Monday, February 15, 2016

My Fair Consent

Many ages ago, I sat through a very stupid movie called Higher Learning.  I had a decent excuse, I was in love Jennifer Connelly's tits and in an R rated movie, I thought I had a good chance of seeing them.

Ripped off again.

Higher Learning was quite possibly the most pretentious and ridiculous movie I'd seen in in my life up until that point. 

There was nothing about it that wasn't laughably bad. 

The first girl to play Buffy the Vampire Slayer was the female lead.  She was "raped" at a par-tee because it turned out that the guy she had willingly gone to bed with didn't have a condom on.  Regardless, First Buffy recovers quickly from this trauma and goes on to dress like a hippy,  have an affair with Jennifer Connelly and a proto-hipster dude that doesn't involve screen nudity so don't bother.  The aforementioned proto-hipster asked permission constantly during one of the most boring sex scenes in cinema history. Interestingly Jennifer Connelly did not.

There are several other subplots in this piss-awful thing.  A young resentful black man is taught that he isn't resentful enough, so he works on that.  Some Omega hooks up with the Aryan Nation, then goes on a tower shooting spree.  And it takes Ice Cube ten years to get a degree in Black Studies. 

I gave up and left before the credits rolled.

Times changed.  Years passed. Ice Cube became a family friendly comedic actor.  Jennifer Connelly hacked off her magnificent boobs and I suddenly realized she couldn't act.

But as Higher Learning waddles past the twenty year mark I must now say I have to give it props.  Not for it's execrable screen writing and leaden performances but for it's power of prophecy. 

This is actually dumber than Higher Learning.

I'm impressed by that.

The University of Southern California’s student government hosted a “Consent Carnival” that aimed to teach students how to properly hook-up under the “yes means yes” state law that requires so-called affirmative consent throughout any sexual encounter.

Affirmative Consent for those who don't know, is indeed the law in California.  One that reverses the Burden of Proof and makes illegal any attempt by a man to defend himself from accusation. 

He may not know the name of his accuser.

He may not provide exculpatory evidence without the accuser's explicit prior consent.

The woman is not responsible for her actions at any time whatsoever because Victim-Shaming.

The view of this being, the man must always be guilty of sexual assault.  If he wasn't guilty, why did the girl accuse him in the first place? QED.

With that, a “Kissing Booth” at the event offered Hershey Kisses glued to little sheets of white paper that essentially explained how to properly kiss without committing sexual assault. The five-step checklist states on the front “what exactly does it mean to … ‘consent’ to a kiss?” and on the back states that “consent is”:

A feminist kissing booth.  My shudders of revulsion could be easily mistaken for a grand mal seizure.

Plus; a five step list?  For kissing?  Really?  Honestly?  There is less negotiation involved in a typical BDSM session.

Affirmative: We’re really excited to share this kiss with you and we’re letting you know!

Okay who the fuck is "We?" How many damn people are required by California law to be involved in one kiss these days?  And does "we" have to be really excited?  Would "I" be committing rape in California if "We" was kind of pretending to be reluctant about the kiss because "We" wanted "I" to respect "We?"  And also it was kind of fun to play that game with "I"

Coherent: We’re present and able to recognize exactly what’s happening when we give this kiss to you.

As opposed to being absent when being kissed.  

BTW the word sharing is now gone.  There must be no masculine energy whatsoever in feminist kissing.  Also it is only the girl that needs to worry about being sober.  The guy can be as drunk as he wants which is quite necessary if you plan to kiss a feminist.

Seriously, there are no beer goggles thick enough

Willing: We made the decision to give you this kiss ourselves, without pressure or manipulation from you or anybody else.

Ohhh.  Now it's give is it?  There is no longer any share involved in this action when it's the woman's initiative.  She has the right to give a kiss.  A man may only share a kiss.  It's an attempt to reverse Yang and Yin energy.  This is New Soviet Man levels of social engineering dressed up as rape concerns...over kissing.

Ongoing: Should you come back for another kiss, check in to see if we’d still like to give you one.

So not actually ongoing and the male is now a complete supplicant in this transaction.  Possibly he will be viewed with favor if he approaches on hands and knees decrying the manifold sins and wickedness of his sex.  Possibly not.

Mutual: Sure, we offered you a kiss, but that doesn’t mean you have to accept it. Coming over to our table doesn’t forfeit your right to say no.

Be sure to exercise this right with feminists because anything a feminist decides she doesn't like is always rape.  

Also it's total bullshit.  They get very pissed indeed if you do exercise this right:

“I was in a rage. He was a total fuckboy about consent,” she said.

Never thought I'd say this but be the Fuckboy!

Never and I do mean never, go out with a  feminist.  Masturbation has it's place and it is vastly preferable to sex with a feminist.


Honestly what kind of a man would submit to this level of sexual debasement?


...well he actually seems to have worse problems than that.


Ron said...

If you have accurately reported the law in California, then no man or woman should stay there.

The women will only be approached by either totally broken men, or men that despise and hate them.

The men will all be under the constant threat of arrest, even if they are totally celibate. As the law as described can arrest and destroy the life of any man.

The only way for a man to live under such a law is to live as a slave. With the knowledge that you can be destroyed at any time if you offend those with power.

Best to get out.

Cataline Sergius said...

The more insidious effect is that it reverses the Burdon of Proof.

Once accused, you are presumed guilty and you must prove your innocence.

And of can't.