Recently Both California and New York have passed laws requiring university students to sign forms before engaging in sexual acts in order to signify that they are consenting to such acts. Failure to garner the correct signature(s) leaves a man open to charges of sexual misconduct. It is signature(s) with a plural, because there have been discussions that each act of escalation may require a separate signature (envision how this would work if you will). And, once again, these laws are aimed at men, because effectively men are the only students who are ever accused of sexual misconduct on campus.
What is the motivation for laws? There is what is said to be the purpose. And then there is the effect. And by looking at the effect one might speculate as to the true purpose(s). This installment will consider possible overarching goals.
In Communist societies, one method of control was through the capricious application of rules. The idea is that a population can be sufficiently cowed by fear, uncertainty and doubt. These consent laws look to have high potential in this regard. They will have such an effect on men as a whole. They will not have this effect on women. And a shift in power will undoubtedly occur.
Furthermore, the originators of these laws might be expecting them to become models for laws with respect to society as a whole. And then, a similar power shift would occur. There is a question with respect to due process, but that is no doubt expected to be sorted out in the law’s favor.