How to use “Affirmative Consent” to destroy campus feminists in California

California has just passed the so-called “Affirmative Consent” statute, which you can read in its entirety here, into law – at the time of this writing it is awaiting only the signature of Governor Jerry Brown to go into force. Unfortunately for feminists, the law has a gigantic loophole in it that men can, if they choose, easily exploit to destroy the educations, careers, and even the lives of any sexually active campus feminist woman they wish.

The law was designed by feminists who are worried that the decline in actual rapes – currently at a 41-year low –  will undermine their victim narrative, wherein they shame and otherwise abuse and coerce men into giving them benefits, breaks, and other free stuff, which feminists believe women are entitled to under patriarchy theory. They hope the law will create more “date rapes” out of thin air, which feminists could then spin into the propaganda maelstrom they are forever farming.

The law attempts to undermine, criminalize, and demonize certain steps in the normal process of seduction by requiring “affirmative consent” – an even stronger standard than overt agreement – to sexual escalation into the process of a man and a woman hooking up for sex. (Yes, this article is hetero-normative – much like the mindsets of those who wrote the law itself – but feel free to substitute whatever sexes, genders, or lack thereof into the text of this article as you see fit.)

Although the stated idea behind the law is to eliminate the misunderstandings that occasionally might occur during the convoluted dance of human mating, in practice the law will strip away the mystery and flirtatious excitement of prospective liaisons in favor of a deadened, mechanical series of questions typical of, say, a legal deposition.

Let’s see how a sociopathic (or really, any) man could use this law to crush the academic career and future of a feminist woman student – imagine that, maybe the guy is competing against her for a scholarship, internship, or some other honor bestowed by virtue of their educational achievement and he wants to level the playing field by wrecking the advantages women students enjoy by virtue of being women. Note that he can pull this seduction scenario himself, or hire a more attractive man to run the scam for him:

  • Him: May I buy/get you a drink? (Feminist woman: Um, yes.)
  • Him: I imagine it took a lot of courage for you to wear that outfit…(Why do you say that?)

Skipping ahead an hour or so past the PUA patois into the later evening and assuming the guy is closing the sale:

  • Him: Well, it is getting late, but I’d like to continue this conversation – may I walk you back to your place? (Um, yes.)
  • Him: May I come in?  (Um, yes.)
  • Him: May I kiss you on the lips?  (Um, yes.)
  • Him: May I hold you close to me? (Um, yes.)
  • Him: May I fondle your breasts? (Um, yes.)
  • Him: May I remove your shirt/blouse/bikini top? (Um, yes).
  • Him: May I lick the Femen paint from your nipples? (Um, sure).

Now, imagine that despite the creepy awkwardness of this exchange, the state-mandated call-and-response continues with the woman giving affirmative (if underenthusiastic) consent every step of the way through foreplay, vaginal sexual intercourse, anal sexual intercourse, or whatever. And now, the next morning, the man delivers the metaphorical coup de grâce:

  • Him: You know, you never once asked ME if I wanted to have sex with YOU. You, madam, are a rapist!

What the fuck, you say? How is this even possible?

The law as written states:

“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. [emphasis added].

Because he was recording the entire encounter (did I not mention this?), the guy got the girl’s explicit and clear, affirmative consent every step of the way – when she said, “Um, yes” – but she never asked HIM for HIS explicit affirmative consent. Affirmative consent goes both ways under this law, and in this case, the feminist girl never bothered to get affirmative consent from the guy and so, legally, she’s screwed.

Feminists in particular teach and remind each other all the time that “all men are rapists,” and so it would never occur to them to ask a man for his consent, especially since he was taking the lead anyway.

Can the girl claim that the guy gave some sort of implicit consent by taking the lead in every escalation of the sexual union? Well, of course he did, but the law requires that she secure affirmative consent, not implicit consent:

Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent….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. [emphasis added]

This subpoint (B) destroys the girl’s defense that she imagined that the sexual aggression of the man implied the man’s consent because it was not AFFIRMATIVE consent under the law, and so, she is still in clear violation of the law – and even if she were drunk, she cannot use that as a defense to the accusation under subpoint (A).

Her academic career is over and her life will be ruined.

This new law will backfire against feminists in the same way that the original gender-neutral domestic violence laws backfired – those laws led to far more women being arrested for domestic violence than men simply because women are used to assaulting men, whereas men are comparatively reluctant to assault women. The so-called Duluth Model had to be invented to re-genderize domestic violence laws into do-MEN-stic violence wherein even if the woman was beating the man, the man got arrested.

I expect a similar correction will be attempted for this “Affirmative Consent” law in the ways that feminists always twist gender-neutral, equal laws to suit their real agenda of gaining more and more power for women at the expense of men.

But for the time being and until they fix it, have fun with it, guys.


Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: