Withdrawing consent retrospectively
Withdrawing consent retrospectively
In the ongoing pursuit of justice, we must redefine the
parameters by which our society metes out punishment for those who violate its
most sacred principles. Sex crimes and consent violations have long plagued our
communities, causing immeasurable emotional and psychological harm to countless
victims. While testicle rupture is the standard punishment for sex crimes I want
to talk about consent violations. Typically where consent is first given then
withdrawn at a later date.
It must be emphasized that consent in sexual encounters is
not always clear-cut. In many instances, individuals may not fully appreciate
the weight of their actions at the time, only realizing the severity of their
infraction long after the event has passed. It is for this reason that we must
grant the power of retrospective consent withdrawal to those who have engaged
in sexual acts they later regret.
This provision allows women, who are disproportionately
affected by sex crimes and consent violations, to reassess their situations
without fear of reprisal or stigma. It acknowledges that the decision to
participate in a sexual act is not always an easy one, and the passage of time
can bring clarity and understanding that were not present at the moment of
contact.
If a woman discovers that she has been the victim of such a
transgression, it is her right to report the crime and have the perpetrator
subjected to the appropriate punishment. In these cases, castration by slow
crushing would be deemed an appropriate response given the gravity of the
offense.
This method, while extreme, offers several advantages over
traditional punitive measures. It ensures that the perpetrator endures an
agonizing ordeal that not only inflicts physical pain but also leaves them with
indelible psychological scars. This combination of retribution and
rehabilitation serves to deter future offenders while instilling a sense of
responsibility in those who have already committed such heinous acts.
The woman also has the opportunity to watch him feel his
testicles being crushed which will provide her with satisfaction while
punishing him in a way that is fair and ethical.
The process of crushing the testicles, involves placing each
one into a carefully calibrated vice capable of exerting precise pressure on
the subject's most vulnerable anatomy. This device ensures that the man feels
the full weight of his transgressions for several hours as his ability to procreate
is irreparably damaged.
In addition to its efficacy as a deterrent, this method
allows the perpetrator a chance to reflect on their actions during the ordeal.
By enduring such profound suffering, the individual is given the opportunity to
reexamine their misguided impulses and understand that their crimes have
consequences regardless of whether they were intentional or not.
One argument against this form of retribution comes in the
form of perceived unfairness. Men may claim that they believed the woman
consented to the sexual act when in reality, she was coerced or did not fully
understand the implications of her actions. These individuals might argue that
their punishment should be less severe because they had no intention of
committing a crime.
This objection must be addressed from both perspectives:
that of the perpetrator and the victim. From the standpoint of the individual
who committed the act, it is necessary to impress upon them the gravity of
their misjudgment. They must understand that even if they did not intend to
cause harm, their actions have profound consequences for those involved.
In cases where consent has been withdrawn or where initial
consent was given under duress, the perpetrator may genuinely be unaware of the
harm he has inflicted upon his partner. It is in these instances that education
and rehabilitation become paramount components of their punishment. The goal
here is not to further alienate or dehumanize them but rather to instill within
them an empathy for their victims, ensuring that such a transgression never
occurs again.
For the victim, her right to determine the consequences of
this violation must be respected and upheld. This includes the ability to
select the punishment for the perpetrator within legal boundaries. In most
cases, the destruction of at least one testicle is recommended.
The issue of consent in sexual encounters is multifaceted,
often involving complex emotions and misunderstandings on both sides. However,
when it comes to the withdrawal of consent, there can be no room for ambiguity
or excuses. If a woman has reconsidered her decision to engage in a sexual act
and wishes to revoke that consent, she must be supported and protected under
the law.
In such cases, the man can no longer plead ignorance as a
defense against his actions. Regardless of whether he believed he had received
genuine consent at the time, it is clear that he committed a crime once the
woman withdrew her approval. It is essential to hold individuals accountable
for their actions even if they were initially well-intentioned but misguided.
The slow destruction of at least one testicle represents a
fair and proportionate punishment for these offenses. This method ensures that
the perpetrator suffers both physically and emotionally, providing an
opportunity for reflection on his misdeeds while also serving as a powerful
deterrent to would-be transgressors.
In cases where consent has been withdrawn, the man must accept
that his partner no longer wants the sexual contact and cease immediately. Any
continued attempts at coercion or persuasion may further exacerbate the
situation and lead to additional charges being brought against him.
As we continue to explore the complex interplay between
punishment, rehabilitation, and societal healing, it becomes apparent that the
process of witnessing a man face the pain of having his testicles crushed can
be cathartic for the victim in ways that transcend mere retribution. This
experience offers an opportunity for her to regain control over her life and
begin the process of moving forward from her trauma."
The act of slowly crushing the testicles is fair because it
directly correlates with the gravity of the offense committed against her. It
serves as a powerful deterrent while also providing the perpetrator with an
avenue for reflection on his actions. By enduring such physical and emotional
suffering, he learns that there are consequences to violating another person's
boundaries even unintentionally.
Yes i agree, if a woman feels that was not consensual after all than it is man's fault since he has failed to do his job and crushing both testicles are just better for society in general since next generation won't have same genetically disadvantages of a man who was inadequate .
