Six days ago, I shared a picture of my face on the internet with the words “no doesn’t always mean no” slapped over it, in an attempt to pair typography and share a controversial, but not wrong, opinion. Consequently, I was met by hordes of fire-breathing feminazis who could not fathom that a man has an opinion about consent that doesn’t properly align with theirs. Or that he would suggest that slogans don’t represent reality, and that the conservation on consent is actually more complicated than asking a friend if they’d like a cup of tea.
This tweet has over million impressions now and counting. and has a massively skewed ratio of hate comments to likes. I have been called a rapist countless times—which illustrates the lack of stigma associated with being a false rape accusing apologist (they told me I am going to jail for being a rapist without realizing that a false accusation of rape can also land you in jail, and therefore they should practice discretion)—and one woman mentioned the FBI in a reply to the tweet. I’ve also seen many myths about consent peddled by young women who simply haven’t heard anything other than a feminist opinion. To them, I must be a misogynist. For this, they want me dead. I received many comments along the lines of “I hope you die” or “all I want for Christmas is for you to be executed.” It’s interesting because I don’t want feminists dead, I just want them to know that patriarchy isn’t as bad as they think it is.
Wearing my I Love Patriarchy t-shirt with “no means no” slapped over the picture attached to the tweet didn’t help either. But it helps illustrate a pattern, where critics fall into one category of people, and there is not much chance we can find middle ground with them. These people have the following characteristics:
- They hate Donald Trump
- They are feminist
- They use pronouns in their bio (he/him; she/her)
- They want to free Palestine
- They refer to any male who disagrees with feminism as an incel, misogynist, virgin, a man with a small penis, a man who cnanot find a woman’s clitoris, and a man who cannot make a woman orgasm. The idea is that if I failed with women, I must hate them, even though the post has nothing to do with hating anything…
- They use feminist logic and double standards to put words in people’s mouths, nag incessantly, and cherry-pick evidence. They have a complete disregard for the scientific method.
I on the other hand believe that the patriarchy wasn’t always harmful and that there is a middle ground. I like Donald Trump and think he was misinterpreted by mainstream media. I am a conservative and I think Christian values could benefit America. I am the host of the podcast Make Society Great Again. As you can see, I have a completely opposite mindset to the one my haters have. But nevertheless, I will clarify and explain what I meant in my tweet, and what experience has taught me for those who are interested in what I have to say.
I will summarize my thoughts in multiple parts, corresponding to specific parts of the tweet.
“Then, you don’t need consent anymore”
Be charming, witty and a suitable partner. Then, you don’t need consent anymore.YogiOabs
Consent isn’t a separate step from meet to sex. It shouldn’t be. I see it as part of the process. And to unlock a woman’s heart, or less romantically, but more commonly practiced today, her vagina, is to be a desirable man. The more desirable a man is, the faster women are interested in having sex with them. This applies to women in a sexually liberated society of course, where there are no rules saying you cannot have pre-marital sex. This universal truth still applies to Christian women and Muslim women however, with the caveat that they will just make you wait longer.Be charming, witty and a suitable partner. Then, you won't need consent anymore. Click To Tweet
Therefore, a man shouldn’t worry about “obtaining consent” as if it is a separate step during the night. He should think more about being desirable to women. When this happens, he doesn’t need to take an additional, separate step of “obtaining consent” before penetrating her, because she already consents to his hotness. She consents because the process was exciting to her and she wants to have fun with the guy. She’s so happy to spread her legs and it’s very clear she is willing and able to consent. He obtained consent by being charming and smooth throughout the night, but not by “obtaining consent” separately from the process of mating. As one person pointed out, we could call this a “continuous conversation.”
I think this is obvious; however, the way we talk about consent today makes it sound like it’s an act separate from the course of events over a typical evening. Perhaps this step was put in place as an effort to raise awareness for cases where women did continue to say no, but men did not know how to stop, and forcibly raped the woman. However, there is a grey area here, and that’s where we get to the second part of my tweet.
“No doesn’t always mean no.”
Now you really can’t pursue someone further than, ‘No.’ It’s like, ‘O.K., cool.’ But then there’s the, ‘Oh why’d you give up?’ And it’s like, ‘Well, because I didn’t want to go to jail?Henry Cavill
Henry Cavill added that since he is in the public eye, he has to be extra careful. But why would his attempt to understand “no means no” be taken negatively by feminists (and yes, they’re all feminists because of their characteristic hysteria and desire to shame and control male sexuality)? After all, he’s trying to do the right thing, right? Of course, it’s obvious that he wouldn’t go to jail for persisting after a no… or is it? It’s not so simple actually, because if his date falsely accuses him of rape or being too persistent, or in the same vein “creepy,” he could end up in jail, or losing a gig, and then would have to spend time formulating a response as to why he did what he did. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Aziz Ansari are two high-profile examples of just that.
