CA Considers Requiring Written Consent Before Sex - Granite Grok

CA Considers Requiring Written Consent Before Sex

The California state legislature is considering a bill that would require (verbal or) written consent before sex on all college campuses in the state. ( Breitbart)

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.”

The point of the bill, according to sponsors, is to address poor handling of the rape culture issue on college campuses that got Dartmouth and 54 other colleges in hot water last month. Claims of rape, actual rape, the very definition of rape, have become all muddled by an army of gender studies professors, but then, what else might you expect in a sexually charged, gender-no-matter, litigious, PC paradise like the modern American University?  The answer has to be to add another law, right?

And one need only look at the source of the legislation, nutty California Democrats, to gauge the scope of the hypocrisy that follows from it.  They are putting even more of the government into people’s bedrooms.

You may recall one or two Democrats, on at least one or two occasions, evoking the concept of a woman’s right to keep the government out of her bedroom? I think you could conjure up a few examples.

Well the same Democrats who say that, are the Democrats who insisted on taxpayer funded contraception and abortion. Civics Padawan’s and narrative feeders need to understand that when you ask the government to pay for things you have invited the government in to regulate the use of those tax dollars.  If that place is “in the bedroom” (or as a result of activities engaged in same) you’re inviting the regulators in there as well.

The same Democrats (and their femi-nazi familiars) who gird themselves in the armor of the righteous defenders of women are the same Democrats who passed ObamaCare. If a woman’s sexual adventures (or misadventures) are health-care issues (and Democrats have insisted that they are), and the government is running the numbers game on providing insurance or health care to women with the taxpayer dollars spent on the bureaucratic Cherubim charged with managing the “rights” to every ‘garden of Eden,’ the government is not just in your bedroom it has dibbs on regulating traffic in and out of that garden if it could impact the budget.

So what’s the big deal if the experts at this or that state das capital deploy another phalanx of bureaucrats (supported by lawyers, social service workers, counselors, and the like) into American bedrooms? If love is anything it’s a centrally planned utopia.

So along comes California, land of Democrat Sour Milk and Honey, to propose and pass legislation (the bill was a winner in the state senate, and just as likely to pass through the other chamber like shiite through a Goose) to impose regulatory oversight on what the meaning of ‘is” is.

Side note: university admissions packets should henceforth include a box of autographed photos of former President Bill Clinton with the words “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” written on them in black sharpie. That way, when what your glands mistook for mutual consent the night before when everyone smelled like Bud Lite and Acapulco gold turns into accusations of sexual assault, you can hand them a picture of Bill.

Let us get back to the bedroom thing. How does an edict from a distant legislature requiring verbal (or written) consent, that can be revoked at any time, fix anything? It doesn’t. It simply expands the police powers of the state and encourages additional litigation under another meaningless statute.

This bill would make things appear worse. The University is put under the gun knife BMW   pressured into enforcing the statue (should it pass) or lose state funding.  But how do you apply justice and enforce a verbal agreement or the rescinding of same—at any point in the course of any suddenly less-than blessed event—when any disagreement about the circumstances still relies on what amounts to a he-said, she-said defense?

The current problem at our nation’s colleges appears to be a sexually discriminating post-coital reaction to sexual acts, against young men, by women who find themselves suffering from day-after ‘buyers remorse.’  Where university star-chambers take the whimpers of women, taken-in by the free-sex movements modern-day hook-up culture—which encourages women to engage in sex as if they had the same somewhat-muted emotional architecture as men, and associate any feelings of emotional abandonment  as grounds for accusations of sexual misconduct, whether there was misconduct or not.

Build it and they will come.

Don’t get me wrong. I think a large number of these women have been “raped.” Not ‘Rape-rape,’ you know, but rape. They are victims of an over sexualized culture that dismisses 70,000 years’ worth of threads that run through the emotional fabric of female biology. They have been told that casual sex for them can and always will be the same for them as it is for men but that is far from true.  Meanwhile, actual sexual assaults are bound to get lost in the fog or never see the light of day, so women who have been harmed will never find justice, and the men who harmed them might be encouraged to repeat the offense.

On the other side of the same cultural decay, young men who have been distanced from the idea of chivalry, gentlemanly virtue, or any obligation toward decent behavior, (or responsibility for their actions or the products of those actions) have likewise been encouraged to play the terminal adolescent.  A walking erection whose worldview encourages the opinion that young ladies plied with alcohol or other stimulants, who appear even remotely willing or able, are just living, breathing masturbation aids—far too often captured on video for the enjoyment of others for eternity.  Instead of accepting that they could be the one who says no because it is the right thing to say, and then escort the young lady “home” to sleep it off (or to protect her from less scrupulous suitors) where she might make a more sober declaration of interest at some later date, these guys say yes because they are byproducts of the same hook-up culture that has put the ladies in their potential predicament.

You can’t start teaching kids about condemns, intercourse, gay-sex, or the unrestricted (open-minded?) acceptance of various sexual proclivities, from a tender public-school age, and not expect what you have sown to not bear some kind of fruit.  In this case Eve’s Apple is more like the apple given to Snow White.  It casts a spell that tries to hide the long term side-effects of potnetial cultural evils.

The culture has lied to generations of women about how the modern sexual society has made them, not into victors but into victims of the sexual revolution. To make amends for this, the same culture that tries to buy off single moms they have trapped in a dependency life-style, punishes men who dare to embrace its genesis on a university campus without having a lawyer and two witnesses’ present to officiate the terms of pre-coital consent to prevent any post-coital misunderstandings, all of which are entirley a result of decades of Democrat social policy.

Talk about lousy foreplay.

And don’t be surprised is someone eventually suggests video records be required for in-game highlights and slow-motion replay, so the experts can determine if a penalty needs to be overturned or if the call on the field stands.

Illegal use of the hands, you’ve been expelled!

In California (as with all declining Democrat fiefdoms) the “solution” is always another law that makes the Democrats feel better but accomplishes nothing in the way of addressing the problem.

The proposed California law would require all college campuses to adopt a uniform policy “concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking.” Schools that fail to adhere to the policy would not be eligible to receive state funds for student financial assistance.

Hans Bader observes (again from Breitbart) that…

“Since most people have engaged in sex without verbal consent, supporters of the bill are effectively redefining most people, and most happily-married couples, as rapists,”…

Requiring people to have verbal discussion before sex violates their privacy rights, under the logic of Supreme Court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down Texas’ sodomy law, and federal appeals court decisions like Wilson v. Taylor (1984), which ruled that dating relationships are protected against unwarranted meddling by the Constitutional freedom of intimate association.”

But there is no such protection, certainly not from the hypocritical left.  They are continuously advancing policy that makes the bedroom a place where government must engage in oversight, and now California is proposing that the University join them in what amounts to raping the bedrooms of on-campus Americans with a pile of legalese whose enforcement will be just as cloudy as before it was written. Young women and men will continue to suffer under the weight of a dystopian sexual culture, one where real rape will be even more difficult to identify in the fog of a progressive-bedroom-regulatory state gone wild.

I think the evolution of s0-called sexual freedom is hurting women and relationships.  California’s latest remedy  will only make matters worse.

>