Turning College-Aged Citizens Into Toddlers With "Affirmative Consent"
Who would have thought that in 2015, fifty-some years after the start of the "free love" 1960s, that government would be all up in college students' sex lives?
But government is -- and never mind if your kind of sex life is like mine: where consent is something you don't get on videotape or in writing or ask for before every sex act, a la "May I lick your right nipple? May I twist your left nipple and then slowly lick it?"
Wendy Kaminer writes in the Boston Globe about the affirmative consent rules imposed on college campuses by California law and that Federal money (that is, the prospect of it being withheld) is being used to force these rules on other campuses around the country.
It's unlikely that any students will consistently comply with the new rules, which are difficult to reconcile with the realities of sexual interactions, and, in any case, it's unclear what compliance might entail. New York's law requires "knowing [and] voluntary" consent, "given by words or actions . . . creat[ing] clear permission . . . to engage in sexual activity," including any "intentional [sexual] touching, either directly or through the clothing." Consent to any sexual act -- or touch -- may not be inferred from consent to prior acts, which means that consent should be repeated and ongoing. Is this law meant to be taken literally? Maybe."It's a question of putting everyone on notice that they have to be in a consensual situation," New York Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, told The New York Times. "It also sends a message to the institutions that they have to up their game on how sexual assault on campus is viewed and treated."
How dare Glick tell the rest of us how sex is supposed to play out?
Kaminer gets it right:
What's wrong with teaching students and administrators that "yes means yes"? Nothing, but affirmative consent laws are not teaching tools. They mandate punitive rules that operate like quasi-criminal laws on campus, posing serious risks of expulsion to students accused of not obtaining consent for every move or for acting on mistaken impressions of implied consent. Assault accusations will be relatively easy to sustain, especially under the minimal standard of proof now applied in campus cases. Disproving assault, by establishing scrupulous compliance with affirmative consent policies, will be much harder. How might a student demonstrate that he repeatedly obtained consent? "Your guess is as good as mine," admitted California Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, who coauthored that state's law.When advocates of these laws acknowledge the difficulty of proving consent, when they praise regulations of alleged sexual assaults for "sending messages," they're implicitly endorsing discriminatory enforcement. Affirmative consent policies are not designed to govern every encounter. They're designed to bring about findings of guilt, or responsibility when rape accusations are leveled -- mainly against men accused of assaulting women.
... and where are the Republicans in all this?
Snoopy at July 28, 2015 4:02 AM
I've started calling these laws "Yes Means No" laws. If "yes" is deemed (months later) to be "not enthusiastic" then it's rape.
dee nile at July 28, 2015 4:38 AM
I'll pile on with Dee and say that these policies mean "Everything Means No". The clear intent of these laws is to place men into a subservient role in society. The charge is nearly impossible to defend against it; any man can be convicted of anything under this standard. (Even homosexual men -- if you've bumped into a woman on a subway, or if she bumped into you, you've committed sexual assault.) The uses of such laws in a totalitarian society are obvious: getting rid of political opposition and "troublemakers", as well as constantly reminding the non-ruling classes who their betters are.
The charges can also be used against women who fail to support the postmodern feminist dogma. So women, don't think you are immune if you fail to be sufficiently supportive of the Sisterhood.
Cousin Dave at July 28, 2015 6:34 AM
You know, they told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney, that the government would come into our bedrooms, and they were right!
Keep in mind they intend to move this "yes means maybe" crap to cover everyone.
As for the Repubicans, they're cowardly lions, minus a spine. Just call them a rape apologist and watch them quiver like jello. Actually, jello quivers less.
Or they're a sponsor of the Campus Accountability and Safety Act law.
A shorter Cousin Dave: if you can control people's sexualality, you control people.
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2015 6:55 AM
IRA, that works for a lot of religious groups.
Bob in Texas at July 28, 2015 8:19 AM
Just as we have "statutory rape", it seems we now have "regulatory assault".
Dwatney at July 28, 2015 4:14 PM
Yes, Bob, that's so.
Generally they don't give a sh!t about non-members.
But Feminism = Religion. All Hail Bob!
I R A Darth Aggie at July 28, 2015 8:13 PM
"But Feminism = Religion. All Hail Bob!"
One, Bob definitely not the head of feminism. All hail Babs maybe.
Two, there really is little difference between feminism (i.e. female supremacy) and religion.
Ben at July 30, 2015 2:20 PM
Leave a comment