Tag: Human sexuality

But Did You Really Mean Yes?

A few weeks ago, I blogged on the affirmative consent law passed by California that requires any sexual contact on college campuses to have explicit and ongoing consent to not be qualified as assault. In criticizing it, I noted:

What this really is about is getting a foot in the door for something radical feminists have wanted for a long time: a standard of “enthusiastic consent” to determine the line between sex and rape. According to these theorists, the only time sex should happen is when the woman is eager for it. Anything else is a varying degree of rape.

Do you have any idea how tired I get of being right all the time?

Activists quoted in the Huffington Post now want to extend this “affirmative consent” ideology, and its pinched, misleading definition of “consent,” beyond college into K-12 schools, and beyond sexual activity to non-sexual touching and unwanted remarks, to teach people the sinister evil of things like “unsolicited hugs.” (My wife and daughter hug me without asking for permission, and sometimes it’s a surprise — a pleasant surprise, even if I never “agreed” to it.). Once busybodies start meddling in your personal life, it’s hard for them to stop.

The meddling won’t stop at the schoolhouse gate, and will eventually reach into your private life, too. As lawyer Scott Greenfield notes, progressive law professors have submitted a controversial proposal to the American Law Institute that the Model Penal Code be radically changed to require affirmative “consent” throughout society, for both “sexual intercourse” and a broader range of “sexual contact.” On page 69 of their draft, they explicitly admit that this affirmative “consent” requirement would classify as sexual assault even many “passionately wanted” instances of sex (presumably because of the technicality that such mutually-wanted sexual intercourse is welcomed after — not affirmatively consented to before — the sex is initiated.) Perversely, they justify this massive invasion of people’s sex lives as supposedly protecting people’s sexual “autonomy” from potentially unwanted sex, even though their proposal goes well beyond banning unwanted sex, to banning sex that was in fact “passionately wanted” although not agreed to in advance. See Model Penal Code: Sexual Assault and Related Offenses, Tentative Draft No. 1 at pg. 69 (April 30, 2014).

This is why, Ezra Klein, you don’t support what you admit is a terrible law because it serves some social justice function. Because once you infect the legal code with the sort of wooly thinking, it will spread and mutate until the entire law code is a feminist manifesto from Berkeley.

The Latest White House Oops

You may remember the scandal, a few years ago, when Secret Service agents and military personnel in the President’s advance security detail in Colombia hired a few prostitutes. While prostitution is legal in Colombia, it was felt that the agents endangered security by their behavior. They were seeing these women and drinking heavily when they should have been preparing for the President’s arrival; they invited them up to their rooms in a security violation; they tried to cover it up, exposing themselves to potential blackmail*. Worst of all, they refused to pay the women what had been agreed upon. I don’t mind people hiring courtesans; but not when they are supposed to be protecting the President.

(*Using sexual infidelities or behavior as blackmail fodder is not unique to prostitutes and is probably actually less common among professionals. A woman who just wants a few hundred dollars for her time is a lot less likely to blackmail someone than a random stranger they pick up who may not be so random. The infamous 1986 sex-for-secrets scandal involved a Russian civilian, not a prostitute. The big infidelity blackmail scandals — such as Rick Pitino or David Letterman — involved women they’d picked up not women they’d hired. Indeed, this is why a lot of famous people hire women instead of picking them up. The potential danger of US military personnel being blackmailed for hiring a prostitute would be severely lessened if we abandoned the idiotic policy of discharging military personnel who avail themselves of legal sex workers.)

Punishment came down on the men involved but there were rumors that a White House staffer also hired a prostitute and it was covered up or at least punted past the 2012 election.


As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.

But new details drawn from government documents and interviews show that senior White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member — yet that information was never thoroughly investigated or publicly acknowledged.

The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.

Once again: one rule for the masses; one rule for the elites. It’s Elliot Spitzer all over again. You plebs can’t hire a girl to spend the night with you. But we, the rulers, can do whatever the fuck we like and fuck whoever we like.

It gets better:

Whether the White House volunteer, Jonathan Dach, was involved in wrongdoing in Cartagena, Colombia, remains unclear. Dach, then a 25-year-old Yale University law student, declined to be interviewed, but through his attorney he denied hiring a prostitute or bringing anyone to his hotel room. Dach has long made the same denials to White House officials.

Dach this year started working full time in the Obama administration on a federal contract as a policy adviser in the Office on Global Women’s Issues at the State Department.

