@hebegebe, notice that in #101 @Coloradomama wrote
How am I to interpret this? It sounds to me like @Coloradomama is saying that if a woman consents to sex, she can’t then withdraw her consent in the middle if she decides she’s not enjoying herself. You, and I, and everyone in this thread, believe that there is no such thing as retroactive withdrawal of consent to sex. There is no argument to be had here about that, because we all agree on it.
But I hope you also agree with me that if a woman initially consents, and then in the middle says “I don’t want to do this any more,” and the guy forces her to continue, he is raping her and that is a crime. It sounds to me like @Coloradomama is saying the woman doesn’t get to change her mind, and once she agrees to sex, the guy can stick his johnson anywhere he wants in her for any length of time and she has no recourse. @Coloradomama, if that is not what you think, please clarify.
Ok, we agree that a woman can change her mind in the middle of an act, but can’t do so after the fact. And that the same applies to men as well.
However, I interpreted coloradomam’s post very differently than you did. I interpreted it to mean that advance consent is relatively meaningless precisely because either party can change his/her mind at any time. So given that, what protection does the advance consent actually provide to the accused party?
We previously had a long, long discussion about the Pomona case, which was similar: a very very very drunk guy and a very very very drunk girl had sex to which, by all evidence (and there was a lot) both enthusiastically consented. Pomona had a college rule against having sex with very very very drunk people. The next morning, the woman accused the guy of violating that rule, which he certainly had. Pomona suspended the guy.
We talked about what Pomona should have done. In my view, Pomona should have suspended both students for a year, because evidently both equally violated the rule. (The Pomona investigator did not technically reach a conclusion about whether the guy was extremely drunk, because he was not tasked to, but if he had, I’m confident he would have concluded the guy was extremely drunk.) Pomona’s narrow defense here was that the guy did not accuse the woman, so they were not obliged to adjudicate a case against the woman. That’s barely defensible, but they would have been better off instigating a case against her and suspending both.
"What would the charge be? Feloniously deciding you don’t want to have sex any more?
If that’s a crime, an awful lot of guys who have orgasms and quit before their partner has one are criminals."
If that’s a crime, all those impotent guys will be in hot water, too. 
@“Cardinal Fang” The reason people talk about a race to the title IX office is because once a case is opened the accused has no recourse. If the woman in the Cincinnati case would have made the same claim 2 days later it could have/would have been viewed as retaliation which, based on detail provided to my son in his situation, can carry just as severe if not worse consequences. With my son’s case the school was careful to point out any questioning of motives or statements that showed the accuser was an equal participant would be viewed as retaliation. Again first one to report “wins”.
Quite a lot. First. suppose both people are honest. But they’re young, and they may have been drinking, so one of them can misunderstand the other. If the subject of advance consent comes up, one of them can say, “Oh, wait, no I do not want to have sex right now. I didn’t realize that was what you wanted.” And then the other will be prevented from mistakenly proceeding on the false belief that they had consent. That’s a good thing.
Second, most accusations are that the alleged perpetrator never had consent. The advance consent would be a protection against that claim.
False accusers can always lie. True rapists can always lie. Nothing to be done about that. But there are plenty of cases where the alleged perpetrator either thought they had consent, or didn’t bother to find out if they had consent. Advance consent helps there.
Ok. You have convinced me that it helps legally … although it would seem to completely ruin the moment.
ETA. This reminded me of the article from a years ago. I remembered it because the mom dropped off her son at college, with a box of 300 condoms! Was he expected to finish them within the school year?
https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/opinion/jones-sex-consent-texting/index.html
For me, advance consent is not mostly about legality; it’s about both people being on the same page. I don’t want sexual encounters to end up in the legal or college disciplinary system. I don’t want sexual encounters to occur if the guy believes the woman would have said yes if he asked, but in fact she would have refused.
A good friend of mine recently told me a similar story where his mom had a friend that was involved with planned parenthood and when he left for school she stopped by with a huge box of condoms (probably 300+). Being a naive 18 year old he didn’t know what to say/do. He quickly became “the man” in his dorm and had people knocking on the door at all hours of the night. He would get resupplied at each holiday and knowing him it was not due to his own use.
Maybe she thought he would hand them out to friends.
Going forward only with explicit advance consent may prevent some of the “naive blundering into unclear consent” cases from getting to the point of being criminal or Title IX cases.
If a young man winds up in a relationship, he could easily personally use up a box of 300 before they expire, or earlier.
Yes, I forgot expiration is like five years. I was thinking more of a school year or semester.
Even in a year one can personally use up a box of 300 condoms. Just sayin’. 
Hobbes, you are making me blush!
You know what ruins the moment? Rape. You know what doesn’t? “YES! YES! YES!”
Maybe if you’re Wilt Chamberlain. 
@doschicos please read more carefully. I referenced the boy in the article. the statement I wrote was in reference to the article’s narrative about the facts of the case and asked a hypothetical to make a point that girls and boys can be treated differently in the same circumstances. I didn’t say she couldn’t change her mind. My objection is that she changes her mind, leaves, feels guilty, worries about her rep or whatever and then turns around and accuses him of sexual assault to somehow make herself feel better for her poor judgment. Seriously? So his life is trashed because she had regret over her choices to engage in sexual activity. Seems fair to me. And for what it’s worth she’s performed a sex act on him which he could claim was an assault.
So the UMass case. According to what Yoffe says, the young woman was conflicted about whether she wanted to have sex with the guy, but in the end, she did, apparently voluntarily according to her own account. And then she decided she didn’t want to do it anymore and left. So far so good. And then she decided to accuse him of sexual assault. And then the university found he didn’t sexually assault her. Let me say that again: the university found he didn’t sexually assault her. They didn’t buy the retroactive withdrawal of consent.
The accused guy got dinged for sending out a mass appeal for help, including his accuser’s full name, before the case was resolved. Now, her accusations were later found to be without merit, but the university is right to ban accused people from publicizing their accusers’ names before the accusations are resolved. This accusation was without merit, but others are true, and true victims should be protected from having their names spread around by their attackers.
@“Cardinal Fang” my objection is how the University treated him. He’s restricted as to where he can live, he can’t take certain classes, he is presumed to be a predator without a shred of proof. His life is trashed from the first moment. Not a single repercussion for her.