How often do we hear Liberals screech that government shouldn’t be in the bedroom, and how Republicans are evil on this? Usually, the argument is about abortion on demand and Government paying for abortion, contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization. But, what about consensual sex?
(ABC News) Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the nation to define when “yes means yes” and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.
State lawmakers last month approved Senate Bill 967 by Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women’s advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown’s office on Sept. 16 urging him to sign the bill.
De Leon has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain “no means no,” the definition of consent under the bill requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”
“Every student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy,” De Leon said in a statement Sunday night. “The State of California will not allow schools to sweep rape cases under the rug. We’ve shifted the conversation regarding sexual assault to one of prevention, justice, and healing.”
This sure seems like Government telling people how to act in their own bedrooms, does it not?
BTW, why is there such a supposedly huge issue with sexual assault on liberal college campuses run by liberals, with teachers that are liberals, and many students who are liberals?
The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.
Three out of 4, you bet. I think we all can agree on that. Except for those with bad intentions in their hearts. As for drunk, um, college?
Double BTW: why not take sexual assault complaints out of the hands of the schools, and put it in the hands of law enforcement, where it belongs?
I wonder how long it will be until it will be required to get a signed consent form from all the people involved?
You’re not far off. Right now on college campuses there are all sorts of “rules.”
One of my “favorites” is that the Ohio State University now says that when there is sex, the participants must agree on the reason for the intimate encounter.
If they do not agree on the reason during an investigation, that is considered “sexual violence.”
That’s not in the bedroom, it’s everywhere! They’ve define “assault” down to the point where it’s almost literally meaningless. Sounds like a good way to persecute someone, though.
Anyone care to start a pool on this becoming a favorite tool, over the popular IRS harassment method?
Advice to young men: never go to college in California. You’re already a convicted rapist. In fact, I would move out, just to be safe.
Tuesday morning links
Hong Kong Demonstrators Unveil ‘Umbrella Revolution’ The rise and fall and rise of the National Council of Churches Althouse: You know what’s not "life-affirming"? The word "life-affirming." Think you drink a lo
I don’t see a lot of whining about this coming from college age kids just from the middle aged and older
As if many of them are going to be successfull hitting on college and grad school aged women
Of course you don’t see much from college kids on this subject johnny boy, because you don’t read anything that isn’t written by uber liberal old folks who want to take the rights of people away. You agree with them so that is what you read.
There have been scathing articles on these polices in the New York Times, the WaPo, the LA Times , etc.
You really do have an issue with facts.
I love the insanity of liberals- “the participants must agree on the reason for the intimate encounter.” Well, hold on there- after we get done signing these consent forms it’s suddenly not that intimate anymore. But really, the “reason for the encounter?” It’s to have sex.
I’m all for this. It ought to kill off the “Sexual Revolution” fairly quickly.
Do you object to the charismatic and famous senior quarterback overpowering your shy, petite freshman daughter, whom he had plied with Rum Chata’s – and she was too intimidated to say “no” forcefully when he stuck his hand down her panties – I mean, Rush even understands when “no” means “yes” – I mean, she flirted with him and was wearing that “come fuck me” short skirt – I mean, he actually taught her a lesson about how to act – I mean, she wanted it or she wouldn’t have gone to the party, dressed like that, danced like that, and smiled at him that way. He knew her weak no really meant yes.