Dach, incidentally, is the son of Leslie Dach, a huge Obama campaign contributor. But more importantly, he advises the State Department on women’s issues. This is the same State Department that opposes legal sex work, has issued all kinds of idiotic and factually-challenged statements about sex trafficking and has pressured foreign government into adopting Victorian mores on sex and sex work. Again, this guy has a job telling everyone else not to use hookers while he — allegedly — employs them.

I don’t have a problem with clients working in high places. Depending on which study you believe, something like a third of men have used a hooker at least once. What I have problem with is the absolutely putrid hypocrisy on display here. Secret service agents and military personnel are drummed out of the service; our government pressures other governments to outlaw sex work; it runs nationwide “stings” for underage sex workers which nab thousands of consenting adults; it brands anyone who so much as gives a ride to a hooker as a “pimp”; it shuts down websites that help hookers screen out dangerous clients; it promotes garbage stats like the myth that there are 200,000 underage sex slaves in this country. But when one of their own is alleged to have seen a sex worker, they immediately cover it up.

Apparently no one should be able to pay for sex except the rich, the powerful and the connected.

You’re Doing It Wrong

Maggie McNeill calls things like this “good fantasy, bad reality”.

A Southwest Florida man’s planned threesome with his wife and another woman ended with him behind bars on felony battery charges after he punched and swung a TV at his bride.

Jorge Daniel Silva, of Naples, was arrested Sunday after police said he became enraged when the threesome went awry, according to a Collier County Sheriff’s Office report obtained by the Naples Daily News.

What set him off, apparently, was that the two women started kissing each other. Apparently, he thought “threesome” meant “two women worshipping me”.

I don’t really want to make light of this since the guy went completely nuts, beating his wife with a television (seriously). She sounds like she’s in a bad way. I’m hoping she makes a full recovery and he enjoys his prison threesomes.

But still, this should be a lesson to every would-be sexual explorer. The correct response to your wife making out with another woman is to watch rapturously and say, “Holy crap, this is awesome!” (also, send me pictures). If, however, this is the sort of thing that will send you into a hulk-like rage, maybe threesomes aren’t for you.

Finally, here is the least surprising thing about the story:

The report said all three appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.

God dammit, when are we going to ban the scourge of alcohol from our society? It turns perfectly acceptable threesomes into violent explosions. Won’t someone please think of the (emotional) children?

The Yearbook Committee

The latest “OMG! What about about the children!” over-reaction.

Authorities investigating an alleged sex crime captured in the 2011 Big Bear High School yearbook said Tuesday their work is ongoing, but that charges eventually could be filed.

The high school made headlines last week when a photograph depicting a 17-year-old male student with his hands inside the clothing of a 15-year-old female student at a school dance was published in the yearbook.

It’s not clear exactly what was photographed. Reports are that the camera captured his hand up her short dress. When it was discovered, the authorities decreed that this constituted child pornography and ordered the yearbooks recalled. Yes, a picture of a 17 y/o groping a clothed 15 y/o is now the equivalent of kiddie porn.

That itself wouldn’t be so bad. But now they’re talking about charging the boy with a sex crime. California, despite its reputation, has a ridiculous age of consent law. Age of consent in 18, which is fine. But most sensible states make an exception if the two involved are within three years in age. In Cali, that just reduces it to a misdemeanor (if it’s consenting; forcible is a felony and should be). This kid could do jail time and presumably end up being labelled a sex offender with all the suffering and life-ruination that entails.

Well, you know what he authorities have to say about that:

Crimes involving the sexual penetration of a minor fall under child abuse statutes, MacKay said, and school and law enforcement officials are required to report and investigate such incidents.

“As much as we know teenagers are and will be teenagers, by law we cannot ignore it,” MacKay said.

In other words, no discretion is allowed. If the authorities find out that two teenager are engaged in any sexual activity, they are required to ruin their lives (or at least, ruin the boy’s life).

This is insane. And if you read the comments on the article, everyone with two brain cells to rub together realizes it’s insane. A good prosecutor would say, “Well, having your hand up someone’s dress isn’t penetration. And the photos a little blurry anyway. Shucks, guess we have to drop the charges.” A better one would say, “This is an illustration of how insane our laws are. I refuse to engage in this bullshit even if it costs me my job.”

But in the insane asylum that is our legal system, charging a 17 y/o boy with a sex crime for groping his girlfriend’s thigh is considered normal.

The Puritans Strike Back

And once again, I am eternally grateful that that fucktard fascist Martha Coakley did not get elected to the Senate:

Attorney General Martha Coakley, leading legislators and district attorneys have decided that what Massachusetts really needs is an all-out offensive against prostitution.

They are proposing a new crime: “human trafficking for sexual servitude,” which would allow convicted pimps, madams, or anyone else facilitating the exchange of sex for money to be imprisoned for up to 20 years on the first offense, with a mandatory 10 years in the pen if convicted a second time.

The 20-year sentence would also apply to anyone who recruits someone to engage in a “sexually-explicit performance.” If you’re planning a batchelor party, better do it soon, since this law would empower Coakley to shut down the “gentlemen’s clubs” and hire-a-stripper operations.

The proposed law considers prostitutes the “victims” of prostitution, so it doubles the sentence for their customers. “Whoever pays, agrees to pay, or offers to pay another person” for sex can be sentenced to up to 2 1/2 years in jail and a $5,000 fine, “whether such sexual conduct occurs or not.”

The anti-prostitution weenies have found a way of prettying up their sexual hangup. They’re not against sex, they say, they’re against “trafficking”. But they have now defined trafficking so broadly that women consenting to have sex for money are considered victims of some global conspiracy. And those who facilitate this business could be in jail longer than murderers. They site bogus statistics to convince us that hundreds of thousands of underage women are in sexual slavery in this country, despite their manifest failure to uncover these supposed massive trafficking rings. And now they’ve decided that it’s a good use of resources to jail whores, pimps and johns.

This will not work. Prostitution is universal, even in countries where it is punishable by death. You simply can not control consensual acts between adults. Massachusetts should be decriminalizing prostitution, not doubling down on a failed and corrupting policy.

(The article also address efforts to stop people snacking and the Mass cops taking a cue from our President and refusing to comply with the more liberal laws on pot possession. But that’s small potatoes compared to tossing someone in the clink with violent thugs because he paid for or was paid for a blowjob. That’s an entire extra level of stupid.)

(H/T: Maggie McNeill, bringing the facts, as always.)

Is your sex life deviant?

Whatever freaky shit you’re into online? You ain’t alone, brothers and sisters. Turns out damn near everybody is a freak. Read the whole article, it’s interesting, but here’s a bit I thought was particularly enlightening:

When this information is broken apart further, however, human sexual desire becomes as confounding as ever. For example: Men fantasize about group sex far more than women and picture more men than women in the action. Straight men prefer to watch amateur porn online, and the authors theorize it’s because of perceived authenticity — a fake orgasm, it turns out, may be as disappointing as one in real life. One of the most popular and diverse areas of interest in sexuality is domination and submission, with straight women and gay men most interested in the latter role. Gay men enjoy straight porn in large numbers.

I say enlightening, but…not to me. That is precisely the way I would expect it to go. As for the really freaky stuff?

America’s pre-eminent evolutionary psychologist, Donald Symons, a pioneer in the field of human sexuality, isn’t so sure. While he admires the scope of Ogas and Gaddam’s research, he’s not convinced a causal line can be drawn from hard data to human desire — that, for example, the popularity of sites devoted to granny porn and transsexuals is a sign that straight men somehow find these images erotic.

“One of the first things I asked Ogi about was curiosity versus arousal,” says Symons. “Ogi is convinced that when people are searching for things, it’s primarily for sexual arousal. I’m not so sure about that. If there was a porn star with three breasts — I bet there would be a zillion hits. Would that be a sign men were suddenly aroused by that? I think not.”

Gotta agree with Symons here. This reminds me of a story. Buncha years ago, when it wasn’t so frigging easy to access literally any kind of porn your mind could imagine, my phone rang. “Jim, I need the freakiest most disgusting porn you can find online right now.” I used to be a human Google for certain people, and like Google, BANG, I gave instant results. I sent her to DefVac and the old, original StileProject. Why did I have that stuff at the ready? Well, first of all I was friends with Lee. If it was offensive or sexual, or better if it combined the two, one of us would make sure to have that link on tap. It’s just how we rolled. Secondly, people expected us to know, so we knew.

One must work to meet expectations, mustn’t one?

Anyway, you aren’t a freak. You’re just human. So go rub one out to whatever disgusting, filthy, perverted shit you can find online, you goddamned grotesque monstrosity.