top 200 commentsshow all 217

[–]Rule10b-5 175 points176 points  (35 children)

This is literally a super power. To be able to undo decisions taken in the past. It's right up there with time travel and telekinesis.

[–]1too_long_didnt_read 73 points74 points  (26 children)

Feminism has always been a reality distortion field though.

Feels >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reals

This is nothing new and they will only get even more extreme as time goes on.

[–]ChoppinTheTarts 9 points10 points  (2 children)

In some ways that's the best thing that could happen. The more extreme it becomes the more reasonable people will stop supporting it until the extreme feminist movement is ostracised by humanity.

This may be what it takes before the law makers who support them see the truth.

[–]sway_usa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. There's only so far that the pendulum can swing, and I think we are pushing the outer limits already. This is like trying to swing around the top pole on the swing set.

[–]morsX 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Minds ruled by emotions tend to bounce between extreme emotional states.

[–]moiez326 15 points16 points  (3 children)

and the problem is that it's a power that is only allowed for women. that's what makes it all the more scary.

[–]Pdr_vzlr 27 points28 points  (2 children)

Shouldn't be maybe there is a way to reverse it for marriage, so then men would be able to get out of marriage without paying alimony, and child support, withdrawing consent at the altar.

[–]RedPill115 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Shouldn't be maybe there is a way to reverse it for marriage, so then men would be able to get out of marriage without paying alimony, and child support, withdrawing consent at the altar.

Lol, that would be hilarious.

"Your honor, I know I slept with my wife at the time, but I retroactively withdraw consent so I don't need to pay child support now, right?"

[–]DrQuaid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Feminists would flip their fuckin shit lol.

[–]Derzu_Uzala 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It's really ironic that this is exactly what you'll expect from the stereotype of a woman. Flimsy, flacky, emotional, irresposible, no code of honor, etc.

[–]AdmiralKuznetsov 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Damn...this hit me right in the feels.

[–]AdmiralKuznetsov 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say that it's above time travel because time travel has limits.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil 65 points66 points  (7 children)

The entire article is filled with NLP type manipulation. Here is another analysis which you may find usefull.

Did you ever consent to something, but still came away feeling violated? Ever said yes to someone and then wished you could take it back? Well, you can.

  • Notice how the Yes comes immediately after the question is asked. The Yes is forced upon the reader

Here’s the thing: it is possible to consent to having some experience and then, sometime in the future, not consent to having had that experience.

  • Once the idea of victim hood has been established, the author takes a sympathetic tone to the newly created victim.

Put another way, you have “the right to retroactively withdraw consent” from any encounters you had, at any point in the past,

  • The statement while completely wrong is very difficultto challenge because its inverse "I don't have the right" is something people never say and unnatural.

that no longer feel good or safe to you.

  • women are cautious and group oriented. If someone says something is unsafe their not going to challenge it.

The article then goes on for a while doing all sorts of crazy things. But ends with:

Legalistic approaches to consent are responsible for the cultural paralysis in addressing rape and other undesirable intimate violations.

The author flat out says that LEGAL APPROACHES are inadequate in addressing Rape. A bold claim considering the fact that Rape is a crime that is prosecuted.

That's enough dumpster diving in feminist Pseudo intellectualism for today.

[–]let_terror_reign 7 points8 points  (2 children)

What worries me more is that I'm not sure they're doing this form of NLP writing consciously. I think it's genuinely how they frame things.

[–]usul1628 8 points9 points  (1 child)

If they're not conscious of it, I'm sure the Professors of Victim Studies who taught them knew exactly what they were teaching.

[–]Crazy_names 0 points1 point  (1 child)

A couple thoughts on your thoughts. As a victim advocate you are not supposed to re-victimize someone by having them relive the incident(rape or assault). I can agree with that in actual cases. But what this is referring to is PRE-victimization or at least post victimization. Which is not fair to the average male. Not all males are rapists (gasp) most accused are what I call "frat boys" who have been raised not respecting their mothers and sisters and therefore their prospective partners and/or have no game and then rely on alcohol etc to get laid. She then regrets it, cries lack of consent and the guy gets hemmed up. So we adapt and be more responsible with alcohol, we improve our game, and increase SMV. But until I can go back in time and un-sex a woman, I will not accept that she can go back and revoke consent. It is beyond human ability.

[–]billthane 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. Either we all get a TARDIS, or no one does. I'm really very flabbergasted by this idea...

[–]MOldMuckyTerrahawk 147 points148 points  (2 children)

Newbs take note: This is how you post ridiculous femi-babble that won't get deleted. Deconstruct their delusions to better equip others to do the same.

[–]Patriarchal_Bondage 25 points26 points  (1 child)

Definitely. Spewing outrage and "holy shit I can't believe this shit" gets nauseating fast. This is quality, succinct deconstruction.

[–]reedrichardsstretch 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Agreed, but I have almost no patience to actually read their bs and de-construct it like that. Props to my boy TRPS for having the stomach for it.

[–]netarangi 57 points58 points  (24 children)

Seriously losing more and more faith in humanity every day. How the fuck can anyone think this is okay?

[–]topspeedj 19 points20 points  (3 children)

You have to first understand the idea of female solipsism - while you and I are capable of seeing things in a mostly objective manner outside of our own viewpoint, it is not so easy for females to think with such self-awareness.

That's why women with a good deal of self-awareness are more suitable for LTRs and marrying.

Rollo and a few others have written about it:

[–]DoesNotMatterAnymore 5 points6 points  (1 child)

one more:

here is the whole package:

edit: a small vent: this site has more content on redpill (more organized) then /r/TheRedPill itself.



Hypergamy – The instinctual urge for women to seek out the best alpha available. This is marked by maximizing rejection (therefore women are the selective gender). A woman will vet her alpha through various shit tests to ensure his "health" on the alpha scale. She is conditioned to recognize a declining alpha, as hypergamy also tends to continue seeking out higher status males even while with an alpha male. Shit tests allow her to prepare herself for eventually leaving when a new higher status male is found. If the male fails shit tests to a great enough degree, it will effect her feelings for him. He will effectively lower his sexual market value in her eyes. This will enable her to jump to the next male with ease and little remors

[–]topspeedj 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Cheers, looks like an interesting read.

Edit: #4 of that series is a good read, there are some useful ideas.

Here's a paragraph that strikes at some of the core ideas of TRP:

Men don’t give a fuck about what people think of us as long as we enjoy what we do and are good at it. Women, because they are afraid of the real world, they fear being embarrassed and fearful to admit that they are not all what they assume to be, found comfort and attention in the company of others and translated this as self-image and self-worth hence, they escaped the need to improve themselves.

[–]AdmiralKuznetsov 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not that they can't see things the way we do so much as thy don't have to.

[–]sweetleef 44 points45 points  (16 children)

This is one blog post, by one woman, on one obscure website. If you let what she says affect what you think about humanity as a whole, you're as nuts as she is.

