California's Absurd Intervention Over Dorm Room Sex

Legislators and activists just don't trust adults to navigate issues of consent without them.


Credit: Johann C. Rocholl / photo on flickr

With all the other drama in the news, the likely passage of a California law ostensibly targeting sexual assault on college campuses—approved by the state Senate on May 29 and by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on June 18—has gone largely unnoticed. Yet the bill, SB-967, deserves attention as an alarming example of creeping Big-Sisterism that seeks to legislate "correct" sex. While its reach affects only college students so far, the precedent is a dangerous and potentially far-reaching one.

The bill, sponsored by state Senator Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles) and developed in collaboration with student activists, does nothing less than attempt to mandate the proper way to engage in sexual intimacy, at least if you're on a college campus. It requires schools that receive any state funds through student aid to use "affirmative consent" as the standard in evaluating sexual assault complaints in the campus disciplinary system. According to the bill:

"Affirmative consent" is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent is informed, freely given, and voluntary. It is the responsibility of the person initiating the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

The idea that "no means no" is not enough and consent requires an explicit "yes" has long been the dogma of feminist anti-rape activists. In the early 1990s, Ohio's super-progressive Antioch College was widely mocked for its code of student conduct that mandated verbal consent to each new level of intimacy. But despite the ridicule, sexual misconduct policies requiring clear, explicit agreement to specific acts continued to spread to campuses across the country.

In a article defending "affirmative consent," feminist writer Amanda Hess stipulates that such laws should be "broad enough to include nonverbal cues." But that would leave fact-finders, in real courts or campus pseudo-courts, to try to decide such questions as: Was a head motion a nod that indicated a "yes"? Does pulling someone closer during an embrace amount to consent to sex? Does a passionate response to a kiss amount to a "nonverbal cue"?

Indeed, while many current campus codes do not absolutely require verbal consent, they strongly encourage it with warnings that "relying solely upon non-verbal communication" can lead to mistakes and misunderstandings. (The initial draft of the California bill contained such language as well.) With such rules, a college disciplinary panel evaluating a complaint is likely to err on the side of caution and treat only verbal agreement as sufficiently clear consent.

Student activists, aided by the social media, have also been conducting a reeducation campaign advocating for sexual consent. One might think sexual consent needs no advocacy; but, of course, this is not consent as traditionally understood. The norm this movement seeks to promote, according to a recent New York Times report, is to "ask first and ask often before engaging in sexual activity." Since the activists realize that this doesn't sound particularly appealing, they endeavor to "make consent cool" through various gimmicks: a website featuring a fictional line of Victoria's Secret lingerie decorated with slogans like "consent is sexy" and "ask first," giveaways of real condoms with similar mottoes ("ask before unwrapping"), and even, at Columbia University freshman orientation, candy prizes for "creative ideas" about negotiating consent.

To counter the common view that such negotiations are awkward moment-ruiners, the activists quoted in the Times argue that explicit consent can be "fun" and even ensure better sex through communication. Educational posters on the Columbia campus proclaim that "asking for consent can be as hot, creative, and as sexy as you make it."

With all these earnest reassurances, one can't help wondering if the consent evangelists really believe what they preach: The ladies (and their gentlemen allies) do protest too much. Moreover, their protestations are belied by the fact that the preaching is backed by undisguised coercion. In feminist educator Bernice Sandler's list of "Ten Reasons to Obtain Verbal Consent to Sex," the assertion that "many partners find it sexy to be asked, as sex progresses, if it's okay" is followed by "Because you won't be accused of rape" and "Because you won't go to jail or be expelled." Fun, fun, fun.

To say that sex without consent is rape is to state the obvious. But in traditional sexual scripts, consent is usually given through nonverbal cues. Of course this doesn't mean that people never talk during sex; but there's a big difference between sweet nothings and mandatory negotiations based on constant awareness that you may be raping your partner if you misread those cues. And "constant" is no exaggeration. Thus, the sexual assault policy at California's Occidental College states that "individuals choosing to engage in sexual activity must evaluate consent in an ongoing manner" and that consent can be withdrawn through an explicit "no" or "an outward demonstration" of hesitation or uncertainty, in which case "sexual activity must cease immediately and all parties must obtain mutually expressed or clearly stated consent before continuing." Whether anyone could feel "sexy" under such conditions seems dubious at best.

The feminism of "affirmative consent" is equally dubious. Indeed, this standard arguably strips women of agency in a way that traditional sexual norms never did. In the traditional script, the man initiates while the woman decides where (or whether) to set the limits. Under explicit consent rules, the person taking the lead must also assume much of the responsibility for setting the limits by making sure his partner wants to proceed—while the more passive party cannot be responsible even for making her wishes known without being asked. 

While these rules are technically gender-neutral, the general assumption in campus activism is that the victim of nonconsensual heterosexual sex is female. Indeed, if there was a sudden rush of male students filing such charges against women who had failed to "ask first," it's likely that the activists would respond the same way battered women's advocates did in the 1990s when their push for mandatory arrest in domestic violence cases led to more arrests of women: by crying backlash and claiming that male abusers are manipulating the system to punish their female victims.

Until now, "affirmative consent" policies have been voluntarily adopted by colleges (though within a context of federal law that requires schools to protect students from broadly defined sexual violence). The California bill with its government mandate represents an alarming new phase in this campaign, as well as another step toward a de facto presumption of guilt in campus sexual misconduct cases. It effectively shifts the burden of proof to the accused while also requiring colleges to use the lowest possible threshold—"preponderance of the evidence"—in assessing the validity of a complaint. In practice, this means that any minimally plausible charge is likely to be upheld.

One would think that the California legislators would have some second thoughts about endorsing a bill that essentially redefines some 95 percent of human sexual encounters as rape (including married sex, since the bill specifically states that a prior relationship creates no presumption of consent). Even the Los Angeles Times, usually strongly supportive of the anti-campus rape campaign, criticized SB-967 in an editorial noting that "it seems extremely difficult and extraordinarily intrusive to micromanage sex so closely."


At a March 20 hearing before the Senate Education Committee, Denver-based attorney and school safety advocate Ann Mitchell, a Stanford Law School graduate who has practiced in California for most of her career, testified in opposition to the bill as currently formulated, warning that its "vague, ambiguous, and overbroad" language "exposes students—not just men, but women as well—to misguided, and even specious charges."

In the discussion that followed, a few lawmakers, such as Republican State Sen. Bob Huff, voiced cautious misgivings. The comments from Sen. Lori Hancock, Democrat from Berkeley (found at 1:09 in the video of the hearing), provide a rather stark demonstration of both the ideological zealotry and the moral intimidation underlying this bill. While Sen. Hancock at first claimed to appreciate the complexities raised by Sen. Huff, this turned out to be pure sarcasm. "It's probably hard to be a guy when you think you're just doing what guys, culturally, are allowed to do—push a woman around a little bit, whatever," Sen. Hancock remarked with a snide chuckle. "I think what we're talking about here is a profound cultural shift which needs to happen."

Most of the other committee members limited themselves to platitudes about the courage of survivors and the importance of preventing sexual assault, without addressing the bill's radical nature. In his own concluding comments, Sen. De Leon seemed to suggest that "affirmative consent" meant simply that the lack of a "no" could not be a defense to a sexual assault on an unconscious woman—which is, of course, already part of the definition of rape in the courts and not just on college campuses.

In subsequent amendments, some of SB-967's more extreme sex-policing language—including the warning against relying on nonverbal communication and the admonishment to stop for a safety check if any ambiguity seems to arise—was removed. But in its current form, the bill still brings the government into the bedroom in a far more drastic and coercive way than abortion regulations. Meanwhile, as civil rights attorney Hans Bader has pointed out, it would do little if anything to help actual victims of sexual assault: a rapist who intentionally forces himself on a woman could simply lie that she gave her explicit consent.

Where this is going next is anyone's guess. Perhaps there will be a push to bring similar reforms to criminal law: after all, why should sexual assault on college campuses be defined differently than in the real world? Or perhaps the activists will decide that "yes means yes" is not enough, either. In fact, that's happening already. A list of clarifications about consent on some campus posters stipulates that "if they don't feel free to say 'no,' it's not consent" (meaning that at least in theory even explicit verbal agreement can be invalidated). And a new campus campaign in Canada warns that "if it's not loud and clear, it's not consent—it's sexual assault," using posters with the words "fine," "okay," and "sure" in tiny print to make the point that consent expressed in a "muted" or "uncertain" doesn't count. Perhaps they can tell us the proper decibel level for a "Yes."

Or perhaps we can come to our collective senses, stop the moral panic, and realize that someone is indeed pushing us around. And, in this instance, it isn't male Republicans.

An earlier version of this column appeared on

NEXT: Adam Carolla vs. Patent Trolls, the Government, NPR, Salon, and more!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nothing ever good came from "collaboration with student activists."

    You know what they should be forced to do? Put together an orientation film, not unlike the ones companies show for sexual harassment policies. Then the naked absurdity of what they're mandating may still escape the most hardcore activists, but I think many others who just casually gave the idea a nod might change their tune.

    1. Directed by Joss Whedon!

      1. The British Army's orientation video for the Salisbury Plain Training Area was hosted and narrated by Tony Robinson (Baldrick).

        1. Truly a cunning plan.

    2. It would be interesting to do a study. How many of these student activists have had a semester-long romantic relationship, intimate or not? Or even friends-with-benefits?

      1. The study would be deem misogynistic on its face. Only women with a slave mentality would enter into a relationship of any length with a man.

    3. I always assumed that my girlfriend rapidly nodding her head on my crotch meant yes. Should I ask for clarification?

    4. I can imagine the only ones pushing this are ugly feminazis whom no man in his right mind would touch.

      1. The question is would they consider it rape if there was affirmative consent on videotape, but later the girl found out the guy had a fake bank account statement laying out with lots of extra money in it?

  2. Trigger warning!! Violence at the Naval Observatory!!!

    "The Vice President of the US just shot me ..." wrote Associated Press White House reporter Josh Lederman on Twitter.

    1. Shit! If we only had common sense gun laws...

      Ooops, looks like Biden would still be a menace

  3. The old residential-college model is unsustainable. Alternative methods of education will keep sprouting up. Soon the only competitive advantage of the residential colleges will be the abundance of horny members of tge opposite (or same) sex, but you'd need to have worse financial acuity than a sailor on shore leave to accept that deal.

    The Californians are throwing away what's left of their residential colleges' competitive advantage.

    1. "...but you'd need to have worse financial acuity than a sailor on shore leave to accept that deal."

      That definitely explains why college students seem to be getting dumber.

    2. I've talked about this on my blog too: http://mensrightsboard.blogspo.....h?q=sb+967

  4. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

    *** scratches chin ***

    Does this apply in areas other than college sex?

    1. In other areas all you need is a strained construction of the Constitution.

      "Hi, honey, can I regulate every detail of your activities?"

      "Interstate commerce."

      "Sounds like a yes to me."

    2. Rich|6.22.14 @ 8:57AM|#

      "Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent."

      *** scratches chin ***

      Does this apply in areas other than college sex?

      LOL +1

      Careful, there thar be dragons...

    3. Thus, the sexual assault policy physical assault at California's Occidental College hospitals states that "individuals choosing to engage in sexual activity surgery must evaluate consent in an ongoing manner" and that consent can be withdrawn through an explicit "no" or "an outward demonstration" of hesitation or uncertainty, in which case "sexual activity surgery must cease immediately and all parties must obtain mutually expressed or clearly stated consent before continuing."

    4. it should apply to consent to searches for 4th Amendment purposes.

    5. You don't mind if I put my penis in you do you?


  5. Affirmative consent is the dumbest idea on earth because it basically ignores the fact that body language exists.

    I'm pretty sure there are pretty simple ways to tell if a girl wants to have sex without having her verbally say 'Yes, I would like to have sex with you.'

    Are feminists autistic? Like, can none of them effectively read body language?

    1. Ass-burgers...

    2. It is all about turning the burden of proof on its head. They wish to eliminate the concept "innocent until proven guilty" from sexual assault cases. Otherwise society is not taking rape seriously.

      1. They wish to eliminate the concept "innocent until proven guilty" from sexual assault cases.

        It had to be done; you know that.

    3. "Your honor, she was giving me a Lewinsky, so there's no possible way she could give me verbal assent."

      1. Just because a woman starts unbuttoning your pants doesn't mean she's given you consent.

        That sign could mean anything. She could be saying 'your penis looks hot in there, let's give it some air' in which case she clearly is not giving you consent.

        1. She could be telling you that you need to lose weight... or that the color of your trousers don't watch your shirt... or she's just curious if you wear boxers or briefs... Maybe she just wants to confirm that you are Jewish...

        2. She was just helping you take a piss.

    4. Its not that, some just change their mind about rape after finding out a guy is broke.

  6. Why can't these SoCons just stay out of people's bedrooms?

    1. Modern day Socons and modern day Proglodytes have a common ancestor, the Progressives.

  7. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.

    "You had sex with her?"

    "Well...yeah; she agreed to it."

    "She's a deaf-mute, dude."


    "You're under arrest. Bend over."

    1. This reminds me of the punch-lines of two of the worse jokes in the world: The Helen Keller moaning joke and the marriage-broker joke.

