It’s likely that every father who has ever sent his daughter off to begin her college career worries about her safety — and with good reason.
—
The issue focusses on the question of consent.
|
A recent study of college campuses it was found that as many as a quarter of women and girls have experienced sexual assault since beginning their college career, despite the fact that colleges and universities have made numerous attempts to stem this problem. Apart from the emotional trauma of sexual assault, this crime can also put women and girls at the risk for sexually transmitted diseases like HIV or AIDS.
For at least the last two decades, the slogan “no means no” has been used to on college campuses to educate male and female students about sexual consent. Beginning last year, however, California and New York signed bills into law that focus in on “affirmative consent”, also known as “yes means yes” laws.
Proponents say that this law will shift the burden of proof from the victim to the perpetrator and has helped to change the dialogue about this serious social problem. The new laws are not without their critics, however.
California and New York Lead the Way in Affirmative Consent
In 2015, California and New York became the first states in the nation to sign affirmative consent laws into existence, and the slogan “yes means yes” began to replace the decades’ old mantra of “no means no” when it came to the conversation about on-campus rapes. What does this mean? The issue focusses on the question of consent. In the past, it had to be proven that a victim resisted or explicitly said “no” to a sexual encounter in order to prove that the contact with unlawful or that they were unable to give consent at the time due to other factors like alcohol or drugs.
“Sexual violence historically plays in the gray areas of the law. What we want to create is a standard of behavior, a paradigm shift as much as a legal shift. We’re no longer talking about the old principle of victims being blamed for their behavior.”
|
Under the new affirmative consent laws, however, this is not enough. Now, in order for sexual contact to be ok, a partner must actually and explicitly say “yes” to the sexual activity. Without this explicit “yes” or if a person is incapacitated, there is no consent. According to Inside Higher Education (IHE) which tracks a variety of issues affecting college campuses, the California State University System and the State University System of New York were the first to adopt this, followed by every Ivy League School with the exception of Harvard and now more than 800 campuses across America have signed on to some version of this policy — and some states, like California, have also mandated that the concept of affirmative consent be taught in high school sex ed classes as well.
How Can This Help?
According to a recent article in the New York Times, advocates of affirmative consent believe that this shift in attitude and policies will help college campuses across the country to deal with the problem of on-campus sexual assault and of students who feel pressured into sex. It also is meant to shift the onus of proof from victim to attacker, which advocates hope will help to squash the “blame the victim” mentality which can deter so many girls and women from coming forward about rape.
Kevin DeLeon, a California state senator who helped to draft his state’s version of the affirmative consent law, notes that “Sexual violence historically plays in the gray areas of the law. What we want to create is a standard of behavior, a paradigm shift as much as a legal shift. We’re no longer talking about the old principle of victims being blamed for their behavior.”
…Or Will it Hurt?
Most experts agree that at least changing the conversation about sex and sexual consent might well have a positive influence on this widespread campus issue.
|
Not everyone is thrilled by these new laws, however. Cathy Young, a feminist writer commenting on affirmative consent in Time, is supportive of measures to help reduce rape on campus, but is not a fan of this particular policy. “In fact, its [the affirmative consent law] effect will be to codify vague and capricious rules governing student conduct, to shift the burden of proof to (usually male) students accused of sexual offenses and to create a disturbing precedent for government regulations of consensual sex.”
The big question here, though — and one which fathers of college-aged daughters all over America are probably wanting to know — is: will these new policies work? It is likely too soon to tell, as they have only recently been established and it will likely be years before enough research accrues to find out if it will be effective or not. However, whether they are supportive of these news laws or not, most experts agree that at least changing the conversation about sex and sexual consent might well have a positive influence on this widespread campus issue.
Its beyond about time. Burden of proof needs to shift to the perpetrator in these cases and proof of innocence, not proof of guilt, is the only way this system will work. Consent should be clear, direct, without any ambiguity in a sober, non duress, without influence, mentally stable person. Anyone under the influence of any substance, legal or not, with any mental difficulty, mild or severe, or under any form of influence or duress is incapable of giving consent. Furthermore consent can be withdrawn at any time before, during and after the event of sexual intercourse. Finally there should… Read more »
Crys, the legal system has ALWAYS depended on innocence until proven guilty. The device to achieve this is negotiable however innocence must always be assumed otherwise we are back to drowning witches and concluding “so sorry, she passed the test but died from the trial”.
After?? Seriously, that has to be the most illogical thing I have ever heard. The problem with giving the ability to remove consent after the act is done is you are automatically making the initiator guilty of a crime. You remove from them the ability to react appropriately to the removal of consent and stop the act. They become automatically guilty and there is no presumption of innocence. In addition removal of consent after the act is complete causes issues in that it removes an essential element of committing a crime, mens rea, since at the time of the act… Read more »
Anyone under the influence of any substance, legal or not, with any mental difficulty, mild or severe, or under any form of influence or duress is incapable of giving consent. That means that a man having had a beer or two and somehow seducing a sober woman, will make her guilty of rape. But I guess that’s not what you really are advocating, right? Why not cut straight to the chase and advocate for having all forms of heterosexual intercourse, no matter how it was initiated or accomplished, a punishable felony for the man involved once and for all, and… Read more »