Australia Pulls Bizarre Milkshake Video Explaining Consent Theory After Spending $4 Million on It

There are a lot of bizarre aspects of Western society, which are counter-intuitive and anti-nature.

Every bizarre element of the society can be traced back to some structural element that was laid down as a foundation for the modern social order over the last 100 years. The most obvious of these is Consent Theory, which serves as the total basis for sexual relations, and yet is utterly incoherent.

What has happened is that an entire set of new norms has been built on this foundational idea, and with the development of the norms, the doctrine of consent has continually become more convoluted and confusing.

It is no wonder that someone trying to reduce consent theory to its core elements, based on how it is implemented in modern society, would have difficulty.

The Guardian:

The federal government spent nearly half the $7.8m it allocated to its “Respect Matters” campaign on a website that included a “bizarre” video that taught sex consent through milkshakes, which has now been removed in response to widespread criticism.

According to the government’s public contract database, the Department of Education paid a digital media agency nearly $3.8m to create the campaign that included the video.

On Tuesday, the Department of Education took down the milkshake video – and another video – citing “community and stakeholder feedback”.

The campaign, called The Good Society, was heavily criticised on Monday for the “confusing” video, where a young woman smears a milkshake over a young man’s face while telling him to “drink it all”.

The video, which aims to teach school children about sex consent, also draws comparisons between “getting pizza” and “can I touch your butt?”

“When a person imposes their will on you, it’s as if they were moving the ‘Yes line’ over the ‘Maybe zone’ or the ‘End zone’, ignoring your rich inner world,” the video voiceover says. “And that’s not good.”

I don’t think the problem is that it trivializes rape or abuse. The problem is that there is no way to simplify Consent Theory.

The only way Consent Theory works is that it cannot be simplified. If you begin to try to simplify it, it loses its mystique and becomes gibberish. That is what happened in this video.

The reason it cost millions of dollars, for filming something that should cost a couple thousand, is that they no doubt had to keep rewriting it and bringing in new experts to try to make sense of what they were trying to communicate.

One of the big problems with the video is that it shows the female violating consent. They no doubt did this because they wanted to show that consent is somehow universal. But it actually isn’t universal. The basis of the doctrine is that a man is physically more powerful than a woman, and can overpower her physically if he wants to. If it was not for this strength differential, there would be no need for Consent Theory in the first place.

You can think of an attempt to deconstruct Consent Theory as similar to various evangelical attempts to literally interpret the Bible, which have ended very badly. Many evangelicals claim that dinosaurs either did not exist, or that dinosaurs roamed the earth in large numbers 6,000 years ago. However, with the Bible, it is very easy to explain that its foundational myths are allegorical, not literal – and that is in fact how the Catholic Church treated them for thousands of years.

With Consent Theory, you can’t claim that it is an allegory, or symbolic. This is supposed to be a set of rules that govern male-female interactions, and in fact, it is supposed to be a basis for a legal theory of rape.

The need to present a comprehensive explanation of Consent Theory peaked when Harvey Weinstein was sent to prison for decades for having sex with his girlfriend. It was admitted by all parties that both before and after the alleged “rape,” the two had had “consensual sex,” and that the “rape” was an isolated event. It was unclear why it was a rape and not consensual sex, given that no force was used. The argument of the Jewish-feminist prosecution was that a rape is possible even if the man doesn’t know he is committing a rape.

The core argument was: “this man is disgusting and shouldn’t be allowed to have sex with beautiful women,” and the jury agreed with that. The jury agreed after they’d been shown pictures of the man’s penis. (The court did not really present an explanation as to why the jury was shown nude pictures of Weinstein, given that both parties admitted that they had had sex – there was no need to confirm the description of his nude form given by the “victim.” It was done purely for emotional reasons.)

The problem is “ew, that’s gross” is not a legal argument.

The conviction of Harvey Weinstein opened up an entire new route of prosecuting men not just for rape but for other forms of abuse. Because the prosecution of Weinstein was a pop culture event, the standard applied across the Western world.

There was a lot of build-up to the Weinstein verdict. One key event was the trial of Brock Turner, who was convicted of rape for fingering a girl who was allegedly passed out drunk. The girl was his date and “consensually” went with him alone to a private place, but because she was drunk, she could not consent to being fingered, and thus it was rape.

Consent Theory hit a speed bump during the Mattress Girl fiasco, when a girl (who, like Brock Turner’s accuser, was both Jewish and Asian, in a weird coincidence), was unsuccessful in her attempt to get a man prosecuted for rape because she sent him love/sex text messages after the alleged rape.

But with Weinstein, they said that the love/sex text messages that his alleged victim had sent him did not prove his innocence, and that she could have send him these love/sex messages as a result of her being abused so hard that she didn’t even know she was being abused. The logic then becomes that not only can a man rape a woman without knowing he is raping her, but a woman can be raped without knowing it is a rape. The woman can find out years later when she is sitting around thinking about it, and the man can find out years later when the police knock on his door.

What is It All About?

The core question here seems to have been lost: what actually are we even talking about when we talk about “consent”?

Well, it primarily comes down to the need to standardize an understanding of when sex is illicit, given that most sex in society is now outside of the bounds of the traditional understanding of sex.

The traditional understanding of sex is that there are two kinds of sex:

  • Licit sex
  • Illicit sex

Licit sex is sex between a man and a woman, inside of the bonds of marriage. Traditionally, there was no such thing as “spousal rape.”

Illicit sex is any sex outside of the bonds of marriage. There were both legal and illegal forms of illicit sex, traditionally, with the legal forms usually involving a pay by the hour/night prostitute. Illegal forms involved a woman who was either married or betrothed for marriage engaging in sex with someone other than her husband/husband-to-be.

Everything was more or less straightforward within this system. If a woman did not scream, and did not have any bruises, and did not claim that the man threatened her with a weapon, it was traditionally assumed that the woman “wanted it” enough to not prevent it from happening, and thus she would be guilty if it was determined the sex act was criminal.

This all changed with the sexual revolution, when it was decided that women could have illicit sex wantonly, and that any negative results of this – including her feeling negative emotions – were the fault of the man, given that he is physically stronger.

From there, it was a downward spiral, as the courts and the society began justifying ever more bizarre scenarios.

Women Do Feel Abused

I do not believe women, as a rule. Some right-wingers will try to say that you should believe white women over black or Jewish men, but I do not. A woman’s narrative is fundamentally unreliable, because she has no way to separate her emotions from the facts of reality.

Jessica Mann was a beautiful woman who had sex for years on end with Harvey Weinstein because he had power, and women are sexually aroused by power, regardless of what the bearer of that power looks like physically. Claiming that they had sex for years, but that one time, in the midst of that long-term sexual relationship, he raped her – without force – is clearly a completely absurd proposition. People who would claim otherwise have some kind of agenda.

I’ve written extensively about the Weinstein rape scam, and a lot of it is very good.

The series of articles involved a dispute with various costumed neo-Nazi groups who claimed that justice is irrelevant and establishing precedent with Weinstein didn’t matter.

Here are some of the greatest hits of that series:

However, even granting that virtually every rape claim is a hoax, I do believe that women feel abused in this current sexual freedom landscape. Clearly, whether they “consent” or not to all of this sex they are having, it has an effect on their psychology.

The logical plan of action would be to transition back into a mode of traditional sex norms. This creates a situation where it is very difficult for a woman to feel as though she’s been abused, and if she has objectively been abused, it is very easy to punish the guilty, without having to invent a complex scheme.

No one is going to create a logical system to explain the state of Consent Theory, and for the time-being, it is only going to be a way to punish men for engaging in sex. In the longer run, the inability of the government and media to produce a comprehensive explanation of what “consent” is, and how men are capable of protecting themselves if they are accused of violating it, is going to result in men opting out of engaging with women altogether. This will create a hell for women, as the entire purpose of their existence revolves around getting attention from men.

So there is an ongoing process by the authorities to make sense of Consent, but this is simply going to result in $4 million nonsensical milkshake videos. To make sense of the theory of Consent, you would have to invent a way to objectively measure women’s emotions, and correlate them with facts, and this is not possible.

Note: This article is mostly a worse version of a previous article, “Yes, The White Girls Involved with Pakistani Drug Gangs are “Guilty” and Should be Punished