Adults may soon find their sex lives regulated to the point where nearly every sexual encounter is defined as rape unless neither party reports the activity.And remember, not even being married will excuse one from the need for affirmative consent every single time. Because, as we've seen, the idea that anyone can permanently consent to sex through the act of the marital sacrament has been attacked through the development of the oxymoronic concept of "marital rape".
The American Law Institute will vote in May on whether to adopt a model penal code that would make "affirmative consent" the official position of the organization. Affirmative consent — or "yes means yes" — policies have already been adopted by many colleges and universities, and have been passed as law in California and New York.
A source within ALI has confirmed to the Washington Examiner that the model penal code on sexual assault that was discussed at last year's meeting will be voted on at their annual meeting this coming May. Last year, the draft proposal was met with opposition from ALI members, including a female former prosecutor who called the draft "really disturbing."
Friday, April 22, 2016
Affirmative consent law
SJWs and feminists are transforming sex into legal rape:
31 comments:
The revolution can't come soon enough
Feminism is the politicization of envy. This is the end game for them. After this, it's SCUM manifesto made reality.
This is actually completely contrary to the goals of the sexual revolution. This will make fornication much more difficult and riskier.
@Drew
It already is difficult and risky. This law just codifies the prevailing culture.
Porn is about to get very very boring(er).
This is the type of law that will eat the Left first.
Which women are more likely to report the fake rapes?
Now, I'm not suggesting women from the Right won't join in, but the deck is stacked on the Left with wacko women.
People have been fucking for thousands upon thousands of years. Your parents did it. Their parents did it. Their parents did it. Peasants in the Middle Ages figured out how to do it without any modern "sex ed" courses.
Women and Men find each other attractive, they will ALWAYS find ways to get naked and fit their respective genital together. "Be fruitful and multiply..." isn't just a command from God, it is written into our DNA.
These liberal puritanical attempts to regulate people's private sex lives with "Yes Means Yes" laws will be just as successful as conservative puritanical attempts to regulate people's private sex lives.
Your only option is to find someone of equal sexual market value, get naked with them, put on the song Closer by Nine Inch Nails, and the rest will take care of itself.
These liberal puritanical attempts to regulate people's private sex lives with "Yes Means Yes" laws will be just as successful as conservative puritanical attempts to regulate people's private sex lives.
So they'll be successful and thereby produce long-lasting civilizations, is what you're saying?
SJWs and feminists are transforming sex into legal rape
Anything, absolutely anything except pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen. It puts me in mind of the spirals people will go into to avoid acknowledging Jesus- anything but a lord and savior, yuck!
"Last year, the draft proposal was met with opposition"
They misspelled "daft".
Looks like a good opportunity for some "say please" black knighting.
@Drew
"This is actually completely contrary to the goals of the sexual revolution. This will make fornication much more difficult and riskier."
It's easy. Women want unilateral power. The marriage contract was a two-way commitment (extramarital sex was forbidden). Sexual revolution was a two-way non-commitment (any sex was legitimate). This was clear and objective so women don't like it.
What women want is the right to define each sexual intercourse as legitimate or forbidden, based on their feelings. The right to punish a beta if it turns out it was not alpha enough, the right to punish an alpha if he doesn't commit.
They are wired to do that, now they want the State to enforce these feelings by law. And they have a lot of white knights willing to enable this. With this legislation, woman becomes the master of sexual activity and man is the slave: no rights, only duties. Which is what feminism is about.
"This is the type of law that will eat the Left first."
No, it will catch the occasional gamma loser, but the left won't care and the losers caught by it won't learn anything from it. It will be weaponized against the Right, at every opportunity they can.
No, it will catch the occasional gamma loser, but the left won't care and the losers caught by it won't learn anything from it. It will be weaponized against the Right, at every opportunity they can.
In the same way prog males are more vulnerable to SJW attacks than are badthinkers, due both to more exposure to SJWs as well as their almost guaranteed likelihood of dutifully apologizing, they'll also be more vulnerable to this.
The biggest upside: through simple fear and actually believing this BS, even those prog males who are never caught will be even less likely to father children than they are already.
Although the other obvious conclusion from this: all Gammas and Omegas, especially alt-righters, who are interested in women have to get up to at least Delta status, and preferably as high as possible, if you want women not to snitch on you.
Let the prog males take 100% of the downside.
This is actually completely contrary to the goals of the sexual revolution. This will make fornication much more difficult and riskier.
Drew
There's a silver lining here: the average woman would no longer have the notch count of a prostitute.
Modern SJW feminists remind me of the Junior Anti-Sex League from "1984".
The University of Southern California’s student government hosted a “Consent Carnival” that aimed to teach students how to properly hook-up under the “yes means yes” state law that requires so-called affirmative consent throughout any sexual encounter...
...
a “Kissing Booth” at the event offered Hershey Kisses glued to little sheets of white paper that essentially explained how to properly kiss without committing sexual assault. The five-step checklist states on the front “what exactly does it mean to … ‘consent’ to a kiss?” and on the back states that “consent is”:
A feminist kissing booth. My shudders of revulsion could be easily mistaken for a grand mal seizure.
Plus; a five step list? For kissing? Really? Honestly? There is less negotiation involved in a typical BDSM session.
Affirmative: We’re really excited to share this kiss with you and we’re letting you know!
Okay who the fuck is "We?" How many damn people are required by California law to be involved in one kiss these days? And does "we" have to be really excited? Would "I" be committing rape in California if "We" was kind of pretending to be reluctant about the kiss because "We" wanted "I" to respect "We?" And also it was kind of fun to play that game with "I"
I should make a consent app. Both people log in and fill out a checklist of sexual activities to record their consent for legal purposes.
"Affirmative:We're really excited to share this kiss with you and we're letting you know!
What is up with these feminists and their obsessive use of exclamation points.
This is actually completely contrary to the goals of the sexual revolution. This will make fornication much more difficult and riskier.
For men. They've moved balanced risks almost 100% to the male side (everything but disease). And it's not like young women will have trouble getting sex when they want it, either - put a few drinks into a 20 year old guy and it's "damn the torpedoes" time.
Anyway, sex was never a goal of the sexual revolution. Not for feminists. The goal was always power.
Those folks are possessed by some hysteria. Has anybody ever thought about the consequences of such laws?
From http://freedompowerandwealth.com
It's always amusing to watch a secular world struggle with moral issues, and go the whole cycle from "liberation of that religious, rule" to "this isn't working out like I thought" to "we need a new rule" to "we need a new, more draconian rule, absent the grace of the religious rule."
Basically, they are reinventing marriage here, while simultaneously taking the grace out of marriage.
Why don't they just ban fornication and get it over with?
Silly white liberals and nothing more, if white men were not there to play the dupe then to enforce the law these silly white libs would in most part probably be lynched by some glorious people of color.
Go ahead and ask these silly white libtards if the glorious people of color give two hands full of crap for this idiocy.
It's just another shit test to screen out non-alphas and criminalize the sexual urges of non-alphas.
As soon as you start down the tingle-killing "mother, may I?" road, you are dumped into the non-alpha garbage bin.
Best evidence of consentuality will be a receipt for services rendered.
As I've mentioned before, if a man constantly faces the possibility of a (false, per the definition of REAL rape) a,rape conviction, what is to stop him from deciding to committ an act (or multiple acts) of actual rape? He's doomed any way he looks at it. In for a penny, in for a pound. Indeed, with feminist insanity spiraling out of control, would not more and more men develop something resembling a pathological hatred of women, the natural outcome of which is acts of violence like rape?
Congrats, feministas. Enjoy the "Brave New World" you've unleashed.
From "from love" to "all sex is rape" in 50 years. What better evidence could there be that the liberal, secular West is a dead man walking?
"Indeed, with feminist insanity spiraling out of control, would not more and more men develop something resembling a pathological hatred of women, the natural outcome of which is acts of violence like rape?"
Of course. That's a central part of the strategy. The more 'rape' and 'violence against women' that can be stirred-up, the greater the benefit to the matriarchy and its diverse establishment interests.
The matriarchy (consisting of far more than just academic feminists) very much profits from the creation in males of a 'pathological hatred of women'. Because the individual and collective agents of the matriarchy truly do hate and resent masculinity and fatherhood, they must engage in as many degradations and disenfranchisements as possible against males, so as to create a 'mirror emoticon' in the collective masculine which matches their own malevolence. These persons then provide the 'proof' the matriarchy requires to rationalize and expand its self-serving agendas. See? Oh oh I'm at risk. THAT'S why I need the Homeland Security Nation.
Because the individual and collective agents of the matriarchy truly do hate and resent masculinity and fatherhood, they must engage in as many degradations and disenfranchisements as possible against males, so as to create a 'mirror emoticon' in the collective masculine which matches their own malevolence.
a.k.a. MGTOW.
Yes - sturdy. All my troubles seemed so far away...
Now men will have to Yestimate.
Or they will be Yestranged.
Know means Know.
The problem is the twin heresies of frigidity and promiscuity. Neither of which are Chastity. Chastity is frigidity to all outside the sacred bonds of matrimony of man and wife and promiscuity within the marital bed.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.