You won't be able to avoid Cal's new sex consent laws even if you record...

jpflathead · 2014-08-14T19:28:52+00:00

Yes, and I think it's worse than that in ways many people have forgotten.

10 years ago we all found out that California has a 0 second rape law

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125440&page=1&singlePage=true

"A withdrawal of consent effectively nullifies any earlier consent and subjects the male to forcible rape charges if he persists in what has become nonconsensual intercourse," Justice Ming Chin wrote for the majority.

The justices did acknowledge that problems could arise from "the possibly equivocal nature" of withdrawing consent in the midst of a sex act.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown, while agreeing with the majority on what constitutes rape, dissented on whether the boy was guilty. She wrote that the girl never clearly said stop, instead saying "I should be going now" and "I need to go home."

Brown also wondered how much time a man has to stop once a woman says stop.

"Ten seconds? Thirty?" she wrote.

The instant consent is withdrawn, it is rape.

And since California is a two party consent state for wiretapping, you may not record in audio what is happening without your partners permission.

So you either have to record surreptitiously with no audio, or get permission to record with audio, and tweets and any other evidence you have prior to encounter is of no use since California has a zero second rape law.

So believe me when I tell you I will never again throat fuck /u/chewinchawingum , regardless of how much xe claims to want it before hand, and begs for it, because we all know /u/chewinchawingum is a paranoid schizophrenic and I'm just not sure I will be able to hear xer remove consent over the sounds of the blow job as xe gobbles my knob. And Totes Meta bot, the stalkers have linked you bot? Where the hell are you pal?

questionnmark · 2014-08-15T01:20:03+00:00

Well if you can't get it on video, and you can't tape record it, then the only option left is to get consent in writing. Like this skit below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk

Lawtonfogle · 2014-08-16T05:29:31+00:00

Some people seem to be forgetting a very important point here. You can't record a consensual sexual encounter that never actually happened, but you can still be charged with rape for such.

babno · 2014-08-15T00:35:07+00:00

The law says it is “disorderly conduct” for a defendant to take intimate and confidential recordings, such as photos or videos, and then distribute them to intentionally cause serious emotional

So only show it to the judge and not Facebook and you're good.

GenderNeutralLanguag · 2014-08-15T01:54:59+00:00

Well secretly recording defeats half the purpose of recording. One of the big reasons to record sexual encounters is making sure she KNOWS it's being recorded. If she KNOWS that the encounter is on film and can be reviewed to see what actually happened from a neutral impartial third party with perfect recall, then she is very unlikely to cry rape. You will only run afoul of the Revenge Porn Law if she doesn't agree to be recorded or if you choose to distribute the recording. If she refuses to have the encounter documented, she is probably up to something and you don't want to have sex with her anyways. If you are distributing Revenge Porn, there should be a law against that.

The law only applies if she doesn't know or you intentionally put the video on public display. Neither of these are things you should be doing.

MRSPArchiver · 2014-08-14T19:19:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

2014-08-15T06:44:35+00:00

Recording acts for self-protection may in fact violate this new statute.

So record only the consent then. And you won't be subject to the revenge porn law. They can't get you on taping consent as long as all you record is the consent and nothing else.

ezetemp · 2014-08-15T08:17:21+00:00

Recording for self-protection is not intent to cause distress so it wouldn't fall under the revenge porn law. It might fall under confidentiality even without that law, but that rarely seems to apply to showing a court or law enforcement as part of a defence.

Either way, the appropriate way to deal with it is to get consent for the actual recording as well. That in itself should be enough to discourage any post-fact change of mind, and it's always better to avoid such a circus in the first place than having to defend against it.

If someone doesn't want to be recorded, well, they can take it up with the hysteria mongers. After all, #notallwomen file false complaints, but #allmen are at risk from the poison m&m. And while nearly everyone will support a woman who has been raped, an accused will find themselves rather alone. With the recording as the only possible defence from possibly devastating consequences, more life-destroying than the worst STD in human history.

yummyluckycharms · 2014-08-15T02:56:11+00:00

The entire california law is something from bizarro world

Besides the issue that most people dont give ongoing consent, the problem with this law is that it will be absolutely applied based on gender.

For example, two people have sex, the girl later states that it was rape. The cops go to the guy house, where he then tells him that he was raped. Guess who the cops will charge?

If both people were equal, the cops would be forced to charge both people, but we all know that would never happen. Only the man will be charged.

Also, I wonder what would happen if two people in a relationship got into a fight after having sex, and the guy then went to the police to accuse her of rape. Would she be charged? Spoiler alert - nope!

patcomen · 2014-08-15T01:55:16+00:00

confidentiality disputes. The law applies to “circumstances where the parties agree or understand that the image shall remain private.” This might be obvious if the victim never consented to being recorded at all. In other cases, the defendant and victim may disagree about their expectations for the recording, which would make conviction difficult or impossible.

He said/She said disputes can be easily resolved here by both parties recording their consent to begin with and agreeing to keep it private. This recording, I believe, will be admissible to a court of law if relevant to the case involving what is recorded.

Ma99ie · 2014-08-15T05:44:19+00:00

You can't record people in cali without their conscent in cali if there is an expectation of privacy.

MattClark0995 · 2014-08-14T21:37:23+00:00

All of these anti-male laws coming from the most blue of blue states isn't surprising. The more liberal a state is the more anti-male and pro-feminist the state is.

Sorry if the truth hurts libtards.

Hillary 2016 DURRRR

Pantsyr · 2014-08-15T01:36:08+00:00

The whole posited situation is beyond insane. Perish that a woman might be responsible for her decisions. /s

Title	You won't be able to avoid Cal's new sex consent laws even if you record...
Author	DaNiceguy
Upvotes	28
Comments	43
Date	August 14, 2014 7:18 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2dkf4x/you_wont_be_able_to_avoid_cals_new_sex_consent/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/you-wont-be-able-to-avoid-cals-new-sex-consent.996925 https://theredarchive.com/post/996925

Comments