There has long been an informal standard in regards to sexual activity between college students and that was No means No. The campaign was started when the date rape drugs became popular and attempts (rightfully so) were made to prosecute the date rapist. The idea was no means no and beyond that is sexual harassment.
Those were the boundaries except some liberals got to thinking (and that always spells trouble for real Americans) that recalled making fun of Nancy Reagan for her “Just say no to drugs” campaign. Not wanting to be associated with that in any way they had to come up with something else. ‘No means No’ does not cover all the possible circumstances they figured, so now California has come up with an answer.
A piece of legislation called ‘Yes means Yes’ (original isn’t it). It only applies to colleges by the way, anyone outside of college or anyone who is not a college student on a college campus partying with college persons, it does not cover you. It covers only college students in California and it says that there needs to be affirmative consent to each and every sexual activity. There is no general “Yes, let’s do it”- no way. Not specific enough because yes could mean something innocuous or yes could mean something serious. It cannot be something ambiguous, you have to say yes to each and every proposed sexual activity.
Now the bill has a number of assumptions. One of them is that males are the predators. But that isn’t always the case. Does ‘Yes means Yes’ apply when women are coming onto a man in a college situation. Doesn’t that happen?
By the way doesn’t it strike you as taking the fun out of college socializing completely. Sexual activity at this younger age is so fraught with all kinds of other uncertainties, that introducing this bureaucratic requirement – why don’t they just make it you have to fill a form and get it notarized. This is insane.
For each and every move you need affirmative consent. I mean talk about the redefinition of foreplay, for each and every move you have got to have verbal consent. May I touch your hair, may I touch your face, may I kiss your hand, may I reach second base?
Now the ludicrous aspect of this bill which has already past the California State Senate and is now being considered by the California Assembly. It is a completely unenforceable, completely nonsensical bill. The central assumption is that the male is the predator trying to take advantage of some girl, but it fails to cover all kinds of other context. For example, it isn’t clear that this bill covers homosexual relations, which would require and entire different set of questions than asked of a heterosexual encounter. This is actually from the bill’s description: ‘Every stage of lovemaking requires a yes statement’. Although the bill does recognize that perhaps there’s a nonverbal way of expressing consent. That has been my experience.