Simplest solution?

Dont date college girls. In CA as I understand it all the UC schools are connected so no dating anyone going to a different campus either.

Dont even talk to them.

To lujlp: +1

Another solution: an organized, all-male, campus-wide boycott of all college women. The goal is to get women to organize and lobby for a repeal of this crazy law.

"Again, I go back to my suggestion that parents of sons sending them to campus warn them to avoid all campus women and give their sons an allowance to time-share an escort with their male friends."

MGTOW forever!

MGTOW for life!

And by the way, does anyone really think these bigoted laws are going to keep young women safe? Or punish young women who rape?

I tried to use the email links you provided, Amy, but unfortunately it will not send messages from me, because I don't live in the district. (I don't even live in California.)

I can't believe that this law would survive any Supreme Court challenge; it blatantly defies the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Another solution: an organized, all-male, campus-wide boycott of all college women.

Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha. You slay me. Surely you realize that doing that would create a hostile environment and an automatic Title IX violation?

Expel them all! off with their heads!

I can't believe that this law would survive any Supreme Court challenge; it blatantly defies the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It might not. On the other hand, Jerry Brown might follow along with this fellow's suggestion to bypass the courts.

I can't believe that this law would survive any Supreme Court challenge; it blatantly defies the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Thats because it isnt a CRIMINAL law. It only applies to students of the state of Califorina's public colleges.

Likewise I never though a law allowing the TSA to tickle my balls so I could ride a plane would survive court challenges, as it to " blatantly defies the presumption of innocence until proven guilty."

But you were cool with boys in TSA blue molesting kids and adults, why does this shock you?

Men can no longer afford to put their degrees, careers, and reputations at risk by dating women who attend their own school. This avoidance ought to have a handy name, like "D-DOC" for Don't Date On Campus".

A man approached by a woman who attends his own school will simply say, "Sorry -- I'm D-DOC". That's an easy thing to put on a poster. A button that reads "Ask me about D-DOC" means, "Let me help you get up to speed on what happens to men who are victimized by false accusations and rape-culture hysteria. Don't let that be you."

I foresee a day when parents tell their freshman sons to stay away from the girls, and upperclassmen sit the new guy down to make sure he grasps just how dangerous the campus environment is.

Men have to take active measures to protect themselves from women on campus. Suing the school after the fact is a Pyrrhic victory; better for him to not create the risk exposure in the first place, so he can get on with his life. Only preemption works; he will get no justice if he becomes entangled in a system deliberately designed to destroy him.

The broader threat and responses aren't new. For decades, male professors have refused to meet one-on-one with female students behind closed doors -- or even in their offices. There have long been equivalents in the corporate world, institutions, and government; we've all read about men who avoid getting on an elevator with a woman if there's no one else there. What's new is that ordinary men going about their studies and daily lives will begin to make similar adjustments.

The need for preemption applies off-campus too.

There are lots of possible ways men in all walks of life can adapt to the growing threat. Group-style dating might come into vogue for the protection it provides from false accusation. Daytime outings might be preferred to nighttime. Clubs that have video cameras covering the entire location might be seen as advantageous rather than as an intrusive invasion of privacy. Men might take cabs to a date instead of driving their own car so they're not alone in a vehicle with a woman, or simply agree to meet at the destination.

To allow a relationship to progress from dating-only to intimacy, there might be entirely new services like relationship counseling engaged for the purpose of verifying consent. In that scenario, a pair of counselors (always two, including at least one woman) meet with a woman from time to time to establish a paper trail verifying that she is engaging consensual intimacy with a man.

Picture also a service in which a woman logs onto a website and reads a prepared text affirming her consent to sex as the system compares her voiceprint and other biometrics to prerecorded benchmarks to confirm she is not under undue stress and is telling the truth when she consents. A puff into the breathalizer confirms she is not drunk. Her pupil dilation is normal, ruling out the influence of some drugs. The system sends a message to her boyfriend confirming it is safe for him to have sex with her that evening.

Does that scenario seem far-fetched? Maybe it is, in part or whole. But did you ever expect the NFL to try to buy sociopolitical protection for itself by hiring a politically active feminist as an "advisor" and forcing the players to wear pink gloves on the field?

Instead of just avoiding dating college women; maybe look into attending an all-male college?

For straight guys it would remove all temptation.

It might also send a message to the co-ed schools that until they make it safe for men to attend they will lose them as students.