Gillibrand: ‘Yes Means Yes’ Should Go Nationwide

Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2014-12-18 18:53

Article here. Really, she's completely nuts. And if she and her extremist ideologues pals are successful at doing this nutsery on college campuses nationwide, off-campus society is their next target. No man will be safe. A mere accusation will be as good as a rape conviction. Excerpt:

'New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, one of the most prominent lawmakers fighting campus sexual assault on Capitol Hill, said Monday that affirmative consent laws should be made the standard nationwide.

Gillibrand was speaking as part of an MSNBC-hosted panel event on sexual assault at the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York, which is a part of the State University of New York (SUNY) system. During the panel, she praised SUNY’s recent adoption of affirmative consent at the urging of Governor Andrew Cuomo, and was asked whether she thought the standard could potentially be implemented at the national level.

“I definitely have been studying it and looking at it,” she said, according to by [sic] Capital New York. “I think there’s something there, and I think that is where our debate needs to go.”

Affirmative consent, often known as “only yes means yes,” is a standard that holds that an individual commits sexual assault if he or she does not receive explicit prior consent for each sexual act committed with another person. This standard is an alternative to the “no means no” standard that prevails in criminal law, where a rape or sexual assault only occurs if a person explicitly refuses their consent, or is incapacitated and unable to either grant or refuse consent.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I doubt Gillibrand has lived the rules she now wants to impose on others. In truth, the "yes means Yes' law is a declaration that all adults are rapists--because no one follows these silly rules all the time.

Under this, anyone can be convicted of rape if one party complains. In fact, both might get convicted--though we all know the legal target is going to be men.

So why not just make all sex illegal? We could fill up the jail in a hurry. And we all know no one gets raped in jail. (Okay, that last bit was sarcasm.)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sat, 2014-12-20 21:19

Gillibrand is a feminist and this idea is targeted at males. Males trying to use it will find such cases dismissed for lack of evidence, etc. Females will not have that problem; testimony will be sufficient. Heterosexual activities won't be illegal, just dangerous for men to participate in.

Remember the ultimate goal is eliminating males from humanity. Making it easy to jail us in particular is paramount. Using rape hysteria and nymphotropism is, they believe, going to do this. Convincing the next gen of women that the Yes-means-Yes on-going "affirmative consent" idea is the only way straight sex can *not* be rape turns them into foot soldiers in The Grand Plan. And if this strategy fails, they'll try another. Not unlike Islamism (as opposed to Islam, which it surely is in more ways than rhetorically), they won't stop trying to meet their goals by any means necessary until they themselves are so discredited that they can recruit no new bodies in the cause.

The MRM has a 2-front war: defensive, to stop and/or roll back the effects of feminist-fostered misandry and jurisprudence, and offensive: to get rights currently denied men to be recognized and defended, incl. but not limited to: the right of presumed innocence, the right to equal due process, the right of presumed equal fitness as a parent and claim of custodial right to a child, the right to validate paternity at any time and if found not to be the father of a child, to compensation from the mother and disavowal of further obligations to the child, the right to be informed of purported paternity as soon as the mother knows or should know of a pregnancy, the right to bodily integrity throughout a man's entire life (no unnecessary surgeries/medical procedures performed unless it's with his lawful, uncoerced, informed, and competent permission - think circumcision), the right to live w/out fear he will be seized by the state and coerced in any way into involuntary servitude (think the draft), and right not to live w/ such being possible, the right to equal educational opportunities as women have and to pursue them in a non-threatening environment (no kangaroo anti-male campus "courts"), etc. The list is long already and there's more where it came from.

Got our work cut out for us!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sat, 2014-12-20 21:44

Whatever skewed thinking Gillibrand is guilty of, we can hope this law doesn't get passed on a national level.

I have some hope that someone affected by this law will challenge its constitutionality--always a tough task, but I think the law is ripe for such a challenge. (That is, in places such as CA and NY where it's in effect.) It's overly broad and very vague about what is meant by continuing consent. Even one of its sponsors in California couldn't say what that meant. It essentially means that any time a woman accuses a man of rape, it's up to him to prove his innocence--a very tough thing to do. But that means the law could also be challenged because it overturns the presumption of innocence. A lot of feminists are willing to dispense with that presumption--for men, anyway--but I hope a judge will look askance at such a proposal.

Every once in a while, I have this idea that the only thing that will bring change for men is armed revolution. What the feminists did was to play the damsel-in-distress hoping the big, strong government would come in and rescue them. It worked, if not always as well as the feminists hoped. Men can't play that role effectively. On the other hand, it's difficult for men to keeping meeting all their expected obligations and responsibilities with no benefits coming in return.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Sun, 2014-12-21 16:19