Right, Absolutely Not.

by Belle Waring on August 2, 2019

What would the world be like if women were unable to withdraw consent with regard to sex? You would be living in North Carolina, is what. Now, as an aside, I would totally live in North Carolina (please don’t tell my dad I would live in the wrong Carolina.) It’s lovely. But boy howdy does it have some terrifying rape laws and legal precedent. I mean, would I let my daughters live there?

Some cases are more difficult than others, especially if the initial act began with consent.

In 1979 the Supreme Court of North Carolina that once a sex act begins, a woman cannot withdraw her consent.

The court wrote that: “if the actual penetration is accomplished with the woman’s consent, the accused was not guilty of rape, though he may be guilty of another crime because of his subsequent actions.”

DA Welch called this a “troubling precedent.”

“I feel like you should be able to withdraw consent at any time,” Welch said. “If you have consented to one act, to me it doesn’t mean that act can keep going as long as necessary.”

“However, again it comes back to juries and how they view consent.”

“You will see someone who is consenting to a particular act, and all of a sudden it gets rougher than what they bargained for, or they change their mind, and we’re stuck,” Welch said. “If it goes from one act to another I don’t feel that that law apples, but you still have to deal with that issue in front of a jury, and that’s going to be very hard to convict.”

Oh but surely at least sometimes the juries are reasonable, right, and see that the law shouldn’t apply to cases in which people go from one sex act to another? Wait, or at least the prosecutors, right?

Two cases she’s [Monika Johnston Holster, head of NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault] heard recently are very similar. The prosecutors told both there is nothing they can do.

Even though the women did not consent to sex, “the offender felt like fooling around was consenting to sex,” Johnson Holster said.

OK let’s think about how banaynays this is. To be blunt and explicit about it, you could consent to making out with someone and touching them in explicitly sexual ways, but with both of you having your clothes on, and then that person can force you to have anal sex. This might strictly violate the law as noted above, but the prosecutors don’t appear to think so, because they won’t even try to bring a case. But wait, there’s more!

While state law defines sex with an incapacitated person is rape, court precedents say those laws don’t apply if the person caused the incapacitation through drinking or drug use.

OOOOoookay, as far as I can see this means you could just wait around at a party for a women to get too drunk to consent to sex, and then rape her with impunity. That can’t be right at all. But on the first part about withdrawing consent, I think we can all see how important and it is that a woman (or man, but these laws are written explicitly with women in mind) be able to say “no” at any time during any sex act and that the person having sex with her be required to stop, and the minute they go on regardless, then they are raping the woman, full stop. (The N.C. legislature apparently made some changes in the law, but left the treatment of withdrawal of consent alone.) Here I expect Kiwanda’s hypothetical thread in which I force everyone to agree with me, because it’s my party. Except I won’t force you, you’ll just all agree anyway. “Wow Belle that’s terrifying,” you’ll say.



Chetan Murthy 08.02.19 at 5:53 pm

[Maybe you don’t want to let this thru, idunno.]

To every male who’s gonna litigate this with tweezers and a microscope: think before you begin, and before you hit “Submit”, show your post to some nontrivial number of females whom you trust to call you on your shit. The experience of females -is- different than that of males in ways that matter here, and it’s a simple fact that no amount of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin arguments can efface.


bob mcmanus 08.02.19 at 7:13 pm

I think I ate a whole thread ranting against the common concepts of persuasion and consent. People have as much freedom to consent to sex as the worker has to sell his wage labor to the capitalist (and sexual political social and economic “consent/freedom” absolutely related in late capitalism). Which doesn’t mean none, but doesnt mean total freedom. There are just too many asymmetries of power and capabilities for a binary concept of consent.

“I talked him into bed” is in my mind on a continuum with rape.

Used to be we understood and disapproved of seduction, even between adults.


Marc 08.02.19 at 8:24 pm

Withdrawing consent during something is a different thing from withdrawing consent after it is over. The former should not be controversial and the latter actually is unreasonable.


bob mcmanus 08.02.19 at 8:59 pm

Oh, for the record, of course consent can be partial, tentative, conditional and withdrawn at any moment. This isn’t arguable.

But ya know, the photo thread feinted at nuance a little, so I query: Can consent to sex be given retroactively, after the act where it didn’t exist before?


Belle Waring 08.02.19 at 9:05 pm

Oh, mcmanus-sensei. You know of my deep (and mystifying to everyone else) love for you. And you were so not trolly at all the other day!

“‘I talked him into bed’ is in my mind on a continuum with rape.”


“Used to be we understood and disapproved of seduction, even between adults.”

no you didn’t. or maybe you were friends with a lot of insane people hey come to think about that’s pretty likely ok maybe


bob mcmanus 08.02.19 at 9:24 pm

For those cranking up the perpetual outrage machine (Chetan Murphy is already there), let’s stipulate that my second comment refers to a sudden unexpected kiss on the second date.

I guess this will be the last for a while.


Kiwanda 08.02.19 at 9:58 pm

Wow Belle that’s terrifying.

(Sorry, had to.) Of course removal of consent should be respected at any time, and incapacitation due to any cause is still incapacitation and removes consent.

But this is Consent 101; Belle, I wonder what you think about affirmative consent. Your response @3 to mcmanus-sensei shows you to be considerably behind the times, consent-wise.


Belle Waring 08.02.19 at 11:11 pm

Kiwanda, I happen to be writing about this law because we were discussing the issue of withdrawal of consent in the previous thread. Thanks for helping me understand that I am but a babe in the woods when it comes to this topic.


Kiwanda 08.03.19 at 12:25 am

Since “behind the times” is not the same as “ignorant”, implying mainly a lack of up-to-date attitudes as opposed to up-to-date knowledge, it’s not clear why you think I was suggesting you are a “babe in the woods” on the topic. Your response to mcmanus is incongruent with the current understanding that verbal consent is not meaningful if it is in response to cajoling or flattery, that is, “seduction”. But, OK, you knew that already. I’d apologize, but I’ve already forgotten Witt’s thoughtful, not-at-all-condescending (sorry, not-at-all-mansplainy) “how to” guide.


Suzanne 08.03.19 at 12:35 am

‘“Used to be we understood and disapproved of seduction, even between adults.”

no you didn’t. or maybe you were friends with a lot of insane people hey come to think about that’s pretty likely ok maybe’

@4: Could you clarify why you appear to think disapproval of seduction is madness? My understanding is that seduction, with the implication the term carries of calculation, insincerity of action and intent, and persuasion of someone who is for whatever reason reluctant, is generally regarded as not best practice in the bedroom, or outside it for that matter. People, particularly men, who are called seducers are not called so as a form of flattery.

#6: “Of course removal of consent should be respected at any time, and incapacitation due to any cause is still incapacitation and removes consent.”



Saurs 08.03.19 at 1:31 am

I mean, not really, Chetan Murphy. Male humans, by which I mean men, are more than capable of imagining scenarios in which they decide they no longer want to do some totally voluntary activity, someone stops them from leaving and physically makes them continue to do it, and concluding that this is unequivocally bad and there should be a law against it. Wahey, though, there already are! Laws against kidnapping and assault and shite. Except sex. Sex is one of several activities women don’t get to withdraw from without someone else’s permission. Boxers are allowed to no más their way out of the ring; women and girls are made of sterner stuff. That, or what they want is laughably irrelevant in the face of blue balls and scorned egos.

Not to mention, this is just a great and obvious loophole for all manner of sexual assault: I can claim without proof my victim consented at first. Them testifying they never consented, never had any intention of physical contact with me, doesn’t matter; they have to prove the impossible and I get the benefit of the doubt. After all, what do you consort with female people for if not sticking your dick in them? Nowt shady about that. They should’ve realized I’m a complete piece of shit who doesn’t listen to the word “no.” Rather than legally bar me from ignoring and not abiding by a “no,” let’s craft a law bound entirely by mens rea, We Can Never Know What Was In the Rapist’s Heart of Hearts. Where have we heard that before of late?

It’s like when you’re rough-housing with your mates. One of ‘em decides enough is enough; I decide we’re not done yet until I’ve broken their nose, and the law shrugs its shoulders. After all, the guy with the broken nose didn’t say no and stop until after we started. He was obligated to let me finish and achieve peak bloodlust. The law recognizes a fundamental truth: I am incapable of controlling myself, so other people are obligated to mind my gate, and theirs, for me. Right?

As ever, Belle, thoughts and prayers for this thread and your role as mistress of it. For real, though, thank you for persisting.


faustusnotes 08.03.19 at 1:52 am

In practice I wonder what is the difference between affirmative consent and good old fashioned consent. In a jurisdiction like NC, when you go before the judge, what is the difference between saying “I inferred yes because she kissed me and opened her legs” and “she said yes”? No one was in the room to prove it, so if the defendant says “she said yes” and the girl says “no I didn’t” how is that different to the defendant saying “she was on her knees with her mouth open” and the girl saying “no I wasn’t”? No one was there, it’s just a case of he said-she said. Presumably it’s just as easy to argue “he’s on the high school debate team and all his teachers say he’s very honest but look at her she’s a slut” for affirmative consent as it is for good old fashioned consent?

The problem here is not that it’s possible or impossible to define consent, but that when a man overrides a woman’s obvious lack of consent the only recourse she has is the law, and many jurisdictions have openly established a set of rules which benefit the man in he said-she said situations. Even a written consent form won’t get around that (“he forced me to sign it at knife point” “But do you have any evidence of that you lying slut?”)

The best solution is for men to respect women’s wishes, and not prioritize getting their end off over a woman’s physical autonomy.


J. Bogart 08.03.19 at 5:24 am

This may be helpful to the conversation:


Moz of Yarramulla 08.03.19 at 6:35 am

Geez, those laws really are terrifying. I mean “rapist’s charter” level terrifying, where the actual instructions on how to rape someone without breaking the law are right there in the law. I mean, we fight down here to get some of the ways we deal with sex offences cleaned up, but that stuff in NC is just off the planet level unreasonable.

or man, but these laws are written explicitly with women in mind

You might want to actually check, because until recently I think the FBI defined rape as strictly unwanted penetration by a penis. Quibbling about women-who-have-penises aside, that was also a rapist’s charter. I suspect you might find “woman rapes man” just flatly not prosecutable in NC, and woman rapes woman potentially gets the complainant locked up (have they even legalised consensual sex between women there yet?)


Moz of Yarramulla 08.03.19 at 6:47 am

Hey, and North Carolina is also home to one of the completely barse-ackwards “bathroom bills“. To keep women safe they require that big burly trans-men use the women’s bathrooms… that makes *everyone* feel safe, right?


Belle Waring 08.03.19 at 1:44 pm

Moz of Yarmulla: federal laws are, and all laws should be, written to cover rape victims of any gender from perpetrators of any gender; I mentioned it because one of the NC laws specifically mentioned vaginal penetration (I am lazy to read it as it’s some weird non-searchable pdf).


HcCarey 08.03.19 at 5:55 pm

Wow. I suppose logically if you invited someone into your home, and he started robbing you, he would not be guilty of a crime, because you invited him into your home?

Oh well the whole thing can clearly and easily be solved by carrying guns. You may not be legally entitled to say “no,” but if you feel threatened and shoot someone the laws of NC will likely smile on you


Belle Waring 08.03.19 at 7:44 pm

HcCarey, although I understand your good intentions and the analogy holds water in most ways, it’s always better to avoid likening questions about sexual assault to property crimes because of the obvious implication that women or their sexual activities are property.

Quick edit: I think you mean if you’re white the laws of NC will likely smile on you.


anonymousse 08.04.19 at 12:40 am

“…a woman (or man, but these laws are written explicitly with women in mind) be able to say “no” at any time during any sex act and that the person having sex with her be required to stop, and the minute they go on regardless, then they are raping the woman, full stop.”

So put this statement in concrete terms. We are making consensual love. I’ve thrusted five times. She says stop, and I thrust a sixth time. I am now guilty of rape (i.e. I belong in prison for 5+ years, am registered as a sex offender, and my life is ruined).

This is your standard. “…the minute they go on regardless, they are raping the woman full stop.”

Similarly: Lena Dunham just kissed Brad Pitt without his permission. She belongs in jail (not for rape, perhaps for sexual assault, or some lesser charge)?

I’m not implying these are real consequences of any law. But they are logical consequences of your statements. Sex is ambiguous. Consent is ambiguous. Your argument is simply unrealistic because it doesn’t acknowledge thus.

full stop.



Jim Buck 08.04.19 at 7:22 am

Practioners of BDSM ( a Rosetta Stone of sexualities) generally negotiate a safeword intended to halt whatever was going on, prior to it being uttered. Way to go, straight heteros!


