 |
| Winner - Hugo Schwyzer |
The same cretins are still involved in that misnomer and occasionally, the odd named individual or three, rears their sexist, morally corrupted head and endeavours to gestate another inane thought process that only other morally corrupt feminist could possibly comprehend.
Schwyzer, (the winner of our famous Mangina Award for morally corrupt male feminists who sold their soul and their own sex out for poon) once again demonstrates beyond doubt why he is paid to promote these mindless, delusional, inane thought processes as he would find it impossible to sell that load of drivel for cash. Always good to rely on the taxpayers dollars for your rent seeking malfeasance..
The article penned by Schwyzer is about accidental rape. One has to wonder what he has been up to to warrant such a title. Feminists have already introduced a plethora of interpretations to the "R" word, so what's another one..
RapeMarital RapeDate RapeAccidental RapeEye Rape (i.e. thought rape)
Bill at The Spearhead sums up this recalcitrant nicely in this complimentary article..
Hugo Schwyzer on Consent
In giving Hugo Schwyzer a platform, the Good Men Project has lost whatever credibility it may have had. Although Schwyzer stirs up some controversy and thus garners pageviews, his questionable personal morality and willingness to collaborate in deception have already tainted the publication. Founder Tom Matlack, on the other hand, strikes me as a fairly sincere person who just happens to be incorrect about some things.
Sincerity, however, is not Schwyzer’s forté. In an article that enraged many an MRA, he argued that it doesn’t really matter whose kid you’re bringing up — “…it is love, not sperm, that makes a great dad.” In the article he reveals that he may have fathered a child with a woman, and then collaborated with her to deceive the other man she was sleeping with at the time into thinking the child was his. This is a disgusting thing to do to both the other man and the child, and a sneaky way to disguise parental irresponsibility and selfishness as some sort of noble act. I accuse Schwyzer of insincerity because I’m pretty sure he’ll ask for a DNA test if he gets socked with a paternity suit for years of back child support some years down the line (assuming the story is true). I can see him in front of a judge arguing: “your honor, it was just my sperm, and that doesn’t mean anything…” I’d fork over some cash to sit in on that hearing.
He later defended that piece by saying that guys who felt differently about a child upon learning that he or she was fathered by another man are “contemptible,” and then proceeded to shamelessly excuse himself for his act of deception because the woman he conspired with was “not in an exclusive relationship when she last slept with me.” Well, duh.
In his latest piece, Schwyzer touches upon the issue of “accidental rape.” From a legal standpoint, this could be an interesting issue, because fudging the notion of consent has resulted in prosecutions where there is no clear indication of mens rea — usually a requirement for a crime to have occurred (in fact, I think statutory rape is one of the very few crimes where mens rea is not required). However, rather than clarify the issue, Schwyzer further muddies the waters by offering a deceptive etymology for the word consent:
The root of consent is the Latin consentire, which means “with feeling.” Consent is not just about words “no” or “yes”—it’s about the unambiguous presence of desire.
This is sleight of hand. The Latin root sentire means “to feel” or “to hear,” but it does not mean emotion or desire, as in “I feel sad,” or “I feel horny,” so much as it means “to think” (e.g. “sentire cum ecclesia” — to think with the church). A more accurate translation would probably be “to perceive.” In any event, Latin terms generally entered the English legal lexicon through French or the church. Given the fact that the word “sentient” (conscious, perceptive) also derives from sentire, it can safely be assumed that the meaning of the term consent is much closer to “accept with awareness” than it is to “agree with ‘the unambiguous presence of desire.’” For example, I consented to a search of my car at the border on Sunday, but I certainly wasn’t overcome by desire at the prospect.
In fact, what Schwyzer is describing is not consent at all. We already have a word for it: assent. If feminists want to change the standard for rape to sex without assent, they should be honest about that, but I don’t think it would work, because the term consent has just enough neutrality to it to be acceptable to the ordinary female sensibility, which recoils from the idea of “assenting” to sex, because that’s just too slutty.
Semantics aside, the article is just another example of Hugo’s disingenuous hand-wringing over the finer points of female sentiment. As a “gender studies” teacher, he is paid to do that, so no surprise there, but what we must keep in mind is that what Mr. Schwyzer is propounding could have some very nasty blowback, including inducing one of his young female students to say that she had been “raped” because she didn’t enthusiastically assent to sex and (in retrospect, of course) realized that she only reluctantly went along with it (i.e. consented). After her friends convince her to call the cops and the boy’s name is dragged through the mud in the press, maybe the poor sap will be “lucky” enough to avoid prison.
Would such a scenario bother him? To answer that, we need only ask whether it would bother a man who has no moral qualms about hiding the fact that another man may be raising his child from both the man and his child. This man demonstrates that claiming to act on behalf of women is the perfect cover for utter scum, and that’s exactly what we should expect to find in gender study departments across the land. “Good men” my ass.
