@ossobuco,
People can use "No" in addition to "Yes" with this new bill. That's why it makes clear that consent for one type of contact doesn't imply consent for another type.
One positive aspect of this bill is that it encourages discussion and communication between partners about sexual preferences, and that's important, particularly between people who don't know each other well and might be together for the first time. The colleges are also helping students learn how to communicate about sex, how to handle certain sexual situations, how to be attentive to a partner's feedback, how to set and communicate boundaries etc. All of that is an important aspect of making sure that what transpires is truly consensual for both parties, and truly wanted by both parties.
There are already a number of colleges and universities already using the "Yes means yes" standard for consent, and I think I read that, even in California, that has been the standard in the California State and U. of California network since last January. The only difference with this bill is that it makes it statewide for all colleges and universities.
I've searched, and I can't find evidence of significant problems at those schools who have been using the "Yes means yes" standard, or significant negative student reaction at those schools about the policy. Maybe, in time, these will surface, but most students don't seem to perceive this as any sort of radical change because they already view "consent" to mean that the various types of physical contacts engaged in should all be
wanted, and "Yes means yes" helps to promote that.
Some of the fear and trembling, and vehement opposition, about this new bill, that's expressed in this thread, reminds me of what went on when spousal rape became recognized as just as real a crime of sexual assault as any other--prior to the mid-1970s marital rape was exempted from ordinary rape laws. All kinds of dire predictions of abuse of men were forecast when these laws were passed--they would be falsely accused, unjustly imprisoned, at the mercy of vindictive wives, the institution of marriage would be destroyed, blah, blah. Meanwhile, marital rape is now a crime in all 50 states, affording better legal protection from sexual assault by spouses, and the laws didn't significantly affect marital relations, or result in the abuse of men, for the overwhelming majority of people. More importantly, the entire issue sent a clear message that a wife's body is not the sexual property of her husband, to use as he wishes, without her
consent.
I think we have to take a wait and see attitude with these "yes means yes" policies for students. They are being implemented to clarify issues and correct problems with the "No means no" standard which has been the norm--and remains the state law--and "No means no" still remains in effect. Obviously, when someone says "No" you don't have affirmative consent, you don't have any consent. But, sometimes an unwanted type of contact is made before the "No" can even be uttered. The advantage of requiring affirmative consent beforehand is that it encourages boundary setting, and communication, and agreement, before that unwanted sexual contact happens--it attempts to
prevent sexual assaults between students.
Change can make people nervous, but I think college students will have little or no problems adapting to the change in policy, because, for most of them, sex is already a collaboration, and an activity they want to be mutually enjoyable for their partner as well as themselves. The notion of wanting an affirmative response, of some kind, is already part of their thinking and it's how they convey their regard for any partners.
The kind of student who ignores a partner's "No" and commits a sexual assault isn't likely to be very affected by this policy either--they'll disregard the need for affirmation as well, they disregard any requirement for consent, and that's the kind of sexual predator who commits the most sexual assaults on campus because they repeat that pattern. But this new bill again makes it clear that it is illegal--and not just a violation of school policy--to have sexual contact with someone who is asleep, unconscious, intoxicated, incapacitated, or unable to resist or communicate, and those are the types of victims many predators actively seek. But, since someone in those conditions can clearly not give affirmative consent, the defense, "It was consensual. He/she never said 'no' or resisted'" just won't fly, and they may well find themselves more easily held accountable for their sexual assaults.
One thing I feel is very positive about this bill is that it promotes an attitude of respect for all sexual partners, and I think that's an important value for a school to reinforce in their students.
