.
He was talking about his younger daughter (14-15) and how she's going to be a handful for guys because she's so pretty and she thinks she's too good for any of them.
I told him she would be better off learning some humility and how to cook and clean. He just about lost his lunch right there and blew his top. "My daughter will never cook and clean for a man!!, He will do the cooking and cleaning. She's too good for any of them. Whoever dates her better worship the ground she walks on. That's what I teach her, and she listens!"
For me it was like seeing Freddy Kruger come to life in front of me. I started smiling and saying, "Oh ok, well you know best." And then he went off for another 10 mins or so whle I watched in part amusement and horror.
One of the problems with modern day women is they are being raised by Fathers who want to keep them as Daddy's little innocent little girl that no other man can ever possess, and teach them that men should bow to them, etc.
I think they do this because their own wives lack femininty so the man tries to have and preserve that through their daughter. He's really doing her a huge disservice in the end.
"In all seriousness though, this will only hurt the betas, who'll be more sexless than ever."
The problem is that Alpha and Beta are contextual. Pretty much all college guys are Beta when up against the legal system. The system becomes the Alpha.
For an example, look at what happened to the Duke lacrosse team in 2006. All of them seemed like major Alphas, but once the legal system clamped down, they walked around like sheepish Betas, as if they had tails between their legs.
In the same way the government becomes both Husband and Daddy to single mothers, the campus becomes Boyfriend and Daddy to college girls. And this bill is making sure of that.
The problem is that Alpha and Beta are contextual. Pretty much all college guys are Beta when up against the legal system. The system becomes the Alpha.
For an example, look at what happened to the Duke lacrosse team in 2006. All of them seemed like major Alphas, but once the legal system clamped down, they walked around like sheepish Betas, as if they had tails between their legs.
In the same way the government becomes both Husband and Daddy to single mothers, the campus becomes Boyfriend and Daddy to college girls. And this bill is making sure of that.
The bill was unanimously approved by the state senate. Once Governor Jerry Brown signs it, the bill will become law.
There are some startling implications. This isn't just about college. This is a slippery slope all men find ourselves on.
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/08/29/...means-men/
There are some startling implications. This isn't just about college. This is a slippery slope all men find ourselves on.
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/08/29/...means-men/
Great breakdown, Mike. I recommend that everyone read the D&P post to understand what this law really means (to the extent it's even possible to understand).
Excerpt:
I am the farthest thing from a fear monger, but this is starting to get scary and truly out of control.
Excerpt:
Quote:Quote:
How consent is defined under SB-967.
Under SB-967, a man can be guilty of rape even if the girl doesn’t say no, tell him he is moving too fast, or otherwise communicate that she doesn’t want to have sex.
Again, let’s look at the text of the law: “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity…. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.”
If a girl is smiling during intercourse, did you rape her? Under the law, perhaps. After all, is a silent smile evidence of affirmative consent?
If you and your girlfriend get drunk and have sex, are you a rapist? Under the new law, yes. “The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”
I am the farthest thing from a fear monger, but this is starting to get scary and truly out of control.
same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
Quote: (08-29-2014 12:00 PM)MikeCF Wrote:
The bill was unanimously approved by the state senate. Once Governor Jerry Brown signs it, the bill will become law.
There are some startling implications. This isn't just about college. This is a slippery slope all men find ourselves on.
http://www.dangerandplay.com/2014/08/29/...means-men/
I was really hoping that was facetious but then I realized it was you and took a second to mourn the stupidity of the situation.
Chappelle called this long ago also, this is fucking retarded:
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)