California debates 'yes means yes' sex assault law


California legislates morality…

SAN DIEGO (AP) — College students have heard a similar refrain for years in campaigns to stop sexual assault: No means no.

Now, as universities around the country that are facing pressure over the handling of rape allegations adopt policies to define consensual sex, California is poised to take it a step further. Lawmakers are considering what would be the first-in-the-nation measure requiring all colleges that receive public funds to set a standard for when “yes means yes.”

Defining consensual sex is a growing trend by universities in an effort to do more to protect victims. From the University of California system to Yale, schools have been adopting standards to distinguish when consent was given for a sexual activity and when it was not…


My take: in addition to the potential of contracting any of numerous STIs that are rampant among the populace, casual sex could carry the further effect of a lifelong, public (thanks to Megan’s Law) criminal record.

Perhaps after a few “examples” of this law in action, a number of people will determine that nonmarital sex just isn’t worth it.


Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it’s also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep.

So if one or both of the parties is drunk or high then the act becomes rape? If both people are drunk or high then who is raping whom? It seems absolutely ridiculous to take a drunken hookup where consent is given and then try to reclassify that as rape. Are people not free to decide they want to drink, do drugs, and then have sex? Not that I would recommend it, of course, but it simply isn’t anyone’s business to try and nanny adults. The legal definition of rape is fine the way it is.


“A jug of wine, a loaf of bread, consent forms in triplicate, a notary, and thou…”


Rape and fornication are both mortal sins, correct? If the state decides to reclassify certain forms of fornication as rape, it doesn’t make the Catholic message more difficult to get out.

Some might even be more receptive to the message that sex is very good within marriage.


The article says that it would be college tribunals redefining rape and guilt and not criminal courts. That would mean only needing a preponderance of evidence for a guilty finding and redefining drunken flings as rape. I suppose as long as the only punishment that can be handed out is expulsion or suspension, not jail time, it seems fair to hold men to a higher standard. It is hard to feel any sympathy for them I suppose.

Good luck getting college men to be more careful about alcohol and sex though. It isn’t as if any of these flings are well thought out to begin with.


Ah add gasoline to a fire, that always ends well…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit