California Lawmakers Propose 'Affirmative Consent' to State and Federal Level
Article here. Excerpt:
'The act of sex is not illegal. But if two members of the American Law Institute have their way, it will be ā unless you follow their rules.
Law professors Stephen J. Schulhofer and Erin Murphy are trying to update the criminal code when it comes to sex offenses, believing current definitions of rape and sexual assault are antiquated. The focus of their draft is on what constitutes consent. It adopts the "yes means yes," or "affirmative consent" model that was passed in California last year.
The California law applies only to college campuses, however. Schulhofer and Murphy aim to take that definition of consent ā which says that before every escalation of a sexual encounter, clear and convincing consent must be given ā to the state or federal level. No one actually has sex this way, requesting permission and having it granted perhaps a dozen times in a single encounter.
But the theory that millions of Americans are having sex wrongly has gained currency among campus activists. This new attempt to alter the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, a highly influential document that has been adopted in whole or in part by many states' legislatures, is part of a push to bring authoritarianism into the bedroom.
... Any act of sex in which permission is not repeatedly requested and granted would put at least one of the parties, usually men, in legal jeopardy. Absent the repeated "May Iā¦?" and affirmative responses, any woman could later have her partner locked up over unexpressed mental reservations. Men could make the same accusations.
No one who opposes this legal change argues that consent is unnecessary. But the "yes means yes" standard is so stringent that it would criminalize millions of Americans overnight unless no one reports them.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
But Murphy also sees the
But Murphy also sees the other side of the equation. She was a public defender for five years and saw abuse of sex crime prosecutions including "overly harsh collateral consequences and penalties" and evidentiary rules that have "gone too far against protecting the rights of the accused."
I think. . .
. . .a good counter attack to this would be a poster and/or meme campaign that says: Keep Big Brother out of my bedroom!
No means no to affirmative consent!