The Wall Street Journal noted that Princeton has hopped aboard the curtailment of due process rights for male college students. Wesleyan University has announced that it will require its two fraternities to go co-ed. Forbes pulled down a post by MIT’s Chi Phi fraternity alumni house president and contributor, Bill Frezza, and summarily “fired” him, for writing “Drunk Female Guests Are The Gravest Threat To Fraternities.” An editorial in MIT’s Tech disavowed his “regressive” victim blaming.
California has now enacted a law, previously discussed as SB 967, requiring colleges to establish an affirmative consent standard, colloquially known as “yes means yes,” for sexual contact. Sexual assault is anything that isn’t approved, and affirmative consent is an ongoing requirement during the course of human contact.
Contrary to reports, the law doesn’t turn sex into rape per se when one or both have been drinking alcohol, but when one is “incapacitated” such that their consent cannot be deemed voluntary. It’s a hard line to ascertain, but the message is to err on the side of precaution when drinking is involved.
The foundation for this is a wealth of anecdotes by women who feel compelled to tell their stories and the claim that one in five women will be sexually assaulted in college, a statistic repeated often enough as to gain credence despite its deserving none.
For a while now, the slide of sexual assault and rape from defined offenses, wrongs that provide guidance as to how not to engage in such wrongful conduct, to vague rhetoric and hysteria has been coming. It seems to have begun its slide with the Duke Lacrosse scandal, ironic because it was a false rape, but one that galvanized academia against a pervasive crime that didn’t happen. It provided the foothold for those politically inclined toward neo-chivalry to climb the mountain. And they did.
For whatever reason, enough college males not only failed to resist being tainted as inherent rapists, but decided they preferred to embrace the position of feminist ally. Some say it’s because they didn’t want the loudest woman in the room to start screaming “rapist” or “misogynist” when they walked in. Others believe. So be it.
If everyone is happy with this new sexual relationship, with non-definitions defining who they are and what they can do, that’s their choice. It seems unlikely to work, an elevation is childishness over substance, but they will find out for themselves. Should things go south, those who support this new world gender order will need to deal with it. Or if they’re happy being pushed around, then that will be how they live their lives.
A quip at the end of the WSJ piece suggests that the writer would have no problem sending his princess to Princeton, but not so his prince. Why not? If his prince is happy to play by the new rules, and the new rules are now pervasive across campuses nationwide, soon to become the rules of broader society when this generation, Generation Wuss as Bret Easton Ellis calls them, gets the chance to recreate society to its liking, then all is well.
If the boys and girls of campus are cool with all this, from the desecration of due process to crimes without definitions, who is an old lawyer to disagree? And if they aren’t cool with it, where are their voices rising in opposition?
Voices in opposition, like the ham-handed post of Bill Frezza, are intolerable. Forbes is a private actor, and has every right to pull Frezza’s post at will. But would the MIT Tech have published a politically incorrect post? Not likely.
Aside from the question of whether this gender agenda is viable or acceptable, or a feminist fantasy that will ultimately prove as absurd and phony as it appears from afar, there is a question of whether a greater agenda item has been quietly accomplished in the process. Has disagreement been quashed, silenced, eradicated?
Granted, anyone disagreeing with the new sexual agenda has been subject to a torrent of ad hominem attacks, immediately branded “misogynist,” “rape apologist,” or worse. The irony that those whining most about being silenced are the ones doing most of the silencing, but it remains that they’ve succeeded to a huge extent. They have scared off the timid, those who don’t feel strongly enough or see the problem clearly enough to be willing to suffer the attacks.
It’s one thing for our bubble-wrapped babies to lack the gumption to stand up for themselves, to take personal responsibility for their actions. They are soft. They are the product of the Age of Emotion. But they have no only lost all sense of reason, but even the ability to question.
In a reaction piece to the new California law, the Washington Post offered an article that reflects these times well, an instructional manual on how “yes means yes” can be sexy:
Make Consent Fun
▷ Baby, you want to make a bunk bed: me on top, you on bottom?
▷ May I pleasure you with my tongue?
▷ Would you like to try an Australian kiss? It’s like a French kiss, but “Down Under.”
▷ I’ve got the ship. You’ve got the harbor. Can I dock for the night?
Welcome to the future. I would urge you to discuss, but only happy, positive and supportive thoughts are allowed.
Your best bet is to print out this page, cut out the quote above and create a palm card of these fun and sexy lines. This will make the perfect going away to college gift for your prince so that he doesn’t end up expelled from his college and tossed out of his co-ed fraternity. Put a pretty pink bow on it. Don’t worry about giving your princess a gift. You have nothing left to give her.