"Almost No One Has Ever Had Sex This Way": The "May I Touch Your Left Titty Now?" Standard
Maryland is now considering teaching the "affirmative consent" standard to high school students, via legislation introduced by two state lawmakers, Ariana B. Kelly and Marice Morales.
This is the "yes means yes" standard for sexual consent. As a WaPo piece by Josh Hicks notes, this is the definition of sexual consent as "clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed and voluntary agreement between all participants to engage in each act within the course of sexual activity."
Both California and New York have passed laws requiring colleges to use affirmative-consent standards in weighing charges of sexual assault. Morales proposed similar measures during Maryland's last two legislative sessions, but they failed to advance. She said she believes that changing what is taught at the high school level could be just as effective in curbing sexual assault.
One major problem with this is the ease at which this can be abused.
I predict that this would quickly be used -- or turned into -- a standard for deeming a sex act sexual assault, like if a person gets caught cheating, or daddy finds out and is outraged, etc.
As a commenter at the WaPo points out:
RealChoices
This is bad idea. I hope this is typical "dogooderism" getting carried away. There are lots of amorous acts that start out ambiguously. One partner saying "no" is pretty straight forward, but trying a mandate sequences of events is an overreach. However, I wonder if the real goal here is the lower the evidentiary standard for conviction of sexual assault to the alleged victim's accusation. That would turn the standards of justice on their head.
And this commenter has it exactly right:
Last Gasp
To avoid confusion, the best and safest thing is for both parties to sign three notarized documents and register them with the Clerk of the Court prior to engaging in any sort of sexual relations.
This also comes back to how feminism has shifted from demanding equal treatment to what I describe as demanding that women be treated as eggshells, not equals.
I have never, ever had a sexual encounter -- and I have had PLENTY -- in which I was asked, "May I kiss you now." "May I feel your left titty?" As I used to say about a guy who'd ask, "Can I kiss you?" instead of just doing it -- preferably by grabbing me and doing it: "If you have to ask, you don't qualify. Go home and jerk off so I can go find a real man."
And I am not alone. The quote heading this post is from Ashe Schow at Watchdog.org. She explains what the standard means:
one accused of sexual assault has no true way to defend himself (or, in rare cases, herself) against an accusation, and proponents have answered no questions on the matter. How can an accused student convince anyone they have unambiguous consent when the accuser says they didn't? An accuser just has to say she was too drunk to consent, or say he didn't ask for consent for every single act (he may have asked to kiss her, touch her, or have sex with her, but if he didn't specifically ask for oral sex, he could be accused of assault).And then there are the instances where "yes" doesn't even mean "yes," because an accuser just has to say he or she was too scared to leave or say "no."
A better alternative would be to encourage conversations between sexual partners, but not to punish people so easily for ambiguous sexual encounters.
Encourage, okay.
But really, the state has no fucking business being all up in people's sex lives like this.
via @ClayRoutledge
But really, the state has no fucking business being all up in people's sex lives like this.
If you control sex, you can control people. As the saying goes, when you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will soon follow. That's part and parcel of the nannystate government.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 15, 2017 6:10 AM
Related:
http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/why-college-guys-should-be-terrified-of-campus-hookups/
Watch for this to start leaking over into laws that govern the general public.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 15, 2017 9:02 AM
I see an economic opportunity here. Create an app with the basic outline of the appropriate sex, both parties download, both parties register, both parties tap on the screen to indicate consent and then tap the appropriate double-check of YES, I agree the other party registered may touch me there or NO, I made a mistake, go back to retouch or sign out.
Bonus points if they can get the rights to the Susan Sarandon version of "Touch-a, Touch-a, Touch Me" from Rocky Horror and have it play when the app opens.
I drive my pirate car to work.
Nanc at February 15, 2017 9:46 AM
I was going to suggest video of the interaction, uploaded to the web immediately in order to prove that one had consent, but that may have other problems.
Besides, "Dammit, Janet"
mer at February 15, 2017 10:04 AM
Here are some ideas:
1) If you are not into it, don't go to his room/apt. or invite him up to yours. And certainly don't have too much to drink.
2) If you don't know where you draw the line sexually don't start.
3) If you have a line you don't want crossed, stop him at that line firmly.
4) Always be in a place where you can call for help.
5) If necessary, call for help.
6) Saying you were scared to leave or call for help is insane. No one believes you. See item 1.
7) Changing your mind later is unethical and chickenshit behavior. No one believes you. You look like a crazy bitch. Take responsibility. You are supposedly an adult.
cc at February 15, 2017 10:39 AM
As far as "affirmative consent", many of the campus assault cases were clearly cases where there was enthusiastic consent, but where the girl changed her mind months later. If it wasn't bad enough to call for help or fight for your life, it wasn't assault, it was too much to drink or a bad date. It is evil to accuse a boy of a serious crime because later you broke up.
Furthermore, even if the boy thinks he got enthusiastic consent, she can later say it wasn't, and there can be no proof besides a video which is usually illegal. In a case of rape there is usually injury to the woman, which is pretty helpful evidence. If instead the couple keep dating for another month, not so much.
cc at February 15, 2017 10:43 AM
Look, the purpose of these rules (whether on campus or in actual law) is NOT to ensure that every encounter takes place in a framework of "clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed and voluntary agreement between all participants . . . ". Repeat after me - that is NOT the purpose.
The rules are written in such a way that there is no possible way to know whether or not they are being complied with - they require all participants to be mind-readers. And - as we are seeing on college campuses already - the rules are such that whatever is done or said at the time, can be effectively reversed later, based on no evidence, but solely at the assertion of the now self-identifying victim. "I said 'yes' at the time, but that doesn't count because I had been drinking. If I hadn't been drinking, I would have said 'no'." And parties will be judged, after the fact, based not on what happened at the time, but what another party says they would now prefer to have happened.
The real purpose is to allow a participant to later claim 'victimhood', and to retroactively withdraw consent, based upon factors which other participants could not possibly know. The rules are just a minefield for all participants, filled with weasel-terms like 'informed' and 'unambiguous'. You tell me what those parameters mean within this context.
Not to be judgmental (or no more than usual, anyway) but based upon recent case history, these rules have been formulated specifically to allow women to either
- re-characterize choices which they later regret to make themselves victims, thereby reclaiming their image of themselves in their own eyes and they eyes of others. It was a hookup I now regret, and I feel bad because all my friends know about it, but - Guess what? I didn't really consent, so it was actually an assault, and I am the lily-white victim.
or
- exact revenge upon partners after the fact, either for personal reasons (he dumped me six months later, so let's convert all the happy hookups we ever had into assaults and coitus up his life for him) or for political reasons (my new feminist friends in my gender-studies class told me that what we did was not a happy hookup, and we broke up anyway, so I realize now that he actually assaulted me. Totally.)
I understand that these rules are supposed to be gender-neutral, but let's be real - in 999 out of 1000 cases, we're talking about a woman who later claims to be the victim of a man.
I know little of these matters, but I understand that there are clinics that are popular with women from certain religions, where the appearance of innocent maidenhood can be surgically restored. These rules are just a mechanism designed by Western third-wave feminists to allow women to do the same thing, only socially rather than surgically. While it may not have been the primary intent of the WTWF when they devised these rules, the fact is that they will be used by women to exact revenge upon men (as described above) and I'm pretty sure that the WTWF really don't care about that, as long as it's men getting screwed over.
llater,
llamas
llamas at February 15, 2017 11:31 AM
As Llamas said, the point is to make everyone guilty and then selectively prosecute those out of political favor. They don't want anyone to follow these rules. They want to pick and chose who to jail without having to deal with their victim being guilty of a crime.
Ben at February 15, 2017 11:58 AM
Both California and New York have passed laws requiring colleges to use affirmative-consent standards"
Why just colleges? What makes them special in this regard? In theory it's where smart people go. They should be harder to take advantage of.
And it's bound to be a cluster up and an emotional and time sink for all involved: except for the clerics . . . I mean careful, thoughtful administrators.
Weird. As the Saudis begin to scale back their Mutawa, religious police, the U.S. is building a cadre on campus. A Temple of Learning indeed.
Canvasback at February 15, 2017 1:03 PM
There is no better way to kill an entire country than to ensure its youth is never educated.
Make the point of "education" the collection of money by putting more "administrators" than teachers afield and enabling unions to collect state tax money.
Dumb down colleges by making them "more affordable" and encouraging "affirmative action", thus adding unqualified people. Allow state funding to be applied to fields of study with no hope of ever recouping student load costs.
Fill the curriculum with "studies" of little value early, such that the basics remain unlearned, and promote socially, ignoring any standards.
There is an entertaining TV show called, "The Carbonaro Effect", featuring magician Michael Carbonaro's extremely well-done mechanics dumbfounding mark after mark. Of course, he's not airing the times he was caught out by an observant and educated person, but the number of people who actually think a hedgehog burrows into a cantaloupe to live, or that an orange can yield two quarts of juice is depressing given that these people arrive in their own cars from work of some kind. Their dim gaze is not pretty.
Radwaste at February 15, 2017 1:12 PM
6) Saying you were scared to leave or call for help is insane. No one believes you.
_____________________________________
What's insane about it?
Especially if she changes her mind once the door is closed? That happens. No, that's not the same as not knowing where you draw the line sexually. She THOUGHT she knew, to begin with.
The following isn't quite the same thing, but I was disgusted with some reactions to the Mike Tyson case; I don't remember the details, but I wouldn't be surprised if the victim DID want to have sex but changed her mind once she was in the room and didn't want to say that to the jury for fear she'd get even less sympathy than she did.
And regarding this:
"If you are not into it, don't go to his room/apt. or invite him up to yours."
That's "common sense" when she doesn't know him well. It's not so common when she's been alone with other male friends or even boyfriends and THEY didn't get angry when she said no - and plenty may not have tried to do more than kiss anyway.
I trust you're not agreeing with the following writer to Miss Manners in 1994:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-10-28/features/9410280005_1_chaperones-tea-sandwiches-public-areas
Dear Miss Manners: Everyone seems to be utterly unaware these days that if a young lady (of any age) consents to being alone with a man, she has surrendered her right to say "no" to sex.
If you go to a man's car, hotel room, apartment, home, whatever, alone with him, sexual consent is implicit. To scream rape later should subject the accuser to ridicule.
To avoid rape (not including abduction by a total stranger or forcible entry into one's home, etc.) all one needs to do is have a chaperone or friend, or stay in safe public areas. The responsibility for a woman's virtue lies with her. Her conduct alone is responsible for the phenomenon so wrongly designated "date rape" or "acquaintance rape."
If her judgment should prove unwise, she should learn from the mistake and get on with life. The courts should not be cluttered with such nonsense.
(end)
She answered more civilly than you might expect.
lenona at February 15, 2017 3:01 PM
And if anyone missed this the last time I posted it:
To go back to the theoretical boys' question "well, what legal rights DO boys have," I can think of seven, by now.
(Granted, only two of these are actually PROTECTED by law, but so what? If something isn't illegal, it's legal, whether women like it or not.)
1. Every boy and man has the right not to date a girl or a woman more than once - or even once - if she doesn't meet his "needs." What is often not civilized is letting people know in detail what his "needs" are, since chances are many women AND men will think he's a jerk for having them. In other words, if you're a man and your rule is that you don't date anyone who doesn't look like a fashion model or anyone who won't sleep with you after the first date - hell, BEFORE the first date - that is your right, but keep it to yourself. I.e., don't put it in so many words. After all, if all men had those standards, women would figure out pretty quickly what was going on without being told. How they might react is another matter.
2. A man has the right to expect to take turns paying for dates and to refuse to date women who won't do this. Since many women are not used to this idea for one reason or another, it's often best to go on a modest date first (or two paid dates) and then go on FREE dates until she either offers to pay the next dinner date or asks what's going on. If she's been on two or three free dates with you, chances are she won't dump you when you explain.
3. A man has the right to pursue a sex life without any intentions of getting married, so long as he's honest and polite about it. If we can understand why drivers get fined for speeding, we can understand why harassment is wrong.
4. It IS legal to sleep with consenting strangers. Provided, that is, it does not happen outdoors, they are not being paid for it and are not underage. No, it is not "too much wooorrrkkk" to find out that last information. Parents of teens and preteens are never going to let those laws change, so accept it. Any adult could get off the hook by claiming "he/she lied about his/her age" when the kid didn't actually give an age. That can't be allowed.
(Not to mention that sleeping with strangers doesn't just carry the risk of your getting infected or arrested, of course. You can also get robbed or killed. Yet, many people seem desperate enough to do it anyway.)
5. A man has the right to refuse sex from a man or a woman and invoke the law when needed.
6. A man has the right to TRY to get and use any male contraceptives available when he does not want to become a father - and to campaign for better male methods if he cares enough. (This does not mean that doctors don't get to make their own rules; doctors are understandably leery about sterilizing anyone under 30 or so or sterilizing any married patient who wants to get the operation without the spouse's knowledge. Even Warren Farrell, when he complained about that in "Father and Child Reunion," didn't suggest that married women have it easy in that respect. So it's not just male patients.)
7. A man has the right, last I heard, to divorce a wife for "alienation of affections."
lenona at February 15, 2017 3:17 PM
lenona, if she reports she was too scared the minute after she get away thats one thing.
Reporting it six months after the fact the day after you broke up with him thats something else.
Take the Amherst case, woman suck on her roommate's boyfriend's dick while he is passed out.
More than a year later she decided that in 'reality' he forced her to do it because his passed out drunk unconscious presence made her too scared to stop a blow job she initiated after waiting for him to pass out cause he wouldn't fuck her while awake.
And he got suspended.
She admits to sexually assaulting a man passed out drunk, but the college decided he used mind control and intimidation to force her to continue all while unconscious
lujlp at February 15, 2017 3:42 PM
Lenona,
Is it your intention to fan the flames of men's increasing antipathy toward females? Well, it's working...
Jay R at February 15, 2017 4:08 PM
The world must be made safe for drunken, retarded sluts!
Jay R at February 15, 2017 4:09 PM
Lenona's fascination with the word "rights" troubles me.
I don't think Lenona, personally, wants to bust down the bedroom doors of drunken frat boys at 12:17am on a Saturday morning to defend the 'right of a woman to change her mind.'
There are men in the world who want to demonstrate just that sort of intrusive machismo, often while carrying sidearms; but Lenona asking those men to do so (from the comfort of her own quiet home), and demanding that the rest of us pay those men for their efforts, does NOT qualify as courageous defense of anyone's rights.
Nor do I, personally, want to skip work and family responsibilities to go for jury duty when a young woman decides she's been raped because she'd 'changed her mind' at some late hour. Perhaps Lenona would enjoy such busybody mischief-making in our courts of law. But I wouldn't regard that as a courageous defense of anyone's rights, either.
Crid at February 15, 2017 6:14 PM
lenona, if she reports she was too scared the minute after she get away thats one thing.
Reporting it six months after the fact the day after you broke up with him thats something else.
_____________________________________
I thought I made it clear enough that I wasn't disagreeing with that. Dan Savage would agree too. I seldom disagree with him on anything, FWIW. Well, other than the idea that there's something weird about preferring to be alone than to enter a long term relationship with anyone who admits to having an incurable STD - or who refuses to take blood tests for such STDs. That is, he'd sympathize with the latter form of abstinence, but not the former.
______________________________________
Is it your intention to fan the flames of men's increasing antipathy toward females? Well, it's working...
______________________________________
Says the man who implied in the Stanford thread that someone who's too drunk to resist and is practically comatose should be legally fair game for anyone to assault - or rob.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/06/11/outrage_leads_t.html
(See June 11, 3:38 pm)
lenona at February 15, 2017 6:30 PM
Every revolution begins with indoctrination of college students and then locking up the non-converted intelligentsia. College students provide the shock troops of the Revolution.
