Commenting on yet another case of campus SJWs run mad, in which a college junior made the mistake of expressing his disinterest in black girls and was subsequently suspended for six months, Walter Hudson nails their end game:

In a real sense, relationships are a privilege. In a world where relationships are consensual, they are a privilege sustained by mutual consent. I retain certain privileges with my spouse, my children, my friends and co-workers, the members of my congregation, and anyone else willing to associate with me.

If we’re going to bemoan such privilege as somehow unfair to those we choose not to associate with, the only practical remedy is removing consent from relationships.

And this is the point where things get interesting, as one group of campus radicals insists on such things as Yes Means Yes consent rules where you pretty much have to ask permission not only for sex but every step along the way (can I kiss your neck? can I touch your right boob? what about the left one? can I kiss your neck again? etc.) while another group wants to eliminate consent, or at least make it so you can’t not consent to their sexual advances even if they can refuse yours.

Some nutjobs even call it “reverse rape” as in this piece from Thought Catalog that we hope is satire:

That’s as much a Patriarchal power move as rape—in fact, it is rape. Denying a woman sexual fulfillment is rape. He didn’t force me to have sex with him, but he forced me not to have sex with him when I really wanted to—this is obviously just as bad.

…except we’ve seen screencaps from Tumblr expressing the same sentiments that sure didn’t seem to be kidding.

Consent for me but not for thee. The battle of the activists is starting to get entertaining, better make some popcorn.