[–]Dark triad expert: - - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 49 points50 points  (0 children)

The ridiculous warrants ridicule.

[–]16 Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil 35 points36 points  (11 children)

Her view point is becoming increasingly common place.

[–]dakkr 7 points8 points  (10 children)

I literally have never heard of anyone, on the internet or otherwise, holding this view point before reading this, and I frequent places like /r/tumblrinaction so it's not like I'm not completely naive when it comes to SJW/radfem bullshit. I'm sure they exist, but I wouldn't point to this specific viewpoint as something that's becoming common. We're talking about a tiny minority within a minority (radfems/militant feminists).

[–]ILoveHate 5 points6 points  (0 children)

“I think people have less-than-proud moments, sex they wish they wouldn’t have had. That’s the kind of sex we’re trying to prevent, too.”

And that's the fucking law now.

[–]RU_Crazy 4 points5 points  (3 children)

We're talking about a tiny minority within a minority

First, feminism as a whole is not the minority, it is the predominant view in the western world. What do you think politically correctness is? Second, I think you are taking a binary approach to a subject that is more of a spectrum. Blogs like this push the discussion further and further in one direction until the old "radical" is the new "acceptable".

[–]dakkr 1 point2 points  (2 children)

First, feminism as a whole is not the minority, it is the predominant view in the western world.

I didn't mean feminism, i meant radfems and their ilk, who are a minority of feminists. Even radfems, crazy though many of them may be, wouldn't go this far. Yea some will make retarded statements like 'all sex between a man and a woman is rape' or whatever other bullshit they can pass off as 'intellectual', but to say that you can go back in time and change the nature of an encounter from years before? It's insanity, and it can be applied to women as well (e.g. a girl 'experiments' with other girls in college, 5 years later regrets it and determines the chick she slept with raped her).

Think of it like religion: you have the casual religious guys who just go to church once in a while, then you have the super hardcore literalists and extremists (Amish, orthodox jews, Westboro Baptist, and similar), and then you have that guy on the sidewalk with the cardboard sign telling you that 'the end is nigh' and you need to repent. That's basically who this woman is in the scope of feminism.

Blogs like this push the discussion further and further in one direction until the old "radical" is the new "acceptable".

Only once they become accepted or supported by some sort of authority on the subject. This blog for example will probably go nowhere, but if some big feminist scholar/speaker or website picks it up (or if they pick up another blog that makes a similar argument) and supports its stance then yea you're correct. As it is now the vast majority of people, even amongst mainstream feminists, would dismiss it as the rantings of a crazy person. Or so we hope anyway. Keep in mind that feminists, just as with any extremely large group, for the most part don't know any more than the extreme basics of what modern 'feminism' stands for, in the same way that many Catholics know basically nothing about Canon Law, but still call themselves Catholics.

[–]Grumpi83 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"I didn't mean feminism, i meant radfems and their ilk, who are a minority of feminists." No not really, these extreme ideas are becoming mainstream. Just look at the acceptance of "rape culture" over the last ten years. That was a crazy idea in the late 90's early 20000's and now here we are, hide yo kids hide yo wife...

[–]RedPill115 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't mean feminism, i meant radfems and their ilk, who are a minority of feminists.

These are the people who write the feminist articles and rhetoric, then the "nice" feminists come along and put a cheery caring face on it. I know what you think you're getting at, but mainstream feminism is just a hair away from insisting whatever the radicals are saying is the new morality.

Can you imagine mainstream feminists redefining rape from "she said no, or pushed him away" to "they had been sleeping together before, she climbed into bed with him, he initiates, she says no, he backs off, he later initiates again, she decides she's tired and would rather have sex than tell him no again" is now a crime, rather than him possibly just being a little uncomfortable? Can you imagine feminists viciously attacking an author who discussed this subject? Because that's already happened -

Just search for "George Will Feminism" and see what you come up with, on major mainstream feminist sites.

Can you imagine that a group of girls gets mad at a taxi driver because he won't give them permission to illegally smoke in his cab, so they call the cops and accuse him of rape - then feminists say those girls shouldn't be charged with a crime (after it was proved what happened with video, so there was no doubt about it) because "it might prevent other actual victims from coming forward?". Because that's happened as well. (I couldn't easily find the link, sorry).

Can you imagine a woman gleefully blogs about how she brings her 10 year old son to the point of crying and telling him his family will abandon him if he ever rapes someone? Not a kid that has shown some sort of violent sexual tendencies, but just a normal kid -

This is something a guy I know in real life posted when he asked if 2 year old was to young to "teach his son not to rape". And he is (or was before he got into feminism) a rather normal guy.

Then there's the articles on "Weeks later, a feminist explained to me that what happened was rape, and then I 'realized' it was rape!" going around.

It's true that I haven't seen mainstream feminism whole heartedly endorse retroactively withdrawing consent" explicitly, but they're just a hair away from it. Don't even get me started on some of the awful things online commentators have said ("So if he asked verbally if they could have sex twice, and she said no the first time but explicitly said yes the second time, that's still rape?" "Yes"). But "retroactively widthdrawing consent" is something they already promote in a "not quite saying it" kinda of way.

[–]ITHOUGHTYOUMENTWEAST 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a terrible way of looking at things. You realize that stuff like this is a shit test right? If let passed, we fucking fail. We already failed feminism, might as well try to cover our losses.

The best way of looking at this is that this mindset is already in place. Women go back on regret sex all the time. Nothing new.

[–]busior 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We already have somehow transformed from viewing 'being drunk = being responsible for what you do' into 'being drunk (aaand being a woman) = I was raped!'.. it won't be long till the society as a large will see this as making sense

[–]BluepillProfessor 8 points9 points  (0 children)

No its not! This is becoming mainstream thought and that is the goal. Unless it is murdered in the cradle this will metastasize into: OF COURSE a woman can retroactively decide a sexual encounter is rape and if you think otherwise you are a raping shitlord who hates women.

It was not long ago that the concept of marital rape was completely unknown and a few bleating feminists brought out a couple of horror stories and managed to change the entire paradigm of marriage and seriously undermine a fundamental institution.

Now they are using these new rules and concepts to change the entire paradigm of relationships to empower women (again).

You go girrrlssss.

[–]ALargeBicep 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One blog post inevitably supported by many others. He's not nuts. Her ideology will spread.

[–]reedrichardsstretch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Because they, not so secretly, don't view anyone other than LGBT or women as actually human / worth a damn by default.

Everything else follows easily from there.

[–]snakelovermoraga 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No policy makers that I know of go this farm, that's how. Extremists gonna extremify.

[–]Florist_Gump 16 points17 points  (1 child)

Living in a world of fluid social contracts would be... well, interesting to say the least. Lets say you sold a used car to a feminist:

Me: "about that car I sold you yesterday..."