If you indoctrinate the college students, you mold the minds that mold the minds.
Conan the Grammarian at February 15, 2017 6:49 PM
"12:17am on a Saturday morning" ?!
...college students don't even go out for the night until about 11 pm. Nobody's home getting lucky as soon as 12:17 am on a Saturday morning.
I'm a middle aged woman drinking wine from a box at home, alone, on a Wednesday night, but I live in the college town I moved to for college so if memory serves me right this is still true.
While I'm here, let me shout out a big THANK YOU to Mr. Johnson (I kid you not), gym teacher for our tenth grade Sex Ed. class*, who once said, "The clitoris is a very sensitive part of the female anatomy. GENTLEMEN, I REPEAT, the clitoris is a VERY SENSITIVE part of the female anatomy."
Anyone who wants to teach consent as part of high school sex education, one explicitly described contact point at a time, has my approval.
*why is sexual education taught as a one week unit of gym class, instead of as part of the science curriculum?
Michelle at February 15, 2017 6:56 PM
"College students provide the shock troops of the Revolution."
Most of this generation will have to get a note from their Mom if they want to participate.
Canvasback at February 15, 2017 8:00 PM
"*why is sexual education taught as a one week unit of gym class, instead of as part of the science curriculum? "
Christians are to blame:
Parents Organize Against Sex Ed In Schools
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 15, 2017 8:13 PM
Meanwhile, Jesus has been kidnapped, and the ransom is YOUR SOUL!
Now in hardback edition.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 15, 2017 8:17 PM
"He also said that the district would be in violation of a rule holding that parents 'have an opportunity to be full partners in their child’s education.'"
I'm imagining high school students mortified by their parents' presence in sex-ed class.
Over-involved parents of high school aged people have a way of getting off in full view.
Michelle at February 15, 2017 8:48 PM
Given the Catholic church still protects child rapists so they can continue raping children, I fail to understand why people ask them for moral guidance,
cause they,
you know,
PROTECT THE PEOPLE WHO RAPE CHILDREN
lujlp at February 15, 2017 9:03 PM
luj I've learned it's easy to justify sacrificing someone else.
Michelle at February 15, 2017 9:12 PM
My point at 6:14 p.m. is that we have to be careful before we use the word 'rights.' The things we call rights should be what you and I would be willing to fight on the street about... Enslavement of blacks, the torture of prisoners, or something so obviously wrong that we would be prepared to make personal sacrifices in response without further inquiry.
Spending other people's tax dollars to solve problems, or to hire people to solve those problems, does not qualify as an admirable defense of rights.
Before I stand up to defend perfectly healthy college students who let things get out of hand, I'm going to have questions. And I don't want to go through my life asking questions of that kind. It's just not worth it.
crid at February 16, 2017 12:22 AM
Followed Michelle's link; wondered if that one particular perp was still alive, or whether he'd expired quickly in prison, Dahmer-style; Googled him.
You'll never guess what I found.
Crid at February 16, 2017 12:32 AM
"I was going to suggest video of the interaction, uploaded to the web immediately in order to prove that one had consent, but that may have other problems."
The big problem is that consent can be withdrawn at any moment. So she can simply claim later that she withdrew consent after uploading the documents. So it doesn't help at all. The only thing that could possibly help would be to video the entire sex session, with an explicit protocol being followed at all times. But I'll bet governments would use anti-pornography laws, or privacy laws, to suppress that evidence.
Cousin Dave at February 16, 2017 5:23 AM
"*why is sexual education taught as a one week unit of gym class, instead of as part of the science curriculum? "
Christians are to blame:
Parents Organize Against Sex Ed In Schools
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 15, 2017 8:13 PM
_______________________________________
Guess what else? (I haven't yet finished the article.)
Ten years ago (I don't know if things have changed or if things were different before this century), a full one-third of American teens were being taught nothing but abstinence in their sex-ed classes, thanks to Bush's spending of millions of tax dollars on such courses.
