July 8, 2015

"I suddenly realized what's happening. This is a stand-in for a wedding ceremony."

"The fundamental idea is that sex is a component of marriage, not an activity to be undertaken lightly. What is revealed is a belief that consent is actually not enough, and this additional ritual, with a contract and photography, is a simulacrum of a wedding."

I write, over at Facebook, on a post about a National Review article titled "Students Told to Take Photos With a ‘Consent Contract’ Before They Have Sex."

121 comments:

tim maguire said...

Fair point--it is the institution of marriage if stripped of all commitment, so that only the seriousness remains.

Todd said...

It is still just easier and more "fool proof" to just video the entire thing...

Todd said...

That way you can also do a "post play" review!

Matthew Sablan said...

If anyone said, "We should sign a contract before getting intimate," that's my signal that, hey, maybe I should find someone else.

It is almost as big of a red flag as her asking if I could pick up a bullet and have it engraved with my name on it.

Paddy O said...

This is what I've long thought. They're coming back around to a very traditional perspective on the purpose of marriage.

Bob Boyd said...

It used to be a guy couldn't be charged with rape by his wife. The marriage was consent.
Is this contract a temporary version of the same thing?

pdug said...

And then have the government certify the contract as valid, and have it notarized.

Oh and you may want to post public notice of the contract in the paper, to see if anyone knows of any reason why the couple should not engage in sex.

pdug said...

@bobboyd good point. Consent has to be ONGOING. Its legally impossible under that standard for a contract to obligate the performance of sex if one partner wants to stop.

Johanna Lapp said...

There's a fortune to be made as a notary public roaming the dorms on a Fri or Sat night, with a Breathalyzer strapped to your belt. Hey, unemployed law grads: Beats pouting coffee!

Birches said...

This is insane. And yes, you're absolutely right.

CJinPA said...

We're losing our collective mind.

What they're doing to society requires a consent form.

Bob Boyd said...

@pdug

If it expires in an instant, what good is it?

Bob Boyd said...

Laslo already has his attorney working on a cucumber clause.

gerry said...

Postmodern absurdity evolves.

A contract will simply be boorish unless the photographer is professional, there is a contract photo album, and a reception before the fornication. There may be time for a prefornication shower, too! And, of course, SSC (Same-Sex Contract) couples can forcefully drag a protesting baker or florist or pizza restaurateur to the reception.

gerry said...

Its legally impossible under that standard for a contract to obligate the performance of sex if one partner wants to stop.

Contractual coitus interruptus.

cubanbob said...

Sounds like a variant of Iranian Sharia laws where one who goes to a prostitute gets a quicky marriage for the length of the session so to speak. Speaking of these consent contracts the guy ought to get her to sign a hold harmless agreement if she gets pregnant as in she waives and frees him of any and all support duties. And the guy better get her photoed holding the signed contract.

Unknown said...

The proverbial social justice warriors are pulling a Lena Dunham, inadvertently making the case for social conservatism.

Chuck said...

I don't understand your comment(s) on this laughable (and we can all be assured that the National Review published the story as a laughable one) story, Professor Althouse.

But I do understand this comment, by "Jay" at NRO. I think this sums it all up quite well:

jay • Let's see!! What we need is a well defined legal, and cultural process to protect women from sexual exploitation and objectification. Hmmm? What could that be? Have we had anything like that before? Oh wait! I think it's called marriage.

Freeman Hunt said...

Speaking of these consent contracts the guy ought to get her to sign a hold harmless agreement if she gets pregnant as in she waives and frees him of any and all support duties. And the guy better get her photoed holding the signed contract.

Would that be legal? Wouldn't the child have some say?

R. Chatt said...

The end of casual sex on campus as we've known it. That's a good thing IMO. Mindful sex is better than a "hookup" anyway. The actual process of Affirmative Consent is funky though. Used to be you'd tell your friends or parents you were seeing someone and who they were, that was sufficient.

Ellen said...

And we thought the 10 commandments were unbearably onerous. Toss the Big 10 out, and you're left with 10 million laws and every American guilty of a felony a day.

Freeman Hunt said...

"These college kids are screwing everything up with their screwing."
"I know. How can we make them stop?"
"Require them to sign sex contracts."

Brando said...

They're getting to ever more silly ways to try and clear up confusion over whether there was consent. As these "contracts" will basically never happen, it's a pointless exercise.

Here's the deal--was there consent? Consent can be given verbally or through actions. How was the consent or lack thereof communicated? That's all any tribunal will be concerned about, and any evidence will help clear up gray areas (such as a "no" followed by actions for the next twenty minutes that may reasonably have been interpreted as a later consent). Where someone is incapable of consent (e.g., drunk, underaged) then of course it gets trickier--but these "consent contracts" don't address such situations.

In a world where people don't have hysterical reactions to things, a reasonable person would suggest that a party that does not consent would have some obligation to make that lack of consent known, and failing that, it will get fact specific. It's the advice anyone would give a young man or woman in that situation.

Johanna Lapp said...

The Rev. Ivan Stang famously invented the Short Duration Marriage. "For better or for worse, for richer or for poorer ... but not for long." Enjoy a night of lust sanctified by bonds of holy matrimony that evaporate automatically in morning light.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The fact that sex is serious business that has profound emotional and (potentially) physical consequences is beginning to be realized in leftist circles that previously held that sex was an appetite that could and should be satisfied without regard to anything other than ones desires.

The problem is that their secular world view has no way to accommodate that fact. Thus the ridiculous lengths gone to regarding "consent." They just can't admit that some appetites should not be indulged in.

wildswan said...

Checking out the Clery reports for the campus of your choice might be a requirement for campus selection for young men these days. It might work better than selfies which can obviously be photoshopped.

The Clery Act requires reporting incidents of sexual violence on campuses. When the Dept of Education administrators reinterpreted Title IX in 2011 and sent new guidelines to campus administrators the incidents of reported sexual violence on such campuses as Harvard, Yale and Columbia jumped from 4 or 5 to over 100 in one year and that pace is being maintained by the campus Title IX administrators on those campuses. But not all campus administrators have responded in the same way. There are campuses - "sanctuary campuses?" - where there has been no increase in reports of sexual violence and some where there are no reports of sexual violence whatsoever.

Obviously the Clery Act reports were intended to show how safe the campus is for women but they also shows how safe any given campus is for men.

The administrators are disregarded in some places while in others the campus administrators have adopted the line that there is no penalty for over-reporting and so they do. By "no penalty" the administrators mean that over-reporting sexual violence and penalizing and expelling male students leads to no threats by the Feds to take away funds. The campus administrators don't mean that students don't suffer, they mean that the administrators don't get expelled from the campus or suffer in any way whatsoever.

NB
There is an internet site where you can track your college of choice and compare it with others. (http://ope.ed.gov/security/). Also the college is required to post a Clery report online

Bob Boyd said...

Gives new meaning to the phrase, "I contracted an STD."

Gahrie said...

Speaking of these consent contracts the guy ought to get her to sign a hold harmless agreement if she gets pregnant as in she waives and frees him of any and all support duties. And the guy better get her photoed holding the signed contract.

Would that be legal? Wouldn't the child have some say?


No it would not be legal. There have been cases where a man has donated his sperm to a couple, all three signed legal forms excusing the donor from any parental responsibilities, and the courts have forced the donor to pay child support anyway.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

No, not a stand in for a marriage ceremony. The marriage ceremony cements an ongoing commitment--it makes clear to everyone that both parties have entered into an ongoing contractual relationship characterized by expected future costs (in time, money, freedom given up, etc) on the part of each party. One of the expected benefits of entering into such a contract, of course, is presumed sexual access to the other party. But these new consent contracts in no other way resemble (in form or intent) a marriage ceremony--instead they're just a more-elaborate form of a mutual indemnity agreement. The contracts do not indicate any level of commitment or consideration due in the future, and in fact must explicitly deny that the contract itself implies any future agreement at all.

As other commenters have pointed out you'd find they're more or less worthless if you tried to rely upon contracts like this to actually protect you from an accusation. Consent must be ongoing and consent can be withdrawn at any moment--and that withdrawal does not need to be communicated in any specific way. "But you signed a contract at 2:06AM!" will not in any way protect you from an accusation that in the middle of sexual activity at 2:14AM consent was (silently) withdrawn. It's not impossible to imagine that the contract could work against you! "Members of the sexual assault tribunal, the accused believed he didn't have to confirm ongoing consent because he signed this contract, and by his own admission didn't do anything after signing to make sure consent still existed at time X. You must find him guilty of assault for his actions at time X."

traditionalguy said...

Sounds like a new way to get lawyers paid for drawing up Pre-Sexual Agreements. We can just move around some text in the Pre-Nuptual Agreements and insert warranties of disease free and high performance but slow hand inserttion satisfaction.

Legal Zoom on the Cloud.

But will spoil sports say it is unethical to sell services to under age clientel?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Gahrie said...No it would not be legal. There have been cases where a man has donated his sperm to a couple, all three signed legal forms excusing the donor from any parental responsibilities, and the courts have forced the donor to pay child support anyway.

Correct--such a guy is a splooge stooge, no matter how carefully he thought he protected himself with silly concepts like "the law" or "fairness." Think of the children, Gahrie!

Rick said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
The fact that sex is serious business that has profound emotional and (potentially) physical consequences is beginning to be realized in leftist circles


This is not accurate. The purpose and effects of Affirmative Consent are not to imbue sex with greater emotional standing. It is to allow women to kick men off campus if the sex had negative emotional impacts they cannot deal with.

ratbrandt said...

This is emblematic of a "first world" problem and of the fact that we have achieved peak "political correctness."

SteveR said...

The libertarian streak of the younger generation is heading full steam into a collision with the political correctness mindset.

Todd said...

ratbrandt said...

This is emblematic of a "first world" problem and of the fact that we have achieved peak "political correctness."

7/8/15, 12:02 PM


Oh no dearie, we have not even come close to peak absurdity with this PC crap! You just wait and see what the SJWs demand over the next few years!

Peter said...

Well, OK, but does the contract specify a time when it expires, or is it for the duration of that act?

And if it's for the duration, and assuming it's over when either declares it's over, wouldn't it be necessary to also record that withdrawal of consent?

(But for the consent to be valid both [all? perhaps there are more than two] must be capable of consenting, which implies neither is too impaired to consent. So even a consent video would be insufficient to prove consent?)

wildswan said...

In England Shia Muslim university students practice "temporary marriages" - a few days, a few hours, It's contract. Temporary marriage was also a practice at Shia festivals - you had a wife for the duration - a stated period, then it was over.

So if you can be black if that's what you feel or a woman then why not be temporarily married if that's what you feel? And by doing this move the temporary-by-contract-relationship to marriage status not hooker-up status and hence move the relationship to government-butt-out-status? It's an authentic relationship in Islam and gives government-butt-out-status and why not borrow the good stuff from other cultures? Dogs not allowed but ...

damikesc said...

The joke's on them. The contract is irrelevant because, shocking, the woman is STILL able to remove consent at any moment.

For such scholars, they really are brain-dead morons.

Again, I'm telling my sons: If you go to college, use hookers. The girls in college are crazy and you shouldn't even bother speaking to them.

BTW, didn't the Left claim to want the government out of the bedroom? Fuck, the most conservative of Christian groups didn't demand a sex law this damned Draconian.

Would that be legal? Wouldn't the child have some say?

If she has the kid, isn't that on her? Why are women the only ones allowed to make that choice? It's her body but it's his money. For 18 years at least. He should have some say.

I am anxious to see how affirmative consent can conceivably pass any possible legal challenge. I know that due process is verboten on campuses, but wouldn't that be better than this constant "You're guilty" drumbeat.

And men need to charge women. CONSTANTLY. For literally every encounter. Jusy say "I changed my mind" and the other partner has, literally, no defense without a videotape which is likely going to be illegal anyways.

Since these idiots didn't expect that to happen, it will help kill the system.

Also --- men, DO NOT GO COLLEGE. Leave it entirely. Any parents with kids in college in CA or at Minnesota need to raise holy hell and pull the kids out (or at least their money if their son doesn't want to leave). Money trumps everything.

That's all any tribunal will be concerned about, and any evidence will help clear up gray areas (such as a "no" followed by actions for the next twenty minutes that may reasonably have been interpreted as a later consent).

If the woman says "I changed my mind during the sex" --- what then? What can a man possibly due to defend himself?

No it would not be legal. There have been cases where a man has donated his sperm to a couple, all three signed legal forms excusing the donor from any parental responsibilities, and the courts have forced the donor to pay child support anyway.

Hell, there have been cases where the woman committed statutory rape and the boy was STILL liable for the child. This country is not terribly fond of men.

damikesc said...

And if it's for the duration, and assuming it's over when either declares it's over, wouldn't it be necessary to also record that withdrawal of consent?

Nope. It's the obligation of both parties to demonstrate consent at every moment of the act. So, if she says "I changed my mind", the man is fucked royally.

Men really need to stop taking this shit.

wildswan said...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22354201

Islamic temporary marriage

wildswan said...

Some people say Islamic temporary marriage is just a way to get sex but that's hate speech, in my opinion.

Sebastian said...

"The fundamental idea is that sex is a component of marriage, not an activity to be undertaken lightly. What is revealed is a belief that consent is actually not enough, and this additional ritual, with a contract and photography, is a simulacrum of a wedding"

No, that is not the "fundamental idea." In the age of SSM and no-fault divorce, "marriage" is undertaken lightly all the time. Monogamy optional. Capacity for procreation optional. Commitment optional. Love wins. Since "marriage" has turned into a simulacrum, this proposal is actually a simulacrum of a simulacrum.

Life is so much fun in the Prog hall of mirrors.

@Rick: "The fundamental idea is that sex is a component of marriage, not an activity to be undertaken lightly. What is revealed is a belief that consent is actually not enough, and this additional ritual, with a contract and photography, is a simulacrum of a wedding"

Indeed. It's about Prog power. But even Progs can't suspend the law of unintended consequences, so the phony consent movement can indeed lead some people back to the shocking idea that marriage and enduring commitment, between men and women, is the best protection for women.

rhhardin said...

It's nothing about weddings. It's control.

damikesc said...

It's nothing about weddings. It's control.

And it's being championed in UNIVERSITIES --- which is showing just how useful they are.

EDH said...

rh nails it, without consent.

buwaya said...

Universities without in loco parentis, like in Europe.
That's your answer. The US is too parochial to take a lesson from foreigners of course.
Especially the ones who like to travel abroad and therefore feel they are cosmopolitan.

tim in vermont said...

My marriage app iMarriage is looking better and better. It's free. An iMarriage can be dissolved at a later date by my iDivorce app at the initiation of either party, as long as they pay the $999.99 download fee.

Renee said...

Why I hate the analogy that marriage is a contract.

What next friendship contracts?

Smilin' Jack said...

"Students Told to Take Photos With a ‘Consent Contract’ Before They Have Sex."

