I remember first seeing the idea of sex contracts appear in the news about this time last year. The argument for these contracts at the time was that they would help to prevent rape, especially on college campuses.
If you would like to read my thoughts on this at that time check out, Sex Contracts Won’t Prevent Rape on College Campuses. Well here we are a year later, and we are still talking about this issue. But now this nonsense has been taken a step further.
The Affirmative Consent Project, which advocates for “yes means yes” sexual consent policies, has been distributing “consent contracts” to college students across the country.
The contract states in big red letters: “YES! We agree to have SEX!” (emphasis original), and asks participants to take a photo together holding the contract. If a camera can’t be found, then the participants would need to fill out the form included on the back of the contract.
The contract reads: “We agree to have consensual sex with one another.” This is followed by a place for both parties to sign.
According to the Examiner:
Even that probably wouldn’t be enough of a defense against an accusation, when all an accuser has to do is say she was too drunk to consent to the photo or the sexual activity. And remember, if the handwriting on the back is noticeably slurred by both parties (meaning the accused was also too drunk to consent) it doesn’t matter, only the accuser’s word matters.
There are a variety of problems, with these contracts, but one of the major one’s is that it places the burden on the accused to prove himself innocent. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty?” Oh that’s right, we just ignore the Constitution now, when we don’t like what it says.
National Review reports:
The state of California passed a law requiring all colleges that accept state funding to adopt policies requiring all students to obtain affirmative consent — which it defines as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity” that is “ongoing” and not given when too drunk — before engaging in sexual activity, or else risk punishment for sexual assault.
First, drunk or not, if two people want to have sex, they’re going to have sex. Second, what exactly defines drunk? Drunk could mean anything from buzzed to straight up wasted. Thirdly, I don’t see how schools are going to be able to enforce this which I will explain in a moment, but even if they could, a lot of people are going to stop going to college in California. Because that’s why everyone goes to college right, to have all the sex you want without your parents hanging over your shoulder? Wrong! Well actually, that’s probably true, but if that is why you are going to college then you shouldn’t be going to college! For one thing there are a lot cheaper ways to have sex. You could use all that money you just saved on tuition to hire a hooker. There you go, more sex, less money! You’re welcome!
Secondly, how are schools going to track and enforce this? What are they going to do, put cameras in all the dorm rooms? “Busted! You two, naughty consenting adults, didn’t sign your contract before you had sex last night!” Yeah, everyone is going to want to go to that school. Even if schools were to actually do this, which is preposterous, how are they going to enforce it? How are they going to “punish” those students who neglect to sign their contract? It just isn’t a practical law.
A lot of people aren’t going to be complying with the law. These contracts are basically a written record of your sex life. Those dirt bags who want to cheat on their significant others, won’t be stopped by a contract, they just won’t use it. And who is going to know? Those people who are inclined to regularly engage in one night stands aren’t going to stop doing that, the just won’t take the picture or sign the contract. For real, if you are the kind of person who engages regularly engages in one night stands, do you really want a written or photographed record of that? Yeah, that’s something you’re going to want your future spouse to see someday!
In addition, this law does not take into account the spontaneity of many of these sexual encounters. Often, it is not that two people plan on having sex, but one thing leads to another, and the two individuals get caught up in the “heat of the moment.”
“Their interpretation of the law — which so far appears to be the accepted interpretation at colleges and universities across the country — is that women can only give consent and men can only obtain consent,” reports the Examiner.
This law is inherently sexist against men. Now is it safe to assume that men are generally the culprit in sexual assault cases. Yes, that assumption is likely correct. But to draft a law in such a way that it does not allow for the reverse scenario is neither fair nor right, and it is just another example of left-wing feminists’ double standard against men. In the same way that men know exactly how to seduce a woman, women, know exactly how to flatter a man’s ego and manipulate if she likes what she sees and wants to see more.
As I was listening to Buck Sexton discuss this recently, he was saying how this “terrified” him because “it is something people will ignore and then it will just become the norm.” “Colleges are radical laboratories,”he stated.
I do not see this actually becoming the norm on college campuses. However, if it were, it will even be more impractical in the “real world” than it is on college campuses.
Not only is it impractical, such legislation would mean the government way overstepping its bounds, (not that it isn’t already). Moral reasons aside, if two adults want to have sex, they should not have to sign a contract first.
I mean think about how impractical this is. Let’s say you’re making out with your significant other. You’re not going to say “Hold up babe, we can’t do this tonight. I forgot we are out of sex contracts.” No, I don’t think you are going to do that nor should you have to.
Even if this law were practical or enforceable, which I don’t see how it is. It is inherently sexist towards men and it is a gross overreach of government.