'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:

[aquila48]

This is incredibly ironic - the feminazis who were all for sexual liberation are now making casual sex as verboten as any good Christian could hope for.

I smell schadenfreud in the air.

[a fool in paradise]

On the planned parenthood tapes where they encourage kids to read 50 shades of sodom, they are told about safe words because “sometimes no doesn’t REALLY mean no”.

Planned Parenthood is pro-rape.

[Theophilus]

Long time no see.

[Slings and Arrows]

Funny you should mention that.

This law only applies to an encounter between a male college student and a female college student.

The law DOES NOT APPLY in the following situations:
Either is not a college student.
Both are the same sex.

OK, this "law" is now officially a John Semmens satire, and don't you dare puncture my denial.

[Slings and Arrows]

George Orwell explained it all.

[RichInOC]

Unfortunately, this does not apply to the state government’s interactions with us.

[Lazamataz]

California has accidentally made it so all casual sex is impossible, and that the only viable solution is it wait until marriage.

LOL LOL LOL AHAAHHAHHHAHHAHHHAHAHHHAHHAHHHAHHHAHHAHH

[Tax-chick]

Wow, correct apostrophes!

[equaviator]

Not to mention Social Security numbers...

[equaviator]

Ain’t that a shame.

[BobL]

Who would have thought that, of all states, CALIFORNIA would be the first to revert to VICTORIAN STANDARDS by virtually outlawing sex among unmarried young adults.

Even the MORAL MAJORITY never tried to go this far.

(this is how you have fun with liberals)

[TwelveOfTwenty]

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

Equal Protection Act, he could counter sue.

[Drango]

if it’s two gay guys...who is guilty?

[N. Theknow]

Why do bananas need condoms anyway?

Because they come in bunches?

[Tax-chick]

The writer is going ballistic over a proposed law, not a law that has been passed and signed. However, his prognosis should it become law:

I predict that thousands of young men's lives are going to be ruined by this idiotic law. Every sexual encounter will be a crap shoot for the man.

... gives the impression that he doesn't believe the potential consequences will cause the affected parties to change their behavior. It will be interesting, if the law passes, to see whether he's right or wrong.

[The Working Man]

What a strange world we live in.

California the state where ‘free love’ and ‘if it feels good - do it’ came from to this. It’s a interesting thing to watch from a distance and I for one am so glad that none of my children are in college anymore.

[rlmorel]

I forget. Is it:

Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t Stop! Don’t Stop!

or is it:

Don’t Stop! Don’t Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop!

[rlmorel]

That is the silhouette of a pencil-neck-geek if I ever saw one!

[rlmorel]

Brilliant!

[TwelveOfTwenty]

According to the Bible, both of them.