Wednesday

Melanie Boyd Puts Smiley Face on Punitive Sex Crime Tribunals : The Yale Feminist Who Theorizes Sexual Assault Issues In Her Spare Time and Supports Universal Application of Affirmative Consent in American Life As a Path to "Feminist Sexual Power"

"Grounding women’s emancipation, sexual and otherwise, on such a sweeping use of criminal punishment and civil incapacitation (e.g., expulsion from college with a transcript marking one as a sexual wrongdoer)  has led feminist reformers to take several stances typically thought to be hallmarks of social conservatism.  They are seeking social control through punitive and repressive deployments of state power.  They are criminalizing as a first rather than a last resort to achieving social change.  They are affirming indifference to the punishment of innocent conduct. They have moved well to the right of civil-liberties-oriented liberalism in their advocacy for swift and sure punishment unimpeded by due process restraints."

        - Janet Halley

Melanie Boyd, btw, please see my note to you in all caps at the base of this page, thank you.


Genuine Concern
Before we get on to the business of Melanie Boyd of Yale, the miss warm-and-fuzzy-aw-shucks Ivy League public spokesperson for Affirmative Consent as a harmless and sensible all-American pursuit that wouldn't hurt a sex starved fly, I note that the below snippet of dialogue was cropped from a long comment thread connected to one of many debates on Huffington Post concerning the application of Affirmative Consent (AC) as a universal constant on college campuses across the United States. Perhaps it's just me, but I continually find it odd that certain women crowing about AC as a must-have on college campuses and in American bedrooms appear to see AC policy and law as a one-way street only. If not, then why is it they rarely if ever discuss AC in terms of having to acquire or seek prior consent for various acts of sex from their male partner? How about just one, "Is it okay if I stick my finger up your ass, Bob?" or "I made sure to ask Bob last night if I could plug his butt." No, not one. It's invariably about their obedient, well-trained male partner attempting to seek, or failing to seek (oh no, release the hounds!), ongoing stage-based prior sexual consent from them.

Might a few weeks of psychoanalysis reveal this unfair circumstance to be the result of a narcissist power trip? Or perhaps a subconscious misandry that smugly grins each time their naked male partner quizzes with yet another "Will that be okay, schmoopie?" Or could it be a nurtured inheritance from a matriarchal micromanaging mother who bullied her emasculated husband into begging for sex? That's one way to assure sexual dominance.

What do you think, my dear and precious Yale sex authorities? Your public servant Melanie has figured it out when she states: "Determining consent post facto in a disciplinary hearing may be difficult (and disciplinary boards will sometimes get it wrong), but in media res agreement is clear." WELL YEAH! We know, Mel. No fooling. But the dark side of AC isn't about reality or real sexual behavior, it's about sexual politics that favor one gender while punishing another. In media res, it surrounds us. There is no camera in the bedroom, dear.

The core "gotcha"
legal snake in the grass
of Affirmative Consent
Why does Melanie fail to grasp this? And I could be wrong on all counts about the real psychological motivations behind this apparent one-way street, but when the one-way AC street gets paved, and paved quite often, one begins to wonder as to the true motivation some people have for cheering on a circumstance backed by an authoritative gavel of punishment that only serves the needs of an elite victims-in-wait club--after all, doesn't a single misstep by a man when climbing the AC sex ladder towards paradise create an instant victim of sexual violence? Yes, it does! No question. Just nail down any AC feminist type in academia or elsewhere and she'll tell you: You fucked up! Susie says that four months ago you attempted digital penetration between two separate acts of coitus and you didn't get prior consent from her before the attempt (real AC court case -- start here and explore further). Gotcha! Sexual violence will not be tolerated at this university, Yale boy. OMG! On to the sex-crimes star chamber for processing--not to be confused with "due process." Your weeping (or smirking?) accuser ex-girlfriend is behind a screen to prevent further trauma, your questions are ignored or unfairly limited, exculpatory evidence can be denied, and a room packed with angry sex negatives and their sycophants are staring you down as if you were The Night Stalker. You were a rapist until proven a rapist. Now you're just another stat for the next sexual assault study. Justice is served.

As a matter of fact, see my comment and link below regarding the American Law Institute's rejection of a profoundly sex negative model penal code based totally on AC stage-based sex violations, for if you doubt the above, this might shake you into cold reality, guys and gals. The major players on this stage want America dancing to their sexual power song, and so many with so much to gain want to sing it. Might we conjecture that the vision of hundreds of new sex crime courts on a state and local level complete with new prison space to complement the need for their gavel-slamming bowels to expel thousands of male perps fresh off the AC justice vine will be a vision that results in multiple orgasms in the sex negative universe?

