Say for example I am with a guy, and we are having a nice conversation. And he leans over and kisses me, but I didn't say whether I wanted to be kissed or not. I could make the claim that he is a rapist and legally that is true. This situation could also happen vice versa. This law leaves too many open interpretations. It prevents a romance from happening without needing to confirm every action, so no surprise or spontaneous act can be both legal, and secure.
Affirmative consent law does place the onus on a person to prove there was a "yes" (rather than placing the onus on a person to prove there was a "no"). However, The way you interpret that yes is so subjective and open of a concept that pretty much anybody could argue that. To me, Affirmative consent law changes nothing other than how you would present the facts of a case. You can no longer just say "the person didn't say no" as a defense. But your defense might be "the person blushed and batted their eyelashes" so to you that was a nonverbal cue that they were receptive to kissing. After all, This might be a way I would signal that I would like to be kissed as I can be a very passive person. At the end of the day, No matter how the law is written, People will always still be responsible for interacting with each other. You will have always people who like to be kissed spontaneously and people who want to engage in all sorts of strange consensual sexual relationships. Even the most rigid law can't observe what two consenting adults do behind closed doors when nobody is watching. The law only comes into play when a person accuses you of some kind of misconduct - it doesn't come into play between two adults who like what they are doing between them. Police aren't going to just suddenly bust down the door of a house looking to outlaw what is happening inside. Somebody has to make some complaints first and if the person is making a complaint, Then only at that point does the law go to look at the facts and see if the person had any reason to believe the person verbally or non-verbally signaled "yes".
I can understand where the law is coming from and it does sound like it would but it doesn't. All the law does is impose that if at any point in time a person says no to something you don't do it. Like there are examples that are ridiculous I've seen about how a girl kisses her boyfriend before asking she is breaking the law. Yes she is but what kind of douchebag boyfriend would you be to go,"You didn't ask to kiss me so I'm calling the police because I didn't give consent." That sounds absolutely absurd. If you did that you'd never get a girl again because you'd have the reputation of a guy who jails his girlfriends for kissing him.
All the law says is that if a girl/guy says no and you continue regardless, you are raping them. It is comparable to before where you got consent in the beginning and then they didn't want to do something but you already got consent so therefore you weren't raping her. It's more like the law is about safe words that if the partner isn't okay with something they say no and it's supposed to be over.
So no, I do not believe it outlaws all sex, it just adds a layer of protection for people who don't want to do something and aren't considered raped because they gave starting consent.
(If anyone sees something wrong in my logic or reasoning please respond as I'd like to hear from people on the opposite side of the debate or even on my side.)