September 29, 2014

Jerry Brown signs a law requiring colleges and universities that get state money to impose a "yes means yes" standard on student sex.

The Chronicle of Higher Education — citing the famously spurious "one in five women" statistic — says the new law "ushers in a new era in the debate about how to curb sexual assaults on college campuses."

Actually, the statute doesn't — like the Chronicle — call it the "yes means yes" standard, which sounds silly, since "yes" already meant yes. They ought to at least say "only yes means yes." But the statutory term is "affirmative consent":
“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. 
He or she... this is gender neutral, as, of course, it must be. So no more assuming that the male must want the female's touchings.
Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
The statute proceeds to speak of "the accused" and "the complainant." The accused is not permitted to use intoxication as an excuse for misperceiving the existence of affirmative consent and there can be no affirmative consent when the complainant was "incapacitated" by drinking or drugs.

What if both are drunk? The smartass answer to that question is: It depends on who's the accused and who's the complainant. It seems as though, beyond the gender-neutrality of the statute, there is an assumption that only women will complain. The statutory scheme would collapse if men complained too. But social conditioning and convention keep men quiet... at least so far. Perhaps in the future, they will complain defensively after a night of ambiguity.

As The Chronicle of Higher Education says, it's "a new era in the debate."

ADDED: I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex. It will go the way of drinking and driving and become something that decent people don't do... not beyond a light drink anyway. The feminist angle is the wedge.

234 comments:

1 – 200 of 234   Newer›   Newest»
rhhardin said...

Estrogen poisoning ought to be added.

David Hampton said...

Does "YES, YES, OH GOD...YES" count?

pduggie said...

So the ambiguous term, unless its already clear in law is "incapacitated."

Someone who is too drunk to drive is not incapacitated, I'd assume.

IIRC incapacitated pretty much means unconscious.

But 'black out drunk' which seems to be the case in many of these cases ("I came to an he was on top of me") does not mean unconscious, it just means that you are not forming memories of the events you are consciously experiencing. Few freshman women understand black our drunk, and are frequently blindsided by that aspect of their own actions and assume someone gave them a roofie

Brando said...

This law is designed to collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. It's sole point is to get more rape convictions, but juries are going to have a difficult time dealing with cases where consent was given, then there was silence, then given again (going from sex to rape to sex) and if any of this reaches the U.S. Supreme Court it's hard to see how this can stand.

California is a wealthy state with great potential and it is being hobbled severely by a government run by its dumbest citizens.

Meade said...

Did you say "NO GOD" or "OH GOD"?

traditionalguy said...

The more messed up mentally people get, the higher the standards are raised for them meet or be destroyed. The secular Nanny State hates the people it creates...like a terrorist cult.

rhhardin said...

I don't know what a standard is if it's imposed by the school. Standard of what?

All the legal risk seems to be against the school if it comes up.

tim maguire said...

call it the "yes means yes" standard, which sounds silly, since "yes" already meant yes.

Well, it ought to sound silly, but a lot the rules coming out these days put qualifications on what can be assumed from "yes" such that, when it comes to sex, "yes" does not, in fact, mean "yes."

In California, "yes" is apparently only one step in an ongoing contractual negotiation, unique even among contract talks as the contract is negotiated not before, but during, the act contracted.

There's an old saying, "no woman ever fantasized about being ravaged by a hippie." The hippies are ever intent on keeping that streak alive.

Most of you have seen this, but it's always worth another watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk

Roger Sweeny said...

As Ann indicates, this does not get around the "he said, she said" problem. If a female complains,
"He wanted sex but I didn't consent," he can reply, "She wanted sex but I didn't consent."

He can even be the first to bring a complaint.

MayBee said...

Insanity.

Why can't we say "no" to groups who push for ridiculous laws like this?

Xmas said...

Ann, I believe the term you are looking for is "black knighting". If men start using an affirmative consent law to start complaining about unaffirmed contact from women, that would collapse the law.

Xmas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MayBee said...

The statutory scheme would collapse if men complained too. But social conditioning and convention keep men quiet... at least so far

Yes, and it kept everyone who voted for this law or would be affected by it from speaking out against it.

MayBee said...

WHy do only college women need this kind of protection?

What about 20 year old secretaries or 24 year old legislative aides? Do they mean nothing?

Jane the Actuary said...

By definition, if both the man and woman are drunk, the man is at fault.

I'm not saying that in a sarcastic way. I'm saying that's what the "experts" are on the record as having said.

http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/09/parking-link-sexual-assault-at.html

I don't know if the people establishing this ground rule of "man is the aggressor, woman the fragile flower" just don't hear themselves, or if it's because -- in their own studies -- it is the act of penetration itself which is defined as "rape." At least that's the CDC definition; I don't know about the legal definition. (Of course, that's a bit circular: have they defined rape=penetration because of a "woman = victim" expecation?)

At the risk of too many links, here's my own write up of the CDC study where they set out their definitions: http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/09/a-new-cdc-report-crying-wolf.html

tim in vermont said...

This complete disregard for the rights and opinions of young men has worked out great for today's young women, hasn't it?

MarkW said...

The statutory scheme would collapse if men complained too. But social conditioning and convention keep men quiet... at least so far. Perhaps in the future, they will complain defensively after a night of ambiguity.

Why wouldn't they at least lodge complaints as a defense when facing a complaint? Why wouldn't a male claim that the woman was the instigator and that he was incapacitated and file a sexual assault counter-claim against her?

chillblaine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"This law is designed to collapse under the weight of its own stupidity. It's sole point is to get more rape convictions…"

No, it isn't. It's about the disciplinary procedures within colleges and universities. Nothing here at all about criminal prosecution.

Ann Althouse said...

"Well, it ought to sound silly, but a lot the rules coming out these days put qualifications on what can be assumed from "yes" such that, when it comes to sex, "yes" does not, in fact, mean "yes.""

Yeah, that too. It should be "only yes means yes and even then not always."

Sex should be so complicated that no one will even attempt attempt to do it under the influence.

MayBee said...

The he said/she said problem is certainly not eliminated by this law.

RecChief said...

"Perhaps in the future, they will complain preemptively after a night of ambiguity."

Fixed it for you.

And the US continues its march to the slag heap of history.

Well done, Progressives, well done.

Ann Althouse said...

"As Ann indicates, this does not get around the "he said, she said" problem. If a female complains,
"He wanted sex but I didn't consent," he can reply, "She wanted sex but I didn't consent." He can even be the first to bring a complaint."

This is what burdens of proof are for. If it's not a criminal case, the burden might be low, preponderance of the evidence. Still, if it's in equipoise, the accused should win.

I think, under these rules, it's possible for both parties to a sex act to lose if both complain. If both are terribly drunk, both should lose, right?

RecChief said...

"No, it isn't. It's about the disciplinary procedures within colleges and universities. Nothing here at all about criminal prosecution."

Without due process apparently.

Ann Althouse said...

It's like drinking and driving. You're not supposed to do it anymore.

Get ready. That's the new culture. This is how that culture is getting wedged into the old culture, leveraging male-female relationships.

Ann Althouse said...

"Without due process apparently."

Let's see the process. Schools can have disciplinary rules and sanctions for violating them. The process need not be the same as when the state is trying to put you in prison.

Key word: due.

MayBee said...

No, it isn't. It's about the disciplinary procedures within colleges and universities. Nothing here at all about criminal prosecution.

Yeah. So why is that, do you think? If a woman has been violated because she didn't give consent, why should it matter if the guy is a student at her university or a student at another university or an accountant?

Bob Boyd said...

How about a phone app where both students punch in their prospective partner's phone number and a pin number. Their phones then send each other a text message consisting of a legal consent form.
Then you call OnStar and ask the operator to please unlock your chastity belt.
Then you call in the your school provided official witness who will administer breathalyzer tests and supervise the condom install.

Brando said...

"No, it isn't. It's about the disciplinary procedures within colleges and universities. Nothing here at all about criminal prosecution."

You don't think this is intended to lead the way for changes in the criminal laws? Not that being expelled (and likely having your livelihood threatened with such a disciplinary action on your academic record) under such a flimsy standard is nothing.

campy said...

"But social conditioning and convention keep men quiet... at least so far. Perhaps in the future, they will complain defensively after a night of ambiguity."

Men who file complaints will be punished for perjury, abuse of process, sex discrimination, bullying, and — if they use a computer — cyberterrorism.

MarkW said...

Sex should be so complicated that no one will even attempt attempt to do it under the influence.

Ah, but if you're NOT under the influence, you can't later claim you were incapacitated, and therefore, the victim (rather than the perpetrator) of sexual assault.

Of course, you probably don't have to actually drink anything to claim intoxication -- these complaints seem to be lodged well after the fact. There are no BAC tests provided as evidence. Which is why making sure your partner is sober doesn't really help -- how could you prove that fact later any more than you could prove there was an explicit 'Yes' every step of the way?

Hagar said...

Is there a legal form one could carry and have her sign before "having sex"?

Bob Boyd said...

Ann Althouse said
" It's about the disciplinary procedures within colleges and universities."

For now.

Birkel said...

Bob Boyd:
That phone app is a really good response.

All:
Boys should preemptively file complaints against every girl and boy with whom they have had any encounter. Are these universities *trying* to reduce enrollment?

MayBee said...

A current relationship is also not enough to imply consent.


I don't see how signing a form or using an APP can help. Surely a big strong man would cooerce some poor girl to sign it.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

As a man, you now need video of the whole encounter to be able to prove affirmative consent throughout.

Anonymous said...

In Pro NFL Football two feet in bounds are required to make a catch. In college, only one foot in bounds is necessary.

If we can't even agree to what a 'catch' is in a game of football how are we ever going to agree on sexual definitions?

MayBee said...

ADDED: I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex. It will go the way of drinking and driving and become something that decent people don't do... not beyond a light drink anyway. The feminist angle is the wedge.

Then the neo-prohibitionists can just make drinking something decent people don't do. Let's all remember the early 20th century prohibitionists were progressive women as well.

But that can't be all at stake here. You don't have to be drunk to not give consent. AND the consent can be withdrawn at any time!

Mark said...

Actually, drunk sex tends to be bad sex. Another one of those things you learn in college.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

And you should post the video onYouTube for the education of other men in what affirmative consent looks like.

Bob Boyd said...

betamax3000 said...
In Pro NFL Football two feet in bounds are required to make a catch. In college, only one foot in bounds is necessary.

If we can't even agree to what a 'catch' is in a game of football how are we ever going to agree on sexual definitions?

Hey! That might work. If one of the girls feet is still on the floor she's out of bounds.

Mark said...

Cigarettes and Whiskey and Wild Wild Women"

Anonymous said...

This is why college men should always leave a twenty on the nightstand after sex with a college girl. Everyone understands a business transaction.

Renee said...

Just live with your parents while in college.They make better roommates, because they pick up after themselves.

Mark said...

When I was young the Left was where all the fun was. Now not so much.

Renee said...

Back in the 90s, women were taught to purchase / use their own condoms. Dont trust a condom, if you dont know where it has been....

Consent was acknowledged when you handed one to your sexual partner.

Renee said...

This is why marital sex is better.... BTW.

MadisonMan said...

Seems like a good way to increase the number of Administrators at a University, and that's a good thing because (Noun) Studies PhDs need jobs.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


I think all campus sexual encounters should be filmed by the participants, or a trusted friend.

Only way to be sure what actually happened.

Beta Rube said...

Any guesses on how well this law will stand up when accused males start filing lawsuits against the universities for expelling them without due process, etc.?

Ann Althouse said...

"If a woman has been violated because she didn't give consent, why should it matter if the guy is a student at her university or a student at another university or an accountant?"

Because the school admits students and applies standards to them. If an outsider to the school injures a student, the school disciplinary procedures don't apply to them. You'll have to decide whether to go to the police for that.

Note that the students are choosing to go to the school, and they submit to the system of rules.

I'm not saying that law doesn't impose some limits on what those rules can be, but the students a subject to a lot of sanctions that wouldn't apply to them otherwise.

Bob Boyd said...

Renee said...
"Consent was acknowledged when you handed one to your sexual partner."

Another good idea.
Personalized, consent form condoms with imprinted signature. The guy keeps it afterward for seven years.

Brando said...

I wonder if this will make sex videos far more popular. After all, if you have it all on film, you may be able to prove your innocence.

Ann Althouse said...

"By definition, if both the man and woman are drunk, the man is at fault. I'm not saying that in a sarcastic way. I'm saying that's what the "experts" are on the record as having said."

But that is a mistake on the expert's part, and it should come back to haunt her. Sex discrimination is illegal, and things like this will be evidence.

The California law is written in a gender-neutral form. This is legally required. If the authorities blunder and commit sex discrimination, that doesn't change the fact that it's illegal.

Whether people figure out how to get their legal rights protected is another matter.

I would advise young men to have the self-respect to turn away from women who've had anything more than a light drink. Quite aside from the trouble it can cause you with the authorities, it's a pathetic way to go about having sex. It's pathetic for all concerned to pursue a sex life swamped in drugs and drinking. The authorities may be pretty clumsy in the way they are trying to break this campus culture, but it's not as if it's something admirable and worthy of preservation.

Birkel said...

Althouse:
"Note that the students are choosing to go to the school, and they submit to the system of rules."

Is that a prediction or are you saying boys won't respond rationally? I think the Arizona, Oregon and Nevada schools get more applicants from Cali.

Boys will go (or is that stay?) on strike.

MayBee said...

Are there any supporters of this law?

MayBee said...

I would advise young men to have the self-respect to turn away from women who've had anything more than a light drink. Quite aside from the trouble it can cause you with the authorities, it's a pathetic way to go about having sex.

Althouse joins the moralizing crowd!

Birkel said...

I see Puritanical Ann has graced us with her judgmentalisms. Progress through reversion! Up is down.

The Godfather said...

This law "ushers in a new era in the debate"? I thought we were supposed to have the debate before passing a law -- like having the trial before the verdict. Expressing it this way is a "tell" -- it shows that you know this is an incredibly stupid law.

RecChief said...

"If both are terribly drunk, both should lose, right?"

If they are equal before whatever disciplinary the university has.

Unfortunately, since colleges seem to term the female as "the victim" before any type of proceedings begin, that would indicate that they don't begin from a position of equality before the disciplinary body.

Bob Ellison said...

This reminds me of the scene in When Harry Met Sally where Carrie Fisher says to her husband, "Tell me I’ll never have to be out there again."

Anonymous said...

Men, as you embark on your years of college education you will be open to a wide world of education, ideas, and experiences. You will also be expected to suspect all women of being duplicitous, untrustworthy, erratic and capable of ruining your life on a whim. This will lay a foundation for perceiving women that will be helpful long after you have left the college environment. So -- to sum up -- enjoy the richness of the college experience, take your studies seriously, and only have sex with prostitutes. Thank you.

MayBee said...

Because the school admits students and applies standards to them. If an outsider to the school injures a student, the school disciplinary procedures don't apply to them. You'll have to decide whether to go to the police for that.


Right, that's why this is being done this way.

But I'm thinking from the point of view of people who wanted this law- who think women are being routinely violated by not giving affirmative consent. They think this is really damaging to women.

Why would they be happy protecting only college women this way?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...


Gonna live up to my handle on this one.

If this trend continues, I feel sorry for what this new generation will be missing, because, when you are young, a girl slowly giving in as you round the bases, is one of the funnest things there is in life.

And in some cases, the memories can last a lifetime.

Herb said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk


this is what we are going, alhtough im sure we can get an app for it.

RecChief said...

"Because the school admits students and applies standards to them. If an outsider to the school injures a student, the school disciplinary procedures don't apply to them."

If it's an alleged crime, why doesn't this go to the police? And I don't mean the campus police either.

gerry said...

What beautiful absurdity!

