Rape

Affirmative Consent Is Spreading

New Jersey and New Hampshire consider "yes means yes" bills

|

ericparker/Flickr

Affirmative consent policy is gaining ground beyond California. Just a few months after the golden state passed a law redefining rape for college students, legislatures in both New Jersey and New Hampshire are considering doing the same. The aim of affirmative consent policy is to shift the sexual standard from "no means no" to "yes means yes", and in doing so reduce sexual assault rates or at least make it easier to prosecute assaults on campus. In theory this may not sound like a bad idea, but California's law—and those being modeled after it—come with a lot of problematic assumptions and extras baked in, as Reason writers have previously detailed here, here, here, and here.

New Jersey's proposed affirmative consent legislation, introduced in both houses of the Legislature, would require "institutions of higher education to adopt affirmative consent standard and other policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking." The statute defines affirmative consent similarly to how California did: 

"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 the person 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. 

(…) it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances: (1) the accused's belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused; or (2) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented. 

(…) it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances: (1) the complainant was asleep or unconscious; (2) the complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity; or (3) the complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition. 

The New Jersey proposal also lays out procedures and record-keeping requirements that colleges must follow when handling sexual assault, stalking, and domestic violence claims. And it requires colleges to adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard when adjudicating these cases. Under this standard (the lowest standard of proof used in civil claims), the accused must be found guilty if college administrators perceive more than a 50 percent likelihood that he or she is. "Traditionally," explains Cathy Young, "the standard for finding a student guilty of misconduct of any kind has been 'clear and convincing evidence'—less stringent than 'beyond a reasonable doubt,' but still a very strong probability of guilt."

In October, New Hampshire legislators introduced nearly identical legislation. Under its proposed bill, private colleges that don't adopt affirmative consent policies would lose tax-exempt status, while public universities would lose state funding. Earlier that month, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo said the State University of New York (SUNY) will institute a system-wide definition of sexual consent that adheres to affirmative consent standards, among other policies aimed at addressing sexual assault. 

As Associated Press noted, affirmative consent policies are being driven by "pressure to change how (colleges) handle rape allegations" from both students and the U.S. Department of Education. Sarah McMahon, co-director of Rutgers' Center on Violence Against Women and Children, told AP that it's great that this is receiving attention, "but it's not a new issue. I think what's fuelling it are student protests about how their institutions have mishandled cases." 

This seems a popular and uncontroversial consensus: a lot of college campuses were doing a terrible job serving sexual assault victims. Perhaps a logical response would be for 1) colleges and university systems exploring areas where they can improve victims services and 2) turning over the actual investigation and adjudication of sexual assault cases to police and the criminal justice system.

Students all over the country already have been rising up and demanding their campuses change the way they handle rape allegations. And schools have been changing policies. It's not an overnight process, yet it's underway and gaining momentum. But instead of letting this more grassroots and individualized reform thrive, state legislators are attempting to save the day with an one-size-fits-all, magic-bullet solution that strips student due process rights, increases bureaucracy, and ignores reality. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Is it a crime to say things that make someone 'lack self-confidence in her relations with the opposite sex and about her body-build'?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “””Sarah McMahon, co-director of Rutgers’ Center on Violence Against Women and Children,””

    Can I be the co-director of Rutgers Center on Violence Against Men?

    And since women only get 70 cents of what a man makes I should be paid more then Sarah McMahon.

  2. Also from the land of a thousand poison swamps: “Rape by Fraud” bill would make it illegal to lie to a person to get them to have sex with you

    Under a bill recently proposed by a south Jersey lawmaker, such actions would not only be considered dishonest. They could prompt charges of rape.

    Earlier this month, Assemblyman Troy Singleton (D-Burlington) introduced the bill (A3908), which would create the crime of “sexual assault by fraud,” which it defines as “an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not.”

    Singleton decided to introduce the legislation after talking to Florence resident Mischele Lewis, who had been duped into paying $5,000 to her boyfriend, Cherry Hill resident William Allen Jordan, for what he claimed was a security clearance. Jordan said he was a British military official, but it turned out he was a serial bigamist and scam artist who pleaded guilty to defrauding Lewis on Nov. 10.

