TEA Party Republicans Outraged Over Bill to Require Consensual Sex

TEA Party Republicans are none too pleased about a bill proposed in California that would acknowledge that women aren’t consenting to have sex with you just simply by being alive and of a legal age. Senate Bill 967, the Student Safety from Sexual Assault bill ,would mean that silence or not protesting enough is no longer considered sexual consent on public college campuses.  It would mean women aren’t consenting to having sex with you by not saying no, rather they consent by saying yes.  The bill also requires colleges to implement comprehensive prevention programs addressing sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. Most men want to have sex with women who want them back and would welcome rape and domestic violence prevention programs on campus.  But that didn’t stop TEA Party Republican Mike Miller from rushing to his Facebook page to express his outrage over the bill this week.  Miller also posted this article, which grossly distorts the purpose of the bill.  He calls the proposal an unwanted intrusion and “control” over “what happens in the bedroom.”

GOP candidate for legislature Joe Dooling of East Helena couldn’t resist joining in.  He responded that consensual sex “might be a bit of a ‘mood’ killer.”   To be sure, it could be that it is the domestic violence prevention programs that Dooling is calling a “‘mood’ killer.” Dooling doesn’t specify. Here’s the screenshot: Miller Facebook   Miller tweeted his shock at the proposal too, screenshot here. Miller Tweet   He’s claiming to be upset that the law would be “tough to enforce” while omitting that when women are considered to automatically consent to sex at any time, rape laws are tough to enforce. The feminist blog Sasha Said writes:

The [current] law presumes women old enough to legally have sex to exist in a state of perpetual consent. Unless you are able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt–a very high standard–that you did not consent to sex, the law assumes that whatever dude came along and forced himself on you had the right to do so.

The Montana Commissioner of Political Practices has called for Miller to be removed from the ballot for political practice violations.   Dooling will face the popular former democratic candidate and former state Rep. Jill Cohenour in the November.

Share

31 Comments on "TEA Party Republicans Outraged Over Bill to Require Consensual Sex"

  1. So as long as I get her to sign her name on a piece of paper that says, yes, she will have sex with me, I’m alright? Do I need a lawyer in the bedroom for that? I do believe in safe sex, after all.

  2. Put down the crack pipe Greg- verbal consent- she has to say yes, that’s it!

  3. You all have figured out by now that Greg is a moron and not really a democrat right… Just checking.

    • I like to push and prod and play devil’s advocate, and while this won’t always make me popular, I hope it might make you think a little.

      Remember, there’s always about 100 times more readers than there are those making comments.

  4. Drunks for Denny | June 10, 2014 10:14 AM at 10:14 AM |

    Someone please explain to me how this new law is different than the current status quo of “he said/she said”. Isn’t that what verbal consent is? As long as you have to take someone’s word against another, how is this any different than the laws that are already in the books?

    Take the case of the Jizzly quarterback a couple of years ago. Both agreed that they were in bed together watching movies. They disagree as to whether verbal consent was given. Her word against his. How does this proposed law fix that?

  5. It acknowledges that an unconscious woman cannot give consent. It acknowledges that someone who might have been willing earlier can change her mind.
    Most of all, it acknowledges that just because a person has lady parts doesn’t mean any man can f*ck her based on the idea that lady parts grant consent.
    How about this, boys? Don’t have sex unless both you and your partner are in your right minds and capable of consent? or is that too much for your little minds to grasp?

    • How about this, Amorette? Don’t assume that all men are that piggish or stupid. This is a serious issue and making blanket statements like yours doesn’t move the discussion forward.

      • Why? Because a guy says it doesn’t? If you are small and petty enough to think the conversation moving relies on your say-so, then stay behind.

        • surelyyoujest11 | June 10, 2014 4:15 PM at 4:15 PM |

          Geez Rob, didn’t mean to confuddle you so. That is not at all what I was saying. Comprehension not a strong point I see. WHOOSH

        • surelyyoujest11 | June 10, 2014 4:21 PM at 4:21 PM |

          Let me flesh it out a bit for you Rob. This is a very serious issue. Throwing around generalities and assumptions does little or nothing to address the very real issues. If people want to genuinely make a difference on these issues they need to be specific with absolute hopes and goals in mind, not simply taking the easy route of casting about generalized aspersions or tossing about sound bytes.
          Hope that helps.

          • Part of the problem is that women will say “No” when they really mean “slow down” or “not now.” Also, an inebriated man is an uninhibited man, so there’s that. Men are mostly nice guys who don’t want to take advantage of women that way, but there are other factors besides being “pigs” that make this more complicated than you let on. Cut us some slack. It’s a two-way street, and we men are mostly good people who mean well and do not want to harm anyone.

            • How to tell if you are part of the “rape culture?”
              1) You don’t understand the word “no.” Which is odd because it is one of the first words a child is taught by their mother. When a woman says “NO” she means “NO.” Period.
              Being drunk is no excuse for brutality and stupidity is no excuse for not understanding the simple word NO.

              • “Not now” and “slow down” are saying “No”. And frankly, I would like Mark to establish exactly the baseline he finds for how most males are “nice guys”. Because we’ll hold the door open or buy dinner for women we want to fuck?

                Dinosaurs took control of this planet for over a 140 million years because they were the most adaptable. We have taken control because we have a superior adaptation. We are the greatest opportunists ever to stride this dirt. We don’t have claws or fangs or run 40 miles an hour or have the defensive capabilities of skunks or armadillos. That isn’t because of our intelligence; Mark T himself argues often how stupid we really are. Nope, it’s because we recognize opportunity when it presents, and create that opportunity. Rapists excel at recognizing that opportunity and for too long have excelled at blaming others for providing it. Mark T is simply excusing that as normal, and is denying evolution of the species, just as fundamentalist Xians do.

                Amorette, don’t argue or respond to him. You’ll get nothing out of it, but he will get an ego boost as the opportunity has provided.

              • People can change their minds. They say “yes”, than regret it and claim they said no. How can anyone prove what was said?

          • I don’t need your man-splaining, kitten. You told a woman how she has to discuss this issue to be palatable to you, and you’re missing the fucking obvious. California already did discuss it, and decided that they don’t need your opinion. The law is, as Amorette clearly showed, very specific. You just don’t like the implications. Simply put, she’s right, you’re wrong. You have no footing whatsoever to tell her how she has to discuss these “very serious issues”. Hell, you haven’t even clarified what the “very real issues” are. She certainly did, that some men can’t seem to grasp that a woman’s sexuality is not theirs to make decisions about. One of you looks like a coward, and it ain’t Amorette..

            Now, does that “flesh it out” enough that you can stop waiving your dick around telling us all how you are in charge of the discussion?

            • surelyyoujest11 | June 11, 2014 9:39 AM at 9:39 AM |

              Hey dumbass, you’ve assumed I’m a man and your reading comprehension still sucks even after I’ve explained what I meant. Of course, someone as smart as you obviously knows what I meant more than me. LOL
              For the record, I have no problem with the law despite your pitiful claims. Grow a pair sparky.

              • My reading comprehension is certainly better than your reasoning ability, cupcake. Your “advice” was patently stupid and contrary to the obvious. The “discussion” is moving forward, whether you think others have offended your delicate feelings or not. If you don’t like the direction that the discussion has taken because it might offend men, then stay the fuck out of it. But don’t think you are doing anyone a favor by telling a women how she has to ‘play nice’ in order for men to grant her what she wants (and deserves as a human being, frankly.) That is the exact definition of “man-splaining”, Dumbass.

                For the record, you still haven’t explained what is so “very serious” about whatever issue you seem concerned about. All evidence points to you being concerned that not all men be lumped together as potential rapists. Here’s a fact. We are. Nor is that the “very serious issue” at hand. The issue is that women get sexually assaulted at an appalling rate, far too often by dudes who think exactly as Amorette portrayed. A woman having ‘lady parts’ is not an invitation, and pointing that out to the dimwits who think it is is not a crime.

                Yes, it pisses me off that all men can be viewed as potential rapists. I’ve been on this planet for over half a century and haven’t raped anyone. Why shoud I be lumped in with those assholes? Simple. Because, as Mark T so clearly (and cluelessly) pointed out, I have been, I am and always will be a *potential* rapist if the opportunity to stick my dick where it isn’t wanted presents itself. That’s the reality of your “very serious issue” that you can’t seem to comprehend.

