New York Times Reveals Stupidity of ‘Yes Means Yes’ Sexual Assault Policies

Submitted by Mastodon on Wed, 2015-10-21 15:31

Article here. Excerpt:

'Last week the New York Times published a balanced news story that inadvertently revealed the stupidity of “Yes Means Yes” policies. Those policies redefine a great deal of consensual sex andtouching as “sexual assault,” and effectively require college students to engage in “state-mandated dirty talk” during sexual encounters (as one supporter of “Yes Means Yes” policiesgloated). That potentially violates the Constitution, and such policies have led to costly lawsuits against colleges that have such policies.

By printing ideologically inconvenient truths, the Times allowed the stupidity of “Yes Means Yes” policies to shine through, rather than covering up their stupidity. This was remarkable for theTimes, which usually can’t cover social issues or discuss thefailures of big government withoutinjecting its usual doctrinaire left-wing slant. It quotes the developer of the “Yes Means Yes” curriculum admitting that under “Yes Means Yes,” “you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes” during a sexual encounter to avoid sexual assault charges, resulting in constant awkward communication:

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

“‘Pretty much,’ Ms. Zaloom answered.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

That's the purpose of these types of law: turn all men into criminals.

Men are still expected to initiate contact and sexual behavior. They're expected to ask the woman out, not the other way around. Society still expects men to do the asking--and the paying. The male role is now a criminal role. In some discussions I've observed, people treat all men who "hit" on a woman as aggressors, at least quasi-criminals. Yet men have been asking women on dates for decades if not centuries. Perhaps the only option left is to go back to arranged marriages: no dating, you just meet your spouse on your wedding day.

Feminists seem to have no ability to treat anything as a faux pas or a minor social mistake. They seek to treat everything as criminal behavior--at least all male behavior. Feminism has destroyed existing social norms and replaced them with police, trials, and jail time--at least for men, because it has a whole list of excuses for female behavior, even of the worst sort. But feminists grant no mercy to men--everything must be codified and treated as a felony or misdemeanor.

Ironically, we may end up like Saudi Arabia, where the sexes are segregated in public life. I used to wonder how they came up with that solution but it now makes sense: better a segregated society than spending resources on arresting men every time a woman complains. In many ways, the feminists are just the flip side of Saudi religious police, who constantly monitor public behavior. Feminists want the same thing here, just on feminist terms, not religious terms.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by el cid on Wed, 2015-10-21 21:44

have admitted that the mother of feminism was marxism. it is what it is and the results just reinforce the truth.

odd thing (to me) is that marxists have NEVER treated women or minorities well. just the opposite, just like in the muslim world, and just like in the commie world, and just like in socialist countries. the best women have ever been treated is right here, the place feminists love to hate.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Thu, 2015-10-22 00:20