Vanity Fair followed up on his remarks with a piece titled “Henry Cavill Instantly Apologizes for Cringe-Worthy #MeToo Remarks” where they replied:
Cavill’s remarks came under fire precisely for conflating that kind of behavior with sexual harassment and misconduct. Alas, he’s not the first person to stick his foot in his mouth about the movement—and he certainly won’t be the last.
To them, it’s “cringe-worthy” to conflate persistence with sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, when that could in many contexts define the transgression. By “that kind of behavior” they’re talking about persisting after she says no. But what they really mean to say is “if you’re hot, you can pursue me harder—I don’t mind… so please continue Henry, cuz you are just fineeee boi.” Feminists won’t admit this, but it’s related to why 50 Shades of Grey is a bestseller. In that fantasy world, a powerful man knows how to turn a woman on and take control of her. She consents, but she didn’t realize she would consent until it happened. And that’s what the rape fantasy is, as was explained in the most recent episode of the podcast (listen below). Here’s the link to that on Apple Podcasts.
I’m not sure if Vanity Fair put any effort into their piece. I think they just wanted to create anger since that’s what the #MeToo movement thrives off of, and felt that such an angle would resonate with their readers. But there’s nothing cringe-worthy about what Henry Cavill said, because it’s what all men in the United States are going through right now. It’s why women are reporting that men don’t approach them anymore and that flirting seems dead.
I Love Misogyny Mug$11.95
I Love Patriarchy Women’s T-Shirt (White and Pink)$21.95
Not Equal Men’s T-Shirt$20.00 – $21.55
Newsflash: men don’t need consent to approach women, or even touch them lightly. Does a man need consent to hold a girl’s hand after they spend time together? No, but the conversation on consent stifles men and has them worry about these things. The definition of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct is vague; it’s why Betsy DeVos amended the definition to prevent further #HimToo lawsuits on college campuses. She was also met with criticism from people who think accused men do not deserve due process on college campuses. Men’s Rights Activist Kursat Pekgoz filmed a student crying hysterically while trying to make the case that “victims” of sexual misconduct should just be believed. This type of thinking permeates American universities, and makes them a hazardous place for men. In fact, I’m writing a book on false accusations right now, because no one on the left is willing to talk about it.
For stating that I don’t need permission to touch a woman though, I will invariably be called “rapey” due to my presumed insensitivity to women’s emotions. What do I mean by “touch?” That statement will get misinterpreted and people will assume the worst, instead of calmly asking for clarification. And despite quoting the same women who criticize me in my tweet (the ones who want more wine and for men to persist), I proved Henry right. If you discuss persistence in a positive light and directly state that no doesn’t always mean no, you will be called a rapist.
It’s all about persuasion, and a no doesn’t always mean no. It can mean not now, “get to know me a bit more,” or “more wine.”YogiOabs
Irate women responded claiming that I advocate for date rape and getting women drunk past the point they can consent to sex. Their subpar reading comprehension has them believe that I was the one calling for more wine. If I had not put “more wine” in quotes, then that would be more likely, even if there were still multiple interpretations of the tweet, or I meant that women were saying it. But it’s in quotes because it’s what the woman is telling the man. That woman isn’t ready… yet. Consent can be revoked at any time, and it can also be granted at any time.
If a no was always a no, then a yes would always be a yes.
Just as a yes can turn into a no, a no can turn into a yes. For example, some men are filming consent videos to avoid #MeToo charges; however, those videos wouldn’t vindicate a man that rapes, because after the video is filmed, the woman can revoke her consent. On the converse, a woman can be uninterested in sex at first, and through your handsome patience and magic, she becomes interested, and consents to having sex with you.If a no was always a no, then a yes would always be a yes. Click To Tweet
This is obvious, but for some reason, we have turned slogans into facts, and unfortunately, it is not a fact that no always means no. But wait… “no” isn’t always verbal, and neither is “yes.” Further, a no doesn’t just apply to sex but to actions before sex, like taking off her bra—my favorite (I never ask, I just go for it and she can either stop me or let me). Therefore, calling me a rapist doesn’t make sense. The slogan “no means no” applies mostly to sex, but also consent throughout the entire sexual interaction. This is the foolishness of interpreting words so literally.
The “no” in my tweet doesn’t refer just to a verbal no, but also a clear indication that the woman isn’t interested in our advances. This “no” is a more realistic type of no after all. To demonstrate this I wrote the following story about a typical interaction between a man and woman today in the privacy of one’s home.
After a dinner date and some drinks, Paul and Jamie head back to Paul’s place. It’s Jamie’s first time there. They’d hung out a few times in the library before at school, and gotten coffee together. They also had several study dates and started to form a friendship. Paul started having feelings for Jamie and he decided to take a risk and ask her out to dinner. He knows that it could screw up their friendship but he thinks she is girlfriend material. She has a soft smile, abundant laughter, and loves his jokes. The way she plays with her hair, and how nervous but excited she acts when they meet has had him daydreaming lately.
“Welcome to my crib” says Paul, jokingly, as he walks into his bachelor pad, an off-campus residence occupied by three other guys. “Haha, thank you, it’s nice” says Jamie, spirited. Paul and Jamie hang out in the kitchen for a while, and then sit down on the couch together with some wine. They hadn’t gotten physical before really—it was all just eye flirting—but this was his night. He could feel it.
Paul turns up some music. He chooses the classics. They were sitting across from the couch and he wanted to take things slow, but he knows he wants to meet Jamie’s succulent lips. They’re making heavy eye contact, and he feels like he’s falling into her. He makes a move: he gets up and sits closer to her. Her wide open eyes don’t blink, and the smile on her face does not change.
“Jamie… I’ve been wanting to tell you something.”
Paul leans in for the kiss. She’s a bit slow to acquiesce, but eventually brings her chin up to meet his lips. It’s slow, sensual. Jamie is reserved and hadn’t been on many dates before. In fact, she had one boyfriend in high school, and that was it.
After a minute or two of making out, Paul puts his hand on Jamie’s chest. She promptly removes it. But over the next ten minutes, he continues stroking her neck, her face and her upper chest, heating her up. He goes for it again and she doesn’t resist. They move to the bed and have a little more fun. Paul is really horny, and wants to have sex with Jamie. He tries to take her pants off but Jamie says “I have to get to know you more.” Paul settles for second base. After an hour, Jamie has to go home. It’s not a Friday or Saturday night.
“I’ll see you tomorrow” Jamie says, as she walks out the door, happy. “See you,” Paul replies, his hair a mess, a cute smile on his face that says it all.
In this story, Jamie said no at first to Paul touching her chest. But after some more action, this changed. And they didn’t have sex, because Jamie wants Paul to get to know her more. Paul was denied a few times, had some successes—or scores as bros like to say—but he had to get to know her more before having sex with her or going any further than second base. Some guys close that gap by tapping for a while and persisting, because of course her words actually mean that she wants to feel more comfortable. She doesn’t actually have to know you more, but I would recommend that because it makes life better (you’ll lose sexual opportunities but that’s trivial in the grand scheme of things).
In other cases, women often will say they need to get more drunk before they can accept certain actions or advances from men. In a culture where people drink heavily on weekends in sexually charged environments, with the goal to keep the night exciting, there will be many moments where alcohol is used to facilitate obtaining consent. How many times have you heard people say “I’m not drunk enough for this”?
When I quoted a female who said she needs more wine, I was ambiguous, but I was referring to situations where women think to themselves that they voluntarily wish to feel more inebriated so they can enjoy sexual activity. Too many cases of sexual assault involve alcohol consumption, so it’s not unfair to say that people use it to make the night more exciting, and that the prospect of sex is part of that excitement. People want a release sometimes on a Friday night, and alcohol, marijuana, and hooking up give people that short-term thrill.
A no is temporary, and can turn into a yes. A yes is temporary and can turn into a no. These are mostly non-verbal processes. A man should always obtain consent before penetrating a woman, but that consent doesn’t have to be a separate event during various stages of foreplay, conversation and getting to know a prospective partner. It can be, but it usually isn’t and from my experience, it’s a turn off. However it’s done, considerable awareness to find out what you like (which can change with time and experience) and a conversation with a partner can help. But from my experience most women prefer you to take the lead, and you can’t get into trouble for doing that sexually as long as she isn’t incapacitated or forced to do anything, even if you have sex. That’s not rape. That is consensual sex, and she consented non-verbally.
Harvey Weinstein on the other hand threw himself on top of women according to their reports, and things happened so fast for them they were taken aback. Next thing they know, Weinstein is penetrating them. Whether or not it was rape is hard to say, because it’s a “he said she said” situation. But judging by the number of reports, it seems like he had little control of himself or interest in understanding if women were actually interested in him before proceeding.
Consent is crucial, and we do need consent to create a satisfying sexual environment that is safe for the woman. Men like me don’t benefit from making women feel traumatized; we don’t want that to happen. But we also don’t want the conversation on consent to go too far in the wrong direction, where now, feminists demand “enthusiastic consent,” the latest method of male castration, where a man must receive a clear, verbal, “yes” from a woman before having sex with her.
Enthusiastic consent isn’t completely terrible, but it’s awkward and unnecessary. I do think it could be fun and intimate, but some feminists think this should be the norm, when it’s not what consent was originally about. Kind of like women’s rights. There is no end in sight to it and it has gone too far. I believe that the best type of consent is non-verbal, and that occurs when the man is desirable, works his magic, and is the person the woman wants to have sex with. In light of this conversation on consent, I will conclude with this: men should respect women, but should not respect them to the point where they let women have the final say. Take the lead, be the man, and she will happily consent to giving her body to you without saying a word.