Feminists Don’t Know The Definition Of “Consent”

Note: None of the below is legal advice. It is philosophy outside of contemporary legal context.

Last summer when the Women Against Feminism Tumblr gained momentum, feminists complained that these women don’t know the definition of feminism. Rather hypocritical, if you ask me, considering that feminists don’t know the meaning of consent.

Consent Does Not Require Desire

The root of all this rape culture nonsense is that feminists think “consent” means “desire.” How narcissistic is that? In the real-life English language, “consent” means “allow.” If a woman doesn’t want to have sex with her boyfriend but tells him he can, then guess what? She gave consent. Even if she didn’t desire it. Even if she didn’t enjoy it. Even if she was feeling guilty. Even if she was afraid he would break up with her. Even if she had been drinking. Even if he was taking advantage of her insecurities. Even if he is a bad person. She gave consent, and so he didn’t rape her.

Of course feminists would want every sexual encounter to be sunshine and puppies. Feminism is an ideology that glorifies selfishness, so the idea of having sex with your boyfriend because you want him to happy is beyond their scope of morality.

Imagine you’re hard up on money, and you need to buy a car. So you go to the dealership and buy something that is old and low-quality because it fits in your budget. Even though you don’t want the car, as soon as you sign the paperwork, you have given your consent.

Communication Is Often Muddled

If a man turns to his wife of five years in bed and starts plowing her with neither of them saying a word, then guess what? She’s given her consent. Basic common sense is that if she were not going to allow him, then she would have said or done something. Maybe she didn’t want it, but in her silence, she has allowed it to happen. That’s consent. Unless she’s too drunk to form monosyllabic words, if she doesn’t say “no,” then she has given consent. But even then, I would argue parroting, “Not tonight,” is not enough to classify something as rape.

In the old days, for something to legally be rape, a woman had to fight the man off or be unconscious. Often before giving in, women will give a final token “no” so they don’t feel slutty. But if a woman truly did not intend to allow the sex, then she would push him off. She would punch him. She wouldn’t lie there motionless weeping and repeating, “Please stop, Chad.”

Granted, a man should not just go around touching women and hope one of them says “yes.” But forcing a kiss on the cute girl at work is not the same thing as rape.

A woman cannot allow a man to rape her. That is a contradiction in terms. And it is unlikely a man will accidentally rape a woman. So this should be much more cut-and-dry than feminists have made it. But alas, we are a nation of social retards.

Update: A little clarification is needed. The line “She wouldn’t lie there motionless weeping and repeating, ‘Please stop, Chad.'” doesn’t quite describe the scenario sufficiently. Contrary to popular myth, it’s actually very difficult to to wrestle down a woman enough to rape her, much less keep yourself hard when it’s time. And most women would put up a fight as a natural reaction, knowing they could at least kick the man in the balls.

I suppose in some situations—especially if you were to break her legs or knock the wind out of her—then she would lie there merely begging you to stop, since she had no other option. Still, I was thinking more prom night and less slasher film, so I’m leaving the sentence in. But know that that line is not a one-size-fits-all metric.

Read More: Thoughts On The Videos “Feminism For Bros”