“Casual about Sex, serious about Consent” is an apt summation of the sexual ethics being proposed by Consent vigilantes parading a University Campus near you. This isn’t going away anytime soon, at least not whilst those making a list of consent contract points which both parties in the course of casual intercourse have to sign to make sure one party does not make an accusation in the morning. A major point made in the Washington Post article quoted earlier, is in the rendering asunder of Sex from its original context, just as most things typically are in this new age we live in. Branches when not found on trees, make nice firewood.
And so, the push-back has begun. Lawlor vs Throup. Dave Chapelle was right 10 years ago and so was Budziszewski, who seems to be channeling Justin Beiber in “What do you mean”. The quote below though isn’t to be construed as a charge of irrationality on the part of women but an indictment on us all and the ones who end up shouldering a lot of the consequences of the muddle headed thinking of nowadays is women.
One common rationalization is to say “No” while doing “Yes” in order to tell oneself afterward “I didn’t go along”. William Gairdner reports that according to one rape crisis counselor, many of the women who call her do not do so to report that they have been raped, but to ask whether they were raped. If they have to ask, of course, they probably have not been; they are merely dealing with their ambivalence by throwing the blame for their decisions on their partners. But this is a serious matter. Denial leads to the further wrong of false witness.
J. Budziszewski, The Revenge of Conscience
Here is Dave Chapelle, I’m guessing this will be showed at the next Consent workshop at Warwick University