I salute our Islamist masters, who will end rape and exploitation of women...and since progs have condemned and will condemn any criticism of Islamist religious beliefs or practices as bigotry or phobia, all womyn's fates are sealed!

tim in vermont said...

My experience with college age daughters is that the universities create crazy environments of mixed sex dormitories, insanely liberal visitation policies, sexual partners may spend days imposing their sex life on room-mates. So now, we have destroyed a system that mostly worked, so what do we do? We blame the boys.

I don't know about how superannuated feminists feel about it, but I do know that my own daughters are not happy about how few boys their are on campus, and the "slutty" (their word) tactics that girls use to attract the few men who have not been driven out of college.

tim in vermont said...

"Does "YES, YES, OH GOD...YES" count?"

Not if he doesn't call.

Douglas said...

pduggie-Incapacitated is not a medical term but a legal term that means "extremely intoxicated." Saying that a female is "incapacitated" is a legal conclusion that she is too drunk to legally consent to sex. The law does this to protect women who cannot protect themselves, just as it says that women with mental defects cannot consent to sex. The test for such extreme intoxication is evidence visible to third parties, such slurring of words, stumbling, vomiting, falling asleep. Whether or not the female remembers the night in question is legally irrelevant since there is no way any third party could tell that at the time of the events at issue. Unfortunately, many schools have ignored the legal standard and have decided that any drunken sex is a sexual assault if the female later regrets it.

MayBee said...

From the statute:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

This isn't just about drinking.
This is a ridiculous standard. Which adult that signed this thinks this is the standard by which they have lived?

tim in vermont said...

If it is strictly a school administration issue, words invoking criminal activities, which should be punished by prison time, such as "rape," "sexual violence," and "sexual coercion" should not be used. This kind of thing sticks with a person for life. They should be called violations of campus behavior codes.

But bitter old man-hating "feminists" will not give up the rhetorical power of words like "rape" any more than "liberals" like Robert Cook would surrender the rhetorical power of the term "torture" to describe making members of freedom fighting groups like al Qaeda stand for a long time.

Mark said...

You know, a lot of this patchwork "make it so" approach to enforcing a moral system would be unnecessary were we to teach our children to think (and behave) morally from a young age.

Unfortunately, that requires a strong sense of right and wrong in the people doing the rearing.

No one with the proper credentials would dare teach their kids like that though; such world views are positively antediluvian.

So instead they expect the colleges and universities that will bestow the credentials on the next generation to protect their rudderless progeny from the currents of their own burgeoning desires.

That's going to work out well.

Ann Althouse said...

"Actually, drunk sex tends to be bad sex. Another one of those things you learn in college."

Yes, and there should be a lot more attention paid to what bad sex is. Expanding the scope of what's called "rape" or "assault" is a distraction because it dilutes the category that needs to be taken extremely seriously and subject to criminal prosecution and it gets in the way of intelligent contemplation of an important subject.

Anonymous said...

"May I employ 'The Shocker'?

"Yes, you may employ 'The Shocker'.

I bet it happens just like this.

Ann Althouse said...

"Any guesses on how well this law will stand up when accused males start filing lawsuits against the universities for expelling them without due process, etc.?"

I think it will stand up well, but the procedures will be improved.

Brando said...

The old standard of "no means no" worked, because it was far less ambiguous--if someone wanted out, a simple "no" is unmistakeable. Anyone arguing "they said no, but meant yes because they were playing games" is going to have an uphill argument with any jury. Sure, there's still the question of silence, and whether the lack of saying "no" was caused by fear, or intoxication, but at least the "no" standard gives a conscious victim a clear out, and the other partner has a clear message.

The "only yes means yes" standard is absurd because most people won't be able to follow it--no one is going to keep asking for consent at every step, and besides, this does nothing about the possibility that consent was given out of fear or intoxication (if those things can cause silence, they can also cause a false "yes"). Just as in other contexts people may give nonverbal consent to things, that's how it will go with sex. Of course, only if someone is accused of rape later will these cases get looked at.

How long before two people have sex, one regrets it and claims they were raped because they never affirmatively consented, and then the other party out of defense claims that they were actually the one being raped because they never affirmatively consented either? Sure, the adjudicator will likely determine that one of the two was the instigator, but if that can't be determined, and no one gave affirmative consent, doesn't that mean they both raped each other?

Can two people rape each other simultaneously?

Peter said...


"Is there a legal form one could carry and have her sign before "having sex"?

I'm sure someone could create one (and probably will), but I don't see the relevance. After all, consent can be withdrawn at any time for any reason (perhaps even the next day?). And if you're accused, how could you ever prove it had not been withdrawn? For that matter, how could you even prove the consent itself had not been coerced?

In any case, a man can be accused "just because" (perhaps just because the accuser will gain social points in the school's feminist community?), even if there was no sex, no proposition, no nothing. If race hoaxes happen (as they do), why would sexual assault hoaxes not also happen?

The message here is not "[Only] yes means yes." It's "You don't need no rights, sucker." If you want to go to college and you're male then you'll be subject to whim-justice: as in, you can be accused on a whim, for any reason or no reason, just because.

And if you are you'll encounter procedures and rules of evidence that make a successful defense all but impossible; in most cases, to be accused is to be convicted.


And all (supposedly) because women are presumed to be unable to clearly and forcefully say, "NO!"?

St. George said...

Time to don your scarlet sashes and join the Junior Anti-Sex League.

"She was a bold-looking girl, of about twenty-seven, with thick hair, a freckled face, and swift, athletic movements. A narrow scarlet sash, emblem of the Junior Anti-Sex League, was wound several times round the waist of her overalls, just tightly enough to bring out the shapeliness of her hips. Winston had disliked her from the very first moment of seeing her. He knew the reason. It was because of the atmosphere of hockey-fields and cold baths and community hikes and general clean-mindedness which she managed to carry about with her. He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones."

Renee said...

Althouse:
"Note that the students are choosing to go to the school, and they submit to the system of rules"



Like when individuals attend Catholic schools..... But people like to complain about Catholic teachings.

Birkel said...

I want to pay attention to what "bad sex" is. Apparently there are experts on that subject in this comments section. Personally, I don't know what "bad sex" is.

Why don't the "bad sex" "experts" reveal all your "bad sex" secrets.

BTW, being a "bad sex" "expert" is the ultimate humble brag.

Ann Althouse said...

"You will also be expected to suspect all women of being duplicitous, untrustworthy, erratic and capable of ruining your life on a whim."

Extracted from betamax, who's being funny. But let's take this seriously. If you think you might want to have sex with someone, you should be suspicious that they have some of the bad character traits that are prevalent in the human being. Both men and women should be expected of having the capacity to lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise screw up your life as they pursue their own self interest as you presumably are pursuing yours. If you are in it for cheap sex, expect cheapness all around. Or do you think you're just lucky (when you "get lucky")?

One solution is to avoid relationships completely, betamax's punchline.

But another is to actually have good relationships.

Birkel said...

"I think it will stand up well..." -- Althouse

Until the disparate impact lawsuits start.

Anonymous said...

"Do you give consent to a 'Dirty Sanchez'?

"Yes, I give consent to a 'Dirty Sanchez'.

I bet it happens like this, too.

Mark said...

Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right. Woddy Allen, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)

Said quote was a lot funnier prior to subsequent real-life events.

MadisonMan said...

Which adult that signed this thinks this is the standard by which they have lived?

Oh, but you see, all the signers know better now. They don't want anyone to live their past lives.

Birkel said...

Althouse:
Would you care to define "good relationships" with the exactness of a statute?

Zedediah Grimm said...

So how long before we are subjected to an Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti column bemoaning the male species for not wanting to put out? How long until these smarmy, well-intentioned do-goodnicks are bitching the they couldn't get laid during Rush Week? At Animal House?
It's coming. Trust me.

Douglas said...

Prof. Althouse - It's far from clear that schools (let's limit our discussion to state schools that are bound by the constitution) can label a student a "sex offender" and expel him from school, both of which have serious, life-long, adverse implications, without providing any of the customary elements of due process, to wit, the right to counsel, the right of cross examination, and the right to introduce exclupatory and impeaching evidence. See Donohue v. Baker, 976 F. Supp. 136, __ at n. 7 (NDNY 1997)(where case turned on credibility of conflicting testimony, and student faced penalty of expulsion, due process required confrontation and right of cross examination).

Birkel said...

I look forward to all the "straight" guys who get BJs from gay guys filing complaints.

And the lesbians-for-a-while who file against the girls who "take advantage" of them.

RecChief said...

"Althouse:
"Note that the students are choosing to go to the school, and they submit to the system of rules"


When I said the same thing about Sandra Fluke attending Georgetown, I was accused of being a misogynist.

Althouse's "Everything will work out" attitude about this bothers me.

Birkel said...

Douglas:
You do know that Constitution is, like, over a hundred years old, right? It's a living document that means precisely what our betters think it means at precisely the moment they tell us what it means. All that's left is to determine who is the master and who is the servant.

Ann Althouse said...

"I want to pay attention to what "bad sex" is. Apparently there are experts on that subject in this comments section. Personally, I don't know what "bad sex" is."

It's personal, so personally, what is it for you? Ever had any? Would you notice if you did?

I think bad sex is subjective and not subject to codes and enforcement, but each person should be aware of it and have his or her own standards.

Some people think that sex without love is bad. It's personal!

Michael said...

In my long and very happy life I have observed far more batshit crazy women than batshit crazy men.

I think it would be best to avoid sending your kid to any school that has any such nutty rules. Let the batshit crazy people self select. Or, in the alternative, date the townies who will be better mates in the long run than these poor girls poisoned by the thinking that precedes such stupid rules.

Mark said...

Birkel, anyone who doesn't know the difference between bad sex and good sex probably hasn't had much sex at all. Not sure what your issue is here.

(I suppose I can envisage a situation where a couple has sex only with each other for their entire lives, and the sex is always fabulous, with neither person getting distracted, or accidentally spraining a limb, or trying something new that just didn't work out, etc.)

(On second thought, no, I can't imagine that in the real world.)

Fen said...

I would advise young men to have the self-respect to turn away from women who've had anything more than a light drink.

Yes, men will just use our telepathic powers to determine how drunk each female is. Because obviously, women are not responsible for the choice they make. Only men are. I guess being responsible is the price men pay for being superior to women.

Ann Althouse said...

"Althouse's "Everything will work out" attitude about this bothers me."

That's not what I'm saying.

I see a lot of problems. There are too many problems to manage them all. It's a busy intersection of problems.

But I think individuals can find personal solutions. And I'm not sympathetic to the people who want to preserve the abusive drinking and sex culture. (And by "abusive," I include the self-abuse that is the pursuit of sex through drunkenness.)

Birkel said...

Althouse:
"Would you notice if you did?"

Hahaha. Yes, but then I have made a practice of listening to what my partners wanted.

Would you like to try to explain your hostility to sex you disfavor? I know you're not advocating for others but merely expressing your own position. But you are providing the intellectual framework others are using to support their dimwitted views about regulating personal, intimate behavior.

Get the state out of everybody's respective bedrooms.

Fen said...

Which adult that signed this thinks this is the standard by which they have lived?

Can we file a rape claim if we don't have standing? I am certain that the adults who crafted this have taken a kiss or rubbed their wife's shoulders without getting affirmative consent. Rapists all!

Bob Boyd said...

Even when its bad
its still pretty good.

Bob Ellison said...

Birkel, I recommend the book Bad Sex.

Anonymous said...

"Do you give consent to a 'Three-Fingered Fig Newton'?

"Yes, I give consent to a 'Three-Fingered Fig Newton'.

This, too.

Birkel said...

Mark:
If you wish to be literal I will grant that catching a cramp mid-coitus is "bad sex" for everybody I have personally witnessed. But there are 7 billion people in the world and I would hate to have to define "bad sex" for a population that large and incredibly varied.

RecChief said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Althouse's "Everything will work out" attitude about this bothers me."

That's not what I'm saying."

Sorry, that's not the message that comes through to me.

Birkel said...

Bob Ellison:
I prefer Dilbert but I have taken note.
:)

Ann Althouse said...

"Would you like to try to explain your hostility to sex you disfavor? I know you're not advocating for others but merely expressing your own position. But you are providing the intellectual framework others are using to support their dimwitted views about regulating personal, intimate behavior. Get the state out of everybody's respective bedrooms."

Since you're calling other people dimwitted, I will use the word dimwitted to describe your response to what I said. I was quite specific that I wasn't referring to authorities intervening but to personal standards that individuals should have for themselves.

Mark said...

Or maybe, Birkel, you're going with the "bad=evil" definition. Evil sex would be sex that's evil.

Yeah, I know, tautological.

Rape is evil sex. That's really what (I think) makes rape what it is, and why the dilution of the definition of rape is, yes, evil. It's a banal evil, but evil still.

A person who has sex they later regret they have not necessarily been raped. (Or been the rapist.) Sometimes a poor decision is just that, and the decision can be equally poor on both parts.

Teaching people how to avoid those situations is laudatory. Teaching people how to deal with the aftermath of making a poor decision is even more laudatory, because everyone make poor decisions at something.

This goes back to raising children well, of course. Dealing with failure is something our culture addresses pretty well. (Maybe too well.) Teaching our kids how to recognize when they've really screwed up and how they should deal with that is something we don't do well, because self-confidence/self-image/ whatever.

Anonymous said...

California-- nucleus of the New Bible Belt.

Anonymous said...

Did drinking and driving used to be acceptable? When was that?

Birkel said...

Oddly, Althouse, I granted exactly the point you are making in your most recent response. You quoted my acknowledgement of your caveat. Try again?

Douglas said...

Prof. Althouse,
I'm all in favor of changing the culture to make drunken hook-ups as uncool as drunk driving, but I am not in favor of ruining the lives of dozens of young men who have done nothing wrong in order to do so. Do you have a better suggestion than tossing due process out the window?

Shanna said...

Does "YES, YES, OH GOD...YES" count?

LOL, the problem is that I think you have to get to the yes's before you would get to the point of the 'oh god yes's'. If I am understanding the rules correctly.

Few freshman women understand black our drunk, and are frequently blindsided by that aspect of their own actions and assume someone gave them a roofie

I only blacked out one time and I thought I just took a nap on the couch until my friend told me I had actually blacked out. That is scary. I had another (guy) friend who blacked out a lot, and I cannot understand why anyone would want to drink that much.

Bob Ellison said...

Birkel, I also recommend Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to All Creation. It's fantastically well written. Not much use when it comes to college sex, I suppose.

Birkel said...

That's hilarious, Bob Ellison. I will abstain from necrophilia nonetheless. I would grant Mark necrophilia is "bad sex".

Unknown said...

Birkel most assuredly s a dimwit.

Anonymous said...

"Do you give consent to a 'Anal Apple Turnover'?

"Yes, I give consent to a 'Anal Apple Turnover'."

"Do you give consent to a 'Anal Apple Turnover' done 'a la mode'?"

"No,, I do not give consent to a 'Anal Apple Turnover' done 'a la mode'."

Imminently reasonable.

RecChief said...

"I think bad sex is subjective and not subject to codes and enforcement, but each person should be aware of it and have his or her own standards. "

The concern is that a person, caught up in the unequal lights of the college disciplinary hearing which starts from the position that the woman is a victim, can tarnish a young man (although it need not be a man) simply because of the subjective standard above. Personally, it's a valid concern, with a low bar for "proof", the inability of the accused to obtain counsel, call witnesses, cross examine. If these acts are crimes that a record of the proceedings will follow the accused forever (and they will) then it must be a criminal proceeding with all the protections afforded any other defendant. Your laissez faire attitude to this law would be less surprising if you weren't a law professor. Is this the type of law that you teach to your students? You've already conceded that the 1 in 5 statistic is spurious, why is the departure from the criminal process warranted? To save the delicate flowers from being uncomfortable from saying "No"? Why was the Forbes writer hounded (by so called feminists)and then fired for suggesting Fraternities should put drunk women in a cab rather than let them into a party? That seems like rather mature behavior given a statute of the type that you don't have a problem with. Face it, feminists want it both ways: free and easy sex, with the get out of jail free card afforded by colleges and now written into law, and it's possible that the get out of jail free card is awarded simply on the basis of your quote about "bad sex".

What's worse, the adjudication by a college board is not accountable to voters as legislation is.

My opposition to schemes like this is like Chesterton's fence in reverse. If you can't explain the need for a new fence, why should I let you put one up?

Anonymous said...

"Before I give consent to standard missionary position intercourse I would first like to verify a statement of yours."

"Of course."

"You stated that you have an eight inch penis, correct?"

"Well..."

"Is your penis factually eight inches in length?"

"Actually, it's probably a bit shorter, I think I just rounded up..."

"Consent to intercourse is denied."

Good sex is knowing what you want and not compromising.




Douglas said...

Sojo,

As late as the 1950s, 1960s, it was not unusual for people to get toasted and drive. In those days, it wasn't just alcholics who drank and drove. Drunk driving laws were on the books but rarely enforced. It took a concerted campaign over many years to change that culture, to convince young people to bring a designated driver with them, etc.

Note that enforcing those laws wasn't a problem because there was a bright line between what was legal and what was illegal. You blew into the little tube, and if the number was too high, you were guilty.

In the current case, there is no bright line, the rules are entirely unclear and most importantly the key factors are not in the control or knowledge of the accused (can you sleep with a girl who's had one drink? two drinks? how can you tell when she's had too many?) and that is why Prof. Althouse's suggestion that we need a similar campaign of enforcement against drunken hook-ups is such a non-starter.

Shanna said...

The old standard of "no means no" worked, because it was far less ambiguous--if someone wanted out, a simple "no" is unmistakeable.

Indeed. This new stuff is nuts.

William said...

It would be just my luck to be completely wrong about this, but in my youth women did not send naked pictures of themselves as part of the courtship ritual. The world seems to be growing simultaneously more licentious and more puritanical. It's very confusing.......How traumatic is bad sex? I'm sure rape can be a horrendous experience, but does bad sex qualify as a PTSD causing event.....Rules like this would seem to increase the distrust between the sexes, but rules and libidos are invariably at odds.

RecChief said...

"Dealing with failure is something our culture addresses pretty well."

I am throwing the bullshit card on that one. If our culture did, we wouldn't have participation ribbons.

And I wouldn't have to waste half a day teaching a "Resiliency" course to young soldiers who can't deal with the consequences of being average after a lifetime of being told they're special.

Brando said...

"I had another (guy) friend who blacked out a lot, and I cannot understand why anyone would want to drink that much."

As a sometime "time traveller" myself, I can say that one never really sets out to "black out" so much as they're drinking steadily and then suddenly a game changer is thrown in--shots are offered, and social convention keeps one from turning them down, or someone makes you a mixed drink that's stronger than you anticipated (usually bartenders want to err on the side of "too strong" so they don't get complaints). The time travelling (which usually shoots you about eight hours into the future, waking up the next morning with no recollection of how you got home) can be scary, and the saving grace is a responsible friend or significant other who may chastise you but will make sure you get home safe.

I always advise avoiding shots at all costs (anything you can't sip, you shouldn't drink), and only drink mixed drinks that you mix yourself. And if the people you drink with are as drunk or drunker than you, get some more responsible friends into the mix (and hopefully those responsible friends won't follow this rule!).

Bob Ellison said...

Birkel, why must necrophilia be all about the sex? Can't a man (or a woman...no, wait, that's probably not gonna work) just have an affection for something that's dead without being branded as a social deviant?

RecChief said...

Douglas said...
Sojo,

As late as the 1950s, 1960s, it was not unusual for people to get toasted and drive. In those days, it wasn't just alcholics who drank and drove. Drunk driving laws were on the books but rarely enforced. It took a concerted campaign over many years to change that culture, to convince young people to bring a designated driver with them, etc.

Note that enforcing those laws wasn't a problem because there was a bright line between what was legal and what was illegal. You blew into the little tube, and if the number was too high, you were guilty.

In the current case, there is no bright line, the rules are entirely unclear and most importantly the key factors are not in the control or knowledge of the accused (can you sleep with a girl who's had one drink? two drinks? how can you tell when she's had too many?)"


Maybe college boys and girls should have chastity belts with ignition locks given to them when they are admitted into the university?

Mark said...

Google has come up short.

Back in the '80s there was a Matt Groening Life in Hell where Akbar and Jeff were shown in a single panel with a huge array of sex toys and apparatuses, with both of them dressed in ridiculous fetish gear, and one says to the other "You're not doing it right."

As Betamax says, "Good sex is knowing what you want and not compromising." (Just don't be evil.)

Bob Boyd said...

Betamax is a foodie.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Are those tears of joy or do I need a lawyer?

Anonymous said...

"Do you consent to waking in the morning unfulfilled with feelings of shame?"

"Yes, I consent to waking in the morning unfulfilled with feelings of shame."

Cutting to the chase.

tim in vermont said...

Well betamax, you know that "telling promises that aren't true" is sexual coercion under the CDC's definition, even if it is to expose someone to a sexual situation like discussing the terms of a tryst, and sexual coercion is sexual violence.

So according to the CDC's "telling promises that weren't true" clause of sexual violence, you were guilty of it when you lied about the eight inches. The rest was just the interrogation and confession.

Bruce Hayden said...

If this trend continues, I feel sorry for what this new generation will be missing, because, when you are young, a girl slowly giving in as you round the bases, is one of the funnest things there is in life.

I am thinking back to all the women I have joined with over the last maybe 45 years for the first time. One in college just took off her shorts and underwear. And my ecpartner took off her dress when I drunkenly suggested that she get into something more comfortable. DD breasts, narrow waist, and dancer's legs - I wasn't going to turn her down. Every other one has been this slow, or not always slow, dance around the bases. Out of all of them, maybe 5% did it because I wouldn't give up (but essentially actually gave consent, contrary to the 95% who gave in happily). And, those I regret, but I was young, dumb, hormone impaired, and also probably drunk at the time.

Why don't women just tell guys when they want sex? Because that would make them sluts. And what is wrong with that? For pair bonding, human males prefer females who are not such. Strongly. I think it has to do with guaranteeing paternity (yes I know about DNA testing, but our lower brains don't). Compounding this, is slut shaming (peer pressure) by other females. Which is their defense against these other women taking their man through use of a wet pussy. I think the girl world pressures are often stronger than the boy world ones. Or, at least used to be. Keep in mind that men of all ages tend to prefer females between maybe 18 and 25 or so. And, women outgrow this very quickly, making them play defense, for their guys, for the rest of their lives.

Ann Althouse said...

"Do you have a better suggestion than tossing due process out the window?"

When did you stop raping your wife?

MayBee said...

But I think individuals can find personal solutions. And I'm not sympathetic to the people who want to preserve the abusive drinking and sex culture.

This law isn't just about drunkeness, though. Being drunk means you may not be able to give affirmative permission, sure.

But neither partner has to be drunk for this law to apply nor affect them.
If you are perfectly sober, in a dating relationship, and don't get affirmative consent during the entire act, you are in violation of this law.

That is not a law based in reality.

MayBee said...

Good post, Rec Chief at 9:25 am

n.n said...

You have the right to an umpire/chaperone. At every base, you have the right to consult an umpire/chaperone and end the play.

Isn't there already a rule and penalties against running the bases after being tagged?

This sounds like another gun-control scheme, which shifts responsibility from the actor(s) to a an inanimate object, or in this case, a financially flush institution, ripe for the picking.

I have a solution: Planned Sex (PS), where all participants are legally and morally indemnified against suffering any penalties throughout the play. PS will act as a brick and mortar firewall to separate conscience and pleasure. Hey, it worked for PP.

