So does yes ever mean no?


No, we’re not going to weigh in on that San Jose judge’s punishment of the drunken 20-year-old Stanford kid who was caught fingering an older 23-year-old drunken woman behind a dumpster at a college party.** We’re only mentioning it here because the insanely hostile and irrational (and largely textually dishonest) reaction to this former sex crime prosecutor’s decision only makes want to us stress the importance of the following educational video.

We’ve posted it here before, but only because it was funny. Now it’s not so.

Since explicit consent is now required before the commencement of all lawful sexual activity, and since almost all sexual activity without explicit consent is now considered to be an actual act of rape under the law, be sure to take notes if you’re ever going out in the field:



Apparently this legal requirement even extends to touching. The following is from a well-regarded series of informational videos that were not supposed to be funny or puerile:



The fact that the power relations being displayed here here have shifted 100 percent in favor of the woman’s side of the transaction is more than a bit intellectually suspect. Wonder who’s producing them. It’s also enough to make us go full Breitbart.

Not quite yet, but almost.

Needless to say, we’re glad we’re not young any more. It’s way too dangerous these days (we also wouldn’t be caught dead now with most of these incredibly intolerant and self-involved women). But like Breitbart, we’re kind of looking forward to seeing some actual males take advantage of this new prosecutorial ability to go after the girlfriends or other female partners who attempted to seduce them without first obtaining the necessary verbal consent. Especially the ones who provided the pot and the wine and then made the overt moves towards the cute guy they’d invited in earlier.

Because what’s good for the goose is good for the….

In fact, if Burbank’s own Gloria Allred ever gets those statute of limitations removed for Bill Cosby-like sex accusations from 30 or 40 years ago, we just might start making some criminal charges ourselves. Because under the law we weren’t capable of giving lawful consent to those sudden BJs that were accompanied by the booze she brought over. And we’ve just realized recently how very troubling they were (“And then judge, when she got on top of me by surprise … and it was my first time!”)

You get it. It’s all gone a bit too far now, hasn’t it? You’d really think there was something else going on here besides sex and protection from harm. And yes, we know. The fact that we dare ask this question must mean that we’re also (apparently) fully enrolled members of the “rape culture.” That we’re all just like the Breitbart crowd and their femi-nazis and that we all support female rape by rich white guys.

Just for not agreeing with everything we hear from the scolds and the haters. Because that’s how it is now.


** Bet you didn’t know these details, did you? That’s because the media and the case-proponents are trying to slide right by them. The details help to explain the judge, and no one seems to want that.





Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “So does yes ever mean no?

  1. chad

    If a person is intoxicated they can’t be in a position of being able to give consent. That’s the standard today. So, moving forward just stay away from anyone who appears to be intoxicated, under the influence, etc…

    • semichorus

      I think it’s an impossibly unenforceable standard, because if enforced it means that everyone will end up in jail. Intoxication’s not the standard, it’s any consumption, because you can’t gauge intoxication on the fly. A bottle of wine = an automatic “no” under the law, and “no” means “rape” now in most cases if only because the definition has been so broadened the last few years. I don’t agree either with the idea that alcohol consumption automatically means the inability to give consent.

      What’s going to happen in the future is that when women end up getting prosecuted for such lack-of-consent rape charges this whole construct will fall apart. And if they don’t, then the law’s being selectively applied to men only.

      Unless you give affirmative verbal consent, it’s rape or assault. Even touching and kissing now, apparently. And if there’s any alcohol involved, you can’t give consent. So it’s an automatic “no” under the law, and thus chargeable.

      It really is that ludicrous. A few years ago it was “no means no,” and that makes sense. But now it’s, “If it’s not yes it’s no, and if it’s no it’s illegal, and if there’s alcohol involved it can never be “yes.”

  2. Jay

    Why is Rogers acting like what sounds like a letter pointing out all the errors on the part of the airport should not be talked about. So now Rogers made some motion and nobody even gave it a second. Such a jerk Rogers is.

    • semichorus

      The agenda item was supposed to be a discussion of the various city objections and sought-for additions to the EIR. It was actually quite good. Quite sensitive to the issues.

      So what’s Rogers worried about? He’s obviously used to be someone’s shill if he’s trying to push this by.

      And again, from last week: why was he talking to Disney management about the Grand Central Airport Terminal? He says he did it as a private citizen. Oh yeah? How many private citizens meet with Disney execs in Glendale?

      He’s just so full of crap. I doubt there’s anything sinister here, but come on. He doesn’t play straight, but then he’s oh so self-righteous and cutting about other people’s behaviors.

  3. chad

    Semi, in this case the woman was unconscious and the guy was penetrating her. In this case, she could not have given consent. Correct? Also, there seems to be other factors. When interrupted by the two graduate students, the guy ran. If he didn’t feel like he was doing something wrong then why would he run? That didn’t help his case.

    • semichorus

      Well, it was supposedly digital penetration, which within the last few years has been criminally redefined as the same thing as penile rape. So is oral sex.

      Yeah, in this case he was definitely guilty of something– although I have my doubts about these two witnesses, who both cried and cried on the stand. That’s a little too much, and things like that always make me more than suspicious. The woman’s statement too — which I read twice — had obviously been co-written by an attorney as predecessor to a civil suit. It was not an original statement at all (as an old copy editor I can tell). And as someone who’s known several women and girlfriends who have been raped by much more than some guy’s fingers, I found her carrying on so about an event that she had absolutely no recollection of to be quite offensive.

      There’s no consent issue about unconsciousness or gross inebriation. But that’s not the law. It’s impairment of any kind, which means any alcohol. Some DA’s take these cases all the way, some don’t. And some judges use their sentencing discretion to evaluate the specifics.

      Some school policies too now require not just a verbal “yes” consent, but what they call an “enthusiastic yes.” But then admitted orgasms during the act are not seen as evidence of consent. We’re no longer in the world of “no means no,” it’s now whatever call the complainant wants to make. And apparently whenever they want.

      What I think is going to happen in a few years is that when gay women start getting prosecuted for going down on other gay women — or a troubled straight woman — and then get prosecuted for failing to obtain the proper consent, then all hell’s going to break loose about these new rules. Or when women get prosecuted for using “alcohol and drugs” to lure a guy into bed, and the guy later has second thoughts about her. Especially when he later catches her in the sack with someone else.

      Also — and this is what defense attorneys are talking about — even with these new rules, people can still always lie. Guys can say they obtained “enthusiastic consent” when they did not, and women can lie about their positively saying “yes.” People will soon learn to do so. Or men will soon realize that if they get charged with the same crime for fingering a women, they might as well stick it in.

      I hate to sound like a right winger here, but there’s something awfully “man bad, woman good” about these new re-definitions, as well as all of the terrific moral outrage and almost witch-hunting attempt to throw people in jail forever. The educational value is fine, and I hate these frat guys anyway, but this “rape culture! rape culture!” thing is nuts. It’s definitely one-sided, and the ideology behind it is terrifically hostile to men and men alone.

      Like I say, wait until women start getting prosecuted for initiating sex without proper consent. The whole construct will immediately fall apart. It’ll be like in the early 19th century when Britain began executing children as part of their draconian sentencing laws. Things began to change by the 1820s and 30s.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s