The Slippery Slope Of Affirmative Consent: Perhaps Coming To Sex Lives Off Campus, Too
Hans Bader writes at Liberty Unyielding that affirmative consent activists seek to expand government meddling in sex from college campuses into your private life:
So it is with fanatical "Only Yes Means Yes" activists. Earlier this year, they succeeded in convincing California's legislature to pass a law requiring an "agreement" showing "affirmative consent" for sex on college campuses -- and not just for sex, but also for a potentially much broader, undefined category of sexual "activity" among college students. (Even though it's hard to imagine anyone in the real world who would actually want their lover to ask them "may I touch your breast" and "may I massage your clitoris" before doing so, especially if their lover already knows from experience that this sort of thing would be welcome.)
Now, they are back, seeking even more power over people's private lives. Activists quoted in the Huffington Post now want to extend this "affirmative consent" ideology, and its pinched, misleading definition of "consent," beyond college into K-12 schools, and beyond sexual activity to non-sexual touching and unwanted remarks, to teach people the sinister evil of things like "unsolicited hugs." (My wife and daughter hug me without asking for permission, and sometimes it's a surprise -- a pleasant surprise, even if I never "agreed" to it.). Once busybodies start meddling in your personal life, it's hard for them to stop.The meddling won't stop at the schoolhouse gate, and will eventually reach into your private life, too. As lawyer Scott Greenfield notes, progressive law professors have submitted a controversial proposal to the American Law Institute that the Model Penal Code be radically changed to require affirmative "consent" throughout society, for both "sexual intercourse" and a broader range of "sexual contact."
On page 69 of their draft, they explicitly admit that this affirmative "consent" requirement would classify as sexual assault even many "passionately wanted" instances of sex (presumably because of the technicality that such mutually-wanted sexual intercourse is welcomed after -- not affirmatively consented to before -- the sex is initiated.)
Perversely, they justify this massive invasion of people's sex lives as supposedly protecting people's sexual "autonomy" from potentially unwanted sex, even though their proposal goes well beyond banning unwanted sex, to banning sex that was in fact "passionately wanted" although not agreed to in advance. See Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offenses, Tentative Draft No. 1 at pg. 69 (April 30, 2014).
I've copied that draft from Scott's site:
Someone was kind enough to provide me with a copy of the current draft of the ALI Model Penal Code for sexual assault and rape. Surprise, affirmative consent is in there:4. Criminal liability in the absence of affirmative consent. Section 213.4 addresses the much-debated situation involving neither express protests nor affirmative permission --a situation, for example, in which one party proceeds to commit an act of sexual penetration while the other party remains silent and passive. Section 213.4 endorses the position that an affirmative expression of consent, either by words or conduct, is always an appropriate prerequisite to sexual intercourse, and that the failure to obtain such consent should be punishable under Article 213. As originally presented to the Advisers, to the Members Consultative Group, and to the Council, the draft treated that offense as a felony of the fourth degree. Subsequent reflection, in light of the numerous comments received on this issue, has led to modification of that judgment. The current draft maintains the view that such misconduct should be considered a serious offense, but in light of the existing ambiguity of social norms in this regard and the extremely serious consequences invariably associated with any conviction for a felony sexual offense, the current draft takes the position that the offense is appropriately graded as a misdemeanor.Boom. Bear in mind, this is a draft.
Keep in mind what this would do. There surely would be the rare woman in a relationship who gets caught up in the "You didn't ask for consent" the morning after. But this will surely be used as a way to get revenge upon men -- revenge that very possibly includes jail time.
And as former Democratic operative Ezra Klein puts it at Vox (and he thinks it's a fab thing that it's passed for college students in California, signed into law by the awful Jerry Brown), it will throw...
...everyday sexual practice into doubt and [create] a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent.
Ezra continues:
Men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter. ... To work, "Yes Means Yes" needs to create a world where men are afraid.
As I've said before, men on campus, who have had their due process removed and, on top of that who have Affirmative Consent stuck on them, should never date college women. They should band together and time-share an escort.
And if this law now in draft form ever passes, that's what all men should do -- all who value their freedom.
Yes, this, on the verge of 2015, is what our country has come to -- wussified by feminists into a place where men who would never come close to being rapists under any reasonable standard will live in fear that they will lose their freedom for engaging in normal sex acts in dating and relationships. Or, very possibly, even for giving a sad friend a hug, should she decide to turn vengeful on them.
