Penn State: Women Not Capable Of Granting Consent

From the DailyWire comes the story of two young lovers from Pennsylvania State University. After a flirty period of courting, the two had sex in a dorm room, which was followed by an additional period of text flirting and the girl telling her friends she intended to maintain a relationship with him. Six months later, her take on the situation changed and she filed an official complaint with the school's Title IX court against the boy for sexual misconduct, claiming he had forced her into the situation. The school sided with the girl stating that his own flirtatious language (as documented by their texts) amounted to "cajoling," going so far as to amend their official policy on consent to disallow cajoling and then using that policy - ex post facto - to substantiate their decision.

There are a number of relevant social trends tied into this single story. Foremost, of course, is feminism. When it comes to sex, the female is always right. The Title IX banana court will invent whatever procedures and rules are necessary to rule in favor of the female. (Title IX was expanded by the Obama administration into a campus court system intended to favor "protected" groups, without all the annoyances of the normal legal system such as due process, the presumption of innocence, etc.)

Second is subjectivism. What was true yesterday could be false tomorrow. In 2017 a college girl had consensual sex. In 2018 she decided, no, she had been abused. What changed? Only her feelings, but that's all that matters. Was she a scorned lover? Doubtful, as it took half a year for her to file the complaint. From what I hear, the days of girls being traumatized when a guy doesn't call the next day (or ever) are long past. Transient sexual encounters are assumed to be the norm on campus. It is noteworthy that her complaint came shortly after the rise of the #MeToo movement, which spiked in popularity in late 2017. Perhaps she just needed some excuse to share the #MeToo tag on Twitter to gain praise and social status. Whatever the reason, it's clear that the nothing in the past is ever objectively true, but must be evaluated through the lens of the moral fads of the current year.

Finally, and most interesting, is regressivism. When we say that progressives are actually regressives, we don't mean in a colloquial sense, such as calling them backwards, unsophisticated, etc. We mean in the literal sensing of reverting to a previous state. Viewing society as a series of cycles means understanding that "progress" eventually loops back around to the very state that the progressives were trying to run away from. In this instance, the feminist court has determined, effectively, that women are not actually capable of giving consent. They invent all kinds of rules the men must follow such as not "cajoling" to protect the woman from her inability to make her own decisions. That gets us back towards the days where it was widely accepted that women could not make optimal mating decisions, thus fathers held dominion until over their daughters until husbands could be found. Suitors did not ask the girl for her hand in marriage, but the girl's father. After all, it takes more than some cajoling texts to win over Pops.