Two years ago, looking at the college crusade against “rape” for the first time, I came up with this theory:
Romantic love between men and women is the glue that holds families together. Without families, there would be no civil society. They are nature’s last mediating institution between the individual and the state. Parents form their own self-governing unit in the home and provide their children a direct link to their cultural heritage, which resists radical big government pressure to transform.
This new sexual harassment policy puts another nail in the coffin of conjugal love. Men, the natural aggressors when it comes to sex, will be so frightened of courting women that they will give up and seek gratification elsewhere, with fewer and fewer of them maturing into the husbands and fathers that a wife’s love otherwise transforms them into. And women, already dissatisfied with the milquetoast males produced by the feminist socialization apparatus, will be even more embittered by the further diminished pool of marriageable men.
In short, I viewed it as a Communist front attacking the foundation of the family, conjugal love.
There’s a giant hole in this theory: Campus culture before the anti-“rape” movement was already a resounding victory over conjugal love, which is difficult to foster in a hedonistic sexual free-for-all. Desexualization, or less sex, if anything, would help improve fostering conjugal love and family formation. So what’s really going on?
What drives the whole prudish, anti-rape movement is the idol of authorship of sexual destiny. Sex used to involve two equal partners. Now one of those is reduced to be the other’s tool. Before he can escalate relations, he must acquire consent before proceeding. Even then an accusation of rape from her months later with zero corroborating witnesses and zero physical evidence can result in him being expelled without due process by the campus Gestapo. This puts her completely in charge of sexual intercourse and prioritizes her experience and gratification. (Of course, the way this plays out in real life is very scripted and unerotic. As in supply-side economics, in love both man and woman supply something the other didn’t want, but longed for after it was provided.)
Yes, this is consistent with the feminist tactic to shame and emasculate men. But it’s important to the likes of Valenti and Filipovic in that it represents much more than reversing the traditional passive/active roles of women and men during coitus. At its core is the radical right to self-definition beyond behavior, beyond society, beyond biology. It raises consent to ultimate, unaccountable self-will. Of course, only infants get what they want when they want it, so the very nature of the created universe is destined to frustrate these monsters.
Add to that stoked female resentment of “patriarchy,” of their lot in life as it pertains to their biological sex, and you get a powerful emotional narrative of women taking back their sexual identity from whomever stole and has been keeping it from them since the beginning of time. A strong dose of the reality of human fallenness and redemption through the blood of Jesus, Son of God, would go a long way here.