ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Last March we covered how California Seeks to Redefine Consensual Campus Sex as Rape, and we asked the question: “How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?”
It doesn’t, of course. The California affirmative consent legislation was not about preventing rapes or other sexual assaults, which already are crimes, but about redefining inter-personal relationships in accordance with radical feminist demands which always view the female as victim of the male patriarchy.
The affirmative consent obligation now is on the verge of becoming law (emphasis added):
To address the problem of rape on campuses, California colleges and universities would have to adopt a standard of unambiguous consent among students engaging in sexual activity under a proposal passed by state lawmakers Thursday.
If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, such policies would be required at all public colleges and other institutions that receive state funds for student aid. They would have to include a detailed protocol for assisting victims of sexual assault, stalking, domestic violence and date violence….
Students engaging in sexual activity would first need “affirmative consent” from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person’s silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated.
Campus relationship regulation now is about the predominance of “rape culture” theory which ensnares men into kangaroo campus courts, and even opposes objective preventative measures, like “Undercover Colors” nail polish that reacts to date-rape drugs.
The normal sequence of romantic interaction now is a violation of law unless there is something more than objectively willing conduct. It’s no longer “against our will,” but rather, a matter of procedural steps imposed on willing, consensual participants in order to avoid creating a crimewhere none exists:
When I was in college, the standard for sexual assault basically was the title of Susan Brownmiller’s book — used during Freshman orientation — Against Our Will — Men, Women and Rape. That made sense — No means No, whether expressed verbally or by conduct. Or if the victim were incapable either by reason of age or physical condition of giving consent, that also made sense. And those standards roughly equate to the criminal law’s understanding of sexual assault and rape.
Now, however, “against our will” on campus has become murky, using standards in which two completely willing participants who evidence no indication that the sexual activity is against either of their wills, will have committed a campus offense. But only men are prosecuted.
So normal consensual human interactions must be documented to prove affirmative consent.
In the March post, we linked to the video below, which clearly was intended as parody at the time.
Parody may be law soon in California:
Posted by William A. Jacobson
Last March we covered how California Seeks to Redefine Consensual Campus Sex as Rape, and we asked the question: “How does classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?”
It doesn’t, of course. The California affirmative consent legislation was not about preventing rapes or other sexual assaults, which already are crimes, but about redefining inter-personal relationships in accordance with radical feminist demands which always view the female as victim of the male patriarchy.
The affirmative consent obligation now is on the verge of becoming law (emphasis added):
To address the problem of rape on campuses, California colleges and universities would have to adopt a standard of unambiguous consent among students engaging in sexual activity under a proposal passed by state lawmakers Thursday.
If signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, such policies would be required at all public colleges and other institutions that receive state funds for student aid. They would have to include a detailed protocol for assisting victims of sexual assault, stalking, domestic violence and date violence….
Students engaging in sexual activity would first need “affirmative consent” from both parties — a clear threshold that specifically could not include a person’s silence, a lack of resistance or consent given while intoxicated.
Campus relationship regulation now is about the predominance of “rape culture” theory which ensnares men into kangaroo campus courts, and even opposes objective preventative measures, like “Undercover Colors” nail polish that reacts to date-rape drugs.
The normal sequence of romantic interaction now is a violation of law unless there is something more than objectively willing conduct. It’s no longer “against our will,” but rather, a matter of procedural steps imposed on willing, consensual participants in order to avoid creating a crimewhere none exists:
When I was in college, the standard for sexual assault basically was the title of Susan Brownmiller’s book — used during Freshman orientation — Against Our Will — Men, Women and Rape. That made sense — No means No, whether expressed verbally or by conduct. Or if the victim were incapable either by reason of age or physical condition of giving consent, that also made sense. And those standards roughly equate to the criminal law’s understanding of sexual assault and rape.
Now, however, “against our will” on campus has become murky, using standards in which two completely willing participants who evidence no indication that the sexual activity is against either of their wills, will have committed a campus offense. But only men are prosecuted.
So normal consensual human interactions must be documented to prove affirmative consent.
In the March post, we linked to the video below, which clearly was intended as parody at the time.
Parody may be law soon in California:
