If applied correctly, this would be applicable to even protect animals from rape. It does not require the word "yes," only apparent willing participation in the act without coercion.
It'll never be used that way, of course.
KynophileDog lover 4 points on 2016-10-20 11:23:50
The difficulty of such a law is that it places the burden of proof on the defendant. You effectively have to prove the existence of affirmative consent, and if you cannot, it is classified as rape. This is antithetical to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I understand why people would want to see less rapists get away with it, because rape is such a difficult thing to prove and often boils down to "he said/she said" arguments. But assuming the guilt of the accused can lead, and has led in some cases, to witch hunts. This is a terrible idea with the best of intentions.
Also, Rannoch, the trouble is that such apparent willing participation is usually not recorded, and this sort of law also encourages the illegal recording of such acts, which raises its own questions and also makes it possible for the prosecution to use any slight microexpression or slipup as evidence of guilt, when that may not be the case.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 1 point on 2016-10-20 11:47:48
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a terrible idea, basically for the same reasons.
I was speaking purely theoretically. From a utopian mindset, perhaps. We all know how realistic those kind of mindsets are...
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 3 points on 2016-10-20 14:01:22
The difficulty depends on the way the law is written and the way that is understood by the courts. In the UK, sex-while-asleep is illegal, but the defendant then has a choice of pleading "I didn't have sex with them" (innocent until proven guilty) or "I had reason to believe it was OK because…" — I don't know where to find case law, but my intuition is that would include "we talked about it before hand, here are chat logs". (IANAL).
If chat logs are evidence, "does this look like a chat-up line?" might be a thing that gets argued in court. Of course, this doesn't help with cases where someone wants to stop sex part way through.
I think laws like this come down to the question of which leads first, law or social acceptability?
On the other hand, if laws are more dominant, if laws drive social mores, this might work.
I can't make myself believe that laws create mores, only that the laws come from the mores of the lawmakers.
btwIAMAzoophileDogs are cute. 5 points on 2016-10-20 14:17:31
Those numbers are insane, jeez. And here I am with my dog trying to pull me onto the floor and get on top of me and I'm raping him lmao.
MyBigK9Canid lupus 2 points on 2016-10-22 08:54:21
XD How I understand this.
Rannoch2002Deer Zoo 2 points on 2016-10-20 14:20:26
Thanks for helping me lose my faith in humanity even more with those statistics, man.
God, that's horrible.
peacheslala9719/F/Loves dogs and horses 2 points on 2016-10-20 18:03:11
That is a frightening statistic
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2016-10-20 18:47:01
... my misanthropy is building up to the extent that I'm thinking "the problem with bestiality isn't that the animals can't give consent (because they can), it's that humans are shit at figuring that out even amongst their own kind").
i think the bottom line isn't that we can't figure it out, it's that when we're "in the moment", we don't want to stop, even when the other participant(s) do want to stop. god knows i've struggled with that...
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-10-20 20:18:44
I wondered about that, but it's a survey about attitudes, not heat-of-the-moment cognition failure because blood's in the wrong head.
(Not that cognition failure reduces the harm; I don't know if this contributes to anyone's attitudes, but sex ed utterly failed to tell me how rape is harmful -- I had to guess from the legal penalty until after I left school and there were people I could ask.)
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 1 point on 2016-10-20 22:43:59
i'm not talking about any survey.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-10-20 22:48:09
Oh! OK. But you're quoting something I wrote about an opinion I formed due to a survey. :)
wright-oneursidae canidae pantherinae 2 points on 2016-10-21 01:23:07
ok, then i guess i'm expressing an opinion about something unrelated. please excuse my radom brain functions.
furvert_tailEquine, large canid 1 point on 2016-10-21 08:54:11
\*wags\*
KynophileDog lover 1 point on 2016-10-21 01:59:56
I can't make myself believe that laws create mores, only that the laws come from the mores of the lawmakers.
Sadly, public education and social pressure appear to be the only things that work here. But the people who advocate against sexual assault have a tendency to widen the definition of sexual assault in order to 'play it safe' in making sure sexual assault doesn't happen. But when this widened definition is presented to people who don't agree with it, they may well think that there is nothing of merit in the advocates' suggestions, meaning that the education provided does not actually help things.
I don't have a real answer here, but ultimately, I think that people need to be made aware of what can happen and prepared to defend themselves, prevent it if possible, and report it if it happens. This requires more specific advice than 'consent must be ongoing throughout', which is vague at best and impossible at worst.
actuallynotazoophileok, I lied 2 points on 2016-10-20 20:52:20
to be fair, if women were as obvious as bitches that they want sex then there would be a lot less confusion.
MyBigK9Canid lupus 2 points on 2016-10-22 08:52:03
Hmm? A little confused..I guess that statement is true. I feel women are just more complicated in general with everything. XD Being a women myself, I find it hard to negotiate with my own thoughts sometimes on how I should feel. when it comes to wanting sex, I just pounce on my partner and present to him. If he wants to do it we do it. >_< lol.
Novashadow115 1 point on 2016-10-27 07:12:18
That would be an extemely helpful trait
tencendur_Neeeigh 2 points on 2016-10-21 11:01:52
Any legal practice that places the burden of proof on the accused party is an abomination. There is no justification for such a thing. The reason is that proving the negative is not necessarily likely or even possible, so by asking the accused party for proof you might be asking for an impossible. You also promote defensive legal practices, forcing people to keep recordings, documented evidence and lists of witnesses just in case the law goes nuts (again) and comes accusing them of random stuff.
The only exception is when the burden of proof is placed on somebody who confessed but says he had a reason for the crime. This is called affirmative defense, and it is the case in self-defense killings. You confess you killed the evil psycho who wanted to sacrifice you to Satan, so now we have established you killed somebody, you must prove it was for a good reason.
/r/zoophilia archive
Ok, maybe I'm dense, but what law?
EDIT: Found it.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/09/29/352482932/california-enacts-yes-means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent
If applied correctly, this would be applicable to even protect animals from rape. It does not require the word "yes," only apparent willing participation in the act without coercion.
It'll never be used that way, of course.
The difficulty of such a law is that it places the burden of proof on the defendant. You effectively have to prove the existence of affirmative consent, and if you cannot, it is classified as rape. This is antithetical to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". I understand why people would want to see less rapists get away with it, because rape is such a difficult thing to prove and often boils down to "he said/she said" arguments. But assuming the guilt of the accused can lead, and has led in some cases, to witch hunts. This is a terrible idea with the best of intentions.
Also, Rannoch, the trouble is that such apparent willing participation is usually not recorded, and this sort of law also encourages the illegal recording of such acts, which raises its own questions and also makes it possible for the prosecution to use any slight microexpression or slipup as evidence of guilt, when that may not be the case.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a terrible idea, basically for the same reasons.
I was speaking purely theoretically. From a utopian mindset, perhaps. We all know how realistic those kind of mindsets are...
The difficulty depends on the way the law is written and the way that is understood by the courts. In the UK, sex-while-asleep is illegal, but the defendant then has a choice of pleading "I didn't have sex with them" (innocent until proven guilty) or "I had reason to believe it was OK because…" — I don't know where to find case law, but my intuition is that would include "we talked about it before hand, here are chat logs". (IANAL).
If chat logs are evidence, "does this look like a chat-up line?" might be a thing that gets argued in court. Of course, this doesn't help with cases where someone wants to stop sex part way through.
I think laws like this come down to the question of which leads first, law or social acceptability?
If social mores are dominant, the best way to reduce sexual assault might be for a public education campaign that talks in terms of "only yes means yes". Unfortunately, as recent polls have shown "53% of young adults would not assume that the person they are intimate with doesn't want to have sex with them if being physically pushed away" and 43% when they say "no", there's a long way to go with that. (Those percentages are so bad that my misanthropy is building up to the extent that I'm thinking "the problem with bestiality isn't that the animals can't give consent (because they can), it's that humans are shit at figuring that out even amongst their own kind").
On the other hand, if laws are more dominant, if laws drive social mores, this might work.
I can't make myself believe that laws create mores, only that the laws come from the mores of the lawmakers.
Those numbers are insane, jeez. And here I am with my dog trying to pull me onto the floor and get on top of me and I'm raping him lmao.
XD How I understand this.
Thanks for helping me lose my faith in humanity even more with those statistics, man.
God, that's horrible.
That is a frightening statistic
i think the bottom line isn't that we can't figure it out, it's that when we're "in the moment", we don't want to stop, even when the other participant(s) do want to stop. god knows i've struggled with that...
I wondered about that, but it's a survey about attitudes, not heat-of-the-moment cognition failure because blood's in the wrong head.
(Not that cognition failure reduces the harm; I don't know if this contributes to anyone's attitudes, but sex ed utterly failed to tell me how rape is harmful -- I had to guess from the legal penalty until after I left school and there were people I could ask.)
i'm not talking about any survey.
Oh! OK. But you're quoting something I wrote about an opinion I formed due to a survey. :)
ok, then i guess i'm expressing an opinion about something unrelated. please excuse my radom brain functions.
\*wags\*
Sadly, public education and social pressure appear to be the only things that work here. But the people who advocate against sexual assault have a tendency to widen the definition of sexual assault in order to 'play it safe' in making sure sexual assault doesn't happen. But when this widened definition is presented to people who don't agree with it, they may well think that there is nothing of merit in the advocates' suggestions, meaning that the education provided does not actually help things.
I don't have a real answer here, but ultimately, I think that people need to be made aware of what can happen and prepared to defend themselves, prevent it if possible, and report it if it happens. This requires more specific advice than 'consent must be ongoing throughout', which is vague at best and impossible at worst.
to be fair, if women were as obvious as bitches that they want sex then there would be a lot less confusion.
Hmm? A little confused..I guess that statement is true. I feel women are just more complicated in general with everything. XD Being a women myself, I find it hard to negotiate with my own thoughts sometimes on how I should feel. when it comes to wanting sex, I just pounce on my partner and present to him. If he wants to do it we do it. >_< lol.
That would be an extemely helpful trait
Any legal practice that places the burden of proof on the accused party is an abomination. There is no justification for such a thing. The reason is that proving the negative is not necessarily likely or even possible, so by asking the accused party for proof you might be asking for an impossible. You also promote defensive legal practices, forcing people to keep recordings, documented evidence and lists of witnesses just in case the law goes nuts (again) and comes accusing them of random stuff.
The only exception is when the burden of proof is placed on somebody who confessed but says he had a reason for the crime. This is called affirmative defense, and it is the case in self-defense killings. You confess you killed the evil psycho who wanted to sacrifice you to Satan, so now we have established you killed somebody, you must prove it was for a good reason.