Let’s be Honest about what the “Yes Means Yes” Law is – It’s a Jobs Bill (Guest Post)

By 12 Comments 985 views

yesmeansyes

California just passed a law whose stated intent was to stop sexual assaults on college campuses, basically known as the “Yes Means Yes” law.

The law, SB967, was signed over the weekend by Gov. Jerry Brown, D-Calif. It requires state-supported colleges to mandate continuous “affirmative consent” from all parties engaged in sexual activity. 

Neither silence nor a lack of protest constitute consent, the law says, and heavy drinking – often a contributing factor in sexual assault – makes consent impossible. Under the law, consent is defined as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” that “must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity.” 

The law does not require verbal consent, but does not specify how nonverbal consent would be communicated. Some universities with similar policies already in place have included nodding one’s head or moving closer to one’s partner as examples of affirmative consent, The Associated Press reports.


It’s never good when I find myself agreeing with Ted Rall 

Let’s look past the obvious stupidity of creating a culture of fear and mistrust, along with the guaranteed witch hunt trials that will come about as a result. Here is another interesting pitfall:

George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, however, says the imprecise definition of “affirmative consent” means couples who do not specifically discuss consent may be guilty of sexually assaulting each other, and that under the law a female student could be charged with sexual assault if she offers oral sex and her inebriated partner accepts.

“This may seem bizarre that a guy who is presumably laying back and having oral sex and one assumes enjoying it – or at least tolerating it – is not consenting simply by doing that, but under that definition if he didn’t say ‘yes,’ she’s a sexual violator,” he says. 

Banzhaf says students may be increasingly inclined to videotape sexual encounters to prove their innocence, though that may not be advisable in California, which requires the consent of all parties involved in a recording.

I find that last part particularly interesting. Given how easy smart phone technology makes recording these days how many students will discreetly record encounters without their partners’ consent? I can easily see this cutting both ways, both to cover oneself or to railroad someone with trumped up charges. Of course there’s no danger of this becoming a kangaroo court system:

The law also requires schools to adopt a “preponderance of evidence” standard for allegations – meaning someone has committed sexual assault if there’s a greater than 50 percent likelihood of guilt – that is lower than the reasonable doubt standard used in courts.

The article raises some good points, and a few more come to mind. Why do only college students need this protection? Do young women outside of campuses not face similar threats? What about the potential reactions to this law on campuses? Should any fraternities, male sports teams, or any other males independently throwing a party only allow admittance to female guests signing a form affirming that they are either not students in the Cal system, and if they are that they have not consumed alcohol beforehand and will not drink to intoxication at said party? Can liability be extended to party hosts or bartenders serving alcohol? How insulting is it that women are so completely incapable of taking care of themselves without insanity like this?

Back to the title of this post, at the end of the day men and women will be men and women. You’ll have good folks, and reasonable laws (such as the ones that already apply to all citizens) to protect people from the bad folks. The real purpose of a law like this is to create new ways for lawyers and therapists to invade our lives – the perfect job for people with gender studies degrees and nothing to offer an employer other than an inevitable sexual harassment lawsuit. And of course, the people running these programs won’t be working for free. The next time you hear a leftist from California declare that action must be taken to fight spiraling college tuition costs ask why they weren’t opposing something like this.

And, to think, I remember a time when the left wanted the government out of their bedrooms. Damn, I feel old.

Follow Brother Bob on Twitter

Cross posted from Brother Bob’s Blog

Blogging by the credo of "Making the world a more offensive place, one blog post at a time", Brother Bob started writing posts around the beginning of the Obama presidency over at Brother Bob's Blog. A born-again Existentialist and self-professed libertarian with conservative tendencies, he has ironically chosen to live in the Washington, DC area - deep behind enemy lines. He has always loved history, and spent eight years volunteering as a tour guide on weekends, giving over 200 tours to roughly 2,500 mostly foreign guests. His tours were highlighted by stories generally not found in the history books or most other tours, such as the importance of the Battle if Antietam, the origins or Arlington Cemetery, and dispelling the myths of FDR's New Deal. Although his favorite subject to blog about is Economics, as seen in his Economics for Politicians series, his posts try to address angles that other conservative writers and the mainstream media (naturally!) miss. "There's no point in putting up a post on a subject that someone smarter than me has already written". He believes in the "Happy Warrior" approach, and tries to inject humor in his posts, sometimes successfully. Two such examples are his posts comparing the modern left to the horrible Star Wars prequels, and analyzing the laments of a DC woman in search of a feminist boyfriend. Brother Bob lives with his very patient wife known as Sister Babe, and their fantastic son. Little Bob. Little Bob is also the reason that being a tour guide came to an end, as spending Saturdays raising a son takes priority over giving lectures to foreign visitors on the folly of Keynesian economics. BB is also grateful for the opportunity to take his place among the outstanding writers at Flopping Aces, appreciates every person who takes the time to read his posts, and especially those who join him in the conversation in the comments.

12 Responses to “Let’s be Honest about what the “Yes Means Yes” Law is – It’s a Jobs Bill (Guest Post)”

  1. 2

    Ditto

    If both partners were intoxicated, were they mutually raped? After all, if she isn’t held responsible for her choice to have sex (now determined to be always being nonconsent by this law,) while she is drunk or high, Does not the same apply for the other partner who is also intoxicated? In such a situation under this law neither intoxicated person can give consent, both are not responsible for their actions, and yet both must be equally guilty of perpetrating a rape on each other.

    Looks like California may next be forcing a rising flood of rape trials while also promoting a sexually active lifestyle with their “Sex Week” celebrations, and the only sensible option for students to legally protect themselves is total abstinence or chastity belts.

  2. 3

    Skookum

    Is the old line, “What was I thinking?” being replaced with cries of rape?

    Believe it or not, I heard several guys say the line, but I imagine it is far more frequently used among people of the female persuasion, when friends ask about the bizarre hook-up of the previous night. All of us of Northern European extraction have a degree of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, I have close to the maximum amount of Neanderthal DNA 4% but 0% of Denisovan; at least some of my relatives were discriminating. Did these early star crossed lovers have second thoughts after the initial rutting? Oh it happened quite a bit or else the person responsible was very prolific. Are we overcome with these same urges to play humpy dumpy today, with whomever is available? Second thoughts and saving face has ruined many a young man.

  3. 4

    ThunderGod

    I’m just waiting for the Feminists to push a “Get-Out-of-a-DUI-because-I’m-a-Girl” law to be passed. Seriously, if a girl can call “Rape” because she changes her mind in the morning, then can’t she just say that she really didn’t mean to run-over those people a 3am, either?

  4. 5

    Ditto

    The should call this the “Morning-After Remorse Rape” law. It’s all part of the progressive Democrat “we’re all victims” mindset that completely abrogates personal responsibility for your own actions. Simple common sense would hold that it is purely sexist to absolve a woman for any responsibility of poor decisions made while she was intoxicates, while holding intoxicated males to a higher standard.

  5. 6

    FAITH7

    @Ditto#2
    ‘…and the only sensible option for students to legally protect themselves is total abstinence or chastity belts. ‘
    I was thinking the same thing. This Law gives a whole new meaning to the word abstinence.

    This is going to be interesting….

  6. 7

    FAITH7

    And, to think, I remember a time when the left wanted the government out of their bedrooms.

    There was a time when the liberals wanted government OUT of EVERY aspect of their lives…remember the battle cry’s of the 60’s against the ‘establishment’ and ‘the man’ ?

    Sad how indoctrination has taken a control over such thoughts….

  7. 9

    Ditto

    @FAITH7:

    It greatly expands the risk of a male student being falsely accused of rape due to morning after second thoughts on the part of the woman, even if both participants were stone cold sober and the sex wascompletely consensual the night before. All the woman has to do is claim that she was intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, and her partner will be convicted and labeled a sex offender for the rest of his life.

  8. 10

    Common+Sense

    Rush was correct again yesterday. How come none of these liberal wackos stood up when President Elect and then President Bill Clinton did the same and worse!!

  9. 11

    FAITH7

    Off Topic – Mark Herring (Liberal-Democrat) Attorney General of Virginia, I just heard (Fox) has made an announcement that the statutory (rape) laws regarding young girls (13-16) do not have to be reported to authorities (his opinion). This is not law, the law does say specific authorities should report this kind of abuse on young girls…but according to him….not necessary to do so.

    The left is demented. And this man is a lazy pos.

    Is this not a true Liberal War on the female gender ??

  10. 12

    Nanny+G

    So much for a lady being discrete or coy.
    Hard to imagine this was the next logical step to a ”liberal paradise.”
    Oh, California.

    OK, let’s say it is a ”jobs bill.”
    This is a 30 second dramatic new political ad underscoring the plight of unemployed Millennial voters.
    Do they WANT to become bedroom police?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *