Infantilization is right.
". . . real consent "must be loud and clear. Sex without enthusiastic consent is not sex at all.
These people are emotional paralytics. I suppose they'd be horrified to be compared to extreme right-wing nut cases. But that's what they sound like.

The reality is far more grim than a consent form -
If a man and woman are having sex, I mean mid PIV, thrusting, moaning, the whole nine yards (yes, I know, we have already been informed all PIV is rape http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/anyway but stay with me here) and he continues for even one more thrust (yes, the case exists, dont have time to find it) then he is guilty of rape.
Therefore, if she signs the form, gives "enthusiatic consent" complete with a band, skywriting, fireworks and a Hallelujah chorus, He is still a rapist if she changes her mind at any time before the completion of the act and he fails to instantly comply - I mean NOW, as in mid thrust. Even after he isn't safe - she can wake up the next day and complain of rape by "Fraud in the Inducement." His only defense to the first scenario is video and audio of the entire act, and to the second?
Well, the accusation is the proof. There is simply no defense.
Thats why feminists love rape hysteria.
Cause equality is all they want, donthca know?

It used to be a woman could change her mind about sex just before, she could even change her mind during sex, but, she couldn't change her mind afterwards except to chalk it up to regret.

For a few decades, at least, it has now been she can even change her mind AFTER simply by calling it rape.

Bogus rationale unless the "yes" is notarized.

Otherwise the bitch can change her mind just because her friends go "with him?".

The consent form won't help. If they are incapable of verbal consent, then they are also incapable of written consent. It's like having a contract with a minor: You can have them sign forms all day, but it doesn't matter, because legally they are incapable of consenting.

Really, why would a man (other than a scion of an elite-class family) want to go to a liberal arts college these days? You won't learn anything useful; you will be blamed for all of the problems of the world, and potentially have your reputation and future career prospects ruined. STEM schools are still reasonably safe for men, but it won't be too much longer before the feminists destroy those. The Internet will be the only safe way for a man to acquire an education.

So I'm assuming that "YES! YES! YES!" in the middle of the act doesn't count either?

I have a lot of (over-40) women friends who wonder why they're always getting hit on by young guys. It's because they've got some sense and don't get into feminist hysteria like this.

If alcohol consumption invalidates a yes, is the person intoxicated no longer responsible for any criminal actions they commit under it's influence?

Thinking of an MST3K line here: "She's presenting like a mandrill!"

Would that help?

What's next, a written permission slip? (This is something I've suggested for men who are rich and famous in the past. Also, checking IDs to make sure the girl is of age.)

That would be wise. I'd suggest a lawyer to draw up a generic document. And of course, you'll have to have witnesses that the persons entering (phrasing) the contract were not forced against their will.

Call girls are looking better all the time.

STEM schools are still reasonably safe for men, but it won't be too much longer before the feminists destroy those.

It sure won't. I'm informed by an alumna that the current freshman class at MIT is 50% women.

"If so, I've had a fuckload of unconsenting sex. But I enjoyed the hell out of it."

Laughing - so - hard!!!!

Just another disincentive for men to go to college. American colleges will soon just be finishing schools for crazed feminists, and all for a worthless slip of paper that enables one to "enjoy" a "career" of pouring overpriced coffee for annoying hipsters.

Most men should just learn a useful trade or become entrepreneurs. To hell with this stupid college credentialism, giant student debt, and the potential for life-ruining consequences from a consensual (at the time) sex act.

Thanks, Jamie!

The notion that any sex under the influence is unconsenting is so ridiculous. I sometimes drink a little wine before I do a speaking engagement. (I'm less likely to do this if it's in the early morning.) Does this mean I should be considered to be coerced into speaking? Am I being intellectually raped?

Drunken sex... there's another kind? Damn this modern age.

