New California Law Makes Filmed Love Scenes Rape

[spoonitnow]

But several reputable news sources say "lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person." http://abc7chicago.com/news/yes-mean...signed/328741/

Also: "Consent can be conveyed by a verbal yes or signaled in a nonverbal way, but lack of resistance or objection cannot constitute consent." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/29/us...rnia.html?_r=0

Idk how reputable the Slate is, but they go into detail on the law here http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor...he_sexual.html , attacking those who say the law requires consent contracts.

And sources like this one put the American Spectator's credibility in question http://ajrarchive.org/Article.asp?id=1608 , which make it a good source of trolltential.

It's a ridiculous law for a number of reasons. One example, from your sources: "It also states that if the person has drugs or alcohol in his or her system or is asleep, they cannot give consent."

Your wife had a beer and then blows you? That's rape because it's penetration that she can't consent to.

[JKDS]

It's a ridiculous law for a number of reasons. One example, from your sources: "It also states that if the person has drugs or alcohol in his or her system or is asleep, they cannot give consent."

Your wife had a beer and then blows you? That's rape because it's penetration that she can't consent to.

Thats certainly possible. The bill is worded terribly, and it could be interpreted down the line as meaning just that. It could go the other way though.

The bill doesnt like affirmative consents which arise from intoxication, but if other signs of consent were present than it might be ok. A marital relationship may be enough to show consent in your example, even though a simple dating relationship wouldnt be.

[spoonitnow]

Thats certainly possible. The bill is worded terribly, and it could be interpreted down the line as meaning just that. It could go the other way though.

The bill doesnt like affirmative consents which arise from intoxication, but if other signs of consent were present than it might be ok. A marital relationship may be enough to show consent in your example, even though a simple dating relationship wouldnt be.

While I agree that what you have to say would be a decent way of handling it, one problem I have with this bill is that it very quickly departs from anything reasonable. In today's legal environment, relationship status is never a part of consent ever. Also under the wording of this bill, someone who has had alcohol or drugs (who isn't necessarily intoxicated) cannot consent in any way, shape or form.

Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.

[wufwugy]

Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.

The Downton Abbey, Mad Men sort of patriarchal conservatism in this would be mind numbing if it wasn't so silly. It seems today's feminism believes the same thing that those it claims oppresses women once did: women have too weak of constitution to be considered responsible individuals and must instead rely on men. A hundred years ago: she couldn't help herself, she's hysterical. Today: she can't help herself, she's a liberated woman who must be protected from her own liberty

[spoonitnow]

The Downton Abbey, Mad Men sort of patriarchal conservatism in this would be mind numbing if it wasn't so silly. It seems today's feminism believes the same thing that those it claims oppresses women once did: women have too weak of constitution to be considered responsible individuals and must instead rely on men. A hundred years ago: she couldn't help herself, she's hysterical. Today: she can't help herself, she's a liberated woman who must be protected from her own liberty

If you really want to see an excellent example of this, see Emma Watson's recent speech at the UN on why men should help women because feminism. She calls this the "He For She" campaign, and #heforshe on Twitter is ridiculously funny.

[boost]

While I agree that what you have to say would be a decent way of handling it, one problem I have with this bill is that it very quickly departs from anything reasonable. In today's legal environment, relationship status is never a part of consent ever. Also under the wording of this bill, someone who has had alcohol or drugs (who isn't necessarily intoxicated) cannot consent in any way, shape or form.

Well, that is as long as that person is a female. You can bet your ass that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex that only the man is being tried with rape in that scenario and never the woman.

To avoid spoiling, I won't name the show, but there was a scene in a popular hour long drama recently in which a black out drunk man was having sex with a fully coherent, if not totally sober woman. This was, by even a very strict definition, a scene depicting explicit rape. But here's the thing, I haven't heard a thing about this-- no one is up in arms, and my guess is that most people would view this as a comical scene (it was meant to be) and enjoy it as such. But what if the genders were reversed? The mainstream media, blogs, facebook posts-- people would have lost their god damn minds. There would be petitions to boycott the network, feminist would find their way to a podium, and if queried the average person would, at the very least, say it extremely distasteful.

I honestly do think some of this MRA stuff has eaten its way into some of your brains, and I don't think it's healthy that there is a knee jerk "but what about X!" retort every time a women's rights issue arises-- but I also think examples like this show that the MRA's stuff isn't completely baseless.

[spoonitnow]

To avoid spoiling, I won't name the show, but there was a scene in a popular hour long drama recently in which a black out drunk man was having sex with a fully coherent, if not totally sober woman. This was, by even a very strict definition, a scene depicting explicit rape. But here's the thing, I haven't heard a thing about this-- no one is up in arms, and my guess is that most people would view this as a comical scene (it was meant to be) and enjoy it as such. But what if the genders were reversed? The mainstream media, blogs, facebook posts-- people would have lost their god damn minds. There would be petitions to boycott the network, feminist would find their way to a podium, and if queried the average person would, at the very least, say it extremely distasteful.

