Sunday, December 24, 2017

Does Yes Ever Mean Yes?
I have always taken No to mean No -- sometimes in situations where I was later told that I was just meant to try harder.  I don't like games and don't think I missed much -- JR

Over the weekend, Jessica Bennett, gender editor of The New York Times -- yes, that's a real title -- wrote a piece titled "When Saying 'Yes' Is Easier Than Saying 'No'." She argued that in many cases, women say yes to sex but actually don't want to do so: "Sometimes 'yes' means 'no,' simply because it is easier to go through with it than explain our way out of the situation. Sometimes 'no' means 'yes,' because you actually do  want to do it, but you know you're not supposed to lest you be labeled a slut. And if you're a man, that 'no' often means 'just try harder' -- because, you know, persuasion is part of the game." Bennett continues by arguing that consent is actually societally defined, that "our idea of what we want -- of our own desire -- is linked to what we think we're supposed to want."

But Bennett offers no clear solutions to this issue. If it's true that women say yes but mean no, are men supposed to read minds? If a woman says no but a man seduces her until she says yes, is the initial no supposed to take precedence over the final yes?

Unfortunately, Bennett offers no guidance. Neither does Rebecca Reid, who wrote in Metro UK that she once participated in a threesome because she "didn't want to be rude." And Reid says that such experiences aren't uncommon: "There are hundreds of reasons why, but they all boil down to the same thing. We're nice girls. We've been raised to be nice." She adds: "sometimes being careful means having sex that you don't want, that leaves you feeling dirty and sad and a bit icky. It's not rape. It's not abuse. But it's not nice, either."

In the pages of The New Yorker, a similarly vague story went viral. Titled "Cat Person," it describes a woman named Margot who seduces a man and sends him all the signals that she wants to have sex with him but is internally divided over whether to go through with it: "she knew that her last chance of enjoying this encounter had disappeared, but that she would carry through with it until it was over." In the end, she cuts short their relationship, and he texts that she is a "Whore."

It's a painful story, to be sure. But it also raises a serious question: What exactly are men supposed to do in such scenarios? Because as a society, we're beyond suggesting that women are doing anything wrong in consenting to nonmarital sex; women are free to do what they want. But we are in the midst of a push to punish male aggressors. And if we water down consent to nothingness, how can we ever expect men to feel safe in the knowledge that a sexual encounter won't come with life-altering implications?

Perhaps the problem is expectations. All three articles articulate the complaint that women want to fulfill men's expectations. But none of them admit to another expectation, one created by the feminist movement: the expectation that women themselves must treat sex casually or fall prey to reinforcing the patriarchy. Ask a person of traditional moral standards whether the woman should have said no in all of these stories. The answer will be yes. But then that person will be regarded as a prude.

There are costs to societal expectations. Traditional mores ruled out the male expectation of sex in non-commitment scenarios. Yes, men had hopes of sex -- all men do, virtually all of the time. But men had no expectation that such hopes would be achieved absent serious commitment. Thanks to our consent-only society, however, in which sexual activity is a throwaway and any notion of cherishing it is scoffed at as patriarchal, men have developed expectations that too many women feel they must meet -- and men have taken up the feminist standard that consent is a goal to be achieved. The cost to such a system is borne almost entirely by women.

The healthiest system of sexual interaction is a system in which most women can be sure enough of themselves most of the time to feel decent after saying yes. That system no longer exists, thanks to the disconnect between commitment and sex. And the continuing disconnect between consent and expectation will continue to burden women in heavier and heavier ways.


Another victim of the  British rape frenzy

Any feminists care to defend what's starting to look like an epidemic of rigged rape trials? Who would have thought when you inject an ideological demand to see more rape convictions into the justice system, that it would lead to injustice?

If a Southwark Crown Court jury had decided differently this week, Samuel Armstrong would now be spending Christmas in a prison cell.

The 24-year-old former chief of staff to the Conservative MP Craig Mackinlay has spent seven days on trial accused of raping a female worker at the Houses of Parliament. On Thursday, he was unanimously cleared on all charges.

Instead he will be with his parents and two younger brothers at their home in Danbury, Essex. They will visit church in the morning and enjoy a traditional lunch of famous Kelly Bronze turkey, which are farmed nearby.

But even as he describes the classic family Christmas, the pale young suited man slumped in a chair opposite me betrays little trace of the joys of freedom.

"This is not a cause for celebration but simple relief," he says. "My life has been turned upside down. I haven't slept or eaten for a year. And I was innocent."


A politically correct hunger for rape convictions in Britain at last under scrutiny

Scotland Yard has announced a review of all current rape and sex abuse investigations after a second trial collapsed in less than a week amid claims that police withheld crucial evidence.

Isaac Itiary, 25, had been charged with the rape of a child, but the case was thrown out on Tuesday after concerns were raised over the failure of detectives to disclose vital material to prosecutors and the defence.

Just days ago, 22-year-old Liam Allan had his case thrown out when it emerged police had failed to disclose thousands of text messages that would have proved his innocence.

It has since emerged that it was the same Scotland Yard detective who had worked on both cases. Detective Constable Mark Azariah, 37, who works on the Met's specialist rape and sex abuse unit, is still on full active duty.

But the collapse of two cases in similar circumstances in a matter of days has prompted senior officers to launch a review of every live rape case currently being investigated by the force.

There are warnings that police are making basic errors in their desperation to improve conviction rates in sex abuse cases. Currently 11.2 per cent of rape allegations result in a conviction.

Nigel Evans, the Tory MP who was himself cleared of rape after a controversial investigation and prosecution, accused the police of making basic -errors.

