Repression Kills.

It is naiive to presume that a more stringent definition of rape can lessen rates of it. In fact, what we resist persists. By making the legal definition of rape too stringent Californians not only restrict their own freedom but that of each other. This can be perceived all so as sexual discrimination and artistic disenfranchisement against social deviants like B.D.S.M. practitioners (who in other respect lead fairly integrated lives). By repressing the sexual instinct in these parties one is apt to make them snap. By equating non-verbal consent, a priori [including written] consent, et cetera with violent assault, one begins a crusade less against actions and more against the soul(s). This means that the deviant who has the nerve to break with legality, usually in a situation of trust with a partner of mutual interest, all ready feels guilty and feels his or her self to be a rapist out side of the parental approval of the law. This cognitive dissonance creates a slippery slope (which in this case is a psychologically justified possibility, rather than a fallacy, because so much of its possibility depends upon the function of the individual psyche; that we can picture the fallacy evidences that this individual can commit it) towards other more aggregious actions that fall under our legal definition, which has over-stepped its self by sub-verting the individual's ethical system from the out-set.

Dm.A.A.