This week the university produced a document... which tried to explain its approach.... The document listed eight "scenarios" that fit under the university's extraordinarily broad conception of "non-consensual sex."Johnson highlights only one of Yale's fictional scenarios:
"Morgan and Kai are friends who begin dancing and kissing at a party. They are both drunk, although not to the point of incapacitation. Together they decide to go to Kai's room. They undress each other and begin touching each other. Morgan moves as if to engage in oral sex and looks up at Kai questioningly. Kai nods in agreement and Morgan proceeds. Subsequently, without pausing to check for further agreement, Kai begins to perform oral sex on Morgan. Morgan lies still for a few minutes, then moves away, saying it is late and they should sleep."Note to Johnson: The statutes in my state use the terms "sexual contact" and "sexual intercourse" (not "rape") and "sexual intercourse" includes cunnilingus and fellatio. [ADDED: Statutes defining crimes.]
According to Yale, "Kai" is a guilty of having had nonconsensual sex, a term that most people would consider to be rape.
But quite aside from that, what's with "anti-male"? I have absolutely no idea whether Morgan and Kai are 2 men, 2 women, or a man and a woman. And if they're a man and a woman, I can't tell if Morgan's the man and Kai is the woman or Kai is the man and Morgan is the woman. I think Yale's fiction writers are deliberately making the sex of these 2 characters inscrutable, which makes the scenario damned hard to visualize.
I am concerned about the due process problems in the way universities enforce their sex codes as they bumble along trying to make the campus climate welcoming for everybody, but I'm drawn toward pitying whoever got the assignment to write those scenarios. Pitying and laughing at. Imagine needing to describe explicit sex that is utterly not titillating and duly instructive. Morgan moves as if to engage in oral sex and looks up at Kai questioningly. It's up to you to picture that move and that look. Later, Morgan fails to look and Kai moves. Or Kai fails to look and Morgan moves. Who are these people? What are they doing?!
Posts
93 comments:
But quite aside from that, what's with "anti-male"?
Exactly. Haven't they noticed all the sexual harassment and date rape cases men are filing using these rules?
"Anti-male" because of disparate impact. That's the standard when we decide if voting requirements are racist in intent...
Oh sure, they make it seem ambiguous, but clearly Morgan and Kai are two hot chicks.
It makes me wonder if any student has been accused of female on female rape, sexual assault, or other legal equivalent.
I wonder if Bill Clinton secretly lobbied against your state's definition of sexual intercourse.
They're doing the same thing you did with the gay marriage thing, Althouse... that is, fabricating persecution (in this case of women) by men for propaganda purposes.
The University of Wisconsin has been giving preferential treatment to gays for decades, and you still aren't satisfied. You want even greater preferential treatment for your associates and relatives, so you invented a problem that needs to be solved. Yale feminists have, just like you, invented a problem without any evidence that it exists, entirely for propaganda purposes.
I taught at SUNY New Paltz several decades ago. One of the reasons I left was because the Women's Studies Center repeatedly cooked up a frenzy over rape and sexual assault and staged Take Back the Night Parades. I took the time to actually read the annual police reports and discovered, to my astonishment, that rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police at the rate of one or two per year. Some years, zero.
The anti-male part is re-defining rape and sexual assault by the terms of feminist propagandists, and skirting the niceties of demanding that purported victims actually bring charges with the police.
You also have a serious problem understanding that your allegations of persecution of gays is an attack on straight men. In my old days working in men's movement politics, we discussed your outlook frequently. Basically, we concluded that women like you use men thoughtlessly to attain your objectives because, without consciously knowing it, you just assume that men are there for you to use to get what you want.
Women have no brakes on their acquisitiveness or on their belief that men are there to give them what they want.
Everybody knows men are the enemy. Everybody at Yale, anyway. I thought Smith was the lesbian elite college. Yale will be tough competition.
"Who are these people? What are they doing?"
Let's see. They are spending about $200/day in order to receive an education. A Liberal Arts education, I believe. Maybe that should be $200/night?
I would think Johnson's biggest complaint is that though the scenario described may very narrowly meet the literal definition of "non-consensual" (if you assume reciprocal actions do not acquire the consent given to prior actions of equal intensity), it certainly is not rape. The problem, then is that "non-consensual" is defined in such a way that, while perhaps literally correct, is not compatible with a common understanding of the difference between consenting sex and rape.
Because they use these rules to target and punish males and not females.
Because they are justifying it under Title IX by claiming to do otherwise is sexist.
