Thursday, July 22, 2010

A terrible idea: throw boys in jail after their partners agree to have sex -- because their partners' agreements were non-verbal

A reader of this blog posited an absolutely terrible idea:

". . . what do you all think about the 'Yes means Yes' concept where a couple does not proceed with relations unless/until BOTH parties have made it verbally clear they are interested in...whatever they're doing to do? That would go a long way to clearing out any confusion and making it clear when a boundary is being crossed. IMO, this is a much safer practice for the man to avoid any 'confusion.' I'm not disagreeing at all that the women (or any intruded on party) needs to make it clear she does NOT want sex, but ensuring both DO is even better."

Here is why this feminist attempt at social engineering is an awful idea, and an exercise in man-hating:  virtually no one engages in sexual relations by asking for a verbal assent. Everyone knows that. This cockamamie idea would criminalize men, and men alone, for behaving the way people have found it acceptable to behave since the beginning of time.

If this were the law, young men would be sent to prison for many years, their lives destroyed, for engaging in sex even after the woman clearly and unequivocally nods her approval and indicates beyond any doubt, but non-verbally, that she wants to have sex. Far fetched?  If the law requires a verbal "yes" and no verbal "yes" was given, goodbye, Charlie. Ten years in prison for you. Your life is over. And if you are young and good looking, you stand a fairly good chance of being subjected to real rape (as opposed to this) in prison, repeatedly and for years.

This loopy plan is monstrously inhumane.  It's been floating around in various forms for years, and I've even seen feminists explain that once this plan is enacted, yes, for a while, some young men who really thought they had procured the woman's consent will be sent to prison, but that's an acceptable price to pay to change the way young men in general behave.

As if there weren't infirmities galore with this idea to begin with, just consider this: it would tack on yet another "he said/she said" credibility question to an area already rife with them.  That's all we need.

Spare me any further feminist "reforms."  Every time they have a reform, innocent men and boys end up behind bars.