Via Washington Post:
The California state senate unanimously approved a bill on Thursday that defines when “yes” means “yes” to sex.
Instead of “no means no” – the phrase commonly associated with sexual assault prevention – the law would require “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement” by each party to engage in sexual activity. If Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signs the bill into law – he has until the end of September – colleges and universities would have to adopt the so-called affirmative consent standard to continue receiving state funds for student financial aid.
[…]
Under the proposed standard, the fact that a person didn’t say “no” is no defense in a campus sexual assault investigation.
In addition to consenting up front, the bill requires affirmative consent to be “ongoing throughout the sexual activity,” meaning that sexual partners must agree to each step of a sexual encounter as it progresses and consent can be revoked at any time. The standard would apply to all sexual encounters regardless of whether the parties are having a one-night stand or are in a long-term relationship.
One thing the bill doesn’t say is that affirmative consent must be verbal.
Does everyone remember, during the Steubenville trial, where the defense attorney, in regards to the passed out girl not giving consent, said, “Well, she didn’t say ‘no’.” Yep. That was an eye opener and gives us insight into where, in part, this bill is coming from.
It’s no surprise that I’m okay with this bill. The previous “No Means No” criteria put the responsibility on the victim – even if they were incapable of saying no.
And I really don’t get why consent is always a big deal – some sort of onerous burden. Anyone having sex knows that consent is part of the act – every step of the way. They are aware that sex isn’t a solo act.
But just in case there’s still some confusion, here’s my advice. If you are with someone and the idea that they may claim rape in the morning pops into your head (not likely, but I’ll play along with this myth) then it is your responsibility to not have sex with them. Got it? It’s your responsibility – especially since thinking such a thing about a person you’re about to have sex with is a HUGE red flag. Proceed at your own risk – and I do mean your risk.
Everyone owns their sexuality and placing your future – reproductive, health, freedom – into the hands of someone else is you abdicating your responsibility. (I stress this because I had this conversation with my son and nephew this summer. They were watching some show, and on the show one guy said, “She’s pregnant? Oh man, she trapped you.” and the other guy responded, “She “claimed” she was on the Pill.” I paused the show and told them that no one was in charge of their reproductive future but them. And if they made the choice to abdicate their sexual responsibility by not wearing a condom then they had no right to point fingers at anyone but themselves.)
Basically, all this bill does is acknowledge that it takes two conscious, willing people to have sex. Which seems pretty obvious, but maybe not. And that’s a scary thought.