The Infantilizing Absurdity Of The State Of California Getting In Bed Between Two Horny University Students
Cathy Young writes at reason on "affirmative consent" in sex and the likely passage of a California law using it as the standard for evaluating sexual assault complaints. The bill details how sexy this is:
"Affirmative consent" is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
Young continues:
To counter the common view that such negotiations are awkward moment-ruiners, the activists quoted in the Times argue that explicit consent can be "fun" and even ensure better sex through communication. Educational posters on the Columbia campus proclaim that "asking for consent can be as hot, creative, and as sexy as you make it."With all these earnest reassurances, one can't help wondering if the consent evangelists really believe what they preach: The ladies (and their gentlemen allies) do protest too much. Moreover, their protestations are belied by the fact that the preaching is backed by undisguised coercion. In feminist educator Bernice Sandler's list of "Ten Reasons to Obtain Verbal Consent to Sex," the assertion that "many partners find it sexy to be asked, as sex progresses, if it's okay" is followed by "Because you won't be accused of rape" and "Because you won't go to jail or be expelled." Fun, fun, fun.
To say that sex without consent is rape is to state the obvious. But in traditional sexual scripts, consent is usually given through nonverbal cues. Of course this doesn't mean that people never talk during sex; but there's a big difference between sweet nothings and mandatory negotiations based on constant awareness that you may be raping your partner if you misread those cues. And "constant" is no exaggeration. Thus, the sexual assault policy at California's Occidental College states that "individuals choosing to engage in sexual activity must evaluate consent in an ongoing manner" and that consent can be withdrawn through an explicit "no" or "an outward demonstration" of hesitation or uncertainty, in which case "sexual activity must cease immediately and all parties must obtain mutually expressed or clearly stated consent before continuing." Whether anyone could feel "sexy" under such conditions seems dubious at best.
The feminism of "affirmative consent" is equally dubious. Indeed, this standard arguably strips women of agency in a way that traditional sexual norms never did. In the traditional script, the man initiates while the woman decides where (or whether) to set the limits. Under explicit consent rules, the person taking the lead must also assume much of the responsibility for setting the limits by making sure his partner wants to proceed--while the more passive party cannot be responsible even for making her wishes known without being asked.
Since I started pulling this post together over the weekend, I got an email from Hans Bader at Open Market quoting a WaPo piece by GMU law prof David Bernstein. Bernstein reports that things are even scarier on the Federal level, with the Obama administration basically looking to deem most people as guilty of sexual assault. The piece is appropriately titled, "YOU are a rapist; yes YOU!"
But at least the affirmative consent standard leaves room for a defense that the complainant provided appropriate non-verbal cues that signified consent. By contrast, the Office on Violence against Women, a U.S. Justice Department subsidiary, informs us on its home page that "sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the *explicit consent* of the recipient." This is not, in fact, the legal standard in any jurisdiction in the United States, and it's not because it's completely absurd. The vast, vast majority of "sexual contact or behavior" is initiated with only *implicit consent.* [UPDATE: There is one type of sexual relationship that, as I understand it, involves primarily explicit consent--the relationship between a prostitute and her (or his) clients, with exact sexual services to be provided determined by explicit agreement in advance.] The DOJ website definition makes almost every adult in the U.S. (men AND women)-and that likely includes you, dear reader-a perpetrator of sexual assault. Just leaning over to give your date (or your spouse) a kiss without asking first and receiving a yes comes within stated definition of sexual assault, regardless of how many times you've done it before without objection. In fairness, the examples the OVW gives-forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape-are proper, at least if we assume they mean "nonconsensual fondling." Nevertheless, it's embarrassing that DOJ allows such an inaccurate and ridiculous definition of sexual assault to be on its website.
Where do they get the geniuses they hire at the DOJ to put out definitions like this? I'm not a lawyer -- just someone who knows just enough to be dangerous -- and even I'd know better than to go with that vastly broad definition at DOJ. The practice of law, to me, involves having an imagination about how you and your client could get tripped up, embarrassed, or screwed. Failures of imagination are failures in the practice of law.
Oh, and how many eyeballs looked at this and just nodded at the emperor's bare ass as they rubber-stamped it?