Fem: "i love it!"

Me: "yeah, me not so much, the price needs to go up $2,000"

Fem: "what? we agreed upon the paid price"

Me: "I'm not comfortable with that price today"

Fem: "but we have a contract!"

Me: "that contract makes me feel violated"

[–]Gold_Leaf_Initiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd love to see what the author's answer to this would be. I posted a comment but I dont' think it will be approved.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)


    [–]Revo_Luzione 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Exactly. Female solipsism for the win.

    [–]4_YRT 28 points29 points  (17 children)

    Obviously, this article is complete nonsense and I don't know why OP is giving it any attention.

    "consent" is a legally operable fact. It changes the rights, conditions, and relationships between human beings. We have two areas of law that are entirely focused on "consent", and "agreement", and "a meeting of the minds": criminal law and contract law.

    What the author is suggesting is that we dismantle 400 years of English/ American common law, the Uniform Commercial Code (and the state equivalents) and the Model Penal Code (and the state equivalents.)

    If we were to adopt this model of "consent" people would be unable to do business in America. If one party to a contract could unilaterally revoke consent based on "changed circumstances" or a "feeling of being violated" there would be no such thing as a legally binding contract. The whole purpose of a contract is to guarantee performance by insulating parties from "changed circumstances" or "hurt feelings."

    Think about how many crimes have "consent" as an element. The definition of "theft" is "the taking of another person's property without consent." If a feminist gives something to another person, could she revoke consent a year later and ask the DA to charge that person with theft?

    As I said at the beginning, this post is utter nonsense. It's just stupid, and it doesn't deserve our time and attention. This post is not a "feminist" position, it's a nonsense position that just happened to be written by a feminist using feminist rhetoric.


    The more i think about this, the more I come to realize that it is quite brilliant. This article has nothing to do with "consent", but rather with power, specifically, the power to control language. The meaning of the word "consent" is irrelevant. That just happens to be the phonemes and letters that we use to represent the symbol that we call a "word." What this feminist is concerned with is the power to control the way human being relate to one another. She wants to dismantle the traditional "modes of production" (to use a Marxist term) and create new ones, that de-emphasize objectively operable facts, and replace them with subjective opinion. This is actually an extremely radical attack on the Patriarchy, which is completely founded on objective rationalism.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil 29 points30 points  (8 children)

    Here is the takeaway from all of this. Some women have been treated like children for such a long time. That they still are children. The hallmark of being a child is that they are incapable of giving consent. Anyone who says that they can retroactively void consent or a contract is basically saying that they are incapable of making one in the first place.

    Example: I want to move into this apartment but I reserve the right to change my mind and move out without notice.

    [–]Dark triad expert: - - [3 Points]IllimitableMan 17 points18 points  (1 child)

    You just defined marriage statute in a nutshell.

    [–]17 Endorsed ContributorArchwinger 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Marriage is even better. You pay her moving expenses and her rent at her new place until the end of time. And you give her the deed to half of your complex for her troubles. To compensate her for not cleaning her unit for 2 years and ordering lots of take out.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Your comment gives me hope that if a crazy feminist ever tried to pull this in real life, it wouldn't hold up in court. I hope things stay that way.

    [–]BluepillProfessor 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    You want to wait for the courts to fix this? Let me know how that works out for you.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I just meant that "I said yes but then changed my mind a year later so now it's rape" wouldn't be grounds to prosecute someone. Yet.

    [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Some women have been treated like children for such a long time. That they still are children. The hallmark of being a child is that they are incapable of giving consent. Anyone who says that they can retroactively void consent or a contract is basically saying that they are incapable of making one in the first place.

    And in most of human history, men understood this about women, hence the (very valid) reason why females were not allowed to make or sign contracts.

    [–]Nespos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    "I have the right to be sexually assaulted whenever I deem it necessary."

    [–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Example: I want to move into this apartment but I reserve the right to change my mind and move out without notice.

    No, no, no.

    That would actually be kind of awesome for me. Not great for my landlord, good for me. But what they're doing is far worse than that. Imagine instead that if you moved out of your apartment before 12 months was up, not only is that fine, but also your landlord would be arrested, charged with a felony, put in jail, and have to register as a horrific human being for the rest of his life, from his job, to getting an apartment himself, to any neighborhood he wanted to move into. Your deciding to move out early would mean the cops would treat him in the same manner as if he had beaten you up, drugged you, and you woke up to find yourself locked and trapped in an apartment as a prisoner.

    [–]brotherjustincrowe 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    This post is not a "feminist" position, it's a nonsense position that just happened to be written by a feminist using feminist rhetoric.

    You say "6", I say "half dozen".

    [–]usul1628 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yup, quoted line is 100% a "No True Scotsman" fallacy

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I'm obviously preaching to the choir. But we all at some point have had "feminist rhetoric" explained/debunked for us in clear terms. This is what I'm passing on now.

    I don't expect any veterans to learn anything from this, but some newbies definitely could.

    I only scratched the surface too cause I couldn't get through the whole thing myself.

    [–]RedPill115 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The more i think about this, the more I come to realize that it is quite brilliant. This article has nothing to do with "consent", but rather with power, specifically, the power to control language. The meaning of the word "consent" is irrelevant. That just happens to be the phonemes and letters that we use to represent the symbol that we call a "word." What this feminist is concerned with is the power to control the way human being relate to one another. She wants to dismantle the traditional "modes of production" (to use a Marxist term) and create new ones, that de-emphasize objectively operable facts, and replace them with subjective opinion. This is actually an extremely radical attack on the Patriarchy, which is completely founded on objective rationalism.

    This is what the last 5-6 years of feminism has been about, exactly.

    If you start watching, you'll realize that every feminist themed article from the last 5-6 years - that has straight men in it - is about this.

    [–]Dick-Tracy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I don't know why OP is giving it any attention.

    Because awareness is a crucial weapon in our arsenal. Knowing that some radfems are thinking and trying to spread views like this one gives us a chance to build up a library of strong responses before this view goes mainstream.

    [–]TheThingsIThink 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Freminists are fans of extra legal punishment. Most police and courts are doing their job. Being that women aren't getting their outrage facotor placated by the legal system they go outside. Getting men fired (NFL) or expelled from university are key tactics.

    [–]Locastor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Holy fuck do I wish I was entitled to this nonsense in the field of business.

    [–]DasWood 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Meta-consent means that it is possible to agentically consent to having your consent violated.

    Meta-consent...layers upon layers!

    This tactic is simply adding alternate definition(s) onto something in order to fit your argument.

    More importantly it is inconsistent. It is turtles all the way down.

    What is to say their meta consent is not then violated? So now you have a problem of meta-meta consent. At what point does the infinite regression stop? It doesn't.

    [–]SomebodyCool 4 points5 points  (5 children)

    A year ago, I would have thought "meh, it's just a crazy radical feminist coming up with tumblr-level stupidity on her blog".

