Is the Yes Means Yes law mutually beneficial for both genders? Is it overall a necessary measure?

GayLubeOil · 2015-03-06T20:46:47+00:00

Law is not uniformly enforced against genders. Law is primarily enforced against men, with women getting much lighter sentences for the same crimes.

[deleted] · 2015-03-06T20:21:07+00:00

The law exists to send more men to jail. That's it.

Reginleifer · 2015-03-06T20:19:56+00:00

Literally the only two defenses of the concept from "moderate" feminists have been.

"It's only in California Universities, it's not a real law (as i expulsion was some slap on the wrist in today's economy) When a while ago they asured me that this would never come to the US at all.

It's only exile Romeo! We're not going to KILL YOU!

They believe that even though most sex could be charged as rape, that it doesn't matter because women won't charge the sex as rape.

I too enjoy putting my liberties entirely in the hands of another person. :/

This is about as terrible a legal defense as "if you have othing to hide you have nothing to worry about."

nicethingyoucanthave · 2015-03-06T21:32:30+00:00

If asked for consent, do women have a duty to respond honestly (or else not at all, which means "no")?

I've asked this question to many blue pillers - even been banned from a blue pill subreddit for asking it. Stop for a minute and think about why this question is so upsetting to you. You call the law, "Yes means Yes" but when pushed, you don't really believe that yes means yes.

I'll cut to the chase. Here's what I'm really getting at: Imagine a time long, long ago when the patriarchy rained supreme and women were in chains. The year was 1989. A rape victim comes forward and reports that she's been raped. We apprehend the rapist and he says, "whoa hold on a second, she never said 'no'!" The rape victim agrees with the rapist's account, saying "this is true, I didn't say 'no' because I was afraid for my life I thought he would kill me if I resisted!"

Will any of you blue pillers say to this rape victim, "lol sorry, but he didn't use force on you. You really should have said 'no' if you wanted him to stop."

Of course not. I know that none of you will.

Fast forward to the distant utopian future of feminist-land. The year is 2016. A rape victim comes forward and reports that xe's been raped. The fembots are quickly dispatched to kill all men within 10 city blocks. But right before the rapist is vaporized, he pleads for mercy (what privilege!) saying, "whoa hold on a second, I sought and obtained enthusiastic consent! She said 'yes'!!" Later on xer's tumblr account, the rape victim agrees with the rapist's account of what happened, saying "it's true, I did say 'yes' and pretend to be enthusiastic, but that was only because I was afraid for my life I thought he would kill me if I said 'no'!"

Will any of you blue pillers say to this rape victim, "lol sorry, but he did what he was supposed to do, he obtained enthusiastic consent."

Of course not. I know that none of you will.

If women do not have a duty to answer truthfully (or not at all, which must be assumed to mean "no"), then yes doesn't really mean yes. But of course, you blue pillers cannot budge on this because (well, aside from the fact that you'd be labeled a rape supporter by your friends, who are mostly bullies) if you admit that women have a duty to answer honestly (or not at all, which must be assumed to mean "no") then you might as well say that women have a duty to say "no" - and you know that even thinking along those lines will thrust us back to the dark ages of oppression in the 1980s.

YaBoiTibzz · 2015-03-06T21:51:32+00:00

This is a hilariously one-sided question. How could anyone possibly think this law benefits men? You literally have to keep asking for consent constantly while fucking a girl or else she can cry rape and in the eyes of this law you would be guilty. It means that you can't sleep with a girl without giving her a loaded gun, pointing it at your head and putting her finger on the trigger. And that gun stays there aimed at your head for your entire life afterwards, she can decide months down the line that it was rape and get you locked away. Balls-to-the-walls insane, I was considering school in California this year but this really did have an impact on my decision to go elsewhere (not that I get laid very often anyways, it just seriously seriously rubs me the wrong way).

HelenBeck · 2015-03-06T20:18:43+00:00

Or it could mean you shouldn't have sex with an unconscious person. I hate to see the day when we have to sign a consent to sex form but I do agree that the inability to say no doesn't mean yes.

[deleted] · 2015-03-06T21:28:59+00:00

I feel sure about this statement:

If you can't see how this law could be misapplied disproportionately against men, you are lacking in cognition.

It's the same failure of thinking when white people declare,

"There's no racism. I've never experienced it."

"The police don't racially profile. I've never seen it."

"I don't see how some people think racism and racial profiling are a problem."

UniversityofToronto · 2015-03-06T20:26:17+00:00

If you want to see "affirmative consent" in action, check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI

Entirely feasible. /s

I mean, seriously looking at this video, can any woman honestly say that this was beneficial? It seems like it would ruin the experience for both parties. I think there needs to be more of an emphasis on common sense. If the other party gives "signs" that generally mean they would like to proceed with sexual acts/intercourse, it is also their responsibility to vocalize when they should stop.

For example, if a girl came over and we were making out, say I place her hand against my junk. Then say I decide I actually don't want to go further, but I don't say anything and she continues and has sex with me. Can I legitimately go back and say I was raped or sexually assaulted? Should I file charges against her? No, because she had a reasonable interpretation of my desire, and she cannot be expected to be omniscient in knowing my exact thoughts.

[deleted] · 2015-03-06T20:34:02+00:00

"Hey, wanna play the rape game?"

"No."

"That's the spirit!"

squeakybuns · 2015-03-06T20:16:14+00:00

it seems mutually beneficial to me. both parties have an understanding about the expectations and boundaries of the other, and it helps to confirm consent and avoid any gray areas where it's unclear whether or not consent has been given. i haven't done extensive reading on it, however; this is primarily based on the text above and what discussions i've seen of it in other threads and articles. i don't know why anyone would not want this.

sh1v · 2015-03-06T23:04:33+00:00

I haven't asked for consent from any girl I've fucked ever.

The mere thought makes me cringe.

Who even comes up with this shit? Oh yeah... women and dumb betas.

Aerobus · 2015-03-06T23:22:36+00:00

It is not mutually beneficial for both genders. It allows more women to claim the coveted victimhood status and send men to jail.

[deleted] · 2015-03-07T00:33:01+00:00

[permanently deleted]

[deleted] · 2015-03-06T22:01:45+00:00

[permanently deleted]

alcockell · 2015-03-08T18:05:09+00:00

Its McKinnins legal dominance feminism, which is dominant in the US - most of the present so called sex positive third wavers are right behind it, with no idea they are supporting the sex negative 2nd wave.

Title	Is the Yes Means Yes law mutually beneficial for both genders? Is it overall a necessary measure?
Author	feelstheheats
Upvotes	2
Comments	50
Date	March 6, 2015 8:00 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2y62ti/is_the_yes_means_yes_law_mutually_beneficial_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/is-the-yes-means-yes-law-mutually-beneficial-for.283200 https://theredarchive.com/post/283200

Comments