And btw, why does this woman have such a problem with our fuzzball Melanie?



Back to the precious ones. Perhaps in their minds, AC legal statutes now on the books in a few states absolve them from any responsibility. I can't speak for them all. Technically, the law does not absolve them of responsibility, however, when it comes to prosecution and expulsion, or to any punitive action for alleged stage-based AC violation, the record shows that males are the primary beneficiaries of this warm and fuzzy policy by a ratio of 100 to 1 at least?
On to the sex crimes star chamber... Your accuser ex-girlfriend is behind a screen to prevent further trauma, you can't ask questions, exculpatory evidence is denied, and a room packed with angry sex negatives and their sycophants are staring you down as if you were The Night Stalker. 
I wonder how that happens? Could Miss Ali tell us?

But heck, Melanie Boyd of Yale might tell you, if pressed after class over a few martinis, that all those fucking man bastards it coming, especially since her brand of feminist "sexual assault theory" primarily redefines all male sexual behavior as assault or theoretical assault depending on the alleged victim's point of view (read her work on this issue, not just her smiley face articles).

Affirmative Consent Treat
For One-Way Street Acceptance
As for Miss Ali above, I feel sorry for her poor mutt of a boyfriend. Imagine him tirelessly and nervously asking her time and time if everything is okay. Can I do this, Ali? How about that, Ali? Do you want me to kiss your butt? Would you mind, Ali? OMG! The very presence of a man like that would freeze my vagina shut. How the hell can either one of them see this as sexy? And how the devil can he maintain an erection if he's focused constantly on getting the AC formula permission thing down straight? I can imagine a bit of curiosity and rules adjustment in the very beginning, but to have to go through this ordeal indefinitely?

It's weird, and sick, and it serves only one type of personality, and not one I would own much less defend.

BTW, if I were a prosecutor or a college sex tribunal member, I might see the above statement as an indirect admission of sexual assault, and most likely, of many counts of sexual assault. All part of the evidence package, because Miss Ali fails to note here, and in other posts on the subject, that she either seeks or obtains any form of prior consent from her anonymous male partner. Does she, or doesn't she? Surely, if this man were to make accusations of AC-based assault against her, days or months later, Miss Ali would be hard pressed to prove she obtained prior consent for her many acts of sexual behavior, even for so much as a kiss on the finger (which AC philosophy might term "a clear act of sexual violence"). Personally, I think Miss Ali might be shilling on behalf of bigger AC tuna, but who knows.

Dare Disagree With Me
And I'll Label You 
Not surprisingly, the tribe of sex negatives, victim cultists, and Amanda Marcotte (btw who asserts that anyone who disagrees with her on AC issues is "anti-feminist") wannabes are clamoring for the legal and institutional stamp of AC across the board asap. On comment threads and forum boards on Internet these persons pose and prattle about voiding the "male rapist" U.S Constitution, the need for special national sex courts that disallow juries and due process, and last but not least, the widespread and irrevocable prison-hard slam down of AC into the non-college world complete with arm-long lists of codified AC sex offenses--alleged non-consensual hand holding just a misdemeanor (punished only by sex offender registration and a stiff fine).

**** If you think the above sounds exaggerated or ridiculous, guys and gals, think again.

You most likely don't know about a movement by sex negative AC feminists within the American Law Institute to create a new model penal code that redefines a broad array of sexual behaviors and actions (from hand holding to final thrust) as jail-time criminal, i.e., if prior consent by the alleged victim cannot be proved (and of course, it can't). AC cheer leaders just like Melanie Boyd of Yale were lobbying for this with all guns blazing. But they failed. Prominent attorneys and judges in the ALI, many of them legendary feminist women, thumpingly rejected the punitive world of the Melanie Boyds. And who would think--despite Amanda Marcotte's declaration that they must all be anti-feminist, rape culture yahoos to have dared such an opinion!!!

But shucks and heck, like Melanie Boyd says in her Huffington Post article, it's all warm and fuzzy stuff, this affirmative consent apple pie. It's no problem. Want a slice? It's just all about respect for women, right? It's that simple... Right? Hmmmm. Well, I will affirm for the record, that I would never date much less have major sex with a man who did not treat me with respect. But I wonder if Melanie has it straight. I mean, does she have the whole picture here clearly in her noggin? Let's take a quote from the ALI opponents of AC doctrine to get a really good look at the dark side, the side Melanie ignores, the side that accused must face in college sex tribunals or in the feminist affirmative consent-based sex court of the future:
"At every stage of every physical relationship, the “perpetrator” is at risk with no safe harbor of any type. If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” (Discussion Draft No. 2, Substantive Material, at 54) to initiate a kiss, the initiator is still at risk because the accuser can always counter by asserting, “I didn’t say you could kiss me that way.” If the initiator got positive agreement the next identical kiss because, “I didn’t say you could kiss me twice.” The draft acknowledges that its standard “requires the fact finder to focus on the existence of consent regarding each of the disputed sex acts.” Id. and Section 213.0(3)."

          - American Law Institute Members In Opposition to The Affirmative Consent Penal Code
Yes, "every stage" and "disputed sex acts." And here is the rub, ladies and gents. The warm and fuzzy Melanie Boyds of the world will act as if the above just isn't true. All a myth. 

But in fact, it is true, all too terribly and frighteningly true. 



Compare the words and behavior of Nancy vs. Alexandra below



OMG, dig this AC bozo! The good doctor says it must be verbal?


One last thing, to Melanie Boyd and all the other Affirmative Consenters, young or old, who are trying really really hard to define the behavior of American women in the bedroom according to their own biases, need for control, and psychological issues they have with men and sex in general: 

SEXUALLY ACTIVE AND SENSIBLE AMERICAN WOMEN WILL NEVER VIEW THE KIND OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR THEY DESIRE, ENJOY, AND FREELY CHOOSE TO PARTAKE IN WITH MALE PARTNERS OF THEIR CHOICE AS A SERIES OF DANGEROUS AND POTENTIALLY VIOLENT ACTS OF CEASELESS PREDATION THAT MUST BE RESTRAINED WITH PUNITIVE RULES AND LAWS.

I am not a follower of Catherine M, Andrea D, or any other role model haters of this ilk. I know how to give consent. I don't hate men or women. I hate assholes and hypocrites, narcissists and control freaks.

And I mean it sincerely.

Tuesday

Can We Hear The Rape Radio Through All The Media Static?

Professor Schulhofer Intrudes Like a True Crusader
The American Law Institute (ALI) resoundingly rejected as impractical and unconstitutional an effort by sex negative feminists and their allies in the ALI like Professors Schulhofer and his grim sidekick Erin Murphy to "reshape American sexual norms" by creating a draconian new penal code that would have given courts all over the country the necessary guidance and confidence to sentence to hard prison time tens of thousands of men for "sex crimes" ranging from attempted hand holding to kissing--in reality to every single stage and sub-stage leading to intercourse (whether or not it was achieved); and if the man could not prove he obtained "prior affirmative consent" for each rung of the sex ladder (with a theoretically endless number of rungs)  he climbed, the threat of cold prison steel would be a fact--not to mention a ruined life, lost job, sex offender registry, and so forth.

And if you are skeptical regarding what I've said above, see this piece on Professor Schulhofer and the rest of the good old "gavel and cage 'em" gang. Given that ALI and non-ALI sex negatives alike naturally share the view that sex is an unceasing act of predation that must be micromanaged in order to protect a woman's body (under threat of violation each moment she is in the presence of men), it's not surprising that even married men and long-standing relationships were on the chopping block. One "unsolicited" or "consent lacking" sexual touch and days, weeks or even years later, the jaws of prison would become a distinct possibility if the prosecutor wished to pursue. With thousands of men potentially incarcerated for such "offenses" enabled to insane reality by an affirmative consent penal code, you begin to wonder why some men believe The War on Men isn't a myth but a reality? To say that sex negative feminists applaud and support this movement towards affirmative consent and vastly expanded punitive action is an understatement.

But I digress a bit.

Self-defined Sex Negative Person
Similar to the sex-negative penal code above, the Affirmative Consent laws for colleges now living and breathing in states like California and New York, do their best to significantly increase the numbers of sex offenses while simultaneously making it impossible for the accused (invariably a man) to defend themselves. This has resulted in dozens of lawsuits against colleges across the nation, and it's no wonder since the colleges effectively remove most if not all of due process procedure when judging the accused in order to more easily facilitate findings of guilt. The supporters of these conditions have also conjured the horror of the male serial rapist roaming campuses all across America, and in the thousands, but I can't understand why not a single one of these serial offenders has yet been tagged and caged. Not even one... Hmmmm? Could it be a myth?

Regardless, the sex-negative feminists, together with their state and university lobbyists and social media supporters, are transparently overreaching to extend the rape and assault umbrella over sexual acts that are considered consensual by both parties at the time. They also wish to enable post-coitus reconsideration and group discussion that results weeks, months, or even years later in a finding of technical "rape" due to the presence of alcohol and/or lack of "affirmative consent"--itself a hydra of legal issues and constitutional infractions (noted above). The sex negatives at Harvard, e.g., basically want men accused of rape 24/7 regardless of circumstances, since they argue we women can't give consent with any real certainty because we're mind controlled by the patriarchy.  OMG! And who does this mentally ill BS really serve?

And what is the result of all the above?

Once we wade through the court cases overturning affirmative consent convictions now mixed with aggressive sex negative lobbying and the redefining of sex as criminal, coupled with talk of thousands of stalking serial rapists and obsessive media coverage of absurdly overblown cases like the Mattress Girl of Columbia and Jackie of UVA, what do we have? Maximum static. And what else? An ever growing amount of apathy as a result while the static gets louder and louder. Even media outlets notably biased against men in their reporting and editorials thrive on the controversial cases such as the ones at Columbia, Duke University, and UVA. After all, just plain old rape is dull news. Grandstanding mattress hauling and fantasized gang rapes worthy of Clockwork Orange bring in more readers and advertising clicks.

Am I being cynical? No. Just realistic.

When every woman is potentially assaulted and raped, no woman is assaulted and raped. As waves of unceasing news and social media static often drown out or marginalize real victims of sexual assault and rape, the American public loses their ability to focus and sympathize. Real victims are made to seem like oversensitive girls manufacturing a crime long after the fact, or attention-seekers grandstanding their victimhood, or just plain liars out for revenge. It's the oh-here-we-go-again cry wolf effect. How much more obvious can all this be?
When every woman is potentially assaulted and raped, no woman is assaulted and raped. As waves of unceasing news and social media static often drown out or marginalize real victims of sexual assault and rape, the American public loses their ability to focus and sympathize.
This is where we're at now and it's getting worse. By doing whatever it takes to greatly expand definitions of rape and sexual assault while smearing the Constitution as a "document written by rapists" and cheering on 24/7 victim theater in its many forms, the many sex negative feminists on college campuses and elsewhere--in their quest to punish and belittle men by whatever means necessary--are now in the process of undoing all that anti-rape activists have fought for, and over the course of many years.

Let them combine with the commercial news media to once again force us to endure a few more debacles like the Duke lacrosse case or gang rape UVA and we'll practically guarantee that not a single victim of real rape will be heard. She'll be typecast as just another embittered hoaxer or deluded fraud.

BTW, does everyone know that Mattress Girl is a star in her own porno film online now? She calls it art, but you can judge for yourself.

Personally, I am disgusted by it on every level.

Saturday

Kathy Caprino of Forbes Props the "Glass Cliff" Myth, Thereby Satisfying the Need for Women as Victims Regardless of Circumstances

What is Kathy Caprino thinking when she fails to question or comment intelligently on the so-called existence of "The Glass Cliff?"

Please read Kathy Caprino's article in Forbes then return here and the paragraph of critique below will make a lot more sense.

The Glass Cliff inventors, Ryan and Haslam, are academics transparently looking to create results that will get them publicity. 97% of CEOs in the U.S. are male, leaving only a tiny percent of female. CEO turnover is a fact of life, women or no women. Many get appointed, many fail, and for a complex and huge variety of circumstantial, personal, and political reasons. To take any number of women who "failed" and manufacture a "glass cliff" excuse is not only to absolve them of responsibility, it's an act of intellectual dishonesty that infers an absurd patriarchal conspiracy at work. 

For example, the case of Bartz at Yahoo in the Forbes article by Kathy Caprino neglects to note that other leaders had failed before she got there, and they were all men! They "failed" just like she did because the Yahoo circumstances are crazy and entrenched. The place was hemorrhaging talent. But if you subtract the Bartz case from its context and apply the "glass cliff" overlay of Ryan and Haslam while at the same time making lies of omission, you create a false case that appears to support the Glass Cliff assertions of the academics.

Btw, here is Kathy Caprino's bio:
"Greetings! I'm a women's career success coach, leadership trainer, author and speaker dedicated to the advancement of women. My career consulting firm, Ellia Communications, offers a wide array of resources, programs, and courses to help you "dig deep, discover your right work, and illuminate the world with it." I'm also a former corporate VP and trained therapist and have worked with over 10,000 professionals globally. Along with Forbes, I contribute to Huffington Post, LinkedIn, and my own blog. For help to build your happiest career, feel free to visit http://kathycaprino.com. There, you'll find my book Breakdown, Breakthrough, my online course The Amazing Career Project, my Amazing Career Certification training for coaches, my weekly podcast Best Work/Best Life, and other free Career tools, quizzes, and assessments. Visit kathycaprino.com and amazingcareerproject.com for more info."
"Dedicated to the advancement of women"? How, Kathy? By giving credence to intellectual fraud that transparently attempts to make women into victims even after they've succeeded to positions of great responsibility? 

Isn't this telling us women that even if we succeed we fail? If we're given challenging work to turn things around we will be ousted by the patriarchy as part of a conspiratorial scheme? And if not the patriarchy, then who precisely is behind all these meany old firings of wonderfully competent women who should never have been fired if it weren't for... THE GLASS CLIFF?


Again, hundreds of men have been fired over the past few decades for PRECISELY THE SAME REASONS. 


It's part of the job. Grow up! 


And everybody, please ignore those social media feminists who make us into 24/7 victims for their own gain.

btw, my post over on Think Progress and Huffington Post on the so-called Glass Cliff. I'm sick and tired of woman-as-victim studies that avoid the facts and make us all look foolish:




Sunday

Affirmative Consent Law: "Invading Bodies" and Disputed Sex Acts

Judge Carol McCoy
"The judge found that the university unlawfully limited the plaintiff's right to cross-examine the primary witness against him, namely, the female student who had accused him of sexual assault. According to the university's procedures, a student who is accused of sexual assault does not cross-examine the complainant directly, but rather, submits his questions to the chair of the disciplinary panel that is conducting the hearing, who asks the questions on behalf of the accused. In this case, the accused student submitted 31 questions for possible cross-examination of the complainant, but the chair asked only 9 of them." 

          - Court Ruling on Affirmative Consent Case at UCSD

"Mr. Dixon did describe behaviors that he believed indicated [the female trainer's] affirmative consent during both incidents. He stated that he believed there was affirmative consent because she was "Lip biting, moaning, kissing me back on my neck type thing." He also stated that he believed she indicated affirmative consent by lying naked on the bed while he put on the condom."

          - Overturn of Affirmative Consent Conviction by Los Angeles Superior Court

"Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation..."

          - Boston Globe Article re Sexual Assault Policy at Harvard

"The UTC Chancellor improperly shifted the burden of proof and imposed an untenable standard upon Mr. Mock to disprove the accusation that he forcibly assaulted Ms. Morris. He made no finding that Ms. Morris did not consent, intertwined the definition in SOC 7 of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, and made no distinction as to which acts had occurred."

         - Judge Carol McCoy on Reversing An Affirmative Consent Conviction

"At every stage of every physical relationship, the “perpetrator” is at risk with no safe harbor of any type. If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” (Discussion Draft No. 2, Substantive Material, at 54) to initiate a kiss, the initiator is still at risk because the accuser can always counter by asserting, “I didn’t say you could kiss me that way.” If the initiator got positive agreement “sufficient to show affirmative permission” and did the kiss the right way, the initiator is still at risk with the next identical kiss because, “I didn’t say you could kiss me twice.” The draft acknowledges that its standard “requires the fact finder to focus on the existence of consent regarding each of the disputed sex acts.” Id. and Section 213.0(3)."

          - American Law Institute Members In Opposition to The Affirmative Consent Penal Code

"Here is a rich irony to chew on: At a time when women's political, social, physical, and especially economic powers are at a 10,000-year high, a movement to regulate sexual intercourse in this country is growing, fueled by the notion that contemporary women can't say "no."

          - Copulemus in Pace

"Grounding women’s emancipation, sexual and otherwise, on such a sweeping use of criminal punishment and civil incapacitation (e.g., expulsion from college with a transcript marking one as a sexual wrongdoer)  has led feminist reformers to take several stances typically thought to be hallmarks of social conservatism.  They are seeking social control through punitive and repressive deployments of state power.  They are criminalizing as a first rather than a last resort to achieving social change.  They are affirming indifference to the punishment of innocent conduct. They have moved well to the right of civil-liberties-oriented liberalism in their advocacy for swift and sure punishment unimpeded by due process restraints."

        - Janet Halley

Gloria Now an AC Proponent 
Let's cut to the chase with this issue of "affirmative consent" and the laws it has spawned now taking root in America and growing like unconstitutional weeds from the sex-negative feminist earth. But make no mistake, I'm a feminist, and have considered myself such for a long, long time. I choose sex when I wish. No one crawls into bed with me without my consent. Are you kidding? I am an independent and strong personality, and no one pushes me around. I've fought for women's rights. Having said this, I am not caving in to this new wave of intense, witch-pointing bullying on the part of certain "feminist" groups who are now on news programs and social media calling anyone and everyone a "rape apologist" or "anti-woman" or part of the "war on women" if they don't fully agree with the intent and legal mechanics of affirmative consent and those particular laws that have come into being (and threaten to generate) as a result.

One of affirmative consent's new and foremost spokespersons, Gloria Steinhem--who gives us the now standard marketing pitch for the woman-body-saving rule of "Yes Means Yes," better known as "affirmative consent"--hopes that it will counteract the ongoing "patriarchal" circumstance of "invading bodies." In other words, Gloria (and I am very disappointed by her), and her new affirmative consent associates, are attempting to cajole me into rethinking most of my entire sex life in terms of what they now view as criminal sexual assault. As Gloria says:
Until now, this has been the state of affairs in our nation’s laws on sexual assault. Invading bodies has been taken less seriously by the law than invading private property, even though body-invasion is far more traumatic. This has remained an unspoken bias of patriarchal law. After all, women were property until very recently. In some countries, they still are.
(just to jump in here for a second--you'll learn below that "invading bodies" is code for anything from a behavior as innocuous as a casual hand hold to full blown coitus thrusting)
Even in America, women’s human right to make decisions about their own bodies remains controversial, especially when it comes to sex and reproduction. Until [California passed SB 967], the prevailing standard has been “no means no.” If she says no (or, more liberally, indicates any resistance with her body), then the sex is seen as nonconsensual. That is, it’s rape. Under such a standard, the enormous gray area between “yes” and “no” is defined residually as “yes”: Unless one hears an explicit “no,” consent is implied. “Yes means yes” completely redefines that gray area. Silence is not consent; it is the absence of consent. Only an explicit “yes” can be considered consent.
The goddess has spoken. Only "an explicit yes" is consent. Gloria seems to see affirmative consent as this glorious new sexy thing (read the article until the end), and sure, it could be, just like at the end of Ulysses by Joyce. Yes, yes, yes, and yes, and yes!  But what is the dark side of affirmative consent?

What about the devil in the sexy details that Gloria isn't talking about?

Should I be traumatized now?
Let me ruminate: So all that sex I willingly had and encouraged, according to Gloria, wasn't consented to at all because I had not issued forth with an explicit "yes" after "yes" after "yes." I don't know whether to giggle or be traumatized. Should I be traumatized? Would that be politically correct? Come to think of it, who can't look back in time based on this new value thrust upon us by Gloria and the affirmative consent club and imagine scores and scores of sexual assaults or rapes taking place because we didn't say the word "yes" again and again and again. A new standard, a new viewpoint, a fresh way to be perpetually victimized. Whenever I didn't want sex I just said "no," but I didn't have to say no, as it turns out. I could have said nothing and my silence would have made all my partners into sex criminals.

Think about it, you guys. Just because we didn't say "no" to Bob or Frank ten years ago, just because we silently enjoyed the sex and participated in the act, as well as encouraged it with non-verbal communication, doesn't mean that we were not raped. We were! As of the advent of affirmative consent, we are all supplied with an indefinite amount of opportunities to conceive ourselves, past tense, as victims of sexual assault. Really, it's like having a buffet of sexual assault memory to choose from.
As of the advent of affirmative consent, we are all supplied with an indefinite amount of opportunities to conceive ourselves, past tense, as victims of sexual assault.
The ability for us to engage in such fuck-the-patriarchy or time-for-payback mind games are given special significance by the model sex crime penal code of Stephen Schulhofer of NYU law. Btw, Gloria's language of "invading bodies" above is very very close to the affirmative consent language used by Schulhofer to market and pitch his own version of affirmative consent law to anyone who will listen. Together with certain people in the American Law Institute, Schulhofer is pushing his version of a new America, one wherein "invading bodies" are exterminated by federal and state prison sentences, i.e., hard time behind bars for alleged perps, not to mention sex offender registration, ruined lives, etc. I've written about this perversion of law that turns every act of sex, and every sub-act thereof (including a cheek kiss or pat on the shoulder), into a potential sex crime.

However, Professor Schulhofer diverges from Gloria Steinem on the matter of consent equaling only an "explicit yes." He notes in his penal code--that will criminalize the sexual behavior of millions of Americans, not just college students--that consent can actually be given in non-verbal form. But he stops short of defining it. I wonder why? Seriously, is that fair to the thousands yet to be accused? Rather, he leaves it up to the defense attorney and prosecutor to debate in a court of law--or in a college student's case, he leaves it up to the members of college sex tribunal (the college student is routinely denied legal counsel, or counsel is prohibited from speech during the proceedings).

In effect then, Schulhofer's penal code, as well as affirmative consent law in California and New York, allows nonverbal consent to be whatever the alleged victim and prosecuting entity want it to be. Consider. The accused affirmative-consent sex criminal in college is effectively disallowed from defining nonverbal consent, even in the absence of a clear legal definition. Only his or her accusers have this privilege. To all intents and purposes, he or she is at the mercy of an utterly Kafkaesque circumstance. They can only present their viewpoint regarding what they believed to be consent while the sex crime tribunal at their college decides whether or not their perception of nonverbal consent will be allowed (who wants to take bets?). However, if the alleged victim counters at the time that XYZ behavior wasn't actually consent, in her mind, then the alleged perpetrator is theoretically left without a defense.
The accused affirmative-consent sex criminal in college is effectively disallowed from defining nonverbal consent, even in the absence of a clear legal definition. Only his or her accusers have this privilege. To all intents and purposes, he or she is at the mercy of an utterly Kafkaesque circumstance.
It is my belief, based on the evidence at hand, that the purpose of the college sex tribunal is to do one thing and one thing only: CONVICT. One might say the whole thing is rigged. But then again, doesn't it have to be? Given the reality of judging alleged sex crime perpetrators in order to find them "guilty" using affirmative consent standards forces the process to transmogrify into just the type of Kafkaesque circumstances now occurring in college sex tribunals. Negating constitutionally mandated due process is just one example. The recent court cases below speak to this very loudly.

Three recent court cases in Tennessee and California (UC San Diego and  summation / USC Decision) have vigorously overturned affirmative consent convictions and deemed the college sex tribunal process that props it to be unconstitutional. In fact, the process is so heavily biased towards the accused that it disallows (him) from even questioning the accuser (who sits behind a screen and won't take questions--ostensibly for the purpose of avoiding further trauma). Everyone gets to be automatically so traumatized in college sex tribunal hearings that the accused is effectively hamstrung and dependent on a hostile panel to communicate on his behalf. You would think the presumption of trauma would be tested by a psychological screening test or evaluation of some type by a professional prior to denying the accused his rights--after all, someone who has waited many weeks or several months before bothering to file a sex crime complaint until after she sees her ex-boyfriend with another woman isn't that likely to be so traumatized or capable of being induced to trauma that the accused must inevitably be denied his constitutional right to face his accuser.
One might say the whole thing is rigged. But then again, doesn't it have to be? Given the reality of judging alleged sex crime perpetrators in order to find them "guilty" using affirmative consent standards forces the process to transmogrify into just the type of Kafkaesque circumstance now occurring in college sex tribunals.
Also, btw, the accused under affirmative consent law is obligated to disprove the accusation(s) against him. Impossible, of course, and unconstitutional. But as we know, feminist law philosophy rejects law as infected with patriarchal bias and "unreasonable" from a feminist point of view that wishes to dethrone the patriarchal tyrants who wrote the law in the first place (I wonder if that applies to old divorce torts that favor the woman?).

Therefore, every feminist from Gloria to Eleanor Smeal and beyond is basically coming down against law as we know it. They want serious jail-time penal codes (see Schulhofer and Murphy at ALI) that provide sure and lasting punishment for the accused who must be deprived of "patriarchal" due process in order for their affirmative consent shredding machine to work properly.

_______

'Affirmative Consent' Will Make Rape Laws Worse ...

www.bloombergview.com/.../-affirmative-consent-will-make-rape-laws-...

'Affirmative Consent' Will Make Rape Laws Worse. Megan McArdle. 549 Jul 1, 2015 4:40 PM EDT. By Megan McArdle. a; A. The "tough on crime" posture is ...

California SB 967 makes 'affirmative consent' law - CNN.com

www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/.../affirmative-consent-school-policy/

CNN
Sep 3, 2014 - California SB 967 requires students to seek "affirmative consent" from partners at each stage of sexual activity. How does "yes means yes" ...

Affirmative Consent: Are Students Really Asking? - The New ...

www.nytimes.com/.../affirmative-consent-are-students...
The New York Times
Jul 28, 2015 - Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary and mutual decision among ... New York's law standardizes prevention and response policies and ...

Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.../billNavCli...

California State Legislature
Existing law requires the governing boards of each community college district, the ... anaffirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was ...

Cuomo Signs Affirmative Consent College Sexual Assault ...

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../cuomo-affirmative-con...

The Huffington Post
Cuomo Signs Affirmative Consent College Sexual Assault Bill Into Law. Reuters. Posted: 07/07/2015 2:03 pm EDT Updated: 07/08/2015 4:59 pm EDT. CUOMO ...

Affirmative Consent Laws (Yes Means Yes) State by State ...

affirmativeconsent.com/affirmative-consent-laws-state-by-state/

Affirmative Consent laws state by state. As state colleges and legislatures enact yes means yes and affirmative consent policy - we'll track it here.

What 'Affirmative Consent' Actually Means | ThinkProgress

thinkprogress.org/.../affirmative-consent-really-means/

ThinkProgress
Jun 25, 2014 - Affirmative consent isn't based on the idea that every sexual ... that California's proposed law isn't that groundbreaking on the collegiate level.

How Affirmative Consent Laws Criminalize Everyone

thefederalist.com/.../how-affirmative-consent-laws-criminalize-everyone/

Mar 30, 2015 - Affirmative consent laws trivialize sexual assault by turning nearly everyone who has ever dated into a sexual offender. For example, if a ...

An Appalling Case for Affirmative-Consent Laws - The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com/...affirmative-consent-laws/381518/

The Atlantic
Oct 16, 2014 - They're also the value judgments that Ezra Klein invokes in his endorsement of a California law requiring affirmative consent for sex on the ...

The Affirmative Consent Standard & Rape / Sexual Assault ...

sgvnowproject.weebly.com/the-affirmative-consent-standard--rape--sexu...

The Affirmative Consent Standard - You Must Receive a Verbal "Yes" ... Presentation by Dr. Harry Brod, a leader in the pro-feminist men's movement .... that generatepositive, measurable outcomes in populations throughout the world.

What 'Affirmative Consent' Actually Means | ThinkProgress

thinkprogress.org/.../affirmative-consent-really-means/

ThinkProgress
Jun 25, 2014 - Affirmative consent isn't based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid ... The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence ... It's a state,” feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman, who wrote a book on ...

[PDF]“hands off”: sex, feminism, affirmative consent, and the law ...

weblaw.usc.edu/.../11_Subotnik_Final.pdf

USC Gould School of Law
by DAN SUBOTNIK - ‎Cited by 12 - ‎Related articles
See KATIE ROIPHE, THE MORNING AFTER: SEX, FEAR, AND FEMINISM ON .... and defendant adduced no positive evidence of consent, he could be con-.

Sex Is Serious | Boston Review

bostonreview.net/.../feminists-christians-sex-ethics-affirmative-consent-el...

Jan 12, 2015 - Christian conservatives and some feminists agree that sex must not come with .... But would feminist defenders of affirmative consent ethics say the same? ..... It could, however, have negative consequences, including ...

No, California's new affirmative consent law will not redefine ...

feministing.com/.../no-californias-new-affirmative-consent-la...

Feministing
Oct 7, 2014 - But feminist calls for changing norms around sex and consent ... left with is a concept of “negative consent”–an assumption that people are in a ...

Sex-Shaming: The Feminist Weapon of Choice to Silence ...

https://reason.com/.../sex-shaming-the-feminist-weapon-of-choic

Reason
Oct 10, 2014 - But what precisely got Joy's pretty pink "consent is sexy" panties knotted ... when one partner is reluctant and hasn't offered "affirmative consent.

Affirmative Consent As Legal Standard? | - Yes Means Yes

https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/.../affirmative-consent-as-legal-st...

Mar 19, 2010 - When feminists talk in moral terms about rape, many of us talk about ... I'm certainly not the first person to think that affirmative consent ought to work ......sex detracts from the positive impact that such a restructuring could have ...
__________________________________________

Doctor Brod makes up his own law and demands an explicit "Yes" from us all or else he's going to huff and puff and flunk us for the semester. "You can't trust body language. It's dangerous!"