Contributor Post Created with Sketch. Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: A Conservative Woman’s Thoughts on California SB 967

 

I flinched as I heard Kruiser, Katz and Shlichter delve into the issue of California’s Senate Bill 967 in the latest episode of Tracked and Targeted. Not because I disagreed with their conclusions, but because I could foresee the inevitable public persecution.

California’s Senate Bill 967 was signed into law on Sunday, and it’s a law requiring “unambiguous, enthusiastic and ongoing” consent before sexual conduct on college campuses. As a Swede, I took some extra interest in the passing of this law, since it’s very likely my country will pass such a law on a national level within the next four years.

The Tracked and Targeted crew made some excellent points on why this law is horrendous, but as men they were handicapped in doing so. That is how the world works nowadays. We talk about men as we make decisions that influence the world they live in, but if they dare argue the merits of those decisions, we shriek and claim victimization.

But fret not, dear boys. I have so many cards (minority, woman, single mother – you name it, I’ve got it) and I will now play my hand in order to back up my Ricochet crew.

 

This law stunts our growth and ruins sex for everyone.

Bad sex happens, and it’s part of becoming a grown-up. The college years are all about finding out who you are, and that includes who you are sexually. Regretting a sexual encounter usually leads to better choices and adapted behavior, and like any experience — good or bad — it will encourage personal responsibility. Needless to say, this new consent law will also create a culture of sexual angst. Having to say yes — or ask every five minutes if the girl is still ok with what is going on, —does not make for a healthy or pleasurable sexual experience, nor does it lessen the gender gap the liberal brain trust behind this law is claiming to want to overcome.

This law reeks of prejudice

I am the mother of two young boys, and the idea that they are somehow dormant rapists makes me want to stab someone in the eye (see, I’m much more violent than most men). Creating corrective legislation to control what is seen as their inherently sick sexuality is no better than racist laws from times when we saw black people as savages or laws that forced sterilization of the mentally handicapped. Men are not animals, and women are not passive canvases for male sexuality. We are equals, but this law is telling us that we are not — and it is promoting the idea that male sexuality is “evil” whereas female sexuality is “good”. The purity stigma is an albatross around a woman’s neck, not only because it will hinder her from developing a relaxed and honest approach to her sexuality, but also because it is a form of built-in slut-shaming for any woman who is less black and white and more shades of grey (much pun intended). As we debate this law, we must remember not to only focus on the labeling of men as possible rapists, but also on the notion of all women as pure, libido-less angels — and how this modern chastity belt pushes both genders back in to boxes we were supposed to have escaped many decades ago.

This law is anti-woman

As far as I know, the basic premise behind this feminist ideology is to celebrate choice and create a world where I am not judged on the basis of my gender. Yet feminists keep insisting on pointing out that I am a woman first, legislating me into my gender and making assumptions based on it. This law makes a victim out of women. It demonizes both female and male sexuality and pits us against each other instead of creating the safe zone it claims to promote. As a woman, I should be able to have sex, make mistakes, and take responsibility for my actions to just as great an extent as a man. If I have a law making me say yes every five minutes, it not only means I am doomed to have crappy sex. More importantly, however, it means the justice system does not trust me as a woman to know what I want or be responsible for my own decisions. We are back to separate but equal, but this time the inequality is touted by feminists trying to find legal ways to avoid the fact that freedom has a bad aftertaste of personal responsibility. Women are not victims of male sexuality. We are not passive objects. We want, we lust, and we have basic sexual needs like any red-blooded man. The 967-bill is not empowering me; it is saying that, as a woman, I have so little power that the government has to step in to safeguard my vagina. How is that a feminist thought? In what world is that progressive?

When I took my my first feminist class (yes, I used to do that), I was told that feminism was all about being an individual (and not a woman) first. That was all I ever wanted, and all I still want — to be an individual, with all the freedoms and responsibilities that come with that. Somewhere in my early 20s I realized that feminism had very little to do with individual equality and very much to do with collective guilt, and thus I chose another path. I grew up, I learned from my mistakes, and thanked G-d for the experiences that lead me there.

The 967-bill and others like it will teach our sons and daughters that they cannot be trusted with their own minds or their own bodies, and that bureaucracy has made its way into our bedrooms, demanding pleasure-waivers before we even get to 2nd base. Ironically, it is the same crowd passing this bill that were demanding that the government stay out of their genitalia when it comes to reproduction. They say they want equality. Equality on their terms, however, means a society where some are more equal than others.

This law creates a false sense of security

The signal being sent by this law is troublesome in many ways. First of all, it is saying that bureaucracy can protect you from rape. This is not the case, unfortunately. Signing a piece of paper will not stop a rapist, male or female, from acting. It will only stop normal, curious individuals from having sex out of fear of being falsely accused. Secondly, it will create a second-tier legal system within the academic community. If, G-d forbid, someone is sexually assaulted, it should be handled by the police and the courts — and when this is done one should be considered innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until able to produce the right documentation.

As I went off to college, my father told me that life is hard and that I should always behave like a lady and, if needed, fight like a man. He couldn’t give that advice today without being called an oppressive patriarch — but for me it became a mantra that I live by to this day. Life is not easy. Terrible things happen and bad people will come your way. Your success in life will be determined not by how you handle the rose-colored moments, but by how you respond to the dark depths of the abyss. You can’t legislate away pain, heartache, or mistakes. Sure, it is a human instinct to want to pass laws to protect you and those you love from the unknown; from that one sick individual who will try to cause you harm. Attempting to legislate that away, however, will create a world where you are no more safe, but where everyone is much less free.

There are 45 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Morituri Te Inactive

    Beautifully said, Annika.

    • #1
    • October 4, 2014, at 1:26 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. Annika Hernroth-Rothstein Contributor

    Daniel Frank:Beautifully said, Annika.

    Thank you.

    • #2
    • October 4, 2014, at 1:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  3. jetstream Inactive

    It’s mind boggling that the free speech movement and the sexual revolution of the 1960s has produced this convoluted statist mess.

    • #3
    • October 4, 2014, at 1:37 PM PDT
    • Like
  4. Mike Rapkoch Moderator

    I’m glad you’re on our side. I found this to be especially insightful:

    The 967-bill and others like it will teach our sons and daughters that they cannot be trusted with their own minds or their own bodies, and that bureaucracy has made its way into our bedrooms, demanding pleasure-waivers before we even get to 2nd base. Ironically, it is the same crowd passing this bill that were demanding that the government stay out of their genitalia when it comes to reproduction. 

    The irony drips.

    • #4
    • October 4, 2014, at 1:50 PM PDT
    • Like
  5. civil westman Inactive

    This is a particularly poignant example of the end game of modern liberalism. It would script every human utterance and choreograph every act. Excepting of our betters in techno-bureaucratic government, of course, humans are to be reduced to ventriloquists’ dummies. If this can be done in the most intimate settings it can be done anywhere. They aim to squeeze all the human juices out of the rest of us. The only remaining locus of privacy and “choice,” it seem, can be found in female erogenous zones.

    At the rate Liberals are creating “victims,” perpetrators must soon come into short supply.

    • #5
    • October 4, 2014, at 2:35 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. Stephen Kruiser Inactive

    THANK YOU. I really tried to avoid talking about it at all because of the handicap you mentioned but I am so infuriated by the law and the forces behind it that I couldn’t. I was having trouble falling asleep last Monday night because I was agonizing over whether to try and tackle the subject from Testosterone Island.

    You’ve not only added all the cred needed but have covered every important point and stated everything so clearly that I’m going to print this post up for reference.

    I may wave it in a face or two as well.

    You know how unhinged we boys are.

    • #6
    • October 4, 2014, at 2:53 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. EThompson Inactive

    This law makes a victim out of women.

    As a woman, I should be able to have sex, make mistakes, and take responsibility for my actions to just as great an extent as a man. 

    That’s exactly right!

    I resent the assumption that most men are inherent rapists and insensitive Neanderthals. This whole premise creates a battlefield between the sexes and that simply ruins the fun for everybody– which is truly what I cannot forgive.

    Great post.

    • #7
    • October 4, 2014, at 2:59 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. Stephen Kruiser Inactive

    jetstream:It’s mind boggling that the free speech movement and the sexual revolution of the 1960s has produced this convoluted statist mess.

    Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

    • #8
    • October 4, 2014, at 3:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Retail Lawyer Member

    I think I see an app for this. Or, if that just seems to wreck the mood, a video, with both parties consenting to the video, would probably work.

    I think I see a bunch of sex videos coming around on the internets shortly.

    This is my ridiculous state! Who would send their daughter to an institution where this was thought to be necessary?

    • #9
    • October 4, 2014, at 3:54 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. Rocket City Dave Inactive

    Guys on campus should start viewing their female classmates as too risky as sexual partners. That’s the safest course of action. Otherwise you could be thrown out of school for bad sex or hurt feelings.

    There are plenty of alternatives to college girls for sexual partners. That’s less than ideal, but it’s safer than putting yourself at the mercy of your female classmates and the university gestapo.

    If you risk an encounter with a female classmate it’s probably best if you insist on a video record and verbal and written consent.

    • #10
    • October 4, 2014, at 4:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    On the other hand, this law is the PERFECT argument for delaying sex until marriage. College kids of either sex can use it as a reason.

    • #11
    • October 4, 2014, at 4:56 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. Lady Randolph Inactive

    I just want to know what they think “ongoing consent” means. Are you supposed to take a break every couple of minutes and have a little discussion?!

    NO FUN.

    I’ve never had sex outside of marriage, so I have no basis for comparison, but in my experience one of the greatest benefits of sex with commitment is that generally you aren’t left wondering if the other person really wants you or not, and hoping they won’t wake up the next morning with regrets and a chip on their shoulder.

    And I totally agree with your point about treating men as latent rapists. It’s disgusting.

    • #12
    • October 4, 2014, at 5:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Mike Rapkoch Moderator

    Rocket City Dave:Guys on campus should start viewing their female classmates as too risky as sexual partners. That’s the safest course of action. Otherwise you could be thrown out of school for bad sex or hurt feelings.

    There are plenty of alternatives to college girls for sexual partners. That’s less than ideal, but it’s safer than putting yourself at the mercy of your female classmates and the university gestapo.

    If you risk an encounter with a female classmate it’s probably best if you insist on a video record and verbal and written consent.

    So romantic(-:

    • #13
    • October 4, 2014, at 6:13 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Does this only apply to heterosexual encounters? What about the gay and lesbian encounters? There is never rape, or dominance, or other unequal power dynamics among the same sex encounters?

    • #14
    • October 4, 2014, at 6:41 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge

    Seems to me that the answer is for men not to have sex on college campuses.

    • #15
    • October 4, 2014, at 6:53 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Knotwise the Poet Member

    civil westman:At the rate Liberals are creating “victims,” perpetrators must soon come into short supply.

    As long as there are straight white male latent rapists, I don’t think the Liberals are gonna be hurting for oppressors to accuse any time soon.

    • #16
    • October 4, 2014, at 7:40 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. Knotwise the Poet Member

    RushBabe49:On the other hand, this law is the PERFECT argument for delaying sex until marriage. College kids of either sex can use it as a reason.

    While I do not support this law, I also don’t like that modern society thinks the college years are the ideal time for “sexual experimentation.” That’s certainly not the message I’ll be teaching my children.

    • #17
    • October 4, 2014, at 7:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. EThompson Inactive

    Knotwise the Poet:

    RushBabe49:On the other hand, this law is the PERFECT argument for delaying sex until marriage. College kids of either sex can use it as a reason.

    While I do not support this law, I also don’t like that modern society thinks the college years are the ideal time for “sexual experimentation.” That’s certainly not the message I’ll be teaching my children.

    “Modern society” = parents:

    As I went off to college, my father told me that life is hard and that I should always behave like a lady and, if needed, fight like a man.

    • #18
    • October 4, 2014, at 8:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    AHR,

    “For men are forbidden to take notice of women and women are forbidden to take notice of men.”

    It’s all happened before. We would learn from the past but those who want absolute control destroy the past and replace it with lies.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #19
    • October 4, 2014, at 9:39 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Annika Hernroth-Rothstein Contributor

    Stephen Kruiser: Stephen Kruiser

    You’re quite welcome, anger is easier to express from over here at lady-parts lounge.

    • #20
    • October 4, 2014, at 11:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. Annika Hernroth-Rothstein Contributor

    RushBabe49:On the other hand, this law is the PERFECT argument for delaying sex until marriage. College kids of either sex can use it as a reason.

    I totally agree, will this be what finally changes college culture?

    • #21
    • October 4, 2014, at 11:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Annika Hernroth-Rothstein Contributor

    Metalheaddoc:Does this only apply to heterosexual encounters? What about the gay and lesbian encounters? There is never rape, or dominance, or other unequal power dynamics among the same sex encounters?

    My thoughts EXACTLY!

    • #22
    • October 4, 2014, at 11:36 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Mike Rapkoch Moderator

    Annika Hernroth-Rothstein:

    RushBabe49:On the other hand, this law is the PERFECT argument for delaying sex until marriage. College kids of either sex can use it as a reason.

    I totally agree, will this be what finally changes college culture?

    Maybe. I’ve heard Brown University has cancelled its “Sex Dance” (the Ivy League must be so proud). I’m also told, however, that Sex Week and Nude Week are still on the calendar for Spring. Maybe we should pray for a Nor’easter.

    • #23
    • October 5, 2014, at 12:33 AM PDT
    • Like
  24. iWe Reagan
    iWe Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    My son just started as a freshman at UTD.

    They had a big class explaining how even a single allegation will get immigrants deported (the hearing comes *after* the deportation). And that the process favors the woman claiming victimhood. Basically, the lesson to the men was: don’t have sex in college. It is too easy to be destroyed.

    It is actually kind of funny that liberals who have long lampooned Victorian culture are bringing back its sexual behavior, albeit without clothing.

    • #24
    • October 5, 2014, at 7:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  25. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Lady Randolph: I just want to know what they think “ongoing consent” means. Are you supposed to take a break every couple of minutes and have a little discussion?!

    No issue Here. When I’m with a Lady, She screams,”YES!.. YES!.. YES!” throughout.

    Neighbors can attest.

    • #25
    • October 5, 2014, at 8:31 AM PDT
    • Like
  26. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    In The Philadelphia Story, playwright Philip Barry’s heroine Tracy Lord is about to marry George Kittredge, the stuffed shirt that runs one of her father’s businesses. On the eve of her wedding she drinks too much and flirts with Macaulay “Mike” Connor, a magazine reporter sent to cover the nuptials. Having already been accused of being a cold and unapproachable godess by her first husband, she’s almost appalled by the fact that the reporter did not take advantage of her.

    Mike: Kittredge, it may interest you to know that the so-called ‘affair’ consisted of exactly two kisses and a rather late swim…All of which I thoroughly enjoyed, and the memory of which I wouldn’t part with for anything… After which I deposited Tracy on her bed in her room, and promptly returned down here to you two – which doubtless you’ll remember.

    Tracy: Why? Was I so unattractive, so distant, so forbidding, or something – that – ?

    George: Well, this is fine talk, too.

    Tracy: I’m asking a question.

    Mike: You were extremely attractive, and as for distant and forbidding, on the contrary. But you also were a little the worse – or the better – for wine, and there are rules about that.

    Tracy: Thank you, Mike. I think men are wonderful.

     …there are rules about that…

    Before the sexual revolution, before feminism and Marxist sexuality, there were rules. They weren’t written down, but they were passed on from father to son for generations – it was the code of manhood that had at its core a respect for and deference to women. It was a twist on the Golden Rule. Instead of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” it was was “Do unto women as you would have other men treat your mother or your sister.”

    Then someone decided this “patriarchy” was holding women back and needed to be “smashed.” So they smashed it. They did so by destroying marriage through easy divorce. Suddenly middle-aged men were reduced to the silliness of their teens and twenties locked into the pursuit of procuring sex instead of tending to the results of their earlier sexual experiences, namely their children.

    This vacuum has been filled by government. It is now daddy-provider. The chaos created by the loss of the unwritten code is filled by real codification, infinitely more complicated, infinitely less effective and infinitely less satisfying.

    Simplicity of honor has been replaced by a mishmash of contradictions. Take a look at The Ohio State University Office of Student Life web page entitled “Consent.” While it’s supposed to be pushing a “moral” code, it also pushes the idea that any girl 13 years or older is an acceptable sex partner.

    At the bottom of the page it gives women a list of things that they are supposed to say to protect themselves.

    Below are some things you can say or do if you want to stop:

    • No
    • I want to stop
    • I’m not comfortable doing this anymore
    • That’s enough for now
    • I need to go to the bathroom

    I want all of this nonsense to stop. I need to go to the bathroom – and throw up.

    • #26
    • October 5, 2014, at 8:44 AM PDT
    • Like
  27. Guruforhire Member

    EJ Hill. Isn’t that High Society with Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra?

    • #27
    • October 5, 2014, at 9:17 AM PDT
    • Like
  28. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill Joined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Guruforhire:EJ Hill. Isn’t that High Society with Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra?

    It was originally a stage play starring Katherine Hepburn. She used it to revive her flagging film career at MGM in 1940. Producer Sol Siegel paid Cole Porter the equivalent of $2.2m to write an original score for a musical remake. Well, did you evah?

    • #28
    • October 5, 2014, at 9:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  29. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge

    Fake John Galt:Seems to me that the answer is for men not to have sex on college campuses.

    Or to not go to college at all. Men can go to the underground mines, and give themselves a name like, oh, I don’t know – let’s say “Morlocks” – and let them stew on it for a century or so.

    Should work out well.

    • #29
    • October 5, 2014, at 2:57 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge

    Annika Hernroth-Rothstein:

    RushBabe49:On the other hand, this law is the PERFECT argument for delaying sex until marriage. College kids of either sex can use it as a reason.

    I totally agree, will this be what finally changes college culture?

    This is a more complex issue than my simple answer will adequately address, but here it is:

    Stop the federal student loan guarantee program.

    Colleges have been raising tuition at annual increases of 2X/3X/4X the rate of inflation for decades. Why? Are we getting twice as much education? Or are we simply funding the imbecilic predilections of people who have spent their entire adult lives in the world of the unreal, or as I call it, “college”?

    Colleges are like fantasy baseball camps, but for liberals. They get to experiment, tweak, and change the “societal” rules on campus, because no one in their right mind would put up with this crap in the real world. It’s like a sandbox for them, that they constantly build and change. If men are confused about who they are on college campuses, it’s because the colleges have been trying to erase what it means to be a man for a good 30-40 years.

    Seeing some of the graduates from the school I worked at for five years, I can attest to the fact that the campus liberals are succeeding. We are sporting generations of limp dorks who can’t stand on their own two feet, and now they have a sheepskin to prove it.

    Well done, academia! I hope the tenure was worth it.

    • #30
    • October 5, 2014, at 3:04 PM PDT
    • Like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.