    Today, after California passed the "yes means yes" law, I have realized that 'institutional' feminists are just as crazy and only marginally less vocal about it than tumblerites.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorGayLubeOil 6 points7 points  (2 children)

    Tumblerinas are future institutional feminists. Just give them 15 years.

    [–]zxDanKwan 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Assuming they learn how to look away from their validation machines long enough to interact with the real world and accomplish anything at all...

    [–]Hoodwink 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Don't worry. They're getting college degrees in useless things and being put into political positions all over the place.

    And women who get useful degrees, are on a first-hire basis all over the place. Women in their twenties and early thirties are out-earning men by a relative shit-ton (5-40%) when you correct for the same job and hours worked.

    I'm convinced that the sudden blitzkrieg about the wage-gap myth is a distraction.

    [–]WarsmithOrgruk 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    I can understand their point of view on this, because I am in a position where I think I could take advantage of their new 'ruleset'. I regret having sex with my ex, because she was my first. When that relationship had ended, I was under the impression that she was cheating on me-- No, I was the other guy. So I imagine most guys on this sub will understand: I regret that past action.

    But where I separate from feminists is that I don't define my regret of a past action as an actionable reason to go after my ex for 'raping me' or some shit like that. I made a mistake. I put myself in that position. I live with my regret.

    I think most feminists(at least the ones who support crazy ideas like this) live only inside a hug box where everyone agrees with them, or anyone expressing a dissenting opinion will be shouted down... In other words, most of America. If a man were to express a similar sentiment, I bet that he would be told to 'deal with it'.

    Such is reality. All the more reason to not interact with the other gender, not even for sexual relations.

    [–]busior 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    That's precisely the problem. It's not the crazy illogical rules it's the fact that the laws rules are only applied to favour women. Just drink 3 beers and have sex with a woman, the next day go to a Police Station to report rape - tell me how it went

    [–]benczi 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    Read this comment from another sub: /r/TumblrInAction/comments/24mfu5/heres_the_thing_it_is_possible_to_consent_to/ch8j746

    and the followup article:

    I trolled one of the largest subreddits where “men’s rights activists” hang out by posting a link to my “Consent can be withdrawn” social experiment post. The result was better than I anticipated. They upvoted my post, realized they got trolled, and then tried insulting me by pointing out how bad of an MRA I am. (Thanks, guys!)

    The followup article is from 03 May 2014 at 14:51, that's over 5 months ago, how did you miss it?

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Yeah, I saw this after I posted it when I was looking around her blog.

    I didn't mention it because, in my mind, I think it's irrelevant to the larger point of being aware of feminist rhetoric. Because people need to know the tricks they use.

    [–]1AreYouAware_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It might be more an example of Poe's law in action.

    [–]JOE_ROGAN_UFC_VOICE 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I don't quite understand... She was trolling with her 'Felt Consent' post?

    She got the MRA & RedPill community to call her out on the ridiculousness of her theory, but the follow up blog post seems to indicate that she is counting that as a victory for herself. I'm not really following to be honest.

    [–]RedPill115 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I think her later claims that she's trolling are the trolling part.

    She posted something that's completely believeable that a feminist would say, then claims she was "trolling" people. The attempted goal is to make people look or feel stupid so that in the future when you post similar things, they feel like they cannot state their opposition to you for fear you'll end up looking bad.

    "Guys, I walked into a bank with a ski mask and a fake gun and told them I was robbing the place and they believed me! Hahahaha, what a bunch of idiots!".


    [–]arrayay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Sometimes it seems like TRP wants to play the victim. Don't feed the trolls.

    [–]SQQQ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    if this is the definition of "rape" then rape should be decriminalized and replaced with a $20 fine.

    [–]SageKnows 8 points9 points  (11 children)

    Lawyer here, this shit will never hold in court. The judge will laugh at you. The principles of retroactivity in things like this is against natural principles of justice and logic all together. If you get a bad decision, appealing to higher court will guarantee you a success.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorTRPsubmitter[S] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

    Specialty? Doing a law AMA could be pretty good here. Lots of guys have questions.

    Maybe contact the mods

    [–]SageKnows 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    I did pro bono case where one of the sides pleaded that they didn't feel good about the contract they signed, but thats retrospective feeling. What is done is done. Its logic man, no law degree is needed here. Obviously judge accepted the logical side.

    [–]BluepillProfessor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Many States have consumer protection laws permitting a party to withdraw from different contracts if they get buyer's remorse later, especially adhesion contracts. You have 3 days to back out of a real estate contract in my State and that may even be a federal law.

    [–]BluepillProfessor 9 points10 points  (3 children)

    Abortion was considered equal to murder in all 50 States and now "murder" is a "Constitutional Right."

    Marital rape laws were ridiculed as ridiculous just 40 years ago. A woman consents to sex when you get married, how can it be rape? A better question is: How far have we fallen?

    Equal protection in the Constitution was meant for the freed slaves, not to sanction Gay "marriage."

    If you are a lawyer go back and read Wickard vs. Filburn again and then tell us again how the court will "never" do something.

    (Wickard was a New Deal case that has been the basis of almost EVERY single piece of federal legislation since the 1930's. It held that the power to regulate "Interstate Commerce" actually meant the power to regulate ANYTHING IN THE AGGREGATE that MIGHT affect Interstate Commerce. In other words, almost anything whether it within a State or within a home. Congress can regulate drugs because if you aggregate ALL the drug users and dealers in the country then that MIGHT affect Interstate Commerce. See how that works now or did you forget?

    Never, ever say "never." And never say every or always.

    [–]1independentmale 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    I read a decision once where a higher court decided even proven personal production and use (example, growing just enough cannabis for your own needs and it never leaves your home) still falls under the jurisdiction of the Feds. How is this possible? The court found that by producing your own you aren't buying from others and are therefore affecting interstate commerce by not engaging in it.

    That's some crazy, twisted shit.

    [–]SpHornet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I actually think that this would be everybody's (excluding victims of actual rape) wet dream if this became law.

    everybody accused of rape can just retroactively withdraw consent and file a countersuit. Every woman claiming a man raped her will go to jail herself.

    [–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Lawyer here, this shit will never hold in court. The judge will laugh at you. The principles of retroactivity in things like this is against natural principles of justice and logic all together. If you get a bad decision, appealing to higher court will guarantee you a success.

    I honestly think you're either trolling, not actually a lawyer, or work in a field that's not the target of politics and you just really don't understand the rest of law.

    I've talked to several lawyers, and all of them would say that in politically volatile areas like divorce, rape, etc there's absolutely no predicting what will happen and that the system is terribly, terribly flawed. Not that they necessarily always have an idea on how to make it better, but that you simply don't want to end up in court to begin with because you never know what's going to happen.