Obviously, this is just silly. As others have pointed out, a photo is completely inadequate; only a video of the entire transaction will do, and of course it must be witnessed. And there's no reason to restrict this to students; the same standard should apply to everyone.

In that spirit, and as a token of my solidarity with feminosity or whatever, I volunteer to be a witness for Jennifer Lawrence and whoever she's boning these days. Just send me the video, Jen, along with your phone number in case I need to verify any details.

tim in vermont said...

"This tryst was incorporated in the state of Delaware."

Charlie Currie said...

Remember when there were all male schools and feminists got pissed and forced them to allow women to attend. Now they're pissed because men are allowed to attend at all.

EMD said...

"as long as they pay the $999.99 download fee."

You could actually make good money with a $1.99 app cost.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

damikesc said...Hell, there have been cases where the woman committed statutory rape and the boy was STILL liable for the child. This country is not terribly fond of men.

damikesc have you not been paying attention? You're describing a splooge stooge, just a young one. Men (and boys, naturally) have an affirmative duty to protect their genetic material. If it's taken without their consent and a pregnancy results, the man is responsible. He should have prevented it! Maybe he's underage, maybe he's been drugged, maybe he just forgot to pour bleach in the used condom after the act; it doesn't matter, he's a stooge.
Women, of course, have no obligations or duties whatsoever. If a woman walks down the street without clothing you'd better not stare--that's assault, you know--because it's the world's problem and not hers; everyone else must protect her and respect her wishes, even if they aren't communicated until later! She can retroactively withdraw consent, for example, and the burden's on you to prove she didn't.
That may sound, to the uneducated person, like we're treating men and women differently (legally and socially/morally), but no: that's equality.

damikesc said...

Yup. And then women wonder why men are shunning dating and marriage. Because both are such great deals for the men. Really.

damikesc said...

Mind you, I'm happily married --- but also realize my wife could cheat on me, divorce me, AND still take my house and kids away. Love need not be blind.

damikesc said...

Feminists have turned a lot of women into infants. A lot of American women aren't worth the effort at all.

William said...

There's not a couple in a million that will comply with this procedure. And that's the point. Post facto rape. Mattress girl will win her case......Adolescent sex is a minefield. Not very many pass through it unharmed. This gives women some control over regrettable experiences. Perhaps this sense of control will allow some women to take more chances, and the net result will be more high risk sexual encounters.

Virgil Hilts said...

To get around the "continuing consent" problem, one could try having the woman grant the guy a durable, irrevocable (for 90 minutes) sexual health/general healthcare power of attorney whereby the guy is appointed as the woman's attorney in fact to make any and all decisions with respect to both sexual psychological and sexual health matters (and any other related healthcare decisions) over the ensuing 90 minutes. While this type of POW will in most states typically require the signatures of two unrelated adult witnesses, that should not be too difficult for the average frat member to obtain.

richard mcenroe said...

So our proglodyte betters have moved bravely forward and reinvented the Shi'ite "temporary marriage."

n.n said...

Libertinism, abortion, divorce. #LoveLoses #BabiesDie #CouplesCry

richard mcenroe said...

as long as we're rediscovering medieval social practices,give them a couple more years and the Dems might rediscover the joys of slavery.

Will Cate said...

Indeed, they ought to be required to videotape the whole thing, and afterwards both assure the viewer that neither person was raped, and submit the recording to the university administration. Since they seem to be so obsessed with the details of their students' sex lives.

Fernandinande said...

STEP RIGHT UP! Test your mettle and win your little Sweetie a Sacred Certificate of Short Duration Marriage(tm).
"GUARANTEED to Absolve and Sanctify ALL otherwise "illicit" Couplings!"

n.n said...

Planned Fornication. It should be colocated with Planned Parenthood so that if, in the course of a couple's loveless gyrations, an unwanted or inconvenient human life is conceived, there will be affordable abortion care to prevent its evolution. One stop legal sex and "reproductive" services. #FitnessDysfunction

tim in vermont said...

My generation were fools. So many of us met our wives in college and are still married decades later. Spent that time building homes, families, children, nieces and nephews, grandchildren. What an oppressive mess!

We could have been fucking random liberated women and getting not so furtive blow jobs from other liberated women who didn't really want to fuck us, but were, after all, responsible for our erections, all of this time.

Wouldn't that have been a real step up for the women of our generation?

It tears (read teers or tares) me up that womenkind had to wait for this generation to finally be free.

gerry said...

the Dems might rediscover the joys of slavery

They already have. Couples who are sterile because they are the same sex, or for medical reasons, can buy human babies and raise them as if they had generated them.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

Ideas like this would have been relentlessly mocked by both males and females when I was in school. Back then most students expected to be treated as adults. How times have changed.

Todd said...

Will Cate said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Indeed, they ought to be required to videotape the whole thing, and afterwards both assure the viewer that neither person was raped, and submit the recording to the university administration. Since they seem to be so obsessed with the details of their students' sex lives.

7/8/15, 1:46 PM


Here is an ides, while being video taped in their "encounter", both (why so provincial) nay all parties involved need to state in a clear and loud voice, no less than once every 5 seconds "This is not rape.".

