California bill to raise standard of consent for student sex

June 13, 2014

sexA bill in the California legislature may change the way college students engage in sexual activity. [CBS LA]

Democratic state senators Kevin de Leon and Hannah Beth Jackson have introduced a bill that would require state run universities to adopt policies defining sexual consent in a particular manner. Students would then have to reach a mutual agreement, either verbally or on paper, prior to having sex.

The bill defines sexual consent as an “affirmative unambiguous and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed upon sexual activity.”

It also states that lack of resistance or silence does not equate consent. Likewise, students could not achieve consent when one is incapacitated by alcohol, drugs or a medical condition.

“One out of five young women on a college campus will be sexually assaulted,” de Leon said. “I think this is really critical that we create a culture that’s respectful of women, that we create protocols that are transparent.”

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This horrendous bill is far worse than any news article conveys.

This bill would mandate an administrative disciplinary code at every university or post-secondary institution that mirrors criminal rape and assault laws, but THROWS OUT ALL PROTECTIONS built into a criminal proceeding—-NO jury of your peers, NO innocent until proven guilty, NO judge, NO beyond reasonable doubt.

FACT: his bill EXPLICITLY THROWS OUT the criminal “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, replacing it with the civil court standard: “the preponderance of evidence”.

This bill would create an ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING process that mirrors the criminal process. The “judge” would be a university academe or board of academics. An accused person could be found “guilty” and kicked out of the university (or otherwise disciplined) without ANY of the protections afforded by our Constitutional criminal standards.

The administrative standard for “guilt” ELIMINATES “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidence standards. Instead, proceedings would be simply “he said versus she said”.

HENCE, ALL PERSONS WOULD BE WISE TO OBTAIN A SIGNED WRITTEN CONSENT FORM FOR ANY SEXUAL INTERACTION, INCLUDING CONSENT TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING TO KEEP AS EVIDENCE. I’m not kidding one bit. Otherwise you would be subject to the whims and mores of the other party without any evidence to protect yourself.

Signed consent alone affords little protection! All an accuser needs is one friend to claim they saw alcohol or drugs being used. By such witness, “the preponderance of evidence” establishes that the accuser could not have legally consented and the accused would be found “guilty”.

AND, the proposed bill GIVES AMNESTY to the accuser (but not the accused) for any illegal drug or alcohol use.

The existence of an ongoing boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is explicitly defined as NOT EVIDENCIARY to any accusation. An angry significant other could easily set up an accusation that destroys the college career and reputation of the accused.

Simply put, almost every normal and healthy sexual relationship VIOLATES THIS BILL or EXPOSES ONE OR BOTH PARTIES to a later accusation. Every kiss or touch not affirmatively consented to IN ADVANCE violates this bill’s text and would subject a person to college-ending discipline. The ONLY protection one could safely rely upon is a SIGNED CONSENT FORM AND A WITNESS OR VIDEO RECORDING. Without a recording or witness present during the entire sexual encounter, ANYTHING could be claimed and it will be your word against their word.

Kevin Rice,

On a side-note to this thread, why do you still link from your name to your failed attempt in running for City Council Member in San Luis Obispo in 2013?

Isn’t this misleading and fraudulent, especially to the uninformed, since you continue to specifically state that one can contribute to your running for said City Council where the limit is $200.00! We thought you dropped out for good reason? What gives?

Yes, it’s fraudulent (like your name is Ted Slanders). Tell the D.A. Good luck with that.


You’re comparing apples and oranges. It matters not what my name is and what it pertains too regarding my posts, but it most certainly matters in that you’re still linking your name to a failed attempt at running for a SLO City Council seat in 2013. Especially where the web page in question still states that one can contribute to your campaign with a $200.00 minimum! The uninformed may think that your OUTDATED web site is still relevant. Get it?

Is your reasoning to mislead the public in this respect, relative to you not being able to “let go” when you ran for the City Council? Kevin, its over, accept this fact and move on, and you should remove your OUTDATED web page and narcism. Its the right thing to do to save face, especially if you decide to run again.

