Education, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

The New Puritans

9 Comments

The “sexual consent” brigades get more whack by the day:

The contract states in big red letters: “YES! We agree to have SEX!” (emphasis original), and asks participants to take a photo together holding the contract. If a camera can’t be found, then the participants would need to fill out the form included on the back of the contract.

The group provided the Washington Examiner with an image of the form, which simply states that on this date (fill-in-the-blank) “We agree to have consensual sex with one another.” The form also provides spaces for two parties to sign and print their names.

Even that probably wouldn’t be enough of a defense against an accusation, when all an accuser has to do is say she was too drunk to consent to the photo or the sexual activity. And remember, if the handwriting on the back is noticeably slurred by both parties (meaning the accused was also too drunk to consent) it doesn’t matter, only the accuser’s word matters.

Also, the word “sex” seems far too vague to me. It seems like they’ll need specific subforms for oral (him on her, her on him, him on him), anal, rough stuff, etc.

9 thoughts on “The New Puritans”

  1. If only they’d apply rules to themselves and die out.

    But rules are for the other guys.

  2. I remember when one of your trolls kept talking about how Republicans wouldn’t be getting sex because they opposed corporate paid birth control. Now we have Republicans trying to make birth control OTC and Progressives out making sex a formal business contract.

  3. I wonder if they realize that their “contract” runs afoul of their own diversity guidelines?

    I’m referring to both the symbol at the top (a combined male and female symbol), as well as their stance that it’s the man’s responsibility to obtain consent. Surely, this is an intolerable affront to gays and transgendered, so unleash the PC police on these hatemongers!

    However, is the concept of a contract-to-have-sex such an awful idea? It could be improved upon to get rid of some concerns. For example, how about the prospective couple (or trio, or whatever) must fill in a document the details their intent to have sex, as well as their reasoning as to why the intended to do so (a 15 page essay-format ought to suffice.). Once the document is filled in, signed, and notarized, it can then be submitted to one of several oversight committees, for discussion, debate, and eventually approval or disapproval. This procedure can be based upon the “may issue” procedure for concealed carry permits in use in some states. The contract proposal will need to be updated and re-certified by all parties during the application period, to ensure that no one has had second thoughts in the intervening months.

    After a preliminary approval has been obtained, the contract can then be submitted, just like a lawsuit, into the court system for final adjudication. If this final step results in approval, the couple (or trio, or whatever) will then, and only then, be authorized to have sex. Due to the timeframes involved in the approval process, the forms could include (for college students) a medicare enrollment form.

    1. I won’t recommend either the book or movie, because they are for fans of the Twlight series, but apparently Fifty Shades of Grey covers the business concept. To see what I mean, checkout either Cinemasins “Everything wrong with…” or Screen Junkies “Honest Trailer” via YouTube. You’ll note once the paperwork is complete, apparently a lot of kinky stuff can supposedly happen.

      I guess I’m an old fashioned conservative that thinks two people, who spend just a little time getting to know each other, can figure out what to do and what each other wants, without negotiations written down for possible third party review. Most third parties would want video anyway. But today we have Progressive prudes running ruining everything.

      1. I totally agree, Leyland.

        I was trying to satire their proposal with one of my own (a process so lengthy and bureaucratic that college students would be pushing 65 before approval, if granted, would occur) , but they’ve done such a good job of satiring themselves that I really can’t. 🙂

        1. I got your satire and enjoyed it. I just couldn’t believe a story/movie about S&M would include a PDR/CDR.

  5. Here’s the problem, though.

    “Yes means Yes” is ostensibly a riff on the old “No means NO!” movement. Except, in this case, “Yes” doesn’t mean “Yes”, “Yes means Well, mostly maybe, but only if the following preconditions are already met and cleared.”

    Because, as we have seen, “Yes actually means No” if the Yes is given under duress, coercion, the influence of alcohol or other drugs, if the relationship is one of unequal power, etc.

    “Affirmative consent” is the new “zero tolerance” (in which kids can’t eat their pop-tarts into the shape of a gun without ending up tossed out on their ear).

    Frankly, as a single male, movements like this in today’s society are beginning scare the hell out of me, and have ruined dating to a certain extent. On a date, the woman may be thinking, “does he like me, will he finally kiss me?”, while the man is thinking, “if I don’t get her consent to kiss her, will I end up in the back seat of a police car?” I have, in fact, asked for consent from the last three women I kissed after a date. And while I’ve managed to come off as “endearing” so far, first kisses and other “firsts” in a relationship are supposed to be about siezing the moment and reading the signals as to when the moment is right, not about wondering how many hours, days, or years one might spend in jail for leaning in too soon.

  6. Should be big business in fraudulent certificates in the names of the most beautiful babes.

    I’d hawk them at a booth on campus. Or from a briefcase.

Comments are closed.