"Regulating Sex." The New York Times publishes the biggest rebuke yet to the deranged affirmative consent movement. Kudos to Judith Shulevitz and the NY Times.

nplant · 2015-06-28T15:13:53+00:00

This is the most frightening part:

Ms. Suk told me that she and her colleagues have noticed a generational divide between them and their students. As undergraduates, they’re learning affirmative consent in their mandatory sexual-respect training sessions, and they come to “believe that this really is the best way to define consent, as positive agreement,” she says. When they graduate and enter the legal profession, they’ll probably reshape the law to reflect that belief.

These people should all be stripped of their degrees. What the hell kind of big brother future are we creating here?

Lrellok · 2015-06-28T16:01:56+00:00

Have dealt with this regime for 3 years in college (antioch alum) you have my assurance it will fail miserably, and result in wide-scale backlash. It is completely unworkable, and further the feminists have no intention of ever following it. The instant some women gets charged with touching a mans hand, they will scream for carvouts and exemptions.

This is a Gotcha! law, a law written deliberately to be un-followable under the expressed understanding that they are there tp punish "Undesirables".

dangerousopinions · 2015-06-28T18:09:46+00:00

[permanently deleted]

nplant · 2015-06-28T15:28:33+00:00

We all know the main reasons why affirmative consent is ridiculous, but I'd like to propose another: you can't actually trust a woman's "yes" either.

Earlier this year, I brought a visibly enthusiastic woman home from the bar. We sat down on the couch, and I started kissing her, but something felt off to me. I asked her if everything was ok, and she said "yes". I kept going, and it became extremely obvious everything wasn't ok. She was getting an anxiety attack, but didn't have the mental fortitude to actually say so initially. I calmed her down and she left.

However, at that point I had basically both kissed her and fondled her breasts against her will, because she said yes. So affirmative consent actually fails in three ways:

1) The burden of proof is reversed

2) Constantly asking for approval isn't sexy, so anyone who tries to follow the law is never getting laid. It criminalizes normal and harmless male sexuality.

3) TL;DR You can't even trust a woman's "yes" any more than you can trust the body language that this law says is insufficient.

As long as the man is expected to initiate, every single one of us is going to go too far at some point. That doesn't make us malicious, nor should it traumatize an adult woman. In fact, when she left, she thanked me for helping her. But imagine how easily some feminist could convince her she was violated just because it took me too long to read her mind. The law should not get anywhere near this territory.

under_score16 · 2015-06-28T16:11:38+00:00

“Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”

Do they really want this to become the law of the land? The courts could be filled with unimportant complaints of hand holding, arm/shoulder touching, etc... By men and women alike.

pnw_diver · 2015-06-28T18:50:28+00:00

What proponents of this absurd radical feminist trash want is really just a creeping totalitarianism, wherein feminists dictate more and more with every passing year the terms and conditions under which all of us live all aspects of our lives. And they want these terms and conditions rigged from day one to stigmatize and marginalize men.

Tmomp · 2015-06-28T19:56:12+00:00

Demanding unwritten yet criminally binding contracts for what every ancestor we've ever had did is legislating morality on a level that will likely make prohibiting alcohol look like child's play.

The moment someone finishes saying yes, time passes. You can't assume that yes at one moment means yes at another.

The behavior one says yes to may be slightly different than how the partner behaves. You can't assume both parties interpret their agreement identically.

Anyone who has negotiated a contract knows how long working out such details can take, even over small deals that don't involve bodily interactions, risks of pregnancy, risks of disease, etc.

Isair81 · 2015-06-28T13:08:56+00:00

You see, liberals are starting to sniff nervously after one of their own kind got taken down by the sex-Taliban recently.

_visionary_ · 2015-06-28T16:46:47+00:00

The only way to get change is to basically counter claim that a woman raped a man when an innocent man is charged by woman.

Once the consequences of these laws that criminalize hand-holding and pecks on the cheek start applying to women, there will be change.

The analogy is jailing for child support -- if swaths of women were being jailed for such a crime, we'd have changed the law yesterday.

bertreapot · 2015-06-28T21:18:52+00:00

from the comments:

Two things seem to be true of the evolution of the crime of rape. First it is increasingly a crime often with no criminal intent. Rather it seems more an attack on male sexuality. Secondly, it seems to be turning females into permanent juveniles who are never responsible for their own behavior. In the case the Shulevitz starts with the women can't say, shouldn't say don't touch my hand? As the breathe of the crime of rape is expanded women seem more powerless and perhaps should not be allowed outdoors by themselves.

pirate6728 · 2015-06-28T17:55:52+00:00

How many times have I been called "Honey" or"Dear" by some waitress at a truck stop? (In my travels as an expedited driver-- lots of times.) Under this new crap, I just may have a harassment lawsuit.

Be careful what you wish for-- you might get it.

MRA-automatron-2kb · 2015-06-28T21:15:57+00:00

Like with current laws: rape, DV, circumcision and the don't hit back at women who are assaulting you rule; they will only be used against men. Men are too oppressed (brainwashed) to protest.

rankyraspberry · 2015-06-28T17:40:58+00:00

Sure I agree with getting clear consent somehow before having actual sexual intercourse with someone, but I do not want physical interaction to become a process comparable to crossing a minefield. I'd quickly give up on physical intimacy with someone if I had to hold an insecure mindset and repeatedly ask "can I touch you here?" and "do I have consent to do this?" It's mostly body language communication and if someone acts frigid then I'll simply leave them alone.

remembz · 2015-06-29T06:30:39+00:00

Not only social issues but also legal issues.

The author did a not-bad job but also has written some fucking stupid sentences as follows:

Colleges are entitled to uphold their own standards of comportment, even if enforcement of that behavior is spotty or indifferent to the rights of the accused.

Sounds exactly like a hunting ground.

The third wave feminism and SJW has been led by pseudo-liberal power-hungry money-grabbing conservative totalitarians. They are so damn good at lying that people finally start to realise what the fuck is going on but they have won too much.

Title	"Regulating Sex." The New York Times publishes the biggest rebuke yet to the deranged affirmative consent movement. Kudos to Judith Shulevitz and the NY Times.
Author	dvgn
Upvotes	141
Comments	39
Date	June 28, 2015 12:40 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3beblc/regulating_sex_the_new_york_times_publishes_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/regulating-sex-the-new-york-times-publishes-the.976562 https://theredarchive.com/post/976562

Comments