The following comes from an Oct. 3 posting on The Federalist.
A funny thing happened on the way to sexual liberation: we took a wrong turn back to a new, bizarre, secularized Puritanism. And the leading edge of this Puritanism—not by coincidence—is in the very same dens of louche materialism produced by the Sexual Revolution: the universities.
This turn backward is heralded by a new law passed in California defining what counts as “sexual assault” and can therefore result in expulsion from the California State University system. This has been dubbed the “yes means yes” law, meaning that for a male student to be accused of sexual assault (and it is almost always a man), the young lady does not need to have said “no” to him. Rather, all sexual contact is presumed to be an assault unless the woman gives “affirmative consent”—and such affirmations “must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity,” which presumably means that she has to sign off on every move her lover makes.
Now, part of the purpose of this law was to make it clear that a woman who is incapacitated—by alcohol, of course, since binge drinking is endemic on campus—cannot give consent. Or that a woman who initiates a sexual encounter retains the right to break it off if she changes her mind. But it’s not clear whether such a law would be necessary, given existing statutes and policies, nor does the law restrict itself to those provisions. Instead, it creates a very broad and vague presumption against all physical contact.
Set aside for a moment this statute’s capacity for injustice and abuse, which are covered well here, including the fact that one of the law’s own supporters admitted she has no idea what it means or how to avoid violating it.
What struck me first about this legalistic approach to sex is how unsexy it is. It reduces the act of love to a passionless procedure in which every move has to be negotiated, approved, and signed in triplicate. The article linked to above quotes the reaction of two students at Cal State Long Beach: “‘I feel like their hearts are in the right place, but the implementation is a little too excessive,’ said Henry Mu, a 24-year-old biology major. ‘Are there guidelines? Are we supposed to check every five minutes?’ The remark drew laughter from his friend and fellow 49er, Sue Tang. ‘If you were to do that, it would definitely kill the vibe,’ said Tang, 27.”
There is weird sense of unreality to this law, as if it were drafted by celibate monks. Sex is a physical and spontaneous act, driven by passion rather than legalism. And since I’m stating obvious but politically incorrect truths, I should also point out that a lot of women want a man who is self-confident and assertive. They would find the kind of man who timidly asks, “mother may I?” for every caress to be, well, a little less than masculine. But that’s the kind of man these new rules basically mandate. It all smacks of a prudish neo-Victorianism, in which sexual desire is viewed as suspect and dangerous—but with a modern feminist twist: male sexual desire is suspect and dangerous.
The Sexual Revolution has turned out to be a weird reverse image of Puritanism. The counterculture retained all the same basic premises—that sex is dirty, disgusting, a purely materialistic act with no psychological or spiritual meaning—except that they were for it. So they swept away the old-fashioned codes of chivalry, eliminated the role of the university as a chaperone in loco parentis, and created a campus culture of drunken one-night stands. Now they have discovered that this culture has a dangerous dark side, particularly for young women, and they’re scrambling to create a new, modernized system of prudery.
I’m all for sexual liberation, by the way. (See what I said elsewhere about happiness being the purpose of life.) But instead of eliminating irrational or outdated taboos—the stigma against premarital sex, for example, made a lot more sense before modern birth control—the cultural left simply knocked flat all rules and standards. And now they’re trying to build a new set of taboos that make even less sense.
Nothing about that looks like “liberation.”
To read the original posting, click here.
Gee, the Church’s rules are so simple:
No sex (or thinking about sex) outside of marriage.
No sex unless open to procreation.
We must not be sexually touching anyone – including kissing – without the other person’s informed consent.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases are transmitted through bodily fluids.
Parents – teach your teen children –
” Incidence, Prevalence, and Cost of SexuallyTransmitted Infections in the United States ” CDC Fact Sheet, February 2013
This is what happens when a society promotes adultery, fornication, homosexual acts.
Don, thanks for this good info.
‘NO” means “NO”.
Any person who is not capable of informed consent due to: the date rape drug, or drunkenness, or drugs, or for other reasons should not be sexually touched in any way – including kissing.
Parents teach your Sons and Daughters.
When was the last time your Bishop or Pastor preached : to avoid the near –
“Occasions of Sin” ?
This law sounds like it could cause a lot of trouble for men. How is he going to defend himself against false charges even if his partner affirms further contact. This means that all sexual encounters should be recorded for his defense. What if he is drunk also. Does her drunkenness preclude any responsibility for her actions, but he is responsible no matter what condition he is in. Why will her memory of the tryst be the memory of record. My advise to men is zip it up and wait for marriage.
You make a point. Fornication is a sin, but not all fornication is rape. A sinner should not be made a victim of false charges.
“NO” means “NO” – this goes for drunken or drugged women or men.
Keep your hands to yourself.
Do not touch anyone who can not fully consent.
All should avoid the near occasion of sin.
“Zip it up” is not only appropriate to avoid legal charges and jail time, but also to avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
Parents teach your children of the consequences of all their own actions.
Even in liberated Calfornia the rules have to be spelled out for the kids on college campuses. At that level, there is little or no parental influence. Even feminists are quietly concluding that young women are not able to defend themselves.
Next up: the US Military, where sexual assaults on women are an epidemic.
The War against the Hated ‘Hetero-Patriarchy’ is waged in many arenas, but none so fowl as the pathetic Farce of Academentia, where MISANDRY (Hatred of Men & Boys, Masculinity & Normal Heterosexuality) is The Tenure Track.
This includes ‘male feminists’ – who provide ‘Steppin Fetchit’ type entertainment at Misandrist rallies, by rhetorically or sometimes literally rolling on their backs and soiling themselves in shame for being born (X&) with a P-ns.
Sexual Assaults Are For Real – and indeed some are under reported – but so are Deliberately Fabricated False Charges, which can be quite profitable in addition to feeding the hateful rage against males that fuels Radical Gender Feminism.
Two Articles provide some contrast on how Sex Crimes are Treated in this Age of Abomination:
Male-on-male rape epidemic in Obama’s pro-deviancy military
“Jail For UC Davis Embezzler
By K. LLOYD BILLINGSLEY CalWatch 6/6/11
Former UC Davis official Jennifer Beeman was sentenced on Thursday to 180 days in jail and five years probation
Beeman Pled no contest to two felony counts of embezzlement and falsifying accounts.
Neither charge involved her falsification of campus sexual assault statistics
Beeman “significantly over-reported the number of forcible sex offenses”
For 16 years Beeman headed the UC Davis Campus Violence Prevention Program (CVPP)
UC Davis officials would not tell CalWatchdog whether the university had disciplined or censured Beeman over the falsified statistics.
She remained in her job
Former CASA Director Pleads Guilty to Four Felony Charges, Receives Three Years
This Rabbi ‘gets’ Misandry – the Hatred of Men & Boys, Masculinity & Normal Heterosxuality:
“What began as a legitimate quest for women’s rights has evolved into a hatred for the “patriarchal society” they equate with the American Judeo-Christian outlook. Living in the luxury of America…
Much of today’s feminism is dedicated, like all the latest liberal “isms,” to the radical transformation of America and demonization of Israel. They come, not to praise, but to bury.
One vocal NY Jewish… high-living feminist, who rails against corporate America, goes on to blather about “the abundance of sexuality and femininity that lies beneath the burqa.” She certainly wouldn’t be so rhapsodic if the Catholic Church would force head-to-toe covering of women.