                Society has for too long forgiven the opportunists and blamed the victim for creating the opportunity. And now, when Amorette points the finger exactly where it belongs, you ponce on in and claim that you she is wrong for blaming the opportunistic assholes, and that she has to concerned about the feelings of the potential rapist because to you, that’s the “very serious issue”. No, it really isn’t. The very serious issue is that 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in their time at college. To you, dumbass, the very serious issue is that no one offend anybody while trying to deal with that pesky problem.

            • surelyyoujest11 | June 11, 2014 9:41 AM at 9:41 AM |

              Further Rob, where, exactly, have I made any suggestion that I am in charge of anything here. I offered Amorette my opinion/advice. Period. Talk about waving your dick around needlessly. Find a mirror asshat.

              • Your talking to a guy who has attacked every women who comes to comment here, at one time or another.

                Women Judges, Women Lawyers, regular Montana women folk….

                A stupid person can make only certain, limited types of errors; the mistakes open to a clever fellow like Rob at times are far broader…..

                But to the one who knows how smart he is compared to everyone else, Including what women have gone through as a gender in America…..The possibilities for true idiocy are boundless.

                • surelyyoujest11 | June 12, 2014 9:47 AM at 9:47 AM |

                  You Norma are a liar. Plain and simply. Put up or STFU.
                  Rob, you are a complete waste of my time in that you continue to blatantly misrepresent my words and my beliefs. I’ve wasted entirely too much time on your ignorance and will not waste anymore on you sweetness.

                • abNorma, I had hope that in your self-imposed exile you might have learned the difference between a personal attack and attacking harmful ideas. Quite obviously, you haven’t. But at least syj11 and I have found common ground to agree on. You are a liar, plain and simple.

  6. Amorette is right- you should sober up Denny and try reading the links http://sashasaid.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/rape-and-consent-shifting-burdens/

    • Drunks for Denny | June 11, 2014 9:21 PM at 9:21 PM |

      I have read this link, and I have read George Will’s recent column on the subject as well. All I can say is, if the current cross section of the Democratic party is represented in this thread, expect to lose the Senate, the House, and not win the state legislative majorities either. This party is so out of touch with the average Montana voter, it’s scary.

      Replacing “Innocent until proven guilty” with “guilty until proven innocent” undermines our judeo-christian based legal system severely.

  7. There exist websites exaggerating the actions of some political party for purposes of humor and righteous indignation. For an example, look slightly to one side. When one finds a particularly egregious item, the type making one think, “This can’t be true!” the thing to do is find the information from a more neutral source before passing it on. Articles on thefederalistpapers.org, or for that matter on mtcowgirl.com, should be confirmed before reposting or commenting. Mr. Miller failed to do this, as did Mr. Dooling. Let us resist the temptation to join them in their error.

  8. Good on California!! Best law I have seen try to explain consent in years from a women’s point of view and it is in all actuality… Gonna save the California University system Millions yearly in legal fees. Why? Because Most women never wanted to go that far in dating until they are sure. They are most times forced to make a decision. What if they don’t want to decide yes or yet?

    Now watch some guy( probably some dummy from Colorado) tell me I am wrong, even though I am a women! #Yesallwomen

  9. I suppose it’s a sign of my old age and long married life but this law seems to encourage something I have long felt was the most important part of a sexual relationship-effective communication. Most of us would benefit from engaging in a bit more conversation before the act about what your potential partner expects and enjoys. (if you’ve been together a long time the hours of begging don’t count!)-call it fore-foreplay if you will. This would prevent a lot of hurt feelings as well as sexual assaults!

  10. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | June 11, 2014 5:56 PM at 5:56 PM |

    Wait, what?! OMG! How did the GF Spitoon MISS this fat bastard? Adams, Ecke, are you dufus bassturds fallin’ down on the job now?!! Here’s a manly man from patridiot crowd that DESERVES your front page coverage, you losers! I mean, seriously, you actually GAVE front page coverage to EVERY Teatarded reetart that farted on the courthouse steps! Are you HAPPY now that they are walking up and slaughtering innocent people?? How do you lazy limp bassturds SLEEP at night???

    Here he is. Fat Bassturd. The kind the Spitoon limp d*cks luv!

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/11/indiana-sovereign-man-protests-suspended-license-by-carrying-rifle-around-town/

    You see, to be a Teatard, you must be fat enough to fall over! True story.

Comments are closed.