In those heady early days of the sexual revolution, women could finally tear off the apron, wave goodbye to the kitchen sink, escape Mr Nice but Boring and leap joyfully into the fray of no strings attached sex.

Free from the worry that intercourse might lead to an unwanted pregnancy, women could finally have sex like men—as often as they liked, with as many people as they liked and having imbibed as much alcohol and drugs as they liked. This was the glorious new dawn hailed by feminists like Gloria Steinem, who said “A liberated woman is a woman who has sex before marriage and a job after”.

Fifty years later, the joy seems to be somewhat lacking, with reports from the New York Times and the Telegraph showing that as many as one in three women experience sexual assault at university. In response to this state of affairs, Stalinist-sounding “consent classes” are now mandatory on some campuses in Britain, and we seem to be fast approaching the point where two people (or three, or four, or ten) will have to sit down and complete a lengthy questionnaire about boundaries before so much as touching the other participant’s hand.

It’s important to acknowledge that there is a real problem that these classes are trying to address. There is no denying that hook-up culture has resulted in numerous tragic incidents which can scar the victims for the rest of their lives. Now that there is no longer any consensus on when someone should have sex (as was the case with saving sex for marriage where two people freely committed to each other for the rest of their lives), the boundaries have become blurred, especially when alcohol and drugs are thrown into the mix.

But are consent classes, imposed from above, really the answer? Or are they merely part of the larger problem? How have we ended up in a position where young men worry that their life might be ruined after a drunken one-night stand? Why are universities trying to respond to the problems caused by campus hook-up culture with cartoons and patronising workshops explaining that “yes means yes” and “no means no”, as if addressing rebellious toddlers?

In actual fact, consent classes are not that far removed from sixties radical feminism, which is based on a premise that men are the enemy. The sentiments of famous feminist writers and activists of this period are very clear on the subject. Steinem’s most famous quote is “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” and her close friend, author Marilyn French wrote in The Women’s Room “all men are rapists and that’s all they are”.

Andrea Dworkin said “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig” and in her book Intercourse writes “Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men’s contempt for women.” In her book Against Our Will, American feminist Susan Brownmiller defines rape as “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

So there seems to be some confusion in messages here. According to 1960s doctrine, on the one hand women can enjoy their bodies and have as much sex with as many partners as they wish, but on the other hand, the (male) partners that they choose are all potential rapists, who will use sex as a way of demeaning and oppressing women. Faced with this dilemma, does one eschew sex altogether or go ahead anyway and blindly face the consequences?

It is this convoluted logic that has led to the introduction of consent classes to some campuses across the UK. Some colleges in both Oxford and Cambridge now hold compulsory sexual consent workshops for Freshers, and Thames Valley Police have now launched a video with stick figures called “Consent: It’s as simple as Tea”—presumably to save them the trouble of catching actual rapists. A year ago, the NUS launched a campaign called “I Heart Consent”, which “aims to facilitate positive, informed and inclusive conversations and campaigns about sexual consent in universities and colleges across the UK.”

It’s not all that positive and inclusive if you object to the premise, however, as Warwick second-year student George Lawlor found to his cost. The nineteen-year-old wrote a blogpost for The Tab explaining why he declined to attend an optional consent workshop, because he objected to being treated as a potential rapist. To illustrate his point, he posted a photograph of himself holding a sign saying “this is not what a rapist looks like”. This articulate, softly spoken teenage boy was instantly vilified on social media as a “misogynist” and has been the victim of incessant trolling. He told journalist Martin Daubney “In a bar, six guys just crowded round me and started shouting at me, calling me a rapist, a misogynist, and threatening me. I had to get out of there. I don’t want to play the victim card, but afterwards I cried. I wouldn’t change what I did, but I’m incredibly worried that it has utterly destroyed any chances I have of getting a good job.”

There’s a deep irony in forcing people to attend a class which claims to promote consent and free will without their consent. The tragic way in which Lawlor has been hounded for merely speaking his mind will serve as a deterrent to other decent young men thinking about applying to university. They may decide it’s not worth paying £9,000 a year for the privilege of undergoing Orwellian “re-education” workshops where they are told they mustn’t rape women.

Even the authors of this Big Brother approach to sex are themselves falling prey to the monster they’ve created, as Oxford student activist Annie Teriba found. Teriba was one of Oxford University’s most tireless activists: among her many causes, she was involved with Rhodes Must Fall, which she joined in response to a cocktail called “The Colonial Comeback”, she was editor of NoHeterOx (the university’s space for LGBTQ+ students), and she was Wadham’s People of Colour and Racial Equality Officer. After being called out for sexual assault towards another woman, she issued a grovelling apology which was reposted by OUSU’s Women’s Campaign. This was her main offence (my italics):

“At this year’s NUS Black Students’ Conference, I had sex with someone. The other party later informed me that the sex was not consensual. I failed to properly establish consent before every act. I apologise sincerely and profoundly for my actions. I should have taken sufficient steps to ensure that everything I did was consensual. I should have been more attentive to the person’s body language. In failing to clarify that the person consented to our entire encounter, I have caused serious irreparable harm.”

Teriba’s actions were indeed very short-sighted. What was she thinking, going to bed with someone before signing a comprehensive pre-intercourse agreement and asking for permission at every single stage of the process?

At the heart of the problem of sexual assault on campus is the refusal of our leaders to expose the ideology of the 1960s as a lie. Sex is still the most important thing in life, and relentless sex education, which is increasingly aimed at lower and lower ages in schools with ever more explicit material, constantly hammers this message home. There is no small irony in this: at school you’re told you should explore your body and have sex as soon as you feel ready; at university you’re told you must only have sex when a number of conditions have been met, otherwise you’ll be branded a rapist and sex offender for the rest of your life.

It’s telling that in much of the sex education material pushed in schools, no mention is made of the words “love” and “marriage”. The idea that sex should be saved for a lifelong loving relationship seems prehistoric to many. But the alternative, that sex is best enjoyed with as many people as possible and from as early an age as possible, has led to a deep rooted fear between the sexes: a woman fears that she will be raped; a man fears that a woman will accuse him of rape. Precious little joy in such a situation. In reality, nothing has changed since the sixties – author and journalist Virginia Ironside has spoken of the hollowness that her generation of women experienced in the wake of the sexual revolution, and the lie that was sold to them.

Trying to solve the problem of hook-up culture with consent classes is like trying to put out a forest fire with a damp napkin. There is only one solution—and it is one that has already stood the test of time. In order to restore mutual respect, trust and affection between the sexes, we need to return to a culture where sex is seen as something precious and private, reserved for one special person. If asked in an NUS survey whether they would rather have a hundred one night stands or be cherished by one person for the rest of their life, I suspect most students would opt for the latter. So let’s ditch the lazy band-aid approach of consent classes and seek to build a society where men and women are allies, not enemies.

This article was first published on Quadrapheme.

58 COMMENTS

  1. One answer to a part of this kind of thing is the camera phone and YouTube.

    SJWarriors look ridiculous when filmed. They reveal themselves as small squealing children trapped in adult bodies. They don’t do debate, or logic. They are bullies and, when people see their behaviour (as opposed to hearing sympathetic journalists spin it) they are revolted.

    Every video is a knife in the heart of the movement.

    • I think a lot of these women are either lesbian or suffer from erotophobia and consequently all sex with a man is considered repulsive and abnormal to them.

    • This video shows how a taxi driver was indeed falsely accused and only got justice because he had a camera inside his cab.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa5kQbUl5_o

      Feminists, like all revolutionaries, were very good at destroying things, in this case morality and family life, but no good at replacing it. So we just have a wild, sexual free for all. And of course it’s women who do get hurt most by it. Rather than admit their error the feminists now want to redefine rape to mean almost anything including just regretting sex or drunk sex and also they wish to do away with things like the presumption of innocence.

      Feminism is a caner rotting away at the western civilisation.