    Prosecutors had initially tried to charge Jordan with sexual assault by coercion, but a grand jury refused to indict him on that charge.

    All laws should be written with the amoral sociopathy of prosecutors in mind.

    1. So they pretty much just want to outlaw breeding?

    2. Is looking attractive only in certain lighting conditions, and only after a certain number of drinks, considered fraud?

      1. Of course, the goal is for prosecuters to be able to rack up as many convictions as possible.

      2. Temporary saline breast augmentation.

    3. Would that include paying a hooker with a bad check?

      1. You know hookers that take checks?

        1. Apparently, Jerry Springer once knew one.

    4. Singleton decided to introduce the legislation after talking to Florence resident Mischele Lewis, who had been duped into paying $5,000 to her boyfriend, Cherry Hill resident William Allen Jordan, for what he claimed was a security clearance. Jordan said he was a British military official, but it turned out he was a serial bigamist and scam artist

      What does this have to do with sex?

      1. What does this have to do with sex?

        serial bigamist

        Don’t worry, there are no culture wars; all non-approved cultures are simply not allowed here.

      2. Because Mischele thought she was boning someone important she could brag to her friends about, but he turned out to be just a regular schlub. I’m actually surprised this type of legislation has been attempted before. Of course, only men lie, deceive, and make false promises to get laid. And they’ll be the only ones who will be prosecuted.

        1. It sounds like he lied for the purpose of stealing her money, not for the purpose of having sex with her.

          I also noticed this

          someone he is not

          It would be interesting to see if that is the language from the actual bill.

          1. Why should a law like this apply to women? They’re all fragile, delicate flowers who would never do anything wrong unless an evil man tricked them into do it. At least that seems to be the attitude of leftist politicians these days…

    5. So I can no longer tell women that I am the Crown Prince of Ruritania?

      1. You were lying? I’m calling the Dean’s office!

    6. So I presume it’s going to make bras, breast implants, makeup, high heel shoes, girdles and other “shapers” and just about everything else in the wardrobe of the fairer sex?

      As Chris Rock noted years ago, everything about women is a lie.

      1. So I presume it’s going to make bras, breast implants, makeup, high heel shoes, girdles and other “shapers” and just about everything else in the wardrobe of the fairer sex?

        Only those of non-therapeutic use. Therapeutic shoes, girdles, etc. will be mandated covered by the ACA plans.

      2. Don’t you see it’s the evil patriarchy that FORCES women to conform to these unrealistic standards of beauty? Women are all innocent, require special protections, and should never be held to the same standards as men. To suggest otherwise would be misogynistic.

      3. Must remember to read downthread before posting.

      4. Well, I have a confession to make too. My eyes; they aren’t really green…

        Speaking of Chris Rock, I love his cameo as the kid at the rib shack in that movie.

    7. “Serial bigamist” has always been a joke term. Apparently the newspaper has no editors and their journalists are half-wits.

      1. “After the first two divorced him, he got another two…”

    8. “I promise. I will never die!”

    9. “an act of sexual penetration to which a person has given consent because the actor has misrepresented the purpose of the act or has represented he is someone he is not.”

      Couldn’t help but notice how gender specific the draft of this law is. They’re not even trying to hide it anymore.

      1. boy did I really fuck up the bolding on that one.

    10. Um, if this passes it’s gonna put a LOT of baby mama’s in jail.

      Just ask her…
      “You’re on birth control right baby”?

      Then if she sues for paternity you press rape charges

      1. I was looking for someone here to make that connection. Also, it’d make any sex after cheating rape also. In their haste to protect women from their own choices, I’m betting they haven’t thought this through very well.

  3. “Affirmative Consent Is Spreading”

    Admins may HOPE it’s spreading but my money is on people screwing for the same old reasons they always have.

  4. Creeping puritanism.

    1. ^This. Cannot be said enough.

    2. +1 Junior Anti-Sex League

    3. Yes. Proggies have the gall to belittle the right for “wanting to be in everyones bedroom”. Then they go and propose shit like this.

