
The controversy surrounding affirmative consent has become very prevalent over the last couple of years. One reason why this is heavily debated topic is because people question the definition of rape and the question of consent during sexual intercourse. There is not clear answer for what a "no" is and what a "yes" is: it is all relative to the person. In September of 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the first bill in the United States that constitutes the definition of consent. While activists have been pushing for an "active consent" solution, which means one can only proceed with sexual activity after the other party involved has clearly given their approval, others disagree with this transition (Kozlowska). The transition between the "no means no" slogan to the "yes means yes" policy has changed the way some people view affirmative consent. Some believe that the affirmative consent law that was first made in California will never be affective, and others firmly stand on the opposing positon: the affirmative consent law is a necessity on college campuses. These are not the only positions involved in this argument, but they are the two extremes on the spectrum. I believe that the new law, "yes means yes", is a step in the right direction and raises awareness on the topic, but it is not a law that can be forced or actually change anything. "No means no" nor "yes means yes" are enforceable, however, I am arguing that "yes means yes" raises awareness on the situation. Living on a college campus and experiencing one of my best friends trying to be manipulated into something she did not give consent to has really given me insight as to why this topic needs to be discussed. Sexual consent is not taken seriously on campuses because it is not talked about nearly enough. While the affirmative consent law needs to be taken seriously by faculty and students, it is only a step in the right direction to decreasing the rates of sexual assault. This law needs to be more affective on college campuses and actually change the way college students view consent because if not, this problem will only get worse. Many situations that have turned south could have been avoided by asking for consent. In order for the affirmative consent law to be affective, college administration needs to be properly equipped and trained to deal with sexual assault cases, and the student body and faculty needs to be an active participant in changing the slogan to "yes means yes".

One view on this argument is that the change in the affirmative consent laws is turning normal human interactions into sexual offenses, and that the majority of the population would not speak up and say "yes" during a sexual encounter. Some also bring up the argument that the new definition of consent will complicate the encounter, add more boundaries and eliminate the excitement. Today, being spontaneous is preferred and letting go of self consciousness is better for sex (Kozlowska). The idea behind "yes means yes" was first introduced in 1991 by Antioch College, and the reaction at this campus was tremendously negative. At this time, it was seen as political incorrectness. But above all, most doubters thought that the new rules would take away the mystery of campus sex (Kimmel). "Saturday Night Live" even made a skit about affirmative consent to make fun of how the sexual encounter will now be more like a sequence of robotic yes and no questions. The criticism on affirmative consent from the past is now being renewed as more and more colleges have started to adopt similar policies as Antioch. The idea that students would have to ask for consent whenever there is progression at any point during a sexual encounter is thought as unreasonable and excessive. When things start to escalate, is one really expected to ask a question before each of the steps leading to sex? Many students know this will not be practiced in the bedroom because it is believed to be impracticable. 

It is argued that there really is no realistic, just or reliable way for colleges to enforce the affirmative consent standard on campuses. It is impractical for the government to get involved with sexual activity and to require students to obtain affirmative consent at each stage leading to sex. Then this student may have to prove that he or she did indeed attain consent in a campus hearing (New). Some campuses also implement a policy that a "yes" is not truly a "yes" if a student is intoxicated. The accused may also be extremely intoxicated, but he or she cannot use the intoxication as part of their defense. At Cornell, there is a rule in place that puts the responsibility of obtaining agreement with the student who is the instigator of the sexual activity or the one who initiates the sexual interaction (New). Overall, this is viewed as an absurd policy because if the panel at a college hearing is made up of, for example, the dean of the history department or a chemistry professor or any faculty member for that matter, how are they to decide or really know who the initiator was and who was not? With the "yes means yes" policy, one student who charges another student of sexual assault in a situation as described previously, then the student who did not do the condemning is automatically considered to be the one responsible for initiating the conduct (New). This is thought as the main difference between the "no means no" and "yes means yes" standards: the burden of proof is on the person that is accused because they have to provide evidence that they were given consent, and it is not on the person who was objecting or not giving consent (Shikha). The new law makes consent even more confusing than before because it changes the assumption in a significant way. The person who was accused will no longer be assumed innocent until proven guilty because now it is the other way around. 

