I love this! All emphasis and bracketed comments are mine.

California adopts 'yes means yes' bill aimed at reducing sexual assault

Gov. Jerry Brown announced Sunday that he has signed a bill that makes California the first in the U.S. to define when "yes means yes" and adopt requirements for colleges to follow when investigating sexual assault reports.

State lawmakers last month approved the measure as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. Campus sexual assault victims and women's advocacy groups delivered petitions to Brown's office on Sept. 16 urging him to sign the bill.

State senator Kevin de León has said the legislation will begin a paradigm shift in how college campuses in California prevent and investigate sexual assaults. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity."

"Every student deserves a learning environment that is safe and healthy," De León said in a statement Sunday night. "The State of California will not allow schools to sweep rape cases under the rug. We've shifted the conversation regarding sexual assault to one of prevention, justice, and healing."

The legislation says silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent.


Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.

Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault to have valid complaints.

"The affirmative consent standard will help change the re-victimizing, insensitive reporting procedures, instead allowing students to seek help and hold perpetrators accountable," said Meghan Warner, chair of the University of California Associated Students Sexual Assault Commission. "This is a major victory for all California students, not just survivors. I hope the rest of the nation will follow suit."

The bill requires training for faculty reviewing complaints so that victims are not asked inappropriate questions when filing complaints. The bill also requires access to counselling, health care services and other resources.

When lawmakers were considering the bill, critics said it was overreaching and sends universities into murky legal waters. Some Republicans in the Assembly questioned whether statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define sexual consent between two people.

(of course! THEY want to define sexual consent and anything else to do with sex )
There was no opposition from Republicans in the state Senate.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/california ... -1.2780859

I'm very pleased Gov Brown signed this bill ~ in our earlier thread on the same topic, I said:


I still have those same doubts ~ but I'm hopeful the "awareness campaign" and publicity surrounding this legislation will be the effective tipping point ~

Sooz

New York is joining in ~ this is an excellent read ~ Sooz

Monday, Oct 6, 2014 8:58 PM UTC
Affirmative consent is not “radical” — but finally doing something about sexual assault is
There's a lot of confusion out there. Here's what you need to know about the new California mandate.
Jenny Kutner

We need to talk some more about affirmative consent. Not just because New York governor Andrew Cuomo ordered the state’s universities to overhaul its sexual assault investigation guidelines in favor of a “yes means yes” standard last week — which he did, and which is a big deal, and which we will talk about — but also because a great many people might be confused about why two of the nation’s largest states, New York and California, are moving toward affirmative consent policies on college campuses.

I imagine people might be confused about this trend because, just this morning, I read a piece from a prominent national media outlet (New York Magazine) by one of its well-known writers (Jonathan Chait) with a headline (“California’s Radical College-Sex-Law Experiment”) that seemed to feed into a lot of the rape apologia-hysteria surrounding affirmative consent laws. So let’s clear some things up.

Chait’s piece refers specifically to California’s recent affirmative consent mandate, which Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law last week. The law requires all California colleges and universities that receive state funding to define sexual consent as an enthusiastic affirmation of a desire to have intercourse, and clarifies ambiguities in the “no means no” conceptualization of rape. Specifically, the law states that “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.”

Critics have decried the law as an overreach into students’ sex lives and an overly broad expansion of the definition of sexual assault, which they say could potentially have countless innocent men declared rapists. The latter concern seems to worry Chait, too, who asserts that “most, and possibly nearly all, sexual encounters will legally be rape” under the new law, and that “accusation will almost automatically result in conviction” in campus sexual assault investigations. He writes:


It’s true that there is no downside-free resolution when it comes to addressing sexual assault, but that has nothing to do with unfairness to the men accused of sexual assault; innocent men are not routinely convicted as rapists, and they will not routinely be convicted as rapists under affirmative consent laws. First, Culp-Ressler’s point holds: False rape allegations are rare and, on top of that, punishment isn’t so easily doled out. A recent Huffington Post investigation found unconscionable statistics on the rates of expulsion for campus rapists, finding that fewer than a third were forced off campus after being found responsible for sexual assault. Second, as has been crudely illustrated by reports of sexual assault in the Alt Lit community, a lot of rapists don’t see themselves as rapists. Period. Society doesn’t see them as rapists, either. And that’s exactly why — as even Chait concedes — there is a desperate need to reconfigure how we think about sexual assault. Men are not innocent of rape simply because they “misunderstood the signals” or weren’t totally sure about consent; they are rapists who do not understand that they are rapists.

There is no downside-free resolution to dealing with sexual assault, because when we do deal with sexual assault — you know, if that even happens — it generally means a sexual assault has occurred. That’s a tragedy, and right now it’s a tragedy that occurs too many times a year on college campuses across the country, affecting too many victims who find themselves with virtually no recourse — victims whose chances at justice are trampled by their abusers walking freely around campus. And obviously that is a problem, because failing to convict guilty rapists is bad, bad, bad, according to Chait.

But failing to convict a guilty rapist is not just bad. It is routine. It is the standard. And that is exactly what the California law, and what the new SUNY policy ordered by Cuomo last week, aims to make less likely. Beyond that, affirmative consent standards have the power to catalyze a change in our conceptions of rape and consent — a change that Chait himself says is necessary:


Yes, soon enough somebody will be prosecuted under these terms, and it will likely be because he or she had sex without consent and because someone reported it as sexual assault. This is what should happen. But here is what should also happen, and very likely could: There will be other somebodies out there who, keeping in mind the new law and their desire not to be prosecuted for rape, decide to ask their partners for clear consent. Instead of pushing ahead when a young woman says she “isn’t sure” she wants to have sex, there will be a young man who pursues a direct, enthusiastic “yes” before moving forward. There will be college students thinking twice about their actions, talking about sex and then, one hopes, having it consensually.

This is not radical. It is optimistic. The only thing that is radical about codifying “yes means yes” standards into law is that we are actually doing something to combat sexual assault. Finally, prominent media outlets might begin to recognize the need to call rape “rape,” or begin to question people who want to curb efforts to stop it. Finally, there might be a measure that can result in the cultural change education has failed to make, for which we cannot wait any longer. Finally — and this is the most radical idea yet — we might be able to afford survivors justice.

Salon

As I tweeted today with someone who wrote a college article about this, I began to have doubts as to it's impact. The wording is, imo, ambiguous and subjective, although he disagreed. Within the law is something similar to "verbal consent or nonverbal consent by actions". I'm not sure what "consensual actions" may be. A wink? A moan? That could, if sexual assault is on the table, cloud the waters as much as "no means no" does. Consider this:

He says: "She grabbed my penis and moaned, so I thought that meant she was interested in sex"

She says: "Yes I grabbed his penis, but I didn't really want to have sex"

Defense attorney: "Everyone knows a woman doesn't grab a penis unless she wants sex"

Prosecutor: "She may have been turned on, but changed her mind about having sex"

Around and around it goes. I'm thinking that ONLY verbal consent should be the law. A drunk or drugged woman may be exhibiting "consensual actions" in her altered state, but may not want to have sex. Her ability to verbally consent is compromised by her arousal in her altered state (since we can't always control that) and her actions may not explicitly mean "yes". IOW, allowing heavy petting may be construed as "non-verbal consent".

Am I wrong or over thinking this? It just seems like the word has changed from "no" to "yes", but the actual proof of rape is just as muddy.

