But we as a society should teach women (and men for that matter) that it's okay to say yes or no to sex.

I would say that the standard should be an enthusiastic yes. Because while yes changing the goal to an affirmative answer, it's still possible to get a yes where one party is consenting for negative reasons like being pressured into it.

Not the most romantic thing but.. ??

to create an app for that?

[font color=hotpink]Fingerprint here, sweetheart.

Their policy was cause for so much mockery and confusion that it was abandoned.

I think No means No is far clearer than Yes means Yes. It is entirely possible for a consensual sexual encounter to take place without the word "yes" being spoken.

beats out reluctant acquiescence and/or silence each and every time.! Consent should be a bit stronger and more enthusiastic than giving in.

I was an Antioch student during the early 1990's, and I can say with confidence that the sexual offense policy that gained nationwide notoriety was not set-aside during my time on campus (through 1994), nor to my knowledge any time thereafter (I am not sure what has happened since the 'old' Antioch closed its doors ~2005, and then reopened as a 'non-successor institution' in 2008 or so).

Though the policy was deemed radical by the mainstream media during 1991-1992, most of us on campus were not shocked or horrified that our college asked us to discuss sexual boundaries with our partners before and during sexual activity. The policy came about after a quarter when three rapes were reported on campus. This was a college of 600, where only 300-400 students were on-campus at a time (their co-op program had about 1/3 of the students working jobs off-campus at any given time). So imagine that: 1% of the on-campus population reported a rape. Of course something needed to be done.

The originally-proposed policy was modified and improved through a community and administrative process, which thankfully added necessary due process protections for the accused. But the core of the policy remained the same: if you are going to engage in sex, you have a responsibility to talk about what's OK and mutually desirable with your partner. This was a good step for the Antioch community back then, and I hope it is also a good step for California campuses now.

K&R,

-app

Someone drugged or passed out drunk or too afraid or too pressured and unable to say "no" isn't agreeing to have sex simply because she or he didn't say the word, yet it's assumed so. If you're going to have that as the standard, the sex usually doing the raping needs to be taught better what rape is. Or taught, full stop.

That, while consent can be subtle — and hence difficult to guarantee during or after the fact — if you establish that consent needs to conform to an agreed code of conduct, then you establish a bright line to cross. If the requirements of the code are not met (a phrase spoken or something like that), then you don't have consent.

It might take some of the "romance" out, but it strikes me as worthwhile. Also, since a university campus is a distinct entity (whether contiguous or not) it's easier to establish rules by fiat than it is in the infinitely messier outside world.