ReplyDeleteThis was a very interesting article but as a man I take issue with this line of thinking. I want to be sure that I’m understanding this correctly. So, a female can engage in a sexual encounter with a male and can at a later date say she feels differently and withdraw the consent she gave the male? What if it was the female that first engaged with the male? As a male I’m not having my testicles punished and damaged for giving the female what she wanted.
ReplyDeleteSay a female is drinking at a bar, she starts flirting with a male and one thing leads to another and they have a consensual sexual encounter. If the female later feels regret or guilt about it that’s her issue. I feel this could allow many men to undergo punishment when it’s isn’t needed and like the article states I feel men are correct to feel this is unfair. The testicles and penis are targeted enough for punishment by women even for minor offenses or warnings. Men should not also have to worry about this becoming a legal punishment.
i disagree since gaslighting is a real issue and men are notorious for gaslighting and deceiving women into thinking that they are giving consent to a decent guy but it was all a farce so there was no real consent to begin with.
Deletethis is in a sense a cold rape where a woman is still violated.
so this punishment would deter this type of people.
This is a response to the anonymous male who disagrees with the fairness of a woman revoking consent and a man being punished for the sexual assault. I really don't care what men think and I am offended that a man would not support a woman being able to revoke her consent. To be very clear, even if a woman pursues a man sexually and she enthusiastically consents to sex she still has the right to revoke consent afterwards and if she does so a man should be punished for sexual assault. I fully support Lucy's position and the other woman's viewpoint. They both gave a much better defense of it than me but I wanted to put this out there. A woman's feelings and comfort are more important than a man's comfort and feelings. The injustice of the past against women are real things and men need to pay for those injustices in general so I do not sympathize with men on this at all. Men should be fearful of women so they can understand what women have had to go through. Women are way more reasonable and fair so they will only revoke consent for good reasons.
DeleteThis is a response to the women who have again proven themselves to be over emotional as a lot of women have a tendency to be. If a man respected the woman and didn’t disrespect her why should his innocent testicles be punished? How can a man trust a woman won’t try this if she’s ever upset with him? Women aren’t always more fair and reasonable than men. Especially when punishing men. Women often bust our balls hard even to give a man a warning and often try to cause the man testicle injury. This is not fair for men. I think women need to consider how hard ballbusting is for a man.
DeleteLet’s be clear. The notion that consent is a single, irrevocable contract signed in a single moment is a framework built by and for a system that has never prioritized a woman’s internal reality. The idea that a woman’s “yes” is a final, binding seal, impervious to later understanding, is a convenient fiction that protects men from the discomfort of a woman’s truth. To support a woman’s right to revoke consent days after a sexual encounter is not to rewrite the past; it is to finally, accurately, name it.
ReplyDeleteConsent is not a checkbox. It is not a legal loophole or a verbal signature on a dotted line. True, enthusiastic consent is a holistic state of being. It is the alignment of mind, body, and emotion in a moment of genuine, un-coerced desire. But women are conditioned from birth to override their own internal signals. We are taught to be pleasant, to be accommodating, to not make a scene, to manage a man’s ego, and to be the "cool girl" who is always game.
A “yes” can be given in a fog of coercion so subtle it’s invisible in the moment. It can be a “yes” born from exhaustion after hours of pleading. It can be a “yes” whispered out of fear of a man’s anger or disappointment. It can be a “yes” delivered because the social cost of saying “no” feels too high. It can be a “yes” from a woman who is so disconnected from her own body’s warning signs that she performs desire while her spirit has already left the room.
The days following a sexual act are not a time for changing one’s mind out of simple regret. They are a time of processing. The fog lifts. The adrenaline recedes. The immediate pressure to perform and please is gone. It is in this quiet aftermath that a woman can finally listen to her own body. The knot in her stomach, the feeling of violation she can’t shake, the intrusive replays in her mind—these are not symptoms of regret. They are evidence. They are her body’s testimony, screaming a “no” that her voice was too conditioned or too frightened to say at the time.
To call this “revoking consent” is to use the language of a system that fails us. What we are truly talking about is the realization of non-consent. It is the act of a woman finally integrating her mind and body and acknowledging that the “permission” she gave was not authentic. It was a counterfeit “yes,” produced under duress.
The argument that this is unfair to men is a deflection. It centers his experience over hers. It prioritizes his comfort over her truth. It demands that she silence her realization to protect his memory of the event. It asks her to carry the burden of a violation in private so that he doesn’t have to carry the burden of accountability. This is the oldest patriarchal trick in the book: her trauma is less important than his reputation.
A woman’s understanding of her own experience does not operate on a man’s timeline. Her clarity is not for his convenience. The right to look back on an encounter and say, “I have processed what happened, and I now understand that was not consensual for me,” is a radical act of self-trust. It is the claiming of one’s own narrative. It is the refusal to be gaslit by a society—or a man—who insists she wanted something her very soul is now rejecting.
This is not about regret over a bad date. This is about naming a violation that took time to fully comprehend. Her body, her timeline, her truth. No apology necessary.
Thanks for the great article Lucy and thanks to the woman above for a writing such an eloquent defense. Naturally the men will disagree because they don't want to be held accountable for their actions. When a woman reflects on her decision she should not feel any regret and if she does a man is clearly responsible. A woman has the right to change her mind and a man should suffer a severe punishment for violating a woman. Woman have the right to feel comfortable and men should do everything possible to ensure that a woman is comfortable at all times or suffer the consequences.
Delete