Times are changing as quickly as summer’s descent into fall. A “Utah Man” is now a “Utah Fan,” and co-eds at the U are apparently no longer the “fairest,” having been relegated to being part of a “fine” student base. For California college students, the concept of practicing safe sex is rapidly evolving from only using a condom to also making sure that yes means yes when it comes to intercourse. California state lawmakers have approved a bill, known as SB 967, that requires all state college and universities to adhere to a practice that requires affirmative consent before having sex. The winds of change are blowing, and students at the U may soon have to learn to accept this evolved idea of what defines consensual sex, regardless of how unfair it may seem.
The proposed SB 967, which still needs to be approved by California Gov. Jerry Brown, will require that state college and universities receiving state financial aid redefine how they view consensual sex. The proposed bill is different from the previous standard which required that if a person did not want to engage in sex they had to say “no” at some point. Under this proposed new bill, consent would require “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” before engaging in sex. The bill further clarifies this, saying a “lack of resistance or silence cannot be interpreted as a yes.”
The new law is aimed to protect potential rape victims, as the current standard of “just saying no” has largely proved to be ineffective. In many circumstances, victims of sexual assault have run into brick walls when trying to convince campus judicial boards that rape occurred because they are compelled to show that they physically resisted or said no before or during intercourse. Another issue is the idea that the sex was consensual because the victim may have been in a relationship with the accused. SB 967 helps to assuage these concerns by requiring that affirmative consent must be attained before engaging in sex, regardless of whether or not a couple is in a relationship. Consent can never be assumed.
This new law will dramatically change how college students, specifically men, practice safe, consensual sex. The burden of complying with this new law falls largely on men, as in most cases females are victimized. Critics of this bill claim that, much like “no means no,” “yes mean yes” is difficult to prove and still leads to the age-old debate of “he said, she said.” Having to gain consent during the various stages of the sexual process is awkward and difficult to prove if contested. Short of recording sexual activity, it becomes very difficult to prove consent in this way.
While I don’t nessecarily advocate the idea of recording sex tapes or signing a pre-intercourse agreement, the heart of this bill is to encourage college students, specifically males, to engage in practicing this new idea of safe sex that goes beyond the use of a condom or a nonverbal feeling that the other person is consenting to sex. It may not seem fair or even ethical for the government to take such a heavy-handed interest in the sex lives of college students, but the bigger picture with SB 967 is to protect potential victims of rape by preventing it in the first place. To attain this goal, the bill is placing the burden on, for the most part, college males to be actively engaged in making sure they receive verbal consent from their potential partners before and during sexual intercourse.
Although this proposed bill will currently only affect California colleges, the winds of social change generally blow from west to east, and U students should be aware and prepared for the fact that “no means no” may at some point be replaced with “yes means yes.” A Utah man should take the necessary steps to redefine what his idea of practicing safe sex is before chasing down some of the U’s finest and fairest co-eds. The days of having carefree sex with only a condom for protection may be just about over. When it comes to practicing safe sex, if a yes isn’t a “yes,” then it most certainly is a no.
[email protected]