Raging hormones can be difficult to overcome ~ the actual proof of rape IS muddy ~ and for oh-so-many reasons ~ I'm thinking the idea is to force young people to THINK about what they might do next ~

I've posted before that I'm often in the uncomfortable position of kidlets asking questions about sex ~ I say "uncomfortable" because I have no clue about what [if anything] their parents/guardians are saying/teaching at home ~ depending on the kidlet age, I keep it very basic and technical ~

I've also related how I came close to losing it with a 6th grade boy a few years ago ~ he was part of a group I was tutoring ~ there was a very well-developed girl in the group that he kept touching ~ not necessarily in a sexual way, but she kept saying "don't touch me" and he kept ignoring her ~ I told him to listen to and respect what she was saying ~ I said "no means no" ... ALWAYS ~ he didn't want to hear that and told me his dad told him that girls always say no but always mean yes ~ that's where I almost lost it ~ I told him his dad was 100% wrong ~ he didn't want to hear that either ~ ~ but the whole group ended up having what I believe was a beneficial conversation ~

Sooz

I just see this (at the HS/college) as almost impossible. Raging hormones in males generally override their brain. To think that it will make them think about it is lofty, but imo a little naïve. I'm not saying it's a bad law, but I think the expectations exceed the reality. Time will tell.

It doesn't change the mechanics of the muddiness of impaired people engaging in sex. All it changes is the burden of proof to have it taken seriously. If someone who was impaired wants to pursue it and allege they did not consent, not saying YES is now the proof as opposed to not saying no. This just makes it much easier when the victim can stand on "I didn't say yes" and not be subjected to "did you say no, did you fight, struggle scream call for help , did you get in his car, did you join him for a drink, did you kiss, did you go a private location" and on and on. If you were impaired and you did not feel that you had been violated or you believed that you wanted to consent, you would not be bringing charges.

First use of such a law will trigger a constitutional challenge, IMO.

So, instead the victim will be subject to: Did you wink at him? Did you moan with pleasure when he touched you? Did you smile at him? I don't see the difference since "Non-verbal consent" can be construed as the above actions and is part of the law. There does not have to be a verbal "yes" when actions are included as being consent. That is where I am having a problem. I will try to find the exact wording if I can.

Just get both parties to sign a consent form and have it witnessed by a notary. That should solve the problem.

Probably have to ply the notary with drinks first.

I was only half joking. The whole impetus of this seems to be to turn sexual activity into a contractural arrangement. I don't really think that's the intention, but its the consequence.

And, of course the whole "yes"/"no" approach doesn't really solve the legal issue of "she says vs he says".

You're right about not "solv[ing] the legal issue of 'she says vs he says'", CM ~ but it's a starting point to try to lower the incidents of sexual assault on college campuses, which is at an epidemic high, especially at schools that have popular sports programs and jocks are involved ~

Sooz

What a glorious opportunity for false accusations.

I can understand that sooz. But is it likely to be effective? Just? What might it do to the very human interpersonal relationships that are part of sexuality generally?

I've been married for 12 years now. I have never asked my wife if she wanted to have sex or not, and she's never asked me. We use non-verbal signals to indicate desire.

By the criteria put forward here that makes both of us multiple rapists. Ridiculous? Yes, but then the law is an ass.

And Oskar's point is also an important one. What about the possibility of false accusations and, of course, does it work both ways?

I've woken up in the morning and wished I hadn't done what I did the night before as well....

It is a starting point, but poorly crafted. My honest opinion that it was something done to appear as if they are doing something. How many times have we seen that? How many times does vague legislation bite lawmakers in the butt?

You could be right oskar.

Correction from me: The "actions" that mean "yes" clause was contained in a State University of New York resolution that is trying to mimic the Cali law. I can't find the entire text of the Cali law. Here is what the SUNY resolution says and what got my dander up. Sorry for the confusion,lol. BUSY at work and trying to argue a point doesn't work well for either

.

WTF is "conditions of" supposed to mean? It gets worse and worse.

If a lwa can't be clearly articulated and understood it doesn't deserve to exist.

Are you saying that consent can't be given by actions Rose? That there has to be a clear verbal indication of consent?

But human communication is significantly non-verbal.

There's body language and then there's bawdy language.

Some of us seem to be expanding what these laws are designed to do ~ the "laws" are designed for colleges and universities to develop a set of requirements and definitions to be used when investigating sexual assault reports ~ iow, not allowing individual schools to use "discretion" in tossing aside complaints IF those complaints meet certain predefined definitions and requirements ~ and those predefined definitions and requirements are exactly what will prompt/prod/force the discussion ~

Edited to add: I'm one who deeply believes that discussion is long overdue and will benefit everyone ~

Sooz

Discussion by all means but poor legislation is likely to cause more probelms than it solves.

