I stumbled on a recent piece by Ezra Klein at Vox titled “Yes Means Yes” is a terrible law, and I completely support it. It is a remarkably frank discussion of California’s new law defining how universities which receive state funds are to handle allegations of rape. My initial reaction on the whole “Yes Means Yes” question was one of limited interest. As I’ve explained before, I’m not interested in creating rules of the road for fornication. It isn’t that I don’t care about injustice, but that I don’t see a way to make fornication safe.
My own initial response is I’m quite certain the standard response for most conservatives. To their credit, feminists have done a brilliant job of maneuvering conservatives as a blocking force around the battlefield of the culture wars. The problem however is not that conservatives aren’t interested in creating rules of the road for fornication, it is that they are all too eager to assist feminists in doing this. The greatest precedent for this is in the area of child support. Feminists complained that it wasn’t fair for the fornicating woman to be responsible for any resulting pregnancies while fornicating men get off scott-free. The idea of a cad not being responsible for supporting his children understandably enrages conservatives, and you will be hard pressed to find a conservative who objects to child support in theory or in practice.
The problem with child support however is that in trying to make fornication fair, conservatives have unwittingly given their approval for the replacement of marriage as the fundamental family structure in the Western world. Making fornication “fair” (for women) turned out to come at a profound cost, something we haven’t begun to process.
What we see in the Yes Means Yes law is the next level of legislation attempting to make fornication as pleasant and rewarding an experience for women as possible. As Klein explains in the opening of the piece, it is in fact a ridiculous law:
It tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.
Yet while he is very open about the absurdity of the law, he goes on to explain that it is needed in order to create a culture of promiscuity where men are afraid and women are not:
If the Yes Means Yes law is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it…
…”No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.
Klein explains that this other piece by Amanda Taub was largely responsible for bringing him to support this view. Taub’s piece is even more eye opening, explaining that women’s fear of doing risky things is “a tax on women”.
That status quo puts women in the position of having to constantly police their own behavior to make sure that they are not giving the appearance of passive consent. That’s not only exhausting; it’s limiting. It reinforces power imbalances that keep women out of positions of success and authority.
This is the core idea behind the slogan “Teach men not to rape”. Feminists are pushing for a world where female promiscuity is encouraged and defended with the full force of society. The danger is, conservatives could be baited into backing this as they were baited into backing child support. Those who don’t formally approve of the new order are likely to want to stay out of it, out of a reluctance to being perceived as going to bat for promiscuous men. Ironically the standard argument against the law, that it will create a chilling effect on the hookup culture, only confirms to conservatives that this is in fact a good law. But the law isn’t designed to put a damper on the hookup culture, it is designed to grease the skids for women to participate more fully in the hookup culture.
Taub describes the problem of the status quo in greater detail:
As a result, certain opportunities are left unavailable to women, while still others are subject to expensive safety precautions, such as not traveling for professional networking unless you can afford your own hotel room. It amounts, essentially, to a tax that is levied exclusively on women. And it sucks.
The example she is referring to here is a woman named Sophia Katz who by her own account traveled to New York City to take a man she had never met up on his offer to share his bed. The first night she spent in his bed she rebuffed his sexual advances with “Hey, I’m really tired. Could we not do this right now?” On the second night she first argued that his roommates would hear before giving in.
Katz is the poster child for the Yes Means Yes law, because while neither she nor the man she slept with were involved with California universities, the intent is to make it safe for women to do exactly what Katz did without fear of feeling pressured to have sex. Likewise, the intent is to make it safe for women to go home with random hook up partners and not risk feeling regret later. In order to accomplish this, the law must as Klein explains create a world where men are afraid so women will feel comfortable in doing foolish, risky things.
Right now this law only impacts students at California universities. However, the push is clearly to modify the criminal code across the West in similar fashion. Nothing short of this will make women and girls feel safe pursuing promiscuity with wild abandon, even though making something dangerous feel safe will only put women at far greater risk.
The question is how will non feminists react to this latest gambit. Will they actively support it, or at least not protest as it is pushed through, out of a sense of disgust at cads like the one who shared his bed with Katz expecting sex in return? Or will non feminists recognize the folly in yet further laws attempting to make promiscuity and foolishness as fun and rewarding for women as possible?
Related: We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan
Pingback: Making the world safe for foolish promiscuous women. | Manosphere.com
Ezra is a man. And he is a libertarian, and that is why he is frank and honest and makes sense 🙂
[D: Thanks! Fixed.]
Ezra Klein is male, but he is in no way, shape or form a “libertarian.” He is a typcial far-left millenial, the product of elite schools and institutions and a pillar of the Beltway-left jouro-advocacy establishment.
How is Ezra a libertarian when he is completely fine with an extremely intrusive piece of legislation?
The feminists again are attempting to shift the consequences of poor decisions i.e. risk/costs/unfavorable outcomes on to men. It is not a matter of being equal and taking responsibility for your actions; it is a matter of making men pay for women’s poor choices.
Yes, Escoffier – you are right. That was a mix-up in my mind. But at least I was right about his gender 🙂 hahaha
D, I assume this: risky things is… risky is “a tax on women”
should be this: risky things is … “a tax on women.”
Second “risky is” seems like a typo.
[D: Thanks. It should be better now.]
This law is the Ezra Kleins of the world telling the rest to stop hitting ourselves.
Their power rests on their capacity to divide and conquer, to turn one faction of non-progressives against another to serve progressive ends.
Katz story put me in mind of Angus Diggle: this is his story.
Diggle was a lawyer in his mid-thirties who worked in the north-east of England and clearly a bit of a character. He proposed attending a night of Scottish Dancing at the Connaught Rooms in London. He invited a female lawyer to accompany him. She agreed; they travelled by rail together (at his expense) to London. The tickets to the dance were paid for by him and the large quantity of consumed alcohol (as they engaged in their strange dances) was also paid for by him. They retired to the apartment of a friend where they were to share a room. She stripped off down to her panties, got into bed and fell asleep. Now, what would any normal guy in that situation do? She awoke to find Diggle attempting to seduce her. She had by this time lost interest. She rebuffed his advances and went to the police. He was duly convicted of attempted Rape, imprisoned, and with the loss of his job and his professional qualification and all for a few moments of her discomfort, a discomfort entirely brought on by her own behaviour. She remained anonymous.
Compare that with me: I was in Chicago and about to fly to Southern California. I wanted to say goodbye to a rather petite and attractive though crazy young woman, and so I went into her room. It was very early morning and she was still three quarters asleep so I decided to slip into her bed. She placed her arms around my neck and began to kiss me when unfortunately there was a knock at the door – my taxi had arrived early. Damn. Was Diggle any worse than me or just unlucky?
As I mentioned in the discussion in the other thread, they will keep pushing until the criminal law is changed as well. By changing the rules on the campus, they inculcate in the rising generations this standard, and such generations in turn will have no issue flipping the criminal standard in the wider world thereafter. Simply a medium-term strategy to change criminal law’s burden of proof — something that would not otherwise be easy to do. Clever approach, and a long-term-perspective based one as well. It will almost certainly succeed.
As for what the conservatives will do? That will depend on the kind of conservative. Well, the libertarian ones won’t like it, of course. The more rabid libertarians will be open about it, while others will duck and run because criticizing the proposal is too costly politically (even for non-politicians). The social conservatives will almost all be in favor of it, because they will see it as a way to put a check on the behavior of college men and encourage them to “man up”. A few stray situations where guys get strung up by the star chamber tribunal is a more than acceptable price to pay, from their perspective, to get the boys to keep their flies zipped. And so, again, we will have the joy and wonder of watching social conservatives backstop massive changes in law and social policy in a way that aligns them with feminists. While one could hope that they would see through that themselves, alas they are so blinded by their own myopia that it is rather unreasonable to expect them to do so. They’re lost, basically.
The real gainers here: pornographers, hookers and gay people (anyone who really thinks this will be enforced seriously against anyone other than straight guys is a moron, sorry).
nova,
“By changing the rules on the campus, they inculcate in the rising generations this standard, and such generations in turn will have no issue flipping the criminal standard in the wider world thereafter. Simply a medium-term strategy to change criminal law’s burden of proof — something that would not otherwise be easy to do. Clever approach, and a long-term-perspective based one as well. It will almost certainly succeed.”
Nova Revere rides again. That is exactly it.
There’s an idea that the work around to Yes Means Yes is simply to have sex with a girl off campus. Ergo the incidence of “campus rape” declines and the law is spun as a victory for feminists and evidence of a successful enactment of a functional law.
Yes Means Yes will be a ‘success’ insofar as it curbs campus rape because it is uniquely based on male fear.
Read this again, “…to create a WORLD where men are afraid.”
The ‘big deal’ is the latent purpose of the law and the motivating ideologies behind it. The law won’t actually curb rape, but it will be successful in creating a world where men are afraid by ambiguously and progressively redefining what rape is and what harassment should encompass – all while legally enforcing men’s compliance in feminine hypergamy.
It’s just as easy to say, ‘well, men will simply not cooperate and go their own way”, and while that would certainly predicate what Deti is proposing in the previous thread, the most salient part is that this law has successfully changed the gender landscape to one based on fear of the Feminine Imperative.
@NOVA “As I mentioned in the discussion in the other thread, they will keep pushing until the criminal law is changed as well. By changing the rules on the campus, they inculcate in the rising generations this standard, and such generations in turn will have no issue flipping the criminal standard in the wider world thereafter. ”
I originally thought the same, but now I’m not sure. By doing it on campus only, they get to target the one politically acceptable group to target – straight, largely white and asian, middle and upper middle class men. Black athletes will get caught up too, but that’s just a few guys.
If you codify it criminally, you run a substantial risk of ending up with massive incarceration of non-asian minority men, in even far greater numbers than we have now. Does the left really want to be responsible for that?
Its a dangerous play I’d say with the real chance that screwed over men will retaliate both passively and actively.
Between creating less prosperous male university grads , more of a natal crisis, less economic activity and with less brainwashing from the schools the blow-back will be unpleasant to say the least, A real war on women would mean either hard dictatorship and no money for anyone or the imposition of pretty heavy restrictions on women.
We won’t get ISIS (probably) where the roles for women are rather similar to that of the fictional Gor, cloistered breeder/wife or slave but we may get some pretty unpleasant effects especially for the current feminists and their mangina/white knight allies who will suffer just as much.
Do not play the game. You go to university to get a worthwhile degree. Get sex elsewhere..
Yes Means Yes is already implemented in every other State. It’s called a Marriage License. Only this is one is technically unlimited until your spouse decides to not fulfill the marital contract anymore.
If you codify it criminally, you run a substantial risk of ending up with massive incarceration of non-asian minority men, in even far greater numbers than we have now. Does the left really want to be responsible for that?
I know the sort of people who are behind the initiatives. Women in my law school class ~30 years ago who are now feminist legal academics, activists, etc. Believe me, they *do* want to change criminal law, and have written about it enough. The issue is that they can’t do it now, because the change would have pretty much no popular support. So they have opted to do it this way, to make the ground more fertile in the future for some of the most sweeping changes the US has ever seen to criminal law. They won’t care if it impacts minority men at all, frankly. Their goals are more robust.
This is an extra test to see if a guy is Alpha. The kinds of guys these women want will either be confident enough to know she’s going to like whatever he does or won’t give a crap and a half about the consequences and thus extra sexy. You’ll have to be a bad boy to get any play.
This is the perfect way to weed out any and all wimps.
A clever attorney could draw up some preliminary contracts for such evenings out on campus. Maybe if guys handed out contracts right before they go out, asking whether the woman in questions intends having sex with them or not, obviously only to be turned down, might cause men to stop taking women out on dates, thus spending less money, less time and less attention on women.
Think of the positives.
Do not play the game. You go to university to get a worthwhile degree. Get sex elsewhere..
Perhaps. Like escoffier, I am also unclear as to whether the specifics of the university-level rules would capture that kind of situation. For example, whether they would permit a “townie” to raise a complaint against a male student before the school’s tribunal, and have the tribunal apply that standard to *all* sexual activity by that student, whether with another student or not, whether in university housing or not, etc. I just don’t know how the university-level rules work in that regard.
I think Nova is quite right. This is merely a testing phase. To see how people react.
Many conservatives will support this as an effective constraint on the world’s primary evil: male sexuality. Women only have sex when they’re coerced and tricked into it, so you gotta restrict the men.
Others of a more libertarian bent will oppose it on government intrusiveness bounds.
Thus far, this is the only conservative I’ve encountered who openly supports it, but my readings lead libertarian: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/neo-victorianism-campus_810871.html?nopager=1#
Hell, have sex out of state if that’s the case.
Hell, have sex out of state if that’s the case.
A clever girl out of state … she could still get you. But, again, not sure that the rules extend to off-campus stuff. Maybe that even varies by school.
At the end of the day, college women (soon all women) will be able to use the “lack of consent” law/policy as a weapon against undesirable men to do the following:
1. Weed out and eliminate unattractive men by chilling their conduct
2. Making even the most innocuous sexual conduct (i.e. approaching, asking for dates) so dangerous that the only men who will engage in the SMP are attractive men with proven successful sexual track records who will never get reported for doing anything “untoward”; thus ensuring that only attractive men will approach them for dates and sex
3. Giving women more power over the SMP so even unattractive women can use and select men for alpha fux; then have the sole ability to pursue and select men for beta bux when they see fit.
Open hypergamy. It will be “we women are going to do this, and if you want sex, you’ll do it our way, and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.”
Nova,
I’m sure the conduct policy will apply to all males enrolled, regardless of the status of the female.
After all, the unenrolled may be more downtrodden and need more white-knighting.
“Feminists are pushing for a world where female promiscuity is encouraged and defended with the full force of society.”
Well let’s look at this logically. A feminist’s worst nightmare.
Female promiscuity involves males. If males are going to be punished by the state for female promiscuity…perhaps they would eventually wise up and not engage in promiscuity. So if one side is encouraged and defended and the other side is punished and jailed…how would it continue female promiscuity continue?
Like most other attempts at restricting male sexuality, this will serve to limit only beta male sexuality. The cads will get just as much as ever. Like deti says, the betas will become even more weak and supplicating.
The more I think about it, the happier I am to be out of university and not gainfully seeking women. They’re a minefield currently, one that’s best to go all the way around.
At least now I have a direct law to point to when women ask why I don’t entertain the notion of asking them out. Here, babes, take a good long look; and don’t complain that men have given up the chase. Women have brought this on all by themselves.
This time may well be different Martel. The cad that rejects a woman after sexy nights out might well find himself in big trouble. This law could most differently bite even the most alpha of alpha.
That’s definitely…..
@Martel
Good find. I hadn’t seen that, and yet she proves me right:
The challenge in discussing this with conservatives will be to blow this foolish (if unspoken) argument up. Unfortunately, nearly everyone will complain to conservatives that the law will give an unfair advantage to women in the hookup culture, and this will only sell conservatives on the law. The way to approach it is to show that what it really is intended to do is increase promiscuity.
Not all conservatives can be reached here, but if we could have a serious debate among conservatives it would be a huge breakthrough. Some number of conservatives will hide behind a claim of wanting to end promiscuity, but their real impulse is to either stick it to men (no matter what the cost to society) or to coddle promiscuous women. The best we can hope is to swing those who have truly been duped by feminists and expose those who are hiding their true motives in supporting feminism.
Cads and supplicating males are both weak. Now it appears the cads are going to get the same treatment as a henpecked husband who marries these women. By either having sex or getting married to a woman they have legal counsel over you.
@ feministhater: “This law could most differently bite even the most alpha of alpha.”
Concerning Alphas with a brain correct. But as we all know, there are plenty of Alphas out there in prisons, politicians who risk their entire life’s work for the sake of a fling, etc., and for these dudes more risk=more fun.
And if Alphahood corresponded with common sense, our prisons wouldn’t be quite so full.
Besides, a lot of them will just record everything. He might go down, but he’ll embarrass the crap out of her in the process.
“He might go down, but he’ll embarrass the crap out of her in the process.”
Well you got women who are displaying the mattresses they got ‘raped’ on. I don’t think embarrassment is an emotion most narcissistic psychopathic women have these days.
Martel,
“Like most other attempts at restricting male sexuality, this will serve to limit only beta male sexuality. The cads will get just as much as ever.”
It will certainly have a chilling effect on betas, though the environment is already so chilly for them its unclear if there exists any more room for them to be chilled.
The intended target, however, is the dump on the back end of the pump for alphas. Those dumps will be met by the full force of the law. It’s a sort of shotgun serial monogamy. Women, and only women, can withdraw consent at any time. Men get the ball and chain from the word go.
feministhater,
Now you might be in violation of federal law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act
@ Dalrock: Conservatives tend to be much better than the left at understanding human nature EXCEPT in regards to female sexuality. I think part of the key is to convince them that “for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory” includes not only criminals and horny men but women, too. Female sexuality is their moral blind spot.
I personally believe that the most effective way to effectively neutralize our degenerate culture is to start making women face the consequences of their actions. Conservatives understand the power of incentive in the economic and criminal justice realms, we gotta make them see how their logic also applies to womenz.
I’ve got a pretty nifty paternity testing idea that would do the trick. It would be a tough sell politically, but it would work. http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/your-body-your-baby-part-1/
Women need to put a little more thought into who they boink.
Martel:
you might be right that this is really just another massive shit test. “Who’s got the balls to approach me and risk a complaint that I didn’t consent?”
@Martel
I shared my own proposal on the topic here.
“But, again, not sure that the rules extend to off-campus stuff. ”
The rules cover activities off campus, but only activities between students. A townie doesn’t have Title IX protection because she isn’t seeking an education at the school.
Also, I understand that women pushing this don’t give a crap about minority men, and I know many have openly advocated for similar changes in criminal – where the accused would be forced to prove consent (notice that that would make it like the old affirmative defense rule of self defense for homocide, the result of which would be to effectively presume that every single incidence of incidence of sex is rape until proven otherwise). But I’m not sure the rest of the left is going to want to follow their lead there. Or maybe they’ll be too dumb to predict the outcome.
As I stated before in the last post.
You will be bearing the burden of proof to prove consent for all charges. New precident.
You will not be safe even if you don’t have sex. She can get mad if you reject her advances for sex and CLAIM you did have sex without consent. New precident. Worse than a fraudulant rape charge. Why? Because no rape kit required. And there will be no staute of limitations. All new.
This is precursor to a State by State or National level. New standard for our law system.
Who cares if AF/BB will continue. Your liberty is at stake.
I see fences on our border with armed guards aimed inward.
I had a discussion about proposed “subjective” rape laws with a law school classmate years ago. Those are laws where consent is only extant while the woman thinks it is, it can be withdrawn at any time, and if the woman is non-consenting, she only has to think she’s non-consenting (does not have to give any overt or implicit signal of non-consent) for it to be rape.
I pointed out that it would violate men’s due process rights if a woman went along but decided silently somewhere that the sex was rape; that it would incentivize false accusations by erecting a presumption of male guilt; and that ultimately, it would be extremely destructive on the relationship between men and women by making male trust all but impossible, resulting in a male willingness to use women but an extreme reluctance to be in relationships with them. Her response?
“Well, I worked in a rape crisis center, and the effect on men isn’t really my concern.”
That was the extent of her argument. It tells you how far we’ve fallen that, in essence, “I don’t give a damn” is now considered a winning public policy argument.
Start a registry of women who brought charges. I’ve often wondered whether the women who end up in the news for having been raped find it hard or at least harder to find men to date them afterward, or if there are plenty of manginas around to take up that cross.
“Well, I worked in a rape crisis center, and the effect on men isn’t really my concern.”
Lack of empathy and extreme narcissism. This is one of the many terrible results.
@ Dalrock: I’ve responded to your proposal here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/your-body-your-baby-rational-interlude/
[D: Ah, yes. I remember it now.]
@ deti: I see this as a more extreme variation of “sexual harassment in the workplace” rules. Beta is terrified of approaching that cutie in marketing, but Alpha goes all in for her. It’s a great way to weed out the wimps.
In the seventeenth century it was a crime punishable with death to steal a lamb. Hence the expression ‘one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb’. When laws are made where punishments are disproportionate to the offence one sees culprits throwing caution to the wind. Men do not much enjoy rape but if a man perceives that a woman is likely to kick-up he may well decide to persevere where otherwise he would have restrained himself for he will have little to lose as after all she might enjoy it if he persists. Draconian laws do rather have the effect of backfiring and creating the very situation they are supposed to prevent.
Let us also ground ourselves properly: Rape is an offence against female chastity. Those rare cases of sexual intercourse (per vagina) between a man and a slut cannot thus in my view amount to Rape for a Slut has no chastity to lose. The man may be guilty of indecent assault but that is a much lesser crime and equally capable of being committed by a woman.
I have a friendly acquaintance who was somewhat socially awkward who in his younger days used to approach women – strangers – who he found attractive with the question ‘May I fuck you?. The women were of course as amazed as they were offended, yet it would seem that that is what is to be required on the campuses of California and my acquaintance would have had no shortage of males to vouch for the fact that that is indeed what he said.
The consequences will be as described by Deti both here and at Alpha Game.
Dalrock,
Excellent view of the forest, but if I may be so bold, I believe you missed one of the trees. This legal structure is in no way, shape or form limited to fornication. All fifty states and D.C. have “marital rape” laws on the books. Hence, if a married student has sex with his wife, may she decide she was raped and prosecute him under this framework? Absolutely. Does that increase the Threatpoint she can hold over his head? Of course. Even if the husband does not face imprisonment (although it seem clear that Mr. Klein desires that he should) in such an instance, can you imagine the effect in divorce court? “Your honor, my husband has already been convicted of raping me! Give me all his stuff and the children now!”
How would this play out? Suppose the statute of limitations for rape is ten years. Mrs. Unhaaaappy sues for divorce, and in the process claims Mr. Beta raped her seven years ago, on such and such a date. She attests that they had sex, (perhaps while they were still students at the university where they met?) and that she did not consent. Mr. Beta cannot say for certain whether they had sex on such and such a date, and can provide no documents attesting to her eager, enthusiastic response to his advances on said date. The preponderance of evidence is in, he’s a rapist, even though he’s been (he thought) happily married having sex with only his lawfully wedded wife the entire time. Meanwhile Ezra Klein is diddling his Filipino pool boy and laughing it up.
Martel:
Yeah, it is an extension of sex harassment rules/laws. It’s a way for women to assess the attractiveness and cojones of the men she works with/goes to school with. “Let’s see who’s got the stones to step to me.”
Okrahead… and that’s exactly why this law and the more stricter the better need to be passed. They must go full tilt, people need the wake up call.
The more I think about it, the happier I am to be out of university and not gainfully seeking women. They’re a minefield currently, one that’s best to go all the way around.
That’s what I was thinking. Thank God I graduated before this nonsense started.
I feel for young guys today. They have to get a college degree to get a good job (not in every case, but that’s the way to bet), So they borrow a whole bunch of money for five years of humiliation and Marxist indoctrination. After they graduate they enter into a tough job market.
The kicker is when they get married they end up paying off not only their own college debt but also the wife’s.
“Yeah, it is an extension of sex harassment rules/laws. It’s a way for women to assess the attractiveness and cojones of the men she works with/goes to school with. “Let’s see who’s got the stones to step to me.””
I think it is more of another wedge driven between the sexes by the LGTB to separate the sexes and cause distrust and fear especially in males. The major proponents seem to be lesbians or gays i.e. Klein.
Here are some articles from the Boston Globe.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/14/harvard-law-professors-want-university-new-sexual-harassment-policy-changed/HZ72eaMcLgRgoq4DL9ZBOO/story.html
“We won’t get ISIS (probably) where the roles for women are rather similar to that of the fictional Gor, cloistered breeder/wife or slave but we may get some pretty unpleasant effects especially for the current feminists and their mangina/white knight allies who will suffer just as much.”
Why wouldn’t we?
Why wouldn’t a guy embrace ISIS or its equivalent?
I ‘m absolutely serious about that. Assume the law of the land becomes this. If you’re a beta, why wouldn’t you renounce western civilization and Christianity and embrace Islam, or ISIS?
What would possibly hold you back from joining something like this and actively support Sharia? Or the Gor equivalent?
Why wouldn’t that appeal to young men disenfranchised entirely? Especially if the economy gets worse?
What does the United States or Christianity have to offer men?
“Suppose the statute of limitations for rape is ten years. ”
There isn’t one any more for Rape or Homicide, at least in most states
@ Ra’s al Ghul: “What does the United States or Christianity have to offer men?”
Christianity as it’s practiced here today? Next to nothing. Christianity as it’s supposed to be practiced? Everything.
Hence the tragedy. Our only hope has been warped into a milquetoast recipe for being nice and getting shafted at every turn.
Ra’s al Ghul,
“Suppose the statute of limitations for rape is ten years. ”
There isn’t one any more for Rape or Homicide, at least in most states
Well, in that case, we’re all rapists now as soon as a woman says so. After all, can you prove you didn’t rape a woman ten years ago? Bear in mind, you are not allowed to cross examine or have counsel present.
Martel @ 3:02 pm:
“Like most other attempts at restricting male sexuality, this will serve to limit only beta male sexuality. The cads will get just as much as ever. Like deti says, the betas will become even more weak and supplicating.”
I don’t see it. The point of “yes means yes” is to presume guilt on the part of ALL men, which women can use as a weapon against alphas as well as betas.
My read is that it’s part of our elites’ attempt to exterminate human sexuality entirely. As others have pointed out, YMY is going to backfire hard on women and colleges as well as force beta guys out of the college indoctrination/debt camp and put white knights in the impossible position of defending their own presumed guilt. The elites aren’t doing this one for the Feminine Imperative or even mercenary benefit. They’re doing it to punish all male/female interactions.
tagging
In all the noise over this “yes means yes or else” law, I don’t see where anyone has picked up on these other sequelae from it:
1. FEMININE SEX POSITIVITY IS NOW LEGISLATIVELY MANDATED on California college campuses as official student conduct policy. The best men can hope to aspire to is being the Lucky Beta Dweeb who gets picked.
2. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE SEX POSITIVE WOMAN TO REAFFIRM ENTHUSIASTIC CONSENT in each encounter with sufficient frequency, otherwise Lucky Beta Dweeb is legally constrained to BAIL on all in-out in-out activity and go home.
Now you could say some of this is being happily promoted by the few, the proud, and the YouGoGrrlz but I’ll bet a Capitol Steakhouse dinner that most women will not like this arrangement AT ALL. Dr. Warren Farrell says he did a script-flip exercise once where he made the women do all the approaching to the men, who were to be treated as objectified, pedestalized prizes and, in the words of Damon Wayans, the women HATED IT. Got the sweats, the heebie jeebies, the rockin’ pneumonia etc. at the prospect at having to do all the approaching and leading.
This legal structure is in no way, shape or form limited to fornication.
Yep, exactly.
And when the off-campus variety starts getting passed in state legislatures, it will also impact everyone’s marriages. And why wouldn’t it? If it’s a new standard for rape, that would surely apply in marriages as well. Marital sex will decrease accordingly, which will suit many married women just fine, mind you.
Okrahead:
“Well, in that case, we’re all rapists now as soon as a woman says so. After all, can you prove you didn’t rape a woman ten years ago? Bear in mind, you are not allowed to cross examine or have counsel present.”
I know men that have straight out said they would never convict a man of rape EVER. I suspect that attitude is going to be far and wide soon enough.
“The elites aren’t doing this one for the Feminine Imperative or even mercenary benefit. They’re doing it to punish all male/female interactions.”
I’d agree with this idea. Elites are far more known for depopulation techniques and this could be another way to do it.
I think the grand plan is to demonize all healthy male/female interaction with the aim of population reduction. This is eugenics. Remember the goal is to reduce world population to 500 million.
Here is another head of the population reduction hydra.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/vaccinate-the-world-gates-rockefeller-seek-global-population-reduction/20942
it is designed to grease the skids for women to participate more fully in the hookup culture
Please explain how the new Cal. law will cause this to happen.
Imagine the blackmail / extortion potential this law will have for any college girl with a college boyfriend who gets comfortable with her and has undocumented consent-ambiguous sex with her even once.
His student debt, his future career plans, any aspirations to professional sports, future earnings, post-graduate education plans, etc. are all dependent upon the emotional stability and susceptibility to feminist influence of that 18-24 y.o. girl.
Imagine the overwhelming fear that inspires. This is the degree of control the feminist element wants over men.
@ Gunner: “They’re doing it to punish all male/female interactions.”
That’s probably the INTENT, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be the RESULT. Whether it’s showing up on time for dates or being in touch with feelings, everything women say they want is likely to fly right out the window when they’re in the presence of a guy that turns them on.
Considering some of the crap women allow their Alpha boyfriends get away with, I find it hard to believe they’ll prosecute these same guys for touching her chest without getting a verbal okay first. But the awkward guy who accidentally grazes her butt while getting to his seat in class may well get massacred.
Something else that gets lost in all the noise – the statue of limitations for rape never expire.
@ Rollo: “Imagine the overwhelming fear that inspires. This is the degree of control the feminist element wants over men.”
But think about the tingles she’ll get for a guy who isn’t bothered by this, the Ultimate Alpha, the Fearless Man.
Besides, isn’t that what camcorders are for?
“But think about the tingles she’ll get for a guy who isn’t bothered by this, the Ultimate Alpha, the Fearless Man.”
Until he dumps her . . .
Borderlines, NPDs they LOVE blackmailing guys to stay with them.
The rules cover activities off campus, but only activities between students. A townie doesn’t have Title IX protection because she isn’t seeking an education at the school.
That makes sense — for this version, at least.
Also, I understand that women pushing this don’t give a crap about minority men, and I know many have openly advocated for similar changes in criminal – where the accused would be forced to prove consent (notice that that would make it like the old affirmative defense rule of self defense for homocide, the result of which would be to effectively presume that every single incidence of incidence of sex is rape until proven otherwise). But I’m not sure the rest of the left is going to want to follow their lead there. Or maybe they’ll be too dumb to predict the outcome.
Yeah I think the temptation to get women’s votes — and women will be overwhelmingly in favor of this, really — will be too much. I can’t really see a scenario where this standard doesn’t become a part of general criminal law within the next, say, 15 years.
And, yes, they want to make all sex presumptively rape unless proven otherwise. The idea there is that because men have physical power over women, the law needs to be skewed against them in this way in order to prevent rape. So, the equation is that you balance out male physical advantage, which is often overwhelming, with an overwhelming female legal advantage, and in the end you get “balance”. Of course that isn’t true — a system where all sex is presumed rape is not balanced, and it isn’t balanced out by male physical strength advantages over women in any way, but that’s what passes for an argument in the academy these days. The underlying idea isn’t balance, but fear shifting, so as to place men under fear. That isn’t balanced, it’s imbalanced in favor of women.
But in any case, I can’t see how this doesn’t come to fruition honestly. Perhaps Dalrock is correct that some conservatives can be reached on this, but I doubt it. Most social conservatives are more than happy to enact *anything* that restricts male sexuality. They think that by doing this, they reduce promiscuity (see the MacDonald article). But what they are actually doing is reinforcing trends towards promiscuity for certain men and not for others, while at the same time giving women, in all situations, the ability to engage in whatever promiscuity they want, while always reserving the right to claim she didn’t affirmatively consent. It *empowers* women to be *more* promiscuous, in other words. The only way someone doesn’t see that is if their view of sexuality is that it only ever happens because guys want it, girls never really want it, and therefore a change like this will mean no sex happening. Like MacDonald suggests. Such thinking is rife among social conservatives, and will take a long time, if ever, to break, I think.
@Martel
Until they revise the legal definition of ‘revenge porn’. That’ll be the next legislation.
“…”No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.”
That’s feminism in a nutshell. Men have an advantage, real or perceived? Take it from them and give it to women. Women have a disadvantage, real or perceived? Take it from them and give it to men.
Some “equality” they’re working for.
” Ergo the incidence of “campus rape” declines and the law is spun as a victory for feminists ”
But feminists don’t want the incidence of campus rape to decline. Feminists would lose importance if that happened, hence their “1 in 4″/”1 in 5″/”1 in whatever” screeching.
@ Ra’s al Ghul: “Until he dumps her . . .”
Correct, and they do love them some revenge.
Yet we should remember that one of the points of the Dark Triad is Machiavellianism. Some of these dudes are ruthless. They’ll make her afraid to report.
All she needs to have power over him is one night without a verbal “yes”, but all he needs is one night on film. He gets word she might accuse him of rape, he sends word that if she does her father, mother, grandmother, brother, and everyone she knows will see her taking it in every orifice and loving every second of it. Sure, she’s got some power over him, but he’ll have some over her, too. If he was Alpha at all during the relationship, she’ll know he’s more than willing to use it.
When this becomes criminal law, and sadly Nova is right about it is:
The single motherhood rate will hit 80% of all children.
Marriage will drop to about 20% or less of the population
MGTOW way will accelerate, 80% of college degrees will go to women
It will actually be harder to convict a man of rape.
Violence toward women will increase dramatically. So will homicides.
Islam of one virulent form or another will spread rapidly
“Until he dumps her . . .
Borderlines, NPDs they LOVE blackmailing guys to stay with them.”
Nah…Game will protect them from those psychopaths. Heh heh.
Martel,
I think you underestimate the willingness a borderline or NPD will suffer in order to get revenge or control over someone.
and I expect recording without permission and revenge porn to become felonies to counter the normal response men will have to this.
Like I said, Islam and Sharia are going to start looking real good by comparison.
@ Rollo: “Until they revise the legal definition of ‘revenge porn’. That’ll be the next legislation.”
I think in some places it already is.
Nevertheless, no laws can keep grandpa from seeing the video. Besides, if you’re already going down for BS “rape” charges, might as well make it hurt her, too. (see the comment about the effects of draconian laws above)
Fear does work. In the Army I was about to get accused of stalking (total crap according to even her best friends). Yet as beta as I was, I made sure my accuser knew I had plenty of goods on her, that if she carried through no matter how bad she hurt me, she was going to hurt a hell of a lot, too.
She backed off. Foolproof? By no means, but a man who knows how to instill fear knows how to make it work for him.
“Yet as beta as I was, I made sure my accuser knew I had plenty of goods on her, that if she carried through no matter how bad she hurt me, she was going to hurt a hell of a lot, too
She backed off. Foolproof? By no means, but a man who knows how to instill fear knows how to make it work for him.”
Like I said, violence toward women is going to increase. It is the simplest form of fear
So, frat house bang-a-bimbo announces a party and the poster says, “any woman who shows up at this frat house party will be a sex object…period!” Snowflake and her sorority sisters do attend, for the guys its a freebee orgy.
I think this will encourage men to be far more upfront about what they desire, PO-GO, put out or get out. Women will be reduced to mere sex objects.
The guys can simply text to a prospective ” I’ll only go out with you on condition of sex”. If she says no…cool…you save time and money on “maybe” and only have to wine-n-dine the sure things. It becomes a very short step to legalizing prostitution, or charging a rape accuser with prostitution if she agrees to a sex-certain date then reconsiders later. For the guy it was clearly a fee-for-service arrangement, again, transforming women into protein receptacles.
As an aside, I have found women are FAR more aggressive about wanting sex early on than guys. It will be rather fun to watch desperate horny women begging guys for sex. Lets face facts, women get their validation from their allure/sexuality, being sexually active and in a relationship is what they obsess about, brag about, it consumes them. A woman can be at the pinnacle of her earning ability, career, power and if she is not in a relationship she and her peers will consider her a failure. The fact is women are the predatory sexual gender, they are consumed with sex, they spend every waking moment primping, posturing, scheming to make themselves attractive to others to get sex.
@ Ra’s al Ghul: “I think you underestimate the willingness a borderline or NPD will suffer in order to get revenge or control over someone. and I expect recording without permission and revenge porn to become felonies to counter the normal response men will have to this.”
Some of this I covered in my last comment. However, part of Alpha is the capacity to not give a flying f$#k. I know how hysterical women can get, but I also know how frightened they can get when they go up against a man who they know will not back down.
“Accuse me all you want, but there will be consequences. I might go to prison for even longer, but I’ll get out someday, and you’ll be reduced to just a shadow.”
Of course, this just applies to the really psychopathic Alphas, so your points and Rollo’s are definitely valid. Some guys will be scared away, end up betaized under her control or avoid women altogether.
But some won’t.
It isn’t about sex…they are consumed with getting power. Sex is the only way they can get it.
” They won’t care if it impacts minority men at all, frankly.”
Feminists really don’t care about minority men. They really don’t. Read an anti-feminist blog written by a minority man and you’ll see just how quickly feminists will heave a minority man under the bus when it suits them.
I’ve related this story on occasion, but when I returned to university in 2001 I was compelled by that school to go through a ‘campus rape awareness’ seminar. Only men were required to sign a statement that they’d seen the videos and gone through the info session.
I didn’t think too much of it until they got to the part where rape was defined as “any nonconsensual or unwanted sex”. They went through a few scenarios that could be construed as rape that seemed pretty obviously rape to me, until they got to the part where a girl had sex with her boyfriend in order to maintain their relationship.
You see, according to this scenario, the girl was emotionally manipulated into having sex she didn’t want to have with the boyfriend in order to keep him in the relationship and not dumping her to seek girls who would. The rationale was that circumstances, irrespective of the guy’s intent, were such that even his behaviors in seeking out other potential sex partners could be construed as his “pushing” her to have unwanted sex with him – ergo, rape.
Now, imagine this scenario under the Yes Means Yes statute.
I am having difficulty understanding the scope of yes means yes, could someone please elaborate.
So far as I understand:
No means no.
Men choose and approach.
Females respond and must actively rebuff approach.
Yes means yes.
Females choose and invite approach
Men respond and approach.
Am I getting this right, anything other than a direct female invite to approach could be construed as sexual harassment? So females become the active choosers of who they’ll give permission to approach?
So if a man and a woman have good chemistry and kiss at the end of the night but there was no explicit permission given by the women the male could later be deemed to have committed sexual assault?
Yes means yes.
Females choose and invite approach
Men respond and approach.
Am I getting this right, anything other than a direct female invite to approach could be construed as sexual harassment? So females become the active choosers of who they’ll give permission to approach?
So if a man and a woman have good chemistry and kiss at the end of the night but there was no explicit permission given by the women the male could later be deemed to have committed sexual assault?
Not explicitly, but perhaps in effect.
The idea is that men can still initiate, but every step of the way, affirmative consent needs to be obtained. At touching. At kissing. At necking. At more intimate touching, etc. Every act has to be explicitly consented to again and again so that it can be assured that consent is maintained at all times in the encounter. It doesn’t say that this MUST be verbal consent, but it’s obvious that this is what is intended, because one of the arguments in favor of it is that it “fosters communication, which makes for healthier and better sexual encounters”.
So it isn’t that the woman is always expected to initiate. It’s that the woman, if the man does initiatee, must be constantly consulted about her state of consent. It basically places the burden on the man to prove that she consented at every step of every single sexual encounter. And, yes, even for husbands who are married to students.
It appears to me that California is attempting to turn its female students into unpaid whores. The idea that communication makes for better sexual encounters (I am not sure what Health has to do with it) is platinum grad psycho-babble bullshit.
@Rollo
Yes. They are very clear about this. In the Katz story they use as the example explaining the need for such a law:
Unrelated, but something I think your audience may be interested in.
Mark Driscoll Resigns, and apologizes for multiple failings.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/15/report-embattled-pastor-mark-driscoll-resigns/
Not approaching women at all.
http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2014/09/on-not-approaching-women-at-all.html
earl said ..
“It isn’t about sex…they are consumed with getting power. Sex is the only way they can get it.”
Yep. In a nutshell.
Sex is the manipulation tool women use. Most men lose sight of all clear rational logic and reasoning while under its spell.
That’s why I mentioned .. if you tell her NO to sex .. same results as having sex re: yes means yes.
To take it to its logical conclusion one only will need to ‘passive reject” (what BS in and of itself) a woman to be targeted.
When women get up to speed on this new campus policy they will be well trained when it becomes state / federal law (ie jail time) / threatpoint.
They assumed control of marriages and now they are preparing for control of the one’s that got away.
Again it will be neutral on paper .. just like no fault divorce.
Anyone see a link with this and the proposed law in the UK about the change in spousal abuse laws?
Seems to me there is … things to consider.
“Someone who understands it’s not about Alphas or the Dark Triad – it’s about power. And you can either have power, or you can have love. But you can’t have both.”
Looks like California has a 6 year statute of limitation on “normal” rape, although DNA issues could provide a loophole. Only aggravated rape has no statute of limitations for now.
I expect that feminists will be wanting to “fix” this in the next few years.
NOTE: I Am Not A Lawer (IANAL) and This Is Not Legal Advice (TINLA)
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/california-statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-abuse.html
Excerpt:
For criminal cases, a prosecutor may file a charge of aggravated rape at any time, with no limitation (in California, an aggravated rape is rape that involves a weapon, more than one person, or seriously injures the victim). Prosecution for “normal” sexual assault has a statute of limitations of six years. However, there is an exception made for DNA analysis. Since it is a relatively new technology, if a DNA test can conclusively prove the identity of a rapist, prosecution can take place within one year of the discovery.
Johnny,
That is the way I understand it but I could be way wrong about this.
Sidebar: I will freely admit (right or wrong) pretty much every girlfriend I’ve ever had, approached me first. I was either in a public place or she was a friend/sister/neighbor/co-worker of my friend’s girlfriend or whatever, but they approached me. They came on to me, asked me to dance with them, asked me for dinner, movie, whatever. The only cases where this was NOT the case was the on-line dating. They put up a profile. I see it. I see their picture. I send them an email. If I hear from them then okay we proceed, otherwise, smile delete.
With yes-means-yes, then sure, this is what will happen. And I think (instinctively) for the women who are functionally incapable of ever approaching a man (for whatever reason) most likely this type of law will harm them socially.
This will lead to the death of the Sexual Revolution. So I actually favor these kinds of laws.
My man Okrahead beat me to it.
It seemed to me that this fruit fell from the “marital rape” tree precisely because (as you have so thoroughly documented) fornication is the accepted model of “marriage”. “Yes Means Yes” is just catch-up. It finalizes the complete inversion of how the OT law dealt with the serious issues of sex, marriage, rape, etc.
I’m sure this has already been stated, but the enforcement of this law has the, ah, benefit of being completely retroactive. No need to say “No” at the moment of encounter. Just don’t say “Yes”…or later just testify that you didn’t say “Yes”. There’s no need to even interview the defendant because there can be no He said, she said. There’s only She said.
As others have noted, this legislation is alpha-chasing amped up on high quality amphetamines. The vast majority of men can be controlled and therefore betaized and disqualified from both the sexual and marriage markets, leaving only a handful of Alphas.
It sends a message to most men on campuses: go away, we don’t want you here. And it rewards dark triad types. Now let’s think a bit on this. This law enables the state of California to take pretty much everything away from a young man, on the word of a woman. So what’s the point of having anything? Better to go feral and become a stone cold player. If you wind up in prison, ok, join the appropriate gang, pump iron, do your time. Upon release become even more stone cold. You don’t need a job, because you’ve become enough of a hard muscle man to spin plates.
This law will have the long term effect of pushing higher level Beta and lesser Alpha men into being shiftless cads. Lesser Beta men will simply resort to porn, especially as technology continues to improve it. Marriage will continue to drop culture wide, with only certain religious subgroups as exceptions.
And women on California campuses will have to compete ever harder for the shrinking pool of men left, or resort to lesbianism…so for many feminists there’s no downside to this law.
PS: Ezra Klein was born about a century too late. He would have been a fine Chekist, I am certain.
This will lead to the death of the Sexual Revolution.
Wrong. This is the logical conclusion of the Sexual Revolution – a matriarchy. Where 10% of the men mate with 80% of the women, and all children are raised by choice mommies.
So I actually favor these kinds of laws.
Didn’t bother to read the OP or the comments, then?
Okay, so in reality, how is that any different than what we already have (legally) right now? I mean if she is total joy/rapture as you are sucking on her breasts and you pull down her knickers and go inside and she yells “…wait I didn’t say you could do THAT!!!” you can still go to jail. Its up to her. She could go to the police and you are done.
If this is all yes-means-yes means, then I don’t see it as any different than what we have today,
Earl
Female promiscuity involves some males. If some other males are going to be punished by the state for female promiscuity…perhaps they would eventually wise up and not engage in promiscuity. So if one side is encouraged and defended and the other side is punished and jailed…how would it continue female promiscuity continue?
FIFY, Earl. Because it appears you are still not clear on all the implications of hypergamy. This law enables a woman who, under the influence of beer goggles, has some sexual fumbling with a man she thought was an attractive Alpha, but who turns out in the morning to be a Beta, to have him punished. Punished for fooling her rationalization hamster, essentially.
This law will not necessarily punish the most attractive 10% of men on campus, the men that most women are drooling over. It will punish the average man who might get lucky once in a while.
And as Okrahead and Novaseeker have explained, the logical extension of this law will enable “married” women to dispose of their betaized “husbands” with even greater ease. So this law pretty much puts another nail in the coffin of marriage, and shoves society a noticeable bit closer to some sort of Gimbutas style matriarchy.
It also makes most men useless, unneeded and essentially not wanted. That’s been a recipe for war of some sort throughout human history.
So given everything that has been written in this thread, it’s absolutely certain that traditional conservative church going Bible thumpers will not oppose it, and many will actively work to expandt it. Thus once again demonstrating the alliance betwen tardcons and feminists to subjugate men to the whims of women.
For some reason I was just reminded of this video from 2004: “Consent”
Mrs. IBB
If this is all yes-means-yes means, then I don’t see it as any different than what we have today,
There’s quite a lot that you don’t see or understand. The concept of “affirmative defense” and what it implies being but one. Novaseeker has already explained this rather clearly up thread.
YMY can’t become criminal law until the Bill of Rights’ presumption of innocence is overturned. If that happens then we’ll have bigger problems than women crying rape. So will women, most likely.
…
Ra’s al Ghul @ 4:49 pm:
“Like I said, Islam and Sharia are going to start looking real good by comparison.”
Muslim polygamy is near-100% female hypergamy. Muslim women may not have much freedom but they’re mostly guaranteed Alpha access. Meanwhile, the beta guys martyr themselves just for the hope of sex after death. No thanks.
…
Martel @ 4:56 pm:
“However, part of Alpha is the capacity to not give a flying f$#k. I know how hysterical women can get, but I also know how frightened they can get when they go up against a man who they know will not back down.”
College Alphas aren’t actively suicidal. They’ll adapt to YMY by developing off-campus harems or something, which will shut off campus womens’ access to them. In fact, I can see a lot of women dropping out of college specifically to join a harem. Another blow to the university-industrial complex, sluts who are too slutty to be radicalized.
“Because it appears you are still not clear on all the implications of hypergamy.”
I’ve very clear on the implications…it’s about power. It doesn’t matter what greek letter you think you are, if she wants to take you down because of a power trip…she can.
Cane,
Wrong. You can be angry at this yes-means-yes nonsense, but there most certainly can be He said, she said after this is LAW. Its real simple. She said she never said yes, that she never said anything. And he says… of course you said yes. I asked and yuo smiled and said yes. You just regret it later is all. She says he is a liar. He says she is lying. And so it goes.
And now it is up to the judge to pick who he or she thinks is telling the truth.
Bonus I just thought of re-reading Nova’s comment. Combine this new law with the 50.00005% rule, i.e. the “preponderance of evidence” standard promulgated by the Feds under Title IX and a man does not actullly have to have any sexual contact with a woman to be accused of sexual misconduct. Merely being alone with him for a few minutes would provide sufficient circumstances for an allegation, if she was disposed to do so.
A woman with an above average ability to lie wouldn’t even need that. He would not have to know her. As long as she could describe his lodging, and knew when he was alone there, she could create a credible sexual assault scenario. The burden would be on him to disprove her story, and sociiopaths can be very, very convincing. So he’d be guilty until proven guilty. NAWALT, of course, but SWALT, and having known one many years ago, I know what they are like, and what they can do.
This law should have been titled the Female Personality Disorder Enabling Act.
Yes, Earl, it’s about power. But the posting of yours I responded to had that issue with some vs. all. It’s not about punishing all men, it’s about disqualifying most men. Really, it is all about the Female Imperative – AF and BB. This law enables women to have their Alpha pony rides and dispense with those boring old individual betas entirely by expecting them to continue to toil and pay taxes, as a group.
Again, it makes most men dispensable, unwanted, thrown away. That’s a recipe for war in some form or other.
Mrs. IBB
And now it is up to the judge to pick who he or she thinks is telling the truth.
No, Mrs. IBB, that’s not correct. There will not be any judge involved, because these will be California University system disciplinary cases. They will be heard by a small group, probably a troika of one feminist professor, one white knight administrator and one feminist “advocate” of some kind. And under the “preponderance of evidence” standard that the current regime has imposed on all Uni’s that receive any Federal funds, any “he said, she said” disagreements will be reduced to “she said, therefore is”.
And one more time, there is no judge in a University disciplinary case. Make a note of this fact.
I guess a side effect will be more average men dropping out and increased signalling pressures on women to compete for the remaining alphas, hyper sexual signalling (super scanty clothing) will become the norm while betas will have their eyes permanently glued to their feet.
Aunt Giggles is painting herself into a corner about this today. She saying that consent for individual actions leading up to penile insertion is unnecessary, not implied and critics are blowing it out of proportion.
I should also add that she seems to think asking permission to enter (every time) is sexy. “Cookie time for big boys” indeed.
“It’s not about punishing all men, it’s about disqualifying most men.”
This law disqualifies most men from having any power at all. And if you think those few guys who can have as much sex as they please while not having consequences have the power…you have no idea what these damaged women are capable of. Especially if they get scorn. It doesn’t matter if a guy is Alpha A game popular with women or if the woman is repulsed by a man…it only takes one to make a guy’s life a living hell.
Married men already have little to no power, single men basically have little power if this law goes widespread, the only few who do have power are the elites who are above the laws. They are the ones who want to tear down men and are using women and the state to do it.
Fixed.
You want to know who they’re going after with this law?
I have no doubt many a mangina Beta schlub is celebrating this law thinking it will give them a leg up on the Bro Culture if they identify with their feminist overseers.
Gunner Q, an optimist:
YMY can’t become criminal law until the Bill of Rights’ presumption of innocence is overturned.
Does not have to be overturned, merely eroded away. Note that the presumption of innocence for men is effectively overturned at the college administrative level right now, thanks to the Dept. of Ed. mandate for “preponderance of evidence” in any sexual misconduct cases.
I’m afraid that there are plenty of judges in California and elsewhere quite ready, willing and able to futher erode presumption of innocence, when it comes to sexual misconduct (by men) cases.
Okay, so in reality, how is that any different than what we already have (legally) right now? I mean if she is total joy/rapture as you are sucking on her breasts and you pull down her knickers and go inside and she yells “…wait I didn’t say you could do THAT!!!” you can still go to jail. Its up to her. She could go to the police and you are done.
If this is all yes-means-yes means, then I don’t see it as any different than what we have today,
Under no means no, she is presumed to have consented unless she says what you quoted there (or similar). Under yes means yes, you have to ask her if it’s OK before doing it.
Get the difference?
Rollo on $usan Wal$h
I should also add that she seems to think asking permission to enter (every time) is sexy. “Cookie time for big boys” indeed.
Well, sure, power is sexy, especially to aging, menopausal 2nd stage feminists. The fact that this law likely will cost men very much like her son big time is irrelevant.
Rollo
I have no doubt many a mangina Beta schlub is celebrating this law thinking it will give them a leg up on the Bro Culture if they identify with their feminist overseers.
Yes, beta orbiters will favor this law out of their foolish ignorance of the true nature of women. That is another reason that many (beta orbiter) tardcons will join their feminist allies to push it further into society.
Dalrock
The idea of a cad not being responsible for supporting his children understandably enrages conservatives, and you will be hard pressed to find a conservative who objects to child support in theory or in practice.
I’ve asked alleged “conservatives” from time to time what exactly is “conservative” about paying women to have babies outside of marriage. Never have gotten a real answer, frankly, although I’ve gotten plenty of dirty looks, verbal abuse, various irrelevant accusations about my personal life, goalpost shifting and so forth. In the interests of fairness, I’ve asked “liberals” the same question from time to time and gotten pretty much the same answer.
The combination of pedestalization (“Women Are Special Snowflakes!”) and interchangeability (“women and men are the same except women can have babies”) makes for some real cognitive dissonance regardless of political position. One thing that quite a few liberals and conservatives can agree on, though, is that the men of the androsphere are doubleplusungood misogynists. They can’t refute the truths about women, their own pedestal/equality model fails to reflect reality consistently, but really when it comes to “women” most debates default to an emotion-only mode.
And now it is up to the judge to pick who he or she thinks is telling the truth.
Eh, no. If the guy can’t prove consent, he’s toast under this standard. If she says there wasn’t consent, he has the burden of overcoming that, and if he doesn’t he will be convicted. Under the current system, if the state doesn’t meet its burden of proving non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt, then no conviction. The default setting in each case is different — in YMY, it defaults to guilty in cases of he-said/she-said, whereas in NMN, it defaults to not guilty in cases of he-said/she-said. Very different.
“Yes means Yes”, will eventually lead to written consent forms, which will eventually lead to a form of “constructive” economic trade-off. Women in Family Court (even unmarried) have brilliantly used “constructive” causes of action (“constructive abuse, abandonment, depravity of rights, etc”) and this will lead to a future argument that when Billy signed a consent form to have 5 minutes of sex with Sarah, of COURSE he was agreeing to provide her with XYZ…which I am sure you can see the irony that leads to (as does the Divorce Industry)…prostitution (constructive if you will 🙂
Women are to be made “whole” for any event that they believe can be litigated by whatever strange nexus to common law. They also like constructive prostitution and have utilized it to milk men of everything from great meals at Outback Steakhouse, to lifetime alimony. In fact the ONLY type of prostitution regular women are opposed to, is the chick that trades it so cheaply, on the street, where “regular” American women, who fancy themselves NOT whores, cannot compete.
Mark my words, this CA thing will turn into some form of an economic servitude for the men who engage in sex with said women. “But isn’t it TRUE Billy, that you even SIGNED this consent form and thus temporarily agreed to provide for her?” Check back in ten years. Maybe five.
One thing I think the better commenters are missing is that YMY certainly will impose on the most attractive men, and indeed it is meant to do so.
The point isn’t just to punish the insufficiently attractive, but to also control those who are if they don’t follow through. Here I mean if they don’t extend and conduct the relationship as the woman approves.
It will put an end to the pump and dump because even an attractive man dare not risk the retroactive wrath of a woman scorned; not called the next day; not dated; not in-a-relationship’d on Facebook. This is baked into the inability to prove she said “Yes” when she’s now saying “No”.
Pingback: How “Yes Means Yes” fuels hookup culture. | Dalrock
One thing I think the better commenters are missing is that YMY certainly will impose on the most attractive men, and indeed it is meant to do so.
The point isn’t just to punish the insufficiently attractive, but to also control those who are if they don’t follow through. Here I mean if they don’t extend and conduct the relationship as the woman approves.
It will put an end to the pump and dump because even an attractive man dare not risk the retroactive wrath of a woman scorned; not called the next day; not dated; not in-a-relationship’d on Facebook. This is baked into the inability to prove she said “Yes” when she’s now saying “No”.
I actually agree with you. Fancy that — it does happen every now and again.
In effect, the policy/law will both (i) exclude the lowers from doing anything like this and (ii) attach a price to the highers that women can make stick by accusations of non-consent — because the sex with the highers will not involve consent solicitation at every step, lol — even better for women, because that’s both sexier for them AND provides an optionality “stick” on the back end.
In all, it’s very clearly an intended power shift.
A reader:
“Prosecution for “normal” sexual assault has a statute of limitations of six years.”
Sex assault can be merely touching the breast or any contact of a sexual nature, not the same as rape, though they get conflated these days all the time.
Gunner Q:
If men get told you can kill the infidels and keep their women as slaves, they will sign up, polygamy or not.
Cane:
“The point isn’t just to punish the insufficiently attractive, but to also control those who are if they don’t follow through. Here I mean if they don’t extend and conduct the relationship as the woman approves.”
That is the intent. It is to place women in control of how any sexual relationship progresses and ends. The woman tells the man when he can have sex, and tells him when the relationship is over, he has no control over any of that anymore.
I agree with Cane. This law serves many purposes. But one of them is to coerce attractive men into providing commitment, or else risk retroactive withdrawal of consent.
This is a blatant attempt by women to control male sexuality. It is an incredible manifestation of the Feminine Imperative, when you think about it.
Memo to all men, after reading the Taub and Katz articles:
A female professional who flirts with you, drinks with you and comes with you to your home is after free food and lodging, nothing more.
Instead of accommodating her for no return, point her to the nearest dingy hotel/motel, the dingier the better. Meet her the next day and ask her about her night.
When she complains, tell her that various laws have become trip wires that prevent normal hospitality. Don’t do this apologetically.
“You wanted equality. Now you have it”.
Maybe some good will come of this. The men that remain in the California system might just work on their GPA instead of their notch count. Women might get to enjoy more equality by being required to be the initiators instead of passive objects with nuclear rejections nocked and ready to fire.
I predict more lamenting of “why don’t men ask me out“, and “why are men so shy”, as well as an increase in MGTOW. I think YMY is feminism’s jumping the shark moment.
College Campuses (or the “The Universities of Women”) will always be involve with some dumb legislation to let women off the hook for dumb choices they make. Money stops all BS. The best way to combat this is for the male students to just boycott these Universities and go else where
Well, there was the “good2go” app that attempted to actually create a kinda sorta
agreement.
Discussed here, with certain flaws noted.
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19444/
It did not last long before Apple caved in and took it down.
http://collegeinsurrection.com/2014/10/good2go-forced-to-completely-shut-down-affirmative-consent-app/
Careful readers of the above will notice that Good2Go actually addressed some of
the issues feminists claim to care about. As always with women, what they
say is not as important as what they do, and what they did in this
case was effectively killl Good2Go off of Apple’s phones.
Now, some will say that’s great because fornication. All well and good, except that the blindness many have to women’s sexuality makes it very clear why feminists could not accept Good2Go.
Because some woman might wind up agreeing to sex with a beta in such a way as to make a rape accusation difficult to make stick.
Yes I did notice the G2G stuff. It’s obvious what the intent is. It IS NOT about consent. It IS about power. And consent forms do not meet the narrative.
Nova,
“It’s obvious what the intent is. It IS NOT about consent. It IS about power. And consent forms do not meet the narrative.”
Makes one wonder whether we might not be witnessing a long march through the feminist institutions by some closet socons coming to fruition.
Also, glad you (and Cane!) agree with my take on shotgun monogamy, though it seems sort of obvious in retrospect.
Most of the likely responses have been covered, but of the Men that they’re after, a set of them are from the Elites. They adjust. I can see 3 fairly easy adjustments:
1) Video & Audio recording will become a given in bedrooms.
2) “Finishing” up the Sex will always be with the Woman riding the Man (if they’re in a private room with no witnesses).
3) Exhibitionism will be required of the Woman. Sex outdoors/with others watching will become the common part.
Nothing good will happen as a result, but those seem like fairly easy adjustments for the people that think about potential issues in the way Elites will.
As for the rest of the Men, well, I ended up leaving the infamous comment “the sexbots are coming” at SunShine Mary’s place. For a lot of Men, about 10 years out, it’s just not “safer”, but probably better “sex” for them anyway.
What an evil world.
Nova,
Let me just start by saying I don’t care what a university stipulates that will get you kicked out of said university. If the school says that if you even look at a girl funny we’ll kick you out, you would be a damn fool for going there in the first place. Take your tuition dollars elsewhere to a serious university (online is a good place to start) and get a man’s education, a professional education. All sorts of brick and mortar schools have all sorts of weird policies regarding sex between students. At BYU, if they catch either one of you f-cking, if you aren’t married (with a state santioned marriage license) you are both probably going to wind up being kicked out of school. That is their policy, consent or no consent.
I only care if this nonsense is criminal or not. But in the end, it will make no difference.
I get the difference. And I conceed there is a big difference. But I don’t see that the big difference will make ANY difference criminally because I contend you presume too much feminist imperative about ordinary people. You and I may have to keep up an appearance to agree with the principles of feminism for HR political correctness sake to keep our professional jobs, but if we are in a position of authority where any decision we make will not have damning affects on our lives, we are given the luxury to think. If she goes to the police later (regrets giving consent) then obviously she is going say whatever that hamster rationalizes that she must say that justifies their sexual congress to be rape. And here is the kicker, the ultimate reason why it will make no difference: because at least one sane person like you and I will still sit on jury of twelve and will find the “rapist” not guilty no matter how much feminists succeed at changing the law. Whether it is YMY or NMN or YMN or well-it-was-yes-until-I-woke-up-in-the-morning-and-I-don’t-like-you-now-so-NOW-it-is-no doesn’t make a difference, its still “he said, she said.” She can say “I said no” or she can say “I never said yes” but if I’m on the jury and I think she’s full of shit (and I’m going to know the minute HE takes the stand), I will still say “not guilty.”
Nothing has changed Nova. Nothing. Men were always guilty until proven innocent in a court of law regarding rape. Always. If I am on a jury on a rape charge, I am inclined to believe that he raped her, particularly if he doesn’t take the stand. The DA would not have pressed charges if it wasn’t absolutely clear that this girl was raped. Now having said that, you would think that if 1-in-5 (or 1-in-4 or whatever feminists say it is today) of girls are “raped” at university, we’d have 30,000,000 men sitting in prisons in this country and not just 3,000,000 because there would be another 27,000,000 or so convicted rapists.
But there aren’t. These cases do not go to trial. The school rape conselling centers tell the girls NOT to go to the police, that they will handle it internally. How can that be Nova?
I think the United States might have one of the highest if not THE highest criminal conviction rates among first world nations. That is because compared to other first world nations we have very few laws but we expect everyone that lives here to try and follow the most important of those few laws. If you don’t, we get you. Our prison population is swelling (mostly with serious drug convictions, manditory sentencing.) It is NOT swelling of men who were falsely convicted of date rape.
Consider the Jameis Winston fiasco. I want everyone in the manosphere to sit down and really think about this for a minute. Forget DNA, this girl went to the police, the hospital, and later the DA’s office with Jameis’s semen all up inside her vagina. It was totally obvious, the crab legs stealing, loudmouth, numbskull, loser, f-cked her. And she is saying that he raped her….
…and yet, NO CHARGES. The DA didn’t even take the Heisman Trophy winner in for questioning. Didn’t even bother with all the physical evidence in the world. And why? Because the girl is not credible. What we have here is merely a case of “regret.” She regrets having consentual sex with Jameis Winston. And the DA (who has more real criminal cases to deal with than he has time) is a smart person, smart enough to know that he or she will never get a conviction. What makes the girl even less credible, she goes out and gets her OWN attorney because she wants to sue someone (anyone) who will make her financially whole. Rape victims don’t want money, they want justice. This proves that the DA was right. She wasn’t raped, she’s a whore looking to get paid (by someone) for having sex with Jameis Winston. She is an opportunist attending a party school working on her MRS degree, not a rape victim.
NMN and YMY, these are not criminal matters. I’m sure you guys can google and find lots of cases where men were falsely convicted of rape with women they were dating or married to, but that is tiny percentage of our convicted rapist population. And those are usually some pretty extra-ordinary circumstances. Universities can set up whatever bullshit policies they want about students having sex with each other (or even students no feeling comfortable around one another.) But that doesn’t make them criminal matters. These things (NMN and YMY) are not going to be criminalized and even if they are, the DAs are not going to charge people because they know they aren’t going to get convictions. We have some really bad laws in this country and individuals on a jury do not typically find people guilty of the bad laws.
IBB,
“you presume too much feminist imperative about ordinary people”
As Nova has already explained, today’s students are tomorrow’s ordinary people.
As with the great mass of your Boomer peers, your solipsism produces complacency, and your complacency leaves the rest of us at the mercy of forces from which it was your duty to protect both your own progeny and the country as a whole.
You have shirked that duty, and for that we are all paying the price.
Transferring risk for sexual encounters from female to male has another effect, one that i have personal experience of. The risk for a guy of a hookup is now so significant, that it’s not worth “chatting up” and woman, unless you are damn certain of her sanity and attractiveness first. So the onus is now on women to chat up men. Which exposes woman to the rejections that men are now, well, quite used to. When i made just such a calculation with a feminist acquaintance, I rejected her advances – politely, but clearly. I suffered the consequence: a rape allegation. Fortunately, the case against me was so flimsy that no arrest or charge was brought. But it was 3 months of no sleep and hell, and tens of thousands in legal fees.
This is going to be more common. I hope Dalrock will still be around with the stats to show that the Yes means Yes campaign increases, not decreases the number of rape allegations. Women hate rejection.
Sophia Katz wanted to leech off that guy and not be asked to provide sex in return. Not being able to do this is not a “tax”. Also, it’s not rape, if she is able to spell out a verbal “NO” at any moment, but chooses not to.
Well, IBB, if you ever were in a voir dire for me, I would exclude you without question. It’s disgusting to hear that you would presumptively convict based on the fact that the state decided to bring charges. That kind of bias is why we have voir dire to begin with.
So, yes, if you’re an asshat like you, nothing matters in terms of what the law says, because if the case is brought by the state, you’re voting to convict since it got that far. Good to know. And it may be the case that most jurors are asshats like that (personally I have always hated the jury system myself, precisely because of revelations like this). But irrespective of the stupidity of the jury system, it actually *does* matter what the legal standard is, if for nothing else because the judges use it to instruct (and accept/reject) what the jury does.
@ Rollo:
“Something else that gets lost in all the noise – the statute of limitations for rape never expire.”
Depends on the state. Most states have statutes of limitation for “criminal sexual assault”, which is much broader than “rape”, which at the common law required penetration. “Criminal sexual assault” is essentially any kind of criminal sanction for unwanted/violent/unwelcome/unconsented-to sexual conduct. The reason for statutes of limitation is to avoid prosecuting stale crimes where memories fade, evidence is unavailable or unreliable, etc.
That’s one reason I think it’s ridiculous that Susan Walsh and her commenters seem to think the “intent” behind YMY is to prevent only drunken P in V sex, or to make sure that guys get “consent” before penetration. Anyone who really believes that is either disingenuous or illiterate, or both. By its plain language, CA Senate Bill SB 967 REQUIRES “affirmative consent”, i.e.”conscious and voluntary agreement” to “sexual activity”. There is no definition of “sexual activity”. Anything a man and woman do together potentially involves “sexual activity” – kissing, holding hands, touching, arms around waist, petting, oral – these are all “sexual activity”.
“…puts women in the position of having to constantly police their own behavior…”
God forbid women should have to police their own behavior. I mean, isn’t that what adults do? In law, the definition of an adult, and the difference between an adult and a child, is simple, and can be summed up in one word: responsibility. Children are understood to be incapable of the responsibility that defines adulthood, so they are not allowed the freedom that can only be founded on that responsibility. And women?
I’ve been watching all this for over fifty years, and can only say that, though I grew up a “liberal” with considerable sympathy for feminism, it has been the behavior of women themselves which has finally convinced me that the Ancients were correct in regarding them as (with a few exceptions, yes, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule) less than fully adult.
And now it is up to the judge to pick who he or she thinks is telling the truth. [Emphasis added.]
Is any comment really necessary?
…just another massive shit test.
Indeed. Feminism as a whole has been a vast fitness test, which Western (and especially American) men have simply failed. The reasons for that failure are complicated, but are actually built in to the instinctive sexual system: males (of all species) are desperate to please females. Like so many of humanity’s problems, this situation results because we are still running mostly (or entirely, in the case of many, especially women) on instinct, while we’ve invented tools (e.g. atomic weapons, genetic engineering, or “the law”) the unconscious, irrational use of which can have disastrous consequences.
When a man fails a fitness test, what does the woman do? She either leaves him or escalates, in the hope (unconscious, but it’s all she has) that somehow he’ll eventually “get it”. The women of Western civilization can’t exactly leave all the men – though their increasing abandonment of the majority “beta” class of men in favor of pursuing the few alphas is a version of that – so, in desperation, they just keep escalating. It’s all they know how to do. And since the whole process is unconscious, driven by instinct rather than rational intelligence, they cannot find any way out. Until/unless women as a class actually begin to grow up, become aware of what they are doing, and “police their own behavior”. Not holding my breath.
How far will it all have to go before the utter, irrational, self-contradictory idiocy of the Amanda Taubs becomes too obvious to ignore? I like Warren Farrell’s metaphor of the “hormonal fog” through which men habitually view the behavior of women. Those hormones are very powerful: more powerful even than the individual survival instinct itself.
Well, IBB, if you ever were in a voir dire for me, I would exclude you without question. It’s disgusting to hear that you would presumptively convict based on the fact that the state decided to bring charges.
That’s part of what tradcons do for a living, just like their libtard brethren.
Mrs. IBB
Let me just start by saying I don’t care what a university stipulates that will get you kicked out of said university. If the school says that if you even look at a girl funny we’ll kick you out, you would be a damn fool for going there in the first place.
I’m sure the grad students, medical students and upper class undergrads in the California university system who are now trapped in a Kafkaesque situation could have a word or two with you. It is not clear to me if the YMY regulations apply only to the 4- year degree state funded institutions or also to the 2-year, community colleges as well. But if not now, then probably soon, anyway.
Mrs. IBB mentioned online, and that’s all good stuff, except that many of the most useful degrees are not entirely online, nor can they be. Medical degrees, for example, are not ever going to be entirely online. Nor will all the skilled labor 2 years degrees such as basic nursing, HVAC, electrical and plumbing, etc. So Mrs. IBB’s advice falls far short of having any utility, and fails to look at the bigger picture.
And one more time, the affirmative consent regulation at this time affects the Cali-U system, it is to be used in administrative hearings along with the preponderance of evidence standard in some administrator’s office. No judge, no jury, just Dean Bonehead, a staff member, a professor. The only legal influence in the room, if there is any, will be an attorney either on the University payroll or on University retainer. So Mrs. IBB’s emotive rant about what she would or would not do on a jury is moot.
Novaseeker’s observation regarding the longer term influence of this regulation is unfortunately very strong. The Cali-U system is a big one, bigger than most East Coast or midwestern residents realize, and by imposing this regulatory environment on the system, feminists have started the next round of social and legal change towards matriarchy.
I suspect that when I point this out to many tradcons (that this regulation is a huge step towards matriarchy) that won’t even faze many of them. Because they already live in a matriarchy, it just has the label of “mutual submission” and a Jesus fish glued to it.
…great mass of your Boomer peers … have shirked that duty….
And what about the much-excoriated “Boomers”‘ great-grandparents, who gave women the vote? No responsibility there? (Note that women were given the vote, they didn’t earn it.) If they didn’t see what they were doing (though some did – including some women who opposed female suffrage, predicting that it would destroy the family – but they were shouted down), why should the “Boomer” generation bear all the blame? And if the problem is so easy to see, why haven’t the two or three generations since simply solved it?
Novaseeker
Well, IBB, if you ever were in a voir dire for me, I would exclude you without question. It’s disgusting to hear that you would presumptively convict based on the fact that the state decided to bring charges.
Meh, don’t forget that Mr. and Mrs. IBB have at least one daughter. Many people who actually can think straight will still become big time Law-N-Order types when their own special snowflake is involved. Unless the cannon of the law is pointed at snowflake, then the pleas for mercy will come out. This is pretty standard human, protective, behavior.
What is noteworthy is extending this mentality to the larger culture. The two personalities who post as IBB are worth observing because, whether one likes it or not, this mishmash of emotion with a little reason on the top is very common in couples who call themselves “traditional conservatives”. I’ve seen people take a strong, political stand against single choice mommies, but then turn around and go right along with supporting the babymomma(s) in their church; bankrolling the very social decay that they decry in another situation. Many men in the androsphere have pointed out how daughters become proxy sons, with all the issues that flow from that.
Dalrock has called tradcons “sea anchors”, it seems apt. The ship drifts with the current, the sea anchor lags behind slowing the ship down, but it too ultimately is drifting as well. So it is with tradcons; much of what they want to “conserve” is just what was normal when they were young.
Returning to the Cali Uni regulation and Novaseeker’s longer view: this regulation will unfortunately spread further to otner universities, and therefore in the longer run it will normalize “men’s fault” consent laws such as “Yes Means Yes Until It Doesn’t” in the 20-something group of future professionals. I can see how the longer march might next take YMYUID into Human Resources hearings in big corporations..
You will not be safe even if you don’t have sex. She can get mad if you reject her advances for sex and CLAIM you did have sex without consent.
How would that be different from now?
Sure, because she’s committing the usual apex fallacy: she’s imagining being asked at every stage by Fabio, not by some schlub she picked up at a party who might look a lot less sexy in the regretful morning.
It would seem that the Good2Go app asked the subject as to their level of drunkenness. If the answer was “wasted”, it would not allow consent. This feature would eliminate any ambiguity. Which is precisely what the women do not want. For it is through ambiguity that they can leverage the law’s power.
It occurs to me that there is a another pattern playing out in the YMYUID regulation. An ongoing drift away from law that is (in theory) understandable, unambiguous and evenly applied and towards an administrative standard that is comlicated, ambiguous and applied unevenly – or even capriciously.
As always I invite fact-based correction. In this case, specifically Novaseeker and Opus are invited to correct any errors or misconceptions I may write below.
150 year or so ago divorce was hard to obtain in the Anglosphere. Beginning in the early 20th century it became a bit easier, as the grounds for divorce expanded a bit from the traditional ones of abandonment (7 years being one standard I recall) and adultery. But still, even after the 1920’s in order to obtain a divorce a couple had to go before a court of law and submit to a judge’s decision. Public record! Some horrid man! And some degree of play acting went on in order to satisfy the legal requirements, to be sure.
In 1969 Ronald Reagan was governor of California and signed the first no-fault divorce law. This created the “I’m not Haaapy” standard for divorce. A judge was still involved, but since “I want what I want when I want it” became the “grounds” for divorce the divorce process was now streamlined.
In the 1970’s, however, it appears that men just weren’t living up to standards. Some divorced men failed to continue their role as provider; they would not or could not continue to meet the responsibilities of divorce (even as their authority went to zero). So the family court system was created in the US. Novaseeker has pointed out in mulitple fora that family court is not a court of law, it is a court of equity. As a layman my understanding is that family courts do not as a rule seek to determine if a law has been broken or not (with liability, mens rea, etc.) but rather to determine what is “fair”, or more accurately FAY-ur. By taking most of the law out of the picture, and concentrating on what is FAY-ur, the family court system makes a large step away from the theoretical “unambiguous law evenly applied” and towards the “ambiguous law unevenly applied” standard. Law in the family court is not what men think it is. Many Constitutional rights such as the right to confront an accuser do not exist.
However, in most (all?) states family court still has to take some law into account and as courts they are in theory open to the public. A man contemplating marriage can go sit in a room and listen to the proceedings, in the process likely learning just what may happen to him. This is unacceptable in the long run to the Female Imperative – women sharing notes is good because they learn how to control men, men sharing experiences is bad because they learn how to avoid being controlled.
So now we have the new sexual misconduct regulations from the Dept. of Education for all Uni’s that receive Federal funds. All of the Constitutional rights, including right to legal represenation, are shorn away. No judge is involved. The hearings can be kept secret (“Star Chamber anyone”?) and the decision generallly can’t be appealed to anyone. The YMYUID standard simply provides this administrative system with more authority over students; more power over men.
I submit that this secret, ambiguous, and even capricious environment is what feminists want, it is what the Female Imperative desires, and it is where the US is heading by fits and starts. And the Cali Uni regulations are a big shove in that direction.
I guess I should go review the babbles of Gimbutas, since that fantasy seems to have bubbled up from the female ID (“Forbidden Planet” references obligatory?). It’s not at all clear to me that the matriarchy she fantacized is compatible with any civilization of any complexity. But then, women are generally not very strong on cause and effect.
Right. The clear betas are already under control. They’re already afraid to “take liberties” with a girl without clear approval (which is why they rarely get any), so this isn’t about them. From a woman’s perspective, this looks useful for two situations (aside from the general human tendency to like power):
1. When she regrets sleeping with a guy and needs to blame someone. Maybe he seemed more alpha the night before, when she was full of mimosas. Maybe she found out the next day that he’d also slept with her roommate. Maybe he was a terrible lay. Maybe she’s not usually that slutty, and honestly does regret it. For whatever reason, she needs to blame and punish someone else, and this will let her do that.
2. When she’s happy she slept with a guy, but he doesn’t seem as into it. Maybe he’s cold to her the next morning, or doesn’t call back in the appointed time period. She doesn’t want to be a one-night stand, so she can use this law as a threat-point to keep him from pumping-and-dumping her. “Were you just using me for sex [implies: raping me], or did you want something more like you said?” She’ll be able to make a guy stick around and have a “relationship,” at least for a while, to try to establish that the sex was honest on his part and consensual on her part.
That’s not the reason for the law, but those are the reasons women like the idea: it gives them power over the alphas they want and more ways to escape responsibility for their actions.
Yep. They don’t really understand why the Bro Culture guys get laid more than they do, but it surely can’t be because girls like that kind of treatment. So it must be some kind of trick, mind control of some sort. If they can just stop the Bros from using it, it’ll level the playing field and the Nice Guys will start winning.
@ Anon Reader:
“I submit that this secret, ambiguous, and even capricious environment is what feminists want, it is what the Female Imperative desires, and it is where the US is heading by fits and starts. And the Cali Uni regulations are a big shove in that direction.”
I don’t know that they want standards for rape/criminal sexual assault (CSA) to be “secret” They do want more ambiguity and caprice, I think, because that makes it easier to achieve their objectives. Following up on Nova’s excellent discussion about the devolution of the treatment of sex crimes, the agitators in this regard want the burdens and standards lowered and shifted so as to make the claims much, much easier to prove.
They want this so it’s easier to bring more “iffy” rape prosecutions where the evidence isn’t as strong; so as to exact retribution and revenge.
They want this to chill less attractive men from sexual conduct until it’s time for them to take their place as beta providers.
They want this to elevate women’s power in the SMP.
So, under the YMY law, was it Susan Walsh who was raped when she ‘pity fucked’ her college friend with the fiancé after he wore her down begging to bang her for years?
Pingback: Deserving | Cail Corishev
Let’s read the law and apply to a situation where a man pesters a woman for sex, and she finally gives in and has sex with him (so as not to personalize things).
The new California college/university sexual assault policy requires the following:
“An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity 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.”
There was sex, which is clearly “sexual activity.” The question then becomes whether there was “affirmative consent”. In order for there not be consent, the woman would have had to show affirmative conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sex with the man. It is the man’s responsibility to make sure he had that consent. She had to manifest, verbally or nonverbally, consent to it.
Silence doesn’t mean consent. Her not resisting or saying “no, please stop” doesn’t constitute “affirmative consent”. So really, the only way to make sure that consent is present is for the man to continue asking her throughout the encounter: “Is this OK? Can I keep doing this? Is this thrust OK with you? Is THIS thrust OK? Can I thrust again? How about this one? Can I keep going? Do you want me to stop?”
If that did NOT happen, if the man did not get EXPRESS, VERBAL statements that he could continue, then yes, there was sexual assault.
The way this plays out in situations like this is that verbal consent is REQUIRED. She cannot manifest “ongoing” “affirmative consent” any other way. That’s because of the way the law is written. Lack of protest is not consent. Lack of resistance is not consent. Silence is not consent. Thus, a wife, just lying there, starfishing it, giving duty sex to her husband, is putting him in jeopardy, because she is not manifesting “ongoing” “affirmative consent”.
Deti
I don’t know that they want standards for rape/criminal sexual assault (CSA) to be “secret”
I wrote in a hurry. I don’t think they want the standards to be secret, but they do want any and all administrative hearings to be closed off, i.e. “secret”, and impossible to review or appeal.
Do a search on the “star chamber”, or the Soviet “troika” courts. That’s what they want, IMO.
Deti
The new California college/university sexual assault policy requires the following:
Please point to a source. Online URL, offline news story, wherever you obtained this we need to be able to reference it for future use.
Cane beat me to it and I missed it, so credit where it’s due. I don’t know how well it’ll work to control those alphas, since part of being alpha to a woman is being uncontrollable — if she’s able to control him, that’ll reduce his attractiveness — but that’s certainly part of the goal here.
Hrmm… College Bros might start sending an obligatory “I really wasn’t that into it last night; you pushed me places I didn’t feel comfortable going” Text. Time-stamp preventative accusation. Always fun legal responses.
Anon Reader:
As requested, a link, and the text of the entirety of California Senate Bill 967, which is now law in California.
What I quoted above is verbatim from Section 1(a)(1),
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67386.
(a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:
(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity 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.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
(b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:
(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.
(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup
victim interview, as appropriate.
(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.
(6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.
(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.
(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.
(9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.
(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.
(11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
(12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.
(13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties.
(c) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused.
(d) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, empowerment programming for victim prevention, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy.
(e) Outreach programming shall be included as part of every incoming student’s orientation.
SEC. 2.
If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
Nova,
You misunderstood me. I said that if I was on a jury in a rape case, I am inclined to believe her as the DA would not press charges if it wasn’t absolutely clear that she had been raped. What I did not say is that I would be likely to convict based on the assumption of belief. In otherwords, I am going to be very easy to convince OTHERWISE after I hear his side of the story. To convict, I would have to be convinced by her story AND either his story would be unconvincing or (worse for him) he never tells me his story. But if he takes the stand and doesn’t deny that the two of them had sex (as most rapists might) and maybe he even admits that he might have been really pressuring her, if he stipulates how and when she consented to that pressure… then, yeah, I’m probably going to be a stick in the mud in that Jury chambers and stand by my not-guilty decision. I’ll believe him and not her. I might be the only one there doing that (and everyone will be screaming at me in the jury), but then we’ll be hung 11-1.
Too many of you guys on these boards, you jump to conclusions too fast. You jump to conclusions about how people thank and live, how I live and behave. Deti has done that with me (telling me I was lying about being single and owning a 4 bedroom home since I would have NO REASON to do so), Cail has done it, Dalrock has done it, and now you just did it Nova. Don’t do that. I would not do that to you, any of you. Have patience and give me the benefit of the doubt. When you jump to conclusions, you diminish any real credibility the MRM and the manosphere has at trying to mainstream our thinking. We don’t need to do that since we are fighting the good fight, dealing from the position of absolute rightousness. Why make things easier for our enemies to diminish our positions by assuming the worst of people? That is what feminists do, we don’t do that. We’re above that. And I’m going to be honest guys, I’ll bet at least half of the readers of Bloomberg (at least the half that posts comments) are sympathetic to the MRM. That wasn’t possible a year ago, we’ve come a long way.
Unlike most other people on the other side of the aisle, I’ve actually read this law.
I’d respectfully point out that, contrary to what some people are saying, this law does NOT, repeat NOT, govern only “drunk sex”.
This law is NOT intended ONLY to deal with “penetration” or to prevent drunk sex or to protect women from rape or drunk sex. This law applies to “sexual activity”, which is NOT, repeat NOT, solely a guy inserting one of his appendages into a female orifice.
This law is intended to govern, regulate and control every single sexual interaction between a man and a woman. This law is intended to require a man to get express consent at every single step of the process, from initial touch to banging. This law is intended to chill ALL male sexual conduct. This law by its very terms requires EXPRESS consent for EVERY sexual act, starting with kino.
Contrary to what illiterates on the other side of the aisle claim, nonverbal consent is NOT sufficient in ALL, or even in most, cases. Sometimes the only way to get express consent is through verbal means.
Nova,
Sidebar: since when has this EVER mattered in a case? Please tell me that you are not a defense attorney and if you are, I insist that you tell me that you don’t actually believe that jury members actually LISTEN to the judge when he or she tells them to accept or reject something they just heard.
See how I did that Nova? In my response, I didn’t presume to know anything about you. I didn’t jump to any conclusions no matter how nasty you were with me. I was the bigger man.
I always thought the Good2Go app was useless. If anything I would think it was dangerous to men, who might think that getting her consent via the app would mean anything.
If there’s anything we’ve learned from all these situations it’s that there’s no consistent standard and women won’t be held to anything they previously agreed to. If a judge can void a prenup, an actual, signed contract, at will, then the “signature” in that app is meaningless. There is nothing that can be done that will prevent false rape claims. Why? Because a consistent standard would allow men to consistently avoid running afoul of it, and that’s not what feminists want. They want to hang the Rape Accusation of Damocles over the head of all men, all the time.
Besides, Social Justice isn’t like actual justice. It’s inherently capricious and arbitrary. They can’t apply a consistent standard because, to a large extent, they don’t have one. It’s always “I’ll know it when I see it” with them.
deti,
That is correct deti. This whole thing is completely ridiculous. It is wrong on so many levels, there is no point listing them here. Perhaps California state universities are only doing this because someone in Sacarmento was able to shift public opinion in the state house enough to control the flow of money to these schools if they didn’t.
I just contend that its always been wrong, this is just one of many bad laws/policies. We just do these things to make the BS appearance that THIS is how we fix a problem without actually fixing a problem. Its kind of like trying to help the Iraqi Army with Isis without acknowledging the real problem IS Fundamental Islam.
Men should use that law to their own favour, as deti rightly points out, it isn’t only sexual penetration. It includes everything. A woman touches your shoulder, puts her hand on your hand. Boom, take her down.
To add to my analysis above about wife giving duty sex and a woman giving in to a guy pestering her for sex:
The man cannot claim he believed there was consent merely because he keeps thrusting and she lays there. The law requires him to “take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.” So where you have a woman giving up “duty sex” or giving in to pestering, he has to act reasonably to make sure there is consent. And remember that consent has to be “ongoing” and can be “revoked at any time”.
So the only way to comply is to keep asking. The only way to discharge his obligation to “take reasonable steps *** to ascertain” whether there is consent; and whether it is “ongoing”, is to continually ask: “Can I do this? Is this thrust OK? Can I keep going? Are you OK? Do you want me to stop? Is this thrust OK?”
But our friends on the other side of the aisle won’t see it that way. Because they agree with Rollo, in perhaps the most important and influential post he’s ever written:
. http://therationalmale.com/2012/08/22/just-get-it/
The more innocent women that suffer, the better, isn’t that right… Ezra Klein Dick?
deti, why do you think the man must prove he got consent from the women? He can just as easily say she thrust him down and started to give him a blowjob and insert his dick in her vagina, at no point did he give consent…
Des,
They are not my peers. I am not a Boomer. I am Gen-X. I was born right smack dab in the middle of the Gen-Xers. Basically I am a little older than Marky-Mark-Walhberg and a little younger than Gwen Stafani. Yo do the math.
You just did what deti did, what Nova did, what Cail has done, and what Dalrock has done, you presume to know something about me and then draw false conclusions based on your own ignorance. Don’t do that.
IBB —
Aren’t you married to a boomer?
No Nova, I am not.
Sidebar: since when has this EVER mattered in a case? Please tell me that you are not a defense attorney and if you are, I insist that you tell me that you don’t actually believe that jury members actually LISTEN to the judge when he or she tells them to accept or reject something they just heard.
See how I did that Nova? In my response, I didn’t presume to know anything about you. I didn’t jump to any conclusions no matter how nasty you were with me. I was the bigger man.
If you want to be a whiny bitch, it isn’t my problem.
As for the substance of it, yes, the judge will (and often does) set aside verdicts that are not reconcilable with the instructions. That’s why the lawyers fight so much about what is actually instructed to the jury. But a brogrammer like you doesn’t know much about that, do you?
No Nova, I am not.
Okay. Well you do a good impersonation of a boomer, frankly. Either that, or Gen X, my own generation, is even more of a lost cause than I had thought.
“deti, why do you think the man must prove he got consent from the women? He can just as easily say she thrust him down and started to give him a blowjob and insert his dick in her vagina, at no point did he give consent…”
FH, I know you’re being half facetious, half serious. But in all seriousness, the star chambers reviewing complaints like this will resort to simple feminist/liberal principles of credibility which go something like this:
1. Women do not lie about anything, but they REALLY don’t lie about rape. Because rape and sex are Serious Business.
2. Men always lie about all things sexual, and also about rape.
3. Sex is not rape; rape is not sex. But, sex and rape are really about violence and power.
4. Sex and consent are cut and dried things. Consent either exists or it doesn’t. There is no ambiguity or caprice when women talk about sex or rape. See rule number 1.
5. A woman testifying about sex and rape is inherently credible. See Rule number 1.
6. A man testifying about sex and rape is inherently not credible. See Rule number 2.
7. Men are always the sexual aggressors because they have the more potent sex drive, and they are physically bigger and stronger.
8. It is not possible for a woman to sexually assault a man, because a man has more power and strength and can repel the “unwanted” sexual contact with sheer brute force.
9. There is no such thing as a man not wanting sexual contact, because men are horndogs and are chauvinist pigs, and will f*ck anything that moves, even warpigs.
10. Notwithstanding any other principle, women are to be believed because they are an oppressed minority class, and men are to be disbelieved because they are the evil power structure in society, and we have to level the playing field, so the woman is to be believed.
Nova,
I don’t have a problem. YOU are the only one who seems to have a problem right now.
I didn’t say that the jury’s verdict is always upheld by a judge. I am only saying that jurors might ignore what the judge instructs them to do. YMMV.
If you mean too many people in our generation is too prideful to admit when they are wrong, then maybe you are right.
As a layman my understanding is that family courts do not as a rule seek to determine if a law has been broken or not (with liability, mens rea, etc.) but rather to determine what is “fair”, or more accurately FAY-ur. By taking most of the law out of the picture, and concentrating on what is FAY-ur, the family court system makes a large step away from the theoretical “unambiguous law evenly applied” and towards the “ambiguous law unevenly applied” standard. Law in the family court is not what men think it is. Many Constitutional rights such as the right to confront an accuser do not exist.
This is inaccurate. Its role is apply the facts to the law since each divorce/situation is different. All a family court commissioner can do is take the current law and apply it to the facts. They cannot make up the law. Now in Wisconsin the law is marital property is divided in half, child support is based upon income, placement (number of days), and number of kids, maintenance is based upon ability to earn, standard of living, division of assets. You can disagree with the formulas. If you do then you need to get the law changed.
I’ve used imputed income of soon to be x-wife to reduce what a husband would need to pay in child support and/or maintenance. First it is not a criminal matter (yes you can go to jail under special circumstances but that is for disobeying the judge’s order) so constitutionally you do not have the same rights. She does have to appear and be subject to questioning. If she fails to show up; I have gotten motions dismissed. We do not have specific “courts of equity” in the US but all courts can be courts of equity.
Understand the above is not legal advise and should not be acted on as such.
I didn’t say that the jury’s verdict is always upheld by a judge. I am only saying that jurors might ignore what the judge instructs them to do. YMMV.
Which is why I would exclude you on voir dire. Take it personally if you want, but it is what it is.
As a layman my understanding is that family courts do not as a rule seek to determine if a law has been broken or not (with liability, mens rea, etc.) but rather to determine what is “fair”, or more accurately FAY-ur.