Okay I have to add this to really show the lengths people will go to have their personal bias validated.
At a weeklong festival I go to (last year} there was a couple, wildly in lust and everyone in the area of the camp site knew it. They decided to check off some items off of their sexual bucket list. Being students at UCSC they knew the dangers of drunken sex, not to her, but to him. They enlisted the witness of some of us around the camp to read and sign along with them, their sex plan for the next 24+ hours. This included sex while on various recreational pharmaceuticals, including alcohol and psychedelics among other substances and a great variety of locations and lifestyle choices (on roof tops, hippy busses, BDSM, same sex adventures etc.) after sharing the list and emphasizing that this was long planned and very (maybe even enthusiastically) consensual plan they proceeded to go through the list and checked off everything. Some of us that though they needed watching out for (so that only their list happened when drunk etc.)wandered around keeping them safe. In other words the perfect storm of consensus and safety. 2 days later our girl was sharing that she had a great time, pushed some boundaries and was grateful that our boy went on this journey with her and thanked the fellow wanders. A classmate of her’s stood up and declared our girl was raped because she was drunk and would not listen to all that had gone on before. When our girl refused to go to the cops, the classmate enlisted other likeminded kids and all made sworn statements to the police that our boy raped our girl. Upon investigation, the cops said no rape, not all of it was legal, but no rape. The class mate went ballistic and with her cohort were threatening cops and everybody with lawsuits unless our boy was kicked out of the event and arrested for rape.

This highlighted a danger I knew about, but I was unprepared for the intensity of the belief held by these humans, that all impaired sex is rape

This highlighted a danger I knew about, but I was unprepared for the intensity of the belief held by these humans, that all impaired sex is rape
Posted by: Piper at March 5, 2014 11:10 AM

Let me guess. Burning Man?

I'm also betting the guy was almost suspended.

Piper touches on what might be the most pernicious characteristic of sexual harassment law, and the one that demonstrates to me that the intent of such law was in bad faith all along: the third-party complaint. If anything a man does offends a woman in any way, shape or form, she can charge him with harassment even if she was in no way involved in it or even aware of it when it was happening. I had my own run-in with this, which I've documented here in past threads.

Piper's account also raises another issue that I've been thinking about: "Impairment" doesn't just mean alcohol. It can mean any drug, and not necessarily illegal ones. There are plenty of prescription and OTC drugs that result in mental impairment to some degree. Under the McGill philosophy, if a woman takes, say, a Benedryl, and then later you have sex with her, you have committed rape. If she's on a prescription drug that in any way alters her mental state (e.g., anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, or just plain old codeine), and you have sex with her, you have committed rape. So in addition to all those consent forms, before you can have sex with a women, you need a complete medical history.

"Sex without enthusiastic consent is not sex at all. It's sexual assault or rape."

Good to know; now merely ambivalent or simply pleasant sex with mere normal consent is not sex at all!

They seem to confuse "enthusiastic" with "authentic", as if the only true "yes" is the "OH GOD DO ME NOW" kind.

But, hey, McGill.

I suppose the world is being done a favor if fewer of them reproduce.

(Also, contra Mike above, remember that McGill is Canadian - indeed, Quebecker - not American.)

University men need to stop dating on campus. It's too dangerous. They will never be able to protect themselves from their school's kangaroo courts.

For what it's worth:

1. At least one diehard lefty feminist (I'll leave it to you to guess which one) has said flatly that it should NOT count as assault when, say, he promises to "put it in for just a minute" and turns out to be lying.

2. Let's not forget that there are, in fact, cases where a woman might never have intended to have sex but might well be too scared to say no. Example: The 1984 TV movie "When She Says No" with Kathleen Quinlan. It's a bit ambiguous (and it's been ages since I saw it), but in that movie, she's a shy college professor who's in a hotel room with three male professors - and one of whom makes it clear she should do what they want and not argue about it, and it's implied that things could get violent if she tries to run away. The ending - in court - is unresolved.

