Mimesis Law
19 October 2017

Being a Social Justice Warrior is Hard on One’s Dating Life

Oct. 29, 2015 (Mimesis Law) — Chrissy Keenan is a Social Justice Warrior (SJW) who is currently attending UCLA. She’s got a problem. It seems that her SJW status is interfering with her dating life.

You see, Chrissy is the president of Bruin Consent Coalition (BCC), a group at UCLA that promotes the idea that 1 in 3 women and 1 in 6 men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, but who provide no support for that number. The BCC has a webpage that has articles and links discussing the so-called “rape culture” and that if consent is not explicit, loud, and clear, then it is sexual assault.

So Chrissy uses Tinder, which is apparently some sort of app for hooking up that young people use nowadays instead of actually going out and meeting them face-to-face. But I digress. So Chrissy found a guy that she was interested in meeting, and was setting up a real life meet, but she messaged him:

“This is the work I do, I know the chief of police … so, don’t try and get creepy; I know all my rights.”

And five minutes later, the guy cancelled, saying:

“Actually, I’m really not OK with how you just assume I’m a bad guy. And I get very bad vibes from that, so we shouldn’t hang out anymore.”

Just as an aside, not saying that this did or did not happen, five minutes is plenty of time to check out Chrissy on the web and learn everything you need to know about her and her view of men.

Chrissy, by the way, did not take this very well.

“I was in a rage. He was a total f**kboy about consent!”

Chrissy, who has publicly stated that she was sexually assaulted in high school, has pushed for yes-means-yes and other initiatives that she and other SJWs believe will solve the “problem.” On top of that, she uses prison slang to describe the guy—slang that is used to identify prisoners who have been raped by other inmates for pay.

So let me get this straight. You push for initiatives that deny due process rights to men when they are accused of sexual assault, and then you’re surprised that they may not want to go down that road with you? Really? So you then try to humiliate him by your description of him?

Uh, isn’t that the same type of behavior that you are trying to put a stop to at UCLA?

Well, Chrissy, there is some pushback.

Alpha Game, a blog for men who don’t buy into the SJW argument, don’t think men should even talk to an “anti-rape activist.” I don’t agree with their overall position, but I understand completely their point of view on dating SJWs. The Toysoldier blog points out that Chrissy advocates a position that:

Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time.

The second position begs the question, if consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked, wouldn’t there need to be consent to have a social encounter? Shouldn’t either party, if they are uncomfortable with what the other party is doing, be able to withdraw that consent? Because it seems to me that once Chrissy communicated her thoughts to the other half of the proposed social encounter, he was uncomfortable with it, and revoked his consent to that social encounter.

Instead of condemning him, Chrissy should be supporting him, because he only did what Chrissy has said should be the norm, where both parties agree and both consent to the activity they are engaging in.

Well, he would not consent to meet with her socially, and he expected Chrissy to accept that.

Instead, Chrissy became enraged.

Called him names and belittled him.

Sound familiar?

It is the exact same conduct that she is campaigning to stamp out. She expects men to honor a woman’s right to consent or to not consent to various activities, but she is not willing to allow men the same right of consent?

Could there be a different explanation for all of this? Sure. Does that seem likely? Not really.

If you are going to argue for free speech, then you have to allow speech that is hateful, offensive, and provoking, or speech is not really free. You don’t get to limit speech to only that speech which you and your friends approve of the content.

If you are going to campaign about consent, then you need to honor someone refusing to consent to your terms. You don’t get to limit what the other party gets to consent to (or not), any more than you should be able to limit their speech.

You don’t get to argue for consent for women, but get upset when a man doesn’t consent. Not if you want to maintain any credibility.

3 Comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

*

*

Comments for Fault Lines posts are closed here. You can leave comments for this post at the new site, faultlines.us

  • Gabriel
    30 October 2015 at 9:30 am - Reply

    Your post might get more traction outside the men’s rights/red pill echo chamber if you dropped the “spooky SJWs coming to take our rights” act. The term “SJW” became a signifier for “nutcase here” a while ago.

    • Dave
      30 October 2015 at 1:40 pm - Reply

      Found the SJW

  • MoButterMoBetta
    2 November 2015 at 10:57 am - Reply

    Can we please start referring to the male in this encounter as a survivor. His revoked consent was violated by Chrissy Keenan’s verbal assault. Chrissy Keenan’s verbal assault was intended to make this survivor feel isolated, be silenced and blame himself for revoking consent. Due to this article, this survivor should know he is not alone, we are listening, we believe him, and that it is not his fault.

    I learned how to treat survivors from the Bruin Consent Coalition (BCC).

    /Sarcasm