Sexual consent is a topic we’ve all heard a lot about already. The freshmen at Pitt go to a seminar, hearing things like: Do you know your tipping point? Be aware that an inebriated person cannot give consent. Don’t fall for peer pressure and do not pressure anyone else to do something. The warnings go on. And yet, rape on college campuses is no joke. One in four women has been a victim to rape or attempted rape by the conclusion of their college years. This is outrageous. College is a time to experiment and to find yourself; but no one has the right to “experiment” or do things to another individual without that individual’s consent.
Now up until this point, in a court of law and in terms of sexual consent, the legal standing was the “no means no.” Makes sense right? But actually, this means that unless a victim explicitly says “no” or “stop,” then rape has not technically occurred. Therefore, silence means consent. And an inebriated person who lacks the will or energy to protest is also fully consenting. The entire ambiguity surrounding rape leads to a very negative rape culture where victims or often believed to be exaggerating or are altogether ignored. People believe that when girls dress provocatively they are “asking for it.” Also, there is a prevalent idea that rape is super violent, when in fact it doesn’t have to be. Two people could know each other and get along, and if one night the guy pushes the girl to have sex, and she resists nonverbally, the situation is seemingly less violent than many rapes reported on the news, but it is nonetheless rape. (NOTE: Guys can absolutely be victims of rape as well. I do not mean to suggest that females aren’t also rapists by suggesting the male was the rapist in my hypothetical scenario.)
Breaking news, however, is changing this phrase. California has passed a law, specifically for college campuses, declaring boldly that “Yes means yes.” Therefore, the law in California is requiring Universities to look at a case as a rape unless both participants verbally consent to intercourse beforehand. This is analogous to the way the court system judged all other cases: historically, a defendant was guilty until proven innocent. Therefore the accused was labeled guilty before he or she even had a chance to defend him/herself. Eventually we realized that this system caused a lot of innocent people to be wrongly convicted, and we made a revolutionary court system with Miranda Rights — and the conviction that someone was innocent until proven guilty. Now we are redefining rape in at least one state’s court of law. Opposition to the bill claims that the law is not an appropriate venue to discuss sexual consent but sexual consent is brought up in court every day! A court has to define consent if it wants to prosecute rape. Luckily, California has recognized that silence is not the definition of consent.Drunkenness is not the definition of consent; and body language or kissing is not explicit enough to equal consent to sexual intercourse.
This is the 21st century. We are moving forward. We declare that “Yes means yes.”
Article sources: TIME Magazine, ABC News, USA Today