[kaotic]

(08-29-2014 12:18 PM)Glaucon Wrote:  

The most idiotic thing is, if you point out this is wrong, you will be called a rapist. That is why it was unanimous.

Yup, a misogynistic pig, who is apart of the problem and rape culture.

This is INSANE, there is no due process.

A girl who bangs a dude SOBER, can cry rape the morning after regretting she became a ONS.

You literally have to record everything now (secretly or not).

Next thing you know you'll have to approach girls with a camera and a form for her to fill out.

[ThrustMaster]

So wait is she yanks my cock out of my pants and starts sucking on it without my saying "yes you can suck my cock" is sexual assault? Oh wait nm this doesn't apply to guys right?

[turuk]

What are you going to use as a stamp?

[Sonsowey]

New California Law Requires Men to say "You like that baby? Yeah? Tell me you like it" every time a new position is attempted.

[The Lizard of Oz]

All jokes aside.

What this law means is that essentially any normal sexual interaction on a California college campus will be enough to get a student expelled from that college and have his career and reputation permanently ruined. It's entirely up to the female to declare there was no "affirmative consent" (even if she was completely sober and conscious and offered no resistance whatsoever) and up to a college board composed of administrators (not judges or legal professionals) to decide that what she says sounds right to them. They have complete power and discretion. Of course these commissions will be staffed by professional feminists and social justice warriors to make sure that the "survivor" always gets a "fair hearing".

This leaves me at a loss for words.

[Dusty]

(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/

Mike, as a litigator , would you ever consider doing some pro bono work to help some cat getting fucked by school kangaroo courts or this law?

I'd love to see a university sued the fuck out of for libeling some cat's reputation, or this law in particular taken to the Supreme Court.

This is some Leninist shit here.

[BadWolf]

Its all great... dunno why so many guys freakin out, this is simply the end of sex in AMERICA.

Now more men will be travelling across the border to seek companionship and love or even just sex. It'll help the economy in Mexico and put an end to Feminism in America... lets see how quick women turn sh1t around when they realize that guys can go elsewhere for better quality women. This is good for fathers because you don't have to worry about your daughters... its win/win for redpilll guys.

[speakeasy]

Dissaproves.

[MikeCF]

Dusty, yes. When I find the right case, hell will be unleashed on our adversaries.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(08-29-2014 01:08 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

Dusty, yes. When I find the right case, hell will be unleashed on our adversaries.

Thank you Mike.

This would truly be a mission worth devoting every last ounce of your professional expertise, talent, and intelligence to.

[Glaucon]

On the positive note:

Because now you have to film every interaction with a women, I predict a huge rise in amateur porn.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

This does not sound like it was drafted by an actual lawyer.
What is "affirmative consent" and how is it different from plain ol' consent?

[The Lizard of Oz]

(08-29-2014 01:57 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

This does not sound like it was drafted by an actual lawyer.
What is "affirmative consent" and how is it different from plain ol' consent?

Indeed, I believe this law is vague and overbroad, and should be found unconstitutional for that reason alone.

The idea is that affirmative consent is consent given by explicit affirmation, as opposed to plain old consent which can be indicated by acquiescence and lack of resistance.

Example:

Plain old consent: you stick your finger in a girl's pussy. She moans with pleasure and moves closer to you, but says nothing.

That's not good enough. Now what has to happen is

"Affirmative consent": you ask a girl, "may a I stick a finger in your pussy"? She says, "yes I consent to you doing it. Please proceed".

This is what the new law says.

[Yano]

Some here noted that this hurts the betas. However equally, if not more, it harms the Ugly and the Average women.

Guys will not even think about fucking these girls anymore. Next, these girls will be even more unsatisfied with their lives because now, nobody will want to fuck them. The high risk is not worth the miniscule reward.

These unsatisfied women will find more ways to "get back" at men and thus the threshold for rape will decline further in an attempt to remove their jealousy from their own lives by taking away sex from beautiful women. Next up you may see people getting jail time for grabbing a girls hand in public.

Hansters are real.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

(08-29-2014 02:03 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(08-29-2014 01:57 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

This does not sound like it was drafted by an actual lawyer.
What is "affirmative consent" and how is it different from plain ol' consent?

Indeed, I believe this law is vague and overbroad, and should be found unconstitutional for that reason alone.

The idea is that affirmative consent is consent given by explicit affirmation, as opposed to plain old consent which can be indicated by acquiescence and lack of resistance.

Example:

Plain old consent: you stick your finger in a girl's pussy. She moans with pleasure and moves closer to you, but says nothing.

That's not good enough. Now what has to happen is

"Affirmative consent": you ask a girl, "may a I stick a finger in your pussy"? She says, "yes I consent to you doing it. Please proceed".

This is what the new law says.

Hm. Reminds me of the loyalty oaths from Catch-22.
Not to be too ad-hominem, but I wonder what the sex lives of the legislators are like?

[The Lizard of Oz]

These legislators are not in college, so the law does not apply to them, though it may well end up fucking over their sons' lives.

I think there are people there who understand the insanity of this, but they are cowed by the feminists and don't want to be accused of "condoning rape". And some are feminists, or white-knight true believers. Some really believe the endlessly repeated lies about "20% of females on campus being sexual assault victims" and feel that something must be done to protect their daughters from this supposed "rape epidemic".

When hysterical lies are repeated over and over and go unchallenged, this has the most dire consequences for people's lives. We are seeing these consequences unfold right now.

[Renzy]

(08-29-2014 12:55 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(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/

Mike, as a litigator , would you ever consider doing some pro bono work to help some cat getting fucked by school kangaroo courts or this law?

I'd love to see a university sued the fuck out of for libeling some cat's reputation, or this law in particular taken to the Supreme Court.

And the truth is we're not going to see any real changes until that happens.

Once a couple of colleges are hit with high-profile, high-cost lawsuits that negatively affect their bottom line, maybe then they'll rethink their decision of appropriating a process that have should have been left to the criminal justice system.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(08-29-2014 03:43 PM)Renzy Wrote:  

Once a couple of colleges are hit with high-profile, high-cost lawsuits that negatively affect their bottom line, maybe then they'll rethink their decision of appropriating a process that have should have been left to the criminal justice system.

In this particular case (the California law) the colleges no longer have any choice. They are now required by law to implement this deranged procedure (or will be once the bill is signed by the governor, which it will be).

The law itself will have to be reversed or overturned and that has to start with a particular case where it can be challenged in court.

[CactusCat589]

Bastard in a basket, I almost chose UCLA for undergrad in 2011. There's something sick in that entire state.

Let California stand as warning of the disease of liberalism for all of time.

[kaotic]

(08-29-2014 05:32 PM)CactusCat589 Wrote:  

Bastard in a basket, I almost chose UCLA for undergrad in 2011. There's something sick in that entire state.

Let California stand as warning of the disease of liberalism for all of time.

Trust me, it's the first boat to sink in the states fleet. Its a train wreck here.

[Blackhawk]

It's an amendment to the California Education Code.

If you look at the header, it's "to ensure that students, faculty, and staff who are victims of sexual assault on the grounds or facilities of their institutions receive treatment and information, including a description of on-campus and off-campus resources."

If you're a student don't fuck in dorms or otherwhere on campus property (sexy as those steam tunnels are). Get an off campus apartment as soon as possible. For most people, this will be very, very easy to follow.

If anyone accuses you of sexual misconduct on campus, your first level of defense should be hiring a lawyer without comment. Lawyer up instantly. But one of your points of defense will now be, "Did it happen on campus property?" Most likely a lawyer will be able to argue if it didn't the university, college or community college has no agency, case dismissed.

And remember, if you do end up having Russian-style protest sex in the middle of the campus quad dressed as your favorite masked superhero, make sure you give affirmative consent very, very loudly for everyone with a iPhone recording you.

Other thing this bill does is make it rain university money for campus counseling organizations. There are no standards for what these counseling services have to take. I'd love to see some red-pill guys set up campus organizations to compete with the usual leftwing slush-fund receivers. Men's advocacy group and men's rights groups should be easily funded because of this bill. Setting up an off campus organization to provide free legal services to men falsely accused of rape, now required to be funded by each campus under this bill, should keep at least a few lawyers employed.

Or you know, you could just concentrate on your STEM degree and get the fuck out of there.

Because none of this shit matters the instant you get a job.

I'm also not sure what section (10) is about with indemnifying witnesses. Can the defendant also be a witness, indemnifying themselves under section 10 as well?

I am not a lawyer. This cannot be construed for legal advice. Your life and destiny are your own.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Blackhawk, what you stated is inaccurate. The bill explicitly applies to activities that take place on or off campus, as long as they involve university students.

Quote:

67386.
(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:

Link

[Blackhawk]

(08-29-2014 05:42 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Blackhawk, what you stated is inaccurate. The bill explicitly applies to activities that take place on or off campus, as long as they involve university students.

Thank you for the correction!

[Dusty]

How many dykey and or ugly damaged broads can we find who are behind this?

The underlying root cause of this type of insanity is damaged women who hate the heterosexual male sex drive and what we are attracted to (i.e., not them) and this is high tech cock-blocking and revenge against bros.

Quote:

Instead of the catchphrase “no means no,” the new standard says only "yes means yes." It’s called “affirmative consent."

“Affirmative consent means if I’m interested in having a sexual contact with another person, I must first find out if that other person wants to do it with me,” said Carol Mosley, director of an education and training program called “We End Violence.”

Mosley says the “no means no” campaign wasn’t particularly effective for stopping sexual assaults.

“Usually a victim doesn’t say no,” Mosley said by phone from her home in Montgomery, Alabama. “They say ‘Wait, stop, this is too fast, my roommate’s coming home, I feel sick, I’m not ready for this.’”

[Truth Teller]

Let's see how much this is actually followed... I can't imagine two people at a frat party signing a fucking form for "consent."

This is such dumbassery it's actually funny.