Bitcoin Forum
November 06, 2024, 06:40:21 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: NY Law Requires Consent from Both Parties During Every Step of Foreplay...  (Read 588 times)
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:18:18 PM
 #1




or it Could be Deemed "Assault"



SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- What if you had to ask if it was okay
to put your hand on the other person's butt during foreplay? What if you had to
ask again before touching her breast? What if there was a law that said you had
to do this?

In New York, there is now on all college campuses. A bill signed into law July 7 requires both parties to obtain consent for sex and each nibble and caress that sometimes paves the way. The law applies only on college campuses. At its heart is a simple concept: instead of "No Means No," it's "Yes Means Yes."

It switches the dynamic of consent in what could be an empowering way. The hope is that by changing the power structure of the hook-up and making it law, college sexual assaults will decrease. The legislation, proposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and called "Enough is Enough," was passed unanimously by the state Legislature.

It's difficult to find fault with the law's goal of reducing sexual assault. But some, including feminists and legal scholars, say laws like New York's overstep, and risk turning into a criminal someone who honestly misread a sexual cue. And the laws ask college students to turn into a contract what is often a fumbling dance for otherwise sophisticated adults.

The law is not a criminal one, but violating it could result in criminal charges, as well as disciplinary action by the school. Colleges in New York have until September of 2016 to comply by re-rewriting their conduct codes and policies.

New York and California are the only states with affirmative consent laws, and they only apply to college campuses. But there is a movement to make the same laws apply for everyone. The American Law Institute, which helps write the nation's criminal codes, is in the process of re-writing the sexual assault penal code to incorporate "Yes Means Yes."

As Lady Gaga penned an essay with Cuomo in Rolling Stone to gain support for New York's college law, two dozen legal scholars, including retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner, wrote a memo warning against the dangers of such laws.

In Syracuse, Mayor Stephanie Miner, a lawyer, refused to sign on as a supporter while Syracuse University Chancellor Kent Syverud penned an op-ed in support of it.

A hook-up contract?

No matter what precautions you take, the hook-up now poses serious legal risks: "You look at the legal system we're building and it's incredible risky to hook up with someone you're not married to," said Peter Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University in Florida.

"It changes the rules of the game. It gives the game rules," Lake said.

The national push for restrictive rules and laws comes at a time when attitudes and practices around sex are becoming riskier, Lake said.

And the New York and California laws don't address binge drinking on college campuses, except to say that a person cannot give consent if they are under the influence.

Lake and some other legal scholars have said the laws threaten to make it much easier to falsely accuse someone of rape and sexual assault.

Lake said college students are already figuring out the work-around to the rules to avoid being caught up in sexual assault allegations. They've realized that it's much less risky to hook up with someone who doesn't go to your school. "It's hard to investigate on another campus," Lake said.

There is a movement to extend the same consent rules to everyone. The draft sexual assault law being written by the American Law Institute would make sex without express consent a misdemeanor anywhere. The institute, made up of legal scholars and judges, writes draft penal codes that are often adopted by states and the federal government.

Gertner, the retired federal judge who is a member of the institute, has said such a law would be a mistake. If society has come to no clear consensus about the standards for consent, how can the law, she asked in an interview with The New York Times. She and two dozen others warned that the proposed changes to criminal laws across the country could potentially fill the courts with false and frivolous accusations.

But others drastic measures are necessary because sexual assault has reached epidemic proportions, especially on college campuses. In New York, 11 colleges are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education for mishandling sexual assault allegations.

Nationally, in 2012, there were 5,000 allegations of forcible sex offenses reported by college campuses to the U.S. Department of Education.

It has been a year of national questions about how well colleges handle sexual assault on their campuses: a Columbia University student became a media sensation as she carried a mattress around with her to protest how her allegations of sexual assault had been handled.

Randi Bregman, the executive director of Vera House, was among the dozens of supporters who signed on to Cuomo's "Yes Means Yes" push.

"We're a big believer in an affirmative consent standard," Bregman said. "It's better for the victim and the perpetrator."

A YouTube video that acts out, in a not-safe-for-work manner, how affirmative consent should work during a hook-up has nearly 200,000 views. In it, the man and woman both ask before each touch.


http://www.syracuse.com/state/index.ssf/2015/07/can_i_put_my_hand_there_new_york_law_changes_the_rules_of_the_college_hook-up.html#incart_river


---------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urS8GmwmeWQ

The Global Orgy Initiative has been canceled in new york state. Death by a thousand lawsuits for sexual assault...



TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
July 13, 2015, 04:33:06 PM
 #2

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:46:28 PM
 #3

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...



bryant.coleman
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3766
Merit: 1217


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:49:45 PM
 #4

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.

Radical feminism, along with the rampant homosexual propaganda, will destroy the white civilization in the Western world. Western Europe is already lost... and parts of the United States is heading towards that direction. Australia and New Zealand are no better, while the South African whites are on their way to extinction. The only hope is Russia and the other Eastern bloc nations.
doublemore
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:50:55 PM
 #5


This makes it really awkward when many women find it a turn on for guys to take control and not ask permission Grin
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 1382


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:51:23 PM
 #6

Does New York law affect Japanese in Japan? Does it have anything to do with anybody that is not within the jurisdiction of New York?

All law flows out of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. State constitutions state in their preambles or within themselves that they uphold the Constitution of the Untied States.

People in America don't need to be under the jurisdiction of the State or the United States. Why not? Because the 7th and 9th Amendments allow such. The reason that people are under the laws as though we live in a civil law nation is, our ancestor Americans were trying to make America strong at a time before the American governments acted civil law oriented. Consider:
Quote
... Anything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights came about before there was any legal language (legalese). Even if the legal language of the day happened to be connected to The Articles of Confederation, legalese had nothing to do with any of the legal language that came about after and because of and flowing out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their formation.

This means that the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the common law language that is different from the legalese definition of common law today. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the starting point where legalese and common language fork, splitting away from each other in meaning.

Why is this important? It is important because every time that a human being decides that he doesn't like what Government is doing, if he forms his complaint as a claim, and takes it to common law court that has no legal language behind it, he is in a completely different court than if he uses legalese. The 7th Amendment allows this. The language used would have to be the language of the people, since common law differs from legalese, and even varies from place to place within the country. Common law as used here is not written. It is the law that is common among the people = customs and traditions from place to place. This is shown by the power that the 7th Amendment common law jury has.

To take this even further, the 9th Amendment says that people have all the rights that they had before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came into being. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not limit peoples' rights to the things that they (Constitution, Bill of rights, legalese laws and codes, court cases) or any legalese law state. The rights of the people are limited only to things that the jury (common law jury - no legalese allowed) allows and decides. This means that no judge can direct the 7th Amendment common law jury on any decision that it makes whatsoever.

...

It's time people in America wake up to the strength that they have over their Government. It's time Americans stop letting their Government practice civil law on them. The people are waking up to the great freedoms placed in the 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't like some of the laws, learn how to defend yourself against the State and the Federal, using the 7th and 9th Amendments. If enough of us do this regarding income and other taxes, government in America will go back to being the small thing it should be rather than the all-consuming bureaucracy that it has become.

Smiley

Covid is snake venom. Dr. Bryan Ardis https://thedrardisshow.com/ - Search on 'Bryan Ardis' at these links https://www.bitchute.com/, https://www.brighteon.com/, https://rumble.com/, https://banned.video/.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 1382


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:53:19 PM
 #7

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...





Slip out the bake, Jake... er, that's not right is it?    Grin

Covid is snake venom. Dr. Bryan Ardis https://thedrardisshow.com/ - Search on 'Bryan Ardis' at these links https://www.bitchute.com/, https://www.brighteon.com/, https://rumble.com/, https://banned.video/.
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
July 13, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
 #8

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...





I'm surprised they didn't put a bloody knife in his other hand.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 04:57:27 PM
 #9

Does New York law affect Japanese in Japan? Does it have anything to do with anybody that is not within the jurisdiction of New York?

All law flows out of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. State constitutions state in their preambles or within themselves that they uphold the Constitution of the Untied States.

People in America don't need to be under the jurisdiction of the State or the United States. Why not? Because the 7th and 9th Amendments allow such. The reason that people are under the laws as though we live in a civil law nation is, our ancestor Americans were trying to make America strong at a time before the American governments acted civil law oriented. Consider:
Quote
... Anything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights came about before there was any legal language (legalese). Even if the legal language of the day happened to be connected to The Articles of Confederation, legalese had nothing to do with any of the legal language that came about after and because of and flowing out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their formation.

This means that the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the common law language that is different from the legalese definition of common law today. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the starting point where legalese and common language fork, splitting away from each other in meaning.

Why is this important? It is important because every time that a human being decides that he doesn't like what Government is doing, if he forms his complaint as a claim, and takes it to common law court that has no legal language behind it, he is in a completely different court than if he uses legalese. The 7th Amendment allows this. The language used would have to be the language of the people, since common law differs from legalese, and even varies from place to place within the country. Common law as used here is not written. It is the law that is common among the people = customs and traditions from place to place. This is shown by the power that the 7th Amendment common law jury has.

