Some people say that California’s “affirmative consent” law goes too far. But what these archaic misogynists don’t realize is that adult women are just not strong enough to articulate what they want in sexual situations. A lot of laws say that sexual assault is forcing sex on someone who said no or who is unable to say no. But here’s the problem: We need to realize that women are, in general, not able to say no. It’s too hard.There are some amusing black-knighting opportunities here. Any time a woman says yes to something, come back again 15 minutes later and ask her again. And again. And again.
Oh, and by the way, just one yes isn’t enough. If a woman suddenly becomes uncomfortable during an intimate encounter, she certainly won’t be assertive enough to tell the man without his asking her first. Thankfully, California realizes this, and the law demands that the affirmations of consent be “ongoing.”
If she gets annoyed, just explain to her it is the law, and you are legally required to obtain ongoing affirmations of consent.
50 comments:
I'm not affected by this law, yet. As a man who has come into his own in the bedroom, later in life, I'd say that the requirements do have some merit in creating some incredible sex. With the right attitude, asking for consent can be turned into some smokin' hot dirty talk.
.....that was by the National Review?
Fuck this gay earth.
Was this article satire? It sure reads like it.
Yes, Brad. But hopefully it will make just one femtard think about what she is saying or is real close to saying.
videotape EVERYTHING
“But hopefully it will make just one femtard think about what she is saying or is real close to saying. “
Yeah. “I’m so weak! I have no agency! I’m strong and independent everywhere but in the bedroom!
I can handle multimillion dollar accounts, but I’m completely UNABLE to tell a guy that I don’t want to go out with him!
I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan, but there’s just NO WAY I can tell Bob from accounting that I’ll kiss him but he better not touch my breast!
de ti said...
"I can bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan..."
Ah, your patriarchy is showing. Women today don't know how to cook even bacon. That's someone else's job.
1. Audio and video record their sexual encounters. EVERY TIME.
2. Text to confirm her interest and save the texts.
3. The next morning, give her the “boyfriend” treatment with a breakfast out, confirm the encounter by text, save the texts, and offer a followup.
4. DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT. Save all documentation – print out texts. Screenshots of social media private messages. Take selfies of the two of you together and save them. Save all photos she sends you, regardless of content – even better if it’s a photo you took on your phone, and one that she evidently posed for. All of these denote consent, and could serve as valuable exonerative evidence in the event of later charges.
Make it clear that your video recordings, your photos, your taking her out and spending a little money on her, are not for the purpose of showing her a good time. They're to protect you against claims of lack of consent.
"All these airs and graces are not for you, honey. They're for me. It's the law that you must consent to everything that happens here, and I can't risk you coming back later and claiming you didn't consent. I intend to comply with the law. Now smile so I can take this photo."
"May I kiss you? Ok. Please initial this form signifying your agreement."
"May I remove your blouse and bra? Oh, sorry, multiple. I'll break it down. May I remove your blouse? Please initial here."
"May I kiss your breast? Please initial here. LEGIBLY this time. And, could you turn your head just a little--that way? The camera's over there."
May I remove your jeans?
"yes. Stop asking me."
Could you say that a little louder, please? Here, let me adjust the boom mike up there....
Men (at least some of them) are going to throttle back, deflect, or go elsewhere for companionship.
This will make women even more sexually aggressive than they are today. A seduction line may well turn out to be: "Prove to me I have your consent." It's just an amped-up version of what single men already no: if a woman in the clinches says "no ... I can't" and the man jumps up, says, "no means no darling" and yanks on his jeans, she's going to be locking the bedroom door with the two of them inside it.
I really don't think a lot of women today understand their own sexual behavior, in our age of open hypergamy (once they proclaim that their feelings about it are good or bad); this kind of thing will generate what appears to be veritable insanity on their part.
It's not amusing, in reality though, because these laws and rules all exist on a vector of social engineering, and there will just be more, and more, and more of them imposed on more jurisdictions. These laws never come off the books. Neither does the prog-feminist impulse to create them attenuate.
--buena vista
The only way to end this crap is for men to abuse the law. No woman has ever asked permission before doing something sexual. They just grab, or touch, or fellate, because they take a hard penis to mean consent. Once enough women start getting kicked out of college or even thrown in jail, they'll scream for it to stop.
If not, that satire about raping a woman by changing positions without asking will become a terrifying reality.
“Men (at least some of them) are going to throttle back, deflect, or go elsewhere for companionship.”
“Yes means Yes” will have (and is clearly intended to have) a chilling effect on less assertive men. It will only embolden the thugs, jerks, players, cads and “rapey” men its proponents say they want to discourage. The “dads” that some in these parts claim they like so much will only become less engaged.
“Dads” are the rules followers, the betas, the engine of our economic society who make it run. They can’t afford to take a flyer on some cutie at a bar or some other meeting place. So they won’t approach girls they otherwise might approach. He's not going to risk that cutie saying "Lack of consent!! RAPE! He RAAAYPED me!!"
But the guys who will approach? Players, cads, and jerks. They are more aggressive, have less to lose, don’t care anyway, and will have learned the workarounds.
This is more evidence to me that there are a lot of women who are lying when they say they want good men, nice men, kind men, providers. They don’t – they want to winnow good men away from them, and encourage only the men who will push through Last Minute Resistance.
It’s funny that this law/policy will discourage the men these women say they want. And, this law will only encourage the men they claim not to want. It’s clear to me these women are going to use this law for what blogger Whiskey has often pointed out: Such laws merely serve to separate out attractive men that women want from unattractive, unwanted men. Only hyperaggressive men with track records of sexual success will approach any women, leaving most other men being unwilling to risk the chance of lack of consent or withdrawal of consent.
Actually, most men will become less willing or unwilling to risk any ambiguity at all even if consent is "implied" or "affirmative".
It might be sarcasm SD, but Onion stories have a way of being too close to reality today, so it isn't clear especially since it is not marked at all as such.
deti,
Steps 1-4...I can see it now.
"Stalk much, CREEP?!?!"
I don't disagree with the advice. I do see the pushback. There will be efforts to "shame" protective measures.
Mobile app idea: a program that requires his/hers fingerprints, begins recording audio/video, requires his/hers fingerprints for playback. Identity tied to consent as well as review of consent.
Mobile app. Done and shelved. Good2Go was released then removed from iTunes by apple. Chicks seemed to think it was a mood killer.
hopefully it will make just one femtard think about what she is saying or is real close to saying.
ROTFLMAO!
SD, I never suspected you had comedienne in you!
femtard think
It could happen...
....no?
You're right, that was silly.
What everyone here has to remember, is that this has absolutely nothing to do with preventing rape.
This is all about the Social Justice Warriors, finally gaining control of the most personal of human interactions possible. This is Big Sister telling both men and women what you can and can not enjoy.
On the face of it, the ridiculous part of all of this is that it destroys the power of sexual passion...for women...even worse than for men!
A woman doesn't want...absolutely does not ever want awkward sticky, apologetic fumbling. Which these laws are intended to guarantee.
A woman desires...wants...needs passionate mastery from a man.
A woman wants James Bond.
But does she want James Bond to say, "may I unhook your bra?" "May I nibble at this or would you prefer me to nibble at that"? Are you fully prepared in every-way; physically, emotionally, biologically and psychologically for penial insertion or would you like me to talk about my feelings some more? I am good with that you know."
The only woman who ever wanted that was a former prostitute named Andrea Dworkin, The spiritual leader of today's Social Justice Warriors. The queen of repulsive women and self castrated men and the author of all modern feminism.
No woman needs intercourse; few women escape it. Andrea Dworkin
Ooops found a better one
Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.--Andrea Dworkin
Christ
Any sane and single man must see the necessity to record each and every sexual encounter. Preferably, he will add a signed affidavit along with her recorded ongoing assent. I see an ap forthcoming that will address this, replete with a comfortable butt-cam, an electronic signature form and clear instructions on what yes means for the ladies. With all this, the woman can still cry foul, because she can't be trusted to understand what yes means. Thank the good Lord that He has provided me with a sane, fertile and beautiful wife.
How many cases of Doritos have consented to being wholfed down by Andrea Dworkin?
I forgot where I read it -- it may have been a comment on this blog -- but someone raised a very good point about all this consent stuff, esp. with reference to drunk women. If a woman is unable to give proper consent when she's drunk, a man is unable to discern proper consent when he's drunk.
Just wait until this is used in divorce proceedings, folks.
When they gave condoms to kids, I thought it made no difference. Technically, "kids" are not responsible. It is likely kids who have sex do not concern themselves with having safe sex.
Now, we arrived at the college hookup scene where drunks are incapable of having consenual sex. Again, we are trying to fix a situation where liberals assume the worst of a situation that they created.
Just say no.... becomes Just say YES.
This has to be tongue-in-cheek. Or that woman is so fucked up in the head she just can't see how ridiculous her opinion paper is. I am inclined to reading this as humour. Otherwise all hope is lost.
I read it as a kinder, gentler Judgy Bitch.
Setting the satire aside, what this woman is not saying, but what needs to be said, is that women don't want to say "yes." It is one thing to act like a slut, but by never actually saying "yes", a woman can tell herself that she was just going along or that she really wasn't in to it. Now women will have to admit, out loud, that they are sluts. This is not what they wanted.
The only way to end this crap is for men to abuse the law. No woman has ever asked permission before doing something sexual. They just grab, or touch, or fellate, because they take a hard penis to mean consent
Oh, she'll just insist the guy didn't have her affirmative consent to sport a... turgid member. It's the same as rape, y'know. And I'm only partially facetious. The problem with black knighting these people is, what the NR article attempts to present as satire is actually very much true and accepted. Women - or the women these sorts of laws are meant for anyway - do not have the agency of an adult. They are in fact emotional children and tend to be treated as such by the legal system and the media.
"Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine.--Andrea Dworkin"
While it's difficult for me to believe that the ghoul who wrote this has any idea what seduction by a man involves, it is just possible that she speaks from experience. On that one improbable occasion on which she might have received attention from a human male that didn't involve dry heaving or vomiting on his part, it would have been perfectly logical for wine to be involved. While I would have chosen something much stronger, no one could blame a man for bringing "liquid courage" to an encounter with the likes of Dwarfkin. The phrase "blind drunk" probably originated from similar situations in ages past, as a loss of vision, sometimes coupled with unconsciousness if God was feeling especially merciful, is the only way any human male of normal intelligence and functioning senses could consummate such an arrangement.
God damn, Jack. Just destroy my plan with flawless logic.
I got nothing.
"adult women are just not strong enough to articulate what they want in sexual situations"
------------------------------------------------
I almost didn't bother commenting about big stwong in de pen deint feeemails sooo em pow errd but I just did.
So there.
"There are some amusing black-knighting opportunities here. Any time a woman says yes to something, come back again 15 minutes later and ask her again. And again. And again."
-------------------------------
This is actually not a bad idea.
But more important is to use the affirmative consent idea against anything THEY want to do that you're not wild about.
"I refuse to go shopping with you!"
"But you agreed just 15 minutes ago!"
"That was 15 minutes ago. This is now!"
@Tommy Hass
Fuck this gay earth?
LOL
Congrats, you just made my day.
Definitely going to be using that one.
If you consider PUAs to be professional rapists but you believe that saving yourself for marriage to be a part of 'rape culture'.......
If you say you don't believe in charging a price for sex but you hate PUAs because they try and get it for free......
If you say you're 'sex positive' but your basic attitude towards sex makes the Victorian Era look like 1960's Greenwich Village......
.....you might be a feminist.
@JDC
"Thank the good Lord that He has provided me with a sane, fertile and beautiful wife."
-------------------
And so log as you do whatever she say's and never cheat you can be assured that she will remain a sane, fertile, beautiful wife who will never never never ever decide that the sex you've been having was rape.
No way not ever!
Never, never, never!
Do they actually, and need to, ask these days? A line of actions was all I required. And once that line was established, the choice was gone. Her choice. I guess the world has just passed me by, even though I remain the same. As does the world that is near enough to call my own. Perhaps because I make my world, not living in some chaotically lawful evil society, but one of very natural actions, reactions, and consequences... many of which I certainly do control.
If your woman sees wrongly, teach her how to see correctly. If you are a male, you can do this... Most of you.
You can easily take this argument and use it to end women's suffrage. "Sorry, you can't vote anymore because you're just not assertive enough to protect yourself from pushy politicians".
JP,
Any reason to end vagina voting is good. That just happens to be one of them. I don't think it is valid in that format, because of the distance between politician and woman. What is acceptable, to my mind, is that women aren't strong enough of character to debate their own emotions and accept wise choices if they don't make her feel good.
And so log as you do whatever she say's and never cheat you can be assured that she will remain a sane, fertile, beautiful wife who will never never never ever decide that the sex you've been having was rape.
And so long as you do what she needs (not wants, not says), you can be assured that she will remain...
The men who have wives who say the sex they'd been having was rape are men who have been doing whatever their wives say.
Millions of words written and this concept still eludes people.
@SarahsDaughter
I do believe that evilwhitemaleempire was being sarcastic -- the comical number of "[n]ever"s he used being the clue.
I read it as a mockery toward JDC and a warning that he is foolish to believe she won't use the control the state has given her against him. Which now reading again what JDC wrote is probably good for him. His comment does seem to indicate that he thinks his wife is different (sane) and that is what will keep her from exerting that control rather than understanding the nature of women and purposefully (or naturally if that is the case) behaving in a manner, himself, that exhibits that understanding.
I'm not making a judgement about you, JDC. But this is something I'm curious about. Do Natural Alphas - you know the "just be a man" advisers, who don't need to change their behavior towards women, do they believe they have married apex women or do they understand that it is because of who they are naturally that they don't have the same challenges in their relationships as say, Deltas do? Do they think of other men: "well, you just didn't find yourself a good woman" ? Or can they see that if married to a Delta instead of them, their wife would be prone to similar behavior that the Delta's wife exhibits?
To add to that, I know more than a few women who are oblivious that they are married to natural Alphas and who honestly believe they are different (NAWALT) than other women. That, because they've never experienced a relationship with a Delta or Gamma, they've never behaved in the manner they hear men complain about.
Harvard's set-up for ensuring that 'yes' means whatever the accuser wants it to mean:
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/16/harvard-supercharges-the-kangaroo-court-system/
I'm not making a judgement about you, JDC. But this is something I'm curious about. Do Natural Alphas - you know the "just be a man" advisers, who don't need to change their behavior towards women, do they believe they have married apex women or do they understand that it is because of who they are naturally that they don't have the same challenges in their relationships as say,
I have had alpha moments, but do not consider myself one (I have a bit of short-guy syndrome). I can say with confidence that my marriage is set on the foundation of Christ, and I place my trust on that foundation - not in my efforts. My wife accepts my role as head of the household, and I humbly do my best to fulfill that role, understanding that Christ's headship of the church is most clearly manifested in His sacrifice and death for her. My wife certainly challenges me at times, and that is when game comes into play. If her requests/complaints/ideas are reasonable, then we sit and discuss them. If she is being solipsistic or emotional, I firmly dismiss them as i would a child throwing a tantrum. I also thank the good Lord everyday for providing me with a faithful woman. Funny, when your relationship with God is strong, other things tend to work themselves out.
To add to that, I know more than a few women who are oblivious that they are married to natural Alphas and who honestly believe they are different (NAWALT) than other women. That, because they've never experienced a relationship with a Delta or Gamma, they've never behaved in the manner they hear men complain about.
This would go a long way toward explaining why, in my experience, the most beautiful women actually behave better than average-looking women. Plain janes have to routinely settle for Deltas and Gammas, whereas the knockouts get with Alphas and Sigmas, leading to bitchy cynical plain jane behavior.
Also, notice how the women on Fox News are much hotter than those on the Democrat channels? I'm no fan of neoconservatism by any means, but I do think it's telling that the most beautiful white women tend to be Republican or otherwise friendlier to conservative or traditional positions.
Also, notice how the women on Fox News are much hotter than those on the Democrat channels? I'm no fan of neoconservatism by any means, but I do think it's telling that the most beautiful white women tend to be Republican or otherwise friendlier to conservative or traditional positions.
So in other words, tradcon feminists are less ball-busting and behave in a slightly more ladylike fashion than Marxist feminists, but otherwise still fully subscribe to the FI, sans the abortion angle.
Frankly, I fail to see any upside or advantage in this for men.
liberranter, you may have missed the point being made. Like Corvinus, my experience with these women who are oblivious to the fact they are married to Alpha's are usually quite attractive and feminine (not always). What I'm analyzing is the chicken or the egg debate. These women, who don't know what it means to be in rebellion or contemptuous of their husbands - are they that way because they are apex women and therefore different than the general population of women or are they like that because they have never known life not married to (or fathered by) an Alpha? And, do Alphas believe they are married to naturally submissive and agreeable women or do they acknowledge that that unicorn does not exist and that their submissive and agreeable wives would likely not be the same married to man of a different socio-sexual rank?
The ladies of Fox News are fascinating to observe. The most feminist, ball-busting types and those who fully subscribe to the FI are the ones who do stupid things like chop their hair off - Megyn Kelly for example. Whereas observe Kirsten Powers' physical transformation as she went from an atheist liberal to a Christian.
@Corvinus
"I do think it's telling that the most beautiful white women tend to be Republican or otherwise friendlier to conservative or traditional positions"
----------------------------------------------
Barring lesbians, attractive women seldom identify as feminists (but they ARE).
They usually recognize, intuitively, that feminism is mainly a wallflower female advocacy group and that one of it's goals (if only subconsciously) is to keep the gold down so that the rust can win.
This is why attractive women tend to gravitate to the political right.
Where men are in charge they thrive (to their fullest potential).
But where women rule they will do only marginally well.
A good example of what happens when an attractive woman is foolish enough to cast her lot with leftoids can be found in the case of YouTube hotty Laci Green.
She once used the 'insensitive' word "tranny" and they POUNCED.
Now who did the pouncing and why?
Well, we can be reasonably certain it wasn't the men.
And I think it reasonable to assume that her use of the word 'tranny' was just an excuse for them to hate on Laci for being hotter than them.
Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also Kata Kata Galau, and many other interesting articles on my blog that.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.