Unknown said...

Two words:

disparate impact

tim in vermont said...

"When did you stop raping your wife?"

I guess your point is that you will tell us that, then?

BDNYC said...

Meade said...

Did you say "NO GOD" or "OH GOD"?


Reminds me of an old bit from (I think) the Addams Family. The difference between (1) "don't! stop!" and (2) "don't stop!"

RecChief said...

"Ann Althouse said...
"Do you have a better suggestion than tossing due process out the window?"

When did you stop raping your wife?"


Several good points asked or asserted by several posters here.

And this is your response?

I've never been in a law classroom, the closest I came was a Parlaimentary Procedure class, and the Leftist/Progressive teaching it would never default to a reply such as this.

Drago said...

Ann Althouse: "When did you stop raping your wife?"

According to the radical leftists, never.

And "rape" includes desirous glances as well.

Drago said...

Ann Althouse: "This is what burdens of proof are for. If it's not a criminal case, the burden might be low, preponderance of the evidence. Still, if it's in equipoise, the accused should win."

Hilarious.

RecChief said...

Thank you, MayBee

Birkel said...

Unknown #1:
Birkel is a dimwit.

Unknown #2:
Repeats the term "disparate impact" offered by Birkel well upthread.

Different Unknowns? Disparate Unknowns?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Hayden said...

The problem with trying to eliminate drunken hookups in college is that is the way that a lot of the college students get together these days. They get drunk in order to be more sociable, and more easily meet members of the opposite sex. Then they do what comes naturally to young adults at the peak of their sexuality - they fall into bed together.

Sure, the better solution would be to make drinking illegal until their judgement had fully matured (at maybe 25 for the guys). But, of course, the legal drinking age is already 21, making most campus drinking already illegal.

I frankly think that the better solution would be to make the penalty for females getting drunk, and then laid, steeper, not lower. For example, by presuming that intentionally getting drunk was deemed consent to sex, unless they specifically say No, and keep saying No. And, this would be better training for real life, after college, where police, etc. Essentially laugh at them in she says/he says situations that women intentionally get themselves into.

But, this wouldn't get the votes of all the single young women for the Dems who are here pandering for votes in he trade for absolving young women from the consequences of their actions.

n.n said...

I wonder how many liberals will jump the fence in order to protest the end of "free love".

Is judicial oversight of their sexual relations the compromise they accepted in order to enjoy "burden"-free sex?

I'm surprised this didn't already happen with the propagation of STDs (e.g. AIDS) through promiscuity. It must have affected a different demographic.

Ralph Hyatt said...

We appear to have reached a state where informing woman of simple truths such as,

"Getting drunk and hanging out with a bunch of horny guys in the 18 - 22 age range could lead to having sex that you will regret, so if you don't want to have sex that you regret don't get drunk and hang out with horny guys in the 18 - 22 age" is misogyny.

And th

MayBee said...

Note that the students are choosing to go to the school, and they submit to the system of rules.

But the rules should be reasonable, especially because the state has made it so virtually all institutes of higher learning are now subject to this ridiculous rule.

A student may say: "I can become a biologist, or I can try to make it on my high school dipoloma. Which do I choose, and should I choose that path because the state may kick me out of school for having consensual sex that wasn't quite consensual enough"

Is that desirable?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Bruce Hayden:

That won't work. The popular consensus is that women can be slutty and loose with their eggs. Actually, men can be also, but they will not be protected from the consequences. Not from allegations of sexual immorality nor from the "burden".

The solution is Planned Sex. A brick and mortar business which will act as a firewall to separate conscience and pleasure, and to ensure temporal, but binding consent. I wonder if people who change their minds after the act should be allowed to sue PS. I don' think they can do that with PP, which makes that solution work.

RecChief said...

"n.n said...
I wonder how many liberals will jump the fence in order to protest the end of "free love".

Is judicial oversight of their sexual relations the compromise they accepted in order to enjoy "burden"-free sex?"

Free Love was transgressive in an era where civic institutions upheld a system of morality and propriety.

You'll notice that is the "Me" and "If it feels good do it" generations that are pushing this.

Not to mention, it serves the dual purpose of removing the last vestiges of social institutions in favor of Big Government Morality. All about power and how weilds it.

Seeing Red said...

Zero Hedge linked a nap which shows the states where females can drink males under the table. Most of them, including Wisconsin, are in the Midwest.

When I saw that map, I wondered about the correlation of the bogus rape stats.

Shanna said...

The time travelling (which usually shoots you about eight hours into the future, waking up the next morning with no recollection of how you got home) can be scary, and the saving grace is a responsible friend or significant other who may chastise you but will make sure you get home safe.

I remember the two of us went out one night and took a cab back to campus. He was so drunk, I was not sure if I should have let him walk home alone. But then was I supposed to be walking home a 6 ft tall man home to make sure he was safe, and then walking home alone at 1 in the morning (or whenever)? What is the etiquette on that.

Bruce Hayden said...

When did you stop raping your wife?

Which reminds me - there doesn't appear to be a marriage exemption here. And, yes, people do get married while still in college. Maybe not at your school. But it does happen - talking to a guy last week in graduate school in Utah. Not a single unmarried woman in his classes, and a surprising number were visibly showing.

And this reminds me of my love life in college. Last three years I had a live in girlfriend. After a prolonged dance around the bases, we settled into a once a night habit. Except that she went to bed earlier than I, so I would tend to wake her up with foreplay. Never, after that dance, resistance. But in all that time, she only probably gave affirmative assent a handful of times. And never a complaint. Until the last time together, and that was when I knew it was over, when she wouldn't get turned on with me.

Point is that these monogamous sexual situations are not really handled here in the one size fits all statute. Not talking spousal rape here, but rather that in a committed sexual relationship, esp at that age of peak sexuality, affirmative consent is often lacking, but not missed.

Birkel said...

I wonder if prostitution counts as "good" or "bad" sex. I wonder if it does not qualify as either one.

Such questions to ponder for feminists who believe I am a bicycle.

Seeing Red said...

Linked a map. Oy.

Birkel said...

Why do these posts never consider same-sex sex? Am I to believe there is no coercion in that panacea of relationships or am I to believe the statistics that point to greater levels of domestic violence in such relations? Equality!

Brando said...

"I remember the two of us went out one night and took a cab back to campus. He was so drunk, I was not sure if I should have let him walk home alone. But then was I supposed to be walking home a 6 ft tall man home to make sure he was safe, and then walking home alone at 1 in the morning (or whenever)? What is the etiquette on that."

That's definitely much harder--as is the case where the blackout drunk friend is obnoxious or violent or falling down the whole time! Anything jeopardizing your own safety shouldn't be required. But when I'm in that position (a much bigger, harder to manage friend being too drunk) I push water and food on them, or shove them in a cab and pay and direct the cabbie. But if someone wants to get blotto and run into traffic, there's little you can do physically to stop them short of a tranquilizer gun.

Ideally I try to stop my worst drunk friends from getting into that position in the first place, and fortunately it's not a regular thing. The idea of bailing some idiot out of jail at 3 in the morning is not my cup of tea!

campy said...

"Why do these posts never consider same-sex sex?"

Expelling a gay student would be bad for Diversity.

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that standard prostitution would count as affirmative assent (see suggestion above of leaving $20 on the nightstand). She offers to do X for $Y. He accepts, pays $Y, and gets X.

Craig Landon said...

Lawyer full employment program: Pre-coital Agreement
Would this contract pass muster?

MayBee said...

Pre-coital approval doesn't pass muster because consent can be withdrawn at any time.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

He or she... this is gender neutral, as, of course, it must be.

I'm glad you can see that it is gender neutral.

Now if only you could recognize that laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples are sexual-orientation neutral...

Birkel said...

Bruce Hayden:
Prostitutes would be free to withdraw consent at any time. And since it's an void contract there is no way to enforce the deal. So I think it's more difficult than that.

