In case you haven’t noticed, feminists are (a) trying to increase the number of rape accusations by (b) changing the concept of “consent” in such a way that (c) any unhappiness with a sexual encounter justifies a woman claiming that it was coerced or otherwise less than fully consensual, as part of (d) an obvious effort to make heterosexual activity less common, if not altogether illegal.
People think I’m joking or exaggerating when I refer to “Feminists Against Heterosexuality,” but it is becoming difficult to ignore how the anti-male ideology of feminist gender theory is reflected in “rape culture” discourse. Consider what one web site calls “101 stuff about consent”:
- Sexual consent is an active ongoing process that involves free, non-coerced choice and shared responsibility about when, whether, and what to do sex-wise.
- Consent has to be clear, explicit, communicated well and checked in on a lot.
- Enthusiastic consent is mandatory before engaging in anything of even a mildly sexual nature.
Have these lunatics consulted any sane adults about how normal sex actually happens in the real world? Or do you see how, because “feminist gender theory . . . requires the de-normalization of everything,” this insistence on “active” and “explicit” consent is part of an agenda that seeks to inspire impressionable young people with a paranoid hostility toward normal sexual behavior? Note well that enthusiastic consent must be obtained before even “mildly sexual” activity and it is “mandatory” that there be an “explicit” negotiation process toward a sort of verbal contract as part of this “active ongoing process.” Yet any normal person who has ever had normal sex knows quite well that if two people are genuinely “enthusiastic,” no such negotiation is necessary. It is an insult to the intelligence of any sexually experienced adult to pretend that this is how sex normally happens, and it is disturbing to think that young people are being lectured in this manner.
Do young people no longer have desires, instincts, urges? Have words like “passion” and “seduction” and “romance” lost all meaning? Does anyone expect hormone-addled teenagers parking in the moonlight on Lovers Lane to conduct their adolescent trysts like diplomats negotiating a trade agreement? Is there no longer any expectation or hope for spontaneousmagic in human sexual behavior? What kind of dingbats are giving kids this wretched advice about sex?
This is a Planned Parenthood initiative in upstate New York, with offices in Tompkins County, Chemung County, Schuyler County and Steuben County — an area in and around Ithaca, site of Cornell University. Is anyone surprised to find this perverse “Queer Tips” nonsense being promoted in the vicinity of an Ivy League campus?
In the 21st century, where elite universities are hives of LGBT activism, we would be shocked to learn that any student at Cornell was interested in normal sex. Cornell students are highly intelligent, and only an extremely stupid student would attempt to engage in normal sex on an elite campus in the current climate of “rape culture” hysteria. A heterosexual male can expect to be expelled from Cornell if a partner claims rape two monthsafter their drunken hookup, on the basis of an administrative tribunal in which he is deliberately deprived of the due-process rights that the Constitution guarantees any common criminal.
Ah, but he is not a common criminal! He is a heterosexual male on a university campus, where heterosexuality is seen as inherently oppressive to women, and males are denounced as oppressors. And where, of course,Feminism Is Queer as I explained:
[T]his is not “fringe” feminism or “extreme” feminism. This is simply what feminism means for university students in the 21st century. Feminism is Queer is a 2010 textbook whose author, Mimi Marinucci, is a professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Eastern Washington University.
If anyone wishes to argue that I’ve dredged up an example of feminism that is not “mainstream,” let them make their arguments to the legislators and other officials who sanction the propagation of this ideology in America’s universities. Let the defenders of “mainstream” feminism examine the syllabi, textbooks and faculties of Women’s Studies programs and see what students are actually being taught and by whom.
If anyone is skeptical about this agenda, let them turn their attention to“Introduction to Feminist Theory” as taught at the University of Buffalo, where a student was overheard to exclaim: “Every time I walk out of this class I just become more sexually confused!”
You cannot blame teenage college students for this kind of confusion, when they are being bombarded with with radical ideology. Sexual confusion is everywhere, so that Planned Parenthood — a taxpayer-funded organization most people think of as a provider of contraceptives — now offers “QueerTips” on how to negotiate “enthusiastic” consentbefore doing “anything of even a mildly sexual nature.” Evidently people in upstate New York are so stupid they don’t even know how to fornicate without advice from these self-appointed “experts.”
What is being lost is the voice of common sense. Feminist ideologues, gay activists, legal authorities, education bureaucrats, academic theories — these are the people controlling the discourse about sexual behavior, and all of them in one way or another have their own personal and political axes to grind. The voices of normal people happily leading normal lives, and who hope their children can also grow up to find this kind of normal happiness, are silenced and marginalized because common sense is dismissed or derogated by the cultural intelligentsia. Remarking on the effect to enact the “yes means yes” or “affirmative consent” standard as legislation, Judith Shulevitz of the New York Times observes that “criminal law is a very powerful instrument for reshaping sexual mores”:
It’s one thing to teach college students to talk frankly about sex and not to have it without demonstrable pre-coital assent. . . . It’s another thing to make sex a crime under conditions of poor communication. . . .
“If there’s no social consensus about what the lines are,” says Nancy Gertner, a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School and a retired judge, then affirmative consent “has no business being in the criminal law.”
What neither Shulevitz nor Gertner nor any of the other intellectual critics of “affirmative consent” are willing to acknowledge that it seems specifically targeted at punishing heterosexual males. The feminist purpose, we can perceive, is to make the risk of a rape accusation so high that men will become afraid of sexual involvement with women under any circumstances. Already on most campuses, any male who expresses sexual interest in a woman is subject to the accusation of “harassment.” Should he actually attempts to initiate romantic activity — a kiss or a hug — this can be construed as “sexual assault” if the woman finds his advances “unwelcome” or “unwanted.” Yet even if she welcomes his interest and appears to be a willing participant in sexual activity, the man is still at risk that she will afterwards decide she was raped. Paul Nungesser’s lawsuit against Columbia University argues quite plausibly that Emma Sulkowicz was in love with Nungesser and that she falsely accused him of rape as an act of spiteful revenge because he was not interested in a romantic relationship with her.
Many young women are now full of such insane rage against males — really, you need to read my Feminist Tumblr series –that it is difficult to imagine why any boy smart enough to get into college would dare so much as speak to any of his female classmates, much less try to have sex with one of them. This climate of sexual fear and hostility has been deliberately incited by campus feminists to enhance their own power and influence, as well as to create a political issue that can be exploited by Democrats. One would have to be absurdly naïve to think it a coincidence that “rape culture” emerged as a topic of controversy at the same time Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign began gearing up for 2016.
Love is dead. Feminists killed it.
Having made it impossible that men and women could ever love each other — for how can the helpless victim of male supremacy be expected tolove her oppressor? — feminists are now determined that sex should also be eradicated. Nevertheless, even while the feminist crusade to abolish collegiate heterosexuality reaches a fever pitch, students are being told it is “mandatory” to negotiate “enthusiastic consent.”
Somewhere at a university this fall, a boy and a girl will step outside a crowded frat house party and embrace beneath the autumn moonlight. She will nod her assent to his suggestion that they should pursue the matter further. Then the young man will look into her eyes and say, “Well, we could go back to my place. However, before we do, the university’s affirmative consent policy requires me to tell you exactly what I’m going to do to that hot little body of yours . . .”
That should make for an interesting conversation. Who knows? They might fall in love. It’s not illegal yet. Not even at Cornell.