No Means No

When you have children teach them this simple dogma

“No means No. Yes means Yes. Maybe means No, if Maybe means Yes then be pleasantly surprised.”
Consent is something vital to the normal functioning of a human being. We regularly communicate with each other and consent is the basic agreement of two (or more) individuals to perform a specific act or service.

There are many different kinds of consent but they can be broadly divided into three groups

  • Implied – Here consent it implied. It’s mainly given for simple things. If you sit in a barber’s chair you are giving consent for the barber/hairdresser to touch you. The mere act is indicative of consent. But there is an understood level. The hair artist would not dream of beginning to cut your hair and merely ask you what kind of haircut you wanted.
  •  Expressed – Consent is given. A definitive answer to a question is present without any coercion. It can be written or verbal. So an example of written consent is when you buy a car. You are agreeing to pay x amount of money every year in exchange for ownership of a car (or house or boat). A verbal consent example we are all familiar with and indeed the subject of this article is agreeing to a date or agreeing to have sex. 
  • Informed – Consent is given with full understanding of the underlying procedure. This is mainly a medical thing and is always written. 

But what we are worried about here is consent in terms of a relationship. Mainly because it is the line between Sex and Rape. This is a contentious point for the Men’s Rights movement. Because to them consent is a trap used to oppress men rather than “basic courtesy”.

One of the most convoluted, fickle, and hypocritical aspects of feminist dogma is the variety of stated positions on sexual ethics and accepted sexual norms. This is an area where feminism just can’t seem to make up its collective mind whether to claim authority or affliction. Instead, advocacy and dissertation on various points within the topic wanders all over the grid, depending on which answer to the subtopic best lends itself to achieving the desired rights to responsibility ratio of all to none.     

Feminism isn’t a single standpoint. There are stupid feminists who have said things like “Men shouldn’t travel in the same elevator as a woman because women feel threatened by men naturally because of all the rape”. No person is representative of a movement and stupidity isn’t unique.

Feminism has made up its mind with regards to consent, its just that MRA don’t like the consensus.

This is blatantly evidenced by feminism’s meandering promulgation of advocated social and legal rules governing consent to sexual contact.

The meandering promulgation is not hard to follow. The issue is that MRA prefer that there was no consent at all and that yes means yes all the time forever and ever. 

Early on it was argued that women were being held back from experiencing sexual equality by falsely applied moral and social rules. The assertion was that women, as independent adults, are entitled to pursue sexual gratification in the same manner and with the same moral abandon attributed to the behavior of men. The truly liberated woman, it was argued, has every right to casually partake of the smorgasbord of available partners at her leisure, without fear of loss of reputation or status as a result. Society has no right to tie morality to one gender. Therefore, in the name of equal rights, women must be allowed to be equally promiscuous. One tangent to this is condemnation of the allegedly male practice of “slut shaming” (castigation and devaluing of females who engage in casual sex.) The label of slut shaming may be used honestly, as in response to the treatment by either sex of female participation in casual sex as misbehavior, or it may be abused, as in response to the treatment of female cheating on a male partner as mistreatment of the male partner.  

Yes. Women were not allowed to make many decisions with regards to their social life and in many cultures women still don’t have that choice. What has occured is the idea that sexuality is moral and that indulging in it is not immoral. It’s not the behaviour of women has been deemed moral so much as the behaviour of men. A gentleman is no longer this chaste man in a top hat and handlebar moustache coalescing his pent up sexuality into excessively tight pants, alcohol and fiery poetry but any man who just treats women as equals. It’s not hard to be a gentleman and its not expensive. One doesn’t have to buy the lady her meal or pay for her.

All that has occured is that the “wild and lascivious behaviour of men” is now acceptable and so women may partake. It’s not that women are “allowed to be equal promiscuous” but that “it isn’t a problem”. There is no societal pressure to punish them like how men are treated. There is a massive fascination with virginal behaviour in men and indeed any woman who is sexually promiscuous is immediately treated as “easy” or a “slut”. Slut shaming is there in both genders, but that’s the thing. The burkha is enforced MAINLY by women. A fuck tonne of the time a bride burning in India has been done by another woman (usually mother in law). Women are fully capable of being feminism’s worst enemies by oppressing other women mainly because they don’t realise that they are part of the problem or are behaving in an established role (eg. Indian Mother in Laws mistreat women who marry into the family to the point where it is a trope. The “evil mother in law” is dying out but the trope is still strong and there are women still like that.

And no, if a woman cheats on you it hurts but it is not an excuse to treat her as a slut. You know what? MRA’s haven’t realised the simple thing. Men cheat on women all the time. In an equal society you would have an equal number of women who cheat. You wouldn’t have this situation if you were honest about your relationship and trusted each other. Yes there are jerks out there but you know what? If you treat an entire gender as jerks then you will always always be disappointed.

