True consent? – Foolish Feminist of the Week

I recently participated in a twitter discussion on the topic of rape.

A friend of mine posted a picture of herself in a T-shirt that read “No means no.”

On the back the shirt read “Only yes means yes.”

This shirt of course is worn in protest of rape. Now the shirt is somewhat logically consistent. If someone tells you “No, I don’t want to get it on,” and you proceed, you are in fact raping that someone.

However, I have a serious problem with some of the notions tied to these catchy tees.

So I thought I would provoke a little response.

I asked if the shirt was in protest of rape (which is quite clear cut and easy to identify), or was it in protest of a person convincing another person to have sex with them.

I was told by one @peniggas, a feminist in the local area, that convincing someone to sleep with you is in fact rape.

I then questioned @peniggas a bit more on subject, and proceeded to call her argument one of cowardice and selfishness.

Let me explain.

Convincing someone to have sex with you may not be right. And there are certainly illegal ways of doing it, but it is not rape. At it’s worst, it could be considered sexual harassment.

The key word here is “convincing.”

If someone does not give you consent, and then later does in fact give you consent after you have spoken with them about it. You have changed their mind, consent has been given, now making the act consensual.

There are literally tons of parallels to this, especially considering that the concept of “consent” is not limited to sex.

When you take out a loan, and put your signature on the line with the bank, you have given the bank consent. They will sign their side and they will have given you consent.

You have now agreed to the terms of the loan. You may not like it, but you have.

Now obviously in a loan you are locked in because the money is spent and yada yada yada.

I am not saying that you shouldn’t stop if a consensual sex partner asks you to. I am simply saying, the act has begun because both parties agreed.

The reason @peniggas argument is cowardly and selfish lies in the practicality of it. By her logic, anyone who has sex can say (AFTER THE FACT) that despite giving consent, that they did not want too, and therefore they were raped.

Again, there are definitely illegal ways of “convincing” people to do anything. Blackmail, threatening someone physically, threatening someone close to a person physically. Basically if you have to commit another illegal act to convince this person to sleep with you, it’s probably rape. (Though I do still have a problem calling with such a situation based on ferocity contrast between what traditional rape tends to be, and what a like one described above might be.)

Needless to say don’t be this guy ⬇️

The offer

The argument that @peniggas used is stereotypically nothing more than a way for girls to shrug off the consequences of their actions in the sexual realm.

I do not believe @peniggas is one of these girls after more discussing matters with her further, but her argument was still silly.

@peniggas’ argument relied on one logically fallacious concept. The concept of “True Consent”.

She told me that just because Person A gives  Person B consent, doesn’t necessarily mean that Person A wants to, and therefore it is not true consent.

I have no problem with this concept as a concept. However, in the realm of practicality, this little diddy is all jacked up!

Let’s say you are walking out of a grocery store, and there is table surrounded with girl scouts trying to sell you cookies. You really don’t want to, but everyone is watching and you don’t want to look like a snide prick by walking past them. So you buy the cookies, despite the fact that you really didn’t want to spend the money on some shitty shortbread cookies… Did those girl scouts just rob you? Better yet… DID THEY RAPE YOU??? 🎶DUN DUN DUN🎶

How about someone asking you to give to charity and even though you really don’t want to, you do it anyways so as not to upset that person, or bear the consequences of __Fill In The Blank__

Did that charity worker rob you?

The answer is no, you gave consent. You gave money. You gave them permission to take it despite the fact that you didn’t want to.

The laws must be written in such a way that they can not only be effective, but just. (I know this is a new concept to all you idealistic, feminist, silly geese out there, but bear with me.)

There is no way of ever measuring what people truly want in there heads. We cannot enforce laws based on thoughts. It is wrong to do so. Laws address the tangible.

The truth of the matter is, sexual consent should be tied to ones desire. If one does not act in accordance with what they desire, how can they ever expect to achieve what they desire.

If I want Mexican food, but instead go to an Italian food restaurant, would it be logical of me to expect to eat Mexican food?

No, because I didn’t act on my desire.

If a boy asks you to have sex with him, and you say yes despite the fact that you really meant no.

He did not rape you, you are just a moron.

Caveat was already given above, and so I am putting a period here.


@peniggas blocked me on twitter though I am not quite sure why. She was one of the more intellectually honest feminists I have spoken to in literally a decade.

Manson didn't want to kill! That makes it okay right?

Manson didn’t want to kill! And what he wanted is what really matters, not what he did right?


2 thoughts on “True consent? – Foolish Feminist of the Week

  1. curiosetta

    > I asked if the shirt was in protest of rape (which is quite clear cut and easy to identify),

    That only applies to the extremely rare cases of the stranger rape in dark ally ways. More typically rape allegations are made against people known to the person making the allegations. They may have had sex before, or they may have been socialising, drinking, making out etc.

    RE: ‘convincing’

    A lot of women like to test how devoted or loyal a man is to her before agreeing to have sex with him. Traditionally women have always encouraged men to compete for her affections by denying all of them intimacy, but with the implicit message that if they raise their game they might be in with a chance. Playing men off each other like this and then selecting the man who has demonstrated the most loyalty, devotion, strength, generosity and resources (money) is a fundamental aspect of courtship which has been going on for millions of years (and not just among humans, but among primates and many other mammals too).

    The reason why women play men off against each other is that women are vulnerable during the reproductive cycle and naturally seek the man most able, willing and eager to provide her with resources and protection when she is pregnant and nursing a baby.

    Everybody on the planet – except feminists it seems – understand that when a woman tells a man “I’m not interested” she often means “I might be interested……but I want you to do something to convince me (to impress me), and then you might be in with a chance….”.

    Biologically speaking it is disastrous for a woman to simply sleep with some good looking guy after knowing him for five minutes. As far as our bodies are concerned sex means pregnancy. How does she know he is not going to just do a runner the next day and leave her to fend for herself through pregnancy and motherhood?

    This is why females of many species traditionally ‘test’ the males by constantly turning their advances down so that the males can demonstrate their loyalty, affection and desire to provide her with resources and protection. When a man takes a woman out on several dates and pays for dinner he is basically demonstrating to her that he can provide her with food…. the implication being that if she were to agree to have sex with him and get pregnant by him she and the baby would not starve to death because he is able to look after them.

    Obviously modern technology (not least contraception) means it is not so critical for women to ‘test’ their men in this way, and many women do now have casual sex as a result. But in general women do still test men when they are looking for a *long term partner*, or anything more than a one night stand. And this means telling the man “no” for a period of time, even though you are in fact interested in him romantically and sexually.

    And of course, even if a woman is absolutely besotted with a man and she knows he is ‘the one’ she still might turn down his advances for a few weeks, fearing that if she just says “Mmmmm yes please” straight away she will appear easy and this might scare him away.

    There is a difference between saying “no” to a man’s advances, and saying “no” to sex specifically. While an emphatic “no” from a woman (or indeed a man) means sex is prohibited, it does not necessarily mean they want you to stop trying to make advances to get them to say ‘Yes”. In other words, when a woman (or a man) says “no” it does NOT mean the women (or man) is not interested in being ‘convinced’. Often it means the women desperately wants the man to convince her he is serious in his advances!!!

    And to be crystal clear, ‘convince’ is not the same as ‘coerce’. Convince means things like offering to buy her drinks, listening to her problems, serenading her by moonlight, buying her tickets to the theatre, hanging around like a puppy, …. and generally showing interest, loyalty and devotion despite being turned down all the time.

    This whole ‘rape culture’ BS is one more example of how feminists either have no self awareness and no knowledge of what makes men and women tick ….. or are deliberately choosing to deny reality for political reasons ie to screw up society and pit men and women against each other.

    One thing is for sure. The more confused, fearful, angry and unhappy women are, the more they will flock to feminism. Feminism thrives on the misery of women, and even the rape of women. So it’s no wonder feminists do all they can to promote dysfunctional relationships between men and women.

    1. Outsider Nation Post author

      Excellent points!

      But just playing devils advocate here… How dare you portray females in a vulnerable manner! They are strong and independent don’t you know! They don’t need no man!

      Lol, no but seriously you couldn’t be more correct!

      This rape culture thing has got to stop.

      I will never deny that sexual assault happens, and that its a serious issue. But to villainize all sexual activity? No thank you.

      You just explained one of a few very valid reasons women should say no the first few times!

      Which is exactly why I wrote this.

      Also, I loved the way you distinguished between convince and coerced. Obviously when I began to defend convincing on Twitter I wasn’t talking about coercing someone into sex.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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