Friday, August 29, 2014

Affirmative consent

The California legislature passes a sexual consent law based on Antioch College's much-mocked campus standard that was so ludicrous, it inspired an SNL-skit.
State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when “yes means yes” while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses. The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. are under pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill.
The actual law is described more clearly here.
You may have heard of this bill as the one that would require students to draft up a written sex contract before bed or constantly proclaim “yes, yes, yes!” at every slight readjustment, thereby practically redefining most sex as rape. The Fresno Bee editorial board interpreted the bill to mean that “ ‘yes’ only means ‘yes’ if it is said aloud.” The Daily Californian, the independent student newspaper of UC–Berkeley, also claimed that affirmative consent is necessarily verbal. RH Reality Check advanced the game to approvingly say that affirmative consent requires “a verbal or written yes.” If consensual sex entailed that level of consent, millions of couples would be unsuspectingly raping one another every night of the week.

But the bill doesn’t actually require those things. It calls for “an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity."* (While the bill initially warned that “relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding,” that language has since been stricken.) Update, June 24, 2014: As of June 18, the bill's definition reads: "'Affirmative consent' means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity."

It’s understandable that commentators would jump to the conclusion that affirmative consent requires sex partners to engage in a constant Q&A—or else a finely drawn sex contract—because the bill doesn’t define what “clear, unambiguous” consent would actually look like. Perhaps some remember Antioch College’s infamous 1991 sexual assault rules, which did require all partners to verbally request and assent to every stage of sexual activity—“body movements and non-verbal responses such as moans” didn’t cut it. But the California legislation’s language becomes clearer when it specifies which situations do not constitute consent. “Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,” the bill reads. “The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.” Parties can’t consent when they’re asleep or unconscious, or incapacitated from drugs or alcohol.
Well, this should TOTALLY make things less complicated for everyone. I wonder how long it will be before young women start complaining that they are being sexually harassed by men demanding signed and notarized documents before kissing them.
Male Date Rape Player #1: May I compliment you on your halter top?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. You may.

Male Date Rape Player #1: It's very nice. May I kiss you on the mouth.

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. I would like you to kiss me on the mouth.

[ they kiss on the mouth ]

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I elevate the level of sexual intimacy by feeling your buttocks?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. You have my permission.

[ Male touches Female's buttocks ]

Male Date Rape Player #1: May I raise the level yet again, and take my clothes off so that we could have intercourse?

Female Date Rape Player #1: Yes. I am granting your request to have intercourse.

[ scene ends ]

Dean Frederick Whitcomb: Contestants?

Ariel Helpern-Strauss: [ buzzes in ] Date Rape! 

61 comments:

totenhenchen said...

"Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time."

Including days, weeks, or months after, as is the de factor standard now.

Remember when liberals used to demand that the government stay out of our bedrooms? Me, too. *le sigh*

Glen Filthie said...

Contrast all this with the favourite fiction and 'chick lit' that women like to read. They fantasize about muscle bound pirates ripping their bodices off and taking them on the poop deck, HAR HAR HAR!!!

ThisIsTheJosh said...

Why can't these conservatives stay out of our bedrooms?!

SarahsDaughter said...

Of course we all know that should this get passed, it won't be long before more rational minds prevail and they develop, for those who so desire, some sort of permanent contract of consent. You know, for those couples who really don't want to do all this paperwork and such, who, I don't know, could maybe say a vow of consent before witnesses and sign their names on a contract....oh wait.

Owen said...

Look at this from a positive perspective.

Maybe this will mean the end of dating and a return to deliberate courtship for the purpose of marriage.

Imagine what a progressive world it will usher in when young men and women are chaperoned, families carefully vet each other, the young man must show the means to provide and the young lady must show she has not engaged in "rape" with others.

It's like a futuristic utopia of female empowerment.

Trust said...

@ ThisIsTheJosh said... Why can't these conservatives stay out of our bedrooms?!
_______

What conservatives are in your bedrooms? I only see socialists from both parties.

cailcorishev said...

Consent Game: bringing a girl back to your dorm room and getting her worked up, then pulling out a ten-page form in triplicate and requiring her to read through it all and sign each page while you smell her hair and play the "I'm not touching you" game around her. The last page is a long list of acts where she has to initial each one that she wants. By the time she gets there, she should be ready to sign up for anything.

