Tweet
California Proposes a License to Breed
Posted 1 hour ago by Tad Cronn filed under Big Brother, Corruption, Culture, Email Featured, Government Control, Liberalism, Morality, Police State, Tyranny
1 Comment
One of California's many elected mother hen Progressives, Sen. Kevin de Leon, known for advocating various gun control measures, has come up with a doozy this time.
In light of investigations into sexual misconduct at various universities, de Leon is proposing a law that would require "verbal or written consent" prior to any sexual activity on college campuses.
Forget about sexy looks.
Forget body language.
"Hey baby, do you have a condom?" Way too subtle.
And a magical moment when a "no" means "yes" for both of you? Whoa, put your wand away, Harry Potter. That's a one-way ticket to Azkaban.
No, de Leon and the bill's supporters want sex to be as spontaneous as doing your taxes.
The bill, SB 967, would require the boards of colleges and universities to implement an "affirmative consent" standard regarding sex on campus or risk losing state funding.
(Of course, if the deviants in the state government hadn't designed the education system to turn anyone above the age of kindergarten into a sex bomb in the first place, they might not be having these problems at the college level.)
According to the bill, "'Affirmative consent' is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."
I predict much confusion among students about who is the designated initiator. ("But honey, you did that, you know, thing. ..." "What, that? I was just texting my friend Jenna. ...")
What next? Alarms that sound when sensors detect unlicensed breeding in the area? Wasn't that a major plot point in "THX-1138"?
"Sweetheart, I'm really into you, and I know you're really into me, so could I get your signature here, and here ... and, ooh yeah, initial there. Keep initialing. ..."
Yuck.
I'm sure liberals think there's some advantage to adding paperwork to foreplay, but for normal people, it's a buzz kill to say the least.
Potentially, it might eliminate some of the funnier "you want me to do what?" moments if everything's spelled out ahead of time. College boys better watch out for any sort of "minimal performance" clauses.
But aside from those and a few other giggle-inducing notions, this is the sort of law that is designed to suck everything joyous, spontaneous, creative, intimate and beautiful out of human existence by ramming government's nose up into places it has no damn business being.
It's gun control again, but this time the guns are in people's pants.
There is one good point in this law, however.
By my reading of it, the people of California don't need to get anybody's signature at all if they just tell de Leon and the rest of the liberals to go $*@% themselves. ...
Comment