How to Deal with the New “Yes Means Yes” Law

Don’t fornicate.

The end!

It amazes me how quickly Christians, and some people who I am genuinely convinced are good Christians (meaning sincere and more or less orthodox), refuse or forget to consider the obvious Christian solution to the problem. And in the manosphere especially this is a general theme I see. Why are we bemoaning the difficulty of fornicating successfully on college campuses when the solution is not only right under our noses but scripturally mandated? It boggles the mind.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to How to Deal with the New “Yes Means Yes” Law

  1. Firstly because it’s still unjust to convict someone of a crime they didn’t do, no matter what other misdeeds they have done.

    Secondly, because it sets an extremely worrying precedent. If you can lower your standards of guilt for politically-motivated reasons, any notion of the rule of law goes out the window. Even if you think that fornicators deserve to get treated as rapists, it’s naïve to suppose that there won’t be more such initiatives in the future.

    • I should probably clarify: Christians, as a group, should be responding to this law by reminding the flock that fornication is a sin; don’t do it.

      Now, the law is awful. Just awful. But you know what? If you don’t want to deal with it, you really, really don’t have to. But we all seem to forget that. Sure, being accused of rape is not a just response to fornication, not even close. But so far I have seen literally nobody point out that one of the major factors in the creation of the so-called rape culture is the fornication culture, and it’s something we have personal control over.

      I’m not saying it’s fair. But we all know what’s happening anyway.

  2. Drew says:

    Doesn’t it apply to marriage, too?

  3. Crude says:

    Why are we bemoaning the difficulty of fornicating successfully on college campuses when the solution is not only right under our noses but scripturally mandated? It boggles the mind.

    Because we, or at least I, dislike the thought of sexual habits being legislated by what is easily the most panicky intellectual group since the puritans, but without the theological motivation.

    That said, I actually endorse the legislation for college campuses. In fact, I don’t think it goes far enough. I think there should be written consent forms – notarized – for every sexual act engaged in, and for every stretch of time wherein that act is contained, to exceed no longer than 30 minutes per.

    Because laws like this are going to have an intellectually hilarious side-effect: women and men are going to realize they rather enjoy being raped and raping, legally speaking. And that’s going to be one hell of a realization to have seep into the psyche.

    • Don’t get me wrong here – I agree with your first paragraph. I’m just pointing out that if we even tried to practice what we supposedly preach this really wouldn’t make much of a difference. The reason it’s a problem is because we’re all fornicating.

      So stop.

      You seem to be taking a “burn the bridges” approach, which I can relate to.

      • Crude says:

        Well, not so much burn the bridges here – though I certainly do that – as ‘if you want to be crazy, then by all means’. ‘You’ meaning the Cali legislature.

        That said, I don’t think Christians are having a problem with this law, except for the fact that it’s just one more step in the wrong direction. Keep in mind it’s not as if the people who write this legislation think ‘Oh, but if you get married, the rules are different’ necessarily.

        Which is another thing to consider. See, given the developments with gay marriage, I’m more sympathetic with the idea of doing away with secular marriage altogether in the Christian church – at least as something either necessary or respected.

        I’m also sympathetic to Vox Day’s claim that marriage implies consent. I admit, when he put it that way – with the caveats he provided – I found myself intellectually cornered. It DOES imply consent, doesn’t it? But that runs strictly counter to the claim that past consent does not imply present consent, at least in that case.

      • Vox is right about that, and your point (that it runs counter to the most recent claims about consent) is a good one I never thought of.

        I’m with Lydia McGrew on this. The state needs, or at least should be if needs is too strong, in the marriage business. We need to at least TRY, even if we fail.

      • Crude says:

        Despite my sword-crossing with her, I understand Lydia’s point. I agree with her, actually, at least somewhat – in a better world, the state would be involved in marriage. There’d be a lack of no fault divorces, adultery would be frowned upon and even legally actionable to a degree, etc. I think it’s entirely rational – even in a secular sense – to safeguard and protect marriage in this way.

        The problem is I believe there hits a point where The Thing Once Known As Marriage is now a competitor to it, such that supporting it or ‘respecting’ it is now a bad idea, at least in its secular version. I can understand disagreement on this point, however – nor am I convinced my tentative approach is the best one. But I am not convinced by Lydia’s talk, particularly about how (if I recall correctly) marriage is important because it legally establishes paternity and ‘allows fathers visitation rights’ and so on. I’m actually curious what Lydia this of cases where a man is not the father of ‘his’ children, and his wife obfuscates this fact. (In some cases – such as in France – with the full force of the state behind her.)

        That’s the situation I find myself in on the subject, and perhaps I am wrong. But when a civil arrangement degenerates to a point where the cons outweigh the pros, and the ability to reverse this seems politically unattainable, doesn’t there come a time where the right thing to do is to pull support from it altogether?

Leave a Reply

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