Next time you find yourself getting hot and heavy with someone you’ll need to stop and ask for an explicit and verbal yes, otherwise technically you’ll be without consent.

California recently adopted the “Yes means Yes” attitude toward sexual assaults. This means any sexual encounter you have that does not include a verbal “yes” could be seen as non-consensual.

Senate bill 967 changes the wording in the Education Code for public higher education when dealing with sexual crimes. Much of the change was to help protect the victim in cases where a verbal “yes” was missing.

The language in the bill states that consent requires “an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity.”

This change makes it easier to prosecute offenders and also easier to support survivors. When we’re looking at the perpetrator for evidence instead of the victim it’s less stressful on someone who’s recovering.

There is nothing that accounts for consent in a sexual encounter other than a “yes” from both parties. Cases specified in the bill include, when intoxication is involved or when the person is unconscious or asleep.

Prior to this bill the stance was “No means No” which doesn’t take into account instances where people may be unable to express themselves. Silence or lack of resistance is not forms of consent.

This change accelerates the rights that victims deserve in situations like this where actions can be used against them, for instance when outsiders question them “why didn’t you fight back?” Victim blaming is the first response when looking for the “no” but instead the perpetrator is responsible when searching for that “yes.” It shifts responsibility to the person liable because the conversation changes to “Why didn’t you ask if it was okay?”

Moving to this dialogue is essential to making consensual sex clear from rape. If a yes wasn’t received then consent wasn’t exchanged.

California is the first state to take on this wording in their colleges and it couldn’t have happened soon enough. The outdated view of trying to find resistance instead of enthusiasm really harms the victim.

A new conversation is beginning with the change in code but it will spark a new social commentary, one that hopefully will stop blaming victims for their inability to ward off attacks and instead hold offenders accountable.