Well, we do stand rebutted, Lenona. I just can't argue with the overwhelming evidence presented in a "1984 TV movie." The only way you could be more persuasive is to start that sentence with something like "My mothers best friends cousin told me..."
Further, this example seems torn from the chapter titled "win if you can, lose if you must, but make sure you throw enough smoke to at least cloud the issue" in the Lil' Feminists Disingenous Handbook. "[O]ne of whom makes it clear she should do what they want and not argue about it, and it's implied that things could get violent if she tries to run away." Sounds like rape by force or fear to me. There is, quite obviously, a whole world of green between that scenario and saying that anything less than a witnessed, notarized affidavit, blood test for intoxicants, "Yes, Yes, DO Me Now you BIG STUD" repeated at regular intervals throughout the act and finally a receipt and thank you card at the end constitutes rape.
Noone is forgetting that feminists like Naomi Wolf, ever mindful first and foremost of keeping their own schtick polished enough to keep them on the gravy train, occasionally tack to the center and say something relatively sane. I will also not overlook the obvious fact that the main purpose of these sudden attacks of reasonableness is to offer something to be thrown out at times like this.
Why is it that when confronted with screamingly insane ouitbursts by feminists with entrenched political power, feminists so often proclaim "But feminism is NOT MONOLITHIC," followed closely by "Not All Feminists Are Like That," and then offer some throwaway line from an aging harridan as an apologia for all of feminism, something we need to "not forget" at times like this?
Feminism - trying to have it both ways for over 100 years.

All I was trying to say is, don't let's start arguing that if she doesn't say no, it's AUTOMATICALLY consensual.

At issue here is the proposition that it is not necessarily consensual if she says "Yes."

to answer above thanks for the insights and not burningman, but a regional copy, I do go to "That thing in the desert" but the incident happened in the southwest not Nevada

Hey, wait a minute!

What if the male performing all these horrible activities is an endearing Democratic Party member?

How young/impaired would the girl have to be for an Obama supporter to start criticizing him - assuming that this person was also a Clinton fan?

2. Let's not forget that there are, in fact, cases where a woman might never have intended to have sex but might well be too scared to say no. Example: The 1984 TV movie "When She Says No" with Kathleen Quinlan. It's a bit ambiguous (and it's been ages since I saw it), but in that movie, she's a shy college professor who's in a hotel room with three male professors - and one of whom makes it clear she should do what they want and not argue about it, and it's implied that things could get violent if she tries to run away. The ending - in court - is unresolved.

Posted by: lenona at March 5, 2014 2:41 PM

You need to read the rape statues. Putting someone under duress, with threats of physical violence is rape, plain and simple.

The only question that would occur in a trial over an issue like this, is was the victim believable, especially when it comes to the threat?

In any court of law, you are going to lose a lot of real rape cases, based on either no witnesses or conflicting accounts, as you should in any civilized country.

That, however, was not the issue being discussed.

I've been meaning to ask one of these "drunk sex is rape" types: if she consents while sober, then gets drunk, then they have sex, is it rape?

Based on Piper's account, I don't need to bother. The answer is yes.

Rex, the postmodern feminists have already taken that to its logical conclusion, which is this: PIV sex is so horribly violent that no woman in her right mind would ever consent to it. Therefore, if a woman does consent to it, that proves that she is in a mentally deficient state and incapable of granting informed consent. QED.

You need to read the rape statues. Putting someone under duress, with threats of physical violence is rape, plain and simple.
_________________________

As I said, it's been ages since I saw it. What little I remember was that one of the three men (the youngest and most callow?) probably wasn't even aware (unlike the first man) that she was under duress - or that, like most women, she might not want to have anything to do with group sex and therefore must be too frightened to say no. The first man, IIRC, was subtle, did not make his threat clear-cut and may even have been bluffing - but he knew what he was doing.

My point is that plenty of young men, especially in the 1980s but also now, would get angry at the idea that it could possibly count as rape if she doesn't say no. (Just as many teens still think it doesn't count if the man paid for dinner. Or, if she got in her date's car without a friend's coming along, "she should learn from the mistake and get on with life. The courts should not be cluttered with such nonsense." That's from an alleged adult's 1994 letter to Miss Manners. She politely took him(?) down a peg.)
______________________________________

That, however, was not the issue being discussed.