      This beats the living shit out of ANYTHING the right is proposing for violating people’s privacy rights.

  5. Students all over the country already have been rising up and demanding their campuses change the way they handle rape allegations. And schools have been changing policies. It’s not an overnight process, yet it’s underway and gaining momentum.

    Which is exactly why legislation would be a good idea, here. To stop the momentum and reverse horrible policies that are being adopted at universities.

    Naturally, the only legislation in view does the exact opposite.

    1. I’m waiting for the lawsuit that doesn’t get settled and gets these tossed out as unconsitutional.

      1. How will that ever happen when the accused has no rights and isn’t allowed to offer a defense? As is the case in most of these colleges.

      2. I’m waiting for a school that’s forced to settle or loses a big lawsuit to sue the feds.

        But of course if they had the balls to do that, they’d tell the feds to stick their regulations where the sun doesn’t shine.

        I swear progressives have adapted a “its better that 100 innocents go to jail than to have one guilty go free” philosophy, because “male privilege”.

  6. When does affirmative consent spread beyond SJW genitalia and into the rest of society?

    It’s a little tough taking something like that seriously from the COMPLY! crowd.

    1. It probably doesn’t. People will keep behaving like they always do, even on college campuses. A few more people will get fucked over for no good reason, but I very much doubt that it will be enough to change people’s behavior significantly.

      1. Just tell her that she agreed to the sex under the Social Contract.

    2. What are you talking about, stupid? These people are in favor of strong protections for all the individual rights. You know, abortion, gay marriage, and free birth control.

      1. I don’t know what I was thinking.

    3. Soon. The politicians always target students and military first (groups with limited rights that no one bothers to defend). And once that’s in place they expand the law to us commoners. Just wait, you’ll see…

      1. You miss my point.

        See my comment re Social Contract.

  7. it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity [because] the complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

    Emphasis added. LOOPHOLE: “She doesn’t know English!”

  8. turning over the actual investigation and adjudication of sexual assault cases to police and the criminal justice system

    I’ve come to realize that these laws are designed specifically to enable extrajudicial punishment of the accused because our justice puts the burden of proof on the accuser and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Sending more cases to the judicial system is exactly what they are trying to avoid.

    Also, what’s up with you New Hampshire? You’ve let me down.

    1. I doubt it will pass. Especially since the legislature and executive council are all Republican controlled again now.

  9. I’m just going to stop having sex completely. It really isn’t worth all the hassle.

    1. Follow the money. All this stuff is masterminded by Big Porn.

      1. Who pays for porn anymore?

        1. Society, does, Roger. Society does.

          *single tear runs down cheek*

          1. So ‘free’ porn is the benefit I receive from the Social Contract? Considering the amount of benefit I derive, I think I should reconsider my duty to participate in biannual voting.

    2. Real Doll FTW!

  10. Affirmative Consent Is Spreading

    Elizabeth, nice double entendre.

    1. I had thought it was just me thinking that.

  11. Wouldn’t the Supreme Court invalidate these laws as violation of 14A Equal Protection Clause? How can the legislature justify the creation of extrajudicial proceedings of a criminal matter based solely of the fact that the accused is enrolled at a publicly funded institution?

    I realize that it’s a stretch to automatically assume that the SC would take a principled position rather than succumb to a Utilitarian argument, but this one seems like a no-brainer.

    1. FYTW. Always.

  12. Can anyone explain how the current definition of rape in New jersey law is somehow inadequate?

    1. Um, it doesn’t allow the state to convict a man for any and all acts of sexual intercourse?

    2. Because not every single man who’s accused of rape is convicted.

      1. Because every man has not been convicted of rape.

      2. This is probably pretty close to what they actually believe.

        Remember the Ezra Klein (or was it Yglesias? Eh, distinction without a difference) argument? Rape is so bad that we have to do away with the bedrock of our justice system.

        1. Any word yet from those two(or any other feminist for that matter) about Rotherham? I’ll believe feminist actually care about rape victims when they start talking about it.

          1. Well, in all fairness that didn’t happen here so they do get a pass on not having to mention that. But having said that they have no trouble sticking their noses in the business of others when it suits them, so their silence is deafening.

      3. When the Army stood up it’s “Don’t Be A Rapist (TM)” program in recent years they had all of us sit down and watch the “Invisible War” documentary. In one segment they were interviewing a SJW that was just aghast that everyone that was Court Martialed for sexual assault was not convicted… if IRC she was an attorney… so there’s that.

    3. Look, there is only ONE TRUE WAY off having sex. ONE.

      It also doesn’t cover buyer’s remorse.

    4. Because this isn’t about being a rapist, it’s about being ineligible to continue matricul’n at a particular college.

  13. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that the person has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity.

    But, only one of them gets to ride the rail. Funny that.

    1. It would be an interesting test to see what would happen if a bunch of men started making complaints against women who they had sex with while drunk.

      1. My guess is that a lot of colleges would be dumb enough to dismiss the cases, especially to avoid pissing off the SJW brigades. Of course, that would make them a prime target for an enterprising lawyer looking to get rich off of Title IX.

        1. Heh, they wouldn’t dismiss the cases, they’d reverse the charges.

      2. It would be an interesting test to see what would happen if a bunch of men started making complaints against women who they had sex with while drunk.

        he difficulty of defining incapacitation and consent was underscored last week when Dean Wasilolek took the stand. Rachel B. Hitch, a Raleigh attorney representing McLeod, asked Wasiolek what would happen if two students got drunk to the point of incapacity, and then had sex.

        “They have raped each other and are subject to explusion?” Hitch asked.

        “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex,” said Wasiolek.

        1. Then he added: “What’s ur name again?”

          And there is almost certainly the most damning statement in the eyes of the complainant and the good dean.

  14. Welp, time to get started on my clone army I guess, because apparently accidents in the backs of cars (as God intended) isn’t a viable breeding strategy for the species anymore.

    1. accidents in the backs of cars (as God intended) isn’t a viable breeding strategy for the species anymore.

      Accidents in the backs of cars are, however, viable time travel strategies, right John Titor?

      1. Well, I wouldn’t recommend sticking your dick into dual positive micro singularities but I don’t judge.

    2. When you start fucking your own clone, is that sex or masturbation?

      1. Who cares, you’ve got a clone harem now.

  15. This seems a popular and uncontroversial consensus: a lot of college campuses were doing a terrible job serving sexual assault victims.

    And, of course, its most likely completely wrong. Which might also have to do with it being a “consensus” amongst a very narrow, blinkered, and ideologically motivated group.

    1. And what the fuck does a College Campus have to do with ‘serving sexual assault victims’?

      Is it something on the cafeteria menu?

    2. Because actual sexual assault victims, as opposed to someone who just regrets a drunken hook-up, are exceedingly rare on college campuses, no matter how much the SJW brigades try to stretch the definition.

  16. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

    How about saying “No” to affirm their lack of consent? Is that effort too much for our little buttercakes?

    i can’t see how anything can go wrong with codifying the most intricate and interpersonal subtleties of human behavior.

    1. I have a right to never try to stop anything that I don’t like from happening to me, cisshitlord.

      1. Dude, trigger warning for mentioning the existence of things you don’t like???

        1. THIS IS LIKING-THINGS PRIVILEGE

      2. I took a cisshit in New Jersey once.

  17. What I don’t get is how it is such a horrible burden on women (or anyone) to say “no” when you don’t like what is happening. Obviously, if someone is in a state where they are incapable of making their objections clear it’s a problem, and properly considered rape, but otherwise, it just seems silly.
    They seem to think it is better to let yourself be raped and then ruin the life of someone who might not have realized that you didn’t want to have sex with them than to just say “stop”.

    1. Of course you don’t get it, that’s the problem. [Stomps off]. /feminist

      1. I can’t even! /feminist

      2. “I shouldn’t have to TELL you, you should KNOW” /way-too-many-women, feminist or not

    2. The problem is at the moment they are really very actively consenting but when they sober up they are embarrassed as hell to see who just fucked their brains out and rationalize that they never actually consented, it was just the alcohol saying “oh god fuck me now”.

      Basically they are trying to give women the power to retroactively revoke consent.