      • Marxist Feminism is all about getting men and women to hate each other, because once men hate women they will refuse to fight in any war to defend them and thus the Marxists hope that Western capitalism will collapse. Failing that they hope that capitalist society will end up in such disarray that only a totalitarian state can resolve the situation.

        • I was in the Army for several years and even there the feminists are pushing hard. Luckily I got into the Paras and there are thankfully no women there.

          But that essential part of society and who we are, that men fight to defend their women and children is, you are right, something that cultural marxists despise and I think that is also why they push and push for women to be sent into warzones.

    • Anthony Browne* pointed out that the best way to counter PC is with ridicule and satire (this is why the left now control TV comedy, to prevent this).

      However I am not really keen on your solution of camera phone and YouTube; mostly because it is a weapon that the SJW can use to their own needs and with greater effect. Filming people with the aim to publicise and silence to me is Orwellian and a little Huxlyan.

      *Browne, A. (2006) The Retreat of Reason, London: Civitas.

    • They already tried to use a consent app, it was shut down immediately. It is something we all see on the Internet.

  2. ” with reports from the New York Times and the Telegraph showing that as many as one in three women experience sexual assault at university.”

    To arrive at such figures the various studies almost all use very skewed statistics. There are many tricks they use, one can read online, but the most important one is the feminist group conducting the survey will decide whether the person being interviewed is a victim of assault or rape. In many cases the individual woman doesn’t consider herself to have been such a victim, she might have just admitted to getting too drunk, voluntarily making out with a man and then him groping her before she pushed him off. This goes in the survey as being a “sexual assault”. Those type of tricks are very common which is why the statistics seem to bear to relation to common sense or real life experience. The statistics are as unreliable and distorted as those about the mythical “pay gap”.

    Of course “consent classes” are just a Stalinist way of forcing feminist ideology into classrooms. It is part of the way they are trying to re-define rape to include thigns that nobody normal would categorise as rape. As this article correctly points out, there has been a steep decline in morals and now women give themselves away very easily. This ultimately puts them in harm’s way. (Last year a survey was released showing that married women are the safest women and the feminist threw a fit.) Getting drunk at a party, making out with a guy, going to bed with him and then regretting it in the morning does not merit the term “rape” in any normal person’s use of the word but that’s what many feminazis want.

    So why are they doing it? They must know it’s meaningless – a rapist by definition is a man who breaks the law, he is unlikely to be dissuaded by a drippy “consent class”. Everyone knows that. The point is these classes are nothing to do with rape or consent. Such classes are not needed. However feminists want to enlarge the scope of “rape”. We have a politicised and feminist DPP who, throwing away the presumption of innocence, has instructed police to demand that suspects prove their innocence. Therein lies the clue; they want to turn morality and legality on its head. This is why they don’t even pause for breath when false rape claims are exposed; it was never to do with rape as such and everything to do with punishing men.

    Everyone knows that rape is a man having sex with a woman against her will. Implied consent is, if reasonable, a complete defence. I would say that for normal people consent is nearly always implied and not spoken clearly. This is a matter of law but the feminists want to change it. They know there would likely be uproar if they changed that law so they want to change the culture. They say now that a woman must give verbal and clear and ongoing consent. It is as strange and unrealistic as it sounds. It is rejected by nearly all normal people. So they are now using “consent classes” to push that bizarre idea into education institutes to try to brainwash people. The DPP can’t change the law on rape but can twist the guidelines for how the police investigate. Talk of “rape myths” allows them to bully ordinary people who might be on the jury into believing something that isn’t rape is in fact rape because feminist ideology has defined it as so.

    Men and women are different and this difference is nowhere more clear than in regards to attitudes to sex. Men want it, women control access to it. Feminists are enraged by this difference as it spoils their utopian plans for everyone to be the same or “equal”. So they found that once they cast off all the old morals, traditions and rules, what replaced it was simply the law of the jungle, animalistic behavior (this is very common for revolutionaries; they believe said vacuum will be filled with nice, Guardian reading people, bourgeois morality which never happens of course). And in that world, women are in many respects treated worse. Two generations ago most women did get to marry a decent if dull man who loved them and stayed with them until the day he died. Thanks to feminism, women are now lucky if he stays for breakfast.

