Thursday, June 05, 2014

New Bill Demands Explicit Written or Verbal Consent For Sex On College Campuses

Where else but in California?

SB 967, written by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) demands that a couple stop in the middle of the festivities to obtain "an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."

According to the language of the bill, "consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter, 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."

So........according to this new law, a couple needs to engage in a detailed discussion before lovemaking each and every time, married or not. Talk about a mood killer! Also, since 'verbal consent' is a matter of he said, she said in a court of law and people have been known to lie, any male (and of course, that's who this bill is directly aimed at) including husbands with a decent amount of brain cells to rub together is going to get that consent in writing, just in case. Smart men will come equipped not only with condoms, but with pre-printed forms, perhaps with a checklist. Or perhaps with small video recorders or digital cameras to record consent.

Of course, even a consent form or a video isn't sufficient really, according to the bill. If consent
"can be revoked at any time" and a past relationship between a couple is not deemed to signify consent, a woman can always claim she revoked consent after she signed the form or said 'yes' on camera..say, a week or so later after the guy dumps her for a hot cheerleader. And yes, there are plenty of examples of exactly this sort of thing happening, especially now that colleges have abandoned the legal standard of a burden of proof and use the far more subjective and flexible standard of the 'preponderance of evidence' in these matters.

In fact, the bill actually places the burden of proof on the accused in a sexual assault case demonstrate they obtained at least verbal ‘affirmative consent’ before engaging in any sexual activity.Men apparently no longer have the right to be presumed innocent until found guilty when it comes to these proceedings.

This also significantly changes the legal definition of rape from being a violent act clearly against someone's will to merely being a non-violent act someone may not have explicitly consented to (returning caresses and kisses or 'yes, oh yes!' apparently doesn't count) verbally or in writing beforehand.

Of course, these non-verbal exchanges are exactly how a lot of romantic encounters occur. Foreplay? Better get that written consent form signed first.

Of course, this bill violates privacy rights as well as rights of due process and common sense, but that apparently is not a consideration for proponents of this bill. But it will never pass, right?


SB 967 passed the Democrat dominated California state senate by a vote of 27-9 and is now on its way to state assembly. Even more ominously, the entire University of California system has adopted a new iron clad policy that doesn't just mirror SB967 but requires affirmative consent not just for sex, but to every form of “physical sexual activity” engaged in! In other words, if you come back to your domicile at the end of the day and give your significant other a hug and a kiss, you'd better have that consent form at the ready.

Read or watch the film version of "1984" some time and pay attention to what happens to Winston Smith and Julia. We're just about there.

"The progressive Left is like an acid that distorts and ruins everything it touches." - Rush Limbaugh, saying something I once thought was fairly exaggerated.

1 comment:

B.Poster said...

Actually its always been this way. In substance, the best the guy could hope for in this type of case is "preponderance of the evidence." In actuality the guy will need to generally prove he is innocent. In other words, if he can't prove he is innocent when she makes the accusation, he is "screwed." Pardon the pun. This is the case even in TX where I'm from and TX is supposedly a "conservative" state.

The next logical step would be to codify the truth in substance into formal law so that substance and form are now in agreement. Apparently CA has done this.

Even before I got to the end of your post, I was thinking of the book "1984." I read it a number of years ago and have pulled up some of the commentaries on it recently when thinking of the mass surveillance the "outer party" was subject to and how certain groups are almost subject to something similar today. As I recall, the government in this novel had some similar views to the new CA law regarding sex which got me to thinking about this even before I completed reading your post. I shall have to read the novel again and watch the movie.

It's been said that CA leads the way in American policy. Given that TX has policies that are similar in substance if not form, it would seem the next logical step would be for TX to copy CA in this manner. I certainly hope and pray that what would seem logical does not in fact come to pass!!

I will have to read that book again as my memory is a bit sketchy on it and watch the "1984" movie as well. Thank you for keeping us informed. At least you can say the weather is nice in CA!!