Contrasting the sexually liberated woman position is the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position. This depends on the treatment of women as perpetually reluctant and men as perpetually ambitious toward sexual interaction. For this treatment, the hard-won position of female independence and entitlement to obtain pleasure is abandoned in favor of that of “gatekeeper” to the male’s role as purser of sexual gratification. Despite claiming privilege and power under the sexual freedom umbrella, the gatekeeper-to-pursuit position designates gratification as a commodity, women as proprietary owners who must always be persuaded, and men as forever seekers who are required to persuade. It leaves no room for the idea that the female might desire gratification and therefore choose to initiate, or that the male may not desire contact with a specific female or at a given time. Males are assumed to be in a constant state of implied consent, based on that assumption of perpetual sexual ambition, combined with a denial that they may have a standard of attraction. This combination is used to excuse women from ever having to obtain male consent, while simultaneously requiring men to always obtain female consent for sexual interaction.

Why is it that MRA’s sound like economists. It’s fucking, not GDP and purchasing parity. If we left them to it do you think we would end up with graphs?

Have you ever considered that the problem with your dating strategy is you keep thinking that sex is something to be earned? That you are treating sex as a payment for hitting a checklist? No? Then there is your problem. Sex is not a reward. It’s not payment. It’s not owed to you or an unlockable achievement. It just happens when two people desire it. Men are not assumed to have constant implied consent. That’s your assumption.

Consent in sex is implied and expressed. Implied can be flirting and “light canoodling” (fine! The various stages of foreplay!) where at any point the people involved can say “stop”. If you have a difficulty reading the difference betwee implied consent and it’s nuances then make it expressed. There is no foul in being certain and having an expressed consent. I don’t know what planet they live on but women have to get consent to have sex with a man, if you aren’t into it you won’t give consent.

 In the dating arena, this has led to an environment of expectation wherein men must ask permission for each and every step along the path between introduction and orgasm, handling their partners’ supposedly cripplingly fragile emotional and mental states as if they are courting soap bubbles which might burst and expire upon the slightest deviation from The Rules.

No it’s simple. If a woman does anything that’s “patently stupid” walk away. No one is going to say “wow! that woman burst out crying if you didn’t bring her flowers? Why didn’t you bring her flowers?”. They will say “Wow! That woman burst out crying if you didn’t bring her flowers? That’s crazy!”. (Oh don’t worry, same rules apply to men’s emotional states and behaviour.). There isn’t a big book of rules, there is just “make sure both of you are communicating properly”. Stop dating women/men with issues. It makes life simpler. Yes, they need love too but you know what? You are not their careworker or babysitter.

Complicating this environment is the treatment of the female as helpless. It is never to be expected that the woman might voice her feelings in the event that a male’s advances are unwanted. The treatment of women as capable of self-assertion would rob the female participant of her freedom from responsibility for her own sexual behavior. Therefore, it must be assumed that the otherwise strong and liberated woman’s disabling psychological weakness may prevent her from verbally refusing sex. This leads to the capability among women to use withholding information to transfer the responsibility for their own sexual decisions to their partners. Simply by not speaking up, a woman may imply consent through physical reciprocity, while reserving the right to later claim defilement and injury due to lack of stated consent.

No one is treating women as helpless. In fact in just the previous statement the only people treating women as a stereotype are the MRA. And yes the issue isn’t that women aren’t voicing their opinions so much as men aren’t listening or paying attention to when they do. It’s not disabling psychological weakness so much as fear perpetrated by MRA’s and their love of “rapey” behaviour.

This is taken to the extreme in the choice by mainstream feminists to treat even slight intoxication as an incapacitating condition when determining female ability to consent. While it is accepted that society, and in particular, the legal system, will hold any individual responsible for his or her intoxicated actions in any other area of behavior from drunk dialing to operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, feminist advocacy expresses the expectation that women who have consumed any alcohol will be exempt from responsibility for choices they make related to sexual interaction.

No. Slight intoxication isn’t the issue. Falling over blind drunk is the issue. It’s the same issue as fucking an unconscious person or a person with an altered state of mind. It’s simple? Don’t sleep with drunk women. If a woman has to alter her state of mind to sleep with you then you are doing something horridly wrong.

The gatekeeper-to-pursuit argument also uses the assignment of sexual roles to impose the status of consent upon males without offering them a choice. In fact, domestic abuse victim advocacy returns entitlement to women by treating a man’s refusal to consent to sex as an act of abuse against his female partner. This advocacy applies the label “withholding sex” to rob men of consent agency, effectively requiring them to perform upon demand.

What? That’s nonsensical. If a man doesn’t want to have sex then forcing him to do so is not going to work and is going to be classed as rape. And if you called a domestic abuse help line claiming that you are being abused because your boyfriend is refusing to have sex with you they would tell you to stop wasting their time. They would probably have to
explain consent to you again. Seriously? Do people actually think that men don’t require consent too?

 The answer is in how this combination may support the use of abuse and rape labeling to control every nuance of male-female relationships. Under feminist doctrine, women have the right of indiscretion with impunity coupled with proprietary ownership of consent agency and an implied entitlement to male consent. Be it “No” or be it “Now,” feminism demands immediate obedience by males without question. The combination denies male choice under the guise of female empowerment, while simultaneously placing every responsibility related to interaction squarely upon the shoulders of the man and enabling the woman to criminalize his part in the experience at any time, including after the fact. The ability to retroactively apply the abuse label or the rape label is a powerful weapon, with applications ranging from excusing oneself from relationship rules to vengeance following a break-up to leverage in custody and property disputes. 

This is only true if you live in a world where you think men cannot give consent. Which is highly bullshit. There are women with high sex drives out there who end up dating men with low sex drives where men don’t consent to having sex. You cannot retroactively apply the abuse/rape label if you haven’t used coercive methods to get a lady to have sex with you and if you pick the people you date wisely.

Feminist activism has made the terms rape and abuse into sacred and untouchable concepts, the wielding of which may be used to constrict the options of an opponent. To varying degrees, it has become socially and even legally unacceptable to question the veracity of any such allegation no matter how wild it is or how sparse the evidence. In this context, having license to apply those terms to circumstances which are devoid of genuine injury, exploitation, or assault provides women with an incredibly destructive legal force; the power to assert, and not be contradicted; to demand, and not be denied. These rules of engagement which feminism applies to sex and relationships are not about protecting women from victimization at the hands of men. They are designed to provide women with a trump card for use in the pursuit of female power over men.

I don’t see how saying “Hey do you want to have sex?” gives women power over me. Because I have the power to say no to women too. Listen, male rape is a serious problem and it needs to be fought. But you know who is terrible at fighting for men’s rights in this matter?

Men’s Rights Activists.


  1. tsmith1970 says

    Your opinions on consent sound like they have come from feminists and not from critically thinking about real world court cases and how the laws are being applied. The ever expanding definition of rape and the ability of women to remove consent after the fact has been a major issue for young men in Academia lately. Rape use to be a violent act committed by men looking for power over women. Now a man can rape a women and not even know it, because when she wakes up next to you, after she asked you to sleep with her, and she now feels guilty, the three drinks she had the night before makes you a rapist. The author of Breaking the Glasses is very wise.

  2. says

    The law sometimes is an ass. Consent is not eternal. Someone giving consent to begin with can change their mind.

    Just because she gave consent at the start of sex doesn't mean she cannot change her mind.

    And again, my eternal suggestion is not to pick up women when drunk or when they are drunk. Ask for their number or be honest about your intentions. If they aren't interested then "leave them to it".

  3. Pyra says

    Wow, the garbage comments have already begun. May I just say that I am grateful for your thorough expression of your opinions on this garbage. Thank you.

  4. bradleybetts says

    How do these people not get this? No means no. No one is saying you have to ask consent “for each and every step along the path between introduction and orgasm” (what a pile of bull). You are not expected to sit there like a twonk saying “Can I kiss you? Can I go down on you? Can I penetrate you now? Can I lift your leg up? Can we change position please?”. I imagine most women would find this as un-sexy and annoying as I would if a girl was sat there going “Can I push you backwards? Can I take your trousers off? Mind if I ride you?”. Remmoving the impulsiveness removes the heat, and no one wants that. Sex is not some cold, clinical exchange of services to be strictly pre-defined and bartered over. However, you are expected to show some concern for your partner’s well being and enjoyment. You are not expected to ask permission at every turn, but if they say they don’t like something you are expected to stop doing it. And if they don’t appear to be enjoying something, check. The whole point of sex is that you both enjoy it, have the decency to at least try and ensure that’s the case.

    Seriously, this is not complicated. If you haven’t even mastered these basics by the time you reach adulthood then you are fighting a losing battle.

    And yes, some women do cry rape as a form of revenge etc. I know someone it happened to. However, all this means is that that particular woman is a duplicitous and untrustworthy bitch, it does not mean that every woman is. It happens, but it’s not a widespread problem and it sure as hell isn’t some worldwide feminine conspiracy, and if you think it is then you are a paranoid and delusional moron.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>