There was a time when a man interested in a woman signaled it by sitting in a room with her parents, chatting cheerfully while they passed judgment on whether he would be allowed to speak to her in a less formal setting. It was suffocating and restrictive but at least everyone knew the rules. If there are rules now, they are clearly not widely understood. In at least one of the Ottawa cases, that of Massimo Pacetti, the allegations appear to turn on what constitutes “consent.” The woman, we are told, provided a condom, but didn’t view that as “consent.” Whatever else may have transpired, it seems possible that Mr. Pacetti might have reasonably interpreted the signals otherwise. The courts are still passing judgment on that sort of issue, and when courts get involved it’s further evidence that rules aren’t understood. (Source)
This is not a conservative problem. We believe sex belongs in marriage only. Having the State intrude and rule on the nuances of casual sex involving a condom and whether it constitutes consent is a problem of the sexual revolution that liberals need to deal with.
Ironic, isn’t it? “Having the State in the bedrooms of the nation” was always thought to be a conservative hangup. Now it’s like the big poster boy for the Courts and the Sexual Revolution.
Maybe we conservatives should use Trudeau’s line in trying to get people to wake up and keep the judges away from the bedrooms by encouraging real, authentic, and faithful sex — the only sex that really matters and gives meaning to life.