New California Law Could Require Students To Sign A Form For Consensual Sex

Apparently, rapes are so prevalent and current laws are so ineffective against them, we need a written contract before having sex.
wavebreakmedia / (
wavebreakmedia / (

We’ve officially lost all hope as a species. First, we needed a contract to form a marital union with each other; now, we need written contracts to copulate. Well, at least in California—that well-known Mecca of Morality.

The new law’s fancy, technical label is SB 967. It would require California colleges to establish “an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant.” OK, but do you do that without either filming one’s consent or requiring a signature? Are judges supposed to just take someone’s word that they, um, just took someone’s word?

Judge: Defendant, how do you plead in the charge of Rape in the First Degree?
Defendant: Not guilty, your honor, on the grounds it was consensual.
Judge: Do you have the contract?
Defendant: Well, no your honor, she just said yes.

According to

SB 967, amended last week by state Sen. Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), would mandate that college students obtain “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.”

Last month, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights released a list of 55 schools that face federal probes into their handling of sexual assault cases. De Leon said his bill is meant to confront sexual assault problems head-on.

“Obviously, there is a problem,” he said in the report. “SB 967 will change the equation so the system is not stacked against survivors by establishing an affirmative consent policy to make it clear that only ‘yes’ means ‘yes.'”

Lewis Black was correct: Right after a Republican says, “I have a bad idea,” the Democrat stands up and says, “I have a way to make that even crappier!” Apparently, rapes are so prevalent and current laws are so ineffective against them, we need a written contract before having sex. Of course. That’ll show those rapey-rapists!

What’s your problem? If you read Article 10; Section 8; Paragraph 7, you will see I only agreed to first base with light tongue on the first date with successive, sequential advancements each date upon where you and if you take me for dinner. If you look under Section 11, it clearly states the cost is a factor in the advancement of each level. Also, if any of the requirements are not met in fine print, then you’re history, Buster.

Yes, ladies, rape is preventable and nothing makes a pervert with mommy issues tremble like the dreaded contract. You’ll watch as that preferred mama’s boy will be reduced to a flaccid, frightened bowl of Jell-O. Like a frightened cat he’ll curl up in fear and dart off into the night. Stop in the name of SB 967.

Here is another bill they apparently rushed through too fast. What happens when the rapist coerces them into signing a contract? That will look interesting in court. What if a rapist/murderer now forces his victim or forges their signature on a contract to agree to some sick sadomasochistic ritual? The law is also ambiguous, since it also permits “verbal” as well as “written” consent. I can’t wait to see that in court.

Either this is truly the most useless bureaucratic waste, Colorado has been sharing its weed, or this is a morality-police Trojan horse to force people into abstinence.

Hey, baby, want to do it?


OK, sign here. Thought Catalog Logo Mark

Keep up with Dave on Website

More From Thought Catalog