Kevin, do the simple math. 2+2=4.

FIRST: You’re off-topic. Find an appropriate forum.

SECOND: Names matter. I do not respond to vapor and neither does any court or hearing body. The first thing on any complaint or lawsuit is the name of the plaintiff. Since you do not have a name, you lack standing to complain.

Mr. Kevin Rice,

Your “off topic” response to me equals “I am embarrassed that you called me on my misleading the public.”

You do not respond to vapor, other than to actually respond to it in kind to my last three posts! You are what you’re allegedly against, and that is responding to “vapor!” Uh, okay.

Why are you bringing forth courts of law and lawsuits? I can make reference to your misleading position here on CCN without any legal means, because it is the correct thing to do to save the uninformed. Your position is like Mitt Romney having his campaign web site still on the internet, with it asking for donations and giving the address to do so. Does this seem ethically correct to you?

Anyway, give some serious thought in removing the current content of your still outdated web site relative to your running for the SLO City Council of 2013. It would bode you well to let the past remain in the past, especially if you decide to run again.

Subjectively, take that same web site and change it to voice your political opinions, like you did with Lois Capps, or list some of your hobbies, your thoughts about worldly matters, current positions of merit within San Luis Obispo County, and the like.

You can thank me later for this astute advice.


Just a pair of observations:

1. Don’t screw with Ted. He’s too smart for you. He has the scriptural knowledge of a zealot, yet the eye for irony and contradiction of a Socratic — after battling God (as i suspect he has), battling you and your thesaurus are small business, indeed. You won’t intimidate him, and you won’t best him at wordplay. Move on.

2. I am impressed, however, with your grasp of the sexual predator’s mind. Well said.

Oh, please. “Ted” is sham and a coward embarrassed of his own name.

Sounds like a good idea for a new iPhone app. Consensual sex app. Proof in case of lawsuit. Good way for the students to also log their conquests.

As a local example, we have these little Cal Poly trollops that walk around SLO at night in their sexually enticing attire, are just like Eve when she enticed poor Adam to eat from the forbidden fruit, and therefore man was damned thereafter! Because of Eve’s dastardly event, our God has given us superiority over the woman. “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman is man”. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 )

To all TRUE Christian college students that actually follow the Hebrew God’s bible, this insidious California bill relative to students having to sign a sexual consent prior to the ungodly act of having sex out of wedlock, is unneeded because there is to be NO SEX prior to marriage, period!

“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” (Hebrews 13:4)

“Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. FOR THE WIFE DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER HER OWN BODY, BUT THE HUSBAND DOES. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1 Corinthians 7: 1-40)

All TRUE Christian parents that send their Sisters of Eve daughters to college should make them wear chastity belts 24/7/365 so they won’t be tempted by Satan! Then there is no need for any further comical California laws pertaining to this topic.

The picture is interesting…..

It appears the young man is being forcibly sexually assaulted.


Yes, the man fondling the woman’s milk farm is ungodly to say the least!

261.4 of the Penal Code already makes it a felony to rape an incapacitated person. This is ridiculous, college kids signing a consent waiver prior to sex. These are politicians who just have a need to see their names on a bill.

Maybe they should ask Bill Clinton for a definition?? He was very creative when it came to one for what “is” is.

Good idea. Maybe the legal industry could label this the Clinton Defense.

If anyone ever needed proof that California’s Legislature should be a part time body, this is it.

“I think this is really critical that we create a culture that’s respectful of women, that we create protocols that are transparent.”

Just go by the Cal Poly campus on any given day and see how those young ladies dress…they are not even respectful of themselves. They flaunt their sexuality.

“I think this is really critical that we create a culture that’s respectful of women, that we create protocols that are transparent.”

Seriously? This is being proposed by THIS legislature? If this becomes law, will illegals be exempt?

I’m surprised they have time to address this issue given all the time they spend on frivolous, outrageous, discriminatory legislation.

If and when the California Legislature starts respecting women, then and only then can you in good conscience propose such legislation.