Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
Remember, Liberals were against war when Bush was President but have been quiet as church mice about all the wars Obama has launched, they were also furious about the State being in the bedrooms of homosexuals but now that they're in power they're more than happy to micromanage sex between consenting adult right down to the proper ways that consent must be given.
First up, National Pravda Radio:
"I guess so" = Rapist. The problem here is that Liberals are trying to use State Power to change people, to make them "sex positive" and this is primarily directed at women but the penalty for women not being sex positive with their ENTHUSIASTIC affirmation of consent is men being punished. The woman who prefers to allow the man to control the encounter or to be submissive or even non-verbal with her consent is being forced to change by Nanny Liberals.
Morgan "looks up at Kai questioningly" before escalating the activity and "Kai nods in agreement" so Morgan proceeds. But when Kai reciprocates, "Morgan lies still for a few minutes, then moves away, saying it is late and they should sleep."
On that one, Yale says that Kai wrongly assumed that it was OK to reciprocate "but took no steps to obtain unambiguous agreement. The ... penalty would likely be a reprimand."
When you see these scenarios, you understand that this is something that is complicated," says Rory Gerberg, a student at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government who helped advise the White House on its recent guidance for schools. She says these kinds of hypotheticals are critical to showing students what "loud and clear" consent actually looks like.
That reciprocation now becomes an Epic Transgression which requires a Yale University hearing and evidence taking and judgement and punishment. Women cannot be offended. Men must be punished if a woman had a MOOD.
Look at the adviser's comment. "This is something that is complicated." No, it's not complicated. This is adult-level communication being replaced with liberal totalitarian impulses to micromanage everything in the belief that all human interactions can be codified in a best form. Adults don't do this, adult navigate communication in an iterative process, they learn about each other and modify their communication as they learn more about the person that they're dealing with. The Harvard adviser gives the game away with her concluding remarks. - "showing students what "loud and clear" consent actually looks like" but from a liberal totalitarian's point of view.
Liberals seem to have trouble comprehending a world not modeled on static processes. Pass a law and everyone will comply. Conservatives understand that the world is dynamic, so when you pass a law you should be prepared for a dynamic response and what are the dynamic responses we should expect? A conservative writer has given this some thought and her analysis is interesting:
I’ll leave it to the reader to imagine how people let out constant affirmative feedback during sex and move on to the next problem. This law does nothing to eliminate a possible “he said, she said” situation where one party can claim affirmative consent while the other denies there was “complete” affirmative consent. So we are back to the same troubling reality, but now there is a new legal expectation that may be theoretically impossible to meet during consensual sex.
The next step to alleviate this new state-imposed burden would be requiring of some sort of documentation to ensure both parties consented in order to avoid any post-coital prosecution. Not to worry, there’s an app for that
Can a single woman enter politics without her dating life being invaded? Apparently not.
Now imagine what it will be like for women when a running tally of their “affirmative consents” from an app like Good2Go will be hackable and thus eventually publicly available. As with many “feminist” initiatives, the winner in this quest will be less-than-honorable men who can use their affirmative consent documentation for bragging rights. Meanwhile average women will lose privacy and the expectations of discretion that decent men used to afford women.
All those consents that women attested to on APPS will forever document their liaisons. Every guy will have a permanent record of the women who consented to have sex with him? Don't think guys are going to go to the trouble? The presumption of innocence has been jettisoned by the Liberals here, the man is now actually presumed guilty of rape unless he can prove otherwise. Of course guys aren't going to rely on a woman's word that she ENTHUSIASTICALLY CONSENTED, they're going to be video taping all sexual encounters from now on, getting signed consent forms, making audio recordings and then all of this is going to hit the public realm.
First up, National Pravda Radio:
Smith says consent by Antioch's definition has to be clear and enthusiastic. "I guess so" wouldn't cut it. Also, the Antioch definition says consent must be continually renewed each time things escalate to "each new level of sexual activity."
"I guess so" = Rapist. The problem here is that Liberals are trying to use State Power to change people, to make them "sex positive" and this is primarily directed at women but the penalty for women not being sex positive with their ENTHUSIASTIC affirmation of consent is men being punished. The woman who prefers to allow the man to control the encounter or to be submissive or even non-verbal with her consent is being forced to change by Nanny Liberals.
"The fact of the matter is that consent is very tricky, and you're getting into minutiae of what happened in a particular event," she says. "It will sometimes boil down to details like who turned who around, or [whether] she lifted up her body so [another student] could pull down her pants.
"There have been plenty of cases that I've done when the accused student says, 'What do you mean? [The accuser] was moaning with pleasure. He was raising his body, clutching my back, exhibiting all signs that sounded like this was a pleasurable event.' "
Perkins says schools are being asked to define consent more narrowly than even most state criminal laws do. And the stakes couldn't be higher; those who get it wrong risk not only lawsuits and bad press, but also the loss of federal funding. The federal government is already investigating at least 55 schools for complaints that they're too soft on sexual assault.
I'm not sure if what we're dealing with here is liberal idiocy or feminist idiocy. We've seen idiocy from both camps, microaggressions and triggers are behavior control intended to forestall people getting offended. This really is a First World problem of idiocy taken to epic proportions. Check out what Yale will reprimand:"There have been plenty of cases that I've done when the accused student says, 'What do you mean? [The accuser] was moaning with pleasure. He was raising his body, clutching my back, exhibiting all signs that sounded like this was a pleasurable event.' "
Perkins says schools are being asked to define consent more narrowly than even most state criminal laws do. And the stakes couldn't be higher; those who get it wrong risk not only lawsuits and bad press, but also the loss of federal funding. The federal government is already investigating at least 55 schools for complaints that they're too soft on sexual assault.
Morgan "looks up at Kai questioningly" before escalating the activity and "Kai nods in agreement" so Morgan proceeds. But when Kai reciprocates, "Morgan lies still for a few minutes, then moves away, saying it is late and they should sleep."
On that one, Yale says that Kai wrongly assumed that it was OK to reciprocate "but took no steps to obtain unambiguous agreement. The ... penalty would likely be a reprimand."
When you see these scenarios, you understand that this is something that is complicated," says Rory Gerberg, a student at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government who helped advise the White House on its recent guidance for schools. She says these kinds of hypotheticals are critical to showing students what "loud and clear" consent actually looks like.
Look at the adviser's comment. "This is something that is complicated." No, it's not complicated. This is adult-level communication being replaced with liberal totalitarian impulses to micromanage everything in the belief that all human interactions can be codified in a best form. Adults don't do this, adult navigate communication in an iterative process, they learn about each other and modify their communication as they learn more about the person that they're dealing with. The Harvard adviser gives the game away with her concluding remarks. - "showing students what "loud and clear" consent actually looks like" but from a liberal totalitarian's point of view.
Liberals seem to have trouble comprehending a world not modeled on static processes. Pass a law and everyone will comply. Conservatives understand that the world is dynamic, so when you pass a law you should be prepared for a dynamic response and what are the dynamic responses we should expect? A conservative writer has given this some thought and her analysis is interesting:
I’ll leave it to the reader to imagine how people let out constant affirmative feedback during sex and move on to the next problem. This law does nothing to eliminate a possible “he said, she said” situation where one party can claim affirmative consent while the other denies there was “complete” affirmative consent. So we are back to the same troubling reality, but now there is a new legal expectation that may be theoretically impossible to meet during consensual sex.
The next step to alleviate this new state-imposed burden would be requiring of some sort of documentation to ensure both parties consented in order to avoid any post-coital prosecution. Not to worry, there’s an app for that
When you use the trendy new consent app, Good2Go, you’re theoretically practicing ‘affirmative consent’: explicit, conscious agreement to sexual activity before it starts. Incidentally, you’re also telling a new mobile development company with no Internet footprint or track record to speak of (a) who you’re sleeping with, (b) when you did it, and (c) how drunk or sober you were at the time.
Next time someone wonders why women don’t run for public office more often, consider how opponents use their past relationships as campaign fodder. In “What women candidates have to deal with,” Ashe Schow covers how two single Republican female candidates are being treated.
Can a single woman enter politics without her dating life being invaded? Apparently not.
Now imagine what it will be like for women when a running tally of their “affirmative consents” from an app like Good2Go will be hackable and thus eventually publicly available. As with many “feminist” initiatives, the winner in this quest will be less-than-honorable men who can use their affirmative consent documentation for bragging rights. Meanwhile average women will lose privacy and the expectations of discretion that decent men used to afford women.
The first time a girl has her “affirmative consent” used to shame her in public, expect backlash from the same people who pushed this in the first place while mocking anyone questioning the unintended consequences of regulating what used to be a private act.
Yup. Liberals and Feminists are not known for being rigorous thinkers. They did this with ObamaCare, with anti-homosexual discrimination legislation, with the Civil Rights Act, with Immigration Reform. They lied and then all sorts of unintended consequences arose. That's just the way liberals are, all emotion and airy-fairy dreams and any dishonesty and stupidity will be tolerated because it's all for a "good cause."