Posted by: Isab at March 5, 2014 7:07 PM
_________________________________

Understood. I was just reminding people that a lot of young boys still have the wrong moral/legal ideas (often from the media) and need to be re-educated, even if too many girls are growing up with a dangerous sense of entitlement as well.

As I've mentioned before, we no longer shrug it off when we hear of children torturing animals - and for good reason, since they often move on to worse crimes as adults, so why all the nasty snickering when it comes to teaching boys and young men how to manage their anger, narcissism, etc., so they won't commit rape?

Lenona said - "a lot of young boys still have the wrong moral/legal ideas (often from the media) and need to be re-educated..."

Interesting choice of words, Lenona. Even...revealing, one might say.

Been around this greta big world awhile. watched my fair share of TV, movies, read a lot of books - never got the idea rape was ok. Ever.
I think there are a lot of women with the wrong legal/moral ideas that just plain need to be educated - and I don't mean by the lunatics that have long since taken over the University asylums.

" so why all the nasty snickering when it comes to teaching boys and young men how to manage their anger, narcissism, etc., so they won't commit rape?

Posted by: lenona at March 6, 2014 9:41 AM

Because so much of the womyn's "management" agenda consists of reporting small boys for acting like small boys, and assuming deep psychological disfunction for wanting to do the kinds of things that boys like to do.

The punishment of thought crimes like drawing pictures of guns needs to end in this country.

A couple of years ago in Slate, two psychiatrists suggested to a mother that she needed to get her child to a psychiatrist right away because the kid was interested in guns. They said this indicated that he was deeply disturbed.

This is the kind of crap that most of the feminists have swallowed whole.

"so why all the nasty snickering when it comes to teaching boys and young men how to manage their anger, narcissism, etc., so they won't commit rape?"

Becuase, one, it isnt the darker side of HUMAN nature that women are telling boys to control, its any facet of MALE nature.

Two, no one seems to want to tell women to control their narrcicstic impluses, cause doing so 'supports rape culture'

Three, civil men already know not to rape, its quite easy not to rape. We're sick of the goal posts constantly being moved.

I recall a story posted here on this blog years back. Couple met in a bar, she drove him to her place where she had a dog and a home security system. They had sex, the next morning they had sex again and went out to breakfast, after breakfast she drove him to his place and they had sex a third time. Later that week after telling her friends, who disapproved, she decided it must have been rape cause she was too drunk to consent and had him arrested.

Then there is the case of the guy convicted of kidnapping for pulling a girl out of a busy street after she jumped out in front of his car.

Been around this greta big world awhile. watched my fair share of TV, movies, read a lot of books - never got the idea rape was ok. Ever.

Posted by: The WolfMan at March 6, 2014 11:52 AM
______________________________________

I take it you don't listen to rap music?

(Not that I have, but even lefty black cartoonists - not necessarily feminist - have complained about the violent and pornographic messages. E.g.: "Most of rap music IS violent and stupid, and that ain't the media's fault!")

Not to mention games like Grand Theft Auto....you didn't mention such games either.

I will, however, concede that people of all ages will often seek out the negative messages they already agree with, whether they're hard to find or not - or ignore the ones they don't. And yes, it's wrong to keep changing the rules - especially when they only apply to boys.

But, as many have pointed out, with children, it's not enough, sadly, for parents to teach them that stealing or other bad behaviors are wrong - kids have to be made AFRAID of what the parental punishments will be if they break the rules, since kids are not born with a sense of empathy - they have to be put through the motions, over and over. This leads to the lifelong habit of respect for the law. Not to mention the need for general parental affection (as opposed to being a chronically surly parent) so that kids will truly be motivated to please. Miss Manners wrote in 1984: "Your truly devoted parent has incredible power. Miss Manners has known them to wither children into fearful obedience with only the quiet statement 'I am disappointed in you.' "

Thanks Lenona.

