Affirmative consent activists seek to expand government meddling in your private life

Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2014-12-31 06:59

Article here. Excerpt:

'Left-wing social engineers are never satisfied. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. So it is with fanatical “Only Yes Means Yes” activists. Earlier this year, they succeeded in convincing California’s legislature to pass a law requiring an “agreement” showing “affirmative consent” for sex on college campuses — and not just for sex, but also for a potentially broader, undefined category of sexual “activity” among college students. (Their ultimate goal is to require “verbal consent” to every sexual “act” or escalation of intimacy, even though it’s hard to imagine anyone in the real world who would actually want their lover to ask “may I touch your breast” or “may I massage your clitoris” before doing it, especially if their lover already knows from experience that such touching would be welcome.).

Now, they are back, seeking even more power over people’s private lives. Activists quoted in the Huffington Post now want to extend this “affirmative consent” ideology, and its pinched, misleading definition of “consent,” beyond college into K-12 schools, and beyond sexual activity to non-sexual touching and unwanted remarks, to teach people the sinister evil of things like “unsolicited hugs.” (My wife and daughter hug me without asking for permission, and sometimes it’s a surprise — a pleasant surprise, even if I never “agreed” to it.). Once busybodies start meddling in your personal life, it’s hard for them to stop.

The meddling won’t stop at the schoolhouse gate, and will eventually reach into your private life, too. As lawyer Scott Greenfield notes, progressive law professors have submitted a controversial proposal to the American Law Institute that the Model Penal Code be radically changed to require affirmative “consent” throughout society, for both “sexual intercourse” and a broader range of “sexual contact.” On page 69 of their draft, they explicitly admit that this affirmative “consent” requirement would classify as sexual assault even many “passionately wanted” instances of sex (presumably because of the technicality that such mutually-wanted sexual intercourse is welcomed after — not affirmatively consented to before — the sex is initiated.) Perversely, they justify this massive invasion of people’s sex lives as supposedly protecting people’s sexual “autonomy” from potentially unwanted sex, even though their proposal goes well beyond banning unwanted sex, to banning sex that was in fact “passionately wanted” although not agreed to in advance. See Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offenses, Tentative Draft No. 1 at pg. 69 (April 30, 2014).'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I wonder if any of these people have ever had sex in real life. I doubt it, which makes them all hypocrites of the worst kind. They demand behavior from others that they have never engaged in themselves.

I also wonder what will become of romantic comedies and pornography. Writing about something is not doing something. But movies typically show people actually doing something. They actually kiss, for example. Will they have to pause and get "affirmative consent" before kissing? That will ruin that magic moment in a lot of romcoms where the couple spontaneously kisses, where their love for each other is finally revealed. It's supposed to be romance, not sexual assault.

Ditto for pornography. Pornography shows actual people doing actual sex. Will they have to pause every few seconds and get "affirmative consent"? And will failing to do so subject them to legal action?

In Lawrence v Texas, the court ruled that consensual sex was protected under the right privacy. In doing so, it threw out a Texas law against sodomy. One can hope this ruling applies to everyone and that such government meddling in the private sex lives of everyone will be rejected by the courts.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Wed, 2014-12-31 15:29

Feminists don't do things or support actions consistent w/ their stated aims unless it's coincidental. Assuming feminists are telling people the truth at any time about their intentions isn't safe to do because ideologues see their ends as justifying means. Lying/misrepresentation is a minor sin in comparison to their actual goals (at least when speaking of feminist ideologues; some other kinds, say for example, "pro-flower" ideologues, if any actually exist, might lie about the wonders of some kind of plant in an effort to lionize it, but it's doubtful their efforts would be as damaging to the world as ideologues such as feminists, racists, etc.). These goals are pursued by them and will not let anything like facts or moral/ethical considerations stop them.

Actions are all-telling. Look at what the net result of what they're trying to do to reveal their true intentions.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2015-01-01 04:21

What I meant to say was they either had not sex or had not sex in this way. No one routinely has sex in the way this law now requires. In fact, it's not even clear what the law requires.

Laws like this are pushed by people who think they will not apply to them. Women activists push for these laws because that women will never be found guilty under these laws. They're likely right--the police and judges will go after men. As we discussed earlier, women are protected by chivalry.

But there's a chance they might be hoist on their own petard. Technically, these laws apply to both sexes. Here's hoping some judge will recognize that women are also "guilty until proven innocent" under these laws. We can hope, anyway.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Thu, 2015-01-01 15:36

Well, maybe SCOTUS eventually'll strike the entire ludicrous principle down based perhaps on the notions embodied in common law. Contact initiated w/ others that isn't denied but by behavior implicitly acquiesced to and esp. reciprocated is fine to continue until it's conveyed that it's no longer approved of verbally or behaviorally. Affirm. consent at all stages attempts to vacate this millenia-old standard.

I think this is why the Senate Rape Hysteria Club wants legisl'n passed specifically prohibiting referring complaints to law enforcement. They specif'ly don't want the real legal system to review the case and eventually after appeals watch SCOTUS toss the whole idiotic idea into the trash. In short, they want to do an end-run around the gov't apparatus they're supposed to be in charge of. Gillibrand said as much when she said police can't be trusted to deal correctly with rape. And she's a US senator. Barf.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Fri, 2015-01-02 00:34