Prepare to have your sex life regulated by government.

[smartjuanxxx]

Adults may soon find their sex lives regulated to the point where nearly every sexual encounter is defined as rape unless neither party reports the activity.

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.

A source within ALI has confirmed to the Washington Examiner that the model penal code on sexual assault that was discussed at last year’s meeting will be voted on at their annual meeting this coming May. Last year, the draft proposal was met with opposition from ALI members, including a female former prosecutor who called the draft “really disturbing.”

A group of concerned members within ALI even circulated an opposition letter, signed by dozens of members, that detailed the dangers of pushing affirmative consent on the general public (not that it’s a good policy for college students, either).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-life-regulated-by-government/article/2589184

 

[MrRandyWatson]

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have affirmative, enthusiastic consent, it's rape. Or maybe a lesser form of it, the way manslaughter or negligent homicide are lesser homicides than murder. Of course, then again, the law has a rape-or-nothing outlook. Maybe if there were lesser forms of sexual misconduct that were regularly used, things would work better.

 

[phrodeau]

Better the government than some religious poohbah.

 

[smartjuanxxx]

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have affirmative, enthusiastic consent, it's rape. Or maybe a lesser form of it, the way manslaughter or negligent homicide are lesser homicides than murder. Of course, then again, the law has a rape-or-nothing outlook. Maybe if there were lesser forms of sexual misconduct that were regularly used, things would work better.

Lunatic

when you putting DickClitman in jail?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment at the Clerk's desk that 'spank me, daddy' also be recognized under the bill as legal expression of affirmative consent."

 

[NeverEndingMe]

we need to have an open season where citizens can rise up and terminate 20% of those in government

 

[smartjuanxxx]

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have affirmative, enthusiastic consent, it's rape. Or maybe a lesser form of it, the way manslaughter or negligent homicide are lesser homicides than murder. Of course, then again, the law has a rape-or-nothing outlook. Maybe if there were lesser forms of sexual misconduct that were regularly used, things would work better.

Lunatic

when you putting DickClitman in jail?

 

[ryan8558]

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment at the Clerk's desk that 'spank me, daddy' also be recognized under the bill as legal expression of affirmative consent."

Mr. Speaker, I second that.

 

[hashtag45]

Better thing than feigning a headache; try killing His mood:
"May I put my hand around your flaccid penis? My I stroke your tiny d… k? May I insert my middle finger into … ?"

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Mr. Speaker, I second that.

"HEAR, HEAR, and harumph. And, furthermore, that a woman's alleged exclamation's of 'Oh, myfuckingGOD' not be legally admissible evidence in any Court of her belief that she is consorting sexually with anyone other than the accused."

 

[hashtag45]

Jokes aside:

What are they actually trying to get at with this measure? It all still seems clumsy to me.
Apparently it can't be admissable in Court (I think). I can think of nothing other than their desire to increase awareness and for people not take these things lightly.

 

[nerfhearder]

The government has been regulating or at least trying to regulate our sex lives since day one.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Jokes aside:

What are they actually trying to get at with this measure? It all still seems clumsy to me.
Apparently it can't be admissable in Court (I think). I can think of nothing other than their desire to increase awareness and for people not take these things lightly.

Nothing. It's a "model penal code" which is nothing more than a half-baked suggestion from a ditzy lobbying group. No state legislature in its right mind is going to follow the lead of New York or California any more than they are going to outlaw carbonated soft drinks because dimwitted PC extremists on either coast thought of it first

Most jurisdictions have perfectly applicable laws as to what constitutes criminal sexual assault. Nothing to see here. It's a BB thread, after all.

 

[hashtag45]

1.Nothing. It's a "model penal code" which is nothing more than a half-baked suggestion from a ditzy lobbying group. No state legislature in its right mind is going to follow the lead of New York or California any more than they are going to outlaw carbonated soft drinks because dimwitted PC extremists on either coast thought of it first

Most jurisdictions have perfectly applicable laws as to what constitutes criminal sexual assault.

2.Nothing to see here. It's a BB thread, after all.

1.Thanks.

2.lol that speaks volumes indeed

 

[smartjuanxxx]

Nothing. It's a "model penal code" which is nothing more than a half-baked suggestion from a ditzy lobbying group. No state legislature in its right mind is going to follow the lead of New York or California any more than they are going to outlaw carbonated soft drinks because dimwitted PC extremists on either coast thought of it first

Most jurisdictions have perfectly applicable laws as to what constitutes criminal sexual assault. Nothing to see here. It's a BB thread, after all.

really, Title 8

 

[smartjuanxxx]

Nothing. It's a "model penal code" which is nothing more than a half-baked suggestion from a ditzy lobbying group. No state legislature in its right mind is going to follow the lead of New York or California any more than they are going to outlaw carbonated soft drinks because dimwitted PC extremists on either coast thought of it first

Most jurisdictions have perfectly applicable laws as to what constitutes criminal sexual assault. Nothing to see here. It's a BB thread, after all.

really, Pvt Turd Cl(ass) Hogan?

read

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1302420

 

[smartjuanxxx]

Pvt Turd Cl(ass) Hogan?

Ran away

 

[hashtag45]

Waaa 3 answerss in a row!
You really got to him, Colonel Hogan.

 

[smartjuanxxx]

Waaa 3 answerss in a row!
You realky got to him, Colonel Hogan.

 

[phrodeau]

really, Pvt Turd Cl(ass) Hogan?

read

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1302420

Proof that you are a stopped clock.

 

[smartjuanxxx]

I may be right only twice a day

YOU ARE NEVER RIGHT

NO HANDS ON YOUR CLOCK

 

[smartjuanxxx]

http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/9ip/oqa/9ipoqay6T.gif

 

[BotanyBoy]

Hillary is the DNC mouthpiece for billionaires, and not they want to 'regulate' the bedroom.

Looks like the left has gone totally republican......

 

[Colonel Hogan]

really, Title 8

really, Pvt Turd Cl(ass) Hogan?

read

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1302420

Excuse me, but the title of THIS thread is "Prepare to have your sex life regulated by government" and your initial "evidence" for this dire prospect is a silly "model penal code" proposal before the American Law Institute (ALI) which they haven't even voted upon yet. Then when I ream your ass on that nonsense, you raise the specter of "Title 8" and link to a thread on a kid getting kicked out of a university for sexual assault on a charge that the "victim" not only didn't make, but contradicted in favor of her alleged assailant.

First things first. Nothing in the Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations deals with sexual misconduct or the regulation of same. CFR Title 8 deals with "Aliens and Nationality", as does Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

I'm going to go waaaayyyyyy out on the shakiest of limbs and give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant Title IX (that's Roman numerals for "nine" ) of the "Education Amendments of 1972" (yeah. I'm sure you did. ) which is at the heart of Grant Neal's suit against the Colorado State University Pueblo and the federal Department of Education Office of Civil Rights and has absolutely NOTHING to do with Title 9 of the CFR ("ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS") or Title 9 of the United States Code (ARBITRATION).

Since it was probably beyond your capabilities to get even this far, I guess you dredged up the ALI vacuous crap because it was easiest for you to understand.

You should have stuck with the Grant Neal suit. It's far more germane to your original point. There is simply a lot more legal substance there, and it is my prediction that he and his attorney are about to kick some major government ass. Sort of.

Here is the heart of the matter from a PRNewswire release dated three days ago on the 19th.

The complaint states that in October of 2015, Grant Neal, a talented football player with a 3.67 GPA, was wrongfully accused of non-consensual sexual contact and suspended from school following a rejected appeal. His accuser is not the alleged victim, but a friend of the alleged victim who presented a second-hand account of an incident between two consenting adults to the athletic training director, who then presented this account to the Title IX director at CSU Pueblo. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff contends that CSU's wrongful investigation was caused by a directive of the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which encourages male gender bias and violation of due process rights during sexual misconduct investigations.

According to the complaint, the U.S. Department of Education issued in 2011 what has become known as the "Dear Colleague" letter to every college and university receiving federal funding, addressing their obligation under Title IX to respond to claims of sexual harassment and sexual violence. The 19-page "Dear Colleague" letter contains guidance and directives on how schools are to address sexual assault and misconduct to comply with the Department's view of Title IX. Among other things, the "Dear Colleague" letter dictated that schools use a "preponderance of the evidence" standard rather than the "clear and convincing standard."

https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/first-kind-lawsuit-student-athlete-164000997.html

Neal's counsel is prominent New York attorney Andrew Miltenberg who has several major Title IX cases already pending. Miltenberg's contention is that the "guidance and directives" contained in the "Dear Colleagues" letters carry a de facto weight that is far more than merely advisory to federally funded colleges and universities. In actuality, according to the complaint, the "Dear Colleague" letter advances new substantive rules and creates binding obligations on the affected parties under threat of severe penalties, including investigation and rescission of federal funding for non-compliant educational institutions.

That says, Miltenberg, constitutes a violation of both due process for his client and a violation of Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 at Chapter 5, Title 5 USC (if anyone is keeping score), yielding "life-changing consequences for allegations that have not been proven and crimes that have not been committed."

Section 553 of the APA also just so happens to figure quite prominently in a not-so-trivial case currently pending before the United States Supreme Court known as United States v. Texas which the educational website VOX (http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11424614/supreme-court-immigration-dapa-daca) recently headlined as "THE biggest immigration case in a century." That case will likely resolve whether President Obama's issuance of certain immigration programs and policy memorandums run afoul of federal administrative law. Interesting tie-in here, don't you think BB?

I don't know what's going to happen in US v. Texas, but I have a pretty good idea what's going to happen to Grant Neal. But there is also the legal issue of what could have happened to CSU-Pueblo's funding under Title IX that has to be considered first. They really ARE two SEPARATE legal issues, and there, as they say, is the rub.

1. Title IX isn't going anywhere. Nothing in the suit challenges its basic legitimacy.

2. The substance of the "Dear Colleague" letters and the U. S. Department of Education's argument that they are advisory in nature, will probably be sustained. I don't have much hope for Miltenberg's theory that the language of the letters necessarily FORCE universities into an unavoidable due process violation of student's rights since no criminal penalties are imposed under law.

3. I'll even venture that the DOE directive for schools to apply a "preponderance of evidence" standard over a "clear and convincing" standard will survive scrutiny.

In theory then, the "government" will in all likelihood prevail. All we have left is the conduct of the university in suspending him. This is where I believe Neal wins big. CSU gets its hand slapped and is directed to reinstate him for the simple reason that it didn't come close to adhering to the very "preponderance of evidence" standard that Title IX says it should follow.

Its the "perfect" compromise to an injustice that should have never happened while allowing the heavy handedness of the government that played no small part in the injustice to keep its suspect quasi-legal regs and policies intact. It holds the schools responsible to properly protect the safety of sexual harassment victims and the due process rights of the accused with little true help from the government whatsoever.

It's exactly what courts like to do in cases like this.

But, no, there is little prospect that the government is going to "regulate" your or my sex life. I'm pretty certain OUR days of bedding coeds, either with or without their consent, has long passed.

Sorry to delay in satisfying your burning curiosity on this issue, but it's the basic time investment that is inevitably required if one wants to truly know what one is talking about.

Not normally an issue for you, we all realize.

 

[smartjuanxxx]

To Fucking Long

I meant TITLE IV

And it may SEEM absurd today....it starts that way

Witness....a few yrs ago, even NIGGER OBAMA and CUNTCLINTON were AGHAST at SSM, we all thought it absurd

Where are we now?