    Contract law regarding businesses isn't nearly as volatile. People can get upset, but they aren't as influenced as they would be by a woman crying and saying she'd been violated. Of course a woman who's acting that way because of something genuinely horrible that happened isn't wrong, it's the woman who does that in court the guy gets sentenced then a hotel video shows up that shows that she actively encouraged and engadged in the activity. We're also talking about the kind of cases that go to a jury, not a judge.

    [–]16 Endorsed ContributorCyralea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    It's quite a clever attempt to rebrand regret as something other than personal feelings about a past indiscretion. Having regret doesn't do much more than elicit token empathy in others. Being a victim evokes powerful emotions in others, and the author knows this. Her entire thesis is an attempt to redefine what is unequivocally regret as a traumatic experience in which she had no agency.

    It's worth pointing out that this kind of language manipulation is one of the things that women do much better than men. They are naturally equipped to change social attitudes with words, because they've never been able to effect much change with force, historically.

    [–]1RXRob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    BRB. I'm just off to my tattooist to tell him that I've changed my mind and need my money back

    [–]NietzscheanStoic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Funny stuff, this. It demonstrates how delusional women can get if you let their minds hamster too much. They start to think their cunts are magical deus ex machina devices that can alter reality on their whim. But of course this only happens with betas, which are like most of the male population. So to conclude, without patriarchy and with full-blown feminism, we descend back into the barbarity of pre-civilization.

    It's our fault, really. We let this shit go on for far too long.

    [–]Saturnalia93 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    retroactively withdrawing consent

    Stalinist show trials didn't hold a candle to this.

    [–]BluepillProfessor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Some real similarities aren't there?

    [–]RedPill115 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Someone in the mra forum pointed this out to me, read even just the wikipedia entry on George Orwell's 1984 (a book inspired by real life communism) and tell me how much of it reminds you of feminism:

    [–]trrrrouble 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    “What if I don’t know what I want?” and “What if what I want, or wanted, changes over time?”

    Fuck you, that's what. Deal with it.

    [–]1H42 4 points5 points  (2 children)

    A good response to this BS is:


    Female = Sex Consent

    Male = Relationship Consent

    When women redefine their currency as revocable at any time, via “the right to retroactively withdraw consent” in the future, men are also afforded that right to redefine their currency.

    That means, whenever a man feeeelz uncomfortable, not good, or not safe in a relationship with a woman, he is allowed to completely withdraw the relationship, ab inito. This means he suffers no alimony, child support, or any holdover from his relationship with that woman, because he has canceled the relationship from its beginning.

    It is exactly the same scenario reversed male/female.

    If 100s of guys post the above meme to discussions of withdrawn consent, the hamster wheels will breakdown, especially if <- this viral replicator is attached to the comment.

    [–]TI69 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Well only one of those (retroactively withdrawing consent) could land you in jail.

    People are kidding themselves if they think the nonsense rape laws could be flipped on women and used the same way.

    [–]1H42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Of course you are correct, but that is not the point. By pointing out the other side of the coin you force them to think about it from another perspective. Its about steering the conversation.

    [–]lloopy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I feel mind-raped by that article.

    I read part of it, but I didn't consent to reading it.

    Now, who do I take to court?

    [–]Wargame4life 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    All this does is dilute the impact of the term "rape, it used to be a major crime that would make people pay attention and significance, now i hear rape and i just tune it out as waffle such is it so overused and applied when its clearly not rape.

    I have absolutely no care or concern of rape stories now from women looking for sympathy, unless you are telling me about a court case or an event that made you take action and seek prosecution i just automatically dismiss what you say completely, women only have themselves to blame for this ridiculous rebranding shite they think they can call anything rape. The result is people just dismiss you en masse.

    [–]flatox 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    the comments.. can't.. process.. level of stupidity..

    [–]1favours_of_the_moon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Don't just laugh, turn the tables.

    Use their own moves against them. Did she use the "pink cloud" to put her hooks into you and now she won't even touch you anymore? Retroactively withdraw marital vows.

    Did she turn into a jealous manipulative psycho bitch? Retroactively revoke consent. Let's face it, men aren't the manipulative ones when it comes to sex. Women aren't the only ones who can allege wrongdoing.

    [–]SeekingTheWay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Why even dignify that with a reaction? Hamsters will ham, tomatoes will tomate...

    [–]Haptic_Affinity 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    “Consensual Non-Consent” – When a person intentionally chooses to say “yes” to experiences that feel non-consensual to them.


    [–]FuriousMouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Well, if she can withdraw consent, then so can he.

    Case closed.

    [–]brujon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I'd love to meet such a feminist in person and ask them if they have attempted this line of reasoning with a Bank, perhaps.

    "Oh, no, Mister, you don't understand. I retroactively withdraw my consent for this loan. I have thought long and hard about this and i don't feel like i was in my right mind when i signed this piece of paper."

    I don't feel like these braindead women even obey the laws of logic, unless it benefits them.

    [–]1IVIaskerade 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    But what if I don't consent to her withdrawing her consent? She thought-raped me!

    [–]PorqueChop 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Bitches be trying to put a return policy on sex. Sorry girl, all sales are final, deal with it.

    [–]Kirkayak 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Retroactively denounce, maybe.

    Consent either is granted, or is not granted, within the moments concurrent to the activity considered.

    [–]Wargame4life 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I take it this woman would have no issue if an employer decides to retrospectively withdraw their consent on an employment contract or any other agreement? Right?

    [–]the_red_scimitar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Great! I retroactively de-consented to the "I do" part of marriage. We are now never married. Have a nice day, here's a bus ticket and a box lunch.

    [–]JinJaBud 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    As a woman I'm horrified by this. It's slightly scary that this might move from Whackjob territory to mainstream.

    What the hell is going on? Are some women so insecure that they'd resort to this kind of crap just to get some attention? Retroactively withdraw consent? I just can't fathom this at all. Talk about not taking responsibility for your actions.

    Regrets are for the faint of heart. Embrace the past and acknowledge it's part of who you are.

    Oh, and on behalf of all normal women in the universe, I can't appologise enough for this type of lunacy.

    [–]Jacko50 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    But by the same logic, if you are accused of rape after the consent was retrospectively withdrawn, you can then withdraw your consent retrospectively. Now she raped you.

    And who's regret is stronger? Hers for sleeping with someone who she now wouldn't, or you for sleeping with someone who accused you of rape? Obviously yours. Therefore you have a stronger case for being raped as you are more traumatised by the scenario.

    Another win for logic.

    [–]stemgang 3 points4 points  (2 children)

    "But we know premarital sex is wrong because the bible says so!"

    Really? I cannot find anywhere in the Bible that says so. The Bible proscribes adultery, which is nowhere defined, and which might easily mean simply a married person having sex with someone other than their spouse.

    By way of comparison, incest is carefully defined and banned.

    Bible scholars of Reddit, am I wrong? Where exactly does the Bible say premarital sex is wrong?

    [–]BluepillProfessor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Lots of places in the NT warn about 'sexual immorality' and fornication and such but adultery is the OT law. I think you are correct that there is nothing in the OT law about premarital sex.

    [–]stemgang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yes of course, they warn against 'sexual immorality', but they do not define it. Maybe they mean premarital sex. Maybe they mean donkey-raping. We'll just leave it up to Puritanical Americans to define Biblical terms for us.

    [–]DoesNotMatterAnymore 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Sometimes, i really hate my country, but examples like this makes me appreciate what WE have. Like non-feminist girls. They are AWALT, don't be delusional, but still.

    [–]NietzscheanStoic 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Don't worry. Western society is dying. Vladimir Putin is just waiting for the right moment to stick his galactic-sized jimmy into the West's hemorrhaging vagina. It's a matter of time, really.

    [–]thelandofdreams 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I'm pretty sure this article is trolling or satire.

    [–]RedForMe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Help me out guys: is the linked/archived post real? It is so out-there that I read it the first time as parody, and after re-reading it as if it were serious, I think the snarky reading makes more sense.

    That's a wall of text to explain something that we already have a word for: "Regret".

    [–]AchillesOtherLeg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I wait for the day this is put into law. The collapse would take all of 5 seconds.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)


      [–]NietzscheanStoic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      This is Salem witch trial stuff, guys. Speak out against it.

      You can't logic women. Mock these radfem cuntbags and make them look stupid, because they are.

      [–]1NV0K3R 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Honestly, I feel that the US will either get to one of two agendas:

      1) Men will be scared to have sex, therefore there will be little to no sex happening(a la Japan)

      2) This(the almost fanatic feminist cult) will hit a ridiculous high note, ending in a plateau, and then come crashing down on top of the feminist structure due to the ridiculousness of it, resulting in a backpedal.

      [–]LittleCrazee 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      By her saying that after sexual negotiations, her past admissions of consent, even though given by her at the time, cannot be considered binding if she later changes her mind, she is essentially admitting that she is not capable of being an adult.

      People enter into all manner of negotiations on a regular basis and we are given agency to enter into contractual agreements that are legally and socially binding once we reach the legal age of consent (thus the title).

      By saying that you cannot be held responsible for entering into the contract later because you didn't fully understand or like the contractual obligations after the fact is like saying you didn't read the fine print. IT DOESN'T MATTER! You are still responsible.

      If you say that this sort of contract is unethical, exactly how far do you think we would get as a society if anyone, at any time, were able to render a contract null and void because it no longer "felt" right? Fucking ludicrous. I don't think I even need to spell out the implications this would have on the world. Can you say chaos?

      Although I don't subscribe to if fully (I definitely do see a lot of correlation with reality though), the idea of women being the "most responsible teenager in the house" really does fit here because she essentially puts herself in the same league as the underage, the mentally compromised, and animals, by saying she cannot be trusted to enter into an adult social contract and abide by it's obligations and consequences.

      [–]cascadecombo 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      what the holy fuck, this has to be a fringe case.

      [–]busior 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Not sure if a troll or a feminist

      [–]cascadecombo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I'm not sure if you are retarded, or have 0 hope people on this earth have even a sliver of intelligence.

      [–]zxDanKwan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Maybe... just maybe... this is something we should help make a reality, so we can take advantage of it...

      Think of all the poor AFCs out there who would love to retroactively rescind consent to their marriages...

      Wife stops giving you sex, starts to make you BB... sounds exactly like "you said yes but wish you could take it back" and that you "sometime in the future do not consent to having had that experience"....

      [–]brotherjustincrowe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I want to say this idiot's a troll, but it seems she's just a garden-variety idiot. Saying the BDSM scene is inherently abusive and pro-rape shows she knows nothing about it, and she's also supporting this "Predator Alert" app that basically auto-flags you as a rapist if you "answer questions how a rapist would" (???)

      [–]Ojisan1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is somehow more frightening than the AIDS scare of the 1980s.

      Who in their right mind want to take such risks in a country or state where this stuff is taken seriously?

      Having any sex on a college campus in California, for example, seems as risky to the male as having unprotected gay sex in Africa would be. Different type of risk, but getting jailed for rape is every bit as life-altering as catching an incurable diagnosis.

      This is true madness.

      [–]SpritelyOtay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      When hamstering becomes deeply sinister.

      [–]VodkaTankerSpill 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This hamster has graduated from wheel to Cirque de Soleil level.

      [–]tenthirtyone1031 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It's called lying.

      They are just lying. That's all it is. Technically, they are lying to you to have sex with you. That makes it rape. Only that makes the liar the rapist.

      Correct me if I am wrong. I thought feminists also pushed to make lying to get laid rape too. So that makes every one of them who goes back and changes their mind a liar. So that makes them rapists.

      [–]Makonar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      So bascially. All men have actually raped their ex-gf and ex-wifes, multiple times.

      [–]AKnightAlone 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I've argued in the past that betrayal of trust is its own type of weak rape. Considering rape is a situation where physical and mental violation leads to prolonged mental anguish after the fact, betrayal of trust that involves sexuality can also be construed by feminists of this sort to evolve into a similar type of mental/physical violation. While I agree there are some philosophical issues in this idea that are really interesting and up for discussion, a world where people actually applied these ideas to law would be a fucking retarded one. Next thing we know, feminists will be trying to criminalize attractive women. Can't have them violating their chances to find a mate. "He isn't dating me, so now I feel violated." I suppose the alternative complementary action for males would be to criminalize women who say "no" before/during sex. "Regrettably, her refusal to have sex with me damaged my masculinity and has left me feeling violated. I would like to sue."

      [–]frazzleddd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is some 1984 big brother shit. "I don't like the past so I'll change it"

      [–]ConfidenceMatters 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Feminism is the most modern shit-test.

      [–]JoobyDoo 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I officially withdraw consent for the sex I had with my ex wife 17 years ago as I feel dirty and taken advantage of now knowing she lied about being on the pill and talked me into raw-dogging her.

      I think it is only right that she refund 15 years of child support back, adjusted for inflation over that time, as well as serve a minimum of 15 years in prison to make up for the 15+ years I've been forced to work in a career I hate in order to pay said child support.

      Any MRA lawyers here?

      [–]Tarnsman4Life 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Won't work, male rape victims are still required to pay child support because it is in the childs best interest.

      [–]JoobyDoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Damn. What if I do the old gender switcheroo? Now I'm whatever the name for "born male, only fucks females, but also benefits from same privileges as an attractive western white girl" is.

      [–]SekcRokStallion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The author (MayMay, who happens to be male btw) is clearly a social justice troll who is incapable of applying his own world views to his personal interactions.

      A few choice excerpts from the comments section of both his and his co authors blog:


      Hi, this is Lisa, author of one of the posts linked in your article (under “pressured yes”). I’d like it if you removed the link to my article and found a different source. As I’ve made clear elsewhere I don’t want my work to be any part of any project in which maymay is involved. If you won’t remove the link then please leave this comment in place so that my objection is noted. I’m not up for any further discussion on this subject, so there’s no need to make any other response (I also won’t be following any discussion).


      Well then, sucks to be you, doesn’t it, Lisa? Sometimes I wonder what it must be like inside your petty, brilliant little mind. Then I stop caring. That part’s fun, too. :)

      Apparently, in the mind of the author, consent and the revocation of that consent is only applicable in sexual scenario's.

      MayMay even goes so far as to claim that by Lisa revoking her consent for him to cite her, she is perpetuating rape culture. Classic modern tumblr feminist deflection strategy. Remove all accountability for oneself by falling back to the "rape culture" retort. If you find yourself backed into a corner cry "rape!" and by the laws of the feminine universe your adversary is required to concede defeat on the topic.


      All of you who continually bring Lisa’s preachy “boundary violations” ridiculousness up as some kind of equivalency with sexual assault, including you, Lisa, are behaving in absolutely disgusting ways that support rape culture. If you have any shred of personal ethics, you will feel ashamed for what you’ve done.

      This guy's a real piece of work. He even goes so far as to confront Lisa for defining him as male with terms like "him" and demands that she scour the internet for every post she has made regarding HIM and edit them to refer to HIM in gender neutral terms such as "them". He's been so doggedly indoctrinated by third wave feminism that he's lost all sense of self and become ashamed of his own rapey masculinity.


      Lisa, first of all, I use “them” not “him” gender pronouns. Please update all references in all of your writings on the Internet about me to the correct gender pronouns. :) You can start with your post quoted here.

      What a sad, sad lost little soul :(

      [–]fatfaggotfuck69 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think this could backfire. So, consent is not something that can be verbalized or expressed, and is subject to time. Therefore, we need a better way to define when it is ok to have sex with someone and when it is forced rape. Since a man can never know when he has consent, he can only know when he is forcibly raping. That puts the onus on the girl to express to the guy that he is raping her, she has to vocally and physically indicate she does not want to have sex.

      [–]jelloba 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      All the bullshit aside, why does she believe that women have an inherent right to withdraw consent retroactively? She basically holds the truth of "future rape" to be self-evident, that men and women are not equal in agency, regardless of what the law says on the subject. It's kind of like how smarmy, self-described humanists will pontificate about "human rights," and yet, most of then nowadays are atheists. So, from who/what/where do they derive these rights, if not God?

      I guess that we've been pulling rights out of thin air for a while now in the Western Workd.

      [–]Pdr_vzlr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It is just plain stupid, meta consent then, meta meta consent, meta meta meta consent, and so on. So now every decision made by a human being can be altered in the future, and if detrimental or regretful it was rape, and someone else's fault. She is a genius, sort of like quantum physics, altering the past in the present

      [–]frostchomp 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      this bit is my favourite

      'In such a model, if Bob and Andy have sex, and Andy says, “Yes,” “Sure,” “Okay, fine, whatever,” or even, “Ooh baby, do it to me!” but still wakes up the next morning feeling like he was raped, that means Andy was raped.'

      well no. he wasn't fucking raped as he verbally expressed consent. i don't even understand how she can write this. this is insane.

      [–]Jrix 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      It's hilarious how her attempt to use two gay dudes is supposed to convince people she's concerned with a global value system as opposed to female victimization.

      [–]Gold_Leaf_Initiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      The way this is written, it's very clear that men are never intended to have access to retroactive retraction of consent.

      [–]rangamatchstick 0 points1 point  (4 children)

      Wow....I only just started TRP and I already see that is pretty fucked up. For example I regret having sex with a girl a while back due to me only doing it due to having an absolutely desperate period, and kick my self in the ase every time I think about it for doing it. BUT FOR FUCKSAKE i cant go back on my decision I made.

      [–]pcswag 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Oh course you can, she must have drugged and raped you. You'd never consent to someone below your standards. /s

      [–]rangamatchstick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Desperate+horny+opportunity=baaad decisions. BUT decisions I cant take back!

      [–]Gold_Leaf_Initiative 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Wow, way to take responsibility. I think that's a very attractive quality in a man!

      You admit to your mistakes. You take responsibility. You learn. You move forward.


      [–]rangamatchstick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Cheers. I just cant see how someone male or female could see it any other way in terms of responsibility.

      ps. One of the best quotes I know and go by "You only learn from your mistakes"

      [–]bogidyboy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I was the victim of this once. My ex and I messed around on a bus coming back from a school trip in high school. 6 months later, she decides she's a lesbian and I molested her while she was "asleep". And then she told some people, and this blackbelt tried to fight me (I thought for sure he'd kick my ass, but he didn't even land a single hit) calling me a rapist/molester. Then her friend convinced her she should tell the principal, at which point she didn't have much of a choice but to look me in the eye and tell me I molested her, which she did, very theatrically. Luckily the principal didn't believe her. There was to be a follow up meeting the next day between her and the principal, but she ditched school that day, so the school was just kinda like "fuck that bitch" and they didn't pursue me any further.

      [–]1thrownaway_MGTOW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      That is how little credit and agency they grant themselves; that they could completely invalidate their own decisions 1 day or 1 year later. They are so misguided, confused and unable to stand on their own two feet that they must resort to even their OWN affirmatives being non-affirmative somehow.


      Son, women have been actually DOING that forever: they call it "changing their minds" or "just not feeling that way anymore".

      To them, this is nothing new, this is just bringing "the law" in line with the way women have always acted.

      [–]flexiblehold 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I want to state how important it is that none of us take such pseudo-intellectual bullshit seriously: do not engage in debates with women or sjws who actually believe this stuff, it's no different than arguing with (and thus dignifying) someone who says that magical gnomes with crystals control the weather from inside Mt. Rainier.

      [–]Aiadon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is just a propaganda piece someone uses to get mentally challenged members even more radicalized by their feminist cult. I would give it no more importance than the threat of having a bunch of annoying persons with logic reduced to zero in the society.

      [–]brosaparkss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This isn't cemented in a CA law book is it? This is still just persuasive essays on the internet right? Regret cannot be a justifiable foothold in court. Why can women not think further than 3 minutes into the future.

      [–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Pretty sad when a movement build on the notion of female independence leads to such poor examples in critical, or independent, thought. "If other women tell you you were raped, then it was rape" and "everything that relates to male sexuality was really sexual assault because you're a woman".

      [–]RU_Crazy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Her comments are somehow even worse than her article.

      I don’t actually think that addressing consent violations should be about punishing violators. I think it should be about supporting survivors.

      To call someone who retroactively withdrew consent a "survivor" is an insult to people who actually survived life threatening events. The definition of survivor is, "a person who survives, especially a person remaining alive after an event in which others have died." Leave it to the hamsters to attribute the survivorship "badge of honor" to any random event they so chose. Were one step away from saying women have survived being complimented on the streets, or survived being looked at on a subway.

      For some survivors, punishing or otherwise getting revenge on the person who violated them will be an important part of what they need to feel supported, and that is totally legit. But I think if you asked most survivors what kind of support they want most, punishing the person who violated them wouldn’t be first on that list.

      So on one hand she says punishment isn't the primary goal but on the other hand if the "survivor" (i.e. retroactive consent withdrawer) decides that's an important goal, then that's "totally legit!" The only interpretation of those sentences is that if the survivors" decides we should prosecute someone they should get prosecuted, ostensibly as part of the "survivors" healing process.

      The scary thing that people like this are not on the fringe anymore, instead we we are dangerously close to moving toward a social view where this is acceptable. Once society latches on it will only be a matter of time until the law does as well.

      [–]pcswag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      She'd probably support suing a place for piercing your ears. Lets say a year later you had an earring get ripped out, so now you are a victim of a violent and painful ear piercing. Time to sue and play the victim card for something you willingly consented to.

      [–]drunkjake 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Meta-consent means that it is possible to agentically consent to having your consent violated.

      Or, you know, have a consentual non-consent negotiated. IF that makes sense. People are idiots.

      [–]1kick6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      All of this only works because we, as a culture (the larger we of western society, not TRP), have abandoned accuracy/correctness/truth in favor of consensus. This is a major part of gino-centrism. This is how women operate, why they make shit leaders, and why they destroy profitable organizations. They do not care about the right answer, they care that everyone agrees. From that prospective, consensus trumps correctness, every position is valid and does need to be discussed. But it's fucking fruitless. We can see that when we allow this type of discourse, the whole culture goes to shit.

      We as TRPers must reject this inversion, and soundly tell these women to fuck off, that their opinion isn't valid, that it's not worth discussing, that nobody fucking asked for it (nor put any value on it) in the first place, and would you please close your goddamn claptrap and go sit back in the corner with the other retards. Only this level of anger could possibly have the desired effect, as it's been shown that soft-playing it - letting these people spout off in the hopes that no one is listening - doesn't work.

      We must give these delusional individuals no quarter or they will continue poisoning minds.

      [–]1iluminatiNYC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      This is why this subreddit can be a force for good. If you know the emotional state of the women you're dealing with, it avoids these issues. If you're dealing with someone for whom feelings equal thoughts, you know to act accordingly based on your values. If you aren't compatible with how a woman sees themselves, do the dip. It'll save you thousands in lawyer's fees.

      Women tend to operate on a holistic mindset, which means that their literal words don't matter much. You have to focus on their mental state, body language and tone of voice. Is it dumb from our prospective? Abso-freaking-lutely. Then again, we aren't the ones pressing charges.

      Stay safe my friends.

      [–]Derzu_Uzala 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Only women could think in such a way.

      [–]I_Am_Soulhuntre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      FYI - MayMay is a male.

      It is also worth noting that there is a non-trivial risk of doxxing in your dealings with him. One of MayMay's self appointed tasks is to create "predator registration" tools for social sites that actively encourage doxxing and sharing of that information with other users - these databases are not at all checked for accuracy and have become simply revenge points for disgruntled exes.

      I mention this not only as a way to give information to anyone for whom the doxxing threat is an issue, but to point out that this is not just a thought experiment... this is an actionable belief on his part (and others) that has been used to justify a number of real world actions most of us would find objectionable.

      This sort of justification and moral authority for ignoring the rights of others is growing - and it is not confined to the edges any more.

      [–]dherik 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Really cyberbusking? Fucking begging...

      To continue, I do not consent to the experience I just had with that terrible fucking drivel.

      [–]Ralt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I love this shit. The hamster is able to run at amazing speeds. This is like me retroactively withdrawing consent from when I used to be a Heroin addict, or withdrawing consent from me committing armed robbery. Sure, at the time I said yes, but now I feel differently and I should be able to erase my past because of mah feels. Ridiculous.

      [–]VegasHostTre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      America just went full femtard!!! You never go full femtard!!!

      [–]Bottled_Void 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Does this work with loan agreements too?

      I think the author of this article is conflating the legal definition of consent with 'how I felt about it afterwards'.

      [–]Gold_Leaf_Initiative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think a major flaw in this argument is the "new information" clause. That's literally fucking insane.

      What if you sleep with a transgendered woman who is presenting herself as cis? And later you learn she's transgendered? Did she "rape" you even though you consented to the sexual act?

      The logic in this article seems to suggest the answer is yes, although I cannot possibly imagine the author agreeing with my point of view. I get the feeling this kind of "retroactive retraction of consent" is not available or intended for the average man to use.

      "I didn't know you were a packers fan. This is new information. YOU RAPED ME!"

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It's all good as long as the law doesn't take this seriously and put even more innocent men in prison.

      [–]Revo_Luzione 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Tape your sex, tape your sex, tape your sex. If it's on digital audio recording (surreptitious audio recording is legal in most places, but often not video), and if you ever do need it, investigators can hear her enthusiastically yelling "yes, yes, yes," then all the "retroactive consent withdrawal" in the world won't mean shit, because she consented in the moment. There's not a competent prosecutor in the world that would take a case like that to court with that kind of evidence...

      This is why I'll tease a girl a lot before really pounding, asking her like things like "do you want my dick so deep in your pussy?" while just barely penetrating her, then she says "yes!" then I tease a little more, then I say "say it.. I want to hear you tell me what you want.."

      Then she says " I want your huge cock in my pussy," and only then do I proceed to really pound town.

      Doing this makes awesome sex, it confirms her need, makes her validate her desires, it makes her invest verbally in her desire for you, all awesome game moves, AND also makes for pretty darn bomb-proof evidence.

      Hopefully you'll never need it.

      [–]aerosquid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      stupidest thing i've ever heard. this applies to guys as well eh?

      [–]lm_Brian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      You are being trolled.

      There are people who genuinely believe this, and it may one day become the status quo, but that day is not today, and the author is not one of those people.

      [–]SweetSonOfABitch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Consent is impossible if it can be retroactively withdrawn. Thus everything is rape. QED.

      [–]cascadecombo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      For funzies, you could use this on the super feminist girls that you sleep with. Later notify them that they had raped you because you retroactively removed consent. But of course, then it can't work that way because well, you have a penis vs their vagina.

      [–]ISawJLawsBoobs 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      And people are still trying to reason with feminists. It's pointless.

      [–]lloopy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      So if she claims it was rape, then changes her mind, can she retroactive GIVE consent too?

      [–]acidbass303 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Looks like prostitution is the only way then.