Like Wolfman, I, too, had never thought rape was okay.

But then I was exposed to violent anti-womyn media propaganda like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM-lxsxeXBI

I'd say more but I have to get ready for the Number 6 dance.

Last I heard, Lenona, Prevailing wisdom seems to learn towards the theory that sociopaths are born, not made.

One of the thorny issues for socialists. They continue to operate under the mistaken assumption that education will wipe out a million years worth of genetic predispositions in favor of violent and bad behavior.

Constitutional issues, aside, I don't think your "reeducation gulags" for minority youths, unduly influenced by rap music, are going to have the effect, you so naïvely think they will have.

Just keep waving that magic wand.

Wow. Lenona. let me get this straight -

Your justification...for the stupidity on display in this article...the stupidity rampant on campuses all across North America...for putting boys into reeducation camps...

Is rap music?
And Grand Theft Auto?

I'm on leave, Lenona. I don't have time to pick my way through the cloud of your rhetorical smoke bombs.

But I will say this - I don't listen to rap music. I find it to be corrosive, unlistenable noise. I had long since come to grips with the idea that this made me a racist. I am stunned to realize that the mere existence of rap music puts me in need of reeducation because...rape.
And video games peaked at "Asteroids" as far as I'm concerned.

I am stunned to realize that the mere existence of rap music puts me in need of reeducation
____________________________

Who said YOU needed it? Sheesh. We're all well educated here - I hope.

I will say a huge percentage - especially the younger, poorer and less-educated (but not always) - of males need it. I never said anything about "camps."

Last I heard, Lenona, Prevailing wisdom seems to learn towards the theory that sociopaths are born, not made.
_____________________________

How is that any excuse for giving up? As I mentioned, we used to ignore it, more or less, when we caught kids torturing animals (Jeffrey Dahmer was one) but we now know why it's so important to watch for signs like that and do what we CAN do to rehabilitate such children. Not that it always works - but we know far more about what works than we used to.

How is that any excuse for giving up?

Not an excuse for giving up. Just no point pounding you head against a brick wall in the name of persistence.

Direct your resources to bigger problems. Stop funding the handwringing feminists, and the educrats, who talk a lot but have no measurable output.

We do have limited resources in this country, President Obama's printing presses, non withstanding.

The NRA has done more to prevent rape in the country, than an entire army of educational do gooders.

What it should do is give you a clue, that all the money and resources going towards intervention and education are wasted.

You would do better to focus your efforts on teaching women not to get drunk at parties, avoid bad parts of town, and to not make themselves a target.

If you make real rape a very costly calculation for a potential rapist, you will be amazed how the rate will go down.

You are aware aren't you, that rape is rare in the US compared to "oh so civilized and socialist" Australia ?

Who knew that rap music was so popular down under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

I will say a huge percentage - especially the younger, poorer and less-educated (but not always) - of males need it. I never said anything about "camps."

Posted by: lenona at March 7, 2014 2:24 PM

Well. When we take a look at those younger, poorer and less educated males, particularly the younger, poorer and less educated males who are the main consumers of rap music, one thing we observe is a stageering rate of single motherhood. That means no father in the home, to be clear.
Now, unless there is some radical new thinking in the siterhood, this is not a bad thing.
The thinking person realizes this is a very bad thing. There was a time when men were in the home, and taught the young men how to be men. Now they learn from the only male role models they have - and that is the male role models supplied to them by the media. Thoae models range from emasxulated fools, to buffoonish, hyper masculized rappers.
As an aside, if young women weren't attracted to young thugs, young thugs wouldn't be attracted to the thug life.
But anyway - hows about the feminists jumping on board and acknowledging what every sentient being in the west has long since figured out? It takes two to raise a child. There is no debate, no debate whatsoever that young men raised without fathers, as a class, do markedly worse in life.
But that isn't likely to happen, is it Lenona? First of all, single motherhood is just another "lifestyle choice" for the modern Cosmo girl and none of us judgmental pricks better say a negative word about it. War on Women, ya know.
In the second place, the suggestion that mebbe, juuuuuuuust mebbe a man might be a positive, much less necessary part of a young childs life, or a neccesary part of a family unit tends to make feminists turn purple. Don't take it from me - go find some and make that suggestion.
So if these young men are turning to the only role models they have, it would go a long way towards establishing (notice I didn't say re-establishing) feminist credibility if they would acknowledge that their attack on the nuclear, two parent family has not resulted in utopia.
And finally, since I can hear it coming - I don't oppose gay marriage or adoption. One of governments functions is to validate legal contracts. marriage is a legal contract that I feel lost its claim to religious protection when they got the government involved. If people can be legally married, they should then be legally able to adopt or have children by whatever scientific means are at their disposal.
Also, I can hear feminists screaming even now that "the reason for all those fatherless chirruns is 'cause dem menzes don't be stickin' aroun' to raise 'em!!!!" here is where your passion for education might come in handy, Lenona -
I don't care how sexy he looked in the bar that night, he wasn't going home with you to start a family. men don't get pregnant. You do. If you give it away, someone is going to take it and no, they prolly aren't going to stand by you if you get pregnant.
What do you think he is going to do, marry someone who goes home with people they met in a bar? That he barely knows?
Women are the sexual gatekeepers. You of course have every right to give it away in the street if you want to. But you are not entitled to be held blameless for a clown car vagina. There is the pill, Plan B, abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, adoption, hells bells you can even leave the kid at a fire station, police station or hospital within 24 hours of birth in some states. if you have children, you chose to have them.

I will add that I don't believe for a minute that it's only the poor and uneducated who are likely to commit rape. As I've said before, an awful lot of young men rape because they've grown up rich and entitled (you don't even have to be a jock to get the idea that you, as a rich kid, are entitled to anything you want, but it certainly helps when even parents and teachers voluntarily bow to you as a jock) and so they can get very angry when they hear "no," since they're not used to hearing it. Sounds to me as though such young men and their power are VERY much in need of close supervision and REMINDERS that they are not above anyone, just as you wouldn't give a teen free rein with a million bucks just because the teen inherited it.

Michael Kimmel, in his recent book, "Angry White Men," had examples of this rich-kid amorality. (He also mentioned the mass shooter George Sodini, who was well-groomed, with average looks, and had a good job, but hadn't had sex in 20 years - Sodini wouldn't accept that maybe the women who refused to date him sensed there was something WRONG with him - and they were clearly right. But to his mind, women were depriving him of his birthright, as Sodini said in effect.)

Kimmel also wrote a 2010 article: "Lacrosse and the Entitled Elite Male Athlete." It was about the murder of Yeardley Love by George Huguely (the case got mentioned again in "Angry White Men").

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/lacrosse-and-the-entitled_b_578977.html

Quote:

"....From the outside, George Huguely had it all: preppy handsome, quarterback and lacrosse star at his tony pre school, playing on the top-ranked lacrosse team in the nation, had a gorgeous girlfriend of similar background -- and equal lacrosse skills. Such guys are the epitome of what I describe in my book Guyland as the 'culture of entitlement.' They think they can do anything they want and get away with it, and usually they're right.....

"...The culture of silence is itself surrounded by a culture of protection -- a bubble of class privilege, athletic status and a fraternal wagon-circling when things go wrong. If things go terribly wrong, the culture of protection -- including parents, coaches and alumni boosters -- hire high-priced lawyers who manage to get records expunged and witnesses to forget what they saw.....

"....In such a bubble, it may be hard for an entitled, constantly validated athlete to grant anyone else autonomy. Who was Yeardly Love to break up with George Huguely, anyway? Who did she think she was?

"Maybe that's all he wanted to communicate to her. Tragically, though, it's what the entire world has now heard loud and clear."