I think treating every man as a potential rapist is the logical follow-up to treating every man as a potential pedophile. America has gone "stranger danger" crazy in the last generation -- and now those kids who grew up with that fear in the backs of their minds could very well have it imprinted, even as adults.
As originally presented to the Advisers, to the Members Consultative Group, and to the Council, the draft treated that offense as a felony of the fourth degree.
Who are these people?
Kevin at December 27, 2014 7:50 AM
Wow. This is another one of those Jesus Hello Kitty Christ on a rocket-powered toboggan moments. . . .
Keith Glass at December 27, 2014 7:54 AM
Rosy Palm and her five sisters were unavailable to comment.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 27, 2014 8:08 AM
Remember when the Progressives warned that the Christian right was going to get all up in your bedroom activities?
Good times, good times.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 27, 2014 10:44 AM
I'd been in college in the 90's on a campus that experienced the first wave of rape hysteria. That movement expired when we realized that the anti-rape activists of the day weren't actually too concerned with rape-rape, rather they were attempting to stigmatize and regulate heterosexuality. Just like today.
The same core of activists had been instrumental in the child sexual abuse hysteria of the 80's - when Gloria Steinem was raising funds to excavate the McMartin preschool grounds convinced she'd find a sex dungeon patrolled by a robot with dildo fingers.
This movement is only concerned with rape as a vehicle to promote their sick agenda. They believe that all heterosexual intimacy is inherently abusive and traumatic. Their goal is to impose a 'transactional' model of sexual relations ( i.e. 'affirmative consent' ). They want sex to only be legal if it is conducted in a very prescribed asexual pattern of behaviors. Because they believe that all sex is rape and that all intimacy is coercion.
Mark at December 27, 2014 11:07 AM
They should band together and time-share an escort.
As I've said before: it won't be very long before colleges are expelling men based on complaints from women at other schools, from townies, and yes, even from escorts.
dee nile at December 27, 2014 12:26 PM
Amy,
You are wrong if you think avoiding college women solves the risk. Since an accusation is as good as a conviction simply avoiding sexual situations is not good enough. You need to avoid them even knowing your name.
When I was in high school I ran into a girl that I babysat when I was in middle school. I was friendly and reminisced a bit about when I last saw her. Stupid mistake I now know. Pissed off when her friends teased her over it she claimed I molested her. Thankfully for both of us she never went to any authorities with her false accusation.
Ben at December 27, 2014 1:23 PM
The upshot of all this is:
Some of the smartest and most inventive minds in the world will get the clue that a nice sexbot will be a saleable item...
It will never sue you, give you social diseases, or talk about being oppressed by your existence.
"I was thinkin that maybe I'd get a maid, find someplace nearby for her to stay. Just someone to keep my house clean, fix my meals, and go away." -Young.
SwissArmyD at December 27, 2014 3:02 PM
Wait until you combine 'Yes means Yes' with the VAWA. That'll be the dynamite that blows the family apart. Wife gets mad at the hubby for any reason, and any action by him becomes abuse & violence, to be fixed by a restraining order, and then jail.
It's coming, and I've been amazed at how fast our country is slipping into the totalitarian mindset, where family members cannot trust each other, and offending a family member will get you taken away.
-- Steve
Steve at December 27, 2014 6:04 PM
Let's face it, life in the US in the 80s and 90s was easy and boring.
Sure, my retirement in the next decade or so will likely involve being a refuge from revolution and quite possibly a target of the revolution, but it promises to be exciting!
And for those with some power, there's a good bit of pillage, plunder and rape to look forward to.
Odd though, how so many people thought the revolution would be driven by communism and oil shortages, and missed out on the triggered femi-trans-otherkin.
jerry at December 27, 2014 6:28 PM
Men who actually ask women if they can kiss, fondle, etc. are probably considered to be lesser beta or omega males, and some stupid law will not change that.
mpetrie98 at December 27, 2014 9:59 PM
"Men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter. ... To work, "Yes Means Yes" needs to create a world where men are afraid"
This is exactly right. Men need to understand that they risk legal consequences if they aren't sure the woman wants it. A little fear goes a long way.
Me at December 27, 2014 10:41 PM
Who are these people?
Hey look one of those people showed up, whats it like to live in a world where your own male family member's are filthy rapists like all the other men are, me?
You tell you dad what a piece of shit you think he is for having the temerity to be born with a penis?