    Give a girl aged 17-23 the choice and she will choose the bad boy. I think feminists are beginning to realise, even if they can’t face it, what a monster they have created. They very much dislike the results of their own work. In the past it was nearly always women who pushed for marriage and nearly always women who controlled their daughters and stopped them being promiscuous. And it turns out those women were sensible, women are happiest when married to a loving man. Of course that sounds boring to the 18 year old girl, which is why she needs controlling, but as women grow up they come to understand the importance of love over lust.

    Feminists have created a world where lust rules. And this is a world in which men lacking morals will take advantage of young women. One solution is to try to undo the damage done by feminism and bring back traditional morality and parental authority. The other solution is to try to redefine the words used to describe such things and shriek the word “rapist” at the men whose behaviour expose the feminists for the silly termagants they are. No prizes for guessing which approach the feminazis prefer.

    • Well in this case it was simple. The Telegraph states that they conflated “unwanted sexual advances” with sexual assault.

      I’m really surprised that as many as 2/3rds of women go through college not having had even one unwanted sexual advance. Even I had several. I’d never realised there were so many ugly chicks on campus. But then maybe for an ugly chick there is never a sexual advance that is unwanted….

      • Hmmm perhaps 2/3 of women accept all sexual advances regardless of who is issuing them? This needs investigating. we need answers and we need them fast!

      • Indeed, I didn’t even look at the link, I have read quite few others and it’s always the same sort of thing. The statistics pushed by the absurd Obama administration in the US were thoroughly debunked in the same fashion.

        Some of the statistical tricks they use would embarrass an A-level maths student. They will take a sample of 10 women and if 2 of those women regularly get drunk and make out with men and then report 3 instances each of unwanted sexual advances which the man then abandoned on being told no, to the feminazis that means 6 “assaults” from a sample of 10 women therefore “60% chance of women being assaulted” etc. therefore it’s a crisis therefore consent classes are needed etc. It’s absurd.

        • Yet again drink is the issue!!! Women can’t handle it as well or the same way as men. When men get drunk and do something stupid they have to live with the consequences. Feminists argue than women get drunk and do something stupid, men should live with the consequences!!!

    • “We have… instructed police to demand that suspects prove their innocence. Therein lies the clue; they want to turn morality and legality on its head.”

      This is the direct effect of European continental law on British common law. Prior to this, in Britain everything was legal unless the law (state) said it was not. Now, like continental laws, everything is illegal unless the state passes law allowing it.

      • Indeed, that has always struck me as the best argument to rid ourselves of the odious Human Rights Act.

        Before we had no piece of paper guaranteeing the “right to free speech” however as long as Parliament didn’t allow the government to pass a law restricting free speech in practice we had complete freedom of speech. And we really did.

        Now we have a piece of paper that says we have the “right to free speech”. And yet, as Tyson Fury found out this week, the police now investigate people for having the wrong opinions.

        If the state takes for itself the right to give us our freedoms, then it can, and will, take them away too.

      • Nails are now being hit on their heads.
        Continental “Napoleonic Law” is basically an instrument of control. It stinks. We must exit from the EU before more unjust impositions follow.

    • Jimmy, this is an excellent comment. The surveys are indeed ‘cooked’ but there is clearly something very wrong in some areas of ‘campus’. I have written a good few blogs on this, and in my view, the older generation (bullied by the feminists) have just left their kids to it, not seeming to care what happens.

      You are very astute in saying the consent classes will not make any difference to the minority of rapists out there. These men do not care about consent, they know she is not consenting or in a position (through drink) not to consent but go ahead an rape her and just lie about it afterwards.
      It is as you say about changing culture. And in particular about brow beating juries into convicting when otherwise they would not. Most juries do not label drunken misunderstandings as rape and this infuriates the feminists, and in fact the DPP. An I can tell you, female jurors are just as willing to acquit or go not guilty than male, in fact probably more so.

      In the past, young women were chaperoned for a reason.