That's why the rules are anti-male; they presume that male sexuality is aggressive, coercive and thus, rapey.
If your questions are Socratic, ok, but otherwise, wake up, the Federal OCR is leading the charge on this sexist, feminist supremacism on college campii under the guise of "civil rights".
They are calling things "crimes" that are *not* crimes off campus, so they can go after men. Where have you been, Althouse? Did you even read the article?
Incidentally, this is just another case of women getting to have it both ways. If you liked it, it was a memorable one-night stand. If not, you were raped. Let us know when you make up your mind. If you want a baby, you're pregnant with a baby. Anyone messes with your baby, we'll put him in prison. If you don't want a baby, you have a fetus-removal requirement, and we'll be happy to pay someone to deal with it for you.
When I saw that article, I really thought that Yale should have continued the story of the intimate contact to make it more explicit:
"The next morning, Morgan goes to campus officers and accuses Kai of nonconsensual sex. Kai is hauled before an investigation committee and made to defend Kai's self under threat of expulsion."
You are quite fond of the word "oppression," Althouse. From my point of view you are the oppressor.
You flop back and forth from wanting the traditional values of male/female relationships, to demanding that we live by feminist rules, depending on what you want on a particular day.
I find you very oppressive. I want traditional values to prevail. Traditional values don't have to survive your determination to impose your intellectualism and rationalism. That's precisely what I want to defeat. Traditional values grew out of thousands of years of human experience. You're just one individual with a limited lifespan.
So, I see you as the oppressor, with your demand that traditional religious, family and sexual values must run the gaunlet of your intellect. I don't want to live in a society governed by people who have your values. In short, I don't want to be ruled by lawyers.
I am concerned about the due process problems in the way universities enforce their sex codes as they bumble along trying to make the campus climate welcoming for everybody
Welcoming? Welcoming?!
Any thinking, rational person would conclude the Victorians actually had it right.
I'm not sure that the rule is intended to be anti-male, but it does seem unrealistic. They appear to be criminalizing normal human behavior. Since males are traditionally considered the aggressors in sex, males will probably be caught more often.
It appears that the university has discovered problems with casual sex. Since they no longer have traditional morality to support their position, they have to substitute politically correct laws. Politicians and those in political authority have replaced the priests as orbiters of morality.
I think it's pretty clear that you aren't wanted when the other you are trying to arouse says it wants to get some sleep. But these days unless you knew the university code you wouldn't stop, due to some other code. These codes and their necessity shed a strange fluorescent light - a dental raise-your-hand-if-you-want-me-to-stop light on what is passing for a good time these days.
I think it is intentionally vague so that a male in a male/female situation has no choice but to be passive.
And that is where it might be construed as anti-male in that respect. Because, the scenario is vague enough that I would advise my son, "let the girl make the first move, if you don't, she could claim harassment or worse."
They're anti-male because the only people who will be accused are men and men will have virtually no power to dispute absurd claims.
Ann, do you REALLY want men to specifically ask for permission for every sexual act? You know, Morgan could've said no immediately and not waited a few minutes.
Heaven forbid Kai get the idea that Morgan was OK with it by the sheer lack of any input to the contrary for several minutes --- when it became, basically, rape.
I'm telling my boys, openly, that they had best realize that there are a lot of girls who have few qualms screwing their lives up, and on college, there are more than most. They will destroy your reputation permanently and you can do nothing to correct it.
College girls, sadly, cannot be trusted.
So what's Wisconsin's policy?
Yale should stop wasting time and get to the point. Just finish turning the university in to a woman's university and be done with it. No men. No rapes. No worries.
A situation in which a woman unwillingly has sex with a man, but doesn't fight, is commonly labelled as rape because she is the weaker one, unable to fight and in fear that she would only be at greater risk of harm if she did protest.
In this presumed two-women scenario, it's preposterous to say that either of these women is so helpless as to be unable to say, "stop"!
But, as long as the definition of non-consensual sex is being stretched so far, how long will it be before a man, faced with child support claims for a pregnant woman, claims nonconsuality ("I was drunk and she took advantage of me!")?
So, what exactly in this scenario requires the attention, let alone the intervention by university authorities?
Illuninati: "Since males are traditionally considered the aggressors in sex, males will probably be caught more often."
LOL
"..more often."
I think you meant to say that males will be caught "exclusively".
This is not a rule that is intended in any way, shape, manner or form to ensnare any female regardless of the females behavior.
