[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.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Feminists have not even pushed for those legal changes. They started in California and now have spread to many European countries. If you think that feminist organizations have ran through world-wide legal changes within the time-frame of a few months, then you still believe in fairy-tales and that we are really ruled by politicians.

Such legal coordination must have been planned years ahead. Just like the changes in divorce law and family law those legal adjustments will make inter-gender relations more difficult.

Women from now on can punish men even more and run wild with their mental problems. The brunt of it will get those men who are married to them, but also mostly Betas. Some Alphas may also get some heat, but if they are Red Pill, then they can counter a lot if it - secret recordings, more comfort after sex etc.

Otherwise YesMeansYes will only flagellate lesser men and married guys. Red Pill Alphas will probably fuck more than ever.

[Sgt]

(05-12-2015 04:16 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

YesMeansYes will only flagellate lesser men and married guys

Absolutely!

The question I'm trying to explore is: if it is to their disadvantage, why do lesser men act as allies to (feminists / whoever has an interest in these laws) and support laws like these then?

The reasons I have come up with so far are:

• because they actually BELIEVE the "rape culture" narrative
• because they understand on some level that they have a problem in creating sexual tension in their relationships, so they want to take "sexual tension" out of relationships in general
  

[Simeon_Strangelight]

The Blue Pill men who are affected by those laws don't concoct them. The laws were not up for debate or a vote just as the no-fault divorce.

The real goal of YesMeansYes is destroy family and healthy relationships even more. That is the plan for decades now of social programmers. The laws did not "just happen".

Why the brainwashed men think it is good - well you assessed that correctly. They believe in the lies and maybe some competitive advantage that is going to hurt the "jerks" and bad boys. It will cause the opposite and make men behave even less masculine and dominant. That way guys with Game will have an easier better time creating tingles with girls as attraction caused by masculine cues is ingrained in them.

[Atlanta Man]

I believe most men (%75) just have not had enough women in sexual relationships to understand how many women become unreasonable and mentally unstable in sexual relationships. It takes at least 25 sexual relationships until you understand the duplicity and unreasonable way women, especially scorned ones, behave and how they abuse systems that give unilateral power. If you are in the "Disney Romance" blue pill pattern of thinking these laws are good, but like communism in practice it will be awful.

A quick example. With women a disagreement=Mental abuse, an unwanted kiss=sexual assault, drunk sex=rape. One day you are having freaky sex with a girl that claims to love you, the next day that same bitch is walking around campus with a mattress. Unilateral power is always abused.

[KofiKingston]

(05-12-2015 11:21 AM)Atlanta Man Wrote:  

I believe most men (%75) just have not had enough women in sexual relationships to understand how many women become unreasonable and mentally unstable in sexual relationships. It takes at least 25 sexual relationships until you understand the duplicity and unreasonable way women, especially scorned ones, behave and how they abuse systems that give unilateral power. If you are in the "Disney Romance" blue pill pattern of thinking these laws are good, but like communism in practice it will be awful.

A quick example. With women a disagreement=Mental abuse, an unwanted kiss=sexual assault, drunk sex=rape. One day you are having freaky sex with a girl that claims to love you, the next day that same bitch is walking around campus with a mattress. Unilateral power is always abused.

[Ryre]

OP, I think you are onto something. First, a digression to Zelcorpion's points: I'm not really down with the idea that these laws are the product of some years-long conspiracy with the goal to destroy the family. To a degree there has been years of planning, in the sense that women's studies departments and other feminist activists have been thinking about and gradually fomenting and spreading these norms--acting much like neocon think tanks did in the 90's with mideast policy. The neocons had a set of positions and plans developed over years, to do with aggressive intervention in the middle east. When 9-11 hit, giving them an opportunity, they had the policies all ready to go, quickly filling the void.

Similarly, feminists have been dreaming this stuff up for years, and have now seized on the resurgence of the idea of a "campus rape epidemic" to launch these policies. In other words, the process from a politician/policy maker's perspective was, "Hey, campus rape is suddenly in the news. Time to get on the right side of this thing so I can accuse my opponent of being part of a war on women. I need a policy! Oh, thank god, the feminists have one all ready to go. Quick, draft some legislation." Given how this lines up exactly with the universal male/human tendency to jump in and help when young women are in trouble (evolutionarily, if you don't stand ready to help your young women, your tribe dies out fast), the speed isn't surprising--they're swimming with the current.

Where I agree with the OP is that some see the flattening out of sexual tension/the dance of courtship as a good thing, and that this preference has to do with being bad at it. I identify with this myself, at least in my blue-pill, pre-game days. It's the fantasy that we could be done with all the game-playing and just approach things rationally and straightforwardly: "Would you like to come home with me and have sexual relations?" You see this in nerdy and kinky communities (which overlap). There was a proposal a few years ago that women at some con wear different colored nametags to indicate whether or not they were ok with having their breasts touched.

This disregards of course that such a legalistic approach stamps out any possible spark, precisely because it provides perfect information and thus keeps the woman from feeling any exciting uncertainty or the man from demonstrating any dash or daring. If such a norm gets established in any community, the attractive women will quickly leave.

But, OP, I don't think it's so much that feminists hate normal male-female interaction because they can't have it. I think it's more to do with, how does Heariste put it, give females maximum choice in the sexual sphere will giving men as little choice as possible. Many people fundamentally feel that if a woman wakes up feeling dirty/bad/uncomfortable the morning after sex, that if she is pumped and dumped by a man who treats her caddishly, she should have legal recourse--he should be punished, no matter that she consented (consented in fact, if not in the explicit legalistic way required by 'yes means yes').

Not saying they'd defend that position intellectually, but that is where their feelings take them. The mistake they make, when they think about handing this kind of power to women, is picturing their sweetest, sanest female friend, stone sober. What they ought to do is picture the craziest, drunkest, most-coked up bitch they know. Are they ok with giving her the power to criminalize sex after the fact?

So it's "give the perfect angels the power to punish the brutes who are treating them badly." And a dash of shit-test: the dorks will buy into yes-means-yes, taking themselves even more out of the game, while the alphas will keep getting laid (though a few alphas will be busted; alphaness is not a perfect defense, just ask Jameis Winston, Kobe, and Tyson).

[DannyAlberta]

How does "yes means yes" on campuses mesh with something like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answ...de-really/

Quote:

Put this in the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff category: At the University of California San Diego, a controversy is brewing over an art class in which students take the final exam in the nude.

According to KGTV, ABC10 in San Diego, the course is Visual Arts 104A: Performing the Self, which has been taught for 11 years by Associate Professor Ricardo Dominguez. According to the story, Dominguez explained that students strip down — along with himself — for a “performance of self” in a dark room with a lit candle. ...

...

Jordan Crandall, chairman of UCSD’s Visual Arts Department, said in a statement published by KGTV that nudity was not required to pass the class. He also noted the class itself was not a requirement and that students taking the course were aware of the final. ...

...

The KGTV story quotes an unnamed mother of an unnamed female student as saying her daughter was not, in fact, aware of the naked final and that the whole episode has made her “sick to my stomach.”

If you are wondering how this final has been given with nude students for 11 years without controversy, Dominguez is quoted as saying he’s never had a complaint before now.

As usual, the Fox News social conservatives go hysterical over this: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/12/st...final-exam

The campus feminists will no doubt not be far behind.

(WYB the concerned campus Republican in the accompanying vid? I would.)

For those interested, a picture of the professor: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew...essor.html

Game recognized? Not sure.

In this "new era" of "yes means yes" on California college campuses, I cannot see being a man and taking that course to be anything other than a death trap. The campus feminists could have a field day over things like sexual assault under the "male gaze". Suspensions and expulsions would be the logical result. Even an innocent comment could be construed to ruin the academic career of a male student.

Of course why most men would want to take a visual arts course is a valid question (likely some of the very male feminist allies the OP talks about), but that's not the point. The point is that something that has apparently gone on in a university for 11 years without incident is now a walking, screaming "incident".

Strange times.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(05-12-2015 02:11 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

How does "yes means yes" on campuses mesh with something like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answ...de-really/

That's just a nice trick by a horny professor, albeit there have been known a few others - also female ones who did discuss masturbation, sex in detail etc.

Early sexualization however is the plan and is going on all around the world - not only pushing homosexuality and the whole gender doctrine, but going into pre-pubertal sex. Children who have started with sex before puberty are known to hardly ever bond properly as adults.

The orgy-porgy sessions of Brave New World were not written by Huxley as ramblings of a madman - he just knew more than most people - his brother being Julian Huxley and first president of UNESCO.

   
It's from Portugal as far as I can remember - grade school material. The masturbation part is a homosexual couple. There is plenty more where that came from. Usually parents manage to boycott that quickly, but many countries have been known to push stuff like that - Germany, UK, USA, etc.

Brave New World is coming - early pre-puberty sex, no LTRs, no bonding, no marriages, no nuclear families, high promiscuity without feelings.

YesMeansYes works great in that respect - so far it's not being implemented, but when women get a whiff of the power, then they will find out that they can punish any man who did not call back. Certainly all married women will win ALL divorce proceedings unless husband is extremely wealthy or connected (or very very smart).

[Sgt]

(05-12-2015 02:11 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  

How does "yes means yes" on campuses mesh with something like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answ...de-really/

Quote:

Put this in the you-can’t-make-up-this-stuff category: At the University of California San Diego, a controversy is brewing over an art class in which students take the final exam in the nude.

It meshes very well in my opinion:

• sex-starved blue-pill academics really want more sex
• they hope "hidden agenda" projects like this art class with a nude exam will directly lead to sexual opportunities for them
• at the same time, they hope Yes-means-Yes laws will indirectly lead to more sex for them
  

In their opinion Yes-means-Yes will give them more sexual opportunities by taking players out of the picture:

• if they believe in the "rape culture" narrative (jocks/fraternity guys force girls to sex via alcohol, date rape drugs, peer pressure or outright physical force) then Yes-means-Yes will punish these guys and remove them from the dating scene
• if they are aware of their own low competence in flirting with women and playing the game, then removing the "game" part from the dating scene will put them on the same level as more competent players (who will be unable to use game any more, since everything will have to be directly and clearly communicated, and nothing can be ambiguous any more)
  

(I am definitely not saying theses blue-pill academic types are right, and I am also not saying they are the decisive force in the legislative process - I just would like to know more about how they think and why they seem so fond of these idiotic laws)

[The Lizard of Oz]

(05-12-2015 01:22 PM)Ryre Wrote:  

The mistake they make, when they think about handing this kind of power to women, is picturing their sweetest, sanest female friend, stone sober. What they ought to do is picture the craziest, drunkest, most-coked up bitch they know.

... and then realize that they are actually thinking about the exact same bitch, just at different times of day.

Excellent post, Ryre. But one thing that you underestimate is the straight up hatred and resentment that some of these male feminists and professional white knights feel towards naturals, "frat bros" and "douchebags". Rage fed by resentment is a very good motivator.

These betas feel that they are superior to the blithe douchebags because they are, in some ways, more intelligent -- but they know that the douchebags are still getting the better pussy without even trying. This wrong must be avenged in some way, and if it takes "Yes Means Yes" laws or even greater enormities, then so be it.

Never underestimate the role of straight up hatred, and the desire to punish and inflict pain on what is seen as the enemy, in explaining human behavior. It is not always any kind of rational or even semi-rational cost/benefit analysis of what would be best for oneself.

Now, to be clear, I'm talking about a relatively aggressive minority of professional male SJWs and white knights. There is also the much greater mass of blue pill white knight simps who support these laws because they really do buy into the narrative and want to protect the poor gals from "rape". But they are the ones going along with these laws, not the ones pushing them forward.

[Ryre]

(05-12-2015 05:15 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 01:22 PM)Ryre Wrote:  

The mistake they make, when they think about handing this kind of power to women, is picturing their sweetest, sanest female friend, stone sober. What they ought to do is picture the craziest, drunkest, most-coked up bitch they know.

... and then realize that they are actually thinking about the exact same bitch, just at different times of day.

Excellent post, Ryre. But one thing that you underestimate is the straight up hatred and resentment that some of these male feminists and professional white knights feel towards naturals, "frat bros" and "douchebags". Rage fed by resentment is a very good motivator.

These betas feel that they are superior to the blithe douchebags because they are, in some ways, more intelligent -- but they know that the douchebags are still getting the better pussy without even trying. This wrong must be avenged in some way, and if it takes "Yes Means Yes" laws or even greater enormities, then so be it.

Never underestimate the role of straight up hatred, and the desire to punish and inflict pain on what is seen as the enemy, in explaining human behavior. It is not always any kind of rational or even semi-rational cost/benefit analysis of what would be best for oneself.

Now, to be clear, I'm talking about a relatively aggressive minority of professional male SJWs and white knights. There is also the much greater mass of blue pill white knight simps who support these laws because they really do buy into the narrative and want to protect the poor gals from "rape". But they are the ones going along with these laws, not the ones pushing them forward.

Oh, I agree. I think that hatred is in female feminists as well. I've long said that if feminists really believed in a 1/5 rape epidemic on campus, they'd be advocating for massive police intervention (think The Wire--undercover agents, cameras, informants, cops at every party). That they aren't proves it isn't about rape. It's about wanting frat guys to be less douchey, less, as you say, "blithe," less confident, less what you might call entitled. The sight of a young white guy with some money and a tan walking around with his shirt off and a miller lite in his hand makes them shake with rage. The idea that a girl might voluntarily suck that guy's cock--and that he might take it so for granted he doesn't immediately become her boyfriend (or even call the next day)--unthinkable.

If puritanism is "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy," then feminism is the haunting fear that somewhere some man may be having sex on his own terms.