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.