An opinion columnist at American University has written a piece attacking feminists and queer activists as overly sensitive and anti-sex, comparing them inexplicably to the "great religions of the world."
The anti-sex thing might actually makes some sense, given that his own view of being pro-sex somehow equates with being pro-date rape. Date-rape and consent, he argues are too loose of concepts to be applied to "the sexual arena" and "the volatility of its practice."
Helpfully, he breaks it down further: "There's rape and there's not rape."
"Rape," apparently means a violent attacker jumping out of the bushes, "not rape" seems to be just about anything else. A woman drinking alcohol and going to a man's room is "indicating" consent to sex (emphasis mine). Sex is not about "contract-signing" (read: normal, healthy communication between partners, like, "Is this okay?"); rather, it is about "control" and "surrender."
O, rlly? Ew.
At least you have a handy example next time someone asks you what rape culture is or why feminism still matters.
