Clarifying the Definition of Consent
In todays society sex and consent are often tragically miss-represented and underreported. There is a sense of entitlement regarding sex, men and women believe that revealing clothing or seductive actions give them the right to force themselves on their partner even if their advances are denied. If the victim of such an assault reports it, which only about 55% do, the case is usually tried in such a way that the definition of consent becomes ambiguous. A new law has been instated in California to help solve this problem.
During sexual assault situations the victim often vocalizes their disinterest in sex or, after the attack has started, their desire for the attacker to stop. They are not giving consent, but their choice is being completely disregarded. Or maybe they did give consent, but in a state of inebriation that rendered them unable to make informed decisions. A new law called “Yes Means Yes” has been enacted in California to solve the problem of persecuting offenders by clarifying the definition of consent. One part of the law states that "It shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity, if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity ... due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication.”. Instead of employing the same strategy as the no means no standard, the Yes Means Yes law clarifies the definition of consent, whereas the old standard was often accused of bringing ambiguity into dsexual assault cases. Yes Means Yes requires that “Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time”. This destroys many of the loop holes that often make prosecution of offenders difficult. It will also help to disperse the need for victims to be afraid of their attacker's reaction to them refusing to give consent. The fear should be acting without consent, not the consequences of denying it. People deserve to be able to have healthy sexual relationships where their consent is not a commodity or something their partner feels entitled to but where it is created through an ongoing conversation and consensual sustained yeses.
We live in a culture where victims are not protected and too little counts as sexual assault, but Yes Means Yes will hopefully help us to transition into one where there is some semblance of equilibrium. In popular culture women are taught how not to get raped through lessons such as “wear modest clothing”, “don’t accept drinks from strangers” and “never walk home alone”. I believe that the education should not center around how the victims could avoid being assaulted, but rather around why it is wrong to assault someone. Yes Means Yes will also help with this issue by putting the offender in a position where they are responsible for proving that they had consented instead of the victim being forced to prove that they didn’t.
Yes Means Yes is not only helping to protect victims and enforce the idea of consent as a conversation, not a commodity, but it is challenging classic stereotypes on who's fault an assault is. Under the new law, the victim cannot be held accountable for how they acted or dressed, but the offender is responsible for proving that there was a verbal sustained yes. I hope that this law will influence laws and prosecution standards in other states as well as encourage conversation about sex, an increase in the percent of reported assaults and a decrease in their frequency.
During sexual assault situations the victim often vocalizes their disinterest in sex or, after the attack has started, their desire for the attacker to stop. They are not giving consent, but their choice is being completely disregarded. Or maybe they did give consent, but in a state of inebriation that rendered them unable to make informed decisions. A new law called “Yes Means Yes” has been enacted in California to solve the problem of persecuting offenders by clarifying the definition of consent. One part of the law states that "It shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity, if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity ... due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication.”. Instead of employing the same strategy as the no means no standard, the Yes Means Yes law clarifies the definition of consent, whereas the old standard was often accused of bringing ambiguity into dsexual assault cases. Yes Means Yes requires that “Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time”. This destroys many of the loop holes that often make prosecution of offenders difficult. It will also help to disperse the need for victims to be afraid of their attacker's reaction to them refusing to give consent. The fear should be acting without consent, not the consequences of denying it. People deserve to be able to have healthy sexual relationships where their consent is not a commodity or something their partner feels entitled to but where it is created through an ongoing conversation and consensual sustained yeses.
We live in a culture where victims are not protected and too little counts as sexual assault, but Yes Means Yes will hopefully help us to transition into one where there is some semblance of equilibrium. In popular culture women are taught how not to get raped through lessons such as “wear modest clothing”, “don’t accept drinks from strangers” and “never walk home alone”. I believe that the education should not center around how the victims could avoid being assaulted, but rather around why it is wrong to assault someone. Yes Means Yes will also help with this issue by putting the offender in a position where they are responsible for proving that they had consented instead of the victim being forced to prove that they didn’t.
Yes Means Yes is not only helping to protect victims and enforce the idea of consent as a conversation, not a commodity, but it is challenging classic stereotypes on who's fault an assault is. Under the new law, the victim cannot be held accountable for how they acted or dressed, but the offender is responsible for proving that there was a verbal sustained yes. I hope that this law will influence laws and prosecution standards in other states as well as encourage conversation about sex, an increase in the percent of reported assaults and a decrease in their frequency.