Laws Don't Change Morals

The California Legislature recently approved a bill that would require colleges receiving state-financed student aid to change the definition of consent in their sexual assault policies, replacing “no means no” with “affirmative consent,” or as commonly phrased “yes means yes.” California was the first state in the country to take it to the point that any college without a consent policy will lose state financial aid.

Colleges outside of California have incorporated similar consent policies into student orientations which they report are leading to grumbling about risking "hot hookups" turning into an awkward series of requests. But, nevertheless some administrators are insisting that they see signs that their consent strategy is working. Supporters of affirmative consent say its greatest strengths may lie in a simple change of attitude and growth in report rate.

 Since a university adopted an affirmative consent policy last year they stated, “we are seeing a big pickup  in the number of students who are reporting sexual assault and relationship violence,” said Jane Bost, associate director of the university’s counseling and mental health center. So is this new policy actually working? So far, I'm not convinced of it. John D. Foubert, president of One in Four, said that without rigorous research, no one can be sure.  It will be a few years before we can actually determine if this new policy is successful.

Melissa Tumas, a sexual assault specialist at the University of Washington, which does not have an affirmative consent policy, said: “A perpetrator is ignoring consent. Will a definition deter perpetrators? I’m not sure, unless it helps shore up community support that this isn’t OK.” Tumas pointed out an obvious point that we were all thinking. Perpetrators are sick in the head; can we really believe that some affirmative consent policy is going to make them stop and change their ways? One would need to be delusional to even hope that's a possibility.

Another point to address, could this policy do more harm than good? Some believe that the bill could have dangerously expanded the definition of assault. Therefore making it easier for so said victims to charge their supposed perpetrators. Some would ask, who would ever accuse their partner with rape? But it is getting more and more common. I had a very close friend of mine do that very thing. She was a virgin, vigorously pursuing an older guy who she knew was mostly only physically interested in her, then under the influence of alcohol, lost her virginity to him, and the very next morning, overwhelmed with guilt and shame, called the police and charged him with statutory rape.. All of her friends, including myself, knew it wasn't rape and was consensual, but in the eyes of the law, she was underage, under the influence and therefore a victim. The boy, only 19, was sent to jail for two years and will forever carry that charge on his record, and will therefore effect the rest of his life.

Let's look at the bill again. It now defines consent more simply as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.” (It need not be spoken) 
In all honesty, that's useless! What is the huge change being made here? How can you prove there was or wasn't consent if it doesn't even need to be spoken? You can't! Unfortunately, I don't believe there is a bill out there that can make sexual assault a black or white charge for the courts. What's needs to be done is addressing the real problem here! The morals! Quite frankly it should be clear that any sexual action without consent from both participants is illegal and wrong. And for many that may be clear but what needs to be more heavily addressed is the fact that this doesn't change if one participant is under the influence. If someone is too drunk to say no or yes, then obviously that participant is far to gone to make a decision at all! That is taking advantage of someone, no matter what the circumstances are. No bill can teach people that, it's a moral lesson that each individual must learn for him or herself.