'Yes means yes' standard for sexual encounters in California schools

The American Thinker ^ | August 29, 2014 | Rick Moran

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Boy, am I glad I'm not in college anymore

California has become the first state to adopt a "yes means yes" standard for sexual encounters. The law "would require 'affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement' by each party to engage in sexual activity."

And not just at the outset of the tryst, as this article in the Washington Post explains:

[ClearCase_guy]

I’m still stuck on “is” — what is the meaning of “is”?

[doc1019]

And someone under the influence of the various date rape drugs will be willing to go along with this?

[wastedyears]

Maybe they should call it “No Means No” instead.

[boycott]

I am sure the left has no issues if it’s two lesbians or homosexuals.

[Fungi]

Leave it up the the California RATS to destroy everything, everything, even a wham bang thank you ma'am—something the rats have participated in all along. The road to criminalizing everything, i.e. total control. George Orwell, where are you?

[Ouchthatonehurt]

I was taught that everything means No!
Worked well.

[bubbacluck]

There are towns in the central valley that have no water. Why does our legislature feel this nanny state law is important? This is getting even more embarrassing.

[JoeDetweiler]

One good thing....”consent” is meaningless unless it is “informed consent.” In other words, you have to know what you are consenting to. And you can not consent to sex with a transgender person unless you know that they are transgender.

So now, transgenders are finally going to be required to identify themselves as such, otherwise any sex they engage in, even with other transgenders, will be sexual assault.

Or so it seems to me....and I think lawyers will be able to make a pretty good case here. In fact, I suspect that opposition from the alphabet-people is what will kill this new law.

[Noob1999]

Oh, oh, you gorgeous beauty.! Whew!

Just a second, please place your thumbprint on the yes side of this condom package, and we’ll be able to continue, you beautiful buxom beauty!

[doug from upland]

Here is the icebreaker. Walk up to a girl in a bar or actually anywhere and say you are required to give this to her by law.

[Drango]

Mutual, semi-drunk, sex is going to turn into regret the next morning...and the guy is gonna take the fall.

[stocksthatgoup]

Get in writing!

[gaijin]

even if the circumstances are perfect few females wish to be asked this question point blank.

This new strange measure seems designed to make intimacy more difficult for heterosexuals.

This new strange measure will make university campi yet more anti-male.

[BBell]

Here is the next step.

consentual sex

[morphing libertarian]

Keep your attorney on retainer so you can have them review the form before you consummate the agreement.

[Darksheare]

Consent revoked at any time...
...four days later and feeling remorseful over being an idiot, possibly after being mocked by an acquaintance who found out.
“Oh, you did what with that guy?!” followed by catty commentary etc.

Also likely to become more prevalent: bogus charges because they got caught.
Overheard this while visiting someone in a jail:
Girl: “But, I love you baby!”
Guy: “What is wrong with you?! You claimed I raped you! And now YOU come here to visit me?! Guards! Get her outta here or get me outta here, I don’t care!”
Girl, screaming: “but I love you!”