The Consent Game: competing with your buddies to see who can get the most girls to sign up for the lewdest acts:

"Hey, check it out, the girl I had last night checked the 'anal' box and the 'come in my hair' box."
"Oh, you think that's good? Look at this; the one I had last night wrote in, 'Spank me with a piece of Hot Wheels track and make me call you Poppa,' because I didn't have a box for that."
"Dude, I'm totally adding a box for that to my form."

Crowhill said...

Wow, a written agreement before sex? Like, perhaps, a marriage certificate? Funny hoe puritanical the left is getting. :-)

Yohami said...

Even if applied, It wouldnt be long before feminists complain that the consent contract is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy.

She changes her mind after signing, or sex less was less than enthusiastic, or has remorse, or she signed yes because of peer pressure or she had had alcohol or she was too horny for her own good or she was put under the spot = she was raped. You shall not use her previous verbal or written consent against her.

The absence of a contract means that the sex was rape, but the presence of a signed contact doesnt mean the sex wasnt rape.

totenhenchen said...

@Glen Filthie

*in* the poop deck

"lolllzlzolololzollloolz!" - GBFM

ThisIsTheJosh said...

Trust said...

@ ThisIsTheJosh said... Why can't these conservatives stay out of our bedrooms?!
_______

What conservatives are in your bedrooms? I only see socialists from both parties.

Roger that. Sarcasm.

GF Dad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

Won't being before signed notarized consents become proof of default.

Jere said...

Wow, I keep imagining a campus full of these retards being overrun by ISIS and thier hysterical reactions when faced with their Sharia tribunals. Gaggles of feminists protesting feebly as they are Burkha'ed and their limp wristed Beta BF's get thier hands sliced off with a dull scimitar.

de ti said...

We all know that none of this will apply to sexually desirable men, who will get to do whatever (and whomever) they wish.

brian said...

, who will still get to do whatever (and whomever) they wish.

FIFY.

pdwalker said...

Insanity.

Cataline Sergius said...

Decent politics if they are in fact thinking that far ahead.

This one will be getting shot down by the SCOTUS for violation of due process and reversing the burden of proof. Just in time for the next War on Women news cycle during the 2016 presidential elections.

Today the Republican controlled Supreme Court legalized RAAAAAAAAPPPEEE!!!!!

It should play well for a key demographic for the Democrats. The low information female voter.

Bob Wallace said...

"We all know that none of this will apply to sexually desirable men, \"

You're wrong about that. A very good-looking. popular friend of mine was accused by a woman of "sexually harassing" her (I was, too, for that matter, with another woman). Our crimes? We didn't want to be involved with them (hell has no fury like a woman scorned). So this nonsense is going to increase men avoiding women but still having more complaints filed against them - including "Alphas" (sic) - while nothing can be done to stop the real, psychopathic "Dark Triad" rapists.

Trust said...

@ ThisIsTheJosh said...

Apologies. I didn't get the sarcasm. Liberals who project their tendency to control onto conservatives are not uncommon.

brian said...

Bob -

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that for attractive men, the risk is there, but the opposite of what it is for unattractive men?

i.e. unattractive man: "Hi!", woman: "RAPE!"
woman "Hi!", attractive man: "...", woman "RAPE!"

I hope you're wrong.

Cataline Sergius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Deuce said...

The one way to fight this is for men to make a habit of accusing women of rape after consensual sex, until it becomes so onerous for them that the women demand an end to the law themselves.

The downside is, you will only want to do this with fat ugly women that you don't actually want a relationship with afterwards. On the plus side, this will make it more believable that you didn't actually want to have sex with her, and the copious alcohol you will have to drink to make it work will allow you to better make the case that you were too incapacitated to give consent.

Cataline Sergius said...

On a more practical note, this level of negotiation is usually reserved for a rather severe BDSM session.

Your only real hope here. After sex text accuse the woman of cis-gender raping you.

Now this will mean taking some sort of oath homosexuality before hand. Marrying your wingman is good place to start. Keep in mind there are some advantages to filing a joint tax return.