And, yes, I do realize this would only apply to college attending prostitutes with their college-attending bicycles.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Craig Landon said...
Lawyer full employment program: Pre-coital Agreement
Would this contract pass muster?


Without even watching it, Craig, the answer is absolutely not--no contract can possibly solve the problem. Consent can be withdrawn at any moment. The fact that one party has withdrawn consent does not have to be communicated in any specific manner. The parties could sign an iron-clad contract prior to the activity, the activty could take place wihtout verbal objection from either party, and then afterwards one party could say they wre assaulted because they withdrew consent at some point during the activity--and the contract would do nothing to protect the other party.

Drago said...

HoodlumDoodlum: "The parties could sign an iron-clad contract prior to the activity, the activty could take place wihtout verbal objection from either party, and then afterwards one party could say they wre assaulted because they withdrew consent at some point during the activity--and the contract would do nothing to protect the other party."

Precisely.

In the lefty kangaroo "courts" of academia the gal could claim to have transmitted her withdrawal of consent telepathically or via body language and the feminists would line up to support her against the predations of the already presumed (who are we kidding? KNOWN) guilty male.

I can easily imagine some hypnosis recovery tactics which might help the gal "remember" that she withdrew consent.

The guys don't have a chance here and it's simply sophistry to argue that these "rules" won't be used in an abusive fashion.

The male better have some sort of exalted politically correct secondary status (person of color, etc) to assist in fending off charges, but even that probably won't help all that much.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...
If you think you might want to have sex with someone, you should be suspicious that they have some of the bad character traits that are prevalent in the human being. Both men and women should be expected of having the capacity to lie, cheat, steal, and otherwise screw up your life as they pursue their own self interest as you presumably are pursuing yours. If you are in it for cheap sex, expect cheapness all around. Or do you think you're just lucky (when you "get lucky")?
One solution is to avoid relationships completely, betamax's punchline.
But another is to actually have good relationships.


I fully agree with you here, Prof, but when I make this argument I'm shouted down as anti-woman and insufficiently sex-positive. The media (women's magazines, etc) says women should embrace the idea of one night stands, shouldn't let anyone slut-shame them, shouldn't confine their sexuallity to tired patriarchal restrictions of yesteryear. Men, as usual, are expected to follow their libidos and other than making sure they're legally and medically in the clear (consent and condoms) to have no restrictions on their activities. To me it sounds like a profound lack of self respect all around, but that's what we're instilling. Any sex ed that doesn't say essentially "make sure you use condoms and birth control but otherwise do whatever you feel" is mocked.
I agree the culture needs to change, but codifying ambiguous rules relating to sexual encounters does not seem like the best way to go about securing that change.

RecChief said...

"I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex. It will go the way of drinking and driving and become something that decent people don't do... not beyond a light drink anyway. The feminist angle is the wedge. "


But I thought the liberals/progressives wanted the government out of the bedroom. If there is a push for affirmative consent, why do we need to provide birth control pills? That is, if one can affirmatively consent, can't one affirmatively get down to the pharmacy on one's own? And if a woman isn't incapacitated, shouldn't we expect that as a reasoning person, she will withhold consent? That would put the onus back on the woman, wouldn't it? At lesat in the case where the adjudicating body is neutral, right? Equipoise I think you called it. It's your inability to see unintended consequences that I find offensive.

Can we expect a decline in enrollment of men at universities? can we expect men only universities? Oh right, can't do that, even though we have women only universities to this day (60 of them with two in Wisconsin). Can we expect a further decline in the birth rate in this country? Can we expect higher unemployment or underemployment in the 18-25 demographic because young men have been branded for life based on a 50.1% standard of "proof" where the adjudicating body refers to the accuser as "the victim" (that's the equipoise that you favor?) Is this type of (incomplete)thinking taught in law classes?

and, instead of engaging in the comments section where there is actual debate, it's thrown up there as an "added" on the post. Pretty weak tea.

n.n said...

A call to arms! The religious fanatics want to take away our free sex. They want to prohibit liberal consumption. They are intolerant of certain acts and orientations. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

MayBee said...

This is a foot in the door to makes these kind of laws apply to the citizens at large.

Here's what happened:
1- create a fake "campus rape" epidemic
2- create outrage at the "rape culture" that doesn't do anything about it
3- Make a rule to do something about it
Next:
4- complain only college women are protected by these statutes, and only then if the guy is also in college
5- create outrage that nobody is protecting less privileged women
6- Expand this law to society at large

Shanna said...

or shove them in a cab and pay and direct the cabbie

We were in a cab and had to get out at an odd spot. Don't remember exactly, maybe because he threw up on himself? Yes, that was it and it was gross.

I think I just asked him a few times if he could find his way back (just a few blocks) and judged that he could. And he did! But I worried about it for a minute...my place was the opposite direction from his.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ann Althouse said...I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex. It will go the way of drinking and driving and become something that decent people don't do... not beyond a light drink anyway. The feminist angle is the wedge.
That may be a part of it, Prof, but I doubt that's "what's really going on." If preventing drunk sex was the primary goal it'd be much easier to simply punish the drinking automatically--keep the same standards you have now but add a rule that any complaints involving drinking will have the drinking violation itself punsihed. Thus even if you win the case that consent was given or assumed but you were drunk you'd lose the case against improper drinking. If you want to prevent or punish drinking the best way to do that is to make and enforce rules against drinking. Trying to enact a cultural shift against drunken sex by altering the standards of consent in a way that will affect drunken sexual encounters (as well as many other non-drunken encounters) seems at best wildly inefficient and at worst counterproductive (if it causes the current univ. judicial system to be swamped by cases that would not otherwise have been brought and results in both no reduction in drunken sex and a decrease in successful cases against assaulters).

DougWeber said...

The horror is that the only real complete solution to this is to go back to before the 70's with single sex dorms, parietals, not men or women above the first floor, the desk girl, etc. Consent, even drunken consent, will be obvious. Signing into a motel as The Smiths makes it clear both knew what they were doing.

The big danger here is that when women get drunk they tend to become more sexual. An what 19 year old male is going to turn down a 18 year old female even if she is drunk? I know I would not have had the fortitude.

RecChief said...

"HoodlumDoodlum said...
Ann Althouse said...I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex. It will go the way of drinking and driving and become something that decent people don't do... not beyond a light drink anyway. The feminist angle is the wedge.
That may be a part of it, Prof, but I doubt that's "what's really going on." If preventing drunk sex was the primary goal it'd be much easier to simply punish the drinking automatically--keep the same standards you have now but add a rule that any complaints involving drinking will have the drinking violation itself punsihed. Thus even if you win the case that consent was given or assumed but you were drunk you'd lose the case against improper drinking. If you want to prevent or punish drinking the best way to do that is to make and enforce rules against drinking. Trying to enact a cultural shift against drunken sex by altering the standards of consent in a way that will affect drunken sexual encounters (as well as many other non-drunken encounters) seems at best wildly inefficient and at worst counterproductive (if it causes the current univ. judicial system to be swamped by cases that would not otherwise have been brought and results in both no reduction in drunken sex and a decrease in successful cases against assaulters).
"


If it was really about reducing sexual assault ( a crime) why do the new rules throw it into the lap of the University and not Law Enforcement and the courts? I don't think it has to do with drunken sex, otherwise why the outrage against the Forbes writer who recommended putting drunken women into a cab and sending them home?

Todd said...

betamax3000 said...
"Do you consent to waking in the morning unfulfilled with feelings of shame?"

"Yes, I consent to waking in the morning unfulfilled with feelings of shame."

Cutting to the chase.
9/29/14, 9:50 AM


Now THAT is the one you get on your iPhone video! Cause you WILL need it later!

MayBee said...

I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex

This isn't what's really going on because drinking is only one aspect of the new law.

If two people are dating, and engage in perfectly sober sex during which neither partner says yes, neither partner says no, and no resistance is given, it can still qualify as sexual assault under this law.

I beg people to read it.

n.n said...

