The new sex ed: Yes can also mean no

In the new sex ed, boys are presumed to be rapists until proven otherwise. Why else would boys be required, every few minutes, to repeatedly ask women if they are enjoying the sex – and if they fail to ask, be accused of rape?

Consent from the person you are kissing — or more — is not merely silence or a lack of protest, Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco, told the students. They listened raptly, but several did not disguise how puzzled they felt.

“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.

“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”

Look at how the bar keeps rising!  At first, there was common sense that if a woman didn't object, there was no problem.  Then a woman had to consent.  Then a woman has to be specifically asked about sex and has to specifically consent.  Now a woman has to consent at each level of sexual intimacy.  At the rate things are going, men will be required to ask for consent each time they want to move six inches forward or backward.

With Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature on a bill this month, California became the first state to require that all high school health education classes give lessons on affirmative consent, which includes explaining that someone who is drunk or asleep cannot grant consent.

Someone who is drunk cannot give consent?  Who determines what drunk is? How many people drink before having sex? Most do, I think.

“There’s really no clear standard yet — what we have is a lot of ambiguity on how these standards really work in the court of law,” said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “The standard is not logical — nobody really works that way. The problem with teaching this to high school students is that you are only going to sow more confusion. They are getting mixed messages depending where they go afterward.”

Last year, Corey Mock, a student at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, was expelled after officials there found him guilty of sexual misconduct because he could not prove he had obtained verbal consent from a woman who accused him of sexual assault. But a Davidson County Chancery Court judge ruled in August that the university had “improperly shifted the burden of proof and imposed an untenable standard upon Mr. Mock to disprove the accusation.” The judge called the university’s ruling “arbitrary and capricious.”

Men are guilty until proven innocent.  Why do liberals apply this standard only to men wanting to have consensual sex?

I think there is a certain mindset in feminists who are pushing this. The article had a photo of two high school girls who looked worried and were holding each other's hands tightly for support, as if they were witnessing an airplane disaster instead of talking about sex.  I think this is being pushed by feminists who are uptight about sex, or those who decide to have sex but, because they are mixed up (as feminists usually are), decide afterward they didn't like it...sometimes weeks or months afterward, like Columbia University's famously nutty "mattress girl," who carried her sex bed around with her and made a porn video to protest (or celebrate?) rough sex.

But why should everyone else be punished for feminist nuttIness?  The commonsense standard worked – if a woman is unhappy, she should say something, and the man should stop.  Anything else is simply perpetuating the left's "war on men," an asymmetrical counterpart to the Republicans' non-existent "war on women."

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of, the conservative news site.