Big Brother Is Watching

Remember way back, when the left wanted the government out of people’s bedrooms?

Either does the Left.    A liberal legal conclave is debating moving “affirmative consent” laws off of campus and to the general population:

The American Law Institute will vote in May on whether to adopt a model penal code that would make “affirmative consent” the official position of the organization. Affirmative consent — or “yes means yes” — policies have already been adopted by many colleges and universities, and have been passed as law in California and New York.

In my dreams, Hillary Clinton appoints Melissa Click as Attorney General…

17 thoughts on “Big Brother Is Watching

  1. This is not a change, nor is it an intrusion into people’s bedrooms. It has never been ok for anything but yes to mean yes, and for an inability to make an informed consent to be unacceptable, to be a de facto no.

    But thanks again for demonstrating how the right is the pro-rape and anti-women party.

  2. Actually DG you’ve got it wrong again. One needs look no farther than the “Occupy” movement to see which political faction supports rape and the rape culture. And since you liberally promote the “Occupy” picture memes and their message on your web site it is clear that you personally endorse and support that “rape culture”.
    Please make it a point of only shopping at Target!

  3. Doggone, maybe actually….read the column, and the sources which it links? In a nutshell, even the SNL spoof where “affirmative consent” participants at Antioch College sign legal forms in triplicate would not constitute sufficient proof of consent for the purposes of a court of law.

    There is a word for people who “have sex” this way: virgins.

    And the left makes fun of social conservatives for pointing out that historically, affirmative consent was generally given at the altar when a couple got married.

  4. DG,

    Before I respond, could you kindly leave a simple “hi”, or some indication that you’ve actually read this thread after leaving your comment?

    This is like the sixth straight thread where I’ve asked you to do so. I’m starting to get the impression you don’t want to see any responses to your comments.

  5. Society used to say “No means No.” But what constitutes “No”? Did you say “No”? Not out loud, but I was thinking it, so I didn’t consent and therefore it was rape. Too tough to prove.

    Okay, flip it around: “Yes means Yes.” But what constitutes “Yes”? Verbal permission? Active participation? What about voluntary diminished capacity due to drunkenness – is that still “Yes”?

    Seems to me the only way to document that participation was voluntary is to make a digital video recording of every encounter and store it in the cloud for the defense to show at trial.

    We’ll need some trustworthy volunteers to hold the universal password to access all videos. It’s a tough job, but I’ll do it. Swiftee – you in?

  6. The killer is that the affirmative “Yes” could turn into “No” within 5 days at the discretion of one of the parties.

  7. If you will not govern yourself, you will be governed by others. And the Government is always willing to step up and say, “Silly children, now look what you’ve forced me do.”

  8. I’m curious dg. How do you know when your collie is in the mood? Is it a special look in his eyes, does he bark or is it always “yes” with him?

  9. Curious and apropos of nothing, but is Penigma’s Chihuahua’s real name Brenda?

  10. Probably best not to doxx doggone, Loren–disagree as I do with her, there are nuts out there on both sides of the aisle.

  11. We need a smart phone app.

    “Touch the screen to leave a time/date stamp indicating your approval of what the video says we are doing.”

  12. Hey DG, how should a court interpret a consent law case where the relationship between the 2 parties is boss/employee?

  13. The reason that this idea is crap is that even if consent is affirmatively given, you are offered no protection from the charge of rape. In title IX compliant cases, the ‘victim’ is allowed to withdraw her consent even months after the fact. Sulkowicz would have given her assent to Nungasser. Nungasser is doing the smart thing and has refiled his lawsuit against Columbia on the grounds that that the institution has discriminated against him and all men on the basis of his gender.
    It it long past time to go all Alinsky on their asses. Make the SJW’s live up to their own rules. Rapists are not only disproportionately male, they are disproportionately member of certain ethnicities. By their own lights, both gender and ethnicities are social constructs.

  14. It’s just that Penigma’s Chihuahua reads like someone named Brenda, who calls into the radio, sounds.

  15. Bento, he might have a case if he can prove that the U had a duty to stop Sulkowicz’s behavior, or at least censure it. You would need a pretty good lawyer, though.

    No doubt he was wronged, but primarily by Emma Sulkowicz, who seems to be a darling of the NEA-funded leftist art community. Good luck getting blood out of that turnip.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.