When Compelled Consent Is The New Normal

Consent is a specific component of the sex crime called rape. If the victim does not consent, what might begin as a sexual encounter between two adults turns into a criminal act. Furthermore, consent must be mutual. Unless you’re part of the Social Justice Xisterhood Orthodoxy. Status in such a group grants you the superpower to compel another party’s consent, less they commit the offense of “reverse rape.”

There is one aspect of rape that’s like not addressed enough though, maybe because it’s quite rare. I call it “Reverse Rape” …[referring] to the rare times when a man refuses to have sex with a woman.

NO MEANS NO UNLESS YOU’RE A MAN; THEN YOU ARE DISEMPOWERING ME WHEN I WANT SEX.

Anne Gus’s 2o14 Thought Catalog piece was meant as satire. Some people didn’t take Poe’s Law into account after a read. Now the term carries a whole new meaning, as the most “woke” will gladly tell you.

Reverse-rape is the refusal to sexually engage w/ women of the “wrong body type” and is just as horrific as rape.

So if you’re a man, and you turn down the proposition of a woman you simply don’t find physically attractive, you’re now a sexual predator of the Weinstein variety. Still think this is satire? Ask a recent Big Brother UK contestant and see if your opinion changes.

In the latest episode, Ginuwine seemingly rejected fellow housemate India Willoughby.

The controversy stems from a conversation between Willoughby and the “Pony” singer, in which she asked whether he would date a trans woman. “You would date me, yeah,” Willoughby, who is a trans woman herself, asked. “Not if you were trans,” Ginuwine replied. After Ginuwine replied that he would not date a trans woman, Willoughby attempted to plant a kiss on the singer. When her advance was rejected, Willoughby stormed off.

It’s not just Willoughby who finds rejection from a cisgender male offensive. Mic, a left-leaning media company recently published a video mocking men who wouldn’t date trans women as “insecure.”

Whether… you may not understand my gender identity, it doesn’t mean that I’m weaker than you. I find myself to be a lot stronger than those people, actually, because my strength has to come from within, you know the endurance of what I have to endure day to day and what I have to do day to day to myself and all the things I face on a day-to-day basis. I think it makes me resilient and that actually makes stronger than that kind of man so I actually think they’re weaker.

So a refusal to romantically or sexually engage with someone you don’t find attractive makes you “weaker” and in some cases “phobic?” What if your business involves sex and you’re the target of an outrage mob because you refuse to have sex with someone for health and safety reasons?

[The suicide of adult film star August Ames] is stirring up quite a controversy, because in the days leading up to it, Ames was being bullied heavily online, including several specific suggestions that she kill herself. Ames had tweeted that she had backed out of a sex scene because it wasn’t disclosed that the man she was supposed to have sex with had done gay porn. Apparently, the reticence of women to work with “crossovers” is fairly common and long accepted in porn.

Ames apparently held the belief men who worked in same-sex adult film scenes were at a higher risk of contracting STDs and HIV, which cripples the career of adult film stars. When she attempted to defend her right to work with whom she chose, the online outrage mobs descended and called her homophobic.

This brave new world of throwing labels such as “rapist,” “phobic,” and “bigot” comes to one logical conclusion. Eventually people will wonder why their invisible signals of sexual juju don’t bring around their preferred targets of desire. They will puzzle over why the opposite sex runs when they advance.

None will stop to think for even the slightest moment the person sprinting in fear doesn’t want to end up on a punitive registry for the rest of their lives.

The Few Standing For Justice Against The Outrage Mob

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand loved the support for recalling Judge Aaron Persky, the Voldemort of Social Justice who spared Brock Allen Turner the “severe impact” of prison.

This is incredible: In California, the activists behind @RecallPersky gathered 100,000 signatures to recall the judge who sentenced Brock Turner to just six months in jail after he was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman outside a frat party.

Shon Hopwood called bullshit on Gillibrand’s virtue signaling and endorsement of the “Recall Persky” mob.

Yes, pitchfork justice for judges who impose one sentence shorter than the small segment of the public thinks. The @RecallPersky effort will only lead to more punitiveness, which will disproportionately fall on minorities and the poor. Bravo!

It wasn’t just Shon ready to stand against the tide of those calling for Judge Persky’s head. Ninety one law professors did something few in academia are willing to do: take a principled stand and argue for the law.

We the undersigned are part of a broad diversity of law professors from California universities…[writing] in strong opposition to the campaign to recall Judge Aaron Persky of the Santa Clara County Superior Court…[This] recall campaign…threatens the fundamental principles of judicial independence and fairness that we all embed in the education of our students.

“Wait,” you may ask, “the recall mechanism is part of the law. It’s something California has on the books. Why is this such a threat to judicial independence and fairness?” Settle in for some “lawsplaining.

The mechanism of recall was designed for and must be limited to cases where judges are corrupt or incompetent or exhibit bias that leads to systematic injustice in their courtrooms. None of these criteria applies to Judge Persky. We appreciate that some people (indeed including some of the signers of this letter) might have chosen a different result, but the core values of judicial independence and integrity require the judge to make a decision based on the record (including, in this case, the recommendation of a skilled professional, a probation officer) —not on public outcry about a controversial case. (emphasis mine)

The ninety-one signatories agree on a key principle: mob opinion has no place on judicial independence and integrity. While openly admitting they might have ruled differently, each signer of the statement against Judge Persky’s recall stands firm in their opinion a judge must be allowed to make the rulings, no matter how unpopular. At the end of the day, it’s the person in the black robe who decides a defendant’s fate, social media be damned.

If close to a hundred academics can’t persuade those calling for Judge Persky’s head, perhaps the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s view holds stronger weight. They condemned the efforts to recall Judge Persky back in June of 2016.

 Judges have a duty to apply the law to the facts and evidence before them, regardless of public opinion or political pressure.  In that role, judges provide an important check against other political forces.  If judges had to fear direct, personal repercussions as a result of their decisions in individual cases, the rule of law would suffer. 

Those still calling for Persky’s neck might be keen to find out California’s Commission on Judicial Performance, the body tasked with handling problematic judges, fielded thousands of complaints over Brock Turner’s sentence and still found Judge Persky clear of any wrongdoing.

It is not the role of the commission to discipline judges for judicial decisions unless bad faith, bias, abuse of authority, disregard for fundamental rights, intentional disregard of the law, or any purpose other than the faithful discharge of judicial duty is established by clear and convincing evidence…The commission has concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence of bias, abuse of authority, or other basis to conclude that Judge Persky engaged in judicial misconduct warranting discipline. (emphasis mine)

A triumvirate of those versed in the law examined the Brock Turner verdict, concluded it was proper, and that Judge Persky’s only offense was showing maybe a little more empathy than most would’ve preferred. Why take the time now to stare the mob led by Michelle Dauber in the eye and proclaim “enough?”

Because as much as Dauber wants to believe otherwise, the recall isn’t just about Brock Turner and will affect far more defendants than the Stanford Swimmer.

In particular, lawyers who represent indigent defendants in our system rightly view the recall as a danger to, not promotion of, progressive values. This is because, historically and empirically, recall actions push judges towards sharply ratcheting up sentences, especially against the poor and people of color, out of fear of media campaigns run by well-funded interest groups.

In other words, should the Recall Persky campaign succeed, other jurists will take notice and shaft the less privileged accused of crimes out of fear they’ll be next. Better to issue harsher sentences than find your name smeared across the internet.

This is a pivotal moment, when the few who stand for what the law should be stare the mob of social justice in the eye and refuse to blink. Though some may find a defense of Judge Persky unpalatable, they realize if judicial independence is compromised here it sets a dangerous precedent hard to overturn.

As Ken White would say, this fight is for “the ones who never saw much mercy to begin with.”