Any man who supports "yes means yes" has got to ask himself a serious question, a serious question that no feminist or anti-rape advocate has been able to answer adequately:

What happens when a woman "actively, affirmatively, enthusiastically answers yes to every escalation" and, despite this, still feels violated a day or some days afterword?

Are you anti-rape advocates really going to say that this woman has no right to feel violated, simply because she said yes? Somehow I don't think so, because that would make you a rape apologist no different than what you call us.

So you will contradict your own standard whenever circumstances permit; "while she consented, it wasn't a real consent and, therefore, no consent at all, because if it was a real consent, she would have not felt bad about it." And so, you are at the same problem you were at with every other law to combat "date rape", no matter what legal standard is imposed to define lawful sex, there is no way you can prevent women from feeling bad about it.

Make no mistake, the whole shibboleth of "consent" really has no meaning to anti-rape advocates. It was never about consent; it was about punishing sex that makes the woman feel bad. But if we were to structure the criminal code to punish one person for another's bad feelings, we would have no law at all, no contracts, no rights, no claims and no standing.

Sometimes, I think that's the very point of such ideas.