Which might well explain why that TSA worker, a while back, didn't even know what an IUD was.
Is that what we want tax dollars spent on?
lenona at February 16, 2017 8:41 AM
Well, Lenona, no, but I don't want The Sexuality of Your Dreams™ taught in high school, either... Whatever it might be.
In the classroom, I mean. I don't mind kinds learning about sex in High School, I just don't want it learned in class. For grades.
Crid at February 16, 2017 8:54 AM
lenona: it is one thing to talk about a famous and scary dude like Mike Tyson, but 99% of these campus cases are just some schmuck college boy with no fame or power. To say you are too scared to leave when you are in a dorm full of people...really? Can't call for help? Perhaps "scared" to be humiliated, but actual fear? No.
cc at February 16, 2017 10:24 AM
This is what audio/video recordings are for. Record the entire interaction, then just file it for future evidence if wrongly accused.
PavePusher at February 16, 2017 10:42 AM
Crid, if the grades got taken away, would it make any difference to you?
In the meantime, how about Not Paying abstinence teachers with tax dollars? As I've mentioned before, if parents can't convince their kids the parents' hearts will be broken if the kids have sex before marriage (or if they don't at least wait until they leave home for good), why would a stranger in class do any better at convincing them?
Not to mention that it's been pointed out pretty often that while such teens might wait a year or so longer than other teens before having sex, they're LESS likely to use condoms when they do - in part, of course, because they feel more guilty about having sex in the first place!
One example: Texas has one of the highest (maybe THE highest?) rate of teen pregnancy in the US.
lenona at February 16, 2017 1:31 PM
cc: Someone who is twice your weight can be pretty scary too - especially if he threatens to hurt you seriously if you scream. Also, there's a good chance, especially with serial rapists, that the whole thing will be at least somewhat planned and so there won't BE that many people at that time and that place. (As many people here like to point out, many rapes on campus ARE committed by a relatively small number of serial rapists - who likely target timid people to begin with.)
lenona at February 16, 2017 1:36 PM
See, Lenona, in your girly fantasyland, taxpayers will fund Loving People to do the intimate work of childrearing in dreary, fluorescent-lit classrooms such that all the dear chidwin learn what they need to learn, and then the LP's shuffle off on three-month vacations while their administrators do even better.
> Someone who is twice your weight
> can be pretty scary too
1. Then why the fuck are you alone with him and drinking?
2. Is "pretty scary" the threshold for which you will demand that I, a grey & middle-aged & potbellied taxpayer thousands of miles away, will be expected to stand to attention to defend a girl's "rights"?
Best.
Crid at February 16, 2017 4:48 PM
Crid said: Nor do I, personally, want to skip work and family responsibilities to go for jury duty when a young woman decides she's been raped because she'd 'changed her mind' at some late hour.
___________________________________________
Even if she were some young, beloved relative of yours?
The law says: If she said no, it's rape. (Why does anyone believe that MOST women failed to say no at the time, if they go through the humiliating process of bringing a case to trial?)
lenona at February 17, 2017 1:18 PM
1. Then why the fuck are you alone with him and drinking?
__________________________________
Maybe because, as I hinted earlier, she's gotten drunk on prior occasions with other male friends or boyfriends and THEY didn't fly into a rage when she said no or wanted to have sex at first but changed her mind at the last minute? Maybe she thought she knew him well enough to be alone with him, only to find out he's a Jekyll-Hyde?
Of course, being a JH is a type of mental disturbance. As old-timers like to say, there are really only two types of mental disturbances - that which the authorities need to control (as in, mental hospitals and/or close parental supervision and forced medication) and that which the patient can and should manage on his own, even if it means isolating himself a lot or staying in public places. If you're highly susceptible to road rage, you shouldn't drive.
lenona at February 17, 2017 1:36 PM
Oh, yes - maybe, too, she has a brother who's complained more than once about how all girls treat boys like would-be criminals these days and how that's so horribly rude and unfair.
lenona at February 18, 2017 11:47 AM
Leave a comment