The Cosmo article states:
"... affirmative consent should be the standard we use in determining whether a sex act was criminal.".

The only reasonable response to that is to ask the author "Did they suck your brain out the last time you got your hair fixed?".

He said/She said turns into She said.

Hell yeah I'm on board for legalizing prostitution.

Shouldn't that be "MAY I finger you?", not "CAN I finger you?".

I shudder at how far American youth has fallen.

All that effort put into making them speechless and it comes to this!

There are behaviors that imply consent and they cannot be ignored, but are. For example, she is in HIS dorm room, with people literally feet away who would come running if she screams. She is free to get up and leave. She takes her own clothes off. She asks him to HER room and says spend the night (what else could that mean?). She sends texts bragging about it.
But the idiocy of affirmative consent is to ignore all that. No one in the history of the world ever asked for permission for each step verbally, and if they did they spoiled the moment. Some people are too shy to even use sexual words--how can they ask permission? It is insane. I read a survey of British wives where some 45% or so said they always have alcohol before sex (to loosen up I suppose): rape rape rape.

I rape my wife every chance I get, and, as it turns out, she rapes me right back. It is certain that every person who advocates "affirmative consent" has themself committed rape and/or sexual assault under that standard.

So much rapin' going on that I am becoming quite blase' about it. I also have to reasonably conclude that adult women have as much agency as retarded children -- and so should be treated that way in all respects.

What is this really all about? The feminists' wet dream come true: every sexual encounter between a man and woman will give the woman the power to destroy the man's life if she wishes.

But, no woman would ever do such a thing, would they?

Again, this is two separate issues. If a person feels regret over a sexual act, or feels manipulated, coerced, or physically forced into it, and is suffering emotional consequences as a result, that person should have the option of receiving treatment, which is offered for free on most college campuses in this country and at most rape crisis centers.

Criminal charges require evidence. Are there times when someone is set free who should be prosecuted due to lack of evidence? Yes, but that is the price we pay for that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing.

Oh, and consent play can be great fun, as in, "I'm not doing until you beg for it." Forcing affirmative consent, if done properly, can be great fun, even if it is silly in many contexts.

Julie G, get a grip.

We are not talking about "consent play." This is very real, with very real consequences.

Try to make me beg for sex, and that would be the last time you ever saw me. Nor would I expect any decent, self-respecting woman to put up with the abuse of being made to beg for sex like a slut.

My response? "Go fuck yourself. Literally."

The problem Julie G is that the morning after her friends go "YEEW!" so she says she did not mean to "play" and he goes to jail.

Simple. Prove her wrong. Impossible to do.

Oh Jay, you say slut like it is a bad thing. One cannot expect women to be sex positive and then call them sluts for loving sex. If you want women to want to have sex with you, quit shaming them for wanting it 'too much'.

And as a rape survivor, I understand how real this is. You aren't into it? That is cool. But the idea that getting affirmative consent at each step cannot be done without killing the mood just means you lack skills, not that it is impossible.

Bob in Texas, that is why I said that any crime requires evidence. In the assault in question, the forensic exam found gravel in her vagina. Assault typically shows abrasions, bleeding, trauma. If someone feels bad about an experience afterward, get them a shrink. If there is physical trauma/clear evidence, get them a DA.

Julie G. "In the assault in question, the forensic exam found gravel in her vagina." I'm a little reluctant to assume that that implies force; there are endless discussions on the internet and in advice columns of women complaining about abrasions after consensual sex. Sex was certainly a bad idea with both of them covered with pine needles, but that doesn't, by itself, make it rape. The most damning evidence against Turner was that he was still humping her after she had passed out. The fact that she was drunk enough for California law to apply against him is also indisputable. But there wasn't really any proof that he did or didn't have express of implied consent for the fingering; she has no memory of it and his claim to remembering a "Yeah" seem suspect. I believe that the light sentence was as much because the judge wasn't convinced of the "penetrating an unconscious person" charge. Part of the public outrage stems from the "foreign object" language in the charges, leading some to conclude out loud that he used a stick or something, when the object in question was his finger. There are also assumptions that he dragged her behind the dumpster, but the forensic evidence did not sound consistent with that. While he was clearly in the wrong on two of the charges, as well as being clueless and out of control, he has become a figure despised way beyond the severity of his crime. His useful life may well be over, while many convicted of much worse crimes will quietly serve their sentences and get on with their lives.