To take this even further, the 9th Amendment says that people have all the rights that they had before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came into being. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not limit peoples' rights to the things that they (Constitution, Bill of rights, legalese laws and codes, court cases) or any legalese law state. The rights of the people are limited only to things that the jury (common law jury - no legalese allowed) allows and decides. This means that no judge can direct the 7th Amendment common law jury on any decision that it makes whatsoever.

...

It's time people in America wake up to the strength that they have over their Government. It's time Americans stop letting their Government practice civil law on them. The people are waking up to the great freedoms placed in the 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't like some of the laws, learn how to defend yourself against the State and the Federal, using the 7th and 9th Amendments. If enough of us do this regarding income and other taxes, government in America will go back to being the small thing it should be rather than the all-consuming bureaucracy that it has become.

Smiley


I believe this law is targeting campuses first. You have mattress girl porn star liar for this inspiration among others.
Can the US Constitution give you back your honor and name once you are wrongly labelled a rapist?


TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
July 13, 2015, 05:14:30 PM
 #10

Does New York law affect Japanese in Japan? Does it have anything to do with anybody that is not within the jurisdiction of New York?

All law flows out of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. State constitutions state in their preambles or within themselves that they uphold the Constitution of the Untied States.

People in America don't need to be under the jurisdiction of the State or the United States. Why not? Because the 7th and 9th Amendments allow such. The reason that people are under the laws as though we live in a civil law nation is, our ancestor Americans were trying to make America strong at a time before the American governments acted civil law oriented. Consider:
Quote
... Anything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights came about before there was any legal language (legalese). Even if the legal language of the day happened to be connected to The Articles of Confederation, legalese had nothing to do with any of the legal language that came about after and because of and flowing out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their formation.

This means that the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the common law language that is different from the legalese definition of common law today. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the starting point where legalese and common language fork, splitting away from each other in meaning.

Why is this important? It is important because every time that a human being decides that he doesn't like what Government is doing, if he forms his complaint as a claim, and takes it to common law court that has no legal language behind it, he is in a completely different court than if he uses legalese. The 7th Amendment allows this. The language used would have to be the language of the people, since common law differs from legalese, and even varies from place to place within the country. Common law as used here is not written. It is the law that is common among the people = customs and traditions from place to place. This is shown by the power that the 7th Amendment common law jury has.

To take this even further, the 9th Amendment says that people have all the rights that they had before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came into being. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not limit peoples' rights to the things that they (Constitution, Bill of rights, legalese laws and codes, court cases) or any legalese law state. The rights of the people are limited only to things that the jury (common law jury - no legalese allowed) allows and decides. This means that no judge can direct the 7th Amendment common law jury on any decision that it makes whatsoever.

...

It's time people in America wake up to the strength that they have over their Government. It's time Americans stop letting their Government practice civil law on them. The people are waking up to the great freedoms placed in the 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't like some of the laws, learn how to defend yourself against the State and the Federal, using the 7th and 9th Amendments. If enough of us do this regarding income and other taxes, government in America will go back to being the small thing it should be rather than the all-consuming bureaucracy that it has become.

Smiley


I believe this law is targeting campuses first. You have mattress girl porn star liar for this inspiration among others.
Can the US Constitution give you back your honor and name once you are wrongly labelled a rapist?

Nope, and that is the point. These female supremacists want every man to have to cower in fear from any woman, because all she has to do is lie to send him to prison to ACTUALLY be raped. Best case, his life is ruined and he has to leave the area and hope no one googles his name (good luck). Furthermore most false rape reports are not prosecuted, creating an atmosphere where women feel completely confident in making felonious false reports without risk. In their opinion doing this to innocent men is acceptable even if it means just one more actual rapist being prosecuted.
Tusk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 444
Merit: 260



View Profile
July 13, 2015, 05:16:56 PM
 #11

This is why I insist on my partners signing an indemnity form before sex

From the ashes rises the Phoenix. Viva the block chain, Viva BitCoin!
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
July 13, 2015, 05:35:49 PM
 #12

This is why I insist on my partners signing an indemnity form before sex

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1474


LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 05:38:25 PM
 #13

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...






Wow is that an actual advertisement?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS.
 
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3962
Merit: 1382


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 06:00:17 PM
 #14

Does New York law affect Japanese in Japan? Does it have anything to do with anybody that is not within the jurisdiction of New York?

