Defining Consensual Sex as Rape via ‘Yes’ Means ‘No’ Compliance Logic

An activist who tweets as Kamil Beylant recently pointed me to an article suggesting that the age of consent should remain and be set at the school leaving age because of issues of ‘compliance’. What does the author mean by ‘compliance’? It seems the author means a ‘child’ may say ‘yes’ to a sexual act when really they want to say ‘no’. The reason why they would do this, it is claimed, seems to be in a child’s need to ‘comply’ with school:

“Children also spend their early years being taught to comply with the wishes of adults: in school, with the adult teacher’s wishes, and at home with the wishes of their parents. In both situations failure to comply frequently leads to disciplinary action. Therefore, when an adult requests that a child remove his or her clothes, that request is made from an unequal power base, since children have learned to comply with adult’s requests. Thus again, children cannot give informed consent.”

Suffice to say, this all sounds rather feminist to me and I do not agree. But feminists are endlessly trying to make “yes” mean “no” so it’s worth showing what the counterarguments are. So here’s the problems I have with the above claim:

1) It happily criminalises consensual relations for those who have not fallen into this “compliance” trap and thus this should be worrying for anyone following an even vaguely libertarian (freedom) philosophy. The law must, in my view, carefully aim to criminalise only acts that are genuinely undesirable. There are also practicalities over what the law can and cannot do. The law will never catch all crime – not even most – it’s aim is to provide a sufficient deterrant that people will generally avoid crime deciding that it is “not worth it”. So this idea of ‘sexual abuse’ being an inhumanely sickening crime that must be eradicated at all costs will NOT happen through use of the law. It is better to tighten the laws so as to free up police time to only go after genuinely abusive cases.

2) The comparison with school is absurd. The fact that children may be expected to do certain things in school and threatened if they don’t speaks more about the school system than it does about sexual activity. It also begs the question that, given that the school system is forcing children to ‘comply’, then surely school has the same ‘compliance’ problem as sexual activity and thus, should be illegal? In response to this question, it was claimed to me that school is necessary and therefore, it is OK. Yet it simply does not follow that school being a necessity means it does not cause harm whilst (apparently unnecessary) sexual activity does cause harm. Nor does it follow that school is a necessity as evidenced by the large numbers of home educators who, in some cases, go so far as to effectively not ‘school’ their children at all under so-called ‘autonomous’ education.

3) Setting the age of consent at the school leaving age is also madness. This implies that, if the school leaving age were younger, then the age of consent should be younger. If the school leaving age is older, then the age of consent should be older. It seems odd that children would be more ‘compliant’ depending on the school leaving age. If it really is the case that children become more or less compliant depending on the school leaving age then it suggests it is the school system that is responsible for this supposed ‘sexual abuse epidemic’. Tweaking the school system to make children the least compliant would minimise the problem. Thus, the solution does not lie in having age of consent laws but in reforming the authoritarian school system.

4) The idea that ‘compliance’ is specific to youth and does not carry on after seems wrong. You see issues with compliance amongst adults all the time. For example, the fact that in a world of 7 billion people only a handful are taking up arms and writing blogs like this in the fight against paedohysteria. Such is the pressure to comply to such a hateful ideology. You see people walking through airport security and being searched, threatened and so forth and they all merely comply. Perhaps the best example is once upon a time Jews were sent to concentration camps and in many ways they complied with what was happening. Such compliance later proved to be fatal for the Jews. Thus, if the existence of cases of compliance makes all sex with potentially complying individuals rape then, given that adults also comply a lot, I would say all sex is rape. Follow Andrea Dworkin into the grave at your peril!

5) Radical feminists are already starting to take the view that even adults too may be ‘compliant’ with extremist laws like California’s Yes Means Yes Law which puts excessive onus on the man to ensure his partner really is consenting – all the time – and not merely ‘compliant’ thus ‘forgetting’ to say ‘no’. The concept of compliance (also known as ‘Yes’ means ‘No’) is very much a feminist idea where children and women become helpless victims unable to say or indicate, in any way at all, what they want. It is a dangerous and delusional ideology that ultimately results in the State – and the feminists – being the only ones who can decide on an individuals future. This leads to a society with no individuality at all.

6) One thing men’s rights activists have recently started to speak of is Gynocentrism – where the world is seen from the woman’s point of view only. What does gynocentrism have directly to do with this? Well, I think for what we are discussing here we need a new similar word: Rapecentrism – that is where everything is seen from the point of view of a ‘rape victim’. The problem with this is that everything is centered around the rape victims point of view but the average Joe is ignored. As a consequence we get more and more oppressive sex laws and even those arguing against them – or some of them – still continue to argue using a rapecentric point of view. It becomes a case of asking, if I decide to make this law change, how will it impact rape victims? How can I mitigate its impact on rape victims? How can I improve life for rape victims? Yet it ignores non-rape victims. No, that last phrase was not a typo – those who have not been raped have become victims in today’s discourse as they must endure a harsh array of extremist puritanical sex laws designed to imprison anyone for any reason if someone has claimed it could, in some obscure circumstance, be rape.

So how does rapecentrism contradict ‘compliance’ being a good reason for an age of consent? Well arguing that underage sexual relations should be criminalised on the basis that some may be ‘rapey’ (or compliant or whatever we are calling it) is essentially a rapecentric point of view. It ignores those who are, or would be, happy in their relationships but must now endure solitude, prison time, or an abrupt & violent (police raid) end to their relationships.  That is both dangerous and unfair.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Defining Consensual Sex as Rape via ‘Yes’ Means ‘No’ Compliance Logic

  1. Opus says:

    About half of all women now proceed to Tertiary Education. It is clear that the age of consent should be raised to twenty-one (and obviously even higher for those taking Masters Degrees or preparing their Doctoral Theses) when armed with their degree in Women’s Studies they will truly be able to consent or rather say No and mean it.

    The age of criminal responsibility had previously been set at fourteen: education thus seems to render women incapable.

    • holocaust21 says:

      “education thus seems to render women incapable”

      So much for it being ‘education’ then – more like ‘indoctrination’ in how to be a good little sheep 🙂

  2. patrick says:

    Also In that blog he mentioned disgust,and tried to correlate that into incestuous relations,using the extreme example of fellatio by Grandad as an example,but In most cases it would be the sister,brother,dad then mother.though siblings are usually close and affectionate,If a bit of light sexual stimulation is thrown into the mix,should the family be broken up,and the father,sister or bro thrown into jail? though there’s no hard evidence on sexual disgust in infants,the fact that they
    have to be taught about “good touch bad touch” seems to defy that logic,unlike where a child would instantly learn,not to put their hand in electric socket.

    He also mentioned some vague hypothetical wrestling situation,where whilst engaged in a bit of fun play fighting,(which I did allot of at boarding school) It turns from wrestling to fellatio.This apparently is only bad,when one of the participants Is an adult with anyone under the school leaving age.what BS!..Ideological crusades rarely let a little thing like inconsistency trouble them!

    This is all vaguely based on harm that has not been proven..If two people were fighting and one stabbed the other with a six-inch knife,its possible though unlikely,that no harm would result .but at least we could point to basic biology for evidence that such an action is likely to cause harm,possibly even fatal.we’re supposed to accept -as if obvious-the extreme limits of pedo-hysterical notions of what counts as abuse? If you can’t beat these feminist prudish-puritans join
    them,and play them at their own exaggerated game! BTW when I was 21 I had a 16yo girlfriend
    for over a year,compliance? hardly!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s