Be sure to specify that you are pre-post-op-regressive-trasnsexual-compound-transvestite. Which is why you still wear men's clothing and behave in a cis-gendered manner but make no mistake my dear I am screaming bender with no more right to live on God's clean Earth than a weasel.

Game advantage to you as a married gay man. As a married man, preselection is now in your favor. You've got a wedding ring on. You are now one of the good ones that is taken.

You and your wingman can now safely cruise one of the best pick up spots in the universe; The Gay Bar (so much better than welfare offices and abortion clinics). Girls that have just had a break up flock to those places and since girls travel in packs they will bring their friends with them, (you will need to be able to dance BTW). Just tell any men that approach you that you and your husband are exclusive.

Or you can do the sensible thing and skip college and get a job. Life is short get out there.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

At this point, I'd argue that any college guy who wants to have sex needs to have the entire interaction with the girl on video, possibly streamed live. Even then, the disciplinary board on campus will ignore it and still call him a rapist should the girl regret it afterwards.

Some dude said...

because the bill doesn’t define what “clear, unambiguous” consent would actually look like

First off, consent in this law means whatever the judge wants it to mean. That's a nightmare right there.

Second, how do you prove any of this? Are we expected to tape the entire sex act?

For that matter, what about accusations of "date rape" between long time partners, or between spouses? How about between two gay men, or two gay women? What happens if the man says that the woman took advantage of him, based on this law, what is to stop men from preemptively accusing women of date-raping them?

How about this, what exactly is a "date"? What if a man and a woman are working in the same office with a closed door for an hour, can she accuse him of date rape then? What exactly is "sexual activity" according to this lunatic law? Is a handshake sexual activity? Tongue? Butt pat? The article doesn't say. But if a pat on the butt would count as sexual activity, then technically two college football players are walking off the field and one pats the other on the butt, does that mean the receiver of the butt pat can put his friend in jail for "date rape"?

How about a kiss on the cheek? Is that sexual activity? A footrub? What? What are the lines? What the hell is this law supposed to mean anyway?

This law is simply more of an out of control government criminalizing every act under the sun, so that if they want to throw you in prison they can do so regardless of what you have or haven't done.

There is a deep sickness in Western society. Anyone who can get out, should.

Brad Andrews said...

> Remember when liberals used to demand that the government stay out of our bedrooms?

They only wanted that when they didn't have the power to force their wills on others.

Remo said...

Apparently the current domestic violence laws weren't enough to get the husband out - so now its full on rape. I assume this law applies to married people? What a useful new tool for increasing the magnitude of the opening divorce salvo. Rape is a felony so that means no job if you had one, which means c.s. can't be paid, which means jail for life. Anybody want to get married and live in California?

Bobby Dupea said...

In Sheryl Sandberg's sequel Lean In for Graduates she identifies a new threat to Strong Independent Woman: the "Nice Guy Misogynist."

The NGM dutifully provides for a traditional SAHM and therefore, though a useful draft horse, cannot possibly be fair to women who just want to be treated fairly at the office. (Remember, Sandberg openly informs her girls that the only appropriate man to marry is not the bad boys of their youth, but a man who will place her needs first. Then she pretends that educated women do not drop out of the workforce or work part-time once they're married.)

The unintended meaning of this trope is that nice guys, who are annoying if necessary beta bucks providers, should really be seen for what they are: misogynists.

When men bend to the affirmative consent rules, meeting the new socially-engineered specification of the non-rapey evolved man, they'll be seen as "nice guy misogynists". Their inability to know when a woman wants, and when she doesn't want, overt sexual attention will be his failing. They'll be too "nice" to realize how their discriminating libidos are discriminatory.

(p. 193, Lean In For Graduates)

--BuenaVista

jimmy-jimbo said...

There must be an app for this. Otherwise, it is much too difficult to keep track of your sexual consents.

The obvious solution is don't date another student, but what if you date a student from another college? Will there be cross adjudication of complaints.

Anyways, I'm sure dating on campus is now the new no-no. This doesn't even address sexual harrassment, only sexual assaults.

Perhaps there must be men's sexual assault insurance. At any whiff of a complaint, the male student must immediate seek an injunction to stop the proceeding until he can participate in due process.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

Funny hoe puritanical the left is getting

Too true. This is where the Left joins hands with the tradcons and Churchians.

Indeed there is an argument to be made that this sort of feminism itself is an attempt by non-comely females to apply strict regulations and standards to male romantic behaviour, thereby aiding their own romantic/sexual success.

Like delta/gamma/omega males, feminists do not necessarily thrive in a free sexual market.

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

You're wrong about that. A very good-looking. popular friend of mine was accused by a woman of "sexually harassing" her (I was, too, for that matter, with another woman). Our crimes? We didn't want to be involved with them (hell has no fury like a woman scorned).

How uncivilized, in my day women only accused me of being homosexual when I rejected them.

There must be an app for this. Otherwise, it is much too difficult to keep track of your sexual consents.

Its called the record button.

Owen said...

The obvious solution is don't date another student,

Duke lacrosse "rape" farce. Stripper pulls a train, calls it rape, destroys the lives of about a dozen guys.

Not being a student wouldn't make a difference.

Jack Amok said...

The software industry has the solution for this. A line of California Men's Underwear that has a consent form printed on the front stating "By removing this wrapper, you hereby consent to sexual relations with the wearer, including but not limited to ..."

Might need to come up with another name for it besides "shrink-wrap agreement" though.

Retrenched said...

From Zenpriest's essay on rape:

Theres an old workplace poster that talks about a job that "anybody could have done, but it was really nobody's job, so nobody did it, if somebody had done it, things would have been so much better". Men have been very clearly socialized to understand that the shit work of sexual initiation is "their job." However, when the situation is created where an act is both required AND prohibited, almost everyone will make the choice which carries the lesser sanction. In todays culture that means waiting for the woman to "intiate sex out of her own sincere affection and desire" as Robin Morgan demands to avoid a rape charge. No man goes to prison for the crime of waiting. Men and women alike are waiting for Godot, who never shows up. ...

Men are still expected, and under great social pressures, to initiate, but are demanded to do so entirely in accordance with women's specifications, desires, and needs. Failure to meet any of these is punishable by imprisonment. Men as human beings have been completely dropped out of the picture: and the expectation now is that they will function either like flesh and blood vibrators or the hero of some romance novel or chick flick embodying a totally dysfunctional blend of contradictory and mutually exclusive characteristics. Needless to say, not many men are passing romantic muster these days. ...

Men now accept "No" as meaning "no". "Maybe" is also regarded as "no." Since "yes" can never mean really mean yes, any "yes" which is not delivered in writing and notarized is interpreted as a "conditional yes": yes (if there is a commitment forthcoming). The hostility that this breeds in men is illustrated by the man who got the "no, maybe, yes, no, no I mean yes" treatment then pulled away from his "date" and began masturbating. While it is easy to see how this was obviously quite hostile and probably hurt the woman's "delicate" feelings, any empathy for her point of view is tempered by the fact that the political climate makes her ambivalence quite safe while ignoring it has assumed life-changing risks for the man.

http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2005/01/eotm-rape.html

Jason773 said...

The manosphere has it wrong on this one. This isn't the doing of feminists; it's the doing of deltas, gammas and white knights, all of whom love umambiguous rules when it comes to anything and everything. They also secretly know that this will help level the playing field against alphas and beta, as even alphas care if a sexual assault charge is levied upon them.

jimmy-jimbo said...

"Duke lacrosse "rape" farce."

Hey, the police was involved in this one.

Owen said...

Hey, the police was involved in this one.

True, but the faculty had already held their court and decided the guilt. The only thing that saved those boys was the court system. Now, rape is too important to trust to the legal system.

Retrenched said...

It's a mistake to think that "alphas" aren't going to be affected by this. Yes, they'll still get laid, but it's what happens after the relationship ends that alphas will have to worry about. For example, a woman gives herself freely to a football star without signing the forms, having a fling with him for a couple of weeks, and then charging with with "rape" when he stops returning her calls.

pancakeloach said...

@SD

LOL sooooooo true. It's deeply amusing to watch feminist fantasy worldbuilding laboriously create... exactly what traditional society already has. They think their contracts are different, of course.

JCclimber said...

I see some black knighting potential in this situation......
If you get enough men to participate, this could be hilarious as the leftist idiots scramble to revise or abort the law when it backfires.

Except I doubt we have enough men with balls to black knight on the college campuses.

Owen said...

JC,
I can see a fraternity or national fraternity employing it if it feels as if enough brothers were persecuted.

ray said...

"You're wrong about that. A very good-looking. popular friend of mine was accused by a woman of "sexually harassing" her (I was, too, for that matter, with another woman). Our crimes? We didn't want to be involved with them (hell has no fury like a woman scorned). So this nonsense is going to increase men avoiding women but still having more complaints filed against them - including "Alphas" (sic) - while nothing can be done to stop the real, psychopathic "Dark Triad" rapists."


Exactly. This is spite-legislation, driven by females and their enablers and parents. Quality men began separating from female 'relationships' decades ago, and the current Hate Rape legislation is reactive to that -- as well as just being about raw power for the Perfect Princesses, of course.

The design behind this is to further separate and alienate the sexes, by giving one all the State power and the other all the State punishment. It's like when I stop commenting on some woman's blog. The next step is to write a post entitled 'Should men be allowed to comment on this blog?' LOL! Same scorned-woman game being played out in this legislation.

Females -- especially middle-aged females, who are almost all practical feminists -- are absolutely enraged by the fruits of their own malevolent ideology. When you are no longer being offered the banana, the female tactic is to protest loudly that she needs it not anyway, and that New Rules are being drafted to ensure that all those who don't want what she has, must sign Triplicate Consent forms first. Female logic!

Cheers.

K said...

I suggest it's the feminist answer to the imbalance between men and women in college admissions. The significantly lower number of males vs females puts the males at a sexual advantage. Re-defining sexual harassment and due process is an effort to even the odds.

1sexistpig2another said...

Remember when liberals used to demand that the government stay out of our bedrooms?

They never wanted the government out of our bedrooms. They wanted their perversions no longer confined to their bedrooms. They wanted their "morals" out in the open where everyone could then be forced to accept them.

cailcorishev said...

If it's possible for a husband to be convicted of raping his wife, then clearly, it's not ever possible to have "enough consent." A video of her begging you for every stroke might help, but eventually some guy who thinks he's covered that way will run into a judge who declares that he must have manipulated her into that state before he started filming so she didn't reeeeally consent. That's the point of this: to make it possible for any woman to team up with a willing judge to get revenge for regret-sex. It won't work in every case, or even in most cases, but that's not the point either: the point is to make things harder for men, to make men afraid to be men, to confuse and disrupt the normal interplay between masculine men and feminine women seeking a mate.

The manosphere has it wrong on this one. This isn't the doing of feminists; it's the doing of deltas, gammas and white knights, all of whom love unambiguous rules when it comes to anything and everything.

Those are all feminists. You know men can be feminists, right?

1sexistpig2another said...

Maybe this will mean the end of dating and a return to deliberate courtship for the purpose of marriage.

The thought that this might cut down on fornication did cross my mind, and it may very well do that for many a male. Still, I think that the less then virtuous girls playing these kinds of games will still find guys with nothing to lose, who are willing to fill in the void left by other guys who are not willing to play American rape roulette. Either way, this perpetuates the high number of non-marriageable women and is not likely to end well.

Matamoros said...

Here is an interesting observation by Robert Lewis Dabney, the Southern Presbyterian divine:

“It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution to be denounced and adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves towards perdition….It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.”

-----Robert L. Dabney. “Women’s Rights Women” in “Discussions,” vol. IV, “Secular,” The Writings of Robert L. Dabney, originally published in 1897; republished by Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, Virginia, 1994. p. 496. ↩

Trust said...

Just make all men rapists and let women decide who gets prosecuted. That's the goal.

vashine said...

It's amazing how many human beings will waste their lives with silliness such as this, while the world outside burns.

Great quote Matamoros. Just head towards National Review online and you'll see the sorry state of conservatism, the deltas and gammas running the show over there, wringing their hands, firing off missives from their ivory towers denouncing this or that, while no one cares or listens. They are utterly useless, weak, craven, and, worse than all of those, boring. Insipid.

