If you don’t want to be Accused of Rape, Make sure she keeps Screaming Yes throughout Sex

I don’t really understand how does the Californian “Yes means Yes” law is supposed to work.

Supposed explicit consent is required before any sexual act. But yet, from what I understand about US law, a woman has the right to cease sexual activity at any stage of the act.

So, in principle, if any sexual act requires explicit consent, does one constantly need explicit consent for every stage in sex? And does the failure to receive one at ANY stage give a legitimate justification for considering it rape? (Someone replied that this was why woman would scream “YES! YES! YES!” during intercourse.)

The Unintelligibility of Applying the Concept of Consent to Private Sexual Liasions

This is why I dont have much use for the concept of consent other that that for public contracts. Consent is a concept bound to the idea of contracts and is invoked to determine the validity of a publicly and legally determinable contract. This is the original context of the concept of consent, when applied to marriage, it is used to determine the validity of a marriage freely contracted before witnesses, normally a cleric.

But today to abstract the concept of consent away from these contractual contexts makes nonsense of the concept. Consent is a publicly determinable legal act given usually before third party witnesses to a contract. But how is the concept of consent going to work in a private encounter, especially one which people keep insisting the state should stay out of? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is well and good to say that what two consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is nobody’s business but their own, but whose business is it to determine that they have in fact consented? And to what extent can the state pursue this question? All the way to orgasm?

For a time when where what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is supposed to be none of the business of the state, the state does seem to require a rather detailed and intricate set of rules for every stage of a sex act.

Yes means Yes Law as a Deterrence to Fornication

Anyway, I think therefore Singapore should also have a “Yes means Yes” law along with our no-such-thing as marital rape law.

Then we can deter men from fornication because of the incredibly low threshold for claiming rape and incentivise marriage as the only safe context for sex.

Suppose we put it this way:

If you are beta and below, because you’re icky and not overwhelming attractive, the risk of a girl finding the sex unpleasurable is quite high and therefore from this follows the corresponding risk of being charged for rape from the girl’s need to purge the feeling of disgust from having slept with you.

If you are an Alpha, even if you are overwhelmingly attractive, the problem is that you will have to pander to the girl post-sex because if you spur and dump the girl after pumping, she’ll be pissed and offended and now has the perfect tool to avenge being jilted: retroactively accuse of you rape.

Therefore either way, the “Yes means Yes” law increases considerably the risks and penalties for fornication, acting as an effective legal deterrent against it.

Thank you feminists for doing what thousands of purity rings cannot, creating an effective deterrent against fornication by introducing law which virtually criminalises it.

Every abstinence workshop should therefore give up their purity rings and simply explain statistics of the number of rape charges made against man in casual encounter contexts. The considerable risks involved in such casual liaisons as well as the social costs and life ruinous effects of being accused of rape should be explained in excruciating detail, with many a real life examples of course.

We should see an extremely rapid drop to the incidents of fornication with these threats hanging over their heads. 😛

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *