This bill is directed at the sort of date rape/ acquaintance rape situations that occur among college students, and it attempts to reduce instances of those by clarifying consent so that only "Yes means years".
Wherever did you get the idiotic idea it was intended to apply to couples who've been married for decades, like you and your wife? Does everything have to be about you
If it is true that men are the ones pursuing sex most of the time, and I think it is, then it will be the men who are hung out to dry most of the time if the sex does not meet the governments standards of consent, even before we consider the bias in the law against the one that is sticking something into a hole.
Men commit most burglaries as well, that doesn't mean that laws that criminalize the taking of property, without consent, are designed to "hang men out to dry". And regardless of Max's inability to recognize it, consent is definitely a component to distinguish between the lawful and unlawful taking of property, just as consent distinguishes lawful from unlawful sexual contact. Consent isn't unique to sexual assault law.
And you vehemently opposed those changes in the law, that updated definitions like the federal definition of rape, so it wasn't an act that only involved non-consensual penetration of a vagina by a penis, or "carnal knowledge of a female by a male"---you wanted the onus to remain only on the one with the penis, and only in a situation involving the "missionary position"--hardly the view of a self-defined "sexual radical".
You didn't care that the old federal definition of rape didn't consider unwanted sexual penetrative assaults by men on men, or woman on women, or women on men, involving objects, as real "rapes", or that unwanted penile penetrations of a man's mouth or anus by another man, was also a quite real rape--and that both genders deserved and required the protections of law to help prevent such serious sexual assaults. You weren't at all concerned about making sure that men were better protected from sexual assaults, let alone making sure that federal statistics recorded and reflected such assaults against men so they would receive a better allotment of victim services and funds, to address their particular needs.
Needless to say, any criminal sexual assault, or any criminal act of any kind, would already constitute a violation of the student code of conduct on California's campuses, and nothing about the new bill changes that. The only change, specific to students, and the code of conduct, is that sexual contact between students must be mutually agreed upon--consent is not inferred by silence, passivity, or lack of protest or resistance--it must be expressed and communicated in an affirmative manner. Whoever disregards that, regardless of gender, may well find themselves named in a sexual misconduct complaint--and deservedly so.