Precisely in the same way that "hate speech" rules are used against whites/heterosexuals/males.
Our leftist academia enclaves simply don't have the political courage to simply state it plainly: White/Male/Heterosexuals are simply guilty.
Period.
All that is left is to find a "crime" that fits.
You know, like "White privilege".
Problem with turning Yale into a female university is that the women won't come either then, because a lot of them have a side goal of snagging husband material while in college. Or, at least these days meeting males who may ultimately be snagged as such after graduate school. Where better to do so in their lifetimes? The students there (including the males) are either rich, well connected, or very talented. (A day or two ago, was reading an article about feminizing the Harvard B school, where a lot of the males use this dynamic to their advantage). The more females on campus, the heavier the competition for the best males, and, as a result, the faster the descent to the bottom, in terms of female behavior used to snag males, at least for an evening.
Yale, though, because of its reputation, won't really see males disappear. No matter how bad they make it for guys, their reputation is going to keep a steady stream of males applying and attending. Not so with a lot of other schools, which may be why you see this sort of feminizing morality strongest at the most elite institutions - because they can get away with it.
Another problem that could be solved if adults acted like adults. If a nod is enough to signify agreement, what else "counts" as consent?
I'd hate to be the person who has to make a list for that.
"Who are these people? What are they doing?" I assume, Prof. Althouse, that you are talking about the administrators at Yale. The students are doing what students always do and have always done, which is get drunk and have sex. The administrators have for a variety of very bad reasons decided that is a no-no. The Victorian Age has returned with a gusto.
It is anti-male because males are far more likely to run afoul of these rules. There is an inherent difference between male and female mating behaviors, based on the reality that they have different mating strategies - males optimize for quantity, and females for quality. Thus, males tend to be wired more for being the pursuers, and females the pursued. And, in the preamble for initial sex, males are wired to be the aggressors, and females the controllers, whose job it is to say "no". And, yes, sexually aroused males have a hard time saying "no", or even accepting it, while a lot of females are essentially turned on by this sexual interest in them. Moreover, everyone really prefers it this way - imagine the effect on a college age female who is sexually ready and presents that to a male, and he turns it down. Worse for a lot of women than, say, almost failing a class.
This is, of course, progressive Utopianism, where men and women are assumed to be perfect, or at least perfectable, and human nature is ignored. But, of course, ignoring human nature invariably results in adverse consequences, as has become so obvious over the last century, whenever this sort of thing has gotten out of hand
I'd like to have been in on the pre-publishing meeting.
So let's have a guy and a girl go into a room.
Make it a threesome. Much more inclusive.
A foursome!
A goat!
Now you're all just being silly. Let's just have a guy and a girl.
You're gonna be in truuuuuuuuble. LGBT.
Good point. OK, make it a twosome, but of no particular gender or tendency. OK?
OK!
Now we gotta come up with some names.
Ann,
Why did you omit the rest of the article? It's somewhat poorly written and not as amusing as this example, but very clearly demonstrates the anti-male craziness by noting that:
1. "Yale concluded that causing someone to worry could come under the heading of sexual assault"
2."Yale unveiled a category called "intimate partner violence," which spanned the gap from sexual assault to a student threatening a roommate with "economic abuse."
Those aren't claims by KC Johnson that require support and evidence, those are statements of what constitutes sexual assault and domestic violence offenses within Yale's administrative disciplinary system.
In other words, if a woman is "worried" a man might do something, the man can be expelled because, in the eyes of Yale, the man has committed sexual assault. Threatening to not pay your share of the rent is now domestic violence.
Yes, the specific wording is gender neutral, but the practical impact is to give women the power to have men expelled and subjected to expensive, embarrassing, and punitive action with based no on any illegal action on the part of the man, but merely upon the woman's stated belief of her own emotional state.
Frankly, I think you're being a jerk, Althouse, and just trolling your commentators with posts like this. If you wouldn't bat an eyelash at having your sons subjected to such a "disciplinary system", I'd be very surprised.
"I think Yale's fiction writers are deliberately making the sex of these 2 characters inscrutable, which makes the scenario damned hard to visualize."
Yale was the homebase for deconstructionist theories, so why not apply a little of that to this text, if you want to know what narrative(s) is(are) being spun? In those airy academic venues, gender is also mostly a social construct developed along power/dominance lines, not biological destiny. So, deconstructing the Morgan-and-Kai tale in that matrix, the passive character is the "time to sleep" one (female, regardless of biological gender), and the active character is seeking to continue on till Sunday (male, same qualifier).
