The Feminist Thread

[littlemonkey613]

A while back there was a conversation in other thread about Affirmative Consent and the "Yes means Yes" bill that passed in California and I had promised to give my take on it since I have done a lot of activism on this issue and continue to do so, but I totally forgot and never did!

Anyways just about every critique I have read or heard about this approach is either on the lower end of the spectrum complete rape culture trash, and on the more humane intelligent side just simply misunderstand how things are usually handled now and what has definitively changed when something like this is put into place.

The primary goal of this approach is to shift focus primarily to the alleged crime itself, which should seem like a no brainer but when it comes to rape and sexual assault this usually just isn't so when it comes to law enforcement and especially judicial committees on college campuses. Part of of the reason that batshit points of question like what the victim was wearing, why they would "put themselves in danger", whether they gave the wrong idea or not etc. are so prevalent is because the actual alleged crime aka engaging with sexual acts without receiving definitive consent is not the focus as it should be. The language in the affirmative consent bill was thankfully created by people who are very knowledgable about this issue and what is at stake. Furthermore, they were especially careful to avoid the bullshit that some people think the law requires like constant verbal confirmation and what not.

For example the word affirmative was chosen because the most commonly understood definition of the word is that affirmations are verbal but that is not the only definition of the word. There are many ways to show affirmation. Within the context of the bill, unlike within most rape and assault investigations, those in charge are now required to focus (or at least ask, which is sadly a huge step) on why the alleged attacker thought they had consent. Again it seems like a no brainer but I think it if truly was this approach would not even be controversial.

Does it not make complete and utter sense that when someone is accused specifically of doing something without the accusers consent that the accused should have to answer to what consent they received or why they thought they received it? Think of it this way. If I was accused of trespassing on someone's property and it was conceded that I was on the property but I claimed I had an invitation, should the focus not be what form that invitation took and why I thought it was valid? I hate to compare these kinds of crimes to property crimes but sadly I am sort of forced into that position when it comes to defending this.

Of course it does not get rid of the inherent problem of that people could still simply lie, or say a sexual encounter never even took place, but these are the problems that should exist within any even semi just system. I simply cannot take people who are more concerned with the after math of affirmative consent rather than what is the norm presently very seriously. Like really? This rhetoric causes outrage over the horror of reality of what already takes place when all it does is force the issue of consent to be the center of an investigation specifically about the violation of consent? No longer can the accused use the excuse that they are "not a mind reader" or that they were unsure whether the person was down. Rather it would act as almost as a confession if these things were expressed. As it should be. There should be nothing controversial about the law stating more specifically that you are required to know the person you are having sex with wants to have sex with you.

I hope this was helpful and I can go way more in depth about this if anyone has any questions or still is concerned about the rhetoric and function within these kinds of bills.

Over all it doesn't fix much b/c schools can still decide to not honor their own policies as they do generally with sexual assault cases, but it was a very important step b/c it inches society closer to a necessary paradigm shift long overdue and it was the state's way of declaring that they have noticed there are vulnerable populations experiencing normalized violence on college campuses and that they care and want it to change.