What sort of mental abuse do you heap upon your sons I wonder?
lujlp at December 28, 2014 12:05 AM
While we're at it, can we add criminal liabilities for false accusations?
Ooops, that puts that 'burden of proof' back in. Can't have that, right?
DrCos at December 28, 2014 4:03 AM
"I favor draconian policies that give more credence to accusations than defenses and hopefully make those boys think twice"
Posted by: Me at December 26, 2014 11:35 AM
Those who would deny the benefits of liberty to others deserve it not for themselves.
And they are almost criminally ignorant in failing to realize that the same low standard they clamor to be applied to others, once established, will be applied to themselves.
Radwaste at December 28, 2014 6:16 AM
so many people thought the revolution would be driven by communism
Whaddya think these feminazis are, precisely? I'm thinking they're not exactly free market libertarians. Men, especially younger men, are in the process of going on strike.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 28, 2014 6:48 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/12/27/the_slippery_sl.html#comment-5711183">comment from RadwasteI favor -- always -- possibly letting the guilty go free in order to not punish the innocent.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2014 7:15 AM
Can you imagine a world where you can't wake your partner up with a kiss? A world where surprise oral is "sexual assault" and not "happy birthday"? And those of us who are into BDSM can't possibly legally continue if this keeps going. You won't be able to indulge in the mildest forms (like tying your partner's wrists to the bedpost) let alone some of the more intense versions.
I feel like I am going to have to write some kind of letter, notarize it, and give it to my husband of nearly ten years that says I consent to have sex, perform sex acts, etc. with him. For HIS protection.
The Original Kit at December 28, 2014 1:01 PM
"And they are almost criminally ignorant in failing to realize that the same low standard they clamor to be applied to others, once established, will be applied to themselves."
Nah. I don't have sex with people under dubious circumstances. Don't have sex when you're too wasted to make good decisions. Don't have sex with people of poor character. Have a few people you value get raped and see how you feel. These college boys love to get girls wasted and rape them and they need to start fearing that their lives will be negatively affected by these actions.
Me at December 28, 2014 8:38 PM
"Nah. I don't have sex with people under dubious circumstances. Don't have sex when you're too wasted to make good decisions."
Ever had an asprin sometime in the 12 hr before you had sex?
Yes means yes laws make it illegal for you to consent to sex.
Yes means yes says UNDER THE INFLUENCE, not intoxicated.
Accidentally swallow a few milliliters of mouthwash and suddenly your husband is a rapist.
You really want to live in a world where every time you want to give your partner a hug you must ask for permission?
Why is it you think all sex is rape Me?
Why do you think no woman has the agency to make her own decisions?
Who the fuck are you to tell women they are to stupid to think for themselves and make their own choices?
lujlp at December 29, 2014 12:37 AM
>>Have a few people you value get raped and see how you feel.
Yeah, I'd want to fuck those rapists up. I would not, however, put a gun to the head of every other man out there. Which is essentially what you are suggesting.
Matt at December 29, 2014 10:26 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/12/27/the_slippery_sl.html#comment-5716760">comment from MattWell-put, Matt.
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2014 12:40 PM
"Have a few people you value get raped and see how you feel. These college boys love to get girls wasted and rape them and they need to start fearing that their lives will be negatively affected by these actions."
Well, here's where you show that ignorance.
You don't even recognize you are advocating the surrender of due process - which then will be applied to you across the board, because once due process is denied for one crime, it is a simple thing to deny it for others. Oh, right. You FEEL!
By the way: you should have no problem naming names, citing cases by case number, etc.
Are you actually claiming YOU know of people YOU value who have been raped?
If so, why do you not assist in obtaining due process for them?
I bet it's because you cannot provide the preponderance of evidence necessary for an indictment; having failed, you want the rules changed, standards lowered, just for you. Hey - bad things happen to people who set themselves up. This does not convey blame to any victim, but it DOES point out the personal responsibility for self-defense.
There is no way around this: the operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is self. You are not changing this at all by claiming that due process should be rejected.
Again: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it."--Abraham Lincoln
He's talking to you, because of the reason I mentioned above.
Radwaste at December 29, 2014 6:35 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/12/27/the_slippery_sl.html#comment-5717850">comment from RadwasteRight on, Rad!
Amy Alkon at December 29, 2014 6:57 PM
I cannot stand idiots who want some "authority" to take over their lives for them.
Rabbit, stay in your hole.
Radwaste at December 30, 2014 7:16 AM
Leave a comment