KC Johnson's piece adds the background and context that makes the whole thing absolutely clear. As he explains, to placate the campus 'activists' asking the equally activist federal civil rights enforcers in Team Obamas to find Yale in violation of various supposed mandates, Yale has intentionally expanded the definition of 'sexual assault' to the point that it needn't involve either 'sex' or 'assault,' and has also created an 'informal complaint' process intended to allow the 'victim' to control what happens -- mostly by eliminating any concern about fair process for the accused. He says that, in practice, that system results in uniform results -- the complaint of 'sexual assault' is upheld in all cases (especially 'informal complaint' ones), while the punishment is supposedly calibrated to what 'really' happened. The activists want a system that calibrates punishment on purely nomialist lines -- if it's called 'sexual assualt' under Yale's weird definition, then the perp has to be treated like a rapist and punished accordingly. Above all, don't get bogged down in what 'really' happened -- here as elsewhere in lefty-land, fake-but-accurate is the preferred standard.
It's a little silly, to say the least, to suggest that this system wasn't set up to work as a one-way affair in its actual operation, just as university speech codes and the like are. Males (happily, the socially constructed idea helpfully coincides with the biological here) are the targets; females (sale qualifier) are the victims.
Sounds anti-male, both in conception and operation, to me. What's your point?
Professor, This sounds like a perfect factual set up on a law school exam. Tort or Criminal? See how clever the students can be.
RecChief said..."the scenario is vague enough that I would advise my son, 'let the girl make the first move, if you don't, she could claim harassment or worse.'"
What makes you think that she still couldn't claim harassment? Her word; his word. Buyer's remorse, followed by false accusations. An old story.
Perhaps the only safe choices are to practice abstinence or to film every encounter from start to finish.
You're correct that the scenario intentionally uses "inscrutable" names with respect to gender. The source document points out, "The names chosen for the scenarios are gender neutral to reflect the fact that sexual misconduct occurs in all gender configurations."
Johnson also conveniently omits the likely resolution if "Morgan" were to file a grievance: "There was initial agreement, but the bounds of that agreement were not clear. Kai may have thought that Morgan had consented to reciprocal oral sex, but took no steps to obtain unambiguous agreement. The UWC penalty would likely be a reprimand."
Johnson's claim that Yale would consider Kai to be guilty of engaging in nonconsensual sex is, therefore, dubious at best.
It is anti-male because it sets up a system where you can be accused but be forbidden to present evidence of your innocence.
What's to prevent spurious charges being brought just to silence unpopular speech?
Because my reading of the article leads me to believe that it sets up a system where members of politically protected classes are allowed to make charges against designated "oppressor" classes and the oppressor has no recourse.
In such a situation, any male attending Yale is playing Russian Roulette with his future.
It makes an old Eli long for the days when busloads of Vassar women would arrive on Friday night. There was no question about what forms of social intercourse they were expecting that weekend.
But this raises a serious point: does it matter in these scenarios if just one of the parties is a Yalie? It shouldn't, but I'll bet in those cases the Blues will close ranks around their own. Nevertheless, I can see why they didn't put that in black and white.
Men are the target of the overwhelming majority of rape accusations (true and false alike). The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) stated that 99% of the people convicted of and imprisoned in response to rape accusations were male, with only 1% of those convicted being female.
And yet Althouse cannot fathom how defining down rape could be termed Anti-Male? Seriously? Ginning up rape accusations (by artificially expanding the definition of rape) has been a mainstay of the modern feminist movement (See, e.g., Catherine McKinnon, “Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”).
Pretending that you can define rape down without overwhelmingly and disproportionately harming men is not simply absurd, but is also arguing in bad faith.
Yeah, like they'd charge a woman with unlawful sexual contact.
I don't see the justification for calling it "anti-male."
An adjudication system which places nearly all power in a 'sexual' dispute on the side of the plaintiff, who's nearly exclusively female? What's not anti-male about that?
Anti-Male, oh not at all, this is, as you will see, for their own good:
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.
Men and women wired differently? OK. How about men and women anatomically different? Man has penis, man can force penis into a vagina, he usually is bigger, stronger with higher sex drive. Woman has vagina, woman cannot force limp penised man into sex with a vagina, woman's muscles not as strong as man's. How would a woman raping a man be physically possible?
It's elemental my dear Watson. Anti male? Simply more whining, what has happened to men, why all this victimology?