DougWeber:

There is no solution. There will always be immoral men and women. This is a risk management issue. The solution is to restore a conservative order, which advances respect of individual dignity, acknowledges intrinsic value, and promotes self-moderating, responsible behaviors.

Essentially, this is what liberals opposed, only to recycle it under new management. This is a religious issue. A moral issue. Liberals merely offer their own religion, with an underlying faith (i.e. universal or extra-universal frame), which is notoriously selective (e.g. protected classes).

RecChief said...

Two posts on bad academic writing, who would have thought?

RecChief said...

n.n said...
DougWeber:

The solution is to restore a conservative order, which advances respect of individual dignity, acknowledges intrinsic value, and promotes self-moderating, responsible behaviors."

Well we can't have that, now can we?

"Essentially, this is what liberals opposed, only to recycle it under new management. This is a religious issue. A moral issue. Liberals merely offer their own religion, with an underlying faith (i.e. universal or extra-universal frame), which is notoriously selective (e.g. protected classes)."

Well put, wish I had been able to write that.

Just Mike said...

yet he vetoed the bill limiting drone surveillance.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/09/28/brown-vetoes-bill-limiting-drone-surveillance/

That's our Moonbeam

Michael K said...

" it is being hobbled severely by a government run by its dumbest citizens."

Having read most of the comments, I see no consideration of the problem of "Coyote Ugly."

When the guy is drunk and the girl is ugly, what then ?

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

I suppose it is high time for this:

They told if that if I voted for Romney, colleges would be putting ridiculous restrictions on sex - and they were right!

William said...

I'm so old I don't even have a prurient interest in the sexual activities of the younger generation. It's Miley Cyrus all the way down.

damikesc said...

Unless the entire encounter is specifically video taped --- consent still cannot be proven.

Just sayin.

A college man who doesn't video record all of his conquests may be nice and polite...but he's also a fucking moron.

Seriously, if the woman says YES to everything and decides later she regrets it...guess what? She can LIE about it.

You know, like some lie about being raped in the first place.

Perhaps colleges should revert back to en loco parentis.

n.n said...

RecChief:

I share my [mostly] constructive thoughts freely. I learn from others who do the same. I think my motives are quite plain and straightforward.

damikesc said...

If both are terribly drunk, both should lose, right?

But they don't.

The man loses. Alone.

In rather clear violation of Title IX.

Again, I've told my brother if he wants to make a killing, sue every college in the US for Title IX violations against men.

And, again, why don't for-profit college go after women by referencing the ghastly rape figures colleges toss around about themselves?

Brando said...

"We were in a cab and had to get out at an odd spot. Don't remember exactly, maybe because he threw up on himself? Yes, that was it and it was gross.

I think I just asked him a few times if he could find his way back (just a few blocks) and judged that he could. And he did! But I worried about it for a minute...my place was the opposite direction from his."

I hear that! Nothing like a night like that to make you far more selective about who you drink with.

We all have our rough nights--I'm not one to judge!--but at a certain point you don't want to be that friend who always needs to be babysat because those shots were right there, on the bar, mocking you....

n.n said...

damikesc:

Planned Sex (PS). It will offer legal and moral indemnity to its providers and members, and acts as a firewall to separate pleasure and conscience. It will be normalized under the same auspices and with the same premise as PP. A libertine party and religion.

RecChief said...

n.n said...
RecChief:

I share my [mostly] constructive thoughts freely. I learn from others who do the same. I think my motives are quite plain and straightforward."

huh? perhaps I should have just said, "good comment" and left it at that

Todd said...

Michael K said...
" it is being hobbled severely by a government run by its dumbest citizens."

Having read most of the comments, I see no consideration of the problem of "Coyote Ugly."

When the guy is drunk and the girl is ugly, what then ?
9/29/14, 12:06 PM


If you read the wording, it is also a violation to "withhold" so if a less than completely attractive "to you" lady wishes to make your acquaintance, you not only let her but you better be damn good at it or else you will wind up in front of the tribunal (could still anyway).

Darleen said...

I live in California. I say if this law is good enough for all adults who happened to be college students it is good enough for all the adults in the state.

First place to apply it is the Socialist Dem legislature.

tim in vermont said...

For many women (myself included) the idea of point blank asking a hot masseur to "finish me off" sounds about as appealing as a full-body exfoliation with Brillo pads. And as Samantha learned in the now-notorious SATC Episode 33, making demands can result in humiliation. So if you're into it, how do you avoid embarrassment and still come out fully satisfied?

The key, according to veterans like Amy, a 32-year-old model/actress who has had happy ending massages in two different states, is clear but subtle communication: "It's all about giving the right signals." She first discovered erotic massage during an in-room rubdown at an upscale Miami hotel. "Initially [the masseur] kept it very clean, but I was really turned on, and I let him know it by moaning and saying how good it felt. He started slowly touching my thigh, then going higher, and it turned into a game of how far each of us would take it. One thing led to another and he ended up finishing me off, which was great."


The above was not written by betamax, but an actual woman. Probably considers herself a "feminist" too.

It really is about "hot guys can do whatever they want" and well, so what? Hot girls can pretty much do whatever they want too. I just don't get why other people have to be punished.

New T-Shirt:

"Alcohol, getting ugly people laid for 10,000 years, and its time it stopped!"

n.n said...

Darleen:

That's right. There is no logical reason to selectively include or exclude a demographic, other than as a progressive/incremental ploy to bypass the people's critical review. I wish they would just throw the damned frog in the fire.

David said...

Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

Meanwhile, in the real world of actual sex . . . .

n.n said...

RecChief:

No. It's just my awkward attempt to remain humble. I appreciate your altruistic gesture.

Larry Nelson said...

Bob Boyd said...
How about a phone app where both students punch in their prospective partner's phone number and a pin number. Their phones then send each other a text message consisting of a legal consent form.
Then you call OnStar and ask the operator to please unlock your chastity belt.
Then you call in the your school provided official witness who will administer breathalyzer tests and supervise the condom install.

LOL. And Betamax3000 is hilarious.


Ann Althouse said:
...Quite aside from the trouble it can cause you with the authorities, it's a pathetic way to go about having sex. It's pathetic for all concerned to pursue a sex life swamped in drugs and drinking.

I agree, meaning a humongous sector of our culture is pathetic.
Pathetic turtles all the way down.

Krumhorn said...

ADDED: I suspect that what's really going on is an effort to change the culture of drinking and sex. It will go the way of drinking and driving and become something that decent people don't do... not beyond a light drink anyway. The feminist angle is the wedge.

You may be right, but I suspect that the real objective is to back men off and have them stand down. As Rush put it, the idea of "reprogramming men" has been in the works for awhile.

The idea is to put males on the defensive and wary. That just might be enough to reduce the frequency of incidents in which women awaken with regrets or second thoughts about what just happened.

Not to mention, it's a handy tool to later bludgeon some cad when the bounder decides to move on.

I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of guys out there (including me) who should behave better. But this is a pretty poor way to do it. Be careful what you wish for.

- Krumhorn

rhhardin said...

I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes.

David said...

Professor Althouse:

Please consider the defining language regarding consent that I quoted above: Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

You seem to think that the schools can improve procedures to ameliorate any injustices that could occur in the application of these rules.

But how do you develop a procedure that will be fair, with a standard like this, and with judges who are subject to significant community pressure to "protect" the women. Despite the gender neutrality of the language, these rules are designed to respond to political pressure from women alleging that the men who supposedly abuse them are too often beyond punishment.

Withdrawing consent in the middle of passion is ok in the abstract. If I am having sex with a woman and she says she wants to stop, I should stop. However, because of the prior consent, the woman should bear the burden of assuring that the withdrawal of consent is clear and unambiguous. As the rule is written even an ambiguous or half-hearted expression of reservation will be acceptable, especially in the current witch hunty environment. It is hard to believe that the omission of a standard for withdrawal of consent is an oversight. Frankly they do not care if a young man's reputation is ruined by female timidity during the encounter and retrospective regret or revenge.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 234   Newer› Newest»