Post: #26

Does not surprise me at all. When YesMeansYes came to colleges, it was clear to me that it will come everywhere for everyone. Any woman can and will be able to accuse any man of rape or sexual assault by virtue of not having given explicit consent every step of the way.

The laws will come whether you like it or not. The opposition will hardly see it as strange, because it will be sold as being directed against the rape culture. In reality it will impact massively any man who is in a nasty divorce or his wife is about to divorce him. And it will impact any man who fucks a woman and then does not reciprocate her feelings. She can either punish him or indulge in her mental aberrations as she accuses him of sexual assault.

As observed it will make sex more dangerous to the average or married man. Paradoxically Alphas, Players and Dark Triad and of course elite men will get even more action as more men will shy away from it.

Post: #27

I've been in a few political activist campaigns of this type, and I've learned one simple rule: Go for them personally, with tooth and claw. Don't be mild or reasonable. Don't try to debate. This is war, nothing less.

Get the pictures and names of the people pushing this crap, you put their pictures up on the internet with the title "SUMBAGS -- HOW THEY ARE CRIMINALIZING YOUR CHILDREN."

These people are pond scum. They hide behind their BS and their law degrees. They live in this world where they can do anonymous evil and it's all very tidy. So you take it to them personally.

You get the moms and dads of the children involved. You get sisters and girlfriends and make it clear that these laws will destroy THEM.

You put up the names of the legislators who approved this. You picket the houses of the prosecutors who do this shit.

It's cultural war, not politics. Scorch the earth.

But all of this of course takes money and committed people. The mothers of the boys who have been destroyed. Ultimately it's women, mothers, who have all the political power.

Post: #28

(05-16-2015 03:46 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The laws will come whether you like it or not.

Hold on Zel. Just as I don't agree with those who say "this will never happen here because..." (Constitution, legal system slow to change, etc), I also don't agree with the "this will happen no matter what" fatalism.

The future is not written, and it is not true that we are powerless to influence it. The fight over this is really just beginning, and I think it will be a long one. And no one knows the outcome ahead of time.

Post: #29

(05-16-2015 04:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(05-16-2015 03:46 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  The laws will come whether you like it or not.

Hold on Zel. Just as I don't agree with those who say "this will never happen here because..." (Constitution, legal system slow to change, etc), I also don't agree with the "this will happen no matter what" fatalism.

The future is not written, and it is not true that we are powerless to influence it. The fight over this is really just beginning, and I think it will be a long one. And no one knows the outcome ahead of time.

You forget where I am coming from - Carroll Quigley, Antony Sutton, way tighter control grid through money power, strong cooperation of countries and corporations behind the scenes, long-term social plans going into decades and centuries. According to me it's not a random walk that "just happens".

But you are right - some things take time to push through and get massive resistance. Still - looking how fast YesMeansYes was manifested in multiple countries - some versions of it reached Eastern Europe in the same time, then I think the battle is as good as done. Who shall stop them? MRAs? Consumer advocates? The politicians?

I simply don't see the resistance. The constitution by the way is as good as dead - almost nothing left of it.

Post: #30

(05-16-2015 04:22 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  Who shall stop them? MRAs? Consumer advocates? The politicians?

Many normal men would be horrified if they knew about these proposed laws and realized exactly what they meant. That includes men who are otherwise not particularly engaged in legal or political matters. And eventually, they will know. Then we'll see.

I believe that some of us will find a way to explain and characterize these laws in staining and memorable language that people will have a hard time getting out of their minds. Do not underestimate the power of well-calibrated rhetoric, animated by strong emotion, and backed up by truth.

Post: #31

Lizard, I'm not so sure that many "normal men" would be necessarily horrified at this sort of proposed legislature. I think if you dress up a turd like this nicely enough the average AMerican will buy it outright and will endorse it without question. People don't really question what they're told. Ten years ago, people were laughing at trannies and openly mocking homos. Fast forward today, and that shit gets you fired, ridiculed or ostracized from social circles.

Although he was referring to war and came from a different world, Hermann Goering said it best on how propaganda works:

Quote:"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Post: #32

Cunning, there is one big difference -- unlike anything having to do with gays or trannies, these laws can directly affect the lives of normal men; their explicit purpose is to turn that life into a living hell, to criminalize everyday behavior with the goal of "reshaping social norms". It's one thing when a couple of gays, a fat bear and a skinny faggot, or just two stolid dykes, can go to some nonsense ceremony and get "married"; at the end of the day, most people don't really care. It's a very different matter when trying to kiss some broad can land you in prison and branded as a "sex offender" if she decides she did not "affirmatively consent".

Of course there will be a great deal of relentless propaganda in favor of these laws. And I am not saying they cannot pass here -- unfortunately, I believe this is entirely possible; that is why I prefaced my long post in this thread by saying that this is a uniquely alarming and unprecedented threat. I take it with deadly seriousness. But I don't think it is inevitable that they will pass; I think that they can be exposed and defeated, and that whatever propaganda is brought forth to support them can be matched by equally lethal and effective rhetoric. But that will not happen by itself; someone will have to do it.

And of course if such laws ever do pass, it is not the end of the fight; it will continue and intensify. But it would be best if it never came to that.

Post: #33

(05-16-2015 02:47 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Parlay, I hear you, but not every American man is going to move out of the country. Even if you do it and I do it (and so far we're both here, I think) what about our friends, brothers, nephews, just some random dude on the street? Also, what happens in the US first often spreads to other destinations; we are the leaders, for better or worse. If these laws are ever adopted here, they will become a model for others to emulate, and all of a sudden no poosy paradise may be safe.

No; I don't want my country to fall prey to such grotesquely evil laws. It's not right, nor is it inevitable. I feel it is worth every bit of effort to fight it with logic, emotion, rhetoric, and anything else we have. And if these proposals ever get close to becoming actual laws, it will be the duty of every self-respecting man to fight them one way or another.

I left all my friends in the states after graduating from college, and moving overseas right after graduation, I was lucky to move to a place where feminism can't reach. although I HAVE thought about what would happen if the nightmare scenario happens in the U.S. Would it spread?

Not very likely, what's more likely to happen is that those with power in the U.S might see this scenario play out for a few years, realize that that "Hey we're putting all of our Men in Jail. . .who's going to fight, clean, do business etc"? (if the U.S. economy doesn't implode first*)


*Another thing that a lot of people forget is the U.S. Economy, Pretty much economic matters > social matters, period once the masses realize that the economy is failing drastically, they'll change the laws back pretty quickly. . .

if they don't and the cancer consumes the states, then other countries will pick up the slack (those who don't have the feminist cancer) and improve dramatically, filling the economic power vacuum left by the U.S. Most likely happening in Asia (China specifically) no, there won't be war, China isn't stupid, if they go to war they lose their economy basically, and in turn their legitimacy, and the country will most likely devolve into civil war - those who haven't been to china need to realize, that Chinese people FIGHT A LOT(against each other) a friend of mine who used to go there showed me a video of a mob going into this small town to fight another mob over some dude insulting someone or something silly.

Basically, what I'm saying is, Asia(possibly Russia if Putin stops invading countries that is) is pretty much safe from feminist influence. . .

THEN you have to consider AFRICA. China is investing HEAVILY in the whole continent, meaning that a pretty much anti-feminist China is also exporting red pill idea to the continent (which pretty much already has those ideas to begin with anyway.)

Personally I think Nature wins out all the time, its just up to us to decide how painful the correction is going to be, or where we are going to be to avoid that correction since we have already been "corrected"

Post: #34

This looks like standard Overton Window maneuvering. They'll back down on the most outrageous proposals, then we'll be relieved and acquiesce when they propose something just a little less extreme.

Post: #35

I think there's a general level of hysteria about this "yes means yes" topic in the manosphere that's at a higher level than warranted (in terms of it actually becoming part of the criminal law, not the rules that colleges have already enacted).

Keep in mind that criminal laws vary by state and each state's legislature would have to separately adopt these laws in addition to all the other things they need to do while they're in session.

Then there's the enforcement and judicial problem of devoting resources to enforce and prosecute criminal behavior that would be extremely difficult to prove. Realistically, something like this would require lots more time and taxpayer money that just isn't there. Have any of you guys ever sat in criminal court and watched a judge go through the calendar? There are plenty of misdemeanors that rarely ever get enforced due to judges not wanting to waste the time, police officers not bothering to go to court for them, witnesses not bothering to show up if it wasn't that serious, etc.

I honestly just don't see it happening. Aside from some hysterical academics, who is going to want to devote the necessary resources to enact this into our laws and make sure it's enforced?

Post: #36

(05-16-2015 11:49 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  I think there's a general level of hysteria about this "yes means yes" topic in the manosphere that's at a higher level than warranted (in terms of it actually becoming part of the criminal law, not the rules that colleges have already enacted).

Keep in mind that criminal laws vary by state and each state's legislature would have to separately adopt these laws in addition to all the other things they need to do while they're in session.

Then there's the enforcement and judicial problem of devoting resources to enforce and prosecute criminal behavior that would be extremely difficult to prove. Realistically, something like this would require lots more time and taxpayer money that just isn't there. Have any of you guys ever sat in criminal court and watched a judge go through the calendar? There are plenty of misdemeanors that rarely ever get enforced due to judges not wanting to waste the time, police officers not bothering to go to court for them, witnesses not bothering to show up if it wasn't that serious, etc.

I honestly just don't see it happening. Aside from some hysterical academics, who is going to want to devote the necessary resources to enact this into our laws and make sure it's enforced?

Yes means Yes for colleges in California was supposed to be just funny California liberals, but look how that has spread. Now the Model Penal Code (which isn't comparable to some kind of academic paper.) Many jurisdictions have adopted parts of the MPC and others will use it as a comparison. A quick Google search will cover the history and influence that the MPC has.

As for who will push state legislators to change the laws- I think that ROK has made very clear that there is a whole feminist movement that wants to bring some version of "yes means yes" to every state in the Union.

Post: #37

(05-17-2015 01:01 AM)eljeffster Wrote:  Yes means Yes for colleges in California was supposed to be just funny California liberals, but look how that has spread. Now the Model Penal Code (which isn't comparable to some kind of academic paper.) Many jurisdictions have adopted parts of the MPC and others will use it as a comparison. A quick Google search will cover the history and influence that the MPC has.

As for who will push state legislators to change the laws- I think that ROK has made very clear that there is a whole feminist movement that wants to bring some version of "yes means yes" to every state in the Union.

Exactly. The propositions will find their way into the penal code. Men will only start caring, when a few get incarcerated, but even then, hardly anyone cares. Look at how child support payments are bringing hundreds of thousands of men into prison. Do you see men demonstrating in the streets and getting at least some support of the upper ranks of society? As long as it does not concern some part of the elite, then it will pass - you would need incredibly strong opposition. Most men out there would not even care why this should concern them - they are not beating up any women or raping them.

Consider it done - women will simply have more power to punish bad dates and bad husbands - heh.

Post: #38

The proposal is a serious threat. As a real life example...Older players here may recall the origins of the "yes means yes" rule enacted at Antioch College in 1991. Back then, it was an absurd idea, yet it was approved at the liberal college. Today, 24 years later, "Yes means Yes" is in effect for California and making progress in other statewide university systems. Antioch College has since closed it doors.

A short article is found here...https://www.thefire.org/antiochs-infamous-sexual-assault-policy/

An excerpt...
"Adopted in 1991 at the prompting of the “Womyn of Antioch,” the consent requirements for this policy made news because they are virtually impossible to fulfill—but to fail to do so was a sexual offense."

This current proposal described by the original poster of this thread, in our current crazy world, could very well be in effect years from now. Society needs the manosphere to regain sanity.

Post: #39

(05-16-2015 11:49 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  I think there's a general level of hysteria about this "yes means yes" topic in the manosphere that's at a higher level than warranted (in terms of it actually becoming part of the criminal law, not the rules that colleges have already enacted).

Keep in mind that criminal laws vary by state and each state's legislature would have to separately adopt these laws in addition to all the other things they need to do while they're in session.

Then there's the enforcement and judicial problem of devoting resources to enforce and prosecute criminal behavior that would be extremely difficult to prove. Realistically, something like this would require lots more time and taxpayer money that just isn't there. Have any of you guys ever sat in criminal court and watched a judge go through the calendar? There are plenty of misdemeanors that rarely ever get enforced due to judges not wanting to waste the time, police officers not bothering to go to court for them, witnesses not bothering to show up if it wasn't that serious, etc.

I honestly just don't see it happening. Aside from some hysterical academics, who is going to want to devote the necessary resources to enact this into our laws and make sure it's enforced?

No. If anything there is insufficient alarm and concern in the manosphere about these evil misandrist laws -- and these draft proposals for the Model Penal Code go far beyond even the "Yes Means Yes" laws in their deliberate attempt to criminalize everyday male behavior. The Model Penal Code is extremely influential in shaping actual laws that are enacted by legislatures, so this is as far from an abstract academic exercise as it could possibly be.

The argument that these laws are unenforceable because they would make everyone a criminal, and that, therefore, they would make no practical difference, is wrong. I'll allow myself to quote in full a post I made on this exact subject which explains the reason:

(09-13-2014 12:16 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  A mistake that people sometimes make is to look at an absurd law or regulation like this, and think, "this is so insane that it can never be enforced -- why, it makes everyone a criminal! So it's irrelevant and nothing to worry about".

Wrong. The imposition of absurdly overbroad laws that render everyone a criminal or a lawbreaker does not mean that they will never be enforced -- rather, it means that they will be enforced at the whim and discretion of the bureaucrats and those charged with enforcing such laws. In effect, the existence of such overbroad regulations gives bureaucrats absolute power and discretion -- clearly, such regulations cannot be enforced on everyone, so they will be enforced whenever and wherever they please. It puts people at the mercy of the administrative authorities and leads to arbitrary and capricious rule. It effectively makes a society corrupt and lawless. That is why dictatorial and authoritarian states always write such sweeping and overbroad laws, which can then serve as a tool to be used whenever and wherever those in power decide to use it.

That is why, in addition to their evil and anti-human substance, the very unrealistic and absurdly overbroad nature of these regulations is a terrible evil in itself. They must be fought by all means available.

Post: #40

(05-17-2015 08:04 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  No. If anything there is insufficient alarm and concern in the manosphere about these evil misandrist laws -- and these draft proposals for the Model Penal Code go far beyond even the "Yes Means Yes" laws in their deliberate attempt to criminalize everyday male behavior. The Model Penal Code is extremely influential in shaping actual laws that are enacted by legislatures, so this is as far from an abstract academic exercise as it could possibly be.

The argument that these laws are unenforceable because they would make everyone a criminal, and that, therefore, they would make no practical difference, is wrong. I'll allow myself to quote in full a post I made on this exact subject which explains the reason:

Look - there is no surprise to me. Even the Patriot Act and various other laws give the US government almost complete impunity at doing whatever the fuck they want. You can disappear tomorrow in a secret service stint and your family and legal representation is going to be given "Natioal Security" as an explanation. That is enough to keep you incarcerated forever or torture you to death in a foreign nation.

All of this is legal. It is legal under an extended War on Drugs to SWAT team families, shoot dogs and toddlers. Yeah - sometimes guys get reprimanded, but 3 months later the next set of family is SWATted because the cops got the address wrong or they decided to go full force against a lowly car thief.

The reason why those things do not surprise me as well as others - is because they have written about it. The end goal is to create a totalitarian 1984 state that is only going to be followed by a technocratic Brave New World of artificially grown mind-slaves.

So yes - the penal system will likely allow in the future any government official to decide unilaterally if you have harassed a woman or not. That is the extension of the YesMeansYes laws which give the power to women. Now the state is going after that - again read 1984.

What shall the 'sphere do about it?
MRAs are active since the 1920s trying to change the legal system. If many many people rise up against it - millions and millions - then maybe some things can be slowed, but not stopped so long we remain in a system that is dominated by infinite money behind the scenes.

Post: #41

The draft at issue was written over a year ago, not voted on at the 2014 meeting, and more ALI members appear to oppose it than support it. Common sense may win out on this one.

Post: #42

When they torture Winston in 1984, it is partly for falling in love.

(05-17-2015 11:56 AM)lurker Wrote:  The draft at issue was written over a year ago, not voted on at the 2014 meeting, and more ALI members appear to oppose it than support it. Common sense may win out on this one.

I'm guessing if they can't even get a vote on it , it means it's dead in the water.

The crimimalization of normal human sexuality scares me but lawyers are above average in intelligence, and if they know the history of law AT ALL, have some knowledge of how bad laws , or even good ones, can slide out of control and have horrific consequences.

Post: #43

Why should the burden be on men to prove consent when it's women that are the ones "required" to "give" consent? Kind of ridiculous when you think about it.

Post: #44

FUCK THIS VICTORIAN SHIT!

All I say is: NOT. IN. MY. LIFETIME. AND. AFTER.

Post: #45

I want to be The Lizard of Oz when I grow up.

Post: #46

Good luck trying to enforce "positive agreement," whatever the fuck that shit means. God damn, this completely contradicts the past 2000 years of contract law. An agreement is an agreement and can be implied or explicit. Been that way since the Greek times.

Logistically, something like "positive agreement" is completely impossible to enforce. Again, just by the way the entire legal system is structured keeping something like "positive agreement" would basically mean selective enforcement of the law, since there is no way to reliably meet the burden of proof on "positive agreement" in 95%+ of cases. It just wouldn't be enforced unless some judge or jury had it out for the defendant.

Not only the above makes this proposal unfeasible, but the amount of time and resources spent arguing over "positive agreement" would also probably be outrageous and clog up the legal system to the point where lawyers have no power at all.

This entire proposal is logistically impossible for the legal system and (thankfully) isn't something we need to worry about.

Post: #47

(05-18-2015 08:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Good luck trying to enforce "positive agreement," whatever the fuck that shit means. God damn, this completely contradicts the past 2000 years of contract law. An agreement is an agreement and can be implied or explicit. Been that way since the Greek times.

Logistically, something like "positive agreement" is completely impossible to enforce. Again, just by the way the entire legal system is structured keeping something like "positive agreement" would basically mean selective enforcement of the law, since there is no way to reliably meet the burden of proof on "positive agreement" in 95%+ of cases. It just wouldn't be enforced unless some judge or jury had it out for the defendant.

Not only the above makes this proposal unfeasible, but the amount of time and resources spent arguing over "positive agreement" would also probably be outrageous and clog up the legal system to the point where lawyers have no power at all.

This entire proposal is logistically impossible for the legal system and (thankfully) isn't something we need to worry about.

Prosecutors won't have to take everyone to trial. Upwards of 97% of criminal cases settle (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stori...l?page=all)

All they will have to do is make some examples to cow most of the population. You went out on three dates in which you escalated to a bang on dates two and three plus all the touching while out in public? Several different sexual assault and or rape counts for not getting "positive agreement."

Prosecutor will stack the charges and now you are looking at 20 years, but if you plead guilty, maybe they will knock it down to a year with time served. PS after you get out you find out you're on the sexual offenders list for life, good luck getting a job.

Post: #48

(05-18-2015 09:20 PM)eljeffster Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 08:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Good luck trying to enforce "positive agreement," whatever the fuck that shit means. God damn, this completely contradicts the past 2000 years of contract law. An agreement is an agreement and can be implied or explicit. Been that way since the Greek times.

Logistically, something like "positive agreement" is completely impossible to enforce. Again, just by the way the entire legal system is structured keeping something like "positive agreement" would basically mean selective enforcement of the law, since there is no way to reliably meet the burden of proof on "positive agreement" in 95%+ of cases. It just wouldn't be enforced unless some judge or jury had it out for the defendant.

Not only the above makes this proposal unfeasible, but the amount of time and resources spent arguing over "positive agreement" would also probably be outrageous and clog up the legal system to the point where lawyers have no power at all.

This entire proposal is logistically impossible for the legal system and (thankfully) isn't something we need to worry about.

Prosecutors won't have to take everyone to trial. Upwards of 97% of criminal cases settle (http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stori...l?page=all)

All they will have to do is make some examples to cow most of the population. You went out on three dates in which you escalated to a bang on dates two and three plus all the touching while out in public? Several different sexual assault and or rape counts for not getting "positive agreement."

Prosecutor will stack the charges and now you are looking at 20 years, but if you plead guilty, maybe they will knock it down to a year with time served. PS after you get out you find out you're on the sexual offenders list for life, good luck getting a job.

No way - I'd take it to court and claim that she gave me verbal positive agreement the entire way. My word against hers, innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you walk.

Of course, the biggest loss to these cases will be the ruined reputations of men, but this is more cultural than it is legal.

Post: #49

(05-18-2015 08:45 PM)Samseau Wrote:  No way - I'd take it to court and claim that she gave me verbal positive agreement the entire way. My word against hers, innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you walk.

Of course, the biggest loss to these cases will be the ruined reputations of men, but this is more cultural than it is legal.

I agree you wouldn't take that deal, but what about all the other men? The betas, omegas, and others. Further feminist control.

Post: #50

(05-18-2015 10:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  No way - I'd take it to court and claim that she gave me verbal positive agreement the entire way. My word against hers, innocent until proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you walk.

Yep. Which would require a beyond a reasonable doubt proof - this is the issue that got litigated in at least one state, and we discussed, here: /thread-41870.html