RELATED: Hans Bader sent a link to this amusing video, which lays out how sexy this "affirmative consent" business would be. (What will be next, having students file fuck permission slips with the registrar?)
Oh, bleahhhh! Triple bleah. With sprinkles. Didn't some university already come up with dating rules a few years ago?
Pricklypear at June 23, 2014 11:14 PM
Antioch.
NicoleK at June 23, 2014 11:35 PM
I have the movie "1984" in my collection, and there is a lecture in it, given by an Inner Party member which is surprisingly similar to this. Basically, it said that only by suppressing the orgasm, and the subsequent unorthodox thoughts of ownlife could thought be made pure and thus serve party needs...
The people who are promoting this are the same ones who clamor for government to get out of the bedroom when it comes to "choice", are they not?
Radwaste at June 24, 2014 3:07 AM
You think it's bad now, wait until Hillary's president.
dee nile at June 24, 2014 3:07 AM
Affirmative consent? What about all the "nonconsenual fondling" at the airport?
And please explain exactly how whichever talking head is president is going to make one bit of difference.
You think it's bad now, wait until these asshats start spreading these "protections" outside of college campuses.
drcos at June 24, 2014 3:40 AM
And please explain exactly how whichever talking head is president is going to make one bit of difference.
You don't think the army of misandrist bigots that Hillary will appoint to office will make things a lot worse? At least now a guy gets a hearing before he's expelled. Someday that step could be skipped.
dee nile at June 24, 2014 4:42 AM
Affirmative consent? What about all the "nonconsenual fondling" at the airport?
You purchased a ticket, that's all the consent they need. Now cough, please, as this screening is also part of the Obamacare you're getting.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 24, 2014 6:14 AM
At least now a guy gets a hearing before he's expelled. Someday that step could be skipped.
Might as well, since he can't confront the victim, he can't produce evidence, and he can't have anyone represent him.
I R A Darth Aggie at June 24, 2014 6:16 AM
Oh shit. I committed an assault when I pulled a date close and kissed her for the first time. Unfortunately I may get charged with about 100 counts. And here I thought she liked it.
Gary G at June 24, 2014 7:10 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/24/the_infantilizi.html#comment-4791568">comment from Gary GGregg "assaulted" me about three hours after we met, by walking me to my car, grabbing me and kissing me. I was gone at that point and have been too happy and in love for almost 12 years to report him for this terrible (and terribly romantic) assault.
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2014 7:29 AM
"(What will be next, having students file fuck permission slips with the registrar?)"
30 day wait for approval. And don't forget the $60 fee.
Cousin Dave at June 24, 2014 7:33 AM
If I was emperor of the universe I would ban booze on Campus.
Female reports sexual assault. Question: Were you drinking, or using drugs? If answer is yes. You are expelled, along with whoever you report for the sexual assault.
If you still think you have a case, let the local police sort it out.
Happened off campus? Police problem. Take it to them in the first place.
Not reported within 24 hours of happening? Not credible. Go away.
But there go all those make work jobs for the sexual assault bureaucracy on campus.
Isab at June 24, 2014 8:43 AM
"Affirmative consent" is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
Reword this just a little bit, and it would work for a Miranda warning.
Not hot.
Steve Daniels at June 24, 2014 9:05 AM
A sure cure for sexual assault on campus or anywhere else is the old style courtship, where the boy comes and asks the father for permission to date his daughter, no drunken hookups, the purpose of dating is to wed, and they do wed. The idea that drunken hookups with strangers from college parties will always turn out well...where did anyone get that idea?
And asking permission before each move sounds like a rule written by someone without a clue about human body language. If you try to kiss a girl and she turns her head away...by gosh that means no! How clever. And if the boy gets fresh and gets his hand or face slapped, that is a big old no as well.
The final fatal flaw of the whole "enthusiastic consent" thing is that it protects the boy not one bit. Unless he has it on video (which is illegal in most places) he has no proof of enthusiastic consent. There are cases where the girl was in the boy's room, could have easily left at any time, and later clamed assault. There are also cases (many I would bet) where the boy wakes up in the morning and says "oh no! not her!" Regret is not assault. And no, I'm not favoring rape in case any reader here is dense. On any campus there will be far more unwise hookups, bad breakups, and regrets than actual rapes and if even a fraction go to nanny then many men's lives will be ruined.