.
Its anti-male in application. If two drunks have sex its only the male that will get in trouble.
.
"Why did you omit the rest of the article?"
It was long. I talked about the part I found interesting and made some reference to other issues so you can see where I might go with that if I chose to spend hours blogging it.
"Men and women wired differently? OK. How about men and women anatomically different? Man has penis, man can force penis into a vagina, he usually is bigger, stronger with higher sex drive. Woman has vagina, woman cannot force limp penised man into sex with a vagina, woman's muscles not as strong as man's. How would a woman raping a man be physically possible?"
Inga, you lack imagination!
I can think of 3 ways right off the bat.
Hmmm.... the bat....
Morgan lies still for a few minutes
Lies still for a few minutes?? Really!?!?
Maybe Kai was having trouble finding the little man in the pink canoe!!
Inga: You realize that it is an involuntary response to be aroused in men, right? It is entirely possible for a man to be raped -- in fact, by stating it is IMPOSSIBLE you are essentially stripping all male victims of their dignity as human beings. If it is an honest mistake, then an honest apology should resolve it.
Inga's scenarios also ignore cases of stronger men and weaker women; women in stronger economic/social positions in a quid pro quo relationship; or adult women with adolescent/children.
I honestly didn't think people really -believed- men could not be physically raped due to biological impossibility; that it was just a straw feminist position men's rights groups used as a prop. Apparently, I'm wrong.
Next, Prof. Althouse will tell us that since the statute forbade all laundries in wooden buildings, Yick Wo had no case. It's hard to take claims of that nature seriously, but that's what she's saying.
"Why did you omit the rest of the article?"
It was long. I talked about the part I found interesting and made some reference to other issues so you can see where I might go with that''
Well, that's a lawyerly way to put it. A more honest way to put it would be to say you make a specific criticism of the article and specifically omitted the section of the article that most obviously addressed your criticism.
Drago said:
"I think you meant to say that males will be caught "exclusively"."
You are correct. There are exceptions to prosecution of heterosexual males. Gay men are also often charged with raping a younger man. Women will probably rarely be charged.
Based on these rules, any sensible Yale man will avoid Yale women like the plague and confine his dating to outside women. The sad thing is that women who don't hate men will suffer along with the men. Most women I know would like to fall in love with a man who is on her level intellectually and who can love her in return, but this relationship is becoming less and less likely as the haters on the left ply their trade. Many women are now relying on their dogs to provide the companionship which women used to achieve in a family.
Inga - Ann has already called you out on lack of imagination. And, in particular note that the example was of oral sex, with the sex of the parties not specified. There, insertion of anything in anyone is typically fairly incidental.
But, there was an interesting study awhile back trying to understand a bit more about male homosexuality. At least in some instances, it appears to be a result of insufficient testosterone during several critical phases of brain development in utero. Absent, the testosterone, portions of male brains are apparently not adequately masculinized. The interesting thing here though is that there are really two different things that are masculinized through the presence of testosterone. One, obviously in view of the study, is sexual orientation. But, the other is sexual strategy or approach: active (male) or receptive (female). We essentially have a 2x2 matrix of males, with either the male or female sexual orientation and either the male or female strategy or approach, with males falling into all four categories (but with most males falling into the sexual orientation towards females and the active approach to mating). (The study involved males conceived in 1945 or so, and theorized that the high frequency of male homosexuals was a result of maternal stress during the last, bloodiest, days of WWII causing lowered fetal testosterone levels at those critical times during gestation).
What I am talking about here is primarily the difference between the active approach to mating exhibited by most males, as contrasted to the receptive approach exhibited by most females. This is seemingly hard wired into brains in utero, with those with that portion of the brain more masculinized exhibiting male typical behavior, and with those with that portion of their brains less masculized exhibiting female typical behavior in this area (With the default being the female approach, since the deciding factor appears to be testosterone levels).
p.s. This is not directed at homosexuality at all, which is probably not that relevant here, but rather was rather involved an interesting factoid from that study.
How would a woman raping a man be physically possible?
Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
Inga said, "what has happened to men, why all this victimology?"
Because they have been shown, over the last 30 yrs or so, by minorities and women that victimology is the path to achievement?
This is no more anti male than poll taxes are racist.
Ann, threaten him with a bat? ;)
...I'm drawn toward pitying whoever got the assignment to write those scenarios. Pitying and laughing at.
Whoever wrote those scenarios is the one who's laughing. The Yale administration is probably too dim to know it, but they just got prank'd. "Morgan and Kai"-- Haw!
All of those cases of women raping men are clogging up the courts.....wait, maybe not.
What would a male rape kit consist of? I understand how a man could be physically abused by a woman, but rape? No, sorry I can't fathom how a man can maintain an erection if he is being unpleasantly handled, unless he is into S & M and then, still, would that be rape? What weirdo enjoys sexual abuse, then complains it is rape?
A woman using a bat to rape a man....what, is he tied up or something? Is the woman larger and stronger than him, maybe, did she drug him? Maybe.Did she trick him into being tied up? Ok if a woman ties up a man and then uses a bat, she COULD rape him. But it would not involve a penis in a vagina.
Calling the regulation of sexual aggression "anti-male" is insulting to males.
It is itself an anti-male stereotype.
Would you call the regulation of violent crime anti-male?
It's mostly males who do it.
But most males don't do it!
Althouse asks: "Would you call the regulation of violent crime anti-male."
It shouldn't be anti-male. But the way our criminal laws have been applied suggest that we do indeed have a problem:
"After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity . . . ."
http://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
Exactly what does the scenario presented have in common with violent crime, Ann?
Absolutely nothing. Yet this is what the feminazis want to criminalize, ruining the lives of countless men (who will be the ones accused under this) and trivializing instances of actual rape.
@Inga: If a woman lubricates during rape, does that mean she's not raped?
If a woman has an orgasm during rape, was she not raped?
Because both of those things happen frequently during rape.
So your saying that men can't be raped unless they are "into it" and therefore, not really raped, is really goddamned ignorant.
when busloads of Vassar women
I long for the wisdom of Dorothy Parker:
If all the girls at Vassar were laid end to end, I wouldn't be surprised.
Ann Althouse said...
Would you call the regulation of violent crime anti-male?
The entire point is: this isn't violent crime. It's an attempt to redefine normal behavior as criminal to aid prosecution or persecution by female accusers.
It seems quite natural to presume someone who voluntarily undresses and performs oral sex is presumed sufficiently competent to say "no thanks" if they don't want reciprocation.
"Calling the regulation of sexual aggression "anti-male" is insulting to males."
The point is that what's being regulated and disciplined is not "sexual aggression" in any normal sense of the words, but initiation of sexual activity and other characteristically male behaviors. The method being used to regulate such normal male behaviors is to define them as "sexual aggression." I don't know why Prof. Althouse thinks we are too stupid to figure that out; we went to law school too, just as fancy as the one she went to.
Calling the regulation of sexual aggression "anti-male" is insulting to males.
Would you call the regulation of violent crime anti-male?
But what is happening here is not Yale regulating sexual aggression and violent crime, but enlarging the definitions of those punishable offenses such that:
1. They no longer fit with any reasonable conception of their criminal law analogs.
2. They encompass a much broader array of male behavior.
3. They do 1 and 2 in the context of a "judicial" process that seems to have no substantive due process protections and gives the "victim" of these non-crimes extraordinary powers and protections.
No matter who is the male, or if there are no males in the example, the conclusion that this was without consent is ridiculous. Consent can be manifested by silence or passivity in many contexts. Sex is one of them.
How many Yale guys are going to claim lack of consent after a blow job in this scenario? Either zero or absolute zero. How many gay Yale guys are going to make a claim in this case? Zero again. To be blunt, the only likely complainant in such a situation is a female who has been soaked with the ideology of sexual victimization by males. Everyone else would be laughed out of town.
College is supposed to be teaching personal responsibility. A adult person engaging in kissing, going back to a private room, removing clothing covering the genitals and nodding affirmatively when the partner places his/her face in close proximity to the genitals can now claim to have been sexually molested if touched? Utter bullshit. Man (or woman) up, Yalies. You are being made into laughingstocks.
"The entire point is: this isn't violent crime. It's an attempt to redefine normal behavior as criminal to aid prosecution or persecution by female accusers."
I made an analogy.
And you should see that the LESS violent the sex, the LESS linked it is to the stereotypically male. That further undercuts the assertion that it's anti-male!
Seems to me women can make mistakes under this new law, making, for example, assumptions like Inga's, that an erection is a statement of consent.
I think men at Yale are likely to totally get it that they should ask. Women might be more likely to assume the man wants it.
I think the real problems here are the lack of procedural protection and the overly restrictive regulations, not the victimization of men.
Ann Althouse said...
Would you call the regulation of violent crime anti-male?