      1. Yep. I can’t get why they’re labeling these laws “Yes means Yes” when the gist of everything they want indicates that they should be called “Yes means No”.

  18. “preponderance of the evidence”

    Yeah, let’s ruin someone’s life based on another person’s ability to clear an incredibly low burden of proof.

  19. I don’t consent to this.

  20. It seems fairly clear that a rapist who is willing to ignore a clear “no” and lie about it is willing to ignore a clear “yes.” So the headline “yes means yes” part seems nearly meaningless from a legal point of view. (As an attempt to change the cultural norm and behavior, perhaps it could have an effect.) It’s hard to see how that part alone changes various “he said/she said” cases where the accused intended to rape someone.

    OTOH, all the other various terms seem likely to make it much more likely for someone to be guilty of rape in cases where they did not have malice, to make someone be guilty of rape without knowing it. It also makes it extremely easy for both parties to be guilty of rape. (There is the concern– sometimes explicitly expressed, as by Dean Sue at Duke– that the law is intended to be unequal with regards to men and women in practice, since men are always the seducers who want sex.)

    The weakening of the standard of proof is also highly significant. The law in general seems to be sold on the basis of things that are not significant; it’s certainly not like feminists are going around trumpeting “weaken the standard of proof.”

    1. It is certainly the case that if one defines rape strictly, the vast majority of perpetrators are men. However, the more you broaden the terms of sexual assault and rape (even including emotional coercion and “I didn’t really want to but I consented to keep my partner happy,” as some recommend, in addition to the less controversial “I got drunk knowing I would lose my inhibitions then regretted it later”), the percentage of women perpetrators increases. Indeed, according to some surveys that defined the terms broadly, women are as likely to more likely to commit sexual assault.

  21. My best friend’s mother-in-law makes $85 /hour on the internet . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay was $16453 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    Visit this website ????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  22. “Perhaps a logical response would be for 1) colleges and university systems exploring areas where they can improve victims services and 2) turning over the actual investigation and adjudication of sexual assault cases to police and the criminal justice system.”

    How about (3) reinstating parietal rules in an attempt to make colleges more like institutions of learning and less like a venue for Roman orgies?

  23. The aim of affirmative consent policy is to shift the sexual standard from “no means no” to “yes means yes”[…] in theory this may not sound like a bad idea

    It’s hard to imagine anyone with practical experience in the subject saying this with a straight face. “Yes means yes” is an awful standard for sexual consent, when sexuality is far more indicated by non-verbal cues than anything else. Particularly in the context of a committed relationship, it is absurd to take such a contractual approach to commitment. In a legal sense, it is staggering to suppose that one must present positive proof of sexual consent in order to avoid being indicted as a rapist.

    1. I can see nasty divorces or breakups leading to sexual slavery charges based on this standard.

      “We had sex on a regular basis from June 2013 through November 2014, and in the vast majority of cases he never even asked for consent, nor did I express in clear, unambiguous verbal terms that I was willing to submit to his foul perversions! Those orgasms were totally faked, BTW!”

      Conviction, straight up, under this approach.

  24. For the life of me I can not comprehend how this hysteria over sex in all its iterations and variations has come to swallow up this country. My young adulthood spanned the seventies. The seventies may have been an idiot era in a lot of way, but at least there was some semblance of sanity with respect to sexuality.

    1. Are you serious? Are you serious?

  25. I can imagine the legislative leadership in New Jersey discussing this:

    “OK, shall we take up the pension-reform bill?” “And get crucified by the unions? No thanks!”

    “OK, how about the bill to streamline zoning procedure?” “God, how boring! That stuff just confuses the heck out of me!”

    “OK, how about the drunken, slutty coeds bill?” “Yes, yes! Let’s do that one!”

    1. “Could we hold hearings, with testimony from drunken, slutty coeds?” “Of course!”

      1. “Now, I know this is painful for you, Miss Jones, but could you describe for us how that frat brother ripped your clothes off and had his way with you?”