The "yes means yes" policy is sometimes not thought as any better than the "no means no" standard that was in place beforehand. Consent is in fact required in the "no means no" policy, which is often a misconception of this previous law.  Some believe that the law has made a shift between consent and enthusiastic consent. The "yes means yes" policy does require on going consent, which is why many people disagree with this standard. It is not thought that a normal sexual human interaction requires continuous consent. This controversy has become so large that it does not just involve college campuses any longer. Although the "yes means yes" standard does not involve putting students in jail, it is thought to be ruining lives. Several think this law will not do anything to stop rapist, but instead it will go after innocent people who really did not mean any harm towards their sexual partner. Many also see no reason to make a change to the law because the "he said she said" problem is still prevalent. Guiltless people will have an extremely difficult time proving that they are in fact innocent (Shikha).

 In contrast to the "no means no" supporters, others believe that the affirmative consent law will change the way sexual assault is dealt with on college campuses. A survey conducted with 150,000 students from twenty-seven different universities showed that one in four female students did say that they have experienced unwanted sexual interactions that were either executed by force, threat or while they were under the influence (de Leon). The "no means no" slogan puts the burden on the victims because it makes this person voice or show resistance. Female college students who do make accusations are often questioned by college administrators to provide an explanation for their own actions, such as what they were wearing or if they actually tried to stop the sexual encounter (Rivard). This is thought to not be an affective law when dealing with sexual assault. California enacted SB 967 to implement the "yes means yes" policy on college campuses in order to prevent sexual violence. Other states have followed the initiative that was made by California legislation in order to make a standard that requires affirmative consent. The law has changed the way the administration guarantees that their students will abide by this code of conduct, and that students can now feel comfortable coming forward about these crimes. Sexual violence has become such a huge problem on college campuses because administration almost disregards sexual assault cases in order to protect the reputation of the college. This affirmative consent law holds colleges more accountable for providing help on campus for sexual assault (de Leon). The main problem with this is that many people believe campus administrators are neither qualified nor equipped to respond properly to such allegations. However, no one should should not be picky about where the help comes from. Better services should be demanded so that universities can start to fill in the gaps that are left open by the lacking criminal justice system (Gulite). 

The "yes means yes" standard means that both parties involved must consciously and voluntarily agree to sexual activity. The previous consent standard does not take into account the very many scenarios in which a person can be sexually violated or assaulted. There is a change needed in the way sexual consent is defined in society, and for this change to be affective it needs to be reflected in the law and policy (Gulite). The affirmative consent law is necessary because it is the common principle that people who do participate in sexual activity should make sure their partner does indeed want to proceed and actually actively participating in what is happening. The "no means no" standard is not acceptable because people get scared to or cannot contest in a certain situation even though they are dying on the inside because they are either so terrified or even extremely intoxicated. The previous policy is allowing rapist to get away with this crime, and the "yes means yes" policy will put the the responsibility on everyone. This law will change the default assumption: you cannot do anything to anyone else's body without their active consent (Shikha). 

The previous "no means no" policy is ambiguous because some believe that unless one hears an explicit "no", consent is implied. The "yes means yes" standard has completely redefined the meaning behind consent. Silence is not consent, but it is the absence of consent. When did hearing "yes" become such a turn off? Some seem to agree that having consent is more of a turn-on and a validation of desire. "Yes" could possibly be the sexist word in the English language. "Yes means yes" is clearly healthier, more erotic, and leads to an overall better experience (Kimmel). The new law is encouraging sexual partners to communicate and agree on what they both enjoy. The new law helps people to talk about what does and does not turn them on (Kozlowska). A campus that has adopted the affirmative consent policy is Grinnell College. Mr. Anderson, a junior, talked to incoming students during freshman orientation about determining a partner's interest by making eye contact and acquiring consent rather than ending up in an uncomfortable situation (Wilson). Grinnell's president, Raynard S. Kington, encourages the students at the university to be more reliable during a sexual encounter. Grinnell does place requirements on their students in an effort to change the norm when it comes to sex and move to an emphasis on "yes means yes". It is noted that even with this affirmative consent policy, some people accused of assault will lie and say they did obtain consent, and the accuser will reject that it was given (Wilson). But overall, the affirmative consent policy on this college campus has made an impact on the student body. 

The affirmative consent law is needed in order for a change to be implemented, but it will not actually be effective unless the faculty and students themselves make a change on their campus. "Yes means yes" is a step in the right direction, but it does require more work. Without enforcement, the affirmative consent law will not change anything on college campuses. Although this new law is important and significant, it is just the first step to a change, and the law itself will not be enough in order to raise awareness of sexual assault. While some still believe that changing the law is not the right thing to do, it is a necessary action to start the process of modification. The problem lies within the fact that "yes" is a meaningless word when it is coming from one who is intoxicated with either alcohol or drugs, and he or she is slurring speech, having trouble walking straight or standing, or vomiting (Bogle). College educational programs need to focus on more programs that inform students that when one is indeed extremely intoxicated, consent cannot be given. Some colleges have tried to do this before, but have not given a clear definition or image of intoxication. Educating students on consent, sex and alcohol will be more beneficial than the law itself (Bogle). 

The "Yes Means Yes" law was a noteworthy attempt to change the rape culture on several college campuses, but it does not actually account for how consent is truly conveyed during sexual relations. Some college men do realize that if they were to ask for consent, their partners will not want to partake in any sexual activity, so therefore they avoid a rejection by not asking. The "yes means yes" standard does help in this situation because silence is not consent under the new policy. Men do know how to manipulate and take advantage, and in situations like this, the affirmative consent policy will be helpful (Jozkowski). Maybe part of the problem is that too many guys simply do not take no as a no. They can blame it on being drunk, stupid, or being accustomed to our culture into thinking that no means possibly and that if they are persistent that a no may eventually become a yes (New). When women do not physically reject sex by saying the word "no", it is common to find on a college campus that they did not do enough to prevent the assault. This calls for the campus climate to change, which is not going to be enforced by just changing the law. Not only students need to be involved in the shift between the "no means no" policy to the "yes means yes" standard, but also the administration, athletic coaches, faculty, staff, and Greek life coordinators. Those who are a member of the committees that hear cases of sexual assault need to be trained properly and knowledgeable on the topic (Jozkowski). Sexual assault prevention programs should be implemented on campuses and made mandatory for every student. This will then raise awareness about what "yes means yes" really means. The "yes means yes" law will help people understand what is appropriate sexual behavior, and start to make a change across many college campuses (Pollitt).

Some students at NYU have made a change on their campus through the affirmative consent law by creating a video that presents their ideas on how consent is about respect, listening and communicating openly. These students share how they have practiced affirmative consent and the importance of having conversations and being clear with their partner in order to prove that it is possible to implement this idea of affirmative consent. Students took it into their own hands to discuss consent and make this issue important to others on their campus. Still some believe this idea is crazy and is not practical in their life, but making a change to anything does take time.

While the affirmative consent bill is supported by some and opposed by others, I think there is a simple compromise to the problem. I do agree that the affirmative consent law is not affective on college campuses alone, but with the support of the student body, faculty, and administration, a change could be implemented. Changing the law to the "yes means yes" policy will grab the attention of people, which is important for a change to be made. This just scratches the surface of the affirmative consent argument. Above all, the basic idea behind both laws is to prevent sexual assault (Kozlowska). No matter what opinion one might have on the matter, this is the main focus and should be more important than arguing about which law is better than the other. There is a change needed, and if altering the law will help implement this change, then everyone should be in agreement. A step in the right direction has been made, but what will be done now to make a change. 