All law flows out of the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. State constitutions state in their preambles or within themselves that they uphold the Constitution of the Untied States.

People in America don't need to be under the jurisdiction of the State or the United States. Why not? Because the 7th and 9th Amendments allow such. The reason that people are under the laws as though we live in a civil law nation is, our ancestor Americans were trying to make America strong at a time before the American governments acted civil law oriented. Consider:
Quote
... Anything written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights came about before there was any legal language (legalese). Even if the legal language of the day happened to be connected to The Articles of Confederation, legalese had nothing to do with any of the legal language that came about after and because of and flowing out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their formation.

This means that the language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is the common law language that is different from the legalese definition of common law today. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the starting point where legalese and common language fork, splitting away from each other in meaning.

Why is this important? It is important because every time that a human being decides that he doesn't like what Government is doing, if he forms his complaint as a claim, and takes it to common law court that has no legal language behind it, he is in a completely different court than if he uses legalese. The 7th Amendment allows this. The language used would have to be the language of the people, since common law differs from legalese, and even varies from place to place within the country. Common law as used here is not written. It is the law that is common among the people = customs and traditions from place to place. This is shown by the power that the 7th Amendment common law jury has.

To take this even further, the 9th Amendment says that people have all the rights that they had before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights came into being. The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not limit peoples' rights to the things that they (Constitution, Bill of rights, legalese laws and codes, court cases) or any legalese law state. The rights of the people are limited only to things that the jury (common law jury - no legalese allowed) allows and decides. This means that no judge can direct the 7th Amendment common law jury on any decision that it makes whatsoever.

...

It's time people in America wake up to the strength that they have over their Government. It's time Americans stop letting their Government practice civil law on them. The people are waking up to the great freedoms placed in the 7th and 9th Amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights.

If you don't like some of the laws, learn how to defend yourself against the State and the Federal, using the 7th and 9th Amendments. If enough of us do this regarding income and other taxes, government in America will go back to being the small thing it should be rather than the all-consuming bureaucracy that it has become.

Smiley


I believe this law is targeting campuses first. You have mattress girl porn star liar for this inspiration among others.
Can the US Constitution give you back your honor and name once you are wrongly labelled a rapist?




Yes and no.

You have the ability to go to common law court against any falsehoods that might be within the court records. Even though they are not falsehoods regarding the law, a legal complaint is bested by a common law claim. You can beat the government entity, in court, that is defaming you and your good name by not removing the record.

It's about money. You have to fight for damages. Of course, the whole thing would have been better if you had been a little more discreet in the way you handled yourself in the first place... like quit playing around outside of marriage.

If your case has become widely known before you have it expunged from the record, you might have to fight lots of folks in court for defamation of character before your life gets back to normal. However, if you get good at it, you might be able to earn a really good living off people who defame your character, by suing them in court. Job change.

Smiley

Covid is snake venom. Dr. Bryan Ardis https://thedrardisshow.com/ - Search on 'Bryan Ardis' at these links https://www.bitchute.com/, https://www.brighteon.com/, https://rumble.com/, https://banned.video/.
Wilikon (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176
Merit: 1001


minds.com/Wilikon


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 07:20:24 PM
 #15

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...






Wow is that an actual advertisement?


THIS COLLEGE POSTER ON SEXUAL ASSAULT DESTROYS THE FEMINIST LIE OF EQUALITY
http://therightscoop.com/this-college-poster-on-sexual-assault-destroys-the-feminist-lie-of-equality/


Be responsible, because women can’t be
https://rejzor.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/be-responsible-because-women-cant-be/


We need to track down exactly who is responsible for this poster.


spazzdla
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 13, 2015, 07:31:43 PM
 #16

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...






Wow is that an actual advertisement?

Yes... there are a bunch of "women" on my facebook supporting it.....................
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008


First Exclusion Ever


View Profile WWW
July 13, 2015, 07:37:49 PM
 #17

This is all about making men second class citizens by making it possible to send any man to prison based on some one's word alone. This has nothing to do with protecting people from sexual assault. This is a direct result of the female supremacy movement that also likes to call itself feminism.


Jake is always guilty. Just look at those creepy eyes...






Wow is that an actual advertisement?

Yes... there are a bunch of "women" on my facebook supporting it.....................

Women want to go out and get drunk and screw around with guys, but they don't want to have any of the responsibility associated with it. If they made bad choices, it is the man's fault exclusively, because everyone knows women have no agency and are basically adult children right?
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!