Be careful what you demand.
I’m struggling to find Australia’s best definition of what constitutes Consent. Here is the best definition I’ve found so far.
Active consent means affirmative, honest, conscious, voluntary, sober and ongoing agreement to participate in sexual activity. Each person involved is responsible for ensuring that there is active consent to engage in each sexual act.
Active consent is not:
o Silence
o Lack of protest
o Lack of resistance
o Assumed to exist based on a past or current sexual, dating or marital relationship
New Laws just passed in NSW and Tas Australia effectively make every sexual encounter illegal, especially between married couples. The legislation they have just passed outlaw many Good Sex practices between most if not all happily married couples.
This legislation will fuel thousands upon thousands of false sexual assault charges because no male can possibly defend against a female simply stating “I didn’t say no but I didn’t want him to shift positions” or ” Yes, I was moaning loudly as the neighbors reported but it was a moan of displeasure not a moan of approval” . This legislation renders any male participating in sex defenceless, even with written agreement.
This is one presenter’s opinion of what constitutes permission. I believe this would leave Males subject to Rape or Sexual Assault charges. Clear agreement is not specifically stated to each physical activity. This presentation is great for demonstrating what good early relationship communication looks like but it’s NOT legal permission.
From various things I’ve read the primary consideration is that each individual female gets to decide, at any given time what constitutes consent and exactly what actions requires consent on any particular day. Furthermore, it appears females now have the choice to withdraw consent AFTER sex has occurred. There appear to be many many cases where consent is clearly believed to be given however, after later consideration, for a multitude of reasons, withdrawn. There seems to be no limitation of the time consent can be withdrawn, even 30+ years has proven realistic according to #BeleiveHer and #MeToo. I must pose the question why the law isn’t reversed?
To reduce or negate the risk of sexual assault charges Males MUST record in a proveable manner the female had not been drinking or under the influence of drugs. Many presenters are using your legal ability to drive as the benchmark to give consent. Remember, An Australian P-Plate driver is considered incapable of driving above a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.00. According to these expectations, it appears to be Male only responsibility to know if females have consumed alcohol and know her Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) was at or below whatever local allowance is for females to be responsible for their own decision making. I must pose the question why the law isn’t reversed?
Males WILL be held accountable if a female’s BAC is even possibly above that range or if she has ingested drugs, regardless of whether he saw her drinking or taking drugs or not.
To reduce the risk of sexual assault charges Males MUST record in a proveable manner the female has given Active Consent for every action performed. As per the video above, S for Specific. This Consent starts with and must include:
- May I hold your hand?
- May I stroke your hair?
- May I touch your face?
- May I rub your shoulders?
- May I rub your back?
- May I massage your feet?
- May I rub your legs?
- May I Cuddle you?
- May I kiss you?
- May I remove (each article of clothing)? individually
- May I remove my own clothing?
- May I rub my body against yours?
- May I touch your breasts?
- May I kiss or Lick your breasts?
- May I touch your genitals?
- May I kiss or Lick your genitals?
- May I rub my Penis on your Breasts?
- May I Rub my penis on your buttocks while spooning?
- May I place my penis in your mouth?
- May I have Vaginal intercourse with you?
- May I have Anal intercourse with you?
- May I ejaculate in your mouth/vagina/anus?
- May I ejaculate on your stomach/breasts/face/buttocks?
This IS CONSENT. This consent procedure MUST be followed in it’s entirety on every single encounter, every single time you perform that act so if you’re holding your partner’s hand and have let it go, if you wish to hold it again, you MUST re-obtain permission according to these rules. The same is to be said for a second round of oral or intercourse of course.
I’ve been sexually active for 45 years with a share of partners. Not once has a female asked permission to kiss me, let alone touch my one-eyed Trouser snake. Does that mean every one of those females can now be charged with sexual assault? I’d really love to know how the Feminist movement would react. It’s 100% truth according to both their tenets and their actions. Not one female I’ve been intimate with would be in a better position than Christian Porter was when his life was deliberately destroyed. The law must be equal.
Remember, as a Modern Male, it is now up to you to PROVE you not only had consent but consent had not been withdrawn AND the female was fully sober (drugs and alcohol) at the time. Consent appears to be withdrawn after the event many times more often than before any occurrences. I must pose the question why the law isn’t reversed?