Hmmm.. So it's OK to point out that most violent crime (and, in fact, most non-violent crime) is committed by males. That is simply stating a well-known and widely attested fact. But start talking about the race of those males, and you have abandoned the "moral high ground", right?
"I think the real problems here are the lack of procedural protection and the overly restrictive regulations, not the victimization of men."
Professor, the real problem here is the inevitability of selective prosecution, and which way that selection will go, which everyone but you and Inga seems to agree on. Maybe we're all wrong and you'll turn out to be right, and these rules will trip up a bunch of women that Yale will go after hard, but I'll give you 500-1 odds.
I'm here to live and learn. If my assumption that a male erection is not indicative of willingness to engage in sex, then forgive my ignorance. I mean that sincerely. How likely is this erectile phenomena? Does it happen often? If a male is not willing to engage in intercourse, he can actually be forced by a female or weaker male and the quality of the erection is maintained to culminate in orgasm? Perhaps I should have paid more attention in Anatomy and Physiology.
Sexual Arousal in Male Victims of Rape
OK, bare with me. I'm trying to understand this. I can understand this phenomena would happen more often or more likely with anal rape, because of pressure on the prostate gland, but when a woman is forcing a man's penis into her vagina. So in both cases men and women, the incidence of feeling arousal during rape is possible, but how likely?
Yikes! I mean bear with me, don't want to make anyone think I'm asking/forcong them to undress.
@Inga: Men can have erections without orgasm, and orgasm without erections.
No, you did not pay attention in anatomy and physiology. Your skepticism about the possibility of a woman raping a man are analogous to saying a husband can't rape his wife because she said "yes" once and for all time at the altar.
The question is one of power and consent, just as it is for women. It is not about what gets stuck into which and what condition its in, although that element must be present or it's not rape but some other crime that involves assault or coercion.
"College girls, sadly, cannot be trusted."
My daughter, who is very pretty and well endowed, has formed no permanent relationship in college. She has now graduated and, I suspect, found that the real world is more interested in real relationships, at least I hope so.
Gabriel you are correct, but there is also a physiological thing that happens in a male penis to maintain an erection, no? Injuries that occur to a woman vagina and cervix occur often because there was no element of arousal, which caused no natural lubrication. I am speaking more to the physical aspect of rape. I understand the psychological aspects of rape. It is more than a psychological occurance, it is a physical assault first and foremost, then the most significant psychological injuries and repercussions happen, are recognized and must be dealt with. BUT the most emergent aspect of rape is a physical one.
Y: mmmmm
X: mmmmm
Y: may I touch your right breast?
X: mmmm
Y: permission to touch your left breast?
X: shut up already and for God's sake, close your eyes
Y: but I must get verbal and visual confirmation of your consent at every stage of this process
X: WTF is your problem? Do you always talk this much during sex?
Y: 'Dunno. This is my first time as a Yalie pangender.
The real problem?
The real problem here is thinking that a some tribunal (and especially a kangaroo court like exists at many universities) can sort out what actually happened in these arcanely ambiguous situations. Don't want to be sexually touched without permission? I suggest not uncovering your genitals in private situations with other humans. And not allowing someone to get their face anywhere near your precious privates if you do.
The other real problem is a bunch of 700 plus SAT students so arrogant and stupid that they think that consequences of their own drunken foolishness are someone else's fault.
Inga: " If my assumption that a male erection is not indicative of willingness to engage in sex, then forgive my ignorance. I mean that sincerely"
Inga, lots of times the guy does not even want the erection, let alone to have sex with it. One of the blessings of age is to be past the time when erections appear unbidden, and sometimes very inconveniently so. This begins at around age 10 and lasts a lot longer than you might imagine.
You might give men some more credit now that you know this. There are billions of unused erections in the world every year. Billions more are used only in complete singular privacy.
If men were really running around trying to find someone to hump every time they had an erection, there would be total chaos.
So remember. The natural restraint of the male of the species is nature's fortress against chaos.
Gosh David, I just had a vision of Bonobo Chimps. An erection is a sad thing to let go to waste, use It or lose it.
I'm kidding of course. I did have a husband and a son, so I'm a wee bit knowledgeable about boy stuff, but maybe I need to ask more questions about male penile idiosyncrasies. I thank the males who schooled me on their penises. :)
You can't be too careful. Colleges should install cameras in all dorm rooms so that all sexual activity on campus can be unequivocally documented. Plus, if they sold the viewing rights, they wouldn't have to charge tuition any more.
Would Yale object to the shirtless Putin pics?
Ann Althouse said...
I think the real problems here are the lack of procedural protection and the overly restrictive regulations, not the victimization of men.
I don't know how you separate these issues. The lack of procedural protection and perversion of meaning are intentionally driven to ensure those accused have no ability to defend themselves. The initiative clearly comes from those believing the accusers are women and the rules should be perverted in their favor. And they do so knowing our culture pressures men not to make such accusations and if one somehow does that same culture will prevent it from being examined with the same concern.
@Inga:but there is also a physiological thing that happens in a male penis to maintain an erection, no?
Yes. Involuntary things. We get them every night when we're asleep and often they keep us from peeing in the morning.
It's not even synonymous with arousal--and even if it were, it wouldn't be consent.
Erection = consent is like saying marriage = consent.
I'm honestly surprised a nurse doesn't know this common sense stuff that even I feel comfortable linking to Wiki about it. I'm willing to admit that we may have all just been punked by Inga, to what end I do not know, but if an adult has somehow reached the point in their life to not know this is how things work, I think we may need to re-examine sex-ed, or just education in general.
"But quite aside from that, what's with "anti-male"?"
I don't know, why don't we find out how many women have been expelled from Yale for making their partner "worry", or failing to obtain consent before blowing someone. Because if a girl doesn't get consent, it's rape.
As a nurse, I am well aware of involuntary erections Matt. However it is not common knowledge among women that men can maintain an erection during an act of female on male rape. I spent last evening speaking to and texting female friends and aquaintences and most were as skeptical as I was. I did tell them that it was entirely possible and (gasp) even likely according to male commenters on Althouse.
And Matt, the physiological workings of the penis during an act of female on male rape were not discussed in nursing school and most certainly not in any sex ed course I've ever heard of, why? Maybe because female on male rape is rare, or men don't report it as often.
@Inga:However it is not common knowledge among women that men can maintain an erection during an act of female on male rape.
There is no reason why it should be, because it is not relevant whether the man maintains his erection or not! Any more than it would if a MALE rapist couldn't maintain his erection, that wouldn't mean he didn't commit rape because he couldn't stay aroused!
Once it's stuck in and there was no consent given, it is rape. It does not matter who has the penis or how long it was hard.
And nobody has said whether this was common or rare--and you are moving the goalposts by bringing it up:
How would a woman raping a man be physically possible?
From denying the physical possibility to minimizing it because it's presumably rare is a huge change in your stance--but it shows that you're not as open to learning as you say you are, if such a tectonic shift doesn't change your opinion.
Good grief. Now we are going to argue how it's easy to shove a limp penis in a vagina by a female rapist? Or how rarely...or not, it happens? Damn.
Now we are going to argue how it's easy to shove a limp penis in a vagina by a female rapist?
Since actions far less invasive than actual penetration are included in the policy in question this is obviously not the issue.
Complete Red Herring.
@Inga:Good grief. Now we are going to argue how it's easy to shove a limp penis in a vagina by a female rapist? Or how rarely...or not, it happens? Damn.
She can make it hard without his consent. She can put it in, without his consent. That is rape.
From the link you didn't read:
n 1978 in the UK, Joyce McKinney was sentenced to 12 months in prison for forcing a man to have sex with her while chained up.
And you should see that the LESS violent the sex, the LESS linked it is to the stereotypically male. That further undercuts the assertion that it's anti-male!
Only in fantasy debateland.
In reality, the opposite. By criminalizing even the most inert and ambiguous decisions as "violent" and "non-consensual" they are actually bringing MORE behavior that is considered stereotypically male into a punishable offense.
Whereas only a tiny fraction of men could ever reasonably be accused of some sort of sexual assault in the traditional sense, every man might legitimately fear being accused of "sexual assault" in the Yale sense.
Seems to me women can make mistakes under this new law, making, for example, assumptions like Inga's, that an erection is a statement of consent.
Yes, women are also subject to persecution under this system, and yet, the probabilities are still dramatically smaller for them.
Gabriel, I don't think we disagree here. Chained up. Yes, but how easy is it to do unchained or untied? I'm trying to say that because of several things unique to males, it is more difficult ( but not impossible) to perform female on male rape. YES, it's rape, but again, it's not as prevalent as male on female. Now I'm not saying that because of the lower incidence of women raping men, that it should be disregarded as rape.
Sheesh.
Post a Comment