…the pursuer is disposable…

Originally published at Stonerwithaboner

Is this ad sexist?

I originally saw this at Femdelusion.

Perhaps some find the ad sexist because the women are in bikini’s.  I live near the beach and women in bikini’s are just business as usual.  These women are wearing maybe a few inches less of fabric than perfectly respectable athletes in the Olympics.  The man is sans shirt.  Likely the advertisers did this to not offend censors rather than some social cometary on the double standard between male toplessness and female toplessness.  While we’re on that topic ladies, I’ll sign the petition to allow you to take off your shirt anywhere a man can if you sign the petition to end my obligation to sign up for  Selective Service.

What is it that makes this ad potentially offensive or potentially powerful?  To me it is the fact that the gender script has been flipped.  Many men might see this as a fantasy.  The man doesn’t have the pressure of being the one to pursue, he is the one to select.  He is smiling and continues to spray almost as if a wizard invoking an incantation.  The women have maddened, frenzied looks on their faces, he appears joyous.

I don’t think these women can be considered “objectified.”  They aren’t showing the passive, coy looks of Playboy Playmates.   It shows the disposability of the pursuer role. A few fall , this seems to show a relentless pursuit where they worry not of injury. It also shows athleticism and ferociousness but I don’t think anyone would label these women as “empowered.” Most of the women will not succeed–perhaps they get to try this event many more times or perhaps it is their one chance in life–we are left to speculate.

Now, here’s the parody ad…

Advertisements

How (almost all) women and all feminists selfishly try to force you into a traditional male role

In this article we will explore a very selfish and brutal strategy used by women and feminists, and that is using “creep shaming” as a way of emotionally shaming you into outdated gender roles.

Most of the general population primarily uses direct shaming such as “man up and be the man and make the move”, “I’m not attracted to a wuss who has to ask me for permission before he kisses me”. While such direct shaming is also a form of bullying and hurtful toward men, we will not focus on unraveling such direct-shaming in this article because it’s pretty obvious and straightforward. We will only use it as a way of contrasting creep-shaming off of it.

The much worse forms of shaming are those that are indirect and insidious, sneaky forms of manipulation. Most women have at one point or another used sneaky-indirect-shaming, and all feminists have. The reason all feminists have to use indirect shaming is because using direct shaming is too blatantly apparent, and shines light on feminist hypocrisy too brightly.

So what is indirect shaming?

Well, there are many forms, but I would say the primary form is the use of so-called “creep shaming”. This isn’t to say that creepy behaviour is good, or that one should set out to make people uncomfortable on purpose. Of course not.

Creep-shaming is where women claim that not-conforming to a gender role is “creepy”. Let me give you an example. Let’s say that you are not Ashton Kutcher, and that you have common human insecurities when you see a woman you’d like to talk to.

– You see her

– Your mind starts racing “Oh wow, should I look at her more or look away? Oh wow, should I smile or is smiling too strongly creepy, or wait, smiling too little is creepy right!??! omg omg omg what do I do? What if that guy next to her is her boyfriend, how do I approach her?”

or

– You have had a great conversation with a girl, and now you’re standing in private

– You realize this might be a moment to kiss her, your mind starts racing “Oh wow, do I kiss her, or wait no? Do I like crack a kissing insinuation joke, see how she reacts, and if she reacts well I THEN kiss her?! No, no no wait, maybe I should just lean in and do it anyway? My friend said men do that when they think it’s on, but this feminist online said that’s so-called kiss-rape… oh wow, what do I do”

– If this continues and you hesitate past a certain point, the women who are interested will tend to lose interest and get disappointed if you don’t “man up” and do it quickly enough (the approach or the kiss), provided again that they wanted to be kissed/approached by you. If they did not want to be approached or kissed, your wandering eyes and uncertainty makes them feel uncomfortable. Your shifting all over the place makes them feel uneasy (they feel entitled to you taking the risk and responsibility while they lazily get what they want by just existing with a vagina).

Now… let’s parse this example through direct and indirect shaming language

Women who shame you directly will say that you need to “man up” and “be the man” and “just do it” and not care about consequences. A female friend might even say “So what if she yells at you and calls you a mouth-rapist, man up and do it”. If you protest and tell your friend that you read feminists online who said this is “assault” she will shame you and tell you to listen to “real women” and not feminists. If you tell a female friend that you had asked a girl to hang out for over a dozen times and never got the courage to make the move, she (your female friend) will say you’re a wuss and you just need to do it, because girls lose interest in guys who wait so long.  If you spend all night staring at a girl, and wait so long to approach her that she loses interest, your normal female friend will say you disappointed the girl and you lost her by being such a “wuss”.

Women who shame you indirectly will say that you are “creepy” and that you’re “creeping” women out for daring to make them uncomfortable. They will describe your hesitation and not knowing when and how to make a move, or not having the courage to make the move as “rapey”. The feminist will say that you are a “rapey” “creepy” and “deceitful” man for asking to hang out with someone for over a dozen times while only “pretending to care for her non-romantically”. The feminist will say that if you stare at a woman all night and don’t approach her up to the point where the woman becomes uneasy, then you are a “creepy eye-rapist”.

Do you see what’s happening here?

1) Both strategies are designed to make you feel bad about not performing maleness

2) All of these are centered around you performing typically female behaviour

There are many more examples. For example women being lazy as they are will not approach you, but they will spend all night trying to think up ways to hover around you, accidentally brush up against you and always be in your eye-sight. If YOU did this, you would be “creepy” and “stalkerish”  or a “cowardly” “wuss” depending on the shaming mode used.

DO YOU SEE? Do you get what’s happening here? Do you understand how creep-shaming gets used as a way to shame men into a traditional male role. Study any major piece by any major feminist blogger on the subject of “nice guys tm” and actually STUDY the actual behaviours they’re protesting. You will notice that 100% of them are traditionally female behaviours (i.e. passive mating strategies). This is how feminists try to shame men into the traditional male role.

The more sickening part is the cognitive dissonance created by trying to shame you away from it at and toward it at the same time. While I hate traditionalists as much as feminists – those losers are at least consistent. A traditionalist will say “you should just make the move”. A feminist is saying that you’re damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. Asking for sex is creepy, not asking for it is rapey. Being too direct is creepy, not being direct enough is creepy. Being too passive is creepy, being too active is creepy.

Pretty much the only way to not be creep-shamed by feminists is to possess telepathic skills, or have tons of experience. Now, it IS possible to be so calibrated and so experienced that you know exactly when to make exactly what move and to persist exactly how much. I’m getting close to that level, and a lot of the womanizers I know are at that level.

However, no one is born with experience. It probably takes thousands of rejections (and yes creeping out thousands of women) before you get that sort of fine calibration where you know exactly what to do “as if” you had telepathy.

Why do feminists hate nice guys, and never mention “nice girls TM”?

The most important thing to point out isn’t just that feminists hate nice guys… They hate lots of trivially negative things.

The thing that doesn’t make sense is the *disproportionate* hate leveled at nice guys.

I mean sure, feminists WILL write an article listing a set of reasons why nice guys are “not-ideal”. They will actually list things that we can admit are “flaws” (when comparing someone to perfection I mean).

Now, let’s for ignore for a second the fact that most women on this planet have these same flaws, and they are never bashed and mocked as “nice girls TM”. Let’s ignore that double standard for a second…

What’s really astounding is how disproportionate the negativity, bashing and vile hatred toward nice guys is (in proportion to) the “flaws” which are claimed as the “reason” for feminist hatred toward “nice guys tm”.

It’s so obviously over the top, that anyone with two braincells to rub together can immediately gather there must be ANOTHER (un-stated) reason for the hatred of nice guys.

I believe the leading theory is that feminists hate nice guys because they speak up about, and call women out on women’s hypocrisy and lies, and that is the number one anti-female sin one can perform.

How do we know this? Feminists only hate a nice guy after he publicly voices discontent with having been lied to by women. If feminists hate Joe for applying a passive dating strategy as claimed, how come they don’t bash Joe until and only after he complains that this strategy doesn’t work for men? (not to even mention, how come they don’t bash women, who in much larger proportion apply passive dating strategies)

The research is there too

According to the paper “Courtship Behaviors, Relationship Violence, and Breakup Persistence in College Men and Women” by Stacey L. Williams and Irene Hanson Frieze…

“[M]ales perform more approach, or regular courtship behaviors, whereas females are more likely to perform acts of surveillance, that is, attempts to make indirect contact with the love interest by way of (seeming) serendipity.”

Get that? Women are the ones more likely to engage in passive mating behavior. In fact, I’d personally say that’s all women do, being the lazy spoiled daters they are. But how come when men apply this strategy they are “broken and flawed nice guys TM” whereas feminists stay silent and all you hear is crickets on the topic of female passivity (indirect mating behaviour).

Feminists say that performing passive mating strategies is a character flaw. If you as a man are continually trying to find ways to be around a woman, hinting at interest, pretending to care about her interests etc etc… well then you are “flawed” and “deceitful” for not stating your intentions clearly and making a move.

By that same logic pretty much every woman on the planet would be deemed deceitful, even if she doesn’t take it to the extent of plausible deniability, which most women DO.

Assman posted a good comment over at SWAB’s too:

Here is my theory:

Feminists have a lot of innate preferences and values that don’t accord with male/female equality. They work hard to somehow fit their prejudices into feminism and somehow explain them away. What prejudices you ask?

1) A prejudice against male weakness – this is why they hate nice guys. Its not uncommon for women to hate weak men and historically its always been true that weak men have been hated by both men and women. Feminists have no good way of justifying this prejudice…hence nice guys.
2) A protective feeling toward females – this is in large part why feminism has been so incredibly successful. It has always exploited the biological desire to protect women on the part of both men and women. Notice that no protective feeling exists on the part of men. Ask yourself a question..when was the last time you felt protective of a man?
3) The view of men as lustful sexual predators and women as dainty things that need to be protected from sex – this isn’t biological…its societal. Most Christian societies have always had a problem with sex and have generally been anti-sex. There are related beliefs here like the view that men are “using” women when they have sex wit them. This explains why feminists demonize male sexuality and often try to protect women from sex with men

Sex, porn and voluntary celibacy

http://aaronsleazy.blogspot.se/2013/05/sex-porn-and-voluntary-celibacy.html#more

Here’s the graph, taken straight from Google Trends. It shows interest in the keywords “sex” and “porn” over time, and look at the success story “porn” has become:

“sex” (red) vs. “porn” (blue)

So, why would you prefer porn over sex? I don’t want to read too much into this data, but I couldn’t help but think of the rise of the MGTOW community. A relatively prominent position in this scene is to choose voluntarily celibacy, or simply pay for sex, instead of following some made-up social conventions. You know, nonsense like that the wedding ring is supposed to cost the equivalent of half your annual income, or that fat women have a “great personality” and all that jazz.


My perception is that it has become more common that men openly question societal institutions. Let’s be honest: there aren’t so many women around who are worth spending time with, let alone date or marry. Given contemporary obesity rates and absurd levels of entitlement, which are present in many Western women, I can perfectly well understand when someone says that he doesn’t want to participate in that kind of game. The MGTOW community is growing, and Western society itself does a pretty good job discouraging men from getting involved with women. There are risks everywhere. Heck, in some countries you would get into serious trouble if, say, you doubted that the kid of your wife is yours, did a paternity test (that then confirms that it’s some other man’s kid). In France, you’ll risk a fine of 15,000 Euros and a year in prison, and would still have to pay alimony.

So, is it any surprise that some men prefer porn over sex, as the chart above seems to imply?

I know, I know, I’m making quite a few assumptions here, but if you look at the general tendencies, you’d have to admit that it’s no longer unusual that men not only don’t marry, but refuse to enter any kind of relationship with women.

Continue Reading

…a lie by omission…

Originally published at stonerwithaboner on May, 18, 2013

 

…so by now, you’ve probably seen tons of references to Nice Guys ™ around the gendersphere…

…how come you don’t see Nice Girls ™ at nearly the same rate???

…alright, long story short, a guy hangs out around a woman, he helps her out, he listens to her.  He NEVER expresses explicit romantic interest. He winds up in what those reddit guys call The Friendzone…

…now is this guy being manipulative or is he just too shy to escalate, to “make a move”?

…depending on who you ask, you’ll get a different answer…

…some will say it is the woman who is being manipulative when she could sense he was attracted to her, he wanted more than just platonic friendship.  She kept him around because that shoulder to cry on was too good, that unpaid mover was just more utility than a girl could ask for…

…some will say the guy was being manipulative for not clearly expressing his romantic interest. Some will say it is the man’s job to make romantic interest known and anything else is manipulative…

…now let’s go a step further, why, exactly is it the man’s job to escalate?  Is it because he has higher testosterone?  More “privilege”?  More tolerance to pain and thus rejection?

Fuck if I know, I’ve asked and I don’ know if it is cultural-that is society sets things up so that women are less likely to feel pain. Or if it is biological-that is men have, on average, higher libido’s and the hungrier (hornier) one has to do the asking…

Now, I’m gonna take this on another tangent-feminist dating advice

…allot of things that seem to come up are…

…brush your teeth, wash your hair, stop being creepy, bitter, socially awkward…

haha, as far as the first two, yah, good hygiene is good, but uh, I’ve come across some drum circle type ladies that wouldn’t put it that high up on the list…

now creepy-I don’t know who is intentionally creepy except for haunted house actors and actresses…

…as far as bitter-yuppers, anger is offputting, no argument there.  However, how come femmies constantly call angry womyn empowered?  Aren’t they dehumanizing men by telling a guy who may have had many traumatizing experiences to not be angry about it?–to just fucking GET OVER IT MAAAN…  If you’ve ever had the misfortune of visiting the slimepit that is The Good Men Project where a bunch of asshats talk down to real living men and censor their comments maybe you know where this is headed.  The vibe of that place seems to scream your pain isn’t real, so just get in line, shut up and be a good man–be fucking useful, stop whining.  If you can’t take it, go to therapy so you don’t become an abuser, and if you don’t have the funds to pay for therapy well, you need to man up.  And if you can’t do that, just kill yourself but please make it look like an accident, we wouldn’t want to make the greater good (women) uncomfortable when they find the body of someone they assumed was “privileged” offed themselves because their suffering was unbearable.  How dare you upset anyone you filthy, filthy boy…

…now that I got the little rant out of my system-here’s the lie by omission…

The feminist dating advice rarely talks about what it’s like to be an initiator. Shit, you’d be better reading some sales manual about cold calling—-rejection motherfuckers…  That. Shit. Stings.  Now, you can read an article by Clarisse Thorn where she says she didn’t like initiating because she didn’t like getting rejected.  Funny though, and maybe I misunderstood everything I’ve ever read by feminist’s.  They talk about being able to work as “privilege” even though I hate my job.  But by this metric wouldn’t (het cis) women hitting on (het cis) men be one of the most feminist things they could do?  How come they aren’t lining up for that role in droves?  Is it because, while they complain of the “glass ceiling” they don’t clamor for equal representations in the “death professions” where men FAR outnumber women?

Now, I’ll step back for a second.  If your world view is that of say a traditional conservative where men and women have strictly different roles and they are inherently different, it causes you no cognitive dissonance to say “A man should be President and a woman should be a homemaker.  Women shouldn’t be sent to die in defense of the homeland.  That’s a man’s job.”  If that is your worldview, you’d probably laugh off concepts like male disposability and believe that those who take greater risk should have a greater chance at success. You’d probably consider a man who whined about not being able to get a date a weak loser who shouldn’t have the chance to pass on his genes. You’d have no problem with a phrase like Real Man…

Alright, now if you branded your movement as being about “equality” then things wouldn’t be so clear.  You couldn’t just expect one gender to stay stuck in one role while giving infinitely more freedom to another gender.  You’d probably have to go on and on with mental gymnastics about how the gender stuck in the same role was “privileged” even when the evidence was that so many members were not.  You might even try to create a Marxist like dichotomy of oppressor class vs. oppressed class divided along gender lines.  You’d probably have to go through a bunch of mental gymnastics to make your ideas sound like the right ideas.  You’d probably have to shout down anyone who disagreed with the vilest shaming language you could.  You’d probably have to create caricatures of arguments and attack those instead of the actual arguments they made.  That doesn’t sound like anyone we know, now does it?  Import flashing SARCASM button from the fatuous Manboobz bigot….

So why do feminists hate Nice Guys ™ so much???

That’s the million dollar question…

Greed is Good

“I can’t be with someone who is as selfish as you.”

Never get unsettled when a woman calls you selfish. It is one of the greatest compliments you can receive, as it means you are aware of your own worth. Be a selfish man. Be greedy. Always empower yourself first. Don’t let a feminist like that Idiot nerdlove try to shame you into doing something against your self-interest by calling you selfish, they want you to be ashamed of it. Would women be bitching about the death of chivalry if they didn’t believe they hold a monopoly on being selfish?

Nope.

Why is a simple word like selfish important for your dating life? So that you act in the interests of women’s dating laziness! According to Fletcher and Kerr (2010) “…a ‘leap of faith’ is necessary in sustaining long term relationships which is powered by strong emotional attachment”. Since women will not, under any circumstances, be the ones to take the “leap of faith” (being the first to risk emotional humiliation by being rejected) men must be conditioned to be the ones to “take the leap”. You can see why it is so important that assholes maintain an absolute control over the word selfish. It’s all about relationship power. If a man were to decide that he will pick only from a pool of women who show clear interest in him, or even worse EXPECT a woman to show clear interest before he will “take the leap” women might have to stop being lazy! Maybe even grow up a little bit emotionally!

A study of 6,000 college students found that “…manipulation is a common tactic used amongst college students in coercing romantic partners into sexual activity.” (Struckman-Johnson, et al, 2003.) The self-assessment indicated that men employ this method at twice the rate women do, but the authors speculate the self-assessment seriously understates the female rate.

This establishes that manipulation is a fundamental part of relationships (no surprises). Look at this quote about how language forms our understanding of ideas: “The human conceptual system, in addition to being the endpoint of language comprehension and the starting point of language production, also has to serve non-linguistic purposes. It has to encode our non-linguistic understanding of the world, making it possible for us to perceive the world, draw inferences from what we perceive, and formulate actions.” (Jackendoff, 2012). So language comprehension and our perception of the world are fundamentally related to each other in the human conceptual system.

Starting to see why the different meanings of a word like selfish is so important?

When a woman calls me selfish I have to stop myself from laughing. The way female selfishness is described in this day and age is so ridiculous. Words like empowered, liberated, strong, and independent. Meanwhile, how is a man described when he is acting selfishly? He is an asshole, jerk, entitled, and the king of snarky nerdshit insults; douchebag. This not-so-subtle difference serves a societal purpose of shaming men who don’t act in the interests of everyone except themselves, but that isn’t the point of this article. But in the romantic realm, the negative language association of selfish and men suits the laziness of women. After all, if a man needs to address her needs first, she can focus on herself! Empowerment! As an added bonus, it gives a lot of interpersonal power women covet in their romantic lives. All I hear when a woman calls me selfish is: “Stop being self-interested, do things for me, pay attention to me!”

Being aware of when this type of language is being used against you will allow you to hear who is interested in you as a human, selfish being, and who is interested in you as an object for their benefit. Embrace the first, shun the second. There is a lot more to the language women (and shitheads like Dr.Moron) use to shame men (creepy anyone?) but taking a deeper look at the word selfish fits this blog like a glove.

In the meantime channel your inner Gordon Gecko. Be selfish, laugh in the face of any woman who wants you to do all the work, and walk away when a woman stops contributing to your life.

Fletcher, G. J. O., & Kerr, P. S. G. (2010). Through of eyes of love: Reality and
illusion in intimate relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 627-658.

Jackendoff, Ray. (2012). What is the human language faculty? Two Views. Tufts University.

Struckman-Johnson, C., Struckman-Johnson, D., & Anderson, P. B. (2003).
Tactics of sexual coercion: When men and women won’t take no for an answer. The Journal of Sex Research, 40(1), 76-86.

She’s Just Not That Into You

The quintessential dating advice for women is “He’s Just Not That Into You.” If you are not chasing and investing in her as heavily as she likes, then she is to treat you as unworthy of attention and sex. Women don’t really need this advice since this is their natural behavior. And though it may have once served human societies, it is clearly unnecessary and harmful today. Therefore it shouldn’t be culturally reinforced. Anyway…

Your role is to pursue: call her, take her on nice dates, give her complements, buy her gifts, open doors for her, treat her like a queen, while no effort is required on her part other than to sit back, enjoy, judge your efforts, and determine your worthiness. If she’s feeling uncertain she may cancel a date at the last moment or just be hard to reach, while simultaneously giving you bits of hope here and there. Thus she sends you mixed messages, keeping you off-balance emotionally, and manipulating you to invest in her further. This is justified on the grounds of her needing to test just how badly you want her. If in a moment of sanity you say fuck this shit and quit chasing her, she’s told: “He’s Just Not That Into You.”

This is a shitty dynamic for you, my man. Sometimes you invest a lot of time and effort, but end up with nothing, which leads to frustration, disappointment, and resentment. And when you do win her over, you must continue to “prove your love.” You must continue to plan dates, buy gifts, listen to her emotional shit, etc. Nonstop.

Despite it being a shitty deal, most men fall into it by default thanks to our outdated social norms. I played this role for a long time and lost quite a bit of sleep over some ungrateful, undeserving, entitled princesses. Luckily my frustration forced me to re-examine things. It wasn’t an overnight change, but having now reflected on things, my dating advice for men is the same advice women get, but in reverse: “She’s Just Not That Into You!” Invest next to nothing and if she doesn’t put out quickly, move on.

Ideally we could sit back and let her make all the moves, but she won’t do it because female biology isn’t going to change. You’re stuck taking all the risky steps that move the interaction toward sex. This means touching her, going for the kiss, etc. But that is ALL you do: move things forward physically. If she rejects your physical advances, well… “She’s Just Not That Into You!”

There’s wiggle room for persistence. Say you put your arm around her waist and she nudges away from you. It may work if you try again in 10 minutes, but you need not bother if you don’t want to. Find your persistence threshold and quickly cut off all “non-responders” aka undeserving time wasters.

How is this persistence different from the chasing and pursuing you’re expected to do? The difference is that physical escalation is the only thing you do. You don’t try to “win her over” in any way: not by buying gifts, not by talking about her feelings, not by doing favors for her, not by going on impressive dates, not by opening doors. No courting behaviors. Try to notice when your behavior is an attempt to impress. Then cut it out. Do nothing but physical escalation.

Your mindset is “Let me make moves on her and see if she’ll fuck me quickly with little effort on my part.” Depending on your situation and preference it may make sense to go on “dates.” Not to court her, but to continue to move things forward physically and push for sex. This means you must have some place in mind where you can fuck. Otherwise don’t bother with the date.

Again you’re not there to waste spend time with her. You’re there to get laid ASAP. With this approach you never experience rejection. Sure some women won’t accept your advances, but it won’t bother you too much because you haven’t invested anything. You haven’t invested much time, energy, or money and as a result you are far less emotionally invested in the outcome.

With this approach you’ll get laid more per unit of effort invested and you’ll be happier for it. With a little bit of experience you’ll learn to weed out the time-wasters quickly, and to move interactions towards sex more directly and comfortably. By contrast the sex wasn’t even worth it when I had to jump through countless hoops to get it.

At first glance this may seem like a crass and cynical approach to dating, but that’s just our social conditioning talking. Look at reality. Do you think women care about your interests in dating? They don’t. That’s your job. By the same token, it is not your job to look out for her interests. That’s her job and she’s already doing it rather well.

All I’m really saying is women can do what’s good for them and you do what’s good for you. The only obstacle in your way is your lingering social conditioning. It can take time to overcome it, but so long as you’re conscious of true dating dynamics, you can begin to move in the right direction, the direction of your interests. If women withhold sex, then men should withhold investment. Try it, you’ll like it.

 

It’s not always your fault

http://lifestylejourney.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-not-always-your-fault.html

It seems very little dating advice aimed at men acknowledges the faults women have, and that is a big mistake. It’s all geared towards self-improvement, which men must undergo, which is fine, but the sin is one of omission. Why should men have to shoulder all the responsibility for making things happen? It takes two to tango right?

The typical dating advice for men consists of the girl doing something, and no matter what it is, you have to “convert” that into something positive, like a date, lay, or whatever.

Continue Reading

Asking for a date now illegal, flirting as well…

http://thefire.org/article/15768.html

the Departments of Justice and Education have mandated a breathtakingly broad definition of sexual harassment that makes virtually every student in the United States a harasser

The letter states that “sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as ‘any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature'” including “verbal conduct” (that is, speech). It then explicitly states that allegedly harassing expression need not even be offensive to an “objectively reasonable person of the same gender in the same situation”—if the listener takes offense to sexually related speech for any reason, no matter how irrationally or unreasonably, the speaker may be punished.

Among the forms of expression now punishable on America’s campuses by order of the federal government are: Any request for dates or any flirtation that is not welcomed by the recipient of such a request or flirtation.

Defining “any” romantic overture or sexual speech as “harassment” based purely on subjective reactions has dire implications for dating. It defines a single, unrepeated, civil request to go out on a date as “sexual harassment” even if the requester never makes the request again after learning that it was “subjectively” unwelcome.

That may effectively ban dating (since no one is a mind reader, and the whole point of asking someone out on a date is because you don’t know before asking whether they would be interested without first asking).

Continue Reading