HcCarey 08.04.19 at 9:30 am

Belle Waring, I chose that example precisely because the law DOES treat women as property. I mean to make the connection explicit


HcCarey 08.04.19 at 9:35 am

Sorry: “meant” to make the connection explicit.

And of course in NC there would be a racial difference–if a white woman was saying no to a black man the law would likely rush to her aid, but no to a [white] man is formally disregarded. Who doubts for a second that the law was written with only white men in mind?


Belle Waring 08.04.19 at 2:00 pm

HcCarey, as I say, I do understand what you are trying to do here, but the analogy to property crimes is a very frequent and in some sense deeply unwelcome addition to arguments about consent or a woman’s “asking for it” in some way. Many liken it to a man’s walking down the street at night in a bad neighborhood–would we say in such a case that he was “asking for” his wallet or expensive watch to be stolen? If not, why not? That’s all well and good but repeated arguments of this type just do reduce the woman’s body and sex acts to a kind of property which can either be taken with permission or stolen or taken by force. This is a ‘can’t tear the master’s house down with the master’s tools’ situation; as soon as you frame it in these terms you have lost something about the women and their agency and interior lives as true human beings and you have yourself reduced them to wallets or watches or something else. You have yielded something important about personhood. So, no hate, really, it’s a common and understandable error, but I would hope that after reading this you see that it is an error and stop using it in the future.


oldster 08.04.19 at 2:17 pm

“So put this statement in concrete terms. We are making consensual love. I’ve thrusted five times. She says stop, and I thrust a sixth time. I am now guilty of rape (i.e. I belong in prison for 5+ years, am registered as a sex offender, and my life is ruined).”

You are certainly guilty of rape, yeah. Isn’t that obvious? What your particular sentence should be will vary by jurisdiction.

Look, I’m not a young radical. I’m an old retired white dude, raised in a different era.

But a question like this has never been ambiguous, in all the many decades of my life. When she says stop, you stop, right away. Otherwise, you are committing rape.


Belle Waring 08.04.19 at 2:18 pm

anonymousse: let’s take the archetypal person ruled by his hormones and nearly not responsible for his actions when it comes to sex: the teenage boy. Let’s imagine he’s gotten four thrusts in to a sexual act which is quite mutual. Then, his girlfriend’s dad walks into the room. Is he going to go on to the next thrust, driven by inexorable lust, or is he going to freak the fuck out, pull out, and start dragging his clothes on as fast as ever he can. Guess what it’s the latter! Men and boys are perfectly capable of stopping sex acts of all kind when the moment calls for it. Why shouldn’t “please this hurts I want to stop” be one of those moments?

Now, is it unreasonable for me to consider the actual effects of the law when drafting it? Namely, that exactly no one in the future history of our great nation will ever be punished for thrust five? Because the cops would never in a million years care, given they don’t give a shit about rape of a person past the point of consent, or often even actual obvious forcible rape? And the prosecutors would laugh this out of their office in part because no jury would ever vote to convict? And that no just would ever vote to convict? I understand that it could be that as a point of principle there should be blurry lines rather than bright ones. But this is true of all sort of crimes: there are bright lines and the criminal justice system renders them blurry through prosecutorial discretion and in other ways. And “I want to stop” is just a plain, reasonable way to try to stop a sex act and should be considered as such, just as “I don’t want to have sex is.” I grant the situation might be mildly confusing: “I thought we were having consensual sex.” And you were! But then she says “no I want to stop,” and now you’re no longer having consensual sex! Wait, I take it back, it’s not confusing. And as to unequal prosecution of African-American defendants, there’s already plain old ordinary rape statutes with which to charge them unfairly. I guess this adds something to the prosecutors arsenal, but it’s one which bristles already with terrifying armaments. And African-American women exist too, and are subject to rape in higher numbers than, say, white women. Don’t they also deserve a protection of this kind?


Belle Waring 08.04.19 at 2:22 pm

This last is not directed at you per se but has been the topic of some discussion.


Chetan Murthy 08.04.19 at 2:52 pm

anonymousse @ 18:

You didn’t check with any of the women you know before … posting this comment, did you? Yeah, didn’t think so. This is the “ticking time bomb scenario” of rape accusations.

So let’s think about more realistic ones. Like “I never said OK to anal”. Or what that rapist Assange did — switch to sex without a condom, without getting consent. These are much more common cases.


anonymousse 08.04.19 at 3:16 pm

But you are already changing your argument.

