California Adopts 'Yes Means Yes' Sexual Assault Rule

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At the risk of sounding like a religious prude, let me point out that this sort of bill would not be needed if our culture did not merely tolerate, but encourage casual sex.  If at the very least, the expectation for both men and women would be that they would at the least be "going steady" before visiting a certain village in Pennsylvania, the number of conflicting accounts (whether from differing interpretations or outright lying) of whether sex was consensual would be considerably reduced.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Sorry, but let me add my voice to the skepticism here.  Sexual assault is a serious crime that should be investigated by the authorities in the criminal justice system.  If the authorities are dropping the ball on their investigations and prosecutions of this crime within the criminal justice system, such that they'd be better served by changing the consent rules to this new standard, then the state government should just go ahead and make that change.

Yes, one of the problematic aspects here is that colleges, campus police and campus tribunals etc are involved in this at all. Sexual assault is not something that should be judged by a code of conduct or anyone associated with the university, its much too grave for that. It should always be investigated and prosecuted by normal law enforcement officers with the proper training and knowledge to handle this (and if they don't have enough of those California should do something about that). This whole internal system vs. state responsibility aspect looks like a blind spot in the debate.

In America, we still have the tradition of colleges acting in loco parentis even if for the most part they no longer do.  That tradition is where the idea that colleges should concern themselves with the non-academic aspects of collegiate life comes from here in the States.  Whether higher education should even be in the business of offering food and board to their students is something that doesn't come up as much as it probably ought to.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At the risk of sounding like a religious prude, let me point out that this sort of bill would not be needed if our culture did not merely tolerate, but encourage casual sex.  If at the very least, the expectation for both men and women would be that they would at the least be "going steady" before visiting a certain village in Pennsylvania, the number of conflicting accounts (whether from differing interpretations or outright lying) of whether sex was consensual would be considerably reduced.

I tend to think that the issue isn't the prevalence of casual sex. The issue is (some) men feeling entitled to sex with any woman they want, regardless of the woman's feelings or if there's any chemistry between them (or in some cases, if the woman even knows the man exists). The days of female sexuality being controlled by men are over, and thank Zeus for that. Yet some jealous, resentful, misogynistic men apparently haven't gotten over that development.

And there really aren't many cases of outright lying by survivors of sexual assault.

I wasn't specifying who the potential liar might be.  While there are occasional examples of alleged victims doing so, I agree that it's far more common for accused perpetrators to lie.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Haha, a girl coming up for a drink after a date is definitely implied consent.

If you legitimately disagree, you don't live in the real world.

I live in the world, and I definitely disagree with that revolting concept.  Sex is a wonderful thing, but because of that, it shouldn't be so trivially treated as you apparently do.