"California’s “yes means yes” law turns the idea of sexual consent upside down. Suddenly, nearly all sex is rape, unless no person involved reports it as such."We now know, having been instructed by the harpies, that we absolutely must believe a woman who charges "rape".
"So what would provable consent look like? Joke all you want, but descriptions of bland, bureaucratic sexual situations really are the only way to prove consent.And why are certain states still allowed to have US senators?
Can I kiss you? Sign here.
Can I touch you? Sign here.
You get the point.
Beyond signed documents (which, if the signature wasn’t perfect could be interpreted as the person being too drunk to sign their name), would be video recordings of the entire night’s events. This would have to include the first meeting of the two people through some time after the sexual activity. (Perhaps body cameras for college students are the answer?)"
"Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is open to changing that. During an MSNBC-hosted panel discussion on Monday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, Gillibrand said she was considering taking the “yes means yes” law to the federal level."It's a short step from there to the feminist position that, "all PIV sex is rape", and to: "all men are rapists in waiting".
So far they have successfully embedded the official Victimhood Classes into Protected Categories, under which any offense is a Hate Crime (Caps intended: showing official status). Soon they will want to officially designate the Oppressor Class, which first and foremost is White Males. Just the idea of white males is an offense in many areas these days, causing fainting and regurgitation, similar to the reaction when an Atheist sees a religious artifact. Fainting and regurgitation are the proof of Tolerance amongst the Toleranti.
5 comments:
Have you ever seen the movie Cherry 2000? Fortunately the appropriate clip happens to be on youtube:
Cherry 2000 dating
Perhaps it is time for men to just say, "No thanks!" to any female who adheres to this ideology. In the course of her lifetime, this will resolve the problem the same way that the Shakers did. No more Shakers, no more movers.
Or, in the words of George Soros, "Move on." Leave them to figure it out on their own.
No one even mentions keeping it zipped up and in the pants until marriage any more. Self-discipline is not an option; self-indulgence is the dominant characteristic, and charges of rape after changing one's mind is the ultimate self-indulgence.
It is highly amusing (and deliciously ironic) that radical feminism may usher in a new era of male chastity (for those who are not interested in extremely risky behavior). On second thought - NAH! That "no brainer" in the pants will override the Void in the cranium in too many cases for chastity to become popular again. Morality: who needs it when there's "free" sex to be had by all?!?
TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lay).
Not by all, Robert. You must first swear allegiance to pink vagina costume, and to the misandry for which it stands, on gender, über alles, with ridicule and mocking of men.
Post a Comment