They should place a little timer on the night-stand that sounds an alarm at 5 second intervals so that all participants can make the mandatory declaration. As soon as any participant does NOT make the "This is not rape." declaration at the allotted time interval, all activities come to an immediate halt and all parties withdraw (get it, withdraw) to a neutral, safe space.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Rick

"The purpose and effects of Affirmative Consent are not to imbue sex with greater emotional standing. It is to allow women to kick men off campus if the sex had negative emotional impacts they cannot deal with."

I agree that the purpose is to allow women to punish men. But they are acknowledging that sex can have a negative effect.

Remember, women were supposed to have meaninglessusex without emotional attachment, just like men. Of course, most men weren't having meaningless sex without emotional attachment. Before the sexual revolution most men had to form an emotional attachment, or at least simulate one, with a woman before they had a chance of having sex.

So women have meaningless sex without attachments, and it wounds their souls. So, since everyone tells them a lie, that they should be enjoying the sex that brings them pain, they explain the pain by calling consensual sex sexual assault.

The old joke was that men won the sexual revolution. However, women are now staging a coup.

Bob Boyd said...

We need a federal database to keep these things on file.

damikesc said...

There's not a couple in a million that will comply with this procedure. And that's the point.

Hell, the people who WROTE the law cannot actually explain how anybody could fight off an accusation. You know those writers don't abide by it.

The modern Left: From "Get Government out of my bedroom" to requiring a notary to watch you fuck somebody.

damikesc said...

Now as advice it's fine to say to guys "watch out, things are unfair out there for you and you're responsible for your actions in that unfair environment, so be extra careful." If I were advising a young man I'd certainly put things in those terms. Such advice, though, is necessary due to the unequal treatment men receive by those claiming to promote equality, and that should be pointed out and opposed.

And that's why I advocate my sons use hookers. There isn't any question about consent and she can't decide later that she was raped. Legalize prostitution now.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Todd said...They should place a little timer on the night-stand that sounds an alarm at 5 second intervals so that all participants can make the mandatory declaration. As soon as any participant does NOT make the "This is not rape." declaration at the allotted time interval, all activities come to an immediate halt and all parties withdraw (get it, withdraw) to a neutral, safe space.

Even your purposefully-absurd steps would fail, Todd. "Oh, I said the words at the time but I felt pressured to do so, and I didn't really mean then, and he should have known that--I wasn't really myself and I didn't feel like I could safely not say the words, so it was rape/sexual assault." How can you argue against that, Todd? You're not pro-rape, are you?

pdug said...

"Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh.""

1 Corinthians 6:16

Gahrie said...

A woman can't impregnate herself.

Sure she can. It has happened many times. On at least one occasion a woman saved the products of fellatio and used them to impregnate herself. Other women have saved used condoms, and used them to impregnate themselves.

Guess what? The courts make the men pay child support anyway.

furious_a said...

Is a longer, more complex form involved if one of the parties has taken Viagra?

If one of the parties, umm, "arrives early", is an extension implied or must one be sought?

Gahrie said...

A woman can consent to have sex, participate enthusiastically in the sex, thank the man for his performance and still have the ability to retroactively retract consent and file rape/sexual abuse charges. It has already happened.

#waronwomen

American Liberal Elite said...

This presents employment opportunities for lawyers and photographers. Imagine, a scrivener in every dorm!

furious_a said...


When I was a young man, Glenn Close would just throw battery acid on your Volvo and boil your daughter's pet rabbit. Wymyn these days are so batsh*t crazy they sleep upside down.

Todd said...

OK, since we are so far off into the weeds on this, here is a joke...

Did you hear the one about the co-ed that pleasured herself but felt so guilty afterwards that she reported herself for rape? They wanted to expel the rapist but didn't want to punish the victim so ...

Nice setup, don't you think?

How would you finish it? Also, where is Laslo?

EDH said...

Wouldn't this consent contract have to specify exactly what orifice(s) were in play?

You could have check-boxes:

[ ] Oral

[ ] Vaginal

[ ] Anal

Rick said...

Ron Winkleheimer said...
I agree that the purpose is to allow women to punish men. But they are acknowledging that sex can have a negative effect.


The distinction I'm making is that the left is not reacting to the riskily emotional connection of sex by moving to incorporate its existence into their model. They are reacting to it by promising to (imperfectly) excise the source of the emotional turmoil. So they are still trying to convince women the (potential) cost side of sex is less than it is.

I don't think acknowledging sex can have a negative effect means much unless your reaction to that fact is consistent.

khesanh0802 said...

Romance is well and truly dead!

Anthony said...

Some have asked if this should be recorded. I think the entire act should be recorded in order to ensure that consent was freely given at all times. The recording should be uploaded onto a website. This way everyone knows that the consent was freely given the entire time AND provide a new revenue stream for the university.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

@Rick

" don't think acknowledging sex can have a negative effect means much unless your reaction to that fact is consistent."

I agree with that too. That's why I said their world view cannot accommodate that women having casual sex has negative consequences. (It has negative consequences for men too, but their world view has no problem accommodating that.)

