There is an almost negligible chance of negative consequences for the accused.

No one gets to “decide” whether a sexual act was consensual. It either was or it wasn’t. It’s a matter of fact, not a matter of perception.

When you are born with a vagina and it is cut away as a child and sewn shut and infected then you can talk.

You know that this is a fake story, right? Snopes is your friend, Jezebel.

Can we please do away with the term "enthusiastic consent?" It seems to suggest that someone can't agree to have sex unless they're super super horny.

At least that's her story. It's interesting that everyone seems to believe her unquestionably. It's hardly unheard of for a criminal to lie to avoid punishment.

"Note: not coerced, but convinced"

"Pressure" is not a legal concept. Duress is, but duress wouldn't include simply being nagged or begged for something. I also don't see anything in this law that would criminalize changing someone's mind.

So there's perfect, wonderful, mutually enthusiastic sex, and then there's rape. With absolutely nothing in between? So if someone could take it or leave it, but decides to do it anyway, that person is a rape victim?

So what this law really does is define any bad, boring, or awkward sex as rape.

How does this advance anything? The language of the bill is extremely ambiguous.

It is if he doesn't stop every second to make sure it's still ok.

My issue with the law is that seems to create a standard under which virtually anything could be called rape.

Did you not read the article?

But, at least according to this blogpost, simple obtaining affirmative consent is not enough. "...both parties must check-in throughout the encounter and tell the person to continue doing what they're doing."

"...both parties must check-in throughout the encounter and tell the person to continue doing what they're doing."

People love to trot out that Lisak study while glossing over a rather glaring discrepancy between Lisak's research and college student conduct codes.

I just looked at your own source and it says 2-8%. Why would you hone in on the smallest figure offered in that range and conveniently omit the rest of the range?

That statistic is long-debunked nonsense. It was quoted by Susan Brownmiller in her 1970's book "Against Our Will." More recent and rigorous studies put the number closer to 8-10%.

Your comment is so profoundly illogical that I can't even imagine how to begin dissecting it.