Sexual Assault is a slippery phrase. Not simply due to the continued misapplication of the words by gender ideologues, but because the definition of sexual assault is subjective. Consider the question: When has a sexual assault occurred?
If we are to ask social justice warriors or similarly squirrel-brained solipsists – the answer might be: Sexual assault occurs any time a female feels sexually assaulted.
This is, of course, stupid.
Consider a campaign from the university of Nova Scotia, called More Than Yes:
“Sexual consent is more than just a yes. It must be loud and clear.”
Do you get that, guys? Yes DOES NOT MEAN yes. It means maybe. Depends how she feels about it the next day.
If she wakes up and thinks, “Oh my god, what a whore I am!” then, according to the squirrel factory, all her “okays”, “yeses” and “oh god, uh, uh don’t stop’s “ will be re-imagined post facto in the legal record as “No! Stop! I’m being raped! Police! Take him away!”
Continuing, the squirrels have more to say:
“Real consent is mutual and sure. It is not muted, frail, hesitant, or afraid. It is never uncertain, assumed, or silent.“
Have these people ever actually had sex?
If a woman wakes up the next day and retroactively feels that she was muted, frail, hesitant or afraid: Guys, you are fucked.
And you know how to make her feel that she’s not being listened to, a little vulnerable, unsure of what to do next, or the dreaded “scared”?
Just get up the next morning and leave without saying “I love you”. Don’t text it. Act like the whole embarrassing fiasco never happened. Be a dick, even a little dick. Come on dude. She dares you. The squirrels dare you.
According to More-Than-Yes:
Consent cannot be gained through manipulation, intimidation, or threatening behavior. A person who is intoxicated with alcohol or drugs can’t give consent. Consent cannot be given by a person who is passed out or asleep. Consent must be continuous and can be withdrawn at any time during sex”. Person, is of course code for woman. Men obviously don’t need to give consent. Their consent to be sexualized as performing animals is always assumed.
HIM: Do you mind if I kiss you?
HER: Yes, please do.
HIM: Can I slide your panties off now?
HER: Yes, take them off me.
HIM: I’m going to push your thighs apart now, okay?
HER: Yes, push my legs open.
HIM: Is it alright if, while I’m kissing you, I massage your pussy?
HER: Oh Yes, I want you to massage my hot wet little hole
HIM: I now have a pronounced erection, which I’m planning to rub against your anus.
HER: That is okay, please do that.
HIM: I’m doing that, beginning,….now.
HER: Gasp/squeak noises.
HIM: I’m going to pick you up, and carry you over to the bed now, if that’s alright with you.
HER: Yes, this corresponds with my plans as well, do proceed.
HIM: Now that I have you, legs apart, on your back on my bed, and myself poised with a throbbing erection, onto which I have rolled a recently purchased condom, I would like your continued consent to slide the tip of my penis between your labial lips, to an initial depth of 3/4 inch penetration.
HER: Oh golly, Fuck me now, fuck me hard!
HIM: Yes, shortly, but first would you mind signing this waiver please, and initial here, and on page 2. My legal counsel here, the fellow you asked me about earlier, in the very nice suit, will counter-sign, Mr. Schicklgruber, here’s where you sign. Thank you.
Ongoing and enthusiastic consent.
And if both parties are drunk? Then neither consented? They both raped each other? I think James Taranto had some thoughts on this one.
In the University of Nova Scotia More-Than-Yes rhetoric – which is typical of gender ideological thinking on the issue of sexual consent – “person” is a code word for woman. How many drunk men have had sex on that particular campus? Or on any other? And they were all raped, were they? Really? Their rape frequency statistics must be nearing 100%.
According to published statistics on alcohol consumption in the province of Nova Scotia:
Nova Scotians aged 60 years and older (55.5 – 64.7%) were least
likely to be current drinkers.
Adults (25-29 years) had the highest current drinking rates at 90.9 –
91.1% followed by young adults (19-24 years) at 89.2 – 92.3%.
The average number of drinks consumed for all drinkers at a sitting
was 3.2 drinks
Seniors consumed the least at a sitting (1.9 drinks)
and young adults the most at 5.5 drinks per sitting.
51.7% of students (male and female) in grades 7, 9, 10, and 12
consumed alcohol in 2002.
But, of course, following the rhetoric of campus gender ideologues: “Sex without enthusiastic consent is not sex at all. It’s sexual assault or rape.”
This campaign and similar campaigns on other campuses, seriously assert an unambiguous intention to micromanage human sexual behavior to the point where saying “okay” to sex is sexual assault. We are not fooling.
Why? Because a “person’s” (read: woman’s, because men are not people) feelings might change the next day. And women retain the right to redefine any experience as assault, depending on how their feelings change about said event afterwards.
Feelings are obviously real to those who feel them. However, sexual assault is a crime which, when it occurs, does so in the real world. You know, the world distinct from the imagination and feelings of adult children. Actual events, including instances of criminal victimization, affect the world in material and measurable ways. This is why, when not distorted by ideological thinking, courts of criminal law function through the process of evidentiary inquiry.
However, whether real sexual assault or imaginary sexual assault, this particular form of criminal victimization is center stage in the ever-unfolding moral panic sold as truth by published, populist, pious frauds dictating their particular moralistic narrative to the public.
And of course in that public fairy tale, women are the ones sexually assaulted, molested, objectified, raped, and harassed. Women:the victim caste, and men: the victimizers, the creeps. Men are, in this moral fable, the creep caste.
The word “caste,” above, is central to understanding the power of the word “creep.” For this slur to have the destructive impact it does, a sexual caste system must exist.
Men have the power of choice and women have the power of refusal.
~ Jane Austen
Broadly speaking, women both expect and prefer men to initiate in matters of sexual attraction.
The word “creep” gets deployed when a man perceived by a woman as beneath her sexual value dares to indicate interest. Often such men do not even expect a positive response. Obviously there are socially maladaptive men who enjoy provoking socially conformist woman’s discomfort, but for most men it’s about adhering to socially accepted hierarchy of sexual power. Which is to say, her power.
It’s about her power to reject him. Men at the bottom of the social sexual caste do not exist as sexual beings in the eyes of most women. Their caste predetermines their sexual worth, and indicating sexual interest is often just a plea to be acknowledged as a fully-fledged human being.
Without the sexual caste system, and without the ongoing insistence that men choose and women reject, the word “creep” would have no power.
There have been more than just a few public figures tarred with that brush in recent memory. The iconic comedian and director who married his former partner’s adopted daughter. A strange, comedicaly neurotic man committing the ultimate sin of spurning an aging woman for a younger, perkier replacement from among the ex-lover’s own family. It’s not not necessary to like Woody Allen’s work to recognize his brilliance. But Allen has been demoted from iconic entertainer and creative genius, to the ignominious and untouchable caste of the “creepy” male.
And creep, the pejorative, has been and remains one of the most powerful rhetorical tools of condemnation of a man in western society. Speaking technically, in actuality it tells a listener nothing about the condemned “creep” male. Truthfully, all anyone is actually informed of by application of that insult is the internal emotional state of a woman flinging that outward judgement. She “feels” creeped out, because of some real or imagined imputation of undesirable motive or character of whatever male was noticed without fitting her checklist of “turns-me-on.”
One of this article’s authors was once loudly and publicly labeled “creepy” by teenagers whom he had moved his seat in a coffee shop to avoid. He had been reading as he waited for a colleague. Apparently reading in a coffee shop is creepy now.
And in the ongoing cultivation of moral panic at the apparently omnipresent, all pervasive, and universal sexual assault continuously perpetrated against women by men – the words creep and creepy are tossed out in easy routine, particularly by any of the leisure caste whose feelings, or even feigned feelings, are flustered by any masculine specimen judged or imagined to manifest or express any aspect of his own male sexual identity in a manner not concordant with a consensus feminine checklist of “does-he-turn-me-on.” Creep! We hear, and turn our eyes away from whatever poor condemned bastard has just been pronounced outcast, unclean and untouchable.
This is one of the problematic uses of “creep.” Men are labelled creepy when they express sexual attention towards a woman, without checking her criteria of visible wealth, status, and other makes-her-tingle minutia.
But they can also be called creepy because their male sexual attention is simply imagined. This particular expression of narcissism is tied deeply into Rape Culture Culture (RCC).
Rape Culture (RC) is the gynocentric conceit that all women are so supremely desirable they are in constant danger of being raped by men who simply cannot control themselves. Since this delusion isn’t actually true, the term is also a misnomer. However, as populist narrative continues to claim this item of gyno-flattering victimpolitic it’s more accurate to use the term Rape Culture Culture (RCC).
It requires women to define themselves as that which is desired by men. Since they imagine themselves desirable, it takes little effort to imagine that any specific man desires them. And those men whom they reject based on insufficient stimulation of lady-boner are thereby defined as “creeps”.
Based entirely on imagined desire.
It’s genuinely fucked up.
Social death, by the public announcement of squeamish female’s feelings. Her feelings – whoever it may be that “she” is – are the only feelings of import, and we are all to abide by such public pronouncement.
A man, no, less than that, a mere male, without conforming to feminine consensus of “does-he-make-me-tingle,” has allowed himself to have, or to express, his own sexual identity. Compounding this crime, a man not conforming himself into a positive, approved-of, deferential-to-women model of success-object or status-object, still imagined he had a right to sexual identity of his own, or expression of his sexuality without first asking permission.
Not tall, not muscular, not stereotypically a leader of men, alpha commander, not a beefcake in Savile Row: The outcast! How dare he be a sexual being?! Creep!! Condemn all such rotters to social death by feminine consensus.
In reality, only high-sexual-status lady-creatures are going to be able to attract the high-desirability man-beasts. It’s not about being at the top of the entire chain of command, it’s more about understanding that almost all women aspire to shag upwards which means by logical necessity, all men must date in the downhill direction.
When men take a shot at fornicating upwards, they are labelled creeps by women who see themselves as having higher sexual status. He, the upward dater, has violated one of the prime gynocentric social rules.
A rule that denies men the right to their own individual sexual identifies.
It is an assault on the humanity and the public personhood of a man – because he dared have a sexual identity without approval.
It is tossed off flippantly by women and girls, and almost always immediately supported by the agreement of the greater mass of our society.
It is sexual.
And, it is harassment. It might even be assault.