The Joys of Passive Acquiescence

Joe Dimaggio

One of the problems with the new policy of “affirmative consent” is that it sounds perilously like “affirmative action,” which confuses matters from the very start. Affirmative action has to do with integration and affirmative consent, copulation. "Affirmative consent," which is now law on California campuses, is “not just passive acquiescence, before any sexual contact,” according to the Times (“California Law on Sex Consent Pleases Many but Leaves Some Doubters,” NYT, 9/29/14). However, some of the mechanics still apparently need to be worked out. Let’s for instance imagine a couple on a college campus moving gradually toward the point of no return. Envision a same sex couple or a young man and woman or a pair of pre-op transsexuals depending on your own proclivities.

      Lovemaker #1: Oh wow that feels good. Oh more. Yeah there, there. A little to the left. Oh shit. Oh that thing (ed note: penis or dildo) is really big.

      LM#2: Oh yeah. Do you guys have a G spot?
      LM#1: Oh yeah! fuck!
      LM#2: Oh fuck, oh my god. Oh wow. I love you.

      LM#1: Did you bring your condom or dental dam?

      LM#2: No but I have my consent forms and a fax machine so we can send them to our lawyers. Oh fuck that feels good. I really want to fuck you, but we discussed in Gov 101 how the US has become a litigious country. 

Students are being faced with so many more challenges these days than their predecessors for whom sex was as simple as baseball. Guys for instance, either got to first, second, third base or got lucky and went all the way. Imagine if a batter had to ask for a consent form from a pitcher before he hit a homer. And then there's the question of triggering language. You might have been triggered and hence consented to something before you were ready. And what about those old-fashioned types who get their jollies by acquiescing passively and find making major statements of commitment a turn-off during sex?