Thursday, October 15, 2015

Sex Ed Lessons: "Yes Means Yes,' But It's Tricky

   First, let me complain again about the fact that there is no sense in which this "affirmative consent" approach can accurately be described as a "Yes means yes" approach.
   The approach is accurately described as: "No yes means no."
   There are good motives/ideas and bad motives/ideas for this policy.
   On the good side: the approach would, theoretically at least, take care of the problem of people who are too impaired to either consent or withhold consent.
   On the bad side, the approach is rooted in crazy rape crisis feminism, in particular the idea that it is logically impossible for women to be responsible in any way for avoiding rape. On this approach, a woman could, theoretically, simply not feel like saying 'no,' and, were the guy to proceed even, say, from first base to second, he'd be a rapist...or, at least, guilty of sexual assault.
   Are policies like this good or bad all things considered? It's somewhat hard for me to say. I'm so repulsed by the grotesque spasm of neo- PC / SJW nonsense we're currently experiencing that I think I've been driven too far to the other side. However, given that such policies will clearly and unequivocally classify some non-rapists as rapists...well...I just can't see how any law based on this idea can be just... Though I'm rather unclear what we're really talking about here... There's no way such a thing would ever pass as law... So is it supposed to be some kind of sub-legal policy only for universities?
   Obviously to think that people in long-term relationships are going to adhere to such a policy is utterly mad...though I did encounter one dude on /r/OneY--the male equivalent of /r/TwoX--who claimed that he did this every time, even in relatively LTRs... I asked him whether he realized that this policy would become fact downright some point...but he denied it, deploying one of the arguments I hate most in this vicinity: quoth he: it can be hot. Presumably that doesn't require an explicit refutation here, but:
(a) Not if you do it every time it can't.
(b) More to the point, "it can be hot" is not a valid refutation of: this is an unjust and insane policy.
Even if, contrary to fact, it were the hottest damn thing anybody ever thought of, that does not mean that the state has the right to demand it of people. The state cannot demand that we do something "because it's hot," and definitely can't demand it because "it can be hot". Hey, here's something else that can be hot, and that would basically eliminate the problem of date rape entirely: just tie the dude up before sex every time! Wow...come to think of it, I should become a "policy entrepreneur"...this idea could catch on in the dark corners of the edu-web where these ideas are hatched and fester...
   So I asked JQ: hey, what if I did the "can I do x" thing every single time? Quoth she, approximately: It would be creepy as hell, I would tell you to stop, and if you didn't would break up with you. Gross.
   There you have it.
   Anyway. I actually do think that there's a kernel of an idea buried in the "yes means yes" mess...but there's also a lot of nonsense.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home