He said: "There has been an absolute systemic failure in the disclosure of evidence that might result in people not being charged ... it is putting people through a mental torture, it is a colossal admission of failure. "They [police and prosecutors] need to change practice and ensure full disclosure is given at the earliest possible moment.

"I have a suspicion there is a desire to ensure that the number of convictions increases."

Angela Rafferty QC, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association, suggested "unconscious bias" stops the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) "impartially and thoroughly investigating and scrutinising complaints in sexual offence cases?".

She added: "It should be remembered that it is not the job of the police or CPS to judge the truthfulness or otherwise of any allegation made."

David Lidington, the Justice Secretary, said police and prosecutors should not be chasing targets in sex abuse investigations but should ask themselves if the evidence is sufficient.

He expressed sympathy with the view that rape suspects should be granted anonymity until conviction, but said naming suspects upon charge, as is currently the case, often prompted more victims to come forward.

The Metropolitan Police review, announced late on Tuesday evening, will involve all rape cases currently being investigated by its specialist sex abuse unit.

It is thought scores of investigations could now be in jeopardy amid concern that police have failed to follow proper procedures.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "As a precaution, every live case being investigated by the Child Abuse and Sexual Offences [Caso] command, where the Met is in discussion with the CPS, is being reviewed to ensure all digital evidence has been properly examined, documented and shared with the CPS to meet obligations under disclosure."

Isaac Itiary was charged with the rape of a child under 16 in July and was due to stand trial next year.

He had reportedly spent four months in prison awaiting trial as he was considered to be a risk to the public.

But at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday, the CPS offered no evidence after issues arose regarding the full disclosure of material.

A Met spokesman said: "In response to the defence case statement received by the officer in the case on Dec 15, all material was reviewed to identify any further relevant information likely to assist their case.

"This resulted in the identification of relevant material which was passed to the CPS to disclose.

"Given the time elapsed between the charging decision and receipt of the defence case statement, the Metropolitan Police Service will carry out a review of this investigation to ensure that all reasonable lines of inquiry were pursued at the earliest practical opportunity."

Liam Allan, a criminology student, had been three days into his trial when it emerged police had failed to disclose a vast amount of crucial information.

He had been accused of six rapes and six sexual assaults, spending almost two years on bail.

Among the text messages that were not passed to the defence, was one from the alleged victim that stated: "It was not against my will."

Mr Allan, who endured a two-year ordeal, has now threatened to sue the police and CPS, accusing them of chasing rape convictions "like sales targets".

Mr Lidington said: "The police and CPS need to look rigorously and ask themselves honestly ... whether the evidence is sufficient."


Detective Mark Azariah removed from duty after two rape trials collapse in a week

A Metropolitan Police officer involved in two collapsed rape cases was removed from active duty last night. Detective Constable Mark Azariah was stood down as a "precaution" while the force reviews all open sex abuse cases, prioritising roughly 30 alleged rapes about to go to trial.

Two cases collapsed in one week after failure to disclose material that assisted the defence. Jeremy Wright, QC, the attorney-general, described them as "appalling failures". Mr Wright is conducting a review and Theresa May told the Commons: "It is important that we look at this again so we make sure we are truly providing justice."

The Times understands that at least two other police officers were involved in the disclosure process in the case of Isaac Itiary, 25.


Ho! Ho! What?!? Children's Book Depicts Santa as Gay, Black Man
Mrs. Claus is now a mister in a new gay-themed Christmas storybook for children that has CNN and the rest of the mainstream media all aflutter.

"Santa's Husband" tells the story of a black Kris Kringle and his white husband living in holy matrimony at the North Pole.

I don't mean to curdle your eggnog, but the storybook was written for children as young as four years old.

Yes, good readers. Now you can tuck in your preschoolers on Christmas Eve and regale them with tales of Frosty and the Sugar Plum Fairy and a jolly old gay elf who slides down chimneys and stuffs holiday stockings.

"As this charming book reminds us, Santa Claus can come in all shapes and colors and sizes - just like the children and families he visits all over the world each Christmas Eve," read a description of the book on

Author Daniel Kibblesmith, a writer for "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert," told CNN he was inspired to write the book to over the so-called "war on Christmas" - "pretending that there's a giant war on Christmas, and that traditional Christmas is under attack."

Mr. Kibblesmith also took exception with the generally held belief that Santa Claus is a white guy.

"We were reading all of the news about Mall of America hiring a black Santa Claus last year and me and my now wife made a joke on Twitter that if we ever had a child they would only know about black Santa Claus and if they saw a white Santa Claus at the mall we would just explain `Well, that's his husband,'" he told CNN.

Mr. Kibblesmith's politically correct version of Santa Claus is all the rage among mainstream media types - pretty much the same crowd that celebrates depictions of Jesus as a gay man.

The book is "as true and humble a Christmas tale as any Santa enthusiast could want," declared Chicago Tribune writer Rex Huppke.

"And that is the beauty of this holiday tale," he wrote. "The fact that Santa Claus is black and gay has little bearing on the story. What it's really about is accepting that every family sees Christmas in a different way." heralded the book as "war on Christmas trolling at its finest."

"The all-ages book about a black, gay Santa takes on the Yuletide zealots with a warm smile," one headline screamed.

"In a lot of ways, it was just a reaction to people who wanted to police Christmas and keep it all to themselves, without acknowledging the reality of how diverse the country is, and how diverse our traditions have become-not just with people from different religions, but just with pop culture becoming one of the driving forces behind it," Mr. Kibblesmith told Esquire.

Mr. Kibblesmith does not offer any advice for parents on how to address questions that might arise from curious youngsters. Like, for example, why does Mrs. Claus have a beard?

Well, I suppose it could've been worse. Santa could've been married to a gender fluid, androgynous elf or a non-binary reindeer with a red nose.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: