Sex and Consent Week at good old Monash Uni

Down in Melbourne at the Monash University Student Association (MSA), Women’s Department, they are anticipating an influx of 17-18 year old recent high school graduates entering university for the first time along with the return of those part ways through their studies.

The women’s officers think it’s “awesome” that:


[A] lot of you are going to be having hot, filthy monkey sex.

So planning is underway for the “Sex and Consent Week” to be run in week 3 of first semester 2013.

A document has been drafted for publication in the student newspaper (Lot’s Wife), titled “The Women’s Officers’ Guide to Picking Up,” ostensibly a guide for newbies about how to “explore their sexualities,” “navigate casual sex,” “approach people they find attractive” and “getting the results there looking for.”

“Hopefully it will help you not only get more sex, but BETTER sex!”

This treatise on “the Great Quest for Booty” is dominated by horrendous prose, with the occasional use of “gendered” language making the recommendations appear especially applicable to females wishing to pick up males for sex.

“For Example: if one guy rejects you, don’t take it as “all guys are going to reject me (foreverrrrrrrrrrrrr)”

Their advice is divided into three sections,

1. Start with you,

2. Be context savvy and

3. Use your words.

The “Start with you” section contains such gems as remember “you’re trying to have sex with actual human beings” so some common decency and respect are required lest you come off looking “desperate, creepy or like a massive dirt bag.”

Moving on it is explained that (presumably unlike female entitlement generally) you are “not entitled to sex” as “other people don’t exist solely for your sexual gratification”, and you must “be prepared to be rejected” on occasions, but don’t take it personally and generalize it to yourself as being undesirable.  A skilled psychotherapist would no doubt have a field day exploring daddy issues with the authors – hello Dr. Betty!

Nothing at all is mentioned about how one’s dress and appearance impacts on the search for booty, strange given feminism’s support for the slutwalk rallies.

The entire article is based on the scenario of “going out to get laid” (as distinct from going out to get wasted) and looking for and hooking up with “attractive people” which to me reads a lot like sexual objectification of potential partners, without any significant focus on making an emotional or spiritual connection, let alone a considered decision about accepting the risk’s of indulging in casual sex.

The “Be Context Savvy” section recommends approaching “attractive” people in places where they “will feel safe being approached by you.” Trains late at night (and presumably elevators) are out; pubs, clubs and parties surrounded by lots of witnesses are in.

But be careful they warn a “DRUNK” person cannot legally give consent. Good advice till it’s qualified by:


If your proposed sexy-times friend is slurring, stumbling, doesn’t seem to be thinking clearly or is otherwise showing any signs of being pretty drunk, do not have sex with them.

If not “pretty drunk” it’s apparently OK to go right ahead and hit on them.

They continue:


It’s always better to err on the side of caution than to take advantage of a vulnerable person and commit sexual assault. There are plenty of other people out there who are willing to sleep with you – even more so if you get a reputation for being a decent person rather than a predatory ass-hat.

It is thus acknowledged that females are capable of sexual assault even if they don’t use the more accurate term rape.

Evidently a reputation for freely engaging in casual sex is seen as a desirable trait by the current generation of gender ideologues, especially if you are “decent” in how you go about it. I suspect these girl’s and PUA’s would get on wondrously together as the prime motive of both is simply getting laid for it own sake.

Whilst reading non-verbal cues is described as a very important step in the decision to approach the object of your sexual desire, it apparently plays no role once the contact has been made then you need to “close the deal” and “use your words.” If you want to kiss, ask if you can kiss, then,


If you want to escalate the sexiness further, keep using your words. You should always get verbal consent before engaging in a sexual act with a partner.

I was disappointed that the women’s officers did not insist on enthusiastic consent because I would really have enjoyed seeing how they defined this in their hip vernacular.  Perhaps they haven’t covered enthusiastic consent in their womyn’s studies courses yet?

Getting verbal consent will apparently avoid situations:


[W]here someone didn’t really want to have sex with you, but you never had a conversation about it and they didn’t want to speak up (for fear of ridicule, or possibly putting themselves in a dangerous situation – remember, they don’t know you), so they ended up having sex they didn’t really want to have or like.

Note well the end of that sentence “sex they didn’t really want to have or like” as though they are one in the same thing. This is typical of the feminist blurring of the issue of consent to sex verses the issue of satisfaction with sex, where the outcome of an encounter is dissatisfaction, regret or remorse at having indulged in a consensual act in the first place.

As discussed in a previous article, Swedish feminists argue for such regret or remorse being adequate basis for bringing “sexual molestation” allegations against men even many years after an event by which time their feminist analysis and consciousness leads them to subsequently understand they were “sexually abused.”

There are situations where verbal consent is considered to be “coerced” or “pleaded” for and given for all the wrong reasons. So even verbal consent does not guarantee against false allegations of sexual assault.  Should we not also equip our young people with the confidence and agency give enthusiastic refusal, to say NO and depart from a situation in which they feel uncomfortable?

I would argue that putting yourself in the position of going home with or bringing home a stranger you have only just met, especially if you have both been drinking, is highly dangerous for both sexes and is best avoided.  The Monash junior feminists however see this as the standard business model to be advocated to fresh young students.

If your target is too intoxicated by the time you get home with them, then you can be a decent person and cover them with a blanket and let them sleep it off. Heck, you can even ask again for sex in the morning but:


But don’t expect it, because nobody owes you sex for being a decent human being!

Warning to the male student: never ever take an intoxicated female to your residence to sleep it off, even with the best intent and in the absence of any impropriety on your part, a female trying to fill in an alcohol induced memory gap could well create a scenario in her mind from which a false allegation results.

Having studied the Women’s Officers’ Guide to Picking Up and thinking about what advice I might offer as a father and a physician there are some glaring and negligent omissions.

The risk of pregnancy and advice on how to avoid it for both sexes and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and available preventive measures are but two examples of essential information for new students considering their potential involvement in casual sex.

For male students the risk of false allegations even where verbal consent has been given should be highlighted, along with the fact that consent, verbal or implied, can be withdrawn at any time during an encounter.  The very real risk for male students in these and other areas more than justify the establishment of men’s groups and centers at our universities.  Failure to highlight such obvious risks could lead to disaster for new students who take the advice given at face value in an attempt to fit into their new environment.

The implication in this guide is that frequent casual sex ought to be seen as an integral part of students lives, without any consideration or discussion of context for individual students, associated risks or the intersection with their cultural, religious, moral and other beliefs. This guide demonstrates that the naive and non-inclusive approach we have come to expect from feminists still reigns in the movements trainees. It’s all about them, even if it’s all about getting laid.

Note: The initial draft of the Women’s Officers Guide to Picking Up has been substantially edited to meet a length requirement for publication in the Monash Students Union, student newspaper Lot’s Wife.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: