One Man Rebels Against A Sexual Consent Class In The UK One man stands up to the commissars, but does he see the bigger picture?

An October 24, 2015 article on the BBC’s website highlighted the sad dynamic between the radical left and the remaining pockets of resistance to its feminist-centric ideology in the West. It has something to tell us about thought control, the boundaries of acceptable discourse, and the enforcement of ideological correctness.

George Lawlor, a 19-year old student at the United Kingdom’s University of Warwick, received a Facebook invitation to a “sexual consent” class. Had this been America, he most likely would have bowed his head in unthinking obeisance and shuffled his feet dutifully to the class for his indoctrination lecture.

But “consent” classes are still somewhat new in UK universities, and Lawlor chose to react as any normal, free-thinking man would. He was outraged. He called the very idea of such a class “loathsome” and “the biggest insult I’ve received in a few years.”

Welcome to the New World Order, George.

He even published a short article on why he felt this way. Consider these choice comments:

Let me explain, I love consent. Of course people should only interact with mutual agreement, but I still found this invitation loathsome. Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face. To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.

Self-appointed teachers of consent: get off your fucking high horse. I don’t need your help to understand basic human interaction. Secondly, go and do something. Real people need your help and they deserve better than you. Next time you consider inviting me or anyone else to another bullshit event like this, have a little respect for the intelligence and decency of your peers. You might find that’s a more effective solution than accusing them of being vile rapists-in-waiting who can only be taught otherwise by a smug, righteous, self-congratulatory intervention.

Ah, how refreshing it is. One is comforted to know that there are at least some men with functioning genitalia left in the US-UK university system. Perhaps George should be giving classes to the chickenshit, gutless university administrators who foist such “classes” on us.

But that is a topic for another day.

At this whiff of resistance to the dominant ideology, the commissariat moved quickly first to do damage control, and then to the offense. According to the UK’s National Union of Students, there is “a need” for consent “education,” due to the fact that “one in seven” students claim to have been “raped.”

This lie is, of course, nothing new. The feminist-SJW clique has been peddling the rape mythos for so long now that hardly anyone dares question it.

What should focus our attention is this excerpt from the BBC’s article, a quote from Susuana Amoah, the NUS’s Women’s Officer (and I’m sure she has a cushy, do-nothing government job in her future):

NUS Women’s Officer Susuana Amoah says consent courses cover legal aspects of consent as well as social situations and general sexuality education…

Amoah admits there’s no hard evidence that the classes, which are more common in the US but spreading rapidly in the UK, reduce the incidence of sexual assault – but she chalks this up to patchy reporting of these incidents on campus.

And herein lies the reality. By making “consent classes” embrace “general sexuality education,” they are rendered so broad as to subsume just about anything. According to Ms. Amoah’s logic, having to go to a “consent” class is acceptable because it covers other things as well.

Well, then, maybe we should append a “consent” class to the tail end of a physics lecture. Or maybe download it into a computer programming course. Or maybe do a performance-art version of a “consent” class in a theatre guild. Why not?

But, sorry to say, even this misses the point. Lawlor, Amoah, and the NUS are simply pawns on the chessboard, guided by hands unseen. The goal of it all is to enforce a certain paradigm useful to the ruling cliques.  This little experience of Mr. Lawlor has nothing to do with “consent” (everyone already knows what it is), but everything to do with the requirements of power.

They don’t want to educate you on consent, George.  They want you thrash you into obedience, to make you fear them.

The real issue here is one of power and control. The commissars who set up and put on this little “consent” pantomime are concerned with neither education nor truth. They are concerned with intimidation, power, and enforcing the reigning ideology.

Even George doesn’t really see this yet. Oh, but he will, I am sorry to say. George does not understand that he is being groomed for indoctrination to an ideology. He will eventually be expected to mouth its platitudes, genuflect to its altars, and rush to its defense in times of peril.

Systems of power and control behave this way. Attendance in a “consent” class is an indication of one’s willingness to submit to indoctrination. This is what matters, not the NUS’s fraudulent data about consent.

Historian Toby Green chronicled this pedagogy of coercion and intimidation brilliantly in his exhaustive work of history Inquisition: The Reign of Fear. In Iberian societies coming under the Inquisition’s control, no deviation from doctrinal orthodoxy could be tolerated. It cast a shadow over the lives of all citizens of Spain and Portugal, using imaginary bugbears (“heresy” or “impiety”) to enforce a uniform standard of thought.

This is why many historians count the Inquisition as among the first modern institutions. The modern feminist-SJW hack functions in the same way: through tireless repetition of threadbare mantras that have nothing to do with truth, yet everything to do with control.

Over time, this type of enforced ideology does great damage: it prevents the forward movement of ideas, the free interchange of knowledge, and dulls the sensibilities of the population.

If you think I’m exaggerating, consider Rebecca Reid, described by the BBC as a “feminist commentator from the Daily Telegraph.” Once she got wind of this story, she had some choice words of her own. She actually thinks we need more classes, not less:

But instead of eliminating them [consent classes] completely, Reid says she’d like consent education spread more widely across the university curriculum.

‘If a university is going to work against sexual assault then in the first week when they talk to you about being careful where you put your money and looking after yourself, not getting meningitis, not using the neighbour’s bins – that’s the moment to take 15 minutes with all the young freshers (first-year students) to lay down the law and to make a clear point about what is and isn’t acceptable.’

Meaning, of course, “laying down the law” to all of the young men that if they even think about stepping out of line from feminist-SJW talking points, they will be expelled from school with no due process, or falsely accused of rape.

This, of course, is the real agenda.

And coercion—whether real or just implied—can be depressingly effective, at least in the short term. Even our own brave George Lawlor seems to have backed down from his original position.

He has said that he plans to attend one of the classes. “I think it’s only right and fair that if I criticize something I have to experience it. But I don’t feel as if I need it, I feel that I have to go because I’ve written about it.”

I winced when I read that last quote. One need not “experience” every evil to know it is evil. You need only life experience and a sense of history, and then you will know.

Read More: Four Reasons To Be A Lifelong Renter