By Simon Gorbaty ’19, Staff Writer 

The article written by eighth grader Spencer Glassman strongly criticizing the recently passed “Yes Means Yes” law in California, is – lightly put – not the best source to refer to when seeking an overview on the new policy. I do respect Spencer’s opinion, but in negating the law, he misses out on several positive aspects of Yes means Yes.

Spencer claims that the new law creates a “loose definition of rape,” when, in fact, it clarifies its meaning.  One of the policy’s intentions was to ensure that one must have explicit and conscious consent, whether verbal or implied, from his or her partner in order to have intercourse. There is the extremely high possibility that the victim was under the influence of some concoction that impairs cognitive ability. According to a report by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 50% of all cases of reported sexual assault involves alcohol consumption by – a lot of the time – the victim. As a result, they are unable to perceive the risk of certain situations that can lead to sexual assault, like being offered a ride home by a stranger. Senator Kevin de Leon said, “It’s very difficult to say no when you’re inebriated or someone slips something into your drink.”  Therefore, intoxicated victims, whether forcefully or at their own will, may have inadvertently consented or remained silent, and the perpetrator, a lot of the times also intoxicated, may have interpreted this as consent. The new law defines such an instance as sexual assault, resolving an issue that may determine the outcome of fifty percent of all sexual assault cases.

There are other cases though, like the one Spencer mentioned with Tawana Bradley, where the law will make it more difficult for a defendant to be acquitted if the accusations are false. However, such cases are quite rare, at 8% of all total rapes, relative to the 33% of all legitimate rapists that get away with the crime even after being referred to prosecutors (courtesy of RAINN). The law will bring down the larger, more troubling statistic by forcing a guilty defendant to prove that the intercourse was consensual, which they cannot.

Back in the beginning of the article, Spencer calls the law a “predominantly feminist talking point,” and expands on this argument near the end. He implies that the law may provide women an advantage over men in court, since women are associated as the victims in rape culture, and most of the reported times, they are. Although men do at times face double standards, the law will apply equally to both men and women. Before the vote, Senator de Leon said, “With this measure, we will lead the nation in bringing standards and protocols across the board… that’s conducive for all students, not just for women, but for young men as well….” If the amount of reported women victimized remains nine times greater than the amount of men, then men will be forced to answer to Yes Means Yes more than women. Yet, a case will be judged the same way under the new law, regardless of the gender of the defendant.

This article reflects the opinion of one staff writer, not The Minuteman as a whole. To share your opinion, comment below! Additionally, be sure to check out Spencer’s original article here: http://wp.me/p2ZdP1-4MC