This inability to see reality as it is is why they are going batshit crazy with the phony rape statistics and double thinking that women are tough enough for combat, but too fragile to assert themselves concerning sex.

damikesc said...

Men have been unconscious, raped by a woman, and STILL liable for the child.

No, men cannot win.

So, again, prostitutes or women not born in Western countries are most men's best bets. Eastern European women are usually excellent as are South American.

Western women? Especially from colleges? No.

Shawn Levasseur said...

This hasn't been thought through, "consent contracts" can serve as a conduit for abuse...

It could serve as a tool of blackmail by threatening to make public a private arrangement.

Charlie Martin said...

Except as I understand it, a marriage isn't a consent to have sex either.

n.n said...

Men and women are equally responsible for consensual sex. Men and women are equally responsible for premeditated killing of wholly innocent human lives with abortion rites, unless it is the woman who chooses to indiscriminately kill her unborn child. The gender equivalence ("equal") movement has left a trail of broken relationships and bodies, and promoted corruption of government that violates equal, human, and civil rights in order to force a false equivalence. Both men and women should not have sex until they understand and are capable of accepting responsibility for their behavior.

Rockeye said...

I'm trying to imagine explaining this all to my dear departed grandmother. I just don't know how I could without sounding as if I were just screwing with her, speaking Navajo, or had gone mad. I wonder if this is how it sometimes felt to be living in the last years of greatness in the Roman Empire.

mccullough said...

I kid you not, I was listening to Beck's Sexx Laws when I scrolled down and saw this post.

"I'll let you be my chaperone, at the half-way home . . . ."

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Mainsplaiing, that didn't take too long.
I'm not "set[ting you] up as a bad woman" since I'm not talking about you in any way.
Of course I see differences in men & women's bodies. That's not at issue. The issue is GIVEN the differences are men & women equally responsible (for preventing unwanted pregnancy, etc)? On the one hand you seem to say "yes, men are more responsible" due to biology. On the other hand you seem to say "no, both are equally responsible because I believe in equality." On a third hand you seem to say "both are equally responsible AND men are more responsible" which doesn't seem logically possible.

As an aside, which biological fact (about the unequal roles men and women's bodies play in conceiving) makes an unplanned pregnancy more the fault of the man than the woman (absent rape, of course)? It seems like conception itself equally requires the participation of both. Certainly after conception there's a highly unequal (physical) cost, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about responsibility for causing the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. You keep asserting that the responsibility for preventing unwanted pregnancy should be more on the man, but I don't think you've said why.

Ann Althouse said...

cubanbob said...
"Sounds like a variant of Iranian Sharia laws where one who goes to a prostitute gets a quicky marriage for the length of the session so to speak.."

Yes. That is somethong I had in mind as I wrote the post. I chose to leave it out, because I thought it would be more of a distraction than a revelation.

Ann Althouse said...

Be clear. I'm not saying the recommended procedure is good. I'm saying it's expressive of something that matters. Profoundly.

Put the men's rights agenda aside for a moment and think deeply.

Ann Althouse said...

HoodlumDoodlum said..."Blogger Ann Althouse said...
'Be clear. I'm not saying the recommended procedure is good. I'm saying it's expressive of something that matters. Profoundly.',

"Thinking deeply: the purpose of the act matters. If the contract (w/picture) was designed to make people think twice before having sexual relations, to consider the wider implications of the action they're about to take--that kind of thing, you'd have a point that the superficial resemblance to a marriage ceremony was meaningful. But that's not the purpose-it's explicitly tied to a need to (legally) prove consent. It's a CYA measure that in itself strongly implies a breakdown of the kinds of things a marriage ceremony celebrates and promotes (long term commitment, trust, etc). If you have that trust, and monogamy, and community support for a lasting relationship you don't need a consent contract w/picture! A marriage ceremony is a public declaration of mutual agreement of long term commitment. This is a privately-entered contract designed to prevent unwanted legal harm, or act as proof in some possible future trial. The joke, of course, is that the document (and picture) would be useless in that capacity.

"I agree the idea of such a contract is expressive of something. I disagree that it shows a judgment that "consent is not enough." It shows, rather, that consent is all that's really needed or necessary, and that being able to prove that consent is more important than questioning whether the act is a good idea (in the circumstance where you think you might need to prove that consent was present!).

Anthony said...

But how do you prove consent was not revoked after the taking of the picture of the signing of the agreement.

I think the only solution to that is to record the entire act. To make sure it is reviewed by the widest number of people for removal of consent, all sure recordings should be uploaded onto the internet

Paco Wové said...

So, having torn down the old world, and then bombed the rubble, and then ground the rubble to powder, the new guard gropes its way towards the old world again, but this time as grotesque parody.

n.n said...

Anthony:

For that matter, how do you prove that consent was given freely (i.e. a capable state of mind) at the time when the picture was taken. It seems the only reliable method to prove initial and ongoing consent is to have a certified psychiatrist observing the individuals and process, or as you suggest a "jury of your [impartial] peers", perhaps carried out in a Planned Fornication facility regulated by the government.

n.n said...