      1. So...are you going to make me look those up, now?

        1. Yes...I shouldn't even have alluded to them on a Sunday morning.

          1. But the marriage-broker joke is about a man who complains that the marriage broker set him up with a deaf-mute woman. And the marriage broker replies, "and you think you don't deserve such a perfect woman?"

  8. You know, whenever there are riots or some other serious crime, leftists assure us that we must 'understand' the 'root causes' and not judge the 'disaffected poor' too harshly.

    Why is rape the only crime leftists seem to care about? If a poor person just murdered the girl instead of sexually assaulting her, progressives would come up with all kinds of excuses for the homicide. If a girl had her head bashed in during a riot in an inner city somewhere, progressives would say it was a tragedy but that the person who killed her was expressing the natural rage of the impoverished.

    I'll believe progs actually care about the safety of women when they stop making excuses for all kinds of behaviors and crimes that put them in danger.

    1. Because the rape culture gives men, who are all rapists, an undeserved sense of entitlement to any woman's body.. any time.

      1. And yet the typical Leftie Intellectual would never say a word against the many world cultures where there is a presumption that women are property.

      2. White privilege!

    2. They don't really care about rape all that much, either; see the infamous and staggering rape apologia in post-apartheid S Africa.

      Like mass shootings, rape is just a convenient way to eliminate some aspect of society which leftists find inconvenient (in this case, innocent until proven guilty). This is not to suggest that all leftists disagree with the concept, but it certainly makes their program easier to implement especially in the economic realm.

      1. They don't really care about rape all that much, either; see the infamous and staggering rape apologia in post-apartheid S Africa.

        But it is only happening to n****ers, and since when did they care about what happens to n***ers.

    3. They don't really care about rape all that much, either; see the infamous and staggering rape apologia in post-apartheid S Africa.

      Like mass shootings, rape is just a convenient way to eliminate some aspect of society which leftists find inconvenient (in this case, innocent until proven guilty). This is not to suggest that all leftists disagree with the concept, but it certainly makes their program easier to implement especially in the economic realm.

    4. Oddly when muslims rape leftists see no evil. Pointing out al-hijra & diminitude raises the cackles of leftists.

  9. The idea that "no means no" is not enough and consent requires an explicit "yes" has long been the dogma of feminist anti-rape activists.

    And yet "rape", we are told, is a crime of violence, not lust. Why would someone bent on doing violence waste time asking permission every couple of minutes?

    1. Yeah, and robbery is about violence, not money.

      Can they keep two ideas in their head at the same time? Rape is violence to unlawfully get sex, as robbery is violence to unlawfully gain money or other valuables.

      1. They are very deeply concerned about those somewhat "in-between" cases where she was Ok with it until the next day when something about him made her regret doing it. "Rape-rape" is not part of what this is about.

        1. So just 'Roman Polanski rape'?

      2. Not necessarily true in either situation. For instance there are lots of cases where wealthy people shoplift merchandise they don't need, can easily pay for, and will never use.

        There are people who rob for the thrill of robbing, knowing the victim doesn't have enough to make it worthwhile. And people who sexually assault for the domination, not the gratification.

        1. I think in the latter case that the. domination aspect is a key factor in blowing their load.

    2. I've always thought that dogma was profoundly ignorant. There is nothing to indicate those motivations are mutually exclusive.

  10. The Democrat from Berkeley's attitude at 1:09 is repulsive.

  11. One blink means yes, two means no.

    I'm talking about Captain Pike, you sickos!!!

    1. "Captain Pike"? Is that something new? I'm almost afraid to google it.

      1. Well, there's a green-skinned exotic dancer involved.

        1. And a chick who doesn't look quite so hot the next morning.

      2. Seriously?

        If so, turn in your card.

    2. He had no penis left, but his mouth was propped open.

  12. Jeez, I guess they could come up with a state-issued safe word. If at any point somebody uttered the safe word continuing after that would legally be rape.

    The reason this idea popped into my head is because a couple weeks ago I had an episode which reminded me of something I saw on a T-shirt : "You know you've had a good time in bed when somebody had to use the safe word".

    1. No, they want to absolve the woman of all responsibility of making her limits known.

      "Under explicit consent rules, the person taking the lead must also assume much of the responsibility for setting the limits by making sure his partner wants to proceed?while the more passive party cannot be responsible even for making her wishes known without being asked."

    2. Your safe word: Fluggaenkoecchicebolsen

    3. There is a safe word. It is 'no'.

      1. Unfortunately, "no" also rhymes perfectly with a word in feminese which means "Yes, but I can't tell you yes right now".

  13. In the future all sex will have to be video recorded (with sound) and then reviewed by an impartial jury to determine if consent was given by both parties in a clear and unambiguous way. A complete physical will be required beforehand to determine if either party is compromised in judgement. Another physical will be required afterwards to ensure any marks on either party correspond to explicit permission given to make said marks. And at the very end both parties will review the evidence and swear that the evidence is accurate and complete. Perjury will be severely punished.

    1. I left the US 20+ years ago in some small part because sexual opportunity there seemd more constrained than I was happy with. I can only imagine how many American males would be emmigrating to flee such a dystopian sexual landscape.

      1. So where did you go that has all the hot kinky sluts?

  14. Behold the tolerance of social liberalism!

  15. "In the discussion that followed, a few lawmakers, such as Republican State Sen. Bob Huff, voiced cautious misgivings."

    He went that far? After all the consensus around here has been that it is stupid for Republicans to say anything on these types of issues.

  16. The progs are encouraging abstinence at a rate the religious right have only dreamed they could accomplish.

  17. I did RTFA and scratched my head at the points where the shipdits who are pushing this bullshit try to pretend that requesting permission can be sexy.

    The only case where that could be true is with the shoe on the other foot - ie: the female asking the male for permission. A case in point - a couple weeks ago I was in bed with a lady who at one point literally asked my permission to suck my cock. Jesus, her words still ring in my ears.

  18. This is not all that new. When I arrived on campus in 1983 we were given training during orientation week in this exact policy regarding sexual contact. Any contact required verbal consent.

    They even did role-playing examples.

    "May I hold your hand?" (really. Not making this up. They really wanted us to ask before holding hands)

    "May I kiss you?"

    "May I kiss you with tongue?" (again, really. Not making this up. You gotta stop and ask before using tongue in a kiss)

    "May I touch you here?" (must be repeated for each body part)

    For variation you can mix it up: "I would like to kiss your breast. Would that be OK?"

    Other than a one-off lark, nobody would ever have sex this way. Unless you had some sort of fetish, I suppose.

    We openly mocked the protocols as they were presented (girls and guys alike). The feminist indoctrinated upperclassmen doing the training were not amused. They really took themselves quite seriously.

    You see the results of this today at sites like jezebel and skepchick. People that really believe that being asked out for coffee constitutes a rape threat (if you happen to find the guy unattractive).

    1. Only need two rules. No means yes, and yes means anal.

  19. The last bit about "yes means yes" not being enough is not idle speculation. The key term is "enthusiastic consent".

    There are actually organized activists on this front. Even an explicit verbal consent does not constitute evidence of consent. The consent must be "enthusiastic".

    Any form of coercion at all negates the "enthusiastic" part of the definition. And they use a very, very broad definition of coercion. Threatening to end a relationship because of a lack of sex is coercion. Therefore, if you say "maybe we should just be friends and move on" when repeatedly denied, you cannot then have sex. Because if she later gives consent, it is a coerced consent. So therefore rape.

    Even pity sex is rape. If she only wants to have sex with you because you are sad about something, say your dog died and she feels bad for you. Well, rape. Because she wasn't really enthusiastic about saying yes to sex.

    It even works if she initiates the sexual contact. If you said "if a woman really loves her man, she'll give him a blowjob" at dinner with friends where your girlfriend could hear... you just committed an act of coercion. If you say: "if you really loved me", you initiated force. Enthusiastic consent is like the magic window into the "all sex is rape" world that modern feminists live in.

    1. 2500+ years of rape jurisprudence never required enthusiasm as an element of consent.

    2. Do you really think women are so weak and pathetic that we must hurry to pass such a law?

      Why, really, do you have to demean women like that?

      I'm proud to say that I know no women who are like the delicate damsels in distress in your story.

  20. "Okay, we're almost ready. We just need to get the breathalyzer, and then fill out the pre-sex permission checklists, and you need to be sure to read the part about the things I don't like, and then.... Hey, are you paying attention? You're not asleep, are you?!"

  21. "... explicit consent can be "fun" and even ensure better sex through communication. Educational posters on the Columbia campus proclaim that "asking for consent can be as hot, creative, and as sexy as you make it.""

    Obviously this is not a group that knows what fun sex is... or they do know and they hate it. I'm going to guess the latter is closer to the truth.

    Oh yeah, and fuck Lori Hancock.

    1. It's like their model for consent is a script from porn - "Oh yeah, #&%k me with you big cock, baby!"

  22. Well, this will take the ball gag out of play.

  23. A lesbian feminist on enthusiastic consent

    When it comes to sex, we all have boundaries. Seriously. I don't care if your boundary is "no more than four girls at once." It's a boundary, and it's worth talking about. When you're having sex with someone, you are culpable for two things: your boundaries, and their boundaries. You need to make sure you're comfortable, and it is just as important that they are comfortable. You need to ask for sex, and they need to ask for sex. That's how it works. A healthy sexual relationship, even if it's a casual one-time sexual experience, is based in that communication: being able to articulate desire, and being able to act on someone else's.

    Consent should belong to everyone. Because consent is not about preventing violence or fixing rape culture. (That's a bonus.) Consent is about having sex on our own terms, no matter what they are in that instant.

    Emphasis added

    Best part? Where she says that she started asking for consent... when she started having sex with women. So, by her own standards, she raped a bunch of men.

    1. Moar:

      "Enthusiastic consent" is about asking and listening. And it's a powerful feminist concept that could change our entire world. The consent-positive movement is about more than "no." It's about "yes." It's about waiting for someone to verbally, enthusiastically, consent to having sex with you before you start having sex with them. No still means no. Violating that no is still wrong. But in addition, only "yes" can mean yes: not silence, or a short skirt, or the fact that we met you at Jello Wrestling and fucked you last week. Consent is about being able to say "I want this / I don't want this" and being respected. It's about expecting to hear some variation of one of those phrases when you begin to engage in sex. It's about a completely safe, comfortable, and pleasurable kind of sex. Consent makes it possible for every single person in the world to have completely different boundaries and desires and still feel fulfilled and respected in bed. I liked that.


      You may have never been told before that you can initiate, desire, and seek out sex as a woman. But you can. And you may have never really envisioned yourself being in the driver's seat of your sexual experiences. But you are. Consent fills us with a new power to talk about desire without shame, to talk about pleasure without fear, to seek out sex without danger.

      1. 'Consent' is about being able to say "I want this / I don't want this"

        re: 'What women want'.

        Well, that ought to solve the 10,000 year old problem of Women always saying they want stuff they don't want and then saying they don't want what they actually do, then later blaming the Male inability to appreciate the simultaneity of desire and rejection on their stupid, limiting, reductive, logo-centric 'binaryism'

        last time i checked, Feminism had pretty much eradicated the notion that there is such as thing as an uncomplicated "yes".

        Maybe I read too much of the feminist psychoanalytic literary criticism, and not enough of the... even worse stuff?

        1. Or........bitches be thinkin' too much.

    2. 'Consent' is about being able to say "I want this / I don't want this"

      Pro Tip: If you ever meet a woman that tells you "you suck my clit while I suck your cock, and then I want you to put your cock in my ass and pile-drive it until you bust a load", marry her.

      1. In Dystopia, California, those scenes could never happen. I've had girlfriends that wanted some pretty off beat stuff, but they would never say even the above. Instead one woman, for example, would make this weird little mewing sound and stick her butt up in the air, and say 'I know what you want. Just do it.' That was when she was in the mood for anal sex. She never, ever said it out loud.

        1. That's exactly it. I've personally boiled these dynamics down to this phrase:

          A woman will decide how much of her sexuality she wants to GIVE to the man, and it then becomes the responsibility of the man to TAKE that which is offered.

  24. I for one am planning to revolutionize human relations with


    1. Dressing like a boy scout is completely optional

    2. I stand corrected...the ball gag CAN stay in play.

    1. See, this is what I'm talking about.

    2. See, this is what I'm talking about.

  25. So, when my wife comes in from working in the garden and says to me, 'I'm just going upstairs to have a shower. You want to come up?', and then we have sex, essentially she raped me.

    Or, did I rape her?

    1. It's always the man's fault. If you don't understand that fundamental principle you haven't been listening.

      1. I certainly know that from every other aspect of my life.

    2. Of course you raped her. Check your privilege.


  26. I was 32 and recently separated and I met a young woman, 19 or 20. We dated. She was absolutely clear, no sex until my divorce came through. I said okay. (I know, I know....why? Who knows?)

    We were fooling around one day and she said 'no', so I stopped. A bit later, she initiated some sexual play, and I went to the point where she had said 'no' prior to that moment. She asked why I was stopping. I said, 'you said no'. She said, 'I said no. I didn't say No, and I for sure didn't say NO!' What does that mean? She explained her 'no', 'No', and 'NO' system. NO meant 'leave me alone and get out of here. No meant 'not tonight, maybe some other time, but not right now. And 'no', meant 'I really want to do this but I don't want to feel like a slut. You are allowed to push forward a bit, nicely, until we have sex.' OKay, I said, I get it. We had sex about 30 minutes later.

    This was over 30 years ago, so it was a different time.

    ps Our relationship went for a few months, then I broke up with her. I think she still hates me.

    1. The "dance" you're describing is still the rule today. In the "pick up artist" literature they even have a phrase for it: Last Minute Resistance (LMR). It's like standing on the edge of a pool where you dip your toe repeatedly into the cold water while building up the courage to plunge right into it.

      Plus, it makes sense. Biologically the greatest cost of sex is borne by the woman, so she has to be somewhat more sure than the male. So she resists naturally by dipping her toe in the pool a few times more than he does.

      What you did with that girl happens all the time, and both men and women kinda feel it works. Laws like the one discussed here can only do one thing: place a weapon in the hands of malevolent, vengeful, lying or irresponsible women. It's on par with handing out Uzis in kindegarden. (And it will never prevent as much as one real rape.)

  27. If I were 20 on a campus I would rig a camera in my room. Every sexual encounter would be filmed. If I got charged with rape, I'd play the tape. In court. Showing the woman pushing me down on the bed, not asking for consent, and yanking my pants down.

    1. In the real world in which we live I would expect that would get you absolved of all charges. In the BS world which these feninazis are pushing for, at least the end point which they neither see nor want, the girl would end up in jail for rape.

      1. The world the Dem/Libs are pushing us toward they will hate as much as we will.

        1. I don't think they will.

          They count on the fact that the court system will work in their favor, because it will. The judges and prosecutors who actually pursue this shit will be true believers, and as such will have already have been thoroughly educated on the proper victim ascendancy matrix. The sane people who oppose this shit won't use it at all, unless they are forced to be public pressure generated on the Left (thus ensuring proper victim matrix protocol).

    2. If you videotaped her without her consent you are guilty of rape.

      I'm not going to go searching into the fetid bowels of jezebel for it, but there was an article crossposted here 6-7 months ago that revenge posting sex pics and sex tapes after a breakup should be treated as rape.

  28. its awesome,,, Start working at home with Google. It's a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

  29. I know of one rape accusation I college, and the event makes me more worried for black men than women. Seriously.

    A white woman I knew (let's call her Barbara) was just progressive and enlightened enough to be willing to enjoy some African man meat, but not quite enough of a diversity fan to actually admit it in public.

    So, when her black partner in coupling started bragging to everyone, she was too embarrassed to admit it. In her brilliance, the solution she came up with was (you guessed it): "I was raped!"

    Next thing you know, she's getting her ass kicked in a restroom by the black guy's sister, who knows her brother better than that.

    Have progressives accurately estimated the number of black men's lives they're going to ruin trying to better protect women? I already know that the feminists don't care.

  30. I don't get this. What kind of sex are these people having that simply getting out of bed isn't sufficient to communicate withdrawal of consent?

  31. Amanda Hess of Salon?

    Oh, you mean A-man-duh Hess:

  32. But will a yes really be a yes?
    Perhaps a cooling off period between consent and act, say 24 yours.

  33. Registration with the Campus Sexual Consent Affirmation Board will not be sufficient to imply actual consent.

  34. It's sad that I had an argument about this very thing 23 years ago. I was arguing a young woman who basically advocated that all that a girl/woman had to was make an accusation and the boy/man should automatically be kicked off campus. I started the argument by putting out a hypothetical about ex-post facto accusation that because a guy didn't call within the proper post-coitus interval, and she was worried about her reputation (23 years ago there's was a LITTLE more worry about such things than I detect exists today), she could cry rape. Should a guy get kicked out? Yep! I probably should just have quit then but I kept right on, of course getting no where. And here we are today. The dizzy college chicks are now administrators pushing their agendas onto the law books. I was naive that I thought there'd be sanity at large and the nutty college kids would eventually get taught a lesson. I was wrong. They are in control and sane people are "extremists".

  35. They might as well just go ahead and ban sex on campus. That will just drive it all off campus. Problem solved.

  36. Who wants free love anyway? A play in one act.

  37. Remember when it was liberals who wanted to "keep government out of the bedroom"?

  38. Armed women don't get raped.

  39. One of the more despicable aspects of modern third-wave feminism is how much cover their anti-sex paranoia gives to right-wing prudes.

  40. The girl who accused Brian Banks of rape lied about the whole thing, but there was theoretically some doubt over the consent, which was enough for his wicked lawyer to recommend his client to plead guilty.

    Rape that doesn't involve outright assault will probably devolve into a "he said she said" case. What worries me is that if the court of law exonerates you due to lack of proof, can these schools still expel you because the consent was less than "affirmative" by their standards?

    1. Your worries are correct. There are different standards of evidence. For instance you might know the one with "beyond reasonable doubt". In Cathy Young's article look for the prase "preponderance of evidence" for another standard of evidence needed to convict.

      Add to these legal terms the fact that college administrators are not qualified to do such investigative work and you have a recipe for disaster. Might as well go to religious court in Iran to have your cases tried.

  41. Gee, an anti-heterosexual sex campaign being run by lesbians and immigrants. I though that homosexuals and immigrants favored more liberty? I guess supporting homosexual marriage and immigration has not helped liberty or libertarians.

  42. Why stop at college students... This will be applied to all people... including married couples soon enough... Except lesbian couples, of course.

    1. I'm confused.

      If two gay men get drunk and have sex... who is the victim?

      I mean both of them have the evil p*nis proving their guilt, don't they?

      They might have to get a pass as well, simply to avoid that conundrum.

    2. Lesbian couples? Oh, you mean the most violent type of relationships? 😉

  43. An idea whose time has clearly come:

    Sexual Activity Consent Form

    I,________________, do hereby consent to having sexual relations with ___________________ from ____/____/______ to ____/____/______.

    Said act(s) occurring between the specified dates, inclusive, shall consist of:

    _____ French kissing
    _____ Clitoral stimulation (___) oral (___) manual
    _____ Breast stimulation (___) oral (___) manual
    _____ Vaginal penetration (___) with (___) w/o protection
    _____ Anal intercourse (___) penile (___) other
    _____ Anal stimulation (___) oral (___) digital / other
    _____ Other (Please describe below)

    Signed: _____________________ Date: ___/___/_______
    Signed: _____________________ Date: ___/___/_______

    This form may be customized.

    1. You left off the number of minutes.

  44. Oh, so you said you got "affirmative consent"?
    Well she says you didn't you rapist.

    Oh, you got it in writing?
    Well she says that isn't her signature.

    Oh you got a notarized document with her signature?
    She says she was drunk so couldn't give consent.

    You've got a notarized consent document, signed in triplicate, a lab test of her bloodwork showing no alcohol/drugs in her system, and a video verbal approval with ID card showing?

    Ok, 2nd base... if you want to go further, you'll have to call up the notary public and adjust the forms filed indicating this change.

    Oh, you can't afford the extra legal fees to get past 2nd base? Sorry. This is required for everyone's protection, and not as a lawyer racket to grab more cash.

    1. Excellent point, Gekkobear. You use different words, but damn, does the concept "arranged marriage" come to mind 🙂

  45. Feminists on campus are on track to recreate Orwell's Oceania with a malevolent Big Sister in charge. They've already got the Newspeak down next they are obviously planning on eliminating human relations in those tyrannical institutions formerly known as Universities.

    As for the Big Sister pronouncement that "asking for consent can be as hot, creative, and as sexy as you make it."

    That is utterly idiotic. They may as well say that performing a DIY appendectomy can be hot and sexy.

    Some things just ain't so and that is one of them

    1. I bet the Russian ladies were all over Leonid when he got back to the Motherland.

  46. Lessons learned from those feminists/activists:

    1. Videotape everything if such a law passes. Make sure it can be heard at all times that she's begging for you-know-what. Your tapes could be "Exhibit A" any time soon.

    2. Women, apparently, possess sub-human skills at communication. They can't even say "No" in a coherent enough way to make it understood by another human being. Or maybe it's 3:

    3. Women, apparently, are so irresponsible that it makes no sense to ask them to communicate with men. Basically women cannot function unless everybody around them have magic crystal balls that allows them to read the minds of women. You don't have one of those? Too bad, then you can't really interact with women.

    4. Don't accept as experts virgin academics who have NO people skills. Ever heard the phrase: "...and right there the magic was gone"? Well, it's gonna be everybody's sex life if these pathological introverts were to get their way. My love life? Hang on a sec, I'll just fetch my Excel spreadsheet...

    In conclusion: we should never pass such laws because it reduces equality by making women look brainless and less-than-human. Seriously, should anyone who cannot even communicate the word "No" be allowed to vote? See where all this leads...?

  47. So now shy people are not allowed to have sex without raping someone or being legally raped... yeeaahh

  48. "I think what we're talking about here is a profound cultural shift which needs to happen."

    The Progressive Theocracy marches on.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.