I honestly do think some of this MRA stuff has eaten its way into some of your brains, and I don't think it's healthy that there is a knee jerk "but what about X!" retort every time a women's rights issue arises-- but I also think examples like this show that the MRA's stuff isn't completely baseless.

I fully support a woman's rights as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone else. In the case of the United States, the problem is that women have a lot more legal rights than men while still wanting to wave the victim flag. Feminism, despite the outdated dictionary definition, is no longer about the equality of people. Instead, it's about making advances for privileged white women at the cost of everyone else.

As somewhat of an aside, there's lots of information out there about non-white women rejecting modern feminism at incredible rates, as they should. It's to the point that it's become a race issue. It's really that bad.

A good analogy for the path of feminism is that of the path of the first KKK. (Note: This analogy is for the paths of these groups, not the groups themselves.) The KKK was not originally formed for a specifically race-based agenda. Instead, it was originally formed for the purpose of economic relief and helping southerners to avoid exploitation after the Civil War from certain policies of what were called the scalawags (politicians exploiting reconstruction for personal gain at the expense of the people). However, during the process of opposing the carpetbaggers (northerners who primarily came to the south to exploit the extremely cheap labor of freed slaves), it started to become more and more about opposing freed men, and that's why they were ordered officially disbanded. Today, the KKK is rightfully noted as a hate group despite the origins of the very first incarnation of the group (though they are currently on the third incarnation or "wave," which is mildly ironic).

The point is that if you said you were a member of the KKK today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like opposing scalawags and carpetbaggers), people would look at you like you were a fucking idiot.

If you said you were a feminist today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like not being able to vote and fewer educational opportunities), people will soon be looking at you like you're a fucking idiot. Third-wave feminism has taken things so far out into the Twilight Zone that people who are actually in it for equality will need a new word (my vote is for "humanism") to claim just to distance themselves from the bullshit.

Feminism, as it was originally intended, did a lot of great things. However, it's made a lot of momentum in the past 20 years towards becoming a hate group, and it's only going to get worse.

[wufwugy]

Feminism, as it was originally intended, did a lot of great things. However, it's made a lot of momentum in the past 20 years towards becoming a hate group, and it's only going to get worse.

FWIW I think it will get better (but maybe not before it gets worse). Bad economies make people love the state and moralize against all things. A good and growing economy tends to relax the shackles on freedom of choice just enough that ridiculous positions get subverted. This wouldn't be a relevant point to make except that I think we are at the beginning of an era of a long-lasting, growing economy. That notion isn't popular (since when is popular opinion remotely accurate?), but from what I see from the Fed is that they're learning the central banking lessons that allowed Australia and Israel to avoid the crash and recession entirely

[boost]

I fully support a woman's rights as long as it doesn't impede on the rights of anyone else. In the case of the United States, the problem is that women have a lot more legal rights than men while still wanting to wave the victim flag. Feminism, despite the outdated dictionary definition, is no longer about the equality of people. Instead, it's about making advances for privileged white women at the cost of everyone else.

As somewhat of an aside, there's lots of information out there about non-white women rejecting modern feminism at incredible rates, as they should. It's to the point that it's become a race issue. It's really that bad.

A good analogy for the path of feminism is that of the path of the first KKK. (Note: This analogy is for the paths of these groups, not the groups themselves.) The KKK was not originally formed for a specifically race-based agenda. Instead, it was originally formed for the purpose of economic relief and helping southerners to avoid exploitation after the Civil War from certain policies of what were called the scalawags (politicians exploiting reconstruction for personal gain at the expense of the people). However, during the process of opposing the carpetbaggers (northerners who primarily came to the south to exploit the extremely cheap labor of freed slaves), it started to become more and more about opposing freed men, and that's why they were ordered officially disbanded. Today, the KKK is rightfully noted as a hate group despite the origins of the very first incarnation of the group (though they are currently on the third incarnation or "wave," which is mildly ironic).

The point is that if you said you were a member of the KKK today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like opposing scalawags and carpetbaggers), people would look at you like you were a fucking idiot.

If you said you were a feminist today but it was okay because you supported what the group was originally about (aka outdated shit like not being able to vote and fewer educational opportunities), people will soon be looking at you like you're a fucking idiot. Third-wave feminism has taken things so far out into the Twilight Zone that people who are actually in it for equality will need a new word (my vote is for "humanism") to claim just to distance themselves from the bullshit.

Feminism, as it was originally intended, did a lot of great things. However, it's made a lot of momentum in the past 20 years towards becoming a hate group, and it's only going to get worse.

Yeah, I think a huge problem with the feminist movement as it stands is that it tends to be such an echo chamber. Any dissent is disregarded as stemming from ignorance or the brainwashing of the misogynistic society.

That being said, I don't spend a ton of time on this topic, and so for this reason and my gender I clearly have a bias. And I think that's always going to be important to come to terms with, especially for those in the dominant (or previously and now questionably, if you insist) group.