US States Debate Teaching Consent to Kids – But There’s a Big Problem with Consent

Pomidor Quixote
Daily Stormer
May 21, 2019

Some highlights from the above video:

  • 00:28 – “Are you safe? Are your needs being met in that situation? Are you generally feeling positive about it?
  • 00:50 – “If you’re under the age of 16, if anybody’s ever touched you there even if it’s a boyfriend or a girlfriend, it is a felony
  • 3:23 – You should not do sex stuff until you’re older than 16 otherwise you could be going to jail for uh… obstruction of white genocide

Consent is a scam. Just as women make up lies about rapes that didn’t happen 20 years after they allege they happened, they can lie and say they didn’t consent when in fact they did. Even if consent ends up being a written or fingerprinted thing or whatever, they’ll say that they were forced to provide the document.

Whores are gonna lie. No way around that.

AP:

Inside a Catholic school in Portland, Oregon, high school sophomores break into groups to discuss some once-taboo topics: abusive relationships and consent.

What’s happening at this Catholic school in liberal Portland represents a larger debate unfolding in blue states and red, as lawmakers, educators and teens themselves re-examine whether sex education should evolve to better address some of the issues raised by #MeToo. Central to the conversation is whether schools should expand curriculums to help kids understand consent — a concept often defined differently from state to state.

Since January, dozens of new sex ed bills have been floated in statehouses, but only five have passed and just two of those require specific instruction about consent, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks sexuality and reproductive health issues. In all, 10 states and the District of Columbia require that consent be part of sex ed curriculum. The states are: California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia.

All of this #MeToo consent “abusive relationships” and current year sexuality hysteria are at their core a weapon against white heterosexual relationships intended to keep white birthrates down.

It changes the natural power dynamic that attracts women to men in the first place.

In Oregon, Central Catholic High Principal John Garrow hoped to balance students’ need for information with the Roman Catholic creed on abstinence before marriage. He evaluated several programs before choosing Raphael House, whose mission includes work with sexual and domestic assault survivors.

“We’re trying to do our best to follow the teachings and at the same time be realistic, because as a school you lose your relevance real quickly if you’re not real,” Garrow said.

In the sophomore wellness class in April, two Raphael House instructors asked students to consider signs of healthy and unhealthy relationships. Does your partner make you feel valued? Stupid? Scared?

“It, like, opened my eyes,” said Ramaya Wright, 15. “I didn’t know those are a lot of the signs of an abusive relationship.”

Julia Tycer, a Raphael House educator, said consent comes into play not just in dating relationships but in all of our interactions, every day.

Starting with feeling valued. If a man has more important things to do than to readily answer to a woman’s messages, the woman can feel not valued. The problem with “feeling valued” is that women are attracted to men that are valuable and valuable men don’t waste much time on sloots — no matter how attractive they are. Women instinctively know that. If a valuable man were to make a woman feel valued, the value of that man would automatically drop in the mind of that woman.

Following the above, women constantly feel stupid around the men they’re sexually attracted to because men are — plain and simple — smarter than women. I’m not talking about IQ here. I’m talking about overall effective or practical intelligence.

Women feeling scared is one side of the coin. The other side is women feeling protected. Strength in men is sexually appealing for women, and while it often makes them feel protected while everything is going smooth, it can make them feel scared if the man loses his cool after receiving so much shit. You shouldn’t lose your cool around women, but men losing their cool around women is something that happens.

  • Women are attracted to men who are of higher value than them
  • Women are attracted to men who are smarter than them
  • Women are attracted to strong men and strong men can make them feel protected or scared

This can be boiled down to “women are attracted to men who are overall better than them.”

In the minds of women, men who are not better than them are toddlers.

That 15-year-old girl saying she didn’t know those were signs of an abusive relationship also shows you how silly this whole “abusive relationships” thing is.

What are they basing their comparison on? Do they have any objective example of a relationship that doesn’t tick any of the “abusive” signs? They’re just talking out of their asses and teaching that whatever they imagine as the ideal relationship should be the norm, but it’s subjective and they can’t even prove that it is possible for a woman to want to make babies with a man who puts her first, who is dumber than her and who is so weak that she laughs at the thought of him being able to physically hurt her.

They take what makes women want to have babies away from heterosexual relationships.

They produce sexless relationships.

They reduce white birthrates.

The trap of “consent”

The kind of consent they want is a bottomless pit of absurdity.

AP:

It may sound simple: You either consent to sexual activity or you don’t.

But just what constitutes an expression of consent is a hotly debated topic in the justice system and in society at large. And while there’s been a gradual cultural trend, especially on university campuses, toward a standard of “affirmative consent” — otherwise known as “yes means yes” rather than “no means no” — the laws on sexual assault have not similarly evolved.

There is no uniform legal definition of consent. That’s because sexual assault laws, of which consent is often a key component, vary widely state by state.

To help states arrive at a more consistent definition, an organization called the American Law Institute is working on updating the sexual assault laws in its 1962 Model Penal Code, proposals used as models for measures in state legislatures. A definition of consent took the body of judges, lawyers and academics about five years to work out. An early, simple affirmative consent standard was deemed to be “too far from cultural norms,” and a compromise definition was ultimately approved. The proposed sex assault laws are likely to be voted on in May 2020.

They want explicit consent where women have to literally say yes in order to make it legal instead of implicit consent where women would say no when faced with something they don’t want.

“Affirmative consent” hurts male sex appeal in the eyes of women.

Men are supposed to be confident.

Can I sit so close to you that our legs touch?

Can I put my hand on your thigh?

Can I get my face close to yours while we talk?

Can I kiss you?

OH! WAIT! ALSO CAN I INSERT MY TONGUE IN YOUR MOUTH TOO?

Affirmative “yes means yes” consent puts the burden of responsibility on women, and women ABHOR responsibility (this can’t be overstated). Silly stuff such as asking them where they want to go for dinner stresses them out and dries their vagina. They don’t want to take responsibility for anything. Stuff must always “just happen” to them.

When you deal with women, always remember that stuff must “just happen.” This not only means that smoother is better, but also that women should feel they had no active role in anything other than tagging along — because that’s what they want.

They just want to tag along in your adventure.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS