The time to reform Minnesota’s criminal sexual conduct (“CSC”) laws is now. Conceptions of sex, rape, and consent have evolved from paternalistic ideals and given way to modern reforms and an ever-expanding understanding of sexual relationships. One need only watch cringeworthy interactions of sex symbols of earlier decades to understand how drastic this shift has been. For example, take what was an entirely acceptable scene in the PG-rated, 1964 film Goldfinger. James Bond corners his female co-star, Pussy Galore, in a stable and makes several sexual advances, which Galore rejects. He then attacks Galore, who pushes him away. Finally, Bond pins Galore to the ground and kisses her. Galore continues to resist Bond, but eventually, Galore gives in, and the scene cuts away. Galore later changes allegiances and helps Bond defeat his nemesis, Auric Goldfinger. The essential takeaway from this scene and the movie overall is clear: if not for Bond’s ability to overpower Galore’s initial lack of consent, Goldfinger would have been successful in his plan to destroy Fort Knox.
Recently, investigative journalists have exposed gaping holes in how Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies handle sexual assaults. These realizations prompted many reforms, including the use of trauma-informed interviewing techniques by investigators in cases of sexual assaults, and led to the repeal of some distasteful and outdated laws. However, the Minnesota Legislature’s work is not done.
While Minnesota defines consent in modern terms, the definition’s interplay with the CSC statutes entirely misses the mark when it comes to the criminality of nonconsensual sexual conduct. Remnants of outdated rape statutes remain in the current CSC statutory framework, which requires either force or injury to elevate an offense to a felony. Today in Minnesota, the law makes no distinction between nonconsensual sexual intercourse without force or injury and intentional, nonconsensual touching of a victim’s inner thigh.
The Legislature would be wise to adopt an affirmative consent standard into its CSC statutes, as it would accurately reflect the criminality of nonconsensual sexual contact and intercourse. The Legislature need not look far for a working model of affirmative consent: Wisconsin has a relatively long history of using the affirmative consent standard to criminalize nonconsensual sexual contact and intercourse, even without force or injury. Given recent controversy regarding Minnesota’s CSC statutes, the Legislature should adopt a version of Wisconsin’s sexual assault statutes to bring Minnesota’s statutes in line with modern conceptions of sex, rape, and consent.