Paco Wové:

I think with resurrection of sacrificial rites under the color of "privacy" as a right, we skipped the old world and progressed directly to the nether world. It doesn't get more barbaric than debasing human life for wealth, pleasure, and leisure, and, from the policy maker's perspective, environmental stability. It's all quite sterile and grotesque.

kcom said...

To make sure it is reviewed by the widest number of people for removal of consent, all sure recordings should be uploaded onto the internet

That's too risky. By then it would be too late to prevent something bad from happening. It's obvious all encounters should be streamed live. By law.

There a must also be a system in place for any of the "reviewers" to click a button at any time to stop the action and get a ruling from the commissioner before things proceed. Perhaps a harness that delivers a small electric shock could accomplish that. And a buzzer.

In fact, the government should also have a say in selecting the participants. Academics, top men, could study all potential pairings and veto those found inappropriate, based on peer-reviewed criteria. This, of course, would be justified under the commerce clause. Especially if those requesting sexual privileges happened to be eating bread made from wheat they'd grown on their own land.

It's a Brave New World.

Marc Puckett said...

Gerry at 2:06, Thanks for pointing out that article at Forbes. Just last week, the French administrative state-- the Cour de cassation-- allowed citizenship to infants born abroad of surrogate mothers, and the Catholic and other elements of the Right haven't been reticent in calling this the re-introduction of slavery.

Gahrie said...

Be clear. I'm not saying the recommended procedure is good. I'm saying it's expressive of something that matters. Profoundly.

Ok, you've got me. I see nothing profound about the whole affirmative consent movement generally, or this contract specifically.

It's more of that transcendence thing isn't it?

Theranter said...

Mark Puckett:
Yup. and these women are housed in 'clinics' and word is they are held like veal cattle. Here are some links to the 'services':
http://www.sensiblesurrogacy.com/gay-surrogacy/
http://www.sensiblesurrogacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/SS-Price-Services-BOM-Overview-Winter-2014.pdf
http://www.sensiblesurrogacy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Sensible-Surrogacy-Overview-2014-Service-Fees-MEX.pdf

madAsHell said...

I always figured that by the time my tongue hit her clitoris, my dick was gonna get some action. That was consent!!

These guys that want to go in dick first?? Yeah....I've never understood that. As my father told me "If you ain't gonna lick it, then don't dick it". I think this is a corollary to the five smelly vaginas.

I am not Lazlo, but I may be a dirty old man.

Sharkcutie said...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B5NMN7GBA4

For some fun!

H said...

Why don't conservatives make a strong push for the following: Incorporate consent for sex in the marriage contract (or vows); make sex outside of marriage a crime for both (all?) participants. This insures that consent was mutual, thoughtful, and permanent, and clearly demarcates the conditions under which sex is presumptively not consensual.

jr565 said...

Men should be able to sign a fatherhood contract prior to the mating ritual. Where they absolve themselves of parental rights, simply because they don't want to be dad. The woman agrees and signs the contract. If she has the kid, the dad is not the dad.
Besides, men and women are interchangeable, and being raised by a single mom is noting to be ashamed about. Dan Quayle was a doody head.

Meade said...

Sexual advance directives. Bed death panels.

jr565 said...

men actually have a lot more power here than they think. Simply refuse to screw anyone who would present them with a contract.
Or, be a stickler on the contract. Make that contract so annoying that the woman would never bring it up again out of embarrassment.
I'm going to thrust into you now. Now I'm going to pull out. Now, Im going to thrust into you again. Is it ok? We need to sign the consent form again. yeah, we do. because I want to make sure you have given me consent every step of the way. Sorry that this guy over here is watching the coitus. He's a notary public. We both need to sign and then he needs to apply the stamp. otherwise is the contract really binding. Dont worry, you won't even notice he's there."

jr565 said...

When men go to prostitutes they essentially agree to a contract. They pay for services rendered. It would actually be less of a hassle to have sex with prostitutes than with these feminists on campus. And the prostitute isn't going to say you raped her after the fact. Even if she gave consent.

Todd said...

jr565 said...
Men should be able to sign a fatherhood contract prior to the mating ritual. Where they absolve themselves of parental rights, simply because they don't want to be dad. The woman agrees and signs the contract. If she has the kid, the dad is not the dad.
Besides, men and women are interchangeable, and being raised by a single mom is noting to be ashamed about. Dan Quayle was a doody head.
7/9/15, 7:47 AM


You might have a better shot with an "insurance pool". Men could sign long term contracts with specially setup insurance pools. The insurance would cover the costs of any child support claims made against you. You would have to sign a [let us assume] 25 year contract with small monthly premiums. You pay the flat rated amount and are "permitted" up to X claims per the term.

Let the market solve the problem that the state created!

jr565 said...

women used to wear chastity belts because you couldn't have sex with them till married. Modern day. Feminists will have metaphorical chastity belts beciase no man would ever want to fuck them. They might as well join a nunnery.

cognito said...

This is just more "drive clicks to my son, who can't generate enough clicks on his own" typical Althouse stuff.

cognito said...

I know this is going to get washed away in the sea of comments here at Althouse's house, but frankly this contract along with the photographs have great promise for adding great value to the sexual event:
1. The photograph - nothing specified about the photo taken while she is naked. Do it!
2. Nothing is more fun than making her say "Yes. Please! Harder" and all the other verbal encouragement. Here you get to start the verbosity before the two of you even start.
3. Better than notches on a bed post - imagine the bulletin boards on Frat Houses covered now with legally binding "Yes" contracts, with accompanying photos.
4. Keepsakes - nothing better to fill that college-years scrapbook along with photos of your recreational activities than photos and agreements with the women you banged in bed. Page after page of "Oh yes! Please F' me. Please!!!" consent agreements and accompanying photos.

Bring it, Fauxminists. Bring. It. Hard.

All In!

damikesc said...

When men go to prostitutes they essentially agree to a contract. They pay for services rendered. It would actually be less of a hassle to have sex with prostitutes than with these feminists on campus. And the prostitute isn't going to say you raped her after the fact. Even if she gave consent.

That's my point with my boys. Prostitutes give dramatically fewer headaches than co-eds.

Why don't conservatives make a strong push for the following: Incorporate consent for sex in the marriage contract (or vows); make sex outside of marriage a crime for both (all?) participants. This insures that consent was mutual, thoughtful, and permanent, and clearly demarcates the conditions under which sex is presumptively not consensual.

Because that'd be different...somehow.

Anonymous said...

Since the traditional point of marriage is permanence and fidelity in those relationships that have the theoretical potential to produce children, this is a piss-poor substitute for a marriage contract.

It's more like registering in the guest book at the whore house.

rasqual said...

"This is what I've long thought. They're coming back around to a very traditional perspective on the purpose of marriage."

Heh.

Traditional marriage encoded the wisdom of the ages into an institution that was entered into by people who accepted that they were embarking on something larger than themselves. Marriage served society and in faithfully executing the commitment over the long haul, marriage modeled in microcosm what society at large should aspire to -- not a natural peace, but an achieved one arising from conflict because of commitment and mutual deference. And children!

Glenn Reynolds really nailed it with his "Made in mockery of marriage, as Sauron made the orcs in mockery of the elves" quip.

No longer is courtship ruled by the mores of your family and local culture. It's not even defined or moderated by mediating institutions. It's arbitrated by the State and its principle agent of indoctrination, the Academy.

Give up an organic, loamy, fertile soil that has grown marriages for hundreds of years -- millennia -- in trade for a sterile landscape where the new geniuses water everything with Brawndo. :-/

Seriously though, it's not at all similar, because it's handing to arbitrary bureaucrats the role of concocting new mores in place of abiding ones they've thoroughly discarded.

Freedom. The best things in life are free. Which means they're voluntary. The mores of traditional marriage were certainly that. Often maligned and mocked, with the consummation of SSM's marriage to the Zeitgeist (the courtship was a long and earnest one) the final nail is driven in its coffin. "We shall have whatever we wish! Now, who will write the NEW rules, now that those prudes are all gone?"

We have our answer. It's not No Rules. It's whose. No longer a voluntary tradition, because that was scorned and slaughtered. With the landscape cleared, the new order is one of obeisance to genuine lords of our bedrooms. It's NOT voluntary. And it's not the Republicans who did it. They have rolled over and peed when faced down with the new statist alpha beast.

Fun times ahead.

pauld said...

I am curious whether the "yes means yes" statute carves out an exemption for married students on college campuses. Or do married couples need to take a photo of themselves with the signed contract?

Todd said...

pauld said... [hush]​[hide comment]
I am curious whether the "yes means yes" statute carves out an exemption for married students on college campuses. Or do married couples need to take a photo of themselves with the signed contract?

7/9/15, 2:22 PM


Even better, does it apply to student / professor relationships and encounters? Will the Professor (typically male) need to get the female student (I guess it could be male student too) sign and be photographed with this consent "contract" prior to each trist?

Alec Rawls said...

Got briefly interested in a co-ed many years ago who told me that she and some feminist friends had been talking very seriously about the need for society to somehow enforce a rule that boyfriends could only dump girlfriends for just cause. "You mean like marriage, before the no-fault divorce laws?" Gasp of horror.

The cluelessness and lack of self-awareness was quite amazing. She and her "feminist" friends saw the direction they wanted to go but they just couldn't conceive of the possibility that where they wanted to go was back. They had to think of it as a new thing, continuing further in the direction of progressive feminism.

It was laughable at the time. Who could have imagined that something so flat-out ditzy could ever take hold? But here we have the same kind of thinking, where the female desire to return to a much more constrained and traditional morality gets mashed into an utterly dysfunctional new form that is meaninglessly labeled "progressive" because these regressive women can't possibly think of themselves as wanting to go back.

The Digital Hairshirt said...

So, in effect, this is the American version of the nikah mu'tah, the Islamic "temporary marriage" in which a man and woman are joined as husband and wife for a limited time to maintain copulation within the boundaries of religious morality - except the Muslims are just not as paranoid or litigious.