Are we going to do all this again?
2) The absence of a "no" is not a "yes".
Well, the only acceptable yes to a feminist is a verbalised one - pronounced before any shift in position or activity. To any non-feminist, non-verbal communication is an option. If someone's mouth has been applied to your genitals, you don't need to ask if you can reciprocate.
Feminists claim only verbal consent counts - I can only presume good feminists never have the body parts of their lovers in their mouths - which may well be the case as that would be giving pleasure to a male, which is clearly antifeminist.
And feminists then put in a little catch.
It still does not count. A Feminist can always retrospectively invalidate consent by saying she felt pressured, or fearful.
Even if the lover had recorded the entire event with witnesses and the required number of consent questions had been asked at the required intervals, and every yes had been signed off on by a Justice of the Peace - it doesn't matter.
In court, she can always claim he gave her a 'look'. How can he prove otherwise. He's presumed guilty, not innocent.
3) Oh. Feminists are still going on about Blurred Lines. Really.
Being in a relationship is implied consent for everyone who is not a feminist.
And I understand, I really do, that feminists view as sex with men as 'problematic' as best; men are hideous rape-monsters, but sometimes a feminist gets an embarrassing itch and needs someone else to scratch it.
The rest of humanity is quite happy to explore this thing we call 'trust'. In means, for example, my lover can go down on me, or vice versa, without waking me up, and if i don't like it, I express that, verbally or otherwise. I don't wait until I'm satisfied, then when my lover ends the relationship, give the cops a quick call to ruin their lives.
Oh right, the cops would never act on my complaint; I'm male. But if I was a female with a male lover, I could do that; it's not like evidence is required now.
But Feminists want their rules to apply to everyone.
Wouldn't it be fairer to simply have feminist relationships, and non-feminist relationships? In the sane variety, we could carry on, having sex without your rules. Meanwhile, any male who enters your space could simply and humanely be shot in the head, thus saving time and paperwork.
5) If someone changes their mind - but doesn't make it clear - then they are responsible. Men do not have telepathy. Feminists might want to imprison men for not being supernaturally equipped, but sane people prefer to let humans obey the laws of physics.
6) "She said yes to a drink, not to sex"
So she had one drink and passed out? Impressive. Was it soft drink? Is she narcoleptic? I will agree that any feminist who is so feeble should never have sex, or interact with men in any way.
It's already illegal to screw someone who is unconscious due to drinking, and there's not a lot of guys who aren't aware of that. But that's not what the Feminists are after, is it? They want to claim that any woman who has touched the Devil's Brew can no longer make any decisions - unlike a man.
According to Feminists, women are but feeble children in adult bodies.
7) Coercion is not consent.
Really, Feminists think men are unaware of that. Everywhere in the non-feminist world, men will go up to women, throw them down and have their way, and go on, without any thought that might not be socially acceptable.
Of course, feminists re-define coercion on the fly, so they might well decide that saying "would you like to sleep with me" now counts - in the same way they defined cat-calling as anything from "hello" to "have a nice day" if spoken by a man to a women - when the man is considered unattractive by that woman, of course.
8) Alcohol is no excuse.. hmm, might want to tell your other feminists that. It's not our side that is claiming women are unable to consent if they have swallowed any booze.
9) Consent is beautiful? No, it's an ugly bag of pus, thanks to feminists.
10 ) "Love softly"? That's gibberish. A good summary of Feminism; something that sounds like it might mean something, but doesn't.
https://archive.today/qG2Ng 16 Apr 2015 12:18:34 UTC from http://www.oxy.edu/sexual-assault-resources-support/policies-procedures#V.%20Prohibited%20Conduct%20and%20Definitions
Consent may be withdrawn by any party at any time.
Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? In BDSM, that means a safe word or activity; three taps, for example, usually repeated like morse code.
"Recognizing the dynamic nature of sexual activity, individuals choosing to engage in sexual activity must evaluate consent in an ongoing manner and communicate clearly throughout all stages of sexual activity. "
How do you communicate clearly at all stages?
May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?May I thrust? May I thrust? May I thrust?
How many times can you say that?
dAnd of course, since the purpose of sex is to enter an irrational state (i.e. orgasm!), at some point you can either stop talking or stop feeling.
Of course the point is that everyone will break the rules - but then they can pick and choose who to punish. And from the experience with the courts, which group do you think will be most selected?
"Withdrawal of consent can be an expressed “no” or can be based on an outward demonstration that conveys that an individual is hesitant, confused, uncertain or is no longer a mutual participant. "
"Outward demonstration"? Well, that seems critical! A young man's life hinges on the 'outward demonstration'!
So is it defined? Of course not! That might mean anything at all; she might tense up because she's having an orgasm, or because she's now feeling uncomfortable - you, as someone without telepathy, just don't know.
So the only way to pass this test is never to take it; remain celibate.
And remember; if you do masturbate, as a male, you are likely to use porn instead of a vibrator like females do - and that means feminists can and will shame you and even criminalise you for doing so!
Feminism; it hates men. It really hates men.
In response to the comments: