American Law Institute Sexual Assault Draft

You have probably heard that congress makes law. It does not, it has not for a long time, and were it to start doing so it would be a revolutionary act. First there would be tanks in the streets. 2201 C Street would be on fire and full of bullet holes and dead bodies. Blood would be running out the doors into the gutter.

Harvard makes law, and when Harvard, having decided in general form what the law is going to be, gets to working out the details of that law, a committee of the Ivies meets to draw up the fine print, and that committee of the Ivies is the American Law Institute.

And right now they are drafting a law that says that an explicit verbal no outweighs any amount of non verbal yes, and that any sexual act without an explicit verbal yes is sexual assault.

Since this is the internet, I assume that some substantial portion of my readers are unfamiliar with the normal way that sex goes down between a man and a women.

You never get an explicit verbal yes from a normal decent women, only from whores and hard core burned out sluts.

The human mating dance is innate, instinctive, pre verbal, and pre rational. You get a woman into a sex place, (such your bedroom) using lots of touching and gentle caresses but also all the human arts of words and persuasion. (Where are your etchings? I thought you were going to show me your etchings?) But once she is in there, words soon stop.

If you try to get explicit verbal consent, at best you are breaking the mood and interrupting the playing out of your and her sexual instincts, and at worst you are very likely just not going to get it. And it continues to be that way with your wife and girlfriends, except that the full mating dance gets abbreviated.

Normal decent people just don’t do sex in accordance with Harvard rules and they are not going to start. They are going to go right on doing it the way it always has been done.

We are all criminals now.

68 Responses to “American Law Institute Sexual Assault Draft”

  1. Irving says:

    The situation is rather more complex than you make it seem, Jim. There’s definitely a substantial number of current students at Harvard Law and at other comparably elite law schools that want to redefine the meaning of rape and sexual assault in the way that you describe, but there’s also quite a few who don’t. And, most strikingly, much of the faculty at these schools oppose these attempts at redefinition, and they are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition. This means that the cathedral hasn’t come to a consensus on this issue, as they have on other issues, like gay marriage, and they likely never will.

    • peppermint says:

      yeah, i’ll believe it when I see them on TV opposing this change. Which isn’t going to happen. Because when feminists said “no means no” 30 years ago, everyone knew they didn’t mean that, but today, if you think they didn’t mean it, you keep your g-d forsaken mouth shut if you want to stay on TV or in any kind of public facing position anywhere, because contradicting that is… a display of contempt for women that means your employer is required to fire you to avoid treble damages in the ensuing snivel rights lawsuit.

      Why did manufacturing go overseas in the ’90s? Because that nigger got shot in 1963.

      Why are faggots getting married now? Because they started dying of AIDS which was sad 30 years before 2010.

      Why is affirmative consent a thing now? Because “no means no” 30 years ago.

      Don’t forget, affirmative consent is only needed if you’re a FUCKING WHITE MALE. Niggers can’t rape because rape is nonconsensual sex plus power.

    • jim says:

      We have been through this before. At some point the opposition suddenly falls silent, and anyone who continues to speak is purged from Academia, unpersoned and becomes unemployable. Should he fail to comply with being unpersoned, he gets the crap beaten out of him, and reprisals are taken against his friends, relatives, and associates. We are getting mighty close to the point where any remaining resistance to this law will be unpersoned and untenured.

  2. safety gaze says:

    no sex with hot mute chicks.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Just outlaw informal sex – and have a mandatory signed contract before any intercourse is allowed to proceed.

    • peppermint says:

      sounds great, except that it would only be enforced against FUCKING WHITE MALEs, so no, it doesn’t sound so great after all. Only a christcuck who cares more about the feefees of baby jeebuz than about family and nation would even consider a unilateral disarmament proposal like that.

      • jim says:

        The practical effect is to make white males less manly and less attractive than those who do not get this law enforced against them.

      • Anonymous says:

        You realize that this solution was in force for something like a millennium (or maybe two, but I’m a little unclear on the early middle ages and late Rome) until some 50 years ago? Clearly, men were wimps until now, and only with the advent of legalization of extramarital relations did they become properly manly.

        • jim says:

          Until recently, the no fornication rule was enforced more vigorously against the lower classes and inferior races, which made them less manly than the wealthy and members of the superior race. No one paid too much attention when an upper class male fornicated with a lower class female.

          Today, the moment to moment consent rule is enforced only against white males, and primarily against affluent white males, which makes them less manly and less attractive than the poor and members of inferior races.

    • jim says:

      An excellent solution. Unfortunately Harvard demands moment to moment consent.

      Logically, one not only needs explicit verbal consent, but explicit verbal consent to be given with every thrust.

      Of course moment to moment consent makes marriage, as traditionally understood, impossible. If people are going to commit to stick together to bear and raise children, they have to commit once and forever to always be sexually available to each other regardless of whether they are in the mood or not.

      The chief problem with moment to moment to consent, apart from the requirement that the woman cry “Yes” with every thrust, is that it makes it very difficult for white people to reproduce.

  4. lalit says:

    Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. Say what you want about her, she was a prophetess. There was a conversation between Rearden and some bureaucrat where the bureaucrat explicitly mentions that the point of the law was that it could not be followed thus making everyone a criminal.

    That woman! Nobody who understands human nature better wrote more than her.

  5. glenfilthie says:

    Good grief Jim – get hold of yourself! How old are you? Too old for such hysterics, I’d wager!

    Boys, siddown for some sex education. Now – I know a lot of you boys buy into that PUA/alpha/beta/gamma bullshit being peddled by phonies and poseurs like Roosh, Vox Day and half a dozen other Manosphere turd brains. If you adhere to their idea of masculinity you are going to have every second crazed femcnut howling for your blood! And- it will serve you right!

    Nobody seems to have noticed that women don’t want promiscuity and ‘free love’ anymore. They’re not smart enough to see that (but mind you, most men aren’t either). Right now it is slowly dawning on the smarter women that feminism, free love and promiscuity – has effectively turned them into low value sluts. they have, in effect, become mere sex objects for men with no redeeming qualities beyond that. With the sexual contract between the genders voided – they are floundering and flailing trying to find an alternate contract (eg. Homosexuality)…or a means to restore their value and control of their half of the old sexual contract. This is why they are going after f-knuckles like Jian Ghomeshi and Roosh. They did a number on Ghomeshi even though he won his case – now he’s bankrupted financially as well as morally and intellectually. Roosh is next.

    The counter to this latest ‘consent’ ass-hattery is obvious. Stop screwing low value feminist and liberal women. Promiscuity is unnatural to the civilized man just as free love is unnatural to the civilized woman. Long classical courtships are the answer to this legislative fuckery, as is abstinence in the absence of respectable women. It’s not the answer you want to hear; it certainly isn’t the one the feminists want to hear…but if you have the strength of character to do it – then you don’t have to worry about shreiking whores and crazed tire biters like Ghomeshi and Roosh do. They are weak, stupid men and it is fitting that they fall to weak, stupid women.

    • jim says:

      Even if you are totally monogynous and have only ever slept with your wife, this law makes you guilty of rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence every time you have sex with your wife.

      And every time your wife reads some divorce porn (likely produced by Christian activist organizations, which is to say progressive activist organizations) which portrays a forty year old obese woman with five children ditching her husband and marrying as six foot six highly athletic billionaire, she is going to be tempted to charge you with all that and win cash and prizes and then feel very oppressed by the patriarchy when she has pissed away all the family assets taking world trips looking for the six foot six athletic billionaire who declines to show up.

      • glenfilthie says:

        you miss the point Jim.

        If you do your homework BEFORE you jump in the sack with it, you will be able to establish a woman’s character BEFORE you bed it. This law will not be used on ruggedly handsome billionaires with faithful wives like us – it will be used on despicable pakies and mudflaps like Roosh and Ghomeshi that will fornicate with any piece of white trash that offers up her ass to them. This is stupid law, designed by stupid people, to be used on stupid people.

        As for the church, in my neck of the woods it is experiencing an odd resurgence. It’s only a trickle right now…but people are turning away from feminism, homosexuality and atheism. I was astonished to hear that young people are turning to the church for guidance – probably after experiencing the wreckage of their parents’ lives.

        Women aren’t bright but they aren’t stupid either. They are seeing the unhappy, lonely cat ladies too. They are seeing the obese, unhappy she-twinks with pink hair and nose rings and the better ones want nothing to do with any of that.

        There’s hope here, fellas. Women are starting to understand that they need to redeem themselves – and when they do they will need good men. One way or another you had better be prepared to act like one.

        • Dave says:

          “Establishing a woman’s character” includes making sure she’s just as sexually inexperienced as you are. To do otherwise is like reading a book about MMA and not doing any practice sparring before getting in the ring with the reigning champ.

          If I can control my daughter until she turns 16, I hope to find a chaste, gainfully employed gentleman to marry her.

          If you settle for a “born-again virgin”, you’d better have a good exit strategy. A woman who has experienced multiple brain-shattering orgasms with other guys cannot bond with you, for the same reason that ordinary wholesome pleasures are nothing to a drug addict.

          • peppermint says:

            The reason they call it menarche is when girls get to that age you can only impose so much governance

          • Corvinus says:

            ““Establishing a woman’s character” includes making sure she’s just as sexually inexperienced as you are.”

            Maybe. Or maybe not.

            “If I can control my daughter until she turns 16, I hope to find a chaste, gainfully employed gentleman to marry her.”

            “Can control” and “hope to”, now those are interesting phrases. Good luck in your endeavor. Once she turns 18, she is going to live her life. She may abide by the “code of values” you and your wife instilled in her, or she may go off the reservation at times, or she may say “it’s my life, I do what I want”.

            “A woman who has experienced multiple brain-shattering orgasms with other guys cannot bond with you.”

            Cannot bond with a virginal man? Perhaps. But it is decidedly false to state that a woman who has had sex in her life prior to meeting the man she will mary is lacks the capability to make a physical, emotional, and spiritual connection.

          • peppermint says:

            This is the second time Corvinus’ blind contrarianism has lead him to say something true. Of course women can bond with the strongest man around, that’s biologically what they are supposed to do.

            What they can’t do is bond with a cuck after having tasted alpha, even in a book, even in just their dreams. See Taylor Swift’s song “The Way He Loved Me”.

            They will have a one night stand (see Taylor Swift’s song “Wildest Dreams”) and feel much better about it than a guaranteed marriage to a cuck (see the video of Jake Rapp getting his butthole vibed or the picture of Jake Rapp with a chunk of metal in his dick. Alison wasn’t whoring for money, she was whoring for sex).

          • peppermint says:

            also I like to thing Taylor Swift’s song “Come Back, Be Here” is for Hitler and when the says “guess you’re in New York today”, she means the avatar Donald Trump

            and in “Fearless”, when she says “you grab my hand and pull me head first fearless”, she means Hitler grabbing her hand when she’s heiling

          • Aeroguy says:

            “as sexually inexperienced as you are”
            Speak for yourself about not having experience sparring. Naive men are just that, naive, and you would have them sort wolves from sheep. Nothing disillusions a man like seeing a “good girl” drop the act because they smell alpha on him. It’s pure stupidity to think a virgin can tell apart a virgin from a duplicitous slut. Society handicaps boys enough as it is, they don’t need to be told they need to further handicap themselves on top of it. Monogamy is well and good when your civilization actually has a patriarchy to support it. But to restore a patriarchy you need unapologetic men, not cucks who work against their own sexual interests.

        • theshadowedknight says:

          If you think that this will not be used on you, you are out of your mind, or are so out of touch with the culture as to be useless. If an upper class White man is falsely accused of raping some girl who needed a good story, it becomes national headline news and his reputation and prospects are destroyed. If three Negros gang rape and murder a girl because they were bored and wanted something to do, they are quietly, so quietly dealt with and given as lenient sentencing as possible. No pictures, no mention of race, no headlines. The college that the Negros and the White man go to will hold up the innocent White man as an example of White privilege leading to White entitlement leading to dangerous White rapists. Meanwhile, they will not just ignore, but try to cover up the rape and murder so that the Negros can continue to play football and make the college all that money.

          Hell, a man was accused of rape and expelled from his college after having consensual sex with a girl at his school. His lover did not accuse him, another girl did. His girl even told the school that no rape happened in front of him while he listened, then they had sex again. Still, he was expelled.

          How do you defend yourself against that kind of accusation? Just be a good man, like Glenfilthie. A real man like Glenfilthie the good man is safe from this kind of situation. If only he had been a good man like Glendilthie–who is a real man–he would not have been accused by an separate woman of rape.

          The Shadowed Knight

          • Corvinus says:

            “Hell, a man was accused of rape and expelled from his college after having consensual sex with a girl at his school. His lover did not accuse him, another girl did. His girl even told the school that no rape happened in front of him while he listened, then they had sex again. Still, he was
            expelled.”

            Source?

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Here is the article.

            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/she-said-she-wasnt-raped-but-the-school-expelled-him-anyway/article/2589065

            Here is another, where a man that was blacked out was expelled for “rape” after a girl gave him head while he was unconscious. Per the definition of rape at schools these days, he was expelled after being raped by his girlfriend’s friend.

            https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/29/amherst/4t6JtKmaz7vlYSrQk5NDyJ/story.html

            Pass these laws. Even the 14/88 types know better than to support this kind of thing. They are some of the saddest White Knights around and they realize the dangers. But the Tradcon Churchians are Dalrock’s Gilligans, sabotaging every attempt to fix this as soon as they hear, “double standard.” Of course they are not averse to a double standard when it strikes down on men, because they are the lowest kind of White Knights imaginable.

            The Shadowed Knight

        • jim says:

          Says a man who clearly has little experience with women, let alone virgins.

        • jim says:

          I was astonished to hear that young people are turning to the church for guidance

          If they are turning to the church for guidance, they are getting screwed up their asses. There are essentially zero churches willing to uphold Saint Paul on sex and marriage.

          • Corvinus says:

            Lord help us all if you would ever become head of a church.

            Praytell, does the congregation you belong to strictly observe St. Paul on sex and marriage? In what ways? How do you and your wife (if you even have one, along with kids) adhere to him? If not, what are you doing about it to ensure that members there abide by him?

            I don’t know why I even ask you questions, since you are other than honest when responding to them.

          • Glenfilthie says:

            Full disclosure – no, I haven’t had much experience with women. I’ve been happily married a long, long time. We had our rough patches and scrapes – we almost divorced at one point… but working through them drew us closer together. Wouldn’t have it any other way, looking back on it. I’ve seen the walking wounded stagger out of divorce court. I’ve seen the shrews and broken families they left behind. It’s sad because there’s no need for any of it.

            Your problem, Jim, is that you think too much and simple things become complex. I am no theologian and wouldn’t know St. Mark from a hole in the ground. My wife goes to church and the message there is simple and honest: honour, respect and protect your family. Pay your debts. Keep your nose clean. Do unto others. Shun promiscuity, deceitful and degenerate behaviour – hell, it’s all just plain common sense. I’ve heard there’s churches pushing the feminist agenda – but there are ones pushing for queers and sinners too…so what? If ya don’t like the message don’t patronize it. The kids at the wife’s church do charity work, attend social functions, and discuss the same issues you do in discussion groups. They don’t want to end up like their parents.

            I suppose you can choose to live your life in fear of women – but I won’t. I don’t have time for feminist or liberal females and dispense with their company as soon as possible – before they can become a problem. If you do that you won’t open yourself up for them or their emotional baggage.

            I’m not trying to be a dink or make any insult to you or yours, Jim. I just have a different perspective and it has worked well for me. The battle of the sexes is a fool’s war and the less I have to do with it…the better.

            Good luck, boys! And – take care of yourselves.

            • jim says:

              If that is what you and your wife heard in church, your church is post Christian, and your pastor is setting you up to be cuckolded and your children made fatherless.

          • peppermint says:

            — they are getting screwed up their asses

            e.g. Jake Rapp talked to his youth pastor about marriage

          • Corvinus says:

            “If that is what you and your wife heard in church, your church is post Christian, and your pastor is setting you up to be cuckolded and your children made fatherless.”

            What gives you the liberty to interfere in their church, let alone unilaterally declare it to be “post Christian”?

            Again, does the congregation you belong to strictly observe St. Paul on sex and marriage? In what ways?

            How do you and your wife (if you even have one, along with kids) adhere to him?

            If not, what are you doing about it to ensure that members there abide by him?

            • jim says:

              “If that is what you and your wife heard in church, your church is post Christian, and your pastor is setting you up to be cuckolded and your children made fatherless.”

              What gives you the liberty to interfere in their church, let alone unilaterally declare it to be “post Christian”?

              Old Testament, New Testament, and centuries of Christian tradition.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      Wow, what a man! I’m very impressed.

    • jim says:

      They did a number on Ghomeshi even though he won his case – now he’s bankrupted financially as well as morally and intellectually. Roosh is next.

      Ghomeshi is still up to his armpits in hot chicks.

      Hot chicks will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no chicks.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        If you say so. From where I sit, ‘hot chicks’ got him into that pickle. I would rather have a good wife and a stable job myself.

        • StringsofCoins says:

          Nobody cares to hear about what a cuck loser you are. Can you actually contribute anything or you just too busy trying to gain status for your pathetic meaningless life of slavery?

          Hey you have given me a good laugh in this comment section though. Your wife and I can have a good laugh together at your pathetic weakness. You know your wife laughs at you when she’s with me, right? Winner….

          • Glenfilthie says:

            LOL.

            I used to be into liquor and whores, Coins – and that’s no way to talk to a man that could be your father, HAR HAR HAR! HAR HAR HAR!

      • Corvinus says:

        “Ghomeshi is still up to his armpits in hot chicks.”

        You still promoting that lie? Here is what I wrote earlier on this subject–If you are going to make the claims the chicks were hot, then you best offer visual evidence, considering that the identities of two of the complainants in the case are protected. Do you have the requisite evidence, or is yet another one of your (in)famous bullshit statements?

        For example, here is Lucy at 33. Not a ringing endorsement of what are the objective standards for white attractiveness. You have low standards.

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-sexual-assault-trial-1.3432233

        Ok, what hot chicks is he with right now? What are their names? What do they look like?

        • Glenfilthie says:

          Hmmmmm. Agreed.

          I know we shouldn’t judge books by their covers but even in that crappy cell phone pic I am seeing the image of a woman that screams “CUNNED STUNT”….

    • peppermint says:

      Yes, women of my generation, and younger girls, at some level understand what feminism did to their parents ad grandparents, their friends’ parents and grandparents, and what it does to the men they’re attracted to.

      But they need a man to save them. Rejecting it on their own isn’t in their DNA.

      Listen to more Taylor Swift until you get the picture. “Fifteen”, “The Way He Loved Me”…

      The worst thing you can possibly do is cuck out, “be the bigger man”, and unilaterally disarm. No woman wants a man who doesn’t even try.

      • peppermint says:

        by the way, if anyone rereads Jim’s post about women cutting themselves, Taylor Swift’s song Haunted should be the background music. Not because she’s advocating cutting, but because she’s expressing what women feel when they do it.

    • Corvinus says:

      “Nobody seems to have noticed that women don’t want promiscuity and ‘free love’ anymore.”

      Except you, right?

      “Right now it is slowly dawning on the smarter women that feminism, free love and promiscuity – has effectively turned them into low value sluts.”

      
Only anecdotally. You really don’t know if this is an actual trend occurring.

      “they have, in effect, become mere sex objects for men with no redeeming qualities beyond that.”

      Oh, these women have redeeming qualities (wink, wink).

      “With the sexual contract between the genders voided – they are floundering and flailing trying to find an alternate contract (eg. Homosexuality)…or a means to restore their value and control of their half of the old sexual contract.”

      Unfortunately, the old sexual contract has morphed. Best you realize that fact. You want to cling on to the past, more power to you.

      “Stop screwing low value feminist and liberal women.”

      Great advice. Not applicable today, but nonetheless great advice.

      “Promiscuity is unnatural to the civilized man just as free love is unnatural to the civilized woman.”

      Jesus Christ, here we go again, throwing around a term (civilized) without any context to what it actually means, since “civilized” has different meanings to different people.

      “Long classical courtships are the answer to this legislative fuckery, as is abstinence in the absence of respectable women.”

      Respectable women are abound. Men know that. Women know that. Listen, men and women are going to date, have sex, get married, have kids, and/or divorce. The frequency depends on one’s mileage. Desperately trying to revert back to those grand olden days is like trying to reform an SJW. It ain’t going to happen. Focus on your life. You have a wife and a daughter. Do your best there.

      “They are weak, stupid men and it is fitting that they fall to weak, stupid women.”

      Yes, men need to be more like you (rolling of eyes).

      • Glenfilthie says:

        Again – no offense meant, fellas. Corvinus, I apologize – I enjoy the persona of the hectoring, lecturing gas bag in my posts and some people take it seriously. I don’t have ALL the answers and your mileage WILL vary.

        Having said that, however, I am correct about the nature of the sexual contract and the efforts of certain women trying to re-impose it – on their terms. The sexual contract, like any other – is defined by the two parties that voluntarily bind themselves by it. It is a very, very complex agreement and takes time to negotiate – hence my advocacy of long courtships. This is why queers can never really ‘marry’. They do not form healthy long term relationships for the most part, and the sexual portion of their contract is, shall we say – corrupted. A good marriage will not necessarily be defined by the church, or some manosphere turd brain – it will be defined by you and your wife or fiancé.

        As for going back to the good ol’ days – the migration has already begun! Look at the hordes of desperate, aging cougars on the dating sites. Donald Trump just won the nomination despite all his nasty awful ghastly sexist remarks. Why? Because women have sons, fathers and husbands that are getting shafted in today’s vaginal political landscape! Hillary fucking Clinton is going to lose by a landslide – you heard it here first! Trump is going to put a boot up that bitch’s ass, curb stomp Bill, honk Chelsea’s tit and crap in their fiish tank when he squares off against them too!

        Fact is boys – we are winning. The same societal tides and currents that brought in these social justice warriors and feral women will wash them away when the tide goes out again. Take heart!

      • peppermint says:

        — the old sexual contract has morphed.

        White sexual behavior isn’t going away until the last White on Earth dies.

        But no race has the sexual behavior required by Harvard. The law is technically anti-human, not just anti-White. But we all know that it will only be enforced against Whites because intersectionality and multiculturalism.

  6. Corvinus says:

    All you ladies here are hyperventilating. If anyone here believes that this bullshit proposal will become a federal law and not be challenged in federal court by hordes of men and women, to use Jim’s terms, you’re nuts. But, since we are not dealing with posters here who are rational.

    “Since this is the internet, I assume that some substantial portion of my readers are unfamiliar with the normal way that sex goes down between a man and a women.”

    No, YOUR version.

    “You never get an explicit verbal yes from a normal decent women, only from whores and hard core burned out sluts.”

    Based on YOUR definition as what constitutes “normal decent women”. Leave it the experts now in the field to determine how to procure trim from a woman.

    “The human mating dance is innate, instinctive”…

    Wow, 2 for 2. A miracle.

    “pre verbal, and pre rational.”

    and CAN be pre verbal and pre rational. 2 for 4, 50%

    “ou get a woman into a sex place, (such your bedroom) using lots of touching and gentle caresses but also all the human arts of words and persuasion.”

    You just said it was pre verbal. Do you even read what you write?

    “(Where are your etchings? I thought you were going to show me your etchings?) But once she is in there, words soon stop.”

    Um, no, words don’t stop. They may stop.

    “If you try to get explicit verbal consent, at best you are breaking the mood and interrupting the playing out of your and her sexual instincts, and at worst you are very likely just not going to get it.”

    You’re drunk, Jim. Men throughout history have been able to get explicit verbal consent prior to and during sex without breaking a sweat, without breaking the mood, without breaking concentration.

    Besides, I thought men and women aren’t suppose to have sex before marriage?

    “And it continues to be that way with your wife and girlfriends.

    JIm, as an allegedly married man, how many girlfriends do you have? Does your wife know about your side dishes?

    “Normal decent people just don’t do sex in accordance with Harvard rules and they are not going to start.”

    [Applause} A moment of clarity by Jim. Exactly why your grandma panties are getting in a twist about nothing.

    “They are going to go right on doing it the way it always has been done.”

    Right, the way that men and women, of their own accord, by their own way of doing it, will partake in the sex ritual. It may be your stated preference, but it does not have to be in that prescribed manner.

    We are all criminals now.

    Peppermint…

    “But we all know that it will only be enforced against Whites because intersectionality and multiculturalism.”

    No, just enforced against Whites like yourself. That is the difference. Don’t you have your daily Hitler lesson at 2:00 p.m.?

    • peppermint says:

      — No, just enforced against Whites like yourself.

      — 2016

      — still thinking Whites have a place on in the left

      Delusional cuckold

    • peppermint says:

      Just because you refuse to understand that affirmative consent and male indecision dries up pussies more than anything else doesn’t mean that any uncucked rational person can’t immediately recognize the evolutionary reason for that and observe it in every other animal species.

    • jim says:

      All you ladies here are hyperventilating. If anyone here believes that this bullshit proposal will become a federal law and not be challenged in federal court by hordes of men and women, to use Jim’s terms, you’re nuts. But, since we are not dealing with posters here who are rational.

      All dissenters will be silenced as rapists – same as with “marital rape” “gay marriage”, and the rest. Recall the debate about “Marital rape”. Suddenly not only did every one agree that married people had no duty to sexually gratify each other, they always had agreed.

    • StringsofCoins says:

      Didn’t you hear he a *real man* and true alpha AMOGing all over the place.

      Even better than masturbaion.

    • epimetheus says:

      Corvinus, you have the soul of a nagging bitch harridan.

      It’s unmanly.

      • Corvinus says:

        Using the word “harridan” in a sentence is a classic gamma tell. Try next time not to reveal your true identity.

        • jim says:

          Only Alpha males call out bad women. Example Trump.

          Calling Hillary a harridan, or something similar, is coming right up.

          Treating women as foolish and naughty if they are cute, and foolish and wicked if not so cute, is characteristic alpha male behavior. So calling an unattractive woman a harridan is classic alpha male behavior and lubricates every pussy for males around.

  7. My rough reading of this is that the law is designed to not actually be complied with. It seems obvious that the vast majority of hookups, regardless of form, won’t meet this consent requirement, placing the man in the situation of a notional rapist and allowing the woman the option to decide afterwards if she still is okay with it. The meme that ‘regret isn’t rape’ is true, and in their eyes, lamentable, so they’re indirectly finding out a way to make it so that it is.

  8. Corvinus says:

    “Just because you refuse to understand that affirmative consent and male indecision dries up pussies more than anything else…”

    If anything, the outright “Do you want to get fucked”, with the affirming “Yes, fuck me”, heightens the intensity because the woman is now assured that her charms worked, and for the guy, in the throes of passion, reaffirms his skill at harpooning poon. That pussy be spewing, bitch.

    Now, go back to your studies.

    “Delusional cuckold.”

    Pro tip –> Try using a quip that actually has meaning to the intended target. This verbal shiv doesn’t even penetrate butter.

    • jim says:

      It is apparent that you have never had sex with a woman.

      • Corvinus says:

        Jim…

        Do you even have that dutiful wife that you claim? Or are you holed up somewhere in your house hoping that she doesn’t find out about your own addition to neo-reactionary porn?

        “If I react too enthusiastically, she won’t fuck me.”

        YOUR experiences. Apparently, you’re not putting yourself in her wheelhouse.

        “but it is always beta bait.”

        For you, definitely.

        I thought men aren’t suppose to have girlfriends when married. Why don’t you follow the advice of St. Paul?

        Peppermint…

        “Do you want me to fuck you” is also only found in porn, and she only says yes if chained up.”

        So, in the history of humanity, that line has never been uttered by men or women outside of porn? And that line has never resulted in a man or woman getting fucked silly. You really expect anyone to believe you?

        Listen, if you haven’t said this phrase to your chick with depraved indifference, try it. She will be putty in your hands. If she resists, as Jim advises, take her. You own her, right? She should do whatever she wants if you control her. Be a man.

        “And that Corvinus attributes porn behavior to real life women, tells us he lacks contact with real life women.”

        It’s not porn behavior, but real life experience. A number of your sexually experienced male friends would be able to refute you. Right on cue, you’re talking out of your ass. That’s why we love you, Jim. You make for great entertainment.

        • jim says:

          I thought men aren’t suppose to have girlfriends when married. Why don’t you follow the advice of St. Paul?

          Saint Paul never directly forbids polygyny.

        • jim says:

          So, in the history of humanity, that line has never been uttered by men or women outside of porn?

          Rarely uttered by women outside of porn, and on those very rare occasions when uttered by a woman outside of porn, usually, as far as I can tell always, a beta bait trap.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Saint Paul never directly forbids polygyny.”

            Debatable. In any event, you acknowledge in your statement that the implication is there. And since you are so big on implications, you should practice what he preaches–one man, one woman in marriage, NO outside fornication. Serial monogamy.

            In referring to Matthew 19:3-9 and to Genesis 2:24, Jesus explicitly states a man should have only one wife:

            “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”

            You pervert the faith, Jim.

            Now, how about that evidence regarding how rural Africans today engage in daily cannibalism as part of their routine diet…

            Yeah, thought so.

            “Rarely uttered by women outside of porn, and on those very rare occasions when uttered by a woman outside of porn, usually, as far as I can tell always, a beta bait trap.”

            From YOUR experiences, Jim. As you stated, as far as YOU can tell. It may be rare from YOUR perspective. So it’s not a universal truth.

    • peppermint says:

      Protip: women only say “fuck me” in porn.

      The closest I’ve ever seen to that was when I told a girl she sucked and she said yes and pulled my pants down, but she really, really wanted it for reasons.

      “Do you want me to fuck you” is also only found in porn, and she only says yes if chained up.

      • jim says:

        Sometimes, especially in texting, a woman says, not that she will fuck me, but something a little more delicate that implies that she will fuck me, but it is always beta bait. If I react too enthusiastically, she won’t fuck me. The correct response to such offers is to say you are thrilled and delighted but always to leave your acceptance ambiguous and uncertain, so that she does not know when or if you are going to take her up on her offer. Danger Will Robertson! The correct response to such unusually generous offers is to blow both hot and cold.

      • jim says:

        Peppermint:

        Protip: women only say “fuck me” in porn.

        And that Corvinus attributes porn behavior to real life women, tells us he lacks contact with real life women.

  9. Dan says:

    The solution is simple and elegant. Be married or you are rapist.

    Even liberals are traditionalists at heart, they just lost the ability to express the words.

  10. […] lead with Jim… the Most Right Wing Person on The Internet. He has incisive commentary on the American Law Institute Sexual Assault Draft, basically requiring a woman to “hereby affirmatively, being of sound mind and body, consent […]

  11. […] Since this is the internet, I assume that some substantial portion of my readers are unfamiliar with the normal way that sex goes down between a man and a women. […]

Leave a Reply