The Art Of Seduction
There Ought To Be A Law
Clearly, sexual assault is a serious problem. The statistics are staggering. Or are they?
Sexual assault may include almost anything. Let's say a couple is "making out," and the man puts his hand on the woman's breast. Unless he directly asks her, "May I put my hand on your breast?" and she says "Yes," not "Mmmmm," but a definitive "Yes," then he has committed sexual assault and could face up to a year in prison.
In fact, the new credo is that "Just because she isn't saying no, doesn't mean she is saying yes."
Under most laws today, it seems that for a woman to give consent requires that she be awake, conscious, and sober. If a man meets a woman in a bar, and she's had a couple of drinks, well, consent is off the table for the rest of the night. Drunk means "No." Even if she initiates sexual activity, even if she acts amorously, even if she strips a man's clothes off and grabs his Johnson, a drunk woman is unable to give her consent. Having sex with her is rape. Simple.
It gets worse.
Even if a woman is not drunk and leads a man down the hallway to her bedroom, her behaviour in bed may say "No" as well. Now, no one really knows what kinds of behaviour mean "No," but let's say she doesn't want to take off her brassiere. This simple refusal is just that — a refusal. Her behaviour says "No." Having sex with her, with her bra on, constitutes rape. Simple.
It gets worse.
Let's say all the positives are there. She's alive, conscious, and not drunk, she's stripped to her birthday suit, she has even engaged in ample foreplay, but then just as the moment reaches its crisis, she whispers, "Oh no, Daddy, nooo ..." Now, a man might hear that as part of an ongoing "sex play," but at any time during sexual activity, a woman can withdraw her consent. In the heat of passion, a man can be baited into failing to meet the standard of consent. Even at the very moment of orgasm, if a woman suddenly cries, "Nooo ..." it's still "No" in the sense that, should the man continue, it's rape. Simple.
So what does all this leave?
Well, I suspect that the only viable form of sexual activity is in the presence of a notary public, who will authenticate a written affidavit that both parties in the imminent sexual encounter are willing and able participants — sort of a ménage à trois without the ménage.
The truth of the matter is that some women's groups have lobbied long and hard (no pun intended) to stop other women from enjoying sex. Butt-ugly and full of self-loathing, these arbitrators of what "consent" means simply don't have a romantic bone in their bodies (again, no pun intended ... well, maybe).
Women have to stop seeing men as "wanting only one thing." It's just not true. Most men pursue sex with a woman because she has given him every indication that she wants sex too. Let's not fool one another. Women know damn well when they're selling sex. In fact, from as early as the age of fourteen, women know how to dress, make-up their faces, and act in a manner that is suggestive of just one thing — "I'm available ... "
Sure there are men who break the law and do outrageous things to women, but in 70% of the cases, the woman knows her attacker. He's a friend, a colleague, a boyfriend, an ex, even a husband, and, let's be honest, the idea of having sex doesn't simply pop out of nowhere. If a woman is giving off cues to the possibility of sex, then you can't expect a man to ignore them. I mean, if a woman has a man's penis in her mouth one moment, and then suddenly says, "Let's go out for Chinese," is that fair?
What society needs, and what men should lobby for, are laws governing the act of seduction. If a woman is seen as seducing a man, in any way, shape or form, then she should be subject to the same rigorous laws that govern sexual assault. In other words, if a woman engages in any form of seductive activity — such as making herself available in a bar or club, kissing or fondling — that is consent. The laws governing sexual assault are thereafter off the table. Furthermore, she is opening herself to a charge of sexual seduction. If the man files a complaint, she would be subject to prosecution.
Hey, it has to work both ways. Want to be a temptress? A ball-buster? Maybe a year in prison will change a woman's mind.
There Ought To Be A Law
I was stunned the other day to learn that sexual consent is never a sure thing.
Some facts to ponder:
- Every two and a half minutes a woman is raped in the United States, and one in four college women will experience rape or attempted rape by the time she graduates.
- Although many people believe that these women are usually assaulted by strangers, at least 70 percent of rape victims know their attackers.
- For teens, these statistics are especially concerning because risk for women peaks from 16 to 19 years of age. Women of these ages are four times more likely to experience rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault than the general population.
Clearly, sexual assault is a serious problem. The statistics are staggering. Or are they?
Sexual assault may include almost anything. Let's say a couple is "making out," and the man puts his hand on the woman's breast. Unless he directly asks her, "May I put my hand on your breast?" and she says "Yes," not "Mmmmm," but a definitive "Yes," then he has committed sexual assault and could face up to a year in prison.
In fact, the new credo is that "Just because she isn't saying no, doesn't mean she is saying yes."
Under most laws today, it seems that for a woman to give consent requires that she be awake, conscious, and sober. If a man meets a woman in a bar, and she's had a couple of drinks, well, consent is off the table for the rest of the night. Drunk means "No." Even if she initiates sexual activity, even if she acts amorously, even if she strips a man's clothes off and grabs his Johnson, a drunk woman is unable to give her consent. Having sex with her is rape. Simple.
It gets worse.
Even if a woman is not drunk and leads a man down the hallway to her bedroom, her behaviour in bed may say "No" as well. Now, no one really knows what kinds of behaviour mean "No," but let's say she doesn't want to take off her brassiere. This simple refusal is just that — a refusal. Her behaviour says "No." Having sex with her, with her bra on, constitutes rape. Simple.
It gets worse.
Let's say all the positives are there. She's alive, conscious, and not drunk, she's stripped to her birthday suit, she has even engaged in ample foreplay, but then just as the moment reaches its crisis, she whispers, "Oh no, Daddy, nooo ..." Now, a man might hear that as part of an ongoing "sex play," but at any time during sexual activity, a woman can withdraw her consent. In the heat of passion, a man can be baited into failing to meet the standard of consent. Even at the very moment of orgasm, if a woman suddenly cries, "Nooo ..." it's still "No" in the sense that, should the man continue, it's rape. Simple.
So what does all this leave?
Well, I suspect that the only viable form of sexual activity is in the presence of a notary public, who will authenticate a written affidavit that both parties in the imminent sexual encounter are willing and able participants — sort of a ménage à trois without the ménage.
The truth of the matter is that some women's groups have lobbied long and hard (no pun intended) to stop other women from enjoying sex. Butt-ugly and full of self-loathing, these arbitrators of what "consent" means simply don't have a romantic bone in their bodies (again, no pun intended ... well, maybe).
Women have to stop seeing men as "wanting only one thing." It's just not true. Most men pursue sex with a woman because she has given him every indication that she wants sex too. Let's not fool one another. Women know damn well when they're selling sex. In fact, from as early as the age of fourteen, women know how to dress, make-up their faces, and act in a manner that is suggestive of just one thing — "I'm available ... "
Sure there are men who break the law and do outrageous things to women, but in 70% of the cases, the woman knows her attacker. He's a friend, a colleague, a boyfriend, an ex, even a husband, and, let's be honest, the idea of having sex doesn't simply pop out of nowhere. If a woman is giving off cues to the possibility of sex, then you can't expect a man to ignore them. I mean, if a woman has a man's penis in her mouth one moment, and then suddenly says, "Let's go out for Chinese," is that fair?
What society needs, and what men should lobby for, are laws governing the act of seduction. If a woman is seen as seducing a man, in any way, shape or form, then she should be subject to the same rigorous laws that govern sexual assault. In other words, if a woman engages in any form of seductive activity — such as making herself available in a bar or club, kissing or fondling — that is consent. The laws governing sexual assault are thereafter off the table. Furthermore, she is opening herself to a charge of sexual seduction. If the man files a complaint, she would be subject to prosecution.
Hey, it has to work both ways. Want to be a temptress? A ball-buster? Maybe a year in prison will change a woman's mind.
