If we were really serious about rape prevention

To those that believe reducing rape is as easy as obtaining a signed consent to interact form: 

 

What on earth would this ludicrous new requirement accomplish? A would-be rapist could still ask for - what was it? - "consent to interact." Then, if granted, he could still drag you into the bushes and rape you. If not granted, he could do the same thing. If he's not going to care about consent to have sex, he's not going to care about this new absurd made-up level of consent, either. Anyway, this is claiming that women are on alert even if the men aren't talking to them or interacting with them at all - just in their vicinity. Do they have to have consent to walk or exist near a woman? Is that the next idiotic step in our modern dystopia?

 

Normal interaction between men and women cannot be pathologized like this. Yes, that means we sometimes have to deal with turning a guy down or having an unpleasant interaction. Most women can get their risk of rape almost down to 0 by not getting falling-down drunk or high, being conscious of their surroundings and avoiding dangerous neighborhoods/situations, going out with friends, and wearing more than duct tape for clothing.

 

If we were really serious about rape prevention, we would also sensitize our daughters to the groups of men far most likely to commit it, which, depending on where you live in the Western world, generally means black men, Hispanic men, or Muslim men.

 

The obsession with consent is a consequence of the sexual revolution. Because we have thrown every other sexual value out the window, consent is the only thing left. Because many women feel used by this new do-whatever-feels-good system (they want to pair-bond, not screw a different guy every night), they are using the consent issue to ever-increasing levels of insanity in order to replace what they really want, which is love. A recent piece in the NYT illustrated this need (which many women can't even articulate properly) quite well: 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/201.... The entire piece is claiming that the author feels used because guys keep using her sexually, always being careful to get consent while doing so. By the end, it is clear the "consent" she is seeking is not consent at all, but actual love. It is deeply sad in some ways, as she can't see that that is the real issue.

 

I certainly understand men's reactions to all this. The current free-for-all in our culture makes women crazier and more vindictive every day. It's because they ultimately do not want to sleep with a bunch of nameless guys. They want to pair bond, have romance, be committed, and have a family. But they have been programmed to think they are supposed to be baby-phobic careerist ice queens who sleep around with any guy with whom they have a drink. Those women exist, but are incredibly rare. Almost no women are naturally like that. The are acting a part, and it makes them miserable and empty. So now tons of women are broken and damaged by the way the culture has conditioned them to act. If we want less of this, we are going to have to go back to a time when sexual values included chastity, commitment, trust, exclusivity, and love.

Comments