Quick Takes – Government In The Dorm; Government In The Bedroom; Government In the Dungeon

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: The Religious Right were amateurs!

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

     It has been noted that the Progressive Left have proven to be liars and hypocrites when it comes to privacy in sexual matters.  Now, Connecticut is jumping in on the “Yes means yes” bandwagon and the presumption that all men are rapists until proven, or even if proven, innocent:

“The latest: Connecticut legislators have recently taken up again the fight to make the Constitution State adopt an affirmative consent policy for college campuses. An effort last year to establish this policy was unsuccessful; if it works this year, Connecticut will be the third state in the country to adopt this rule for college students. The Hartford Courant explains:

“‘The concept, known as “affirmative consent,” shifts the burden of proof in disciplinary cases from victim to perpetrator. Instead of requiring a victim to prove that she or he said no to sexual contact, the policy requires a school’s disciplinary board to determine whether there was an unambiguous and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. If not, a student could be expelled or subject to another punishment.

“‘Such policies “create a safer campus environment for students to come forward after an assault,” said Maddie Granato, a policy associate with the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund.’

“What is currently taking place is nothing short of a revolution in the meaning of rape, consent, and due process of law. Though it’s currently confined to campuses, don’t expect this movement to stay that way. After all, it doesn’t make sense for state legislatures to mandate one definition of sexual assault for 22 year-old college students and another for 22 year-olds who are out in the workforce. There have already been some discussion of applying standards like “yes means yes” outside of the campus context, and we fully expect efforts to do so to get more aggressive if and when the campus takeover becomes complete.”

     Rather than fighting for sexual freedom, the Left only cares about the power of the state.

“‘We are living in a new sex bureaucracy,’ warn Harvard Law School professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk in an upcoming paper for the California Law Review. Contra court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas—which decriminalized sodomy in Georgia and affirmed a constitutional right to sexual privacy—’the space of sex’ is still ‘thoroughly regulated’ in America, they write. And ‘the bureaucracy dedicated to that regulation of sex is growing. It operates largely apart from criminal enforcement, but its actions are inseparable from criminal overtones and implications.’


“In recent years, the understanding of school obligations under Title IX has morphed again. In 2011, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR)—the arm of the Department of Education tasked with Title IX upkeep—started including ‘sexual violence’ as a form of sexual discrimination. Until this time, schools handled sexual violence in a variety of ways, with some encouraging students to go directly to police and others more reliant on their own administrative proceedings. But whatever tack schools took, the issue of student-on-student sexual violence was not seen as one related to sex discrimination and Title IX compliance. In issuing compliance guidance to the University of Montana in 2011, however, the OCR stated that any sexual misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions ‘must meet the Title IX requirement of affording a complainant a prompt and equitable resolution.’ The guidance made explicit ‘that a school’s discipline process for sexual assault is regulated by OCR’s interpretations of Title IX,’ write Gersen and Suk.


“OCR has offered guidance here, suggesting that schools address ‘risk factors’ for sexual violence including exposure to pornography, having non-consensual sexual fantasies, or having a ‘preference for impersonal sex.’ What this means is that “the federal government requires schools to be involved in constructing sexual norms and putting a stamp of disapproval on sexual practices like impersonal sex, pornography consumption, and sexual fantasies,” Gersen and Suk note.”

     But this just effects college student, not people in the real world, right?  It’s not like the Left would go after some fetish or kink like those eeevil “Reich wingers”?


“According to a new federal court decision, Americans have no constitutional right to engage in consensual BDSM because ‘sexual activity that involves binding and gagging or the use of physical force such as spanking or choking poses certain inherent risks to personal safety.’ Thus officials could constitutionally ban or regulate such activity in the interest of ‘the protection of vulnerable persons,’ the court held.

“In striking down bans on things like sodomy and adultery, U.S. courts have repeatedly said that citizens have a right to engage in whatever sort of consensual sexual activity they choose within the privacy of their own rooms (that is, as long as money isn’t involved). But federal judges now say that the Constitution ‘does not prohibit the regulation of BDSM conduct.'”

     Why is anyone surprised?  Pushing “sexual liberation” and the mis-named “right to privacy” in the bedroom was just a way of the Left to overturn social mores in order to mold society.

     To those who actually care about sexual privacy: You’ve been used and tossed like a leaky condom.


This entry was posted in Education, Progressives and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.