Craig Loehle at June 24, 2014 9:22 AM
...the army of misandrist bigots that Hillary will appoint to office...
And we are basing this presumption on.....? Please share, as you must be more well-informed than the rest of us.
Or are you one of these "Worst President Ever" folks who must have slept until 2009?
If only this country would abhor violence as much as (gasp) sex.....
DrCos at June 24, 2014 9:46 AM
To reduce the legalese, all men who have sex with women are rapists. They may or may not be charged at other people's discretion.
As Craig pointed out above, what proof do you have that consent was not revoked at any time? Will it now be mandatory to film every encounter? I guess that is sexy to the exhibitionists.
Ben at June 24, 2014 10:12 AM
Smacks of that phrase "unwanted advances."
Uh, how do know they're unwanted unless you try one?
(Don't think Ted Kennedy ever got nailed for that, and his style was very much spot & grope without much ceremony.)
I got around this once by announcing 'I'm going to kiss you now' but you can't pull that one off unless you're at least 45 and stone sober.
Donald Frazier at June 24, 2014 10:30 AM
More and more men will turn to porn as the disincentives to pursuing real women continue to mount.
The Japanese are close to making realistic sexbots. That'll put a merciful end to all this. The feminist cries of "where have all the men gone" will reach an earsplitting crescendo, and they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
MikeInRealLife at June 24, 2014 12:07 PM
Where do they get the geniuses they hire at the DOJ to put out definitions like this?
Possibly from Pharyngula. Google their Crystal Clear Consent wiki; I tried to embed a link to it, but Amy's filter rejects my comment when I do that.
Rex Little at June 24, 2014 12:15 PM
Happily, receiving a blowjob is not sex, according to one former President. Which is fortunate since it is difficult to give consent when your mouth is full. Isn't it considered rude to talk with your mouth full?
I guess the wife and I have to get rid of the ball gag.
What happened to keeping the govt out of our bedrooms?
Bill O Rights at June 24, 2014 12:31 PM
I got around this once by announcing 'I'm going to kiss you now' but you can't pull that one off unless you're at least 45 and stone sober.
It worked for Frasier Crane when he was in his 30's (at least Kelsey Grammer was). Don't know if he was sober or not, but he was in a bar.
Rex Little at June 24, 2014 2:24 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/06/24/the_infantilizi.html#comment-4792518">comment from Rex LittleIt would be funny if a straight man said that to another straight man. Though not "I'm going to tongue you now."
Amy Alkon at June 24, 2014 3:34 PM
"an outward demonstration of hesitation or uncertainty, in which case "sexual activity must cease immediately."
Reminds me of a martial arts tap-out. And if "enthusiastic consent" is the standard, I'll never get laid again.
Canvasback at June 24, 2014 7:23 PM
I have asked women in my classes about "affirmative consent" and whether a guy should ask first before each move of sexual escalation (no pun intended). Virtually all of them don't want guys to do this, it would "ruin the moment." They want men to try to read their nonverbal signals.
But this makes every man a sexual harasser. The only way they can find out when they have gone "too far" is, er... to go too far! And, thus, commit what amounts to a sexual assault (according to some).
And, even when she moves his hand off of her breast, most men learn from courtship that this may be a "no for the moment"... and a second attempt often succeeds after more necking. So that makes him potentially a harasser twice over!
With "affirmative consent" the normal courtship script becomes a very dangerous setup for men. They make all of the first-time sexual escalation moves (most women prefer it that way) according to the courtship script, and, to find out where her limit is they must cross it. Once crossed, they have now possibly committed a sexual assault. It is a guessing game -- shall I cup her breast in order to find out if I am a great seducer? Or have I just committed a sexual assault? As Warren Farrell wrote, they will find out whether "...they were right, or a rapist."
The word "seduction" itself is interesting. It means getting someone to want to do something that initially they did not want to do. But, according to some, that in itself is a form of sexual manipulation and harassment.
Welcome to the new age, to the new age...
Mike at June 25, 2014 10:29 AM
Leave a comment