I'm fine with a safety net. It just shouldn't all be on the company that did the hiring. Rules that make it hard to employ people make fewer people employed. Just the paperwork is a barrier to employees and small business.

When you are talking about big publicly traded companies, maybe it's different.

Pretty far derailed huh?

Back to rape.

True although (and again I suppose this is the intent of the law), yes means yes presents another hurdle the guy must pass, before he knows he's got the green light to proceed. So it's sort of like a double-check which would theoretically eliminate some of the "assuming", when it comes to consent.

However the way the law is written, it is really a ridiculously invasive and impractical imposition of the govt on people's private lives.

It is also, in its paternalistic way, anti-women. It assumes that a woman lacks the ability to say no, or to make her feelings clear when she wants a man to stop. Pretty condescending, quite honestly.

Yea ya'll read that article too, but I think it makes a category error. The Puritans were hung up about premarital sex and morality period. Sure, male lust was a problem but female sexuality was as well so elaborate rituals were created to safeguard both male lust and female sexuality. The yes means yes seem much more concerned with clear consent between people regardless of marital status, something the Puritans wouldn't have even understood.

Yes, we get that they aren't actually puritans hue hue, the point is that they have some nasty hang ups about sex. Despite fly flying no one itt wants anyone punished for having sex, except for the people pushing for punishment for those who didn't file their paperwork properly.

Well no, no one seems to have any nasty hang ups about sex itself at all. It seems to be a matter of finding a balance between the law and the grey areas in life with regards to consent, regardless of which side you come out on, which isn't something the Puritans would have entertained at all.

So like I said, a category error between yes means yes with regards to consent and yes means yes as in female and male sexualites are dangerous to society.

I'm not sure that requiring affirmative consent at every step of a sexual encounter, from first kiss, to foreplay, to climax, is "finding a balance". It's impractical and silly. And yes it's puritanical too.

Well given that the Puritans would probably banish the women for overt shows of sexuality it's not really Puritanical. Remember the Puritans were against sex for law and order sex must be restricted kind of way, not in the have all the sex you want just make sure both want it kind of way.

And yes it's in the realm of striking a balance even if you don't agree where others are trying to put it at.

Some women would agree with you. Probably most wouldn't. The argument in this article is that needing to say yes allows women opportunities they would not feel safe taking under the current consent standard. And it might change the way men deal with women in many other arenas.

IMO "Yes means yes" won't stop predators from raping women and then lying about it being consensual, in the same way that the predators/rapists are denying that a woman is saying no today. However, most guys in college are not rapists/predators and will, even though inconvenienced, now look for a "yes" instead of hoping that they won't get a verbal "no". As a father of a teenage girl my fears of her having sex over her perhaps non verbal protestations or verbal ambiguities (like "I don't think so") are now much less than before. I will still counsel her to not get drunk and then go to a man's room but at least now the grey area of silent consent may not scar her for life.

So basically..."dont worry, it will get pled down."

Wait...why do you think these arguments or the opposition to these things are for WHITE straight males? What the **** kind of racist **** is that? Black straight males dont **** drunk chicks? Based on what I would assume you would agree is a strong bias in our legal system against black people, surely bad laws will predominantly negatively affect BLACK males

I can see how that would put you in a pretty tough bind with your posting history, if you were to realize that some young men are black.

Uh, no. If you borrow my car I could accuse you of stealing it. If I invite you to my house I could accuse you of breaking in. I don't see anybody whining about how we're all car thieves and burglars just waiting to be accused.

Yeah, but we don't go around changing the definitions of stealing or breaking in to make it so you don't have to prove your accusation.

I'm not sure why ikestoys or vhawk01 would be upset about the university implementing this.

And why is that huehue?

Because if you're kicked out of one school you can easily go to many more. It's private law made between a university and a student which can be broken at any time by either party. If a university gets a reputation for being heavy handed with rape allegations students will simply shun the university.

Lol at people in favour of a feminist law empowering women to not be taken advantage of being called puritans.

Clearly the libertarians is the forum in favour of unconsenting sex being legal are the real feminists

False in many situations.
This is laughably obviously untrue. You don't understand what this law is apparently.
This is not a valid reason to redefine sexual assault so that everyone is guilty.

Um wrong no one is in favor of unconsenting(?) sex.

Idk man. Remember, your side is the one saying women aren't able to say "no".

I think you should also be looking into whether women should be able to buy a car or answer calls from telemarketers without getting taken advantage of. It's a tough world out there, they probably need a man by their side to keep them safe, right?

Great. No one has done that.

Sure sometimes, but then again if another University won't take a person maybe their characteristics aren't right to be a student. In any case it's the other universities' choice to take them in or not. If no one else takes a person in who are we to say that we know better than the universities.

That's why I said a university, not the state. Why should we interfere with how a university runs it's business?

Of course it is. A university should be free to choose it's own code of conduct. Eventually universities will settle on the optimal set of codes of conduct based on what kind of and how many students they draw.

Sounds great! Unfortunately for your argument, these rules are mandated by the government. They aren't voluntarily using standards like yes means yes and preponderance of evidence. They are doing these things precisely because of governmental interference. I'm glad you agree with me that we should not be interfering with schools setting these standards..... but of course you don't actually think that.

1) No, it's not.
2) Again you're accidentally arguing for my position.

This is a stupid argument. You are not seriously arguing that a person kicked out of a university does not suffer harm and it might be in their best interest to get kicked out?

1) they easily could lose semester and have already paid for that semester. (what 10-40,000 down the drain) not to mention several years of pricey education.
2) If they can find a school it most likely will be a lesser school.
3) It is harder to transfer into a school then to get accepted as a incoming freshman.
4) The violation would be on your record and any potential transfer school could request this and would be shocked if all schools would not.

It is basically a contract. Students pay a lot of money to get an education. But like a lot of contracts there is not equal bargaining power and students have very little choice to negotiate any of the areas. Sure let the schools run it's business, as long as a school which conducts a faulty investigation, hearing and tramples on someones rights can be held liable and not have immunity against lawsuits and damages they cause. The University should have a duty of good faith and fair dealing and if breached should be liable.





Meh, like a lot of bureaucrats, no one is going to hold them accountable for the policy. The problem is that the faculty and administrators who are pushing policy changes have an agenda. They want a system that an accused is not allowed representation, no burden of proof, no rules of evidence and the defined prohibited conduct so broad and vague it is basically anything which the board does not like.

Yeah, and maybe part of the process of settling on an optimal code of conduct involves intelligent people pointing out one of their current rules is ******ed.

So you're wanting some kind of organization that would look after the student's best interests because you really don't believe that the university has them at heart and even if you could break a contract with a university easily there'd still be harms? Perhaps even use the state to look after the students' interests because of the asymmetrical bargaining power and harms?