Any conservative who never called for the abolishment of legal tender laws (the jugular of the entire FED monetary system and therefore the military-industrial complex) or the public school system and the Dept. of Education (the jugular of the liberal-marxist movement) was doing no one any good. Just delaying the inevitable, not truly fighting evil.

Jason Roberts said...

The Junior Anti-Sex League is not far behind.

You and Heartiste would make fabulous consultants for trial lawyers.

Retrenched said...

"Consent", as the feminists define the term, never truly exists, because as Yohami said above all she has to do is say that she felt "pressured" into (saying yes/signing the forms/putting his penis in her mouth/begging him to fuck her) and all that goes out the window.

Unless the accused male is a Democratic President or Senator (congressmen and mayors are more expendable) then feminists will just assume the man must be guilty of whatever it is the woman is accusing him of.

1sexistpig2another said...

Any conservative who never called for the abolishment of legal tender laws (the jugular of the entire FED monetary system and therefore the military-industrial complex) or the public school system and the Dept. of Education (the jugular of the liberal-marxist movement) was doing no one any good. Just delaying the inevitable, not truly fighting evil.

Fact of the matter is today's conservatives are conserving the leftist and feminist ideas of previous generations.

Jack Amok said...

You look around the round world, and what do you see? Armed rebellions, invasions, looting, piracy, vigilantism - law and order is breaking down. Slowly in some places, quickly in others, but these silly little people in California are consolidating their hold on The Law at the point in time when The Law is beginning to tumble from power.

Power is fleeting, but at least the Right had it's moment in the sun at the height of civilization. The Left will have their brief appearance on the podium as everything turn to shit.

tacticaltoolbox said...

http://www.thetacticaltoolbox.com/images/Sexual-Consent-Form-2014.pdf

A little something which should become quite popular....

Johnny Caustic said...

Fifty-odd comments in, I can't believe nobody has given the key advice yet:

Listen up, guys. You are STRONGLY ADVISED to start recording all your sex acts.

I am not being flip. This is real advice. I am not being hypothetical. There are already many examples of false rape accusations that fell apart when the accused brought forth a recording of the event in which the lady was heard to be participating with great enthusiasm.

Find an app for your phone that will allow you easily record whatever is happening in the room. Learn how to start it discreetly and quickly. Use it every time. Even better if you can get video, but audio surely beats nothing.

Post-first-sex, always send the girl a text like "Had a great time last night." After she replies, back up the texts on your computer. Keep backups of those backups at a separate location. Maintain all your text conversations for life.

For an eye-opener, read this:

http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/feral-skank-ho-mommies-feral-young-boys/

Note for that post: FRA = False Rape Accusation. TL;DR: "So how did steve beat the FRA rap, well steve recorded himself fucking johnny's mum with his smartphone, ALL these cats do this all the fucking time."

P.S. Does the California law specify how many milliseconds a man has to withdraw his dick from a lady's pussy when she withdraws consent?

www.hotsugarbabes.co.uk said...

You can also book escorts in London from our website Hot Sugar babes we have very sexy and elite models In London ready for you every time.
Call us NOW AND BOOK : 07425 111 091
Escorts In London

Akulkis said...

Power is fleeting, but at least the Right had it's moment in the sun at the height of civilization. The Left will have their brief appearance on the podium as everything turn to shit.

That's not a coincidence, it's a consequence. First they had to undermine and subvert EVERYTHING in society to get at the podium... now that they've turned the culture into shit, now and only now can they even compete for the podium.

papabear said...

"It may be inferred again that the present movement for women’s rights will certainly prevail from the history of its only opponent, Northern conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution to be denounced and adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves towards perdition….It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle.”

Deo vindice.

Corvinus said...

@papabear

That's exactly the difference between a conservative and a traditionalist. A conservative is simply a liberal who is uncomfortable with the progressive agenda now, but will acclimatize to it once the latest progressive idiocy becomes conventionally accepted. As an example, in twenty years time, your typical conservative will be fully in favor of gay marriage and will vehemently attack anybody who questions it.

papabear said...

The [neo-]Yankees will get what they deserve...

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.