Under these new Consent protocols, Females are immediately victims if you don’t follow any part of these procedures completely and keep proveable records. This level of consent certainly includes within a marriage. It is understood that these new Consent protocols mean Females are not responsible for their own sobriety levels and are not deemed competent to use the word “NO” or “STOP” if they want to stop. Males MUST know the Female wants to stop even if she does not state it. Remember Silence is not permission so if she is not actively saying “YES” to each specific act, at the exact time, you will probably be convicted of Sexual Assault. I must pose the question why the law isn’t reversed?
I would recommend agreeing with your partner to sound record all interactions prior to commencing any sexual activities. If your partner can’t understand the need to protect yourself against such one-sided laws, perhaps you’re better to choose another partner. Whilst Covert sound recording may be illegal in many juresdictions, the penalties and complete reputational destruction for that would be virtually nothing compared to the cost and damage of a sexual assault charge. I would recommend checking the laws in your region. I strongly recommend keeping these records backed up in multiple locations. At a minimum, cloud based systems are advised or just loss of your phone or recorder essentially leaves you defenceless.
Historically, Safe-Words (maybe “Purple Gorilla”) were agreed to stop various forms of sex play such as Rough, Rape Fantasy, Bondage, etc. between enthusiastic consenting adults. This allowed the “Play Victim” to be saying “No” and “Stop” as part of the Role Play. Today, that would be suicide for Males to participate without prior written consent.
Being charged with Sexual Assault will not only cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend, it will almost certainly end your study or career, especially if reputation is of any importance in your field. It will certainly cause more stress and anxiety than you’ve ever understood for at least 2 to 5 years.
If you don’t think this is crucial, have a chat with Christian Porter, our former Attorney-General, whose career was recently destroyed by a completely unevidenced accusation of an event over 30 years prior. In his case, he clearly states very credibly, the entire event was nothing like the fabricated version. He was a Top Prize scalp for the “Believe Her” movement to claim. With Christian, the Radical Feminist movement proved any target could be bagged without evidence or proof. Zero evidence supported the claims made 30 years later but his ass is grass.
If this level of consent repetition and predictability is what you want for your sex life, every single time, with every single partner, for the rest of your life, keep allowing this Radical Hard-Core Feminist narrative on Consent to grow.
If you, as a Female don’t have the ability or confidence to say NO, maybe you should, as an Equality based Female, not be participating in the activity. Part of Females being Equal to Males is to take and exercise Equal responsibility for your position and actions.
I’m all for consent but this allowance of treating females as incapable to say NO or to be responsible for their own actions. If females are not responsible when having consumed alcohol or drugs this cements guaranteed COMPLETE INEQUALITY in every respect to males. I must pose the question why the law isn’t reversed?
It’s my experience that most females absolutely want total confidence they can stop any action at any time they see fit, and so they should, however, it’s also very heavily my experience most females don’t want a man that doesn’t learn how to read her feelings and act accordingly. My experience very clearly tells me most females are put off by men continually asking permission, especially after the first few encounters. Don’t take my word for it, even Lorna Campbell can tell you!
As unpopular as this statement will be to Hard-Core Feminists, both experience and science shows most females, of nearly all species, strongly prefer strong, decisive, confident males that don’t ask permission, as long the female confidently knows they can say “NO” and be respected.
It’s my firm belief that pushing this unworkable level of consent is worse than continually lowering speed limits. The driver who obeys the speed limit is the only one who slows. They were not the driver likely to have the accident. The driver that does 70kmh in a 40kmh zone will still do 70kmh even if you set the limit at 20kmh. The speeding driver is the person that needs to be stopped, not the compliant driver. No matter how tightly you write consent laws, they won’t stop a genuine rapist. This will simply destroy our judicial system with innumerable cases even where men have genuinely tried to comply. If anything, the complete contempt it will cause for women is more likely to just segregate us. The big difference is it’s not a 10 year sentence or several hundred thousand dollar defence bill for speeding!
Finally, a message to Females, I understand, especially while young, inexperienced, with a new partner and/or your partner lacks experience, the level of assurance demonstrated in the text and videos is very reassuring. When you have learned to understand your partner’s likes, dislikes and moods, and Non-Verbal communication, this level of questioning will completely annihilate the experience for all involved.
In the real world, these protocols are completely unworkable even in a single encounter let alone over a lifetime.
It would be completely illegal to make love to a shy female. Shy females just don’t behave anything like this.
Reality Check
As far as expecting every person to behave like the bullshit permission videos above, it can never happen. I can’t speak for other people’s experience, but I’ve never had a long term partner behave anything like that even 3 months after you start playing “Nocturnal Calisthenics”. That’s not saying females never remain enthusiastic, on the contrary! What I firmly believe is individuals and couples have their own individual “language of love” (sexual behaviours). Some people even like to be the motionless starfish because they like all the attention being lavished on them. I had a partner tell me this was her ideal, she didn’t want to talk or concentrate on what I wanted. I never worked out why, but it sure worked for her. Again, even though it’s her legitimate choice, by definition, that’s now RAPE!
Sinister motifs?
After reading substantial quantities of Feminist material researching this site’s content, my suspicions are extremely high there are ulterior motifs behind the massive confusion, lack of clear definition and complication attached to Active Consent rules. Rules need to be clear and comprehensible, providing clarity for application and fairness. These Active Consent rules do the exact opposite.
These rules have clearly been created by Feminist groups with no input from Men’s groups balancing values or fairness. These rules are clearly written to remove every element of physical evidence from being required for conviction.
Under these rules, consent can clearly be stated to be withdrawn days, weeks or even years after the event. With all of the education, nearly every Western World female knows they only need to say they were alcohol affected, drug affected, state they were not actively saying yes enthusiastically during every single part of the interaction and a conviction is very easily achieved. They can even admit they pre-loaded on drugs or alcohol before going to a boys room, demanding sex and because they were alcohol affected, Sexual Assault still stands.
In terms of credibility, under these rules, at least 95% of all sexual encounters worldwide, especially within marriages, would constitute Rape or Sexual Assault. The Feminist movement has long been complaining the Rape/Sexual Assault conviction rate is too low. These rules weaponise all sexual encounters, any time any female feels aggrieved or wants to shift responsibility for her choices. Convictions will be assured if a female can appear convincing in saying she simply went quiet.
Why would credibility be so high for the complainant? Seriously, think about your own sexual experiences. It’s human nature for the majority of people to be quiet in anticipation of penetration, concentrating on the physical feelings. As penetration occurs, at least sometimes, more so during slow, gentle lovemaking, quietly concentrating on your partner is very common. Most likely, it’s more common than the Hollywood or Pornography vocalised versions of sex glamorised on the silver screen. At other times, privacy with kids in the next room, being in a tent camping etc force you to “Operate in Silent mode”. All a female has to do is say consent was withdrawn with silence on just one occasion and you get to spend many years in the Big House, being Bubba’s bitch, unless you’re John Cena, then Bubba becomes your Bunny!
Why were these rules formulated and forced into universities with ZERO consultation with Men’s Activist groups to prevent this ludicrous bias? How can Feminism demand such unilateral control? This, by definition, is Fascism.
Outcomes of these rules
As I said right at the beginning, be careful what you demand. Once the convictions start flowing, the only men that will let you near them will be men with no impulse control. Those men will almost certainly have very few assets and unstable earning capacity. Even men over 50 are already realising the risks massively outweigh the benefits. I guarantee, most men are just about as happy spending their money on toys, internet, Moisturiser and Huge screen TV’s instead of risk attached women. The saddest part of the entire equation is the price paid by Good Quality, Honest, Fair Dinkum ladies. Excellent ladies are now sentenced to a solitary life because of the hidden agendas and power grabs of the Hard Left Radical Feminists pulling societies strings. Men can’t tell who to trust. You know you were wrong while you’re making your phone call.
These laws have become so inequitable and divisive, I now, won’t allow an unchaperoned female into my house. I don’t want to waste the resources fighting potential cases. Even if I did want to repartner, I just don’t want to spend years preparing Affidavits, finding witnesses, collating forensics, paying for Expert Evidence to be prepared, etc. After experiencing 5-6 years of legal wrangling in the Royal Women’s Family Court, then spending 10 years fighting CSA appeal after CSA appeal, I know judicial bias. Most men do.
The only safeguard I can see now, under these laws, is to never be in isolation with any female I don’t have very long term trust in. I understand this means I can’t ever be involved with a new future partner. I accept that consequence. So do many of my quality male friends. Ironically, my female friends agree.
No matter how many promises are offered these attacks will never be levelled at you, how can you ever believe when your entire life’s earnings, assets, reputation and physical freedom are at stake based on nothing more than an easy lie. The financial incentives, let alone outright Blackmail opportunities are just too high. The big SJW lawyers stirring up these cases know how to convince potential clients they’re right to attack.
Trust is gone. Radical Feminism took it