It went from ‘…he’s guilty of rape, full stop’ to ‘well, we need a law with a hardline even though it would never be prosecuted thusly.’ I’m not disagreeing that no means no. I’m disagreeing that ‘he’s guilty of rape, full stop.’

If a child steals gum from a candy store, is ‘guilty of theft, full stop.’? Or has he technically broken the law, the law is written with a hard line, and we all know that laws against stealing are written for other than children stealing gum (perhaps a stern talking to and forced apology is appropriate)?

How about an adult that ‘steals’ copy paper at work to print block party announcements? Guilty of theft ‘full stop.’-perhaps jail is warranted?

You declared in your original post that you were an absolutist (‘he’s guilty of rape. Full Stop’)-embrace it, or acknowledge that it was not warranted. Don’t change the argument.



Belle Waring 08.04.19 at 9:28 pm

He’s guilty of rape full stop. If the prospect of him seeing jail time makes you freak out, you may reassure yourself with the knowledge it will never happen. These two ideas are separable. There is no world in which, “I asked him to stop but he kept going” isn’t, “he raped me.” Consider it’s similarity to “I asked him to stop but he started to have sex with me anyway, and wouldn’t stop even though I asked him to.” This latter part plays out as “I asked him to stop but he kept going” that just is the further content of her rape.

In addition to which, I believe it’s your contention that consent is not always obvious and can in real life have complexities I fail to see in my (both explicable and justified) jihad against rapists. So, granting this, the sexual encounter may have begun in some apparently consensual but unarticulated way. Then someone says, “please stop.” Maybe these are the first explicit words said. How much more important are they, and how much more her partner must be ready to stop, since going on would be…um obviously non-consensual and therefore rape? This seems very obvious.


politicalfootball 08.04.19 at 10:18 pm

If a child steals gum from a candy store, is ‘guilty of theft, full stop.’?

Yes. How is this a hard question?


J-D 08.05.19 at 1:12 am

Wow Belle, that’s terrifying and appalling.

Although appalled, I am not surprised. (As the years go by, I find I am appalled more and more and surprised less and less.)

Reading your post made me wonder what the law is here where I am, so I checked. It turns out that the relevant New South Wales statute includes a four-paragraph definition of ‘sexual intercourse’ in which the fourth paragraph includes within the definition ‘the continuation of sexual intercourse’ as defined within the first three paragraphs. The reason for this, perhaps not immediately obvious, is that if the continuation of sexual intercourse counts as sexual intercourse, then the continuation of sexual intercourse without consent counts as sexual intercourse without consent (and therefore a crime): so if a person withdraws (previously given) consent and another person continues despite that withdrawal of consent, it’s a crime.

I expect if I checked I would find that the experience in practice fails to live up to the theoretical hopes: problems like this usually aren’t solved solely by amending the text of statutes. Still, if somebody says (or writes) that ‘you can’t write laws like that’, it may be relevant to point out that it has been done and therefore is, incontrovertibly, possible. In fact, when I checked I discovered that there are other jurisdictions which have more explicit and unambiguous statutory text dealing with the point than New South Wales does. (A consultation paper issued last year by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission gives the examples of Victoria, South Australia, and Scotland.)

Another part of the New South Wales statute provides explicitly that it may be established that a person does not consent if the person consents while substantially intoxicated by alcohol or any drug: so that kind of statutory text is also a possibility.


Chetan Murthy 08.05.19 at 2:59 am

anonymousse @ 26:

People keep warning [you and others] that one should not conflate the right of women to control their bodies, with property rights. And yet you keep on doing it: adducing examples of stealing candy, or copy-paper, to arguments about rape, as if somehow they’re relevant. When they’re not.


Gar Lipow 08.05.19 at 4:20 am

It sees some guys are having trouble understanding why they could be asked to stop. I mean it is not really relevant; as has been said, if she says “stop” and don’t it is rape. That is the actual law in most states. But to help promote empathy, imagine for the moment that somebody gets a cramp in the middle of sex, maybe a charlie horse which is agony and feels like your leg is going to break. So the person with the charlie horse says “ow, ow, ow , please stop” in a tone of clear suffering and agony. Do you keep going and subject that person to unbearable pain for another few minute? I don’t think there are any statistics on frequency of reasons for changing you mind in the middle of sex, but I’ll bet “leg cramp” is up there. All the other reasons, no matter what they are, are good enough; stop (or the safe word if one has been established) need to be respected. But I’m betting that someone who changes their mind in the middle of consensual sex has a pressing and urgent reason for the stopping something they were enthusiastic obout moments ago.


anonymousse 08.05.19 at 11:27 am

“He’s guilty of rape full stop. If the prospect of him seeing jail time makes you freak out, you may reassure yourself with the knowledge it will never happen.”

Right. But now you have to acknowledge that rape* isn’t always such a bad thing (just as theft-for instance when a child does it, or when an adult steals something trivial like copy paper-isn’t always such a bad thing). *i.e. ‘rape’ as you have defined it in this thread

Guilty of ‘rape full stop’, but not worthy of jail time, means something- other than- ‘rape full stop’ justifies sending someone to jail. What would you call that? ‘Rape full stop and I really mean it this time’? ‘Serious rape full stop’? ‘Super duper rape full stop’?

What could you say about describing a situation that includes this scenario?

‘John Doe was with our friend Jenny last night, and he raped her full stop.’

‘Oh my God! Did you go to the police? Has he been arrested?’

‘Uh, well, no. When I say ‘rape full stop,’ I don’t mean he did anything that would get him arrested….its not like his life should be ruined over it. But it was still rape full stop! Seriously, guys…’



bob mcmanus 08.05.19 at 7:30 pm

Remembering Andrea Dworkin in Jacobin today


Lynne 08.06.19 at 1:07 pm

Anonymousse: I did not understand Belle to say rape isn’t worthy of jail time. I understood her to mean that the courts rarely prosecute rape and when they do they *always* take the circumstances into account. Quite often judges worry that the rapist’s life should not be ruined.

I am interested in why you are so eager to insist that consent is ambiguous. If she says “Stop”, and you carry on anyway, what is ambiguous about that?


Dr Steve Cruel 08.06.19 at 9:23 pm

Hi anon,

I mean Belle no disrespect, but I’d like to step in here, because I feel like you are misrepresenting what she said. When she wrote:

“He’s guilty of rape full stop. If the prospect of him seeing jail time makes you freak out, you may reassure yourself with the knowledge it will never happen”

She wasn’t saying that she approved of that situation. I read it that, yes, a person who has sex with a non-consenting partner is committing rape. However, in the fallen, imperfect world we live in, many people who commit rape, especially of the “withdrawn consent” kind, won’t be prosecuted for their act. This is not a radical idea. One can firmly and sincerely believe that “I want all war criminals in prison” while acknowledging that, considering the way the world works in this The Year of Our President 2019, that war criminals can be assured nothing more disagreeable than a hearty pension and a lobbyist’s job.

And, if I may add, your comparison of withdrawn consent rape to a child stealing gum is bizarre.

1) Fully grown, sexually active men are not the moral, intellectual, or agency-having equivalents of children (despite what comment threads like this may try to demonstrate)

2) A woman’s body isn’t a pack of gum

3) Theft of property isn’t the same as physical violence (despite what right-wing propertarians might want us to believe).

But this is obviously a topic you feel inspired to comment on! May I offer you a marginally better comparison (though, really, comparisons on subjects like this are week. Sexual violence is a topic that is connected in a rather unique way to so many other cultural, psychological, and social threads that “illuminating” comparisons tend to obscure more than they reveal).

[I’ll include here a Content Warning for imaginary violence]

Anyway. Withdrawn consent is not like a child stealing gum. It’s more like if I, Dr. Steve Cruel, am walking down the sidewalk, and I see the friendly Greenpeace man taking signatures, as he always does. He’s always been nice, but a little aggressive, but that’s his job to be a little aggressive, eh? He asks me if he can have a moment of my time. I say, “Yes, of course!” He then proceeds to bludgeon me about the face and arms with a tire iron and, when I’m in court retelling this, his attorney triumphantly interrupts with “But, your Honor, the bludgeoning was over in just a moment!”

And the judge and jury and prosecutor and attorney all high five and drink some beer and put on some Hank Jr. and go mudding.

In sum–sex is not like gum, rape is not like stealing gum, women aren’t shopkeepers, and men aren’t children (except when they’re commenting about rape online).


Jana 08.07.19 at 1:08 am

Oh this makes me long for the days of I Blame the Patriarchy. Nothing yet has replaced the elegant simplicity of her take on rape and consent.


Comments on this entry are closed.