I'm pretty men can consent. And I've been told that women can do anything a man can do.
Women consent. In fact, they beg for it sometimes. It’s weird, but they feel obligated when their roommate isn’t getting laid.
Wasn’t that what the song “Groovin” was about?
Life would be ecstasy/You and me, and Leslie...Groovin....
The perversions the left think up are breathtaking.
Liberation but only if each are a different gender and race.
This judge needs to be impeached
You sure this is not from the Onion or the Babylon Bee?
Thank God Mrs L never went to college.
L
Thank God our judicial system is finally dealing with this longstanding legal conundrum. Alas, I fear that the good Judge has raised more questions than he answered.
-What if it’s a lesbian threesome? Did all three lack consent?
-Women? Did he assume the gender? That’s literally rape.
-What about a foursome? This limited ruling is the epitome of patriarchal bigotry.
-What about transpersons? Can they consent to a threesome? Does it matter if they identify as women? Can a transwoman consent?
There is just so much more. We need more litigation on these pressing matters. Otherwise, we will never know the answers.
The university said this because there were two males. If it had been 3 females, or 3 males, the university would have done nothing.
How about universities not promoting wanton unnatural sex? How about they stop treating males as evil predators?
Sounds pretty sexist and anti-free love just on its face. What kind of liberal judge is this?
And here is the sort of crap that happens when we keep indulging people who want to deviate from cultural norms.
I'm sure there will be people who inform me that threesomes have no detrimental impact on society or individuals going forward.
Decadent Rome, here we come!
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
From related threads…
Patriots are reminded that the only sex-related protection that the states have amended to the Constitution expressly protect limits Congress’s legislative powers to deal with such issues to voting rights concerns, evidenced by the 19th Amendment.
19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
Since the referenced issue is clearly outside the scope of voting rights concerns, it is just other unconstitutional federal law based on stolen state powers imo.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the Democratic career lawmakers who made Title IX made this law to exploit low-information voters by winning their votes to stay in office another term.
Also note that this Title IX concern is probably related to satisfying federal requirements for unconstitutional, vote-buying federal funding for schools.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, consider that President Thomas Jefferson had indicated in State of the Union address that the states would need to appropriately amend the Constitution in order for Congress to dictate policy for INTRAstate schools, something that the states have never done.
On a few articles of more general and necessary use, the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added].”—Thomas Jefferson : Sixth Annual Message to Congress
Justice Joseph Story had also indicated that intrastate schools were hands-off to Congress.
"The power to regulate manufactures, not having been confided to congress, they have no more right to act upon it, than they have to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws, of the states [emphases added]. Congress is empowered to lay taxes for revenue, it is true; but there is no power to encourage, protect, or meddle with manufactures." —Joseph Story, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 2
The referenced, institutionally indoctrinated judge is helping a previous generation of corrupt lawmakers to further unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal government’s powers imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Threesome porn? The one with beautiful lesbos is always a ratings knockout.