By I’ve never been a big fan of “no means no” when it comes to sex. In my experience, “no” frequently means “playing hard to get”—or at least it did when I was younger. Today, I tend to restrict my sexual activity to mature adults, I don’t play those kinds of games, and “no” means we split the tab and I’m not calling her back for a second date.
My dating strategy of today would not have worked so well in high school or college. There was often quite a bit of coaxing. While kissing I might try to touch her breasts, and she might remove my hand. A few moments later I might try again, and have better luck. I might even get slapped on occasion, but hey, thems the breaks, kid. You try, you fail, and you try again—that’s how the game was played.
Even now, I never ask permission. I try to read a woman’s signals to determine if my advances will be welcomed, and then I advance. I’ve gotten quite good at this, and I honestly cannot recall the last time one of those advances was turned down. Flirting turns into kissing, kissing turns into the removal of clothing, and rather than turn this into an erotic novel, I’ll assume you can figure out the rest. At no point do I say, “Do you mind if I do X?” and if she says yes, it’s probably because she’s already climaxing.
This all seems quite normal to me, but a bill set to pass in California would make the preceding paragraphs into the confessions of a serial rapist.
The California state senate unanimously approved a bill August 28 that defines when “yes” means “yes” to sex. It doesn’t require a woman to say “no,” or to resist, or to remove your hand, or to slap you for your sexual encounter to become a felony. The bill simply gives a vague standard of “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement” by both parties as the consent requirement for sex. In addition to consenting up front, the bill requires affirmative consent to be “ongoing throughout the sexual activity,” meaning that sexual partners must agree to each step of a sexual encounter as it progresses and consent can be revoked at any time. The standard would apply to all sexual encounters regardless of whether the parties are having a one-night stand or are in a long-term relationship.
This might not sound so bad at first. Clearly an unconscious person cannot make an agreement, there is no such thing as “involuntary agreement,” and affirmative simply means agreement. Any reasonable person understands that a sexual encounter can be cut short at any time by any person involved in it.
The problem here is that the California legislature apparently thinks revoking consent happens without any communication whatsoever. It treats a conscious person the same as an unconscious person. Sex is rape when the woman tells authorities it is rape, even if she never mentions it to the person she’s accusing of rape. If I make a pass at a woman, and for whatever reason she goes along with it, wakes up feeling bad about it, and goes to the police, I go to prison.
Believe me when I tell you, better men than I have already gone to prison for less, and the standards are perpetually shifting toward rape being the default condition of all sexual encounters. This is not an act of incompetence by the California legislature, this is the feminist influence on governments doing exactly what feminists always wanted it to do. As far as they are concerned, all sex is rape. Women cannot consent to sex because they are being oppressed by men. It is no different from a slave owner having sex with his slaves, an adult having sex with a child, or any otherwise autonomous person having sex with a gun to their head.
Take Catharine MacKinnon, for example, a prominent Marxist feminist (redundant, I know) who was very active back in the 1980s. She said, “Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.”
My regular readers will recall my response to Laci Green’s “Consent 101.” Green is a feminist YouTube personality who is paid to speak on college campuses about sex. Green says it is sexual assault to try to kiss a woman without verbally asking her in advance, it is rape to have sex with a conscious woman who has been drinking, and that “masculinity” was the cause of Elliot Rodger’s shooting spree in California.
A 2013 article at the Daily Kos said that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is too strict a standard to apply to rape cases. That a lack of consent should not have to be proven.
This is how you get insane concepts like “rape culture.” Reasonable people understand that forcing a woman into sex is socially unacceptable. Feminists don’t see “rape” as being confined to force or coercion; sex and rape are essentially the same thing, and since sex is socially acceptable, so is rape.
The only way to resolve this is to have women rule over men, and if being able to snap one’s fingers and have someone thrown in prison without proof doesn’t meet that standard, then I don’t know what does.
Originally published at ChristopherCantwell.com
Christopher Cantwell is an activist, writer, and satirist originally from New York. From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, he covers news and current events, addresses philosophical questions, and even cracks a joke or two.
Source
Even now, I never ask permission. I try to read a woman’s signals to determine if my advances will be welcomed, and then I advance. I’ve gotten quite good at this, and I honestly cannot recall the last time one of those advances was turned down. Flirting turns into kissing, kissing turns into the removal of clothing, and rather than turn this into an erotic novel, I’ll assume you can figure out the rest. At no point do I say, “Do you mind if I do X?” and if she says yes, it’s probably because she’s already climaxing.
This all seems quite normal to me, but a bill set to pass in California would make the preceding paragraphs into the confessions of a serial rapist.
The California state senate unanimously approved a bill August 28 that defines when “yes” means “yes” to sex. It doesn’t require a woman to say “no,” or to resist, or to remove your hand, or to slap you for your sexual encounter to become a felony. The bill simply gives a vague standard of “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement” by both parties as the consent requirement for sex. In addition to consenting up front, the bill requires affirmative consent to be “ongoing throughout the sexual activity,” meaning that sexual partners must agree to each step of a sexual encounter as it progresses and consent can be revoked at any time. The standard would apply to all sexual encounters regardless of whether the parties are having a one-night stand or are in a long-term relationship.
This might not sound so bad at first. Clearly an unconscious person cannot make an agreement, there is no such thing as “involuntary agreement,” and affirmative simply means agreement. Any reasonable person understands that a sexual encounter can be cut short at any time by any person involved in it.
The problem here is that the California legislature apparently thinks revoking consent happens without any communication whatsoever. It treats a conscious person the same as an unconscious person. Sex is rape when the woman tells authorities it is rape, even if she never mentions it to the person she’s accusing of rape. If I make a pass at a woman, and for whatever reason she goes along with it, wakes up feeling bad about it, and goes to the police, I go to prison.
Believe me when I tell you, better men than I have already gone to prison for less, and the standards are perpetually shifting toward rape being the default condition of all sexual encounters. This is not an act of incompetence by the California legislature, this is the feminist influence on governments doing exactly what feminists always wanted it to do. As far as they are concerned, all sex is rape. Women cannot consent to sex because they are being oppressed by men. It is no different from a slave owner having sex with his slaves, an adult having sex with a child, or any otherwise autonomous person having sex with a gun to their head.
Take Catharine MacKinnon, for example, a prominent Marxist feminist (redundant, I know) who was very active back in the 1980s. She said, “Perhaps the wrong of rape has proven so difficult to articulate because the unquestionable starting point has been that rape is definable as distinct from intercourse, when for women it is difficult to distinguish them under conditions of male dominance.”
My regular readers will recall my response to Laci Green’s “Consent 101.” Green is a feminist YouTube personality who is paid to speak on college campuses about sex. Green says it is sexual assault to try to kiss a woman without verbally asking her in advance, it is rape to have sex with a conscious woman who has been drinking, and that “masculinity” was the cause of Elliot Rodger’s shooting spree in California.
A 2013 article at the Daily Kos said that “beyond a reasonable doubt” is too strict a standard to apply to rape cases. That a lack of consent should not have to be proven.
The problem: the default legal assumption in rape cases is that consent was given. It’s up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t. This is very different from the standard legal assumptions for other crimes. It’s not assumed that a murder victim consented to be murdered. It’s not assumed that a robbery victim consented to give their wallet over to a stranger. It’s not assumed that an identity theft victim consented to have someone else take their identity. In such a case, yes, the prosecution has to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the accused killed the victim, or took the victim’s wallet, or took the victim’s identity, etc. But if that’s proven, it’s not up to the prosecution to prove that the victim didn’t want it.This insanely warped perspective is becoming the new normal. Sex is rape because patriarchy. If sex has occurred, the presumption is that the man victimized the woman. Any woman can have any man she’s had sex with thrown into prison just by saying the magic words.
But it is that way with rape. The legal assumption is that if any two random people have sex, no matter how implausible, that consent was given to it—and the prosecution has to prove otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt. And for this reason, rape is exceedingly difficult to prosecute.
This is how you get insane concepts like “rape culture.” Reasonable people understand that forcing a woman into sex is socially unacceptable. Feminists don’t see “rape” as being confined to force or coercion; sex and rape are essentially the same thing, and since sex is socially acceptable, so is rape.
The only way to resolve this is to have women rule over men, and if being able to snap one’s fingers and have someone thrown in prison without proof doesn’t meet that standard, then I don’t know what does.
Originally published at ChristopherCantwell.com
About Christopher Cantwell
Christopher Cantwell is an activist, writer, and satirist originally from New York. From an anarcho-capitalist perspective, he covers news and current events, addresses philosophical questions, and even cracks a joke or two.Source
No comments:
Post a Comment