  26. Enjoy the hell out of your vibrators, ladies. Hope y’all don’t run short of batteries.

  27. Once they get their foot in the door…

    1. Just the big toe. Just this once. Just to see what it feels like…

    2. Close it with enough force to sever it at the ankle.

  28. So I got in a discussion with a lefty about how it is impossible for a Woman to rape a man…. that’s the mindset we are dealing with

    1. It’s more difficult, but I don’t see how you could argue that it’s impossible.

      At least when I got the “everything is rape” orientation at college they were careful to make sure they mentioned that women raping men is possible and actually occasionally happens.

      1. Actually using the same standards they use for gathering rape statistics women rape men far more often than men rape women, the men just don’t care and enjoy it.

    2. The Wasiolek Doctrine (Duke University dean of students):

      “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

      http://www.truthrevolt.org/new…..onsibility

      1. Still leaves situations where the male person is unconscious or incapacitated.

      2. To accept that standard, you have to accept the underlying premises of it. Honestly, I don’t see how you can get around saying that women lack moral agency if you want to accept this claim. If that’s the case, there’s some other conclusions I don’t think feminists will be terribly happy with.

    3. It is apparent these lefty women don’t know any actual men. This is what I’ve discovered: sometimes when men fall asleep, or pass out, or if they’re the right age the wind blows on Tuesday, they get boners. And if you’re a sneaky she-devil you can take advantage of that.

  29. yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn

  30. If I were a college student I would

    1. Make sure to go to a college where it is legal to record/video someone without their consent as long as I’m a party to the situation.

    2. Video each and every sexual encounter start to finish in my dorm room. I would not have sex anywhere else.

    3. Keep the video until the statute of limitations on rape expire or even forever in case they throw the statute of imitations out in the future.

    4. I would never show anyone the video as I believe that is not kosher and probably illegal.

    1. Oh and #5. I would keep saying throughout the episode “Do you want me to stop? and say let me know if you want me to stop frequently.”

      The only problem with this is that silence is not an excuse. I would need her to say “No, don’t stop”.

  31. I feel bad for chicks who like a dude to take charge in the sack.

    “Do you want me to spank you now?”
    *smack*
    “May I spank you again?”
    *smack*
    “How about now?”
    *smack*
    “Again?”

    Sexy.

  32. A few years back, my wife had finally heard me make so many 1984 references with respect to the way things are that she decided to read the novel for herself.

    Over the past two decades, I have been increasingly impressed by Orwell’s prescience, particularly his insights on language as a means to political ends. So I was surprised when my wife told me that she thought Orwell’s story bears little resemblance to the real 21st Century. Her main criticism was that 21st Century is libertine with respect to sex whereas Orwell predicted that state initiatives such as the Junior Anti-Sex League would lead to a virtually celibate future.

    If this “Yes Means Yes” nonsense continues to proliferate, Orwell’s insight into the modern state will be vindicated once again.

    1. That may be. But I think it is more likely that issues around sex and related topics are too useful a tool to distract people from other areas of policy that actually matter more. Libertine sexuality isn’t really a threat to the plans of the social engineer types.

      1. Orwell’s point was that the state wanted to break all non-state social relationships, including the family. Intimate relationships often lead to family formation, and this may create family loyalties that conflict with state objectives.

  33. I think they’re switching from “No means no” to “Yes means whatever I later decide it meant”.

  34. First they came for the pick-up artists. I didn’t speak up because, babe, I’m not one of them! I respect you and your art, and I could totally see us having a future together.

    Then they came for the gigolos, but I had already crawled out the window at 2AM.

  35. You hear that ladies? No more biting your lip so the neighbors don’t hear. Keep saying Yes! Yes! Yes! like a pro wrestler, loud and clear.

  36. Guilt will forever remain the enemy of a good time. No man should require the insanity of affirmative consent policies to avoid a guilt-ridden sexual prospect who ‘needs a few drinks’ to loosen up.

    Typically, ‘loosening up’ means lowering the guilt threshold momentarily which is not good for your tomorrow if she is predisposed to lying or playing the victim card.

  37. Seems to me like this is necessary because of the omnipresence of rape culture.

  38. The only change that should be made is that colleges shouldn’t be involved in investigating rape allegations period.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.