A bill on the cusp of approval by the California state legislature would require sexual partners to verbally consent to every stage of progression during sexual activity, ext. from kissing to touching and all that lovely birds and bees stuff your dad awkwardly explained when you were ten years old.
As the Washington Post put it:
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.
In other words, unless you hear “yes,” continuously through the amorous experience, they do not consent, even if their actions say otherwise.
I would ask if these people voting for the bill have the slightest understanding of the nuance and subtle inferences inherent in the whole affair, but I keep remembering we are talking about politicians. As a former editor once told me, if you got rid of all the skirt-chasers in politics there wouldn’t be anybody left.
In all seriousness, one wonders when they will drop all pretenses and set up a Department of Assault Prevention or some similarly nonsensical title, in which everyone must apply for a license before being allowed to engage in sexual activity. The license only applies to a specific person. Any sexual activity without a license will be considered rape. The argument for this department will be that it protects women and men alike from false accusations of rape because they have documented evidence and explicit consent beforehand.
Of course, the ruse will be put in place to control the population and determine who should be allowed to breed.
I say this in jest, but it’s not that funny, is it?
There is something much more insidious about this whole matter.
Murray Rothbard had it right on the money in a column about all the college “date rape” hysteria in the early 1990s, concluding that it’s not about trying to prevent coerced sex as much as outlawing sex itself.
There are several ways by which this terrible crisis on the campus can be solved. One, we can go back to the prohibition of alcohol, which our culture is almost ready for in any case. Two, we can go back to the good old days of campuses before the 1950s, especially in the South: not only the banning of coed dorms, and abolishing coeducation altogether, but insisting on official chaperons for girls on every date, on dance-cards filled out in advance and cleared with the chaperon, on boys being barred from the entire girls’ campus except the official room, etc. And finally, why not go the whole hog toward Left Puritanism and define all sex as per se coercive? That would clear up all the fuzziness and sex, or at least hetero-sex, could be outlawed completely. Or is that the point, after all?