A Dose of Stupid v117

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Sex partner must say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes or it’s rape

For the last two years feminists have pushed the “yes means yes” argument. The premise of their position is that people, particularly men, fail to understand when their partner consents to sex. In order to prevent these instances of mistaken rape, the partners must get enthusiastic, typically verbal consent from their sexual partners.

There is nothing wrong with this concept in theory. One should make sure that one’s partner wants to engage in sexual activity. Where the feminist position becomes ridiculous is in its application.

Feminists argue that not only must a person receive enthusiastic consent, but they must do so at every stage of sexual activity. They must ask for permission to every time they touch, kiss, hug, hold, caress, cuddle, and engage in various forms of sexual activity.

To give people an idea of how utterly stupid this would look, feminist college students created a video:

It is worth noting that the woman in the video does not ask for permission to engage in sexual activity. She acts when she wants, regardless of the man’s consent. Only the man must as for consent.

Unsurprisingly, the 10th graders found this idea completely moronic. One student presented a basic question which prompted this response:

Consent from the person you are kissing — or more — is not merely silence or a lack of protest, Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco, told the students. They listened raptly, but several did not disguise how puzzled they felt.

“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.

“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”

What follows “pretty much” is that “or it is rape.” In short, if you do not ask for permission every 10 minutes you are a rapist. That is an excellent message to teach high school students.

The students did not buy this argument:

But Ms. Zaloom, who has taught high school students about sex for two decades, said she was grateful for the new standard, even as she acknowledged the students’ unease.

“What’s really important to know is that sex is not always super smooth,” she told her 10th graders. “It can be awkward, and that’s actually normal and shows things are O.K.”

The students did not seem convinced. They sat in groups to brainstorm ways to ask for affirmative consent. They crossed off a list of options: “Can I touch you there?” Too clinical. “Do you want to do this?” Too tentative. “Do you like that?” Not direct enough.

“They’re all really awkward and bizarre,” one girl said.

“Did you come up with any on your own?” Ms. Zaloom asked.

One boy offered up two words: “You good?”

That drew nearly unanimous nods of approval.

How sad that people who were not alive when Zaloom began teaching students about sex have a better understanding of it than she does.

No one acts like the people depicted in the feminist fantasy video above. That is not how sex works. This is not how people communicate in the moment, nor is it the better way to do it. The rapist woman in the feminist video shows that. She touches and kisses the man and he allows her to do it. If he did not want to do it, he would move her hand. That would get the point across just as clearly as saying “no.”

It is bizarre that feminists want to complicate sex to such a degree that it makes anything appear to be rape. Fortunately, even children are smart enough to see through this level of stupidity. For example:

Students will ask, “Can I have sex when we are both drunk?” she said. “I get this one a lot: If I hook up with a girl and the next day she decides she didn’t want to do it, then what do I do?”

Ms. Zaloom will typically use such questions as a way to begin talking about the benefits of sexual partners’ knowing each other. But sometimes, there are no straightforward answers, she said. “We’re trying to show them very explicitly that sex has to include a dialogue,” she added, “that they have to talk about it each step of the way.”

Again, even children are aware this is not how sex works. The questions they ask are reasonable, and they deserve a better response than “there are no straightforward answers,” especially if you offer them a straightforward argument.

Ironically, the only good advice Zaloom offers is rather unfeminist:

Ms. Zaloom suggested making clear plans with friends ahead of time, like making pacts to leave parties together. And she urged them to have conversations with potential sexual partners “before you get swept up in the moment.”

Advertisements

19 thoughts on “A Dose of Stupid v117

  1. That is a bizarre video, to say the least. It plays off as more of a consent kink/fetish than anything else. Or perhaps similar to some newbie bdsm sessions when you’re figuring out boundaries and a form of communication that won’t break the scene but still get all points across. For normal sex, especially with someone you already know and have mutual care for? It’s very weird.

    I found it interesting that the guy was still the initiator +90% of the time. All she did was kiss back, take off his shirt, and put her hand on his thigh. Also strange…

  2. Tarnished, even in BDSM scenes this level of talking is odd. The only time I can think it would apply is if the matter wanted the slave to count our respond. The terms of a scene are usually determined beforehand so that they can just run through it.

  3. Oh, it is odd there yeah. Like I said, maybe for those who are very new to it. This level of talking is much like what me and my FwB did the first couple times, since neither of us had done such activities before. I imagine if it’s people in the actual community, then this isn’t typical or even necessary, precisely for the reasons you mention.

    More to the overall point, I have to wonder the mindset of a person who requires this amount of direct conversation during such intimate moments each and every time. Where is the room for spontaneous lovemaking, or even a quick kiss in the morning? Obviously this would also mean any type of “wake-up” sex…something me and mine enjoy…would be off the table, as the other person is half asleep/not fully conscious and thus unable to say “Yes”. Under these new rules, does that make both of use rapists to the other?

    I’m also curious to know how anyone operating under the “yes means yes” law would be able to prove their partner said yes to every instance? Recording people without their knowledge is illegal in most states, and a written contract wouldn’t hold up in a court of law, so how much of this is actually helping rather than hindering?

  4. And at one point in that video YMY (as taught by these people) is violated blatantly – he is about to go down on her but does not ask verbally. She “signals” yes by her smile and gyrations. But the college hearing board would say VIOLATION. He didn’t ask first, and therefore: EXPELLED! Citing to this video as validation for the non-verbal consent, methinks, would not save him. Plus she could say she changed her mind. Video or no video.

  5. I am incredibly glad that I am 60 and not 20. Imagine having to cross the uncharted– or badly charted– minefield that men are expected to cross today just to say “Hi” to a woman, much less anything else. I do not envy this generation of young men.

  6. When I was thirteen I was given a detention for sexual harassment, because I handed* a girl a note with a picture of a naked woman on it.

    I tell you that story so I can point this out: if you make a move on a girl without explicitly verbalizing your intention, that is rape. If you verbalize your intention, that is harassment.

    Catch-22, right?

    *Note “handed” not wrote or drew.

  7. Back in the early ’90s, SNL had a skit making fun of the rules which governed sexual behavior at Antioch College. The “affirmative consent” rules of today are almost indistinguishable from the Antioch rules which were being satirized 25 years ago.

    The stuff that’s being pushed earnestly today were punchlines a quarter of a century ago.

  8. Tarnished:

    More to the overall point, I have to wonder the mindset of a person who requires this amount of direct conversation during such intimate moments each and every time. Where is the room for spontaneous lovemaking, or even a quick kiss in the morning?

    I doubt any of the people advocating this nonsense actually engages in it themselves. I suspect it is much like the religious leaders demanding their flock be pious while they cavort in the worst ways. PM already linked to an example of this. These rules are so idiotic that even the people pushing them cannot comply with them.

    Obviously this would also mean any type of “wake-up” sex…something me and mine enjoy…would be off the table, as the other person is half asleep/not fully conscious and thus unable to say “Yes”. Under these new rules, does that make both of use rapists to the other?

    I imagine the work around to the wake-up sex scenario would be the parties agreeing to it beforehand. Yet by feminists’ own logic, consent must be gotten immediately before the activity occurs, so you are correct in assuming that any such act would inherently count as rape. Indeed, virtually everything a person could think to do short of verbally asking for consent could potentially make them a rapist.

    I’m also curious to know how anyone operating under the “yes means yes” law would be able to prove their partner said yes to every instance? Recording people without their knowledge is illegal in most states, and a written contract wouldn’t hold up in a court of law, so how much of this is actually helping rather than hindering?

    That is the other problem that feminists never bothered to consider. Even with this “new and improved” method of sexual interaction, all instances of rape would still fall under believing one person’s word over the other. So this actually fails to resolve any problem.

  9. Pingback: Rejecting “consent” training | Toy Soldiers

  10. Peterman: Well that’s the unspoken goal, isn’t it? To maximize the number of punishable men?

    Seriously, that’s the only intent that makes any sense.

  11. “How sad that people who were not alive when Zaloom began teaching students about sex have a better understanding of it than she does.”

    That’s because the “yes-means-yes” crowd are atypical. They are, in fact, female autistics. They don’t understand the nonverbal interplay by which people usually communicate in social and sexual situations.

  12. Paul Murray, please don’t insult me and other people like me like that.

    Autistic persons are smart enough to use verbal communication, like saying “no”, or “stop”, or pushing someone away. I’m tarred of people tarring the names of autistic people with feminist’s and SJW’s bullshit!

    Thank you!

  13. That’s because the “yes-means-yes” crowd are atypical. They are, in fact, female autistics. They don’t understand the nonverbal interplay by which people usually communicate in social and sexual situations.

    That is not how autism works. The majority of autistic people understand that if someone pushes their hand away that person wants them to stop. The people pushing “affirmative consent” are not autistic; they simply lack basic common sense.

  14. That’s not quite what I meant. I didn’t mean that these feminists wouldn’t understand a pushed-away hand, and so therefore they assume that other people don’t. I meant that they are engaged in trying to write a flowchart for sexual interaction, mapping out what people should do from flirting to the actual act itself. The don’t understand how normal people negotiate desire and behavior, because that negotiation is normally done nonverbally. Nonverbal social interaction is something that autistics have trouble grasping – wouldn’t it just be easier if everyone would just *say* what they mean at each step of the process? If everyone could just be explicit?

  15. “No means no” is still explicit enough, even if you’re talking autism. I may not be a mind reader, but if a girl or a boy pushes me away, says “no” or “stop” I’ll stop. Unless you’re dealing with someone who’s convinced saying “no” will turn you violent or someone who just won’t say “no” for any reason (and those cases need to see a shrink to get over this, because it’s not my responsibility to read their minds since as far as I know I’m not a telepath, and since there are no proven record of actual telepaths, it would be very unreasonable to assume someone is a telepath. Even if I was, it would still be a massive invasion of privacy.), “no means no” still does the job. I know quite a lot of people on the autistic spectrum, and all of them find the “Yes means yes” laws utterly absurd.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s