Yes means what?!

I don’t like to talk about rape and sexual assault. It’s mostly because I feel I’ve never been given a good answer about what defines rape and sexual assault, and because I feel the law fails both men and women in this regard. All of the news I hear is about legislation, but I don’t understand why that seems to be the biggest issue. Perhaps if we spent less time discussing how to punish rapists, and more time discussing better ways to prevent rape from happening, we’d make a little more progress.

But that’s the issue I take with so many battles on the topic of sexuality. In my opinion, it’s better to address an issue at its source. Is it good that more offenders are being properly prosecuted for their crimes? Absolutely. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that fewer victims are being raped. The rapist is in jail—great! That doesn’t mean they didn’t rape someone. I find it hard to believe that stricter legislation is going to prevent any rape at all. I don’t think rapists will think twice about raping someone just because new laws have been passed. No rapist has ever thought, “I want to rape that person! Although, I just read that article on my Facebook newsfeed. Maybe I should reconsider.” These laws, after all, do not change the punishment. They simply redefine the crime.

California’s SB 967, or the “Yes Means Yes” law, was signed into action on September 28. Frankly, I think this law is unrealistic. That’s not to say I think it’s bad, but I think it’s incomplete, and I find it difficult to comprehend that with all the brilliant academics who study rape culture on college campuses, our politicians seem to act according to what they think “sounds pretty good.”

This law fails people. This law fails both the men and women on our college campuses, because rape has no yes or no answer. The law essentially says that unless both parties, not under the influence of alcohol or drugs, give verbal consent, then any sexual acts are considered sexual assault or rape. What about those victims who give several “No’s” and then a yes? What about those victims who feel obligated to say yes because they’re so pressured by society and their peers?

Societal expectations

There's an unfortunate societal expectation of how students should behave sexually on college campuses. Hollywood and popular media proliferate the idea that college should be a constant bombardment of sexual stimulation. Social interaction facilitates an environment where the sexual motives of men and women are clouded by their own expectations of how sex is negotiated in movies, such as "Van Wilder" and "American Pie." We've created a culture where victims are forced into difficult, non-negotiable situations, and perpetrators operate under the assumption that this is acceptable behavior.

Asking for Consent

Wouldn't it be lovely if we lived in a world where people asked well-thought-out yes or no questions every time they made a move during intimacy? Well, yes and no. Consent is very important, but most would agree that this expectation is unrealistic, and also extremely un-sexy. A recent video by Ultraviolet illustrates this point by mocking retro pornography with situations in which both parties ask sincerely for consent before engaging in sexual activities.

But an issue arises when what was actually a rape or assault is perceived as morning after regrets. That’s the fault in this bill. It is entirely possible that there will be cases in which a perpetrator claims to have taken reasonable steps, and claims that any effort on the part of the victim to deny consent came after the act was completed. Let’s suppose a college boy meets a college girl at a party. He asks her to dance—Yes. He asks to kiss her—Yes. He asks to walk her home, making his intentions to sleep with her clear—Yes. He asks to remove her clothes—Yes. He asks her if it’s alright for him to have sex with her using a condom—Yes. He asks her if it’s okay to try a different position—Yes. He attempts to engage in anal sex with her—No. He continues anyway. It might sound implausible, but it’s not unrealistic.

This is a consent violation where the victim provided several “Yes”’ before the perpetrator crossed a boundary, and sadly, these are the kinds of cases where the perpetrator is often not convicted. These are consent issues that are quite prevalent on college campuses, so why does a law that applies exclusively to college campuses not adequately address them? Additionally, why does not adopting this law punish the students? The basis of the law is that if California’s public institutions wish to receive government funding for student financial assistance, they must adhere to these principles. But these principles aren’t necessarily correct. They’re essentially saying, “Try out this law we created that doesn’t adequately defend your students from rape, and if you don’t then they won’t get financial aid.”

We need to rethink the way we address rape and sexual assault on college campuses. We should be working with our educators and our students to help them facilitate an environment in which proper sexual education and sexual freedom and rights are made available to everyone, so that we can start preventing rape, instead of trying to figure out the best way to punish it.

Max Tabet is a Trinity junior and vice president of the Alternative Sexualities Club. His column runs every other Friday.