On the myth of “consent”

Today is the day when every male is in the dock for crimes committed by someone else, just as every woman is a victim because of things someone else has suffered. For real criminals and real victims nothing changes, as always. In this counterproductive mechanism (for the victims), however, I managed to identify a particularly damaging mechanism, which is the concept of "consent".

It is a term, or a concept, which was born mainly for legal reasons, in the sense that it was created to help judges to understand whether there was rape or whether the accused male acted in good faith, having received this blessed "consent".

Understanding that this is a purely legal concept is simple: just open the box and look inside. If we examine the concept of consent as it is taught by the usual "masters", we notice that it is seen as a contract (or at least a release ) of some kind, which translates into:

• the recipient is exempt from the (at least legal) consequences of the sexual actions he performs (for example, if there is consent it is not rape)
• whoever grants consent from that moment can no longer accuse the other party of rape, and consequently it is legitimate for him to suffer the sexual approach of the recipient.
• the recipient has received the right to carry on his own sexual conduct, and it is therefore legitimate for him to give life to a more or less complete sexual approach.

these three things are very useful for judges to understand if for the purposes of the penal code we are witnessing a rape or not, but the question I ask myself is the following:

Has any woman ever signed such a pact with the devil when she got under the covers with someone?

YES, some women did: there is, in the world of BDSM, something like this to this contract. The problem is that it is normally understood as a “master-slave” type contract, ie a transfer of power that sees one of the two as “dominant” and the other as “submissive”. So, if we talk about the BDSM world, consent as it is normally understood makes sense and is exactly what I have described, and that lawyers use in the courts.

But the problem is that this concept of "consent", useful for judges and BDSM dungeons, is being carried out and applied to normal life. In which, I think I can confidently say, no woman has ever signed, implicitly or explicitly, such a pact . It makes sense for jurists and in the courts, I repeat, because they have to look for a criterion of lawfulness.

But something else happens in life. When a woman gets under the covers with you, naked and clearly free to do so, she is not giving any "consent" at all. What he's giving is trust .

If the next question is “but what's the difference”, the answer is simple: for positive practical purposes (ie when everything goes well), it's about the same thing. But if we examine it with the same rigor as before, this does not happen. Trust, unlike "consent":

• does not relieve anyone of any responsibility,
• does not assign to anyone the duty to submit to the advances of anyone,
• it does not grant anyone the right to do them.

I think it's easy to get a consensus on this, but I notice one thing.

No one is examining the problem as analytically. Today, all the useless rhetoric is focusing precisely on the concept of "consent", and on the word "consenting", or rather on the idea that there is some kind of act, gesture or moment from which a male and is authorized to make advances WITHOUT being accused of rape.

"Progressive" males, equally uneducated, at best object that women would not normally be very explicit, so the contract is ambiguous in terms. (I honestly don't know what planet they come from. I have no gigantic experience on the subject and I'm definitely not a Brad Pitt, but I've always found them quite "explicit", to put it mildly. Or maybe they were just desperate for my clumsiness?) .

But let's also suppose that the contract becomes really explicit: at a certain point someone signs "the release", because in this way the "consent" is presented for legal and moral purposes, he signs it on paper and deposits it by a notary. I guess now no male would feel confused by an "ambiguous" contract. But the question is: does it make sense? Is it realistic? And especially: it is what goes on in a woman's mind (BDSM excluded?) .

I think I have clearly expressed the problem: we are concentrating on defining rape in contractual terms, or as a breach of a contract, or lack of a "release", rather than in fiduciary terms, that is, as a mechanism that implies the abuse of a given trust, if only that of those who agree to remain alone in the elevator with you. Rape, that is, should be defined as the abuse of a given trust (regardless of "consent", a release or a contract) and not as the lack of a release or the violation of a contract, called "consensuality '".

Obviously, once defined "being consenting" as if it were having signed a release, or having signed a real contract, and bureaucratized sexuality in this way, it will not be much better for women. It will be better for the criminal lawyers in the courts, sure. I say this because, in fact, this bureaucracy is widely used in the BDSM world, and serves to define a relationship of sexual submission , including a safe word, that is, a clause that serves to exit the contract in immediate terms, at least in BDSM SSC. In RACK contracts the safe-word can be missing, so to speak.

The problem with similar contracts, which would be absolutely perfect for jurists when it comes to establishing whether there is rape or not, is this: it implies and requires that there be a transfer of power .

And that's why I honestly giggle when I see this kind of autodafe against all males. It is laughable, because Torquemada himself would have been much less credible with a hangman's rope around his neck.

A judge who puts me in the dock, under the words "innocence proves nothing", could be terrifying … if he had not doused himself with petrol and held a candle in his hand.

The pile of idiots who climbed to the podium of virtue signaling today to have her hoplite license for good is building, for women, a much worse world than the one that existed before. By impressing the masses with the concept of "consensuality" as it is being defined now, that is, they are transforming every sexual relationship into a transfer of power, with the woman who, in such a defined context, plays the role of the submissive who has signed a release.

This kind of disaster always happens when, out of intellectual sloppiness, those who should be educated take the chair, and that's what's happening in all the river of rhetoric I see flowing.

Congratulations, lady judge. As it hangs from the gallows she has mounted herself, do you mind if I go home? I have more important things to do….

For example, watching a pile of bad teachers teach them something that will present a very high price to them when the concept is mainstream, and that will make things worse rather than better.

What will happen, or rather: what is already happening, is very simple. The bureaucratization of sex. Now, for the male there is nothing terrible if at some point someone says, I know, "A, B, C = consent", "Z, Y, K = rape". The problem arises for women, because once the cassation has established in black and white what A, B, C, and what Z, Y, K is, all responsibility passes into the hands of the party who signs the contract. with the devil, while the rapist will only have to find a way to satisfy some procedural requirements .

But especially, having defined A, B, C (be it words, actions, works or omissions) as a form of "I am consenting" or "liberating", sex is defined as a transfer of power, by those who say A, B, C , to whom is the beneficiary.

The disaster is difficult to explain in abstract terms, but it is simple to show in concrete terms if we leave the world of rape and enter the world of marital domestic violence: in this case, the victim had married the executioner. There is an exit clause (divorce), and therefore in theory at some point he would have signed a consent (in the case of Catholic marriages, that contract says that the bride must never leave the home and has a duty to try with every means of saving the family, even in the event of violence). But this, honestly, does not seem to improve the situation: on the contrary, a binding contract (even if it does not allow violence against the spouse) is not at all helpful, if anything it is a difficulty.

Turning the wrong decision to trust someone into an act of law ("marriage", "consent", or whatever) does not work if what you wanted to do was to allow the victims to escape the perpetrator.

In your opinion, an executioner who convinced a girl to say "yes, I do" in front of a priest and 4 witnesses, will have a hard time finding a way to convince her to say that she wants to have sex in order to express "consent" ?

So no, I'm not afraid of this male trial, as much as the judge is trying to look terrible, he has power but he has no strength. In the absence of sexual and emotional education, efforts are being made to transform the problem of trust into a problem of "consent". And this will hurt the judge much more than me: I can safely sit on the river bank and wait to see the tears of a generation of women who see a gesture of trust turn into the signing of a release. Good luck, sir.

Ah, yes, if you want to give me a machismo license for this post, go ahead: the world is divided between males who have one and males who will have one, so I'm in good company.