For those of you following along at home, this should come as no surprise, but in the news recently is University of Minnesota declaring "positive consent" requirement for students.
The U’s new rule, which is poised to take effect this month after a 30-day comment period, says that sex is OK only if both parties express consent through “clear and unambiguous words or actions.” Absent that, it would fit the U’s definition of sexual assault.
So far, the plan has prompted little dissent at the U. But nationally, critics have derided such policies as absurd and dangerous, particularly when it comes to protecting the rights of the accused.
“Once that accusation has been made, it’s somehow up to the accused person to prove they did have consent,” said Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties group in Philadelphia. “What that means is that they’re guilty until proven innocent.”
Anybody who has been here a while is aware of Chateau Heartiste's maxim:
"The feminist goal is removing all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality"
This is just puts the ball that much further down the field.
Each and every feminist goal, plan, action, or legislation is a means to this end: to limit male sexuality and open the maximum amount of opportunity and option for female sexuality.
How much are women going to suffer for this new policy opposed to men?
The question you need to wonder is: was campus rape really an issue? The fact is, it really isn't that big of an issue. But here we have institutionalized rule that limits male sexuality in favor of female.
Combine that with the violence against women act, the dulith model, no fault divorce laws, family courts that award women custody, and laws that make it easier for women in any given field but not men..
And you've got yourself a sexual strategy optimized for women.
Edit: Heartiste Link: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/study-finds-the-foul-source-of-feminism/