What I am saying is that non-verbal consent is highly subjective. What means "yes" to one person, may not mean "yes" to the other. Since the invention of language, we have a better, clearer way to communicate.

What I am saying is that non-verbal consent is highly subjective. What means "yes" to one person, may not mean "yes" to the other. Since the invention of language, we have a better, clearer way to communicate.

True enough, but spoken language is subjective as well. Even written language is, but its probably the least subjective of the lot. hence the "contract".

The thing is, people don't really interact contractually in emotional things - thankfully.

The problem is that there's always going to be a grey area in what constitutes "rape". Even saying "yes" doesn't always imply genuine acceptance.

And then there's this ~ ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Fraternity Loses Its Charter After Displaying ‘No Means Yes’ Banner At A Party
by Tara Culp-Ressler Posted on October 8, 2014 at 8:55 am

The Texas Tech chapter of the international fraternity Phi Delta Theta is being stripped of its charter following controversy over a party last month that included a banner reading “No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal.”

In September, images of the banner were posted on the sites BroBible and Total Frat Move. Those photos of the party also showed a sprinkler in the shape of female genitalia that sprayed guests with water. The incident prompted Texas Tech University to launch an investigation, and Phi Delta Theta suspended the chapter while reviewing the case.

This week, the leaders of Phi Delta Theta International Fraternity went a step further, announcing that the Texas tech chapter has been placed in escrow. The students in leadership positions have been removed, and the remaining members will be required to complete community service, as well as attend courses in sexual assault prevention and bystander intervention.

“When reviewing this reprehensible behavior, there was a clear lack of leadership that created an environment that was disrespectful to women,” the fraternity’s associate executive vice president, Sean Wagner, said in a statement. “Part of our mission within Phi Delta Theta is to educate, and the intent of the comprehensive education offered is to empower remaining members with knowledge to help fight sexual assault at Texas Tech and other college campuses.”

Two weeks ago, Phi Delta Theta announced that it would join seven other major fraternities to develop training programs for their members on the subjects of binge drinking and sexual misconduct. The newly-formed “Fraternal Health and Safety Initiative” intends to engage fraternity brothers in the effort to address the campus rape crisis, at a time when many students consider Greek life to be one of the roots of the problem.

Indeed, these type of pro-rape messages aren’t entirely uncommon. In 2008, frat brothers at Yale University chanted the exact same message — “No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal!” — sparking a federal investigation and eventually getting the chapter suspended. More recently, a fraternity at Georgia Tech was suspended after leaked emails exposed the brothers discussing “how to lure your rapebait.”

The idea that “no” can somehow mean “yes” during a sexual encounter isn’t limited to college students. One 2009 study found that some Americans, particularly people who subscribe to traditional gender norms and don’t place as much value on gender equality, believe that acquaintance rape doesn’t count as an assault even if a woman says “no.” Recently, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh sparked outrage for suggesting that men know that “no means yes if you know how to spot it.”

“No means no” has long been a famous anti-rape slogan, but sexual assault prevention activists are now seeking to take it a step further. Advocates are now turning their attention to affirmative consent, or a “yes means yes” standard, to emphasize what getting consent actually looks like. That’s recently become the statewide standard for colleges in California and New York.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/08/3577243/texas-tech-fraternity-banner/

The behavior of the Fraternity was disgusting and I'd disband it permanently. I have zero time for that kind of behavior. I also think there should be a campaign at colleges to question the manhood of any guy who promotes this kind of crap.

And if the "yes means yes" campaign is part of a social campaign to counter this kind of crap I'd be all for it.

If its taken it one step further, to make it the criteria for the determination of guilt in a charge of rape then I'd object to it for the simple reason that it would make me a serial rapist. In fact, I suspect that we would all be.