The next natural evolution of consent culture

There’s nothing like a good protest to excite the senses and stir the loins. When the workers and the activists unite together against their 1% captialist bosses, the camaraderie is palpable. But now, on college campuses across the United States, the 1 percent is fighting back. Using the Trojan horse of feminism, they are taking away the romanticism of the protest, removing all the sexuality inherent in fighting the bourgeoisie, and continuing their mission to turn the working class into sexless drones. I am, of course, talking about the bourgeois plague of affirmative consent.

Friends and comrades: affirmative consent is rubbish. While claiming to try to prevent rape on our nation’s college campuses, the petty bourgeois elements in academia have usurped power unto themselves and enacted a series of ridiculous step-by-step regulations that will enslave our students’ body parts to adjunct sub-committees and turn over due process to a group of Chablis-sipping, Saab-driving economics professors and other la-di-da administrators. Often referred to as “yes means yes,” these academics have sought to make sexual contact as exciting as filling out a student loan application.

When Lenin stormed the Winter Palace and sought a celebratory poke with a fellow comrade-in-arms, he did not have to elicit “da” from the lowly soldier that gave him a tug job behind the bins, nor a “da” from the servant that he did revolutionary style on the old Tsar’s bed! Tovarish Lenin was wise enough that he didn’t need a passel of bourgeois do-gooders incessantly cackling “Nyet means nyet” to refine his sexual style. And “da means da” would have dampened the mood on that glorious day.

These days, when students are attending a rally, no longer can the buzz of hearing the words of Mumia Abu-Jamal stir them to call for his freedom and their fellow activists into their beds. Now on college campuses, a checklist must be ticked off by bank manager wannabes. Would Che Guevara and whatever man or woman or person of gender diverse experience he sought to liberate with his socialist thrusts of sexual delight have consented to some bourgeois bastard with a clipboard checking off each stage of Marxist merriment?

Affirmative consent’s signature failure is that it is capitalist in its orientation. In fact, it even places responsibility of sexual conduct on the individual! What sort of cis-scum nonsense is that? Comrades, in the progressive era in which we live, allowing the individual choice over their own means of sexual interaction is both dangerous and inherently bourgeois. That is why we must choose to replace affirmative consent with social consent – only your social circle, commune or family can decide whom you should have sex with.

Social consent is the only progressive choice. Affirmative consent merely prolongs the free market delusions that the sexually entitled carry. They do not realize that the market for sex has completely failed and that society must step in to correct this. Social consent allows anyone but yourself to make informed choices about sex. This approach allows corrective measures to take place so that side effects of the free market of sex are curtailed. Imagine if someone was assigned sexual intercourse with Elliott Roger. No bloody massacre then! There would be no genital-hoarding scum like Julien Blanc driving Elliott Roger to homicide. In the world of social consent, Elliott would have asked his peers if he could have sexual intercourse with a co-ed. Of course society would have said no to that weedy bourgeois low life defiling its best youth, but society could, as a corrective measure, assign him to the manager of a Burger King or perhaps a reality television star. While both are associated with insects infesting flesh, Elliott’s sex with either one would have sated his homicidal tendencies.

So come the glorious day of the revolution, social consent is how we will choose to distribute the sexual ecstasy of the victory of the working classes. Sex for the people and by the people! I welcome ways that we can put in place technology where at least three comrades consent to two other comrades having sex with each other. Please leave your comments below. Thoughts from the cisgender biased supporters of affirmative consent are not welcome.

Adrian Kimble is the Leonard Peltier Distinguished Professor of Sociology at California State University – Barstow. Ze’s views are those of the working class and not the university.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.