The NY Times has a very even keeled article about the new affirmative consent laws.

actingverystrangely · 2015-10-19T09:02:36+00:00

I would like to see more focus upon what is evidence of consent. What can I produce in court, six months later, to prove that consent was granted? Again. And again. And again.

Without that, the law is a mandate for women to denounce any man they dislike. We may as well start selling pitchforks and torches.

bertreapot · 2015-10-19T05:26:14+00:00

The problem with affirmative consent and its variants is it is contrary to normal human behavior. No one asks "may I?" at every step leading to sex. If you want to brand someone a rapist, you can't criminalize normal sexual activity that almost everyone engages in (that is, not asking for a "yes" first, yet still consensually engaging in sex).

American Law Institute's model statute faces the same problem. Men reach for women's hands on dates all the time. No one considers this sexual assault. Sexual arousal from touching your date also isn't be a crime, this is normal biology. Criminalizing it is insane.

I feel "yes means yes" and ALI's model statute would be, in practice, "gotcha!" laws. That is, everyone would violate them anyway because they're unworkable, but if a woman wants to accuse a man of sexual assault, it is nearly impossible for him to claim innocence. 95% of men may touch our date's hand and think nothing of it, but if you're lucky enough to date the psycho who goes to the police, you're done for. Which is why feminists love it.

2015-10-19T09:11:06+00:00

What a crazy country. All this hot and bother to avoid the politically incorrect but very effective approach of telling women to take responsibility for themselves, to say no, to resist, to fight back - 99% of unwanted sexual encounters would disappear over night.

But when it comes to ideological victories vs common sense and pragmatic approaches to actually protecting women, it's clear where feminism lies. Femimists would rather see every women in America get raped than give even half an inch in their ideological stakes. Hell, they would probably see it as good for business. The bottom line is feminism hurts women as well as men.

Ideologues are dangerous - they see social battles as a source of emotional satisfaction, and they don't care what cost to society, or even the people they claim to be defending, as long as they get that warm fuzzy feeling knowing their ideals won the war.

Ideologues should be recognized and excluded from public debate, so cooler heads can prevail and a common sense and pragmatic approach can be taken to achieve short term goals of reducing unwanted incidents, recognizing the realities of human interaction and not using public policy as a cover for a witch hunt. Going back to the early 90s proposal for a "sex contract" is not a realistic way forward.

equiposeur · 2015-10-19T18:07:50+00:00

Their goal: "It's rape if she says it is." Affirmative consent is a tool to accomplish that by making every man guilty.

It is striking how confident they are that the system will never be turned around and used against them. They are comfortable with a law that makes everyone a rapist, recognizing that it will be selectively enforced against males only.

Title	The NY Times has a very even keeled article about the new affirmative consent laws.
Author	rffleming
Upvotes	24
Comments	6
Date	October 19, 2015 2:02 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3pav5o/the_ny_times_has_a_very_even_keeled_article_about/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-ny-times-has-a-very-even-keeled-article-about.969148 https://theredarchive.com/post/969148

Comments