I’ve been having a friendly argument with Conn Carroll about the new California law regarding disciplinary hearings in sexual-assault cases on college campuses. Here’s Carroll’s most recent entry, to which I linked yesterday.

Hans Bader, who has written extensively about these issues, e-mails this comment:

[Carroll is] wrong. The law says a relationship can’t even be an “indicator” of consent, not that it just can’t be proof of consent. . . .
[The law is] more of a threat to people in relationships than promiscuous people. People explicitly negotiate with virtual strangers like hookers, as to whom there is thus “affirmative” consent. (Many campus sexual assault allegations happen because the accused stopped dating and sleeping with the accuser, or cheated on her during a long-term relationship.)
But intimates don’t “affirmatively” consent, since there’s no need. My wife and daughter don’t ask for permission before hugging me, because I am not a stranger who might mind a hug. And my wife and I don’t explicitly discuss whether to have sex, we use euphemisms . . . that only manifest consent if you understand the prior subtext of our relationship.