When Feminists Turn the Immoral into the Illegal:

The first wave feminist Prohibitionists pushed to make alcohol illegal, and when they succeeded, it became more and more obvious the problems and corruption that occurred with trying to treat the immorality of being drunk as the crime of consuming liquor. Now the 4th wave feminists have their own version of Prohibition, trying to make more and more of what is sexually immoral into what is illegal, without regard to the corruption of justice that can occur when you try to make every immoral thing illegal.

I've said that the church needs to care about feminist perversions of justice, even when those areas of justice are dealing with the results of sexual sin. It is morally wrong for a man to leer at a woman? Yes. Should it be illegal? If so, as a woman, would you argue that you should never be the object of male visual sexual attention? If not, then how do you legally delineate the male visual sexual attention you accept and enjoy from the male visual sexual attention you don’t? How do you prove that a man was leering at you, as opposed to merely noticing you? Making leering illegal smacks of an attempt to sanitize life to only experience the good but not the bad that sometimes comes with the good.

Is it morally wrong for a sober man to have sex with a tipsy woman? Yes. Should it be illegal since a tipsy/drunk woman may not give the same consent as she would when sober? If so, why do our laws acknowledge that a drunk person is legally responsible for their actions when they get in a car or when they display disorderly behavior in public?

The consequence of feminists wanting to turn all of what is sexually immoral into being illegal is that it brings an excessive amount of subjectivity into the picture, and requires proof of what cannot be proven, and requires double standards and inconsistency between one set of laws to the next. In the absence of any concrete proof, a woman can say that she felt leered at, and/or can say that she did not provide consent and a man is in the de facto position of proving his innocence.

This makes the question of sexual harassment, assault and even rape into something that is too easily exploited by unscrupulous women who can game the system against men, as in the case of this video about what is going on in Israel. Every false cry of rape serves to dilute and pollute the quest for justice of those who truly have been raped.
This is a consequence of feminists only seeing the immorality of male sexual misbehavior but not that of female misbehavior and female responsibility and agency. It is also a consequence of the failure of feminists to affirm masculinity as something intrinsically good that requires cultural space for strong men to guide other men into right behavior. Lacking this, they look to ever more stringent laws to punish male misbehavior.

The Imploding World of Non-Committal Sex

This is a developing argument of mine: Secular Humanism has proven itself as failed a guide to sexual ethics and morality. Feminism is Secular Humanism applied to gender and sexuality.
As others (like my friend Sako) have said, sex cannot be sacred unless there is some higher truth giving it sacredness. When the higher truth, the spiritual structure of reality as God has created and designed it, is denied through secularism, sex is profaned, and someone can try to conceive of the idea of “casual sex”. In truth, sex is not casual nor was it designed to be done outside of commitment. You can have non-committal sex, but never casual sex, and you cannot have non-committal sex that is both fun and safe and you cannot ever have non-committal sex that produces any lasting happiness, since any temporary "fun" of non-committal sex will come at a price of sadness sooner or later.
This is becoming a more and more inescapable for the “sex positive” 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists, pick up artists, and the 4th wave feminists who are trying to control "casual sex" and mitigate its inherent emotional damage by making ever more stringent legal and often ridiculous standards for consent. What all of these have in common is that they are all secular humanists who all bought into "casual sex". The culture of non-committal sex was never safe physically and emotionally, and is becoming less safe legally by the day for pick up artists. What one writer wrote many years ago about std's in the porn industry, “recess is over in the playpen of the damned", is applicable to the crumbling edifice of "casual sex".
You can’t have the fun of sex without mystery and spontaneity / you can’t have spontaneity without non-verbal forms of consent/ you can’t have non-verbal consent without trust / you can’t have trust without commitment/ and you cannot hold to any of this if you do not recognize that there is a higher spiritual truth that makes sex sacred.