June 16, 2015

Now Liberals Want to Regulate Sex; Specific Verbal Or Written Consent Required

Because we don’t already have more than enough insane laws, a couple of law professors are now seeking to update sex offenses with new ones.
Do these laws need updating? No.
And especially not with the insane updates they want to push forward.

From the Washington Examiner:
The act of sex is not illegal. But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be — unless you follow their rules.
Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the “yes means yes,” or “affirmative consent” model that was passed in California last year.
The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent — which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given — to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.
But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states’ legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.

This would include kissing, hugging and holding hands!
Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated “May I…?” and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations. Men could make the same accusations.
Basically wives and husbands could accuse each other of sexual assault if they didn’t say affirmatively ‘yes’ but meant it.
No one who opposes this legal change argues that consent is unnecessary. But the “yes means yes” standard is so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight unless no one reports them.
Opponents give some examples of why this law is insane.
Opponents say the draft would further burden an already over-criminalized and over-incarcerated American public.
The opponents’ letter provides this common and hypothetical encounter: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint.”
Under Schulhofer and Murphy’s new rules, according to the opposition letter, Person A is guilty of “criminal sexual contact.” That’s because Section 213.0(5) of the draft “defines ‘sexual contact’ expansively, to include any touching of any body part of another person, whether done by the actor or by the person touched. Any kind of contact may qualify; there are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched.”
Person A would be guilty of the act only if Person B filed a complaint, but therein lies a profound problem with Schulhofer and Murphy’s draft. Everything is potentially a sexual assault unless done strictly according to their rules about obtaining prior consent to every action, no matter how innocuous, of every sexual encounter. There is no need to say “no.” Without the presence of a prior “yes,” the act is already an assault.
This is the type of thing that will happen over and over again on a regular basis if laws like this are passed.

And it won’t only be one-sided, women could be accused as well.
These are just more insane bills to control individuals and hurt them, especially men.
There are already laws in place that cover sexual assault, we certainly don’t need any new laws that would make ‘hand holding’ a sexual assault if you didn’t get a firm ‘yes’ before doing so.
Seems the left just wants to turn everyone into unemotional, unfeeling robots.


  1. Good grief people adults are supposed to no longer need parenting and by extension they no longer need governing. Please do yourself and the rest of us a favor and grow the hell up.
    We need to throw off the yoke of gov and all it's bureaucratic tag along busy bodies. Reform is not going to happen, but removal and replacement with a different arrangement entirely, that would be good. As long as it nothing at all like what what we have because face it corruption is no longer cool.

  2. The current laws, that put an obligation on someone to explicitly DENY consent if they are coherent and able to do so, are not at all unreasonable.

    In other words passive acquiescence to sexual acts by a conscious and mentally competent adult IS CONSENT.

    If these women are incapable of making their wishes known during interaction with another person then they should be institutionalized as mentally incompetent.

  3. Guess what, girls? You're going to grow old and die all alone. You're not worth the trouble, and that's the Zionists' plan.

    They want to stop white people from reproducing, so they're making heterosexuality illegal, a little at a time. Between going to jail for child support payments, or going to jail because your girlfriend thinks you're an "abuser" when she's menstruating, or she calls you a "rapist" because you didn't call her the next day, girls have priced themselves out of the market.

    They have nothing to offer men that's worth the headaches, bitching, and now, imprisonment for being attracted to them. Get yourself a good vibrator, and plenty of batteries. You'll need 'em.

  4. This crap is what got the country in trouble in the first place.

    How about this: REQUIRE all sound-minded citizens to be trained in and possess a personal defense weapon; Specifically, a GUN.

    There will be far less rapes and robberies, if these criminal fear getting SHOT for their crime.

    If the bleeding hearts don't like it TOO BAD!

    They had their chance to have the floor in the 60's and 90's, and FAILED.

    What we need now is personal responsibility and a heaping cup of reality.. Not some nanny coddling apologist crap.

    NO ONE is going to protect you or your interests but YOU... If you want the state to handle your security, go to any prison and check in; You'll be secure in there.

  5. Welcome to apologist America.
    The jokes on all of us though.

  6. I agree with your retort only partially...
    Specifically, I disagree with this:

    "but removal and replacement with a different arrangement entirely, that would be good"
    How about this:
    We don't need to REPLACE the Constitution. We need to ENFORCE IT. With extreme prejudice against those who dare to ignore or subvert it. To the point where NOT obeying it as a sworn representative means lengthy PRISON TIME, and IMMEDIATE removal from their office.
    This should be applied to Wall Street too, but I digress..
    Here's why:

    We are where we are because we (the people) have not been forcing these politicians to follow the law of the land... To te point where they think it is now ok to just wipe their asses with it.