As mentioned in the previous post, one way to attempt to gauge the true intent of a new law is to evaluate it its impact. From the perspective of an individual college age woman, one interested in playing the field (NAWALT applies) as effectively advocated by thought leaders, then these laws appear as if they would have a positive impact. These will both be implicitly upon the women, and many will undoubtedly also explicitly use these laws to good effect.
First the implicit part. These consent forms can hardly help but have a chilling effect on young men who possess poor or marginal confidence, social skills, appearance, risk taking nature, etc. required to function well in the SMP. These attractive to women men are often referred to as alphas, and will have the field to themselves. However, there is some question as to whether there will be a chilling effect on them also, for there are many scenarios where they might get into trouble also. But in the end, many women would consider this situation as an improvement, as less attractive men no longer even bother, making her task simpler.
As for the explicit part, here is a quote from Dalrock,
I think there is another side to the same coin. These women don’t just want to build a better beta, they want to tame the alpha. In fact, I think the former is just another way they are trying to approach the latter. They want to take an inherently unsafe activity and make it safe. They want to submit to a man without having to submit; they want a man who can tame their feral self. They want him to trip their danger signals. Even better if he is a stranger from a strange land.
They want this all to happen without giving up their freedom; they want to play this out in the context of serial monogamy, so they can feel loved while also claiming their promiscuity is moral. They want to lose control to a string of strangers who have all of the hallmarks of very dangerous men, and they want a promise that this will always end well.
They want to know that this will be safe, without it losing the excitement of it feeling unsafe. They are telling men to build a sort of serial monogamy amusement park where they can ride the roller coaster and experience the fear of falling or crashing, while knowing that just behind the scenes grown ups are actually in charge and are responsible for them safely feeling unsafe.
One more thing. As I mentioned above they don’t want to be hemmed in. So instead of building an actual amusement park, they want roller coasters to spring up randomly in the same exact circumstances where the real danger they mimic would appear. They want to be driving their car on the freeway one instant, and the next experience the fear of careening out of control. They want to impulsively jump off the edge of the Grand Canyon and have a parachute appear and deploy at the last minute. And all they ask is your guarantee that all of this will be safe.
Basically these women want a very safe sexual theme park where they can manipulate the situation to optimize whatever it is that they want (e.g. tingles), and be safe at the same time (with they themselves possibly manipulating the environment to make this happen). The new consent form laws provide many possibilities here. It is not known exactly how the law may be utilized by young women; but it takes little imagination to think of ways that it could be used to achieve the above mentioned theme park goals.
But once again, long term effects apparently are ignored. Or perhaps the people behind these laws do not care.