Apologies for the late reply (and bringing the thread back up), but I missed this the first time.
Left this untouched earlier in my step back, but I really want to address it, because seriously?
Have you actually read SB 967? Because... well, it doesn't remotely do what you're claiming. In fact, I learned about affirmative consent as defined there from, and continue to find the greatest support for it in, BDSM circles. The concept is actually really, really simple: Only have sex with people who have agreed to it in ways they've agreed to. I'm involved in relationships with a fairly strong D/s element right now that are built on that foundation. So... no, this is pretty blatantly false.
Specifically these parts (emphasis mine):
An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time.
That's fine in a vanilla relationship... it's a distinct improvement in fact. Of course both partners should engage in enthusiastic, ongoing sex... and if one suddenly seems to lose interest or "freeze up" then of course the other should check if they still want to continue rather than take a "I've started so I'll finish" attitude.
But in BDSM play?
Let's give a simple example. My partner and I have gone through informed consent and we're taking it strictly. Both of us know what we're planning to do in the play session and both of us refuse to go any further even if the other partner wants to "push their limits" during the play itself (acknowledging the effect that subspace can have on someone's ability to make decisions they'd be happy with when they come out of it). We have a safe word... hell, let's say we go for one of those more complex three-versions of a safe word system which correspond to traffic lights (one for stop immediately, one for keep going but lower the intensity, one for speed up because I want more). We do some play and despite whoever is in the sub role crying, screaming, being in pain, pulling away and generally appearing scared, upset and in distress they never say the safeword and never intended to. We finish playing, hug, talk about what we liked and didn't like and both came to the conclusion that we had an awesome fun session that we'd love to do again.
Perfect right? And under the way that consent used to be assessed absolutely fine.
But not under SB967.
How can a sub who is "crying, screaming, being in pain, pulling away and generally appearing scared, upset and in distress" possibly
be seen as "affirmatively consenting"? Their every action and reaction is exactly the opposite. Under the old system that's fine because they hadn't said "no" (the safeword) and thus consent was still there. But under this one? As soon as one stops affirmatively consenting through word or deed then it becomes sexual assault. It doesn't matter that the safeword wasn't used. It doesn't even matter that the sub wanted
to continue. As soon as the sub showed signs of distress or that they "weren't into it" (and BDSM play frequently includes people appearing to "not be into it" regardless of if they actually are) the dom would have to confirm affirmative consent or anything further is sexual assault.
Which means under a SB967 framework, BDSM play would seemingly have to take one of three forms:
1) Incredibly mild and largely cheesy play which becomes little more than a sub sticking their bottom out and going "please, spank me".
2) The dom stopping every minute (or, depending on the play possibly even few seconds) to re-establish affirmative consent.
3) The need for yet another safeword that the sub would have to say every minute (or, depending on the play possibly even few seconds) to confirm they were affirmatively consenting to the play.
Does any of that sound like an enjoyable or practical way to engage in BDSM?
In your D/s themed relationship has there been a moment during play where you or your partner(s) didn't appear
to be affirmatively consenting? Where, despite not saying the safeword, if one simply looked at how they were acting and reacting one might think that you/they weren't enjoying it? Did you/they cry out in pain after a blow was struck? Did you/they try to move away as the other partner(s) approached with a flogger in hand? Etc Etc.
Because if any of those situations did occur and you didn't immediately stop to reestablish affirmative consent then under SB967 whoever was in the dom role for all of part of the play didn't just engage in BDSM play between consenting adults fully informed of what was to happen and able to end it at any time for any reason. They engaged in sexual assault.
And that's the simple issue here.
BDSM play features a vast number of situations where the entire point of the play actively goes against affirmative consent. Non-con roleplay is the obvious example... that quite clearly falls foul of it. But any play which puts the sub in seeming distress or pain is likewise in the firing line. Any play which a sub (while in the scene and not using their safeword) appears hesitant or reluctant to do falls foul. Anywhere where the sub says "no" (but without using the safeword because they don't actually want the scene to stop) is pretty much gone. Anywhere where at any point one could look at the scene and the only reason you assume you have consent is because the safeword hasn't been used is now no longer classed as consensual, regardless of what the participants want.
Welcome to SB967.