(Reuters) - Californian lawmakers passed a law on Thursday requiring universities to adopt "affirmative consent" language in their definitions of consensual sex, part of a nationwide drive to curb sexual assault on U.S. campuses.
The measure, passed unanimously by the California State Senate, has been called the "yes-means-yes" bill. It defines sexual consent between people as "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity".
The bill states that silence and a lack of resistance do not signify consent and that drugs or alcohol do not excuse unwanted sexual activity.
Governor Jerry Brown must sign the bill into law by the end of September. If he does, it would mark the first time a U.S. state requires such language to be a central tenet of school sexual assault policies, said Claire Conlon, a spokeswoman for State Senator Kevin De Leon, who championed the legislation.
Opponents of the bill say it is politically over-reaching and could push universities into little charted legal waters.
The bill comes amid mounting pressure nationwide by lawmakers, activists and students on universities and colleges to curb sexual assaults on campuses and to reform investigations after allegations are made.
The White House has declared sex crimes to be "epidemic" on U.S. college campuses, with one in five students falling victim to sex assault during their college years.
Universities in California and beyond have already taken steps, including seeking to delineate whether consent has been given beyond 'no means no'.
Harvard University said last month it had created an office to investigate all claims of sexual harassment or sex assault, and that it would lower its evidentiary standard of proof in weighing the cases.
Under California's bill, state-funded colleges and universities must adopt strict policies regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking, among other actions in order to receive financial aid money.
No college or university voiced opposition to the bill, Conlon said.
The U.S. Department of Education in May released a list of 55 colleges -- including three in California -- under investigation to determine whether their handling of sex assaults and harassment violated federal laws put in place to ensure equal treatment in higher education.
The Californian institutions on the list are University of California, Berkeley, Occidental College and the University of Southern California.
Source
This bitch cleared the Legislature. That sucks. The only thing to do now is to contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to veto SB 967. It is our only shot or a lot of young men are going to get fucked in a way they don't like. If we fail watch the carnage roll.
10 comments:
I'm having trouble seeing what is actually wrong with this. It means that consent must be given and aims to stop people being drugged or raped while they're unconscious. This will protect men as well as women.
Actually it will hurt men not help them. SB 967 will destroy the rights of men. It even allows a 3rd party complainant. What if the 3rd party complainant is lying? What if the 3rd party complainant is a feminist who hates men so she throw one to the sharks just for laughs?
Here is a forum that discusses false accusations.
So, you aren't against having a sex-positive, yes-means-yes law? You're against the specifics of its enforcement?
So, the idea that consent should be given, instead of just not being refused, is not the problem right? Because I can't see how that could be bad.
Are you a man or a woman?
Sex positive? This legislation was crafted by sex negative feminists aka social justice warriors to expel as many men from college and university campuses statewide. The California taxpayer is going to be picking up the tab for the lawsuits these wronged men will file and then let's see if they are so in love with Governor Jerry Brown then.
I like how you totally ignored my question.
It shouldn't matter if I am a man or a woman. Though the fact that it does proves that the point a person makes doesn't matter to you if they are a woman.
What is wrong with having a yes-means-yes policy instead of a no-means-no policy? It should be good for everyone and reduce cases of rapists going free because they had sex with someone who was drugged or unconscious.
Do you think there is something wrong with this in itself?
It's a simple question. Answer it.
Answer my question. You act real tough yet you hide behind "anonymous". It is a simple question: are you a man or a woman? The reason I ask is for the sake of the conversation.
You aren't answering mine.
Anyway, don't worry about it. I won't be back.
Post a Comment