O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas – small dead animals

24 Replies to “O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas”

Probably best to just leave the state. It’s hopeless.

Man, I really hope they pass that law. How else to get the Low Information crowd paying attention?
And just imagine the consternation amongst the liberal elite on college campuses, among whom “NO!” has meant “Yes please, Teacher!” since forever. Or the casting couches of HollyWeird?
Pass it! Pass it now!!!

I think I’m going to start working on a sexual consent/waiver smart phone app…Potentially worth millions…

excerpt from the article:
“Perhaps in response to the bill, the University of California, on February 25, adopted a policy requiring affirmative consent not just to sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in. […]”
The tradition of shaking hands, as a default friendly greeting between both strangers and those who know each other, will know have to wait for the following verbal exchange.
“Hello, may I shake your hand?”
“Yes, may I shake your hand?”
The default position of the tradition of shaking hands is an expectation of civil behaviour between people. This would negate that.
Those who would be first able to then begin to destroy this tradition would be those whose response would be…”No, you may not, you infidel woman.”
Or consider international sports competition where the participants don’t speak each other’s language.
Better to avoid California, until after the earthquake, the looming financial one!

Sexual
Intercourse
Negotiation

I’m guessing that this does NOT apply to Gay Sexx by any chance?

When my granddad attended the U of T 1905-1915 fraternizing of the sexes was strictly forbidden. There were
even separate entrances to lecture halls for man and for women (one example was still visible in the 1960s).
It seemed draconian but now we see why. The only regulation of undergraduate sexual activity should be to
ban it – on pain of expulsion. So once again California is leading the world.

So, if there is no verbal agreement consenting to sexual intercourse will they be charging BOTH participants with rape?

Wouldn’t it be a good thing if Californians stopped having sex?

They are going to be sending a lot of young women to jail for raping young men. Verbal agreement? He says – she says? Should be witnessed and notarized.

“So, if there is no verbal agreement consenting to sexual intercourse will they be charging BOTH participants with rape?”
Doh.
Right now: If both parties are drunk and have sex, and the woman later complains and calls it rape despite evident enthusiasm at the time( “I was not in a state to give consent”) chances are the GUY will be successfully charged ( at least on campus) after all she’s too drunk to know what she’s doing but he’s obviously ( despite being equally drunk) supposed to intuit this. ( If he calls it rape it’s obvious he consented and she was too drunk to know better anyway. Seriously.)
Frankly it’s gotten to the point where you need a notarized document in front of 3 adult, and sober, witness. And heck you may need witnesses during the full agreed to ahead of time act(s) to be fully covered from someone having regrets the next day.
Oh, and should she get pregnant ( despite stating she was on the pill at the time) she can have an abortion without consulting the dad, but if she keeps the child, the dad is on the hook for support.
Seems perfectly fair.

I’m all for this law if the verbal agreement is called a Marriage License. Sure would end a lot of social problems.

“Wouldn’t it be a good thing if Californians stopped having sex?”
Yes, because then it would simply default to Mexico overnight, and we could then build proper borders. Korean Style.

Is this law going to apply to married couples, because if it doesn’t then it could mean a boost to the institution and to monogamy.
That said, if it passes I’m betting that watching internet pr0n is going to become a lot more popular in California than it already is.

Actually, Oz, this very issue has been discussed formally at McGill University in Canada. As for pr0n, a law like this one could be seen to move all **x acts into that realm. Pr0n actresses perform following the completion of written contracts. A young California male undergrad will have to carry a copy of a consent agreement in his wallet right next to the c*n**m. He’ll also need a readout from a portable breathalyzer. His companion has to be able to legally consent.
Look soon, for the online availability of the approved State of California consent form complete with boxes to indicate the specific acts that have been agreed to. On the bright side, if married men are able to obtain standing agreements, that would prevent them from being cut off.
The world is full of barbarians. They see this type of garbage going on in our society and they lick their chops.

Any word from the deaf mute lobby on this?

Oh, that’s so evil. BWAhahahhaha!!!!

Could this mean that when one get’s amorous, better cool it until you get the lawyer’s ok?

But what if it isn’t RAPE rape?

Aren’t all these feminazi cows eventually going to die out? How do they keep their useless genes going?
Any man with brains wouldn’t put himself within 100 miles of them. I sure as hell wouldn’t, and I doubt very much my sons will when they get older.
Women should be kind to men, and men should be kind in return. The differences between the sexes should be enjoyed not stamped out. These feminazis must make the most awful, nasty wives…sorry, “partners”.

Nice one River Rat!

Another good comment…well said John. I’m not a prude per se, but I find all this endless focus on sex on campus absolutely ridiculous.
But then again, look at the origins -> liberals.