      Might I add however, that the only proper response from conservative men to this it to opt out of the hook up culture completely. This will enrage the feminists also because as you say it will disrupt their world where lust rules.

      • Thank you for the kind words.

        I often think in general it might make an interesting study to undertake: Why feminists are so willing to misunderstand statistics. I think among any political group there will be some less scrupulous than others when it comes to statistical standards. Yet with feminism it is, in my experience, the overwhelming majority and, I notice too, that when the issue is pointed out it makes no difference at all. The handful who don’t abuse statistics are very rare indeed.

        You make the fair point that most women aren’t feminists and I can imagine this applies to juries as well. The thing with revolutionaries though is that their most zealous anger is always reserved for their own side. Right now feminists are attacking men but their deepest contempt tends to be for other women who don’t share their ideology, especially women who devote their lives to raising their children. Just as the French revolutionaries turned on one another and the Soviet and Chinese communist systems ended up killing in their millions the very people they claimed they were trying to help, so it is with feminists that their actions most harm women and I suspect sooner or later their deepest anger will be directed at women who dissent.

        Your final point is an interesting one and something I will think about. I honestly don’t know what the answer is. I have usually found that feminists are impossible to reason with and I have tended to give little thought to how the problems can be reversed or cured. There is a sort of movement called “men going their own way”, men opting out of relationships etc. The impression I have is they are often the decent normal men who are effectively punished by feminists, derided as “nice guys” and told to wait around until they can marry a woman after she has hooked up with the bad boys (Sheryl Sandberg for example explicitly advises girls to date bad boys [and today, as she knows, that means lots of sex] then marry a nice guy later). Understandably some of these men don’t want such a lifestyle and if they can’t become the bad boys they simply are walking away. I won’t deny it that for men like me feminism has probably been a short term benefit in that I have fun in ways that previous generations of men couldn’t. Living in a university city there is one year after another 18 and 19 year old girls arriving. I went back to study as a mature student after leaving the army and remain shocked by how morals have gone downhill in the last decade even, or perhaps I was at an unusual school. I will meet 18 year old girls who have had countless one night stands, several boyfriends, been on the pill for a few years and are very forward about wanting a fling with me for a few weeks then they will move on while their contempt for nice guys is terrible. When the girls are young and beautiful it is hard for a man to resist. I know those girls will very likely struggle to ever find a loving relationship later yet try to comfort myself by remembering that it isn’t just I, they have lots of guys chasing them and they just give themselves away. And then next september hundreds more 18 year olds arrive.

        Those girls would have in previous generations have been pushed by parents, the school, churches, brothers and society to withhold sex and, let’s be blunt, trade access to it in return for a lifelong commitment in marriage from a man. Today they give it away for nothing. In a certain way it’s not their fault – nobody is very wise at 18 and suddenly they have this power to seduce those they desire, it must be thrilling. For men it is something that comes much more slowly and with much more difficulty while for women it just magically appears with adolescence. I am struck by the thought that feminism has effectively made women – and it’s an awful word to use about a human being – disposable. If you allow teenagers to do as they wish they will follow lust and when it’s all about lust and sex it is, in the long term, a losing bet for women as there will always be new younger women arriving. They would have been far better off if they had been controlled and stopped from behaving so foolishly yet since the 1960s the “right of teenagers” to be promiscuous has been consistently pushed as important. It is terrible for women, for children and I think in the long term for society. Interestingly, single men who aren’t into relationships have benefited enormously in the short term.

        My grandparents married young and spent a lifetime together, they died in old age as devoted to one another as could be even if many today would dismiss their life as having been boring. If you could ask my grandmother aged 85 if she would have traded away all those decades of marriage and family life in return for the “right” to have been promiscuous when aged 16 or 18 she would have laughed. And yet if you ask the average 17 year old girl she will be unlikely to be thinking long term. That is why morals, traditions and lessons should be passed generation to generation and I suspect why feminists and other revolutionaries are always so keen to control education, to break those links that once restrained us. And it was those links that built civilisation.

        • Women view men as the enemy and that we are keeping them down but still expect men to do the traditional male things,I believe there is worse to come as men become more modern with there own revolution to come (male pills) after years of repression.

          Family has survived because society places responsibility on men, when the responsibility of family/marriage is is broken down for men( the reward of stability, children etc….) is when family will be truly broken. The hook up culture and singleness is promoted for women, until they wanna settle for a stable life, will have it’s effect on men to start and prolong getting married, soon we will see that the married man is going to be a minority, that is when more men start to live for themselves, or start to choose different lifestyles…. In this instance homosexuality being promoted will increase people to live it, especially for younger people.More men are gay 2:1 ratio (see ONS), men get the upper hand and become picky like women, to their own benefit. Children will be marginalized and people will start to choose self more than tradition, we’ll see that childlessness will increase be it due to choice (and the fact that we are getting married later) or for the latter of fact that you did not meet the one, which can be a subjective thing. Look at this website
          http://purplemotes.net/2014/06/08/men-reluctant-marry/
          http://purplemotes.net/2012/08/26/marginal-voices-men-roman-empire/

          As society will start imposes the social paradigm that a man should marry,even though it is not good for him, which is already being eroded by Hollywood, financial, social positions of people (may be MGTOW ideas (of anti-traditionalism)), we will be like Rome, history gone past.

      • Just clicking “post” I realised I wrote an awful lot! Your final point really did rather put me on the spot mentally and set me thinking about my own actions, motivations and what it means! Thanks – I do appreciate that writers on this site come “below the line” to engage with readers. There is generally here quite a friendly and well mannered standard of posting which is unusual online!

      • On the last point the amount of conservative men in society is small, ( please define conservative) many are called misogynistic for looking for a traditional woman. Also trying to control men is not the way, as we already know before that control comes from religion, social/cultural attitudes and how women act…controlling there sexually. I thought muslims got married as they had stronger cultural pressure but even they have a marriage crisis ? Globally marriage is dying, I am starting to think it is womens fault

  3. I really think this is only a problem in places where the real World is excluded, education being the prime example. Out in the streets of Ibiza, or in city centres everywhere tonight they’re doing it like rabbits.

    It’s just that all the loud noise is made from educational establishments because they don’t have anything useful to do to fill their time, poor things.

  4. There are more reliable research reports covering the incidence of rape on US campus, and acquired by the US Justice dept. I posted links to Belinda Bown already. Since a US campus has thousands of women on it, a rape rate of even 4% includes hundreds of women (or even men) and I believe the rate is actually in the early-mid teens.
    Feminism isnt a political party it’s a movement consisting of different groups of women with widely different ideologies. What one radical group thought 50 years ago (or even some recent cherry picking), doesn’t mean the same applies to all and sundry now.
    Also, and I’ve stated this before on this same subject, A University Campus has a duty of care to those living on it. From both a legal and culpable perspective, the University many be holding consent discussions to ensure students are aware what the latest law behind consent actually means. This would apply to a potential rapist, the raped (men are raped too), and also a potential ‘false accusation’, at least two of which could apply to a male student who ‘isn’t a rapist anyway’. Of course anyone should uphold their right to be stupid, and also expect the consequences.

    • It seems that the term “feminism” is now as ill-defined as the term “rape”. Rape now means “regretting losing my virginity to an experienced post-grad that really wasn’t all that great a guy but certainly knew how to get me going with a bit of bumping and grinding at a New Years party”

      Hundreds of women raped on university campuses. So there must be some that have been raped multiple times, statistically speaking. Isn’t that right?

      • The problem here is that feminists obdurately argue that they have a complete right to change their minds and retrospectively withdraw consent! This is of course a complete nonsense but I have heard them bleat on about this ad nauseum.

        • I’m not entirely against the idea of there needing to be a 24hour cooling off period between first sexual contact and going the full 9 yards, but it is entirely wrong to conflate seduction with outright rape.

          • However it is vitally important that young men are taught that the current law does “conflate seduction with outright rape”. Otherwise they will be vulnerable to malicious or confused partners.
            It may not be right but it does young men no favours to alow them to believe that the crime of rape is the same as the common public understanding of the word.

  5. The biggest problem feminists have with men is that they don’t have enough bullets to shoot them all.

  6. Feminism appears to mean absolutely anything a woman says it means! It is a meaningless term which hinders rather than aids debate!

  7. The most straightforward solution here is to ban women from drinking! With the exception of a very limited number of pre-meditated rapes almost every every single rape//sexual assault case in the UK involves either one or both parties consuming copious quantites of grog!
    In recent years we have thrown away the wisdom of centuries past. Women can’t handle grog the same way as men can. when they get drunk they do all sorts of silly things they later regret. When it comes to sex they have the advantage because they can try and pin the blame entirely on the man. Women should exercise restraint in drinking and normal inter -gender relations will resume!

  8. “with reports from the New York Times and the Telegraph showing that as many as one in three women experience sexual assault at university”

    Oh dear, you fell right into their little propaganda trap.

    The Telegraph reports states that the women suffered “sexual assault OR UNWANTED SEXUAL ADVANCES”.

    Now it seems to me there is a world of difference between someone drunkenly asking “Are you up for a shag?” and someone actually groping. Conflating the two conveniently increases the apparent frequency of the more extreme case.

    This is clearly just laughable propaganda and there is nothing more needed than to deride the group responsible for such feeble attempts at manipulating the truth.

    I myself have been on the receiving end of “unwanted sexual advances” from men. None have tried to grope me, however. You just say “No, I’m not interested, I’m 100% straight” and they leave you alone, so no harm done.

    • How does somebody making a sexual advance to another person know that the advance will be unwanted BEFORE they make it ? Unless, of course, you can only make such an approach to a person who has already signalled they want one, in which case isn’t the person doing the signalling making a potentially unwanted advance themselves ?
      The whole thing is a nonsense.

  9. I would recommend everyone watch this video to see the empty and indeed dangerous nonsense that modern feminism is infected with – it is quite incredible to watch as a courageous lady absolutely destroys Jessica Valenti before Valenti even gets to speak and she is reduced to referring to fake rape claims and lots of strange giggling and hand gestures. It’s the video Jessica Valenti tried to have removed from the internet as it is so embarrassing for her.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBsk1WzEdCA

  10. The problem here is that a lot of women have sex with people and then afterwards regret it. In years gone by wiser adults would say in the words of Sergeant Major shut up Williams ” Od dear how sad, Never mind! ” Nowadays because of cultural Marxism that is rampant particularly in the party that laughingly calls itself the Consrvative party, people are encouraged to see themselves as victims. its nonsense. wome need to grow up and take some responsibility for their lives!

  11. Women are told to be independent and that they don’t need a man, when it come to the time they want to marry they will see he wants to be more independent or requires more time, this inevitable breakdown will be amplified, as we will see this distrust manifest in to the increase in the amount of single people. The deep agenda to make us distrust each other and men start to reject norms of family/marriage etc.. and make it seem better that they trust/ become gays, the ONS say there are twice as many gay men to women, so this side of feminism is winning

  12. The world has gone mad.

    An unceasing stream of conflicting ideology aimed creating acceptance of any meme the government wishes to apply. This is exactly what Orwell predicted. We are running headlong into the arms of an authoritarian state bent on subjugating the people through a mixture of fear and confusion. When one day A gets you B and on the next it gives you C-then all consistency vanishes and the world is whatever the state tells you it is.

    The sad fact is that women are more easily manipulated by the state and men are more easily manipulated by women. Advertisers have used sex to sell to men for millennia, whilst women have always tended to seek the safety and security of men, which has now been replaced by Big brother who has branded lesser men sinful and the cause of all women’s problems.

    I think the answer is to get the hell out of dodge if you are still young enough. Out of Europe for certain. Go somewhere where individuals are left alone, where the state is small and poor. Britain is a dump, a grinding stone of debased morality and pragmatism. British value ? They are whatever they are minute by minute, there is no consistency or continuity. They are more changeable than the British weather.

    • For the young your “get out of Dodge” advice is good. But there are few western friendly nations out there, with traditional social contexts. Remote parts of Argentina perhaps ? What zones were you recommending ?

