Post 11

California has passed their "Yes Means Yes" bill, including a signature from Governor Brown.

Many people will look at this in the context of the "rape epidemic" that is plaguing college campuses around the nation. The "Yes Means Yes" bill only looks at how sexual conduct is managed on college campuses. Why only there? That's because it has a whole other system to use to enforce it--all without due process!

Usual disclaimer: rape is a terrible crime and there are things that can be done to reduce to incidence rates of violent crime. I am not a rape apologist.

"Yes Means Yes" boils down to this: affirmative consent must be given by both parties throughout the sexual encounter to ensure both are aware and are willing participants. Consent cannot be given or accepted if either party is intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics. Two issues arise here: first, does every action require a "yes" and, second, how intoxicated is too intoxicated?

If one received the "yes" for breast touching at minute 2, does that still apply for minute 5? What about minute 10? 30? Post-completion? When does the affirmative consent end? It can be framed to only mean for that very moment to ensure it isn't used after coitus, but that means the participants would be seeking continual consent for every grope, kiss, or thrust. It places an undue burden on men to ensure consent, lest they fail to achieve it on a particular step, and are branded a rapist.

If a hook-up pair have consented to sex and everything leading up to it, and, while in the heat of the action, the male's member slips out and is accidentally inserted into the female rectum, will that be considered rape? This is a murky moment that will require a significant amount of thought before a conclusion can be made. The female never gave consent to be penetrated anally, but the male never wanted to penetrate the female anally. Does that absolve him of the accident? This uncomfortable but brief moment can become a ticking bomb for either party, but most for the male. I have great doubts that if a claim was brought against the male for forcible anal rape that he would be unable to defend himself adequately under Yes Means Yes. He would admit to the incident, state it was an accident, reassert the process of consent that was exchanged by both parties, only to finish on emphasizing that it was an accident. Under the kangaroo court system imposed by the Department of Education, whereby guilt is assumed, due process is thrown out, and the need for "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been replace by "preponderance of evidence", the male would likely be found guilty, as he admitted to commit the accidental act without consent.

In California, you may still operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. Driving is a significant engagement of perception and awareness. So, what is the "legal limit" for sex (on college campuses)? Taking this application to the logical conclusion, there will not be a way to prove a participant was either entirely sober or significantly intoxicated during the joke court proceedings many months down the line. As stated above, these proceedings are stacked against the accused (which are predominately men). It cannot be proven that consent was attained through the evening to all actions, that no lines were crossed, and that both were sober (enough?) to engage in the play. Alcohol impairs the judgement of both parties significantly enough that either side might lose sight of important body language, might skip a step in the affirmative consent dance, or may be unaware their 5AM date fell asleep for a moment during coitus.

Bills like these do not help solve the problem of sexual assault. Rather, they create a mine field of legal issues for those involved and for the colleges which they attend. The Department of Education's disregard for due process in show trails is only bolstered by such legislation. If we want to further reduce the diminishing number of sexual assault cases, then we need to do more to teach children about being assertive, how to interact with others, and how to read body language. We need to institute a lower legal drinking age, allow cheap and low alcohol content booze at all college parties (i.e., kegs), and discourage "pre-gaming" before college parties.

Convoluted laws based on bad statistics (1-5 women are not sexually assaulted during a 4-year college program) are failure as a community to address the issue of sexual assault. The rates of sexual assault are dropping, despite efforts by some groups to claim otherwise. Education into conduct and more reasonable approaches to consumption of intoxicants will be far more effective.

Notes: I was unable to find the bill's language around what "drunk" means. It merely referred to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, having taken intoxicants, or being "drunk".

This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi