Mediaboss Marketing

I HAVE a slightly different take on Californias recent decision to regulate college sex. Dont get me wrong: I think its beyond idiotic, unworkable, even borderline Orwellian. Well get to all that.

But I also think its incredibly useful. You see, for years Ive been railing and ranting about the ridiculous myth that liberalism is socially libertarian; that liberals are live and let live types simply defending themselves against judgmental conservatives, the real aggressors in the culture war.

That thinking runs counter to most everything liberals justifiably take pride in as liberals. You cant be agents for change, forces for progress, or whatever the current phrase, and simultaneously deny that youre the aggressors in the culture war. For instance, just in the last decade, liberals have redefined a millenniums-old understanding of marriage while talking as if it were conservatives who wanted to impose their values on the nation.

Most libertarians are surely against racial discrimination, sexism, poor eating habits, homophobia and so on. But their proposed remedies dont look anything like a liberals. Libertarians, for the most part, do not favor racial or gender quotas. Theyre against banning big sodas, campus speech codes or forcing elderly nuns to pay for birth control coverage, among other things.

Liberals, meanwhile, are quite open about their desire to use the state to impose their morality on others. Many conservatives want to do likewise, of course. The difference is that when conservatives try to do it, liberals are quick to charge theocracy! and decry the Orwellian horror.

Enter California Gov. Jerry Brown, whose answer to the alleged rape epidemic on campuses was to sign the new affirmative consent law. It will require a verbal yes at every stage of amorous activity on college campuses.

The incredible overreach of the law has been discussed at great length. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board expressed misgivings in an editorial before Brown signed the bill into law. It seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely as to tell young people what steps they must take in the privacy of their own dorm rooms.

This strikes me as extremely understated, but the sentiment is right. Some defenders of the law say it doesnt really matter because it will only have an effect when women accuse men of sexual assault. The law has no bearing on the vast majority of sexual encounters, feminist writer Amanda Marcotte reassures us. It only applies when a student files a sexual assault complaint.

Never mind that it will also likely change the standard of proof in such situations, making it much easier to charge and administratively convict students of rape based solely on an allegation. Dont worry about false accusations, says Think Progress Tara Culp-Ressler, they amount to only about 2 to 8 percent of cases. Tell that to people who fall into the 2 to 8 percent.

Other defenders insist that such concerns miss the point. Ann Friedman of New York magazine rhapsodizes about the laws positive cultural impact. It will help in deprogramming the idea that nice girls dont admit they like sex, let alone talk about how they like it. She notes that the law will force universities to talk to all students, female and male, about how enthusiastic consent is mandatory. And that is great because Confirming consent leads to much hotter sex.

Read the original post:
Jonah Goldberg Liberals storm California's bedrooms