      • Singapore, New Zealand, some parts of Africa/South America maybe. Even the USA is freer than the UK. I can’t say I recommend anywhere particularly, but if someone is young and has a bit of self belief they can have a chance of doing something where opportunity remains.

        I think youngsters in the UK are crazy to hang about, getting big debt from useless degrees, poorly paying service jobs and having to live at home because rental prices have sky rocketed. This isn’t the place for anyone who wants to make a go of things. If I was younger I would be off-even now I’m wondering if I might still manage to get out.

        • Yes I know some of those areas, and I agree. I’m in mid-60’s so with hard work I was able to achieve a fair bit, all I wanted in fact. But nowadays the odds are far worse, and the county expects much for almost no reward. Yes I agree there are greener pastures elsewhere. I would not stay in this overcrowded, over priced island. The story could have been very different, even if only every other Government had been half decent at its job.

  13. Excellent article, so well said. The pyrrhic victory of free love is revealed for the empty lie it always was. Humans are more than just the sum of their anatomy and physical pleasure sensors. We are each, spiritual and cognitive creatures embodied in these our visible physical bodies.

  14. Brilliant. You do nail the fundamental problem in bringing together the idea that sex is a natural and healthful exercise to be participated in all forms and a valuable form of self expression. And the notion that penis’s are somehow vicious weapons wielded by selfish crazed sex maniacs using their “weapon” to enforce a primitive dominance. It doesn’t add up and causes far more damage than coming up with some principled view based on the obvious biological truth that sex is fundamentally about our reproduction.

    • He wasn’t prescient. He had infiltrated the Fabians and knew exactly what they were planning. Everything you see the left doing now was planned by the Fabians decades ago. 1984 was set to be exactly 100 years after the founding of the Fabians. Orwell just wrote down what he believed their plans would bring us after 100 years.

  15. How about this for an idea. If you want to have sex with someone, you go along to the local town hall and ask a duly appointed registrar to record your status as consenting adults. To avoid confusion, this would be better if you could only register one relationship at any one time.

    Some people might even get into the habit of celebrating the registration of this relationship. After sitting through the ceremony, they could all go to a suitably decorated hall, have a celebration meal where friends and family make speeches about the happy couple. There would be a lot of alcohol as well.

    If you wanted to start a relationship with someone else, you could go to a duly appointed judge and ask him to rescind the earlier registration. You might need a lawyer to prepare a pre-relationship agreement, laying out what each will get when the relationship collapses. Naturally, there will be those who refuse such agreements, saying their relationship is for life.

  16. Rape and sexual assault existed long before 1963 when, according to poet Philip Larkin. Sexual intercourse began. The sex education programmes (such as they were) of Victorian and twentieth century Britain and elsewhere did not have the knowledge or skills to deal with the subject of ‘consent’. Now they do and these are being applied. What’svwrongbwith that?

  17. What definition of “sexual assault” are feminists using today? Have they got as far as “looking at a woman without consent” yet?

    I’m reminded of a case recently in which a man who had got drunk woke up at a party to find himself being fellated by a woman he had never met. The next day, when they had both sobered up, the woman reported him for sexual assault – because she too was drunk and had not given consent for his penis to be in her mouth. Apparently men can now rape women when they are unconscious.

  18. Today I tell any young man to record everything anytime they are with a female. Phones today can record hundreds of hours of audio. I also encourage them to never marry, and if they do, they must get an airtight agreement.
    I especially endorse this for young British men because this country is the most anti male country in the west and Im sorry to say I find a good proportion of British women to be quite demanding and unpleasant on the whole. I can only say this as I have spent considerable time living in different countries. i was never,and still am not anti British female, Im just saying i found women abroad to be much less anti male. Particularly eastern European and Russian women whom Ive enjoyed their company very much.

  19. It is trying to control mens sexuality, or even turn them effeminate/gay agenda. Globally there is a marriage exodus,marriage is dying, especially in more industrialized countries, I am starting to think it is womens fault.

Comments are closed.