[Sgt]

I was having this thougt on the Yes means Yes laws and wonder if it is valid:

Our current perception of the laws is:

• (female) feminists want these laws because they hate what they can't get - proper male-female sexual relations
• (male) feminist allies buy into the storyline and help institute these laws, because they have a vague feeling that bad boys are taking away their sexual options and that they need to rein these bad boys in
  

Of course by doing so the male feminist allies just skew the sexual market even more to the favour of alpha men / bad boys etc., because they help setting up hurdles to sex that only the fittest men can pass. But in order to pass a bill successfully, the perception of what it will do is more crucial than its actual (possibly perverse/counterproductive) effect.

By exploring the psyche of lesser men (on some german blue pill forums attached to online dating sites dealing with "love") a little more, I have come to the conclusion that the following reason might play an even bigger role for feminist allies than the "rape culture / prevent bad boys from raping women" perception:

• many lesser men are incapable of generating sexual tension (meaning they cannot slip into the role of "I'm pushing towards sex, she is resisting but slowly giving up")
• when there is a "sex contract" before sex and it is completely clear what will be done and what will not be done, there is no more (psychological) sexual tension, just the physical sexual act
• this evens the playing field between men who can generate sexual tension and those who can't (to zero in both cases)
  

I think for the success of most feminist policies, it is not really the (female) feminists that are decisive, because there are just too few of them who hold political power, but how strongly their narrative appeals to blue pill men. If you have no trust in your own sexual / romantic skills, then it is a huge appeal to make those skills a bad thing.