In response to Emily Watson: Consent classes are the rotten fruit of the sexual revolution, jimmy wrote:
“With reports from the New York Times and The Daily 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 redefine rape to include things 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 is 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 Director of Public Prosecutions 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 with regard 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 behaviour (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.