Indeed, but that is not what this is about. This is about a law in California which applies to colleges, and a discussion about what could happen if this law were to be extended to apply to everyone else. If that happened, it would be a criminal law matter, not a family law matter, so you wouldn’t be dealing with the family courts, but the criminal ones (as you would be in a case of marital rape, for example).
Nova I try not to take anything personally. Try not to take this too personally, but I don’t care who you would or wouldn’t exclude… or why.
Fair enough, because as you (should) know, in voir dire, people are excluded for exactly the reasons I stated. And, yes, they are personal, that is the point of voir dire.
From my experience and what I’ve heard. juries pay close attention to the instructions and apply the law as best they can. They take seriously their role as factfinders and in applying law to fact. They don’t always do it perfectly but they at least try. I don’t see that juries often disregard facts or law.
Deti – excellent work and thanks for the direct link to the California source. Primary sources are always best.
Whatever. I have never once been excluded by anyone, counsel or judge. I’ve personally served on two juries in my life and convicted two different men, both for selling crack to undercover police officers. Those were both hard decisions on my part, but I was at peace with the fact that I was one of twelve people who ended the future of monsters who profit by selling addictive death to people.
At no time on the jury was I ever asked any personal question about anything by anyone. I just got called out of a large waiting room, sat in a chair, looked uninterested, listened as other jurors were excluded (not because of any question they were asked because they weren’t asked any) and waited until both counselors were at peace with me being on the jury. Then we proceeded.
[What family court is]
Novaseeker
Indeed, but that is not what this is about. This is about a law in California which applies to colleges, and a discussion about what could happen if this law were to be extended to apply to everyone else. If that happened, it would be a criminal law matter, not a family law matter, so you wouldn’t be dealing with the family courts, but the criminal ones (as you would be in a case of marital rape, for example).
In 1968 divorce cases were matters of law, criminal law if I understand correctly. The enactment of “no-fault” divorce did not remove divorce from law courts. Yet the resuls of men’s-fault divorce led in less than a decade to the creation of “family court”, where many normal rules and Constitutional rights do not apply.
The current California law under discussion appears to cover only administrative hearings within the CU system, therefore most if not all Constitutional rights are void.
There is a pattern here. So what sort of legal structure could grow out of this legislation, given what we have already seen vis a vis men’s – fault divorce and family court?
That’s my point. Assuming that the Female Imperative will stand for mere trifles such as the Magna Carta, centuries of precedent, the Constittion, etc. when they get in the way of what the FI wants…this seems an unwarranted assumption.
No rape case.
Look, just saying, we try to look for guys who are looking to screw defendants because of bias. If it isn’t a close case, no big deal. If it is one, yes, you will be scrutinized. Most criminal cases are slams, but in cases where it isn’t (a good number of rape cases), then it matters.
There is a pattern here. So what sort of legal structure could grow out of this legislation, given what we have already seen vis a vis men’s – fault divorce and family court?
That’s my point. Assuming that the Female Imperative will stand for mere trifles such as the Magna Carta, centuries of precedent, the Constittion, etc. when they get in the way of what the FI wants…this seems an unwarranted assumption.
Fair observation, but based on what I have seen personally with the advocates of this, they want it to be criminal law in criminal courts, so as to apply in a broader way.
Keep in mind, this is not their only issue. They also want, among other things, “self defense” as an affirmative defense to murder to be applied differently to women, in that women would be allowed to “fight back” in self-defense at any time in the following 3-4 days. Or that the idea that poisoning someone to death, which normally is an aggravating circumstance that sends you to a penalty phase for murder1, would not count as an aggravating circumstance for women, because muscles.
Or to put it another way, more abstractly:
Women demand social / legal change D in order to improve/fix/repair something. There is an unspoken premise that men will not react, but will continue to behave as before. Call it reaction E. This does not happen. Therefore women demand social / legal change F, in order to fix some of the stuff that got broken by change D. Men are, of course, not supposed to react. But they do, some in the form of reaction M. So now we have another change….
The form is: women demand, men agree, but the results are not as expected. Therefore women demand again, men agree, results are worse. And so forth.
Each iteration seems to make society in general and the legal system in particular less predictable, less deterministic, less transparent, more capricious. There’s no end in sight, either.
I once was talking with a die-hard liberal, a socialist of sorts, about the never ending campaigns that he supported. I handed him paper clip and invited him to bend it for a while. When it broke, I pointed out that nothing is infinitely bendable, everything can be broken if it is bent back and forth enough times. Then I suggested he consider what the things he agreed with were doing to society. Silence as he stared at me. Then a change of subject.
Oh, and he was a life long bachelor with no children, too.
In 1968 divorce cases were matters of law, criminal law if I understand correctly. The enactment of “no-fault” divorce did not remove divorce from law courts. Yet the resuls of men’s-fault divorce led in less than a decade to the creation of “family court”, where many normal rules and Constitutional rights do not apply.
This is incorrect. They were never a matter of criminal law but being a criminal was grounds for a divorce (usually criminal felons). Most states even before 1968 had some if not all elements in place for what is now known as “no fault divorce”. Understand, that I am not agreeing with the “no fault divorce” system; I am not agreeing on what it appears to be doing to men but instead trying to be accurate. If you want a good primer read Wikipedia (I know it is not a great source but it is a start).
WNeta on divorce prior to 1968
This is incorrect. They were never a matter of criminal law but being a criminal was grounds for a divorce (usually criminal felons). Most states even before 1968 had some if not all elements in place for what is now known as “no fault divorce”.
Thanks for the response. My understanding is that adultery was a crime, addressed in criminal law in some cases, for many years prior to the 1960’s. Other crimes included “alienation of affections”. These were used to obtain divorces in cases where any degree of contest existed, prior to the 1969 California law. So I do not see how you can assert that divorce was never a matter of criminal law.
Understand, that I am not agreeing with the “no fault divorce” system; I am not agreeing on what it appears to be doing to men but instead trying to be accurate. If you want a good primer read Wikipedia (I know it is not a great source but it is a
I can look, but in my experience Wiki is not reliable on any controversial topic.
Thanks again for responding, I welcome factual corrections.
I see that Novaseeker and I crossposted.
Keep in mind, this is not their only issue. They also want, among other things, “self defense” as an affirmative defense to murder to be applied differently to women, in that women would be allowed to “fight back” in self-defense at any time in the following 3-4 days.
Yes, call that the “burning bed” defense. Or maybe a better fit: The Mary Winkler Self Defense Act.
Whatever we call it, clearly the Gen X feminists are determined to remove the few limits on women’s behavior that remain.
Years ago when I was a student wrapped up in reading on the French revolution of the 19th century and the Russian revolution of the 20th, it occurred to me that most Westerners won’t go for a full up revolution unless they come to believe that no matter what they do, they are likely to die. Even more so if they come to believe their children will die. At that point, there is nothing to lose.
If the trends discussed recently here, and the demands Novaseeker has outlined, come to full fruition most men will have nothing left to lose. Nothing. They’ll live in constant risk of jail or even death, with no chance for a normal family life, not much chance for any kind of career, and little to no chance for children. Sexbots won’t be enough to keep the despair under control, either.
That should turn out well.
AR, regarding Reagan and no-fault, it wasn’t ideological and he wasn’t pandering for votes. He had been dumped by his first wife, Jane Wyman, in 1948 after 8 years of marriage. She was his first wife, but he was her third husband (that should have told him something, but what can you do …).
They had a baby die, which was very hard on both, but apparently what drove the divorce is when he took over the SAG and started red-hunting. Not that she disagreed ideologically—she always claimed to be a conservative Republican and even voted for him as Governor and President—but that she thought it was “boring.” Plus, her career was going well, and his acting career was falling, so we may say that his SMP was declining. We know what that does to certain wives.
Given the fault law at the time, she sued him for “mental cruelty.” Reagan found this absolutely outrageous since he hardly ever spoke even a harsh word to her. But he chose not to contest it for various reasons. The divorce plunged him in a massive depression which it took him something like two years to climb out of.
Anyway, on becoming Governor, he signed the “no fault” law because he was still pissed at how outrageous it was to be sued for “mental cruelty” when he was absolutely certain he had done nothing wrong.
This does not excuse the enormity of the mistake nor of the awful, ongoing tragic consequences. But it is often odd how momentous things that affect millions can arise from little personal events like that.
Anyway, on becoming Governor, he signed the “no fault” law because he was still pissed at how outrageous it was to be sued for “mental cruelty” when he was absolutely certain he had done nothing wrong.
This does not excuse the enormity of the mistake nor of the awful, ongoing tragic consequences.
Rewarding bad deeds this is.
Escoffer, that was an outstanding post on Reagan. I knew he was divorced and I knew that a baby had died, but I didn’t know any other details. Very interesting.
So much good thinking this thread has.
Instant classic it is.
ibb,
“You just did what deti did, what Nova did, what Cail has done, and what Dalrock has done, you presume to know something about me and then draw false conclusions based on your own ignorance. Don’t do that.”
Yes, your extraordinary reticence leaves you but a cipher upon which we project our merest prejudice at a whim…
Nova, there are several people on that account, but I seem to recall one talking about teaching his daughter(s?) to delay marriage to establish a career first so she could “guarantee” her financial security and now being frustrated at the lack of suitors for said daughter(s). My guess is we’re now talking to one of the daughters, but I suppose Papa/Mama Bear may have gotten right down to business in his/her late teens…
Escoffier,
“The divorce plunged him in a massive depression which it took him something like two years to climb out of.”
I hear they sell Red Pills down there…
“Not that she disagreed ideologically—she always claimed to be a conservative Republican and even voted for him as Governor and President—but that she thought it was ‘boring.'”
Heh – sounds like the Laura Bush administration. It’s like AIDS on a cultural level – the immune system is attacked from within.
I keep getting this mental image of a girl skipping through a meadow, chasing butterflies in the summer sun. She never trips and falls, even though she’s looking up at the butterflies the whole time, because this particular meadow is perfectly flat with no gopher holes or vining weeds. There are no predators to watch out for, and no matter how far she goes, no fences or “No Trespassing” signs. If she gets thirsty and stops, there’s always a sparkling brook right there to get a drink from. If she gets hungry, she finds herself next to an apple tree. If it rains, her butterfly net turns into an umbrella, and the nice warm sprinkle ends quickly.
That’s what everyone seems determined to make life like for women, and tradcons are leading the charge on that even more than feminists.
I keep getting this mental image of a girl skipping through a meadow, chasing butterflies in the summer sun.
A meadow fertilized with the dead bodies of men.
That’s what everyone seems determined to make life like for women, and tradcons are leading the charge on that even more than feminists.
Agree.
@Cail
Great analogy. But it’s not chasing butterflies. It’s playing with lions (excitement!!) and having a servant at the side that makes sure that she does not receive any harm from these lions so he can engage in risky behavior without risk.
Someone put an analogy with attraction parks but I don’t find it.
[D: Is this it?]
[D: Is this it?]
Exactly. Thank you, Dalrock. I think it is brilliant and very much in line with Cail’s formulation.
Pingback: Bring back chaperones | Something Fishy
” Basically I am a little older than Marky-Mark-Walhberg and a little younger than Gwen Stefani. You do the math.”
I did just that. You are exactly the same age as ex-pastor Mark “Man-up” Driscoll.
” ..engage in risky behavior without risk.”
Even crusty old feminist leftists like Margarethe von Trotta know this. As she once said in a director’s cut interview of her 1981 Marianne and Juliane (about the Ensslin sisters), the answer to Sigmund’s question “what do women want?” is, of course, “glamorous adventures without risk”.
Rollo,
“Susan Walsh who was raped when she ‘pity fucked’ her college friend…”
Whoa, got a link for that? My google-fu seems weak today, I can’t seem to find it…
Pingback: George Orwell, Heather MacDonald and “Yes Means Yes” | InTheKnow
Pingback: George Orwell, Heather MacDonald and “Yes Means Yes” | Red States
@ Cane
The point isn’t just to punish the insufficiently attractive, but to also control those who are if they don’t follow through. Here I mean if they don’t extend and conduct the relationship as the woman approves.
It will put an end to the pump and dump because even an attractive man dare not risk the retroactive wrath of a woman scorned; not called the next day; not dated; not in-a-relationship’d on Facebook. This is baked into the inability to prove she said “Yes” when she’s now saying “No”.
No, alphas will simply all adopt ghost identities, which some do already to deal with crazies. Relationships with alphas will become more scarce because it’s hard to be a ghost and have a relationship. Videos will be standard fare. Alphas will become more ruthless.
@ Cane
I’m actually trying to avoid women’s seduction attempts and am not giving out my phone no. I have very few non-family women friends on fb and am hard to friend due to my settings. If I were doing pickup, I’d get a discardable cellphone and would never bring a woman to my real address. I’d have a fake Id. YaReally lays all of this out.
Pingback: Teach women not to lie about rape. | Dalrock
Pingback: Don’t blame Heartiste for the equation of Alpha with virtue. | Dalrock
Pingback: He didn’t know it was her turn. | Dalrock
Pingback: How Title IX is Hurting the Creation of Families | Mormon Red Pill
Pingback: Dangerous Times – Part 1 | The Rational Male
This is truly feminism on steroids.