'Yes Means Yes' is the Law for Sex on New York College Campuses

But is this adequate? Isn’t it time to go back to college regulations of 50+ years ago where college dormitories were single sex and sneaking into an opposite sex dormitory could get you expelled? This would cut down on the opportunities for sexual assault.

Thanks progressives for telling us that we’re having sex incorrectly! If this is such a good idea, why not implement it for all of New York state? How about we start with degenerate politicians and their mistresses first?

One would think, if our high courts had any shred of legal integrity, that laws like this would be struck down on the same imaginary “right to privacy” that got sodomy and abortion legalized. But alas, that will not be so, because courts are purely political institutions that pretend to actually interpret the law.

Laws like this are plainly meant to punish men (who are culturally predisposed to take agency during sex) and are based on fallacious and fraudulent rape statistics. College campuses are extremely safe and, despite feminists’ hysterical claims, do not have rates of rape that surpass lawless African war zones that have lacked functioning government for decades. If college was actually as bad as claimed, no one would attend.

Sodomy? Are we perhaps referring to gays?

Sure. They need all the abortions.

Sodomy has traditionally been used in statutes to mean anal sex.

I am asking what he is referring to.

Sure. Gay sex, to be clear.

But(just to be clear) you have no problem with a manly man having anal sex with a woman?

Practically speaking, though, isn’t this still going to boil down in court to “he said, she said?” Just like a “No Means No” law?

Not if you video.

No, sexual deviancy is not conducive to the long term health of a society, and we should work to promote healthy and reasonable sexuality. But the Texas law in Lawrence v. Texas didn’t seem to prohibit anal sex between heterosexual partners, at least in my quick reading of it.

Thank you for clarifying that you are using “sodomy” as a euphemism for gay relationships.

Back to the topic-Is there a direct link to the law itself?

Somebody should come up with a written form:

I, ________________________, do, on this ___ Day of _________, 20, give ______________________ permission to:

A. Hold hand Lightly/Firmly (circle one) with his/her hand
B. Use lips to contact the follwing parts of my body:


C -----

If nothing else, they will (hopefully) become historical memorabilia to document the idiocy of the current “Rape Culture” hysteria.
Sadly, they will probably be quickly required by law.

The ultimate in headboard notching…

Chapelle Show had that as a sketch like ten years ago. The Sexual Contract thing.

So, some sort of helmet-cam?

I’ll get my coat.

All this hand-wringing about overly formalizing college intimacy is nothing new. It was going on years and years ago.

IIRC, Johnny Carson had something like this on The Tonight Show much longer ago than that – 25 years maybe? Some college (Ohio State I think?) had published some formal “guidelines” on the whole process of “making out”, requiring that the participating party of the male part must ask the participating party of the female part for explicit permission at each and every step of the process.

Someone sent Carson a copy of that. He brought it onto his show, starting his monologue with remarks to the effect: “I’ve just fired my entire joke-writing staff. With Ohio State to write my material for me, who needs them?” He then proceeded to read the guidelines.

Anybody else but me remember that?

ETA: OMG!!!1!!1 Construct used the words “feminist” and “hysteria” in one sentence! In consecutive words even! Give him a break – he’s rather new here. He doesn’t yet know what a massive shit-storm we had here last time that happened!

What about a wife using a strap-on dildo to anally penetrate her (straight) husband?

Some legal expert can probably clarify here, but isn’t this a guilty-until-proven-innocent system? Doesn’t it put the burden on the accused to prove that a crime did *not *happen, rather than on the prosecution to prove that a crime *did *happen? Is this Constitutional?

You sickos with your sic, sick, sicko imaginations are gonna be number 1 on the list!!

(Sorry, let’s tone that down a bit, shall we?)

If he likes being penetrated anally, he ain’t straight!

(A trifle more, please.)

What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no concern of mine.

(See, that wasn’t hard was it?)

Speaking of something not being hard…

(Don’t push it.)

Won’t work. Consent can be withdrawn–it’s kinda the most important part of affirmative consent.

And, no, affirmative consent isn’t inherently this bad. It’s really just supposed to mean that “she didn’t say no” is not a valid defense. It doesn’t mean you have to prove she said yes. It’s really less of a legal thing and more of a conceptual change. Stop thinking about “being okay with sex” as the default.