College Student Insists He Doesn't Need Consent Training - Next, He'll Reject How Not To Kill People Training

By COTWA: I don't know what a rapist "looks like," but I do know that George Lawlor, a politics and sociology student at Warwick University, is an affront to the sexual grievance industry and that he needs to be stopped by any means.

You see, George Lawlor has the audacity to insist he knows what "consent" means--the impudent young man probably took it upon himself to look it up in the dictionary (on whose authority, George?!) and discover that there's no secret meaning behind it, that consent really does mean consent. 

So now this presumptuous young man, this George Lawlor, is insisting he doesn't need invaluable consent training. 

This monster--there's no other word for this George Lawlor--is impeding the invaluable work of the rape cottage industry that is a hallmark of our institutions of higher learning.
Does this George Lawlor not know that consent training is a growth industry that is critical to our economic growth? How are useless people supposed to stay employed if people like George Lawlor won't allow them to do their useless things?!

The next thing you know, college students will be insisting they don't need training on how not to steal, commit battery, or murder.


George Lawlor even had the temerity to provide a rationale for his position:

I feel as if I’m taking the “wrong” side here, but someone has to say it – I don’t have to be taught to not be a rapist. That much comes naturally to me, as I am sure it does to the overwhelming majority of people you and I know. Brand me a bigot, a misogynist, a rape apologist, I don’t care. I stand by that.
I already know what is and what isn’t consent. I also know about those more nuanced situations where consent isn’t immediately obvious as any decent, empathetic human being does. Yes means yes, no means no. It’s really that simple. You’d think Russell Group university students would get that much, but apparently the consent teachers don’t have as high a regard for their peers as I do.
I’m not denying there have been tragic cases of rape and abuse on campuses in the past, but do you really think the kind of people who lacks empathy, respect and human decency to the point where they’d violate someone’s body is really going to turn up to a consent lesson on a university campus? They won’t. The only people who’ll turn up will be people who (surprise, surprise) already know when it’s okay to shag someone. No new information will be taught or learned. It will just be an echo chamber of people pointing out the obvious and others nodding along, thinking the whole time thinking that they’ve saved the world.

Okay, I get it--this George Lawlor is using logic and persuasion to make his case, is he? Well, I have news for George Lawlor. That just proves he's a misogynist, a rape apologist, a rape denier, and a cretinous miscreation who is not suited to mingle in polite society with women.
How do I know this? Seriously? I refer our readers to Stanford University's famous sexual assault training materials: ". . . the training materials provided to jurors in sexual assault cases at Stanford instruct them that being 'persuasive and logical' is a sign of guilt . . . ."
I rest my case. George Lawlor needs to get to consent training immediately. 

Source