Forget sex robots, virtual reality porn, and any of the other technological advances feared capable of disrupting current sexual mores. The biggest threat to sex as we know it is the coming revision of U.S. sex-crime laws. For a glimpse into this frightening future, look no further than Judith Shulevitz's latest in The New York Times. Shulevitz chronicles how "affirmative consent" (the principle, often referred to as "yes means yes," that the mere absence of a "no" is not sufficient permission to proceed sexually) has been quietly spreading from California universities to colleges across the country, and could soon mutate out of academia entirely.
The American Law Institute (ALI)—a respected body of professors, judges, and lawyers that draft model laws oft adopted in whole by state and federal government—has spent the past three years deliberating over sexual assault statutes (an area it hadn't revisited since 1962). A draft of the group's recommendations, released in May, endorsed "the position that an affirmative expression of consent, either by words or conduct, is always an appropriate prerequisite to sexual intercourse, and that the failure to obtain such consent should be punishable under" criminal law.
The American Law Institute has proposed to re-shape national law along the lines of the various "Affirmative Consent" laws being enacted on campuses.
The original "Affirmative Consent" law was enacted in California to appease the feminists, and like most progressive "laws," was written with no regard to protecting the innocent. On the surface, this law presumes non-consent in the mere absence of both a "no" and a "yes." The problem with this law is that the guy is automatically presumed to be a "rapist" unless the girl actively demonstrates her consent. These laws not only empower the girl who has consensual sex and accuses the guy of rape, merely touching another person without an overt expression of consent is automatically criminal.
To presume an innocent person as a criminal is the same thing as presumption of guilt; itself unconstitutional.
The drafters of this proposal are aware of the ambiguity of their proposed law, but believe that the ends justify the means. If this law ruins your life, then your sacrifice was for the common good.
[T]he appropriate default position clearly is to err in the direction of protecting individuals against unwanted sexual imposition. ... Of course, a legal standard requiring the affirmative expression of consent to sex will—inevitably—entail many false negatives, in the form of findings of unwillingness when in fact passionate desire was present. But the contrary standard now prevalent in American law will—just as inevitably—entail many false positives, assumptions of willingness and subsequent sexual intrusion when such intimacy was entirely unwanted. Section 213.2(2) reflects the judgment that the harms that arise under the latter standard present far greater reason for concern.
The government aims to invade the bedroom, and not from the right flank.