I am writing about the article “Court of Appeals Arguments in SUNY Sexual Misconduct Case Focus on Evidence of Consent,” which appeared in the New York Law Journal on Sept. 14. The article makes it abundantly clear that a statute with a lofty purpose can grow into an unwieldy monstrosity.

In the first instance, the rule-making authorities providing regulations to the administrative agency employed on campus to conduct “hearings”  have made certain assumptions that completely ignore human sexuality in all its complexity. If, at any time during a sexual encounter, one of the parties says “no” to the next step the encounter is terminated, and if not,  the purportedly offending party has transgressed with devastating consequences.  The “no” need not be verbal—any purported signal will do. The case discussed in your article deals with what is commonly called a “hook-up.” The young man had been drinking; the purported victim invited him to her dorm room “where they had sex.” She had removed her top; had stated upon his asking her if she had a condom she did not “but it was fine.” He did not ask her after she removed her top whether he could remove her underpants. One assumes this was a necessary next step to the employment of the not needed condom. Presumably, the young woman knew what the condom was for and thus, presumably, the young man was convinced there was implied consent.