I spent a little bit of time thinking this one over. There are numerous ways of approaching this bill.
Finally, I asked myself a rather prudent question:
Does this new standard for defining sexual assault apply everywhere in California?
The answer is, of course, no, it does not. It only applies to college campuses.
This led to another question: If this is the correct and proper definition of sexual assault, in which explicit and affirmative consent must be obtained throughout the, um, course of things (as well as any instances where one of them has imbibed alcohol), then why did they make it only apply to colleges?
Why not make it applicable to the entire state? After all, what this does is create two separate definitions of sexual assault. This means women outside of colleges could be, theoretically, victims of sexual assault under this definition which applies only to college campuses but have no legal recourse.
Imagine if they did the same thing with regular assault, or kidnapping.
Why confine the definition of what constitutes sexual assault only to a small area in which everyone knows sexual activity is common and frequent?
We all know the answer.
It’s ironic the same people who mock conservatives for promoting “abstinence only” programs in high schools support this bill, for it encourages the exact same outcome.