Althouse: "Examples of sexual violence include... withholding sex...."

September 26, 2014

"Examples of sexual violence include... withholding sex...."

From the definition of "Sexual violence" on University of Michigan "Abuse Hurts" page.

Via Memeorandum (i.e., it's something people are talking about right now).

55 comments:

campy said...: I assume they mean men withholding sex.; 9/26/14, 10:50 AM
MadisonMan said...: Well, that list does include just about everything doesn't it.

I wonder what UM paid for it. 6 figures?; 9/26/14, 10:52 AM
Shanna said...: Crazy town.; 9/26/14, 10:54 AM
Chef Mojo said...: Damned if you do. Damned if you don't.; 9/26/14, 11:04 AM
MayBee said...: People need to learn to say "no".

I don't mean no to sex. I mean no to people who propose rules like this and act like it's war-on-women to oppose them.; 9/26/14, 11:13 AM
Jaq said...: "Sexual violence includes rape, being made to penetrate someone else,
sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual
experiences. See below. " CDC

Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual penetration that occurs after a person is
pressured in a nonphysical way. In NISVS, sexual coercion refers to unwanted vaginal, oral,
or anal sex after being pressured in ways that included being worn down by someone who
repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to,
being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten to end a relationship or
spread rumors; and sexual pressure due to someone using their influence or authority

Everybody knows about the unpaid whore! So if you promised something, she fucked you, and you don't come through, well, not it is sexual violence! Not a prostitute using sex to get stuff that failed!

It is not the right that takes sexual violence lightly.; 9/26/14, 11:14 AM
MarkW said...: What's this about:

"to have sex with other people"

So cheating is now a form of sexual violence?

"Crazy town." Meh -- the university's sexual grievance office is not the town. Ann Arbor is less crazy than Madison, I think. Partly it's because it's not also the state capital, so all of those politics aren't happening here. And also (unlike the 60s) the students generally don't vote in local elections. Michigan requires the address on your voter registration to match the one on your driver's license, so most UM students aren't registered in Ann Arbor. And because Ann Arbor is now a one party town, the only election that matters is the Democratic primary, which is held in August (when most of the students aren't here). And although Ann Arbor is full of liberals, they tend to be wealthy liberals who are concerned about high property values and public school ratings.; 9/26/14, 11:15 AM
chuck said...: Just need a doctor's note, "Johnny has a headache and is unable to perform."; 9/26/14, 11:16 AM
Jaq said...: Sorry, for got the link to the CDC's definition of sexual violence

I wouldn't believe it without a link either.; 9/26/14, 11:16 AM
traditionalguy said...: In post the new Christian morality saying no to a human desire, even if only temporarily, is a crime against something.; 9/26/14, 11:19 AM
Bob Boyd said...: If you told the Rape Culture crowd they've jumped the shark, they'd probably accuse you of promoting sexual violence against marine life.; 9/26/14, 11:26 AM
Anonymous said...: What kind of "higher" education are they getting, with all the debts their parents incurred to send them to college?

Advice to male students: ignore those women. You really don't want to have forced sex with sluts. You have more self respect than that.; 9/26/14, 11:28 AM
Shanna said...: having someone threaten to end a relationship

So the lesson here is don't threaten, just end it? And then when you get back together and sex is offered, it is no longer coercion just a happy celebration of a relationship rekindled!

(I actually meant 'crazytown' as more of a general statement, not a specific reflection of ann arbor, Mark); 9/26/14, 11:30 AM
Ignorance is Bliss said...: So approximately half the world's population has been committing sexual violence against me without my knowledge.; 9/26/14, 11:43 AM
Unknown said...: elkh1, are you female? A mom?

"Advice to male students: ignore those women. You really don't want to have forced sex with sluts. You have more self respect than that."

Wasted effort.; 9/26/14, 11:45 AM
Bob R said...: On the other hand, now I can say that I frequently experienced sexual violence at the hands of dozens of women simultaneously.; 9/26/14, 11:51 AM
Todd said...: So:

Based on those definitions, if one party asks for it and the other party says no, they are both potentially guilty of sexual violence. The reality of how this gets enforced will actually be:

- If he wants it but she does not, he is guilty.

- If she wants it but he does not, he is guilty.

Nice system they have setup there...; 9/26/14, 11:55 AM
William said...: I'm sure that it's just a matter of time before men and women figure out how to engage in sex without causing hurt feelings while at the same time maximizing their pleasure.; 9/26/14, 12:08 PM
Xmas said...: Todd,

You're getting it.; 9/26/14, 12:10 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I guess no one's been paying attention--these definitons aren't new. My strong suspicion is that you can justify calling the current environment an "epidemic of sexual assault" only by using these definitions. Since most people seem to find the definitions themselves ridiculous it seems fair to conclude there's no epidemic. That, however, would make one a rape apologist, warrior in the War on Woment, etc. So it's a pickle.; 9/26/14, 12:11 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ignorance is Bliss said...
So approximately half the world's population has been committing sexual violence against me without my knowledge.
Wait, the other half hasn't been witholding from you? You must be a busy person...; 9/26/14, 12:12 PM
Mark Caplan said...: Whew, I was worried they'd even include ass whooping.; 9/26/14, 12:13 PM
Jupiter said...: "- If he wants it but she does not, he is guilty.

- If she wants it but he does not, he is guilty."

This is actually a pretty mild case of feminism. The feminist is seldom content to merely have it both ways. A woman wants to have her cake, and eat it too. And not gain any weight. And someone else must pay for it.; 9/26/14, 12:29 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm not gonna fuck any of you.
Arrest me.
Please.
Before I don't fuck again.; 9/26/14, 12:30 PM
damikesc said...: People need to learn to say "no".

That's rape at Michigan now. :-)

For-profit schools should really clean the clock of public schools by mentioning that their rape rate is markedly lower than universities' self-professed 20% rate.

After all, why would a college LIE about how often their students get raped? It's illogical, right?

Thus, it must be true.

Sending your daughters to public universities is basically inviting them to get raped.

How can forcing somebody to nail you be rape and them saying no to nailing you ALSO be rape?; 9/26/14, 12:31 PM
Sam L. said...: "Not tonite, dear" = withholding sex.

Idjits!!! World is FILLED with idjits.; 9/26/14, 12:44 PM
Sam L. said...: "Not tonite, dear" = withholding sex.

Idjits!!! World is FILLED with idjits.; 9/26/14, 12:45 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: The document is a catch-all of behavior that is about control and intimidation. I don't really see the problem, if you frame abuse as being about power instead of sex.; 9/26/14, 12:46 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Ok, so look at the definion calmly. If a boss says her subordinate must sleep w/her or be fired, and he does, that's sexual coercion and counts here as sexual violence. Recognizing that kind of abuse of power isn't difficult in that case and everyone agrees it's wrong. No problem so far.
Now look at two people in a relationship. They're more or less equals, in the sense that no one has much more power in the relationship. If one partner says they'll leave if the other doesn't sleep with them it's likely not a credible threat. What if there is, say, a child or two involved, though, and one partner is financially depedent on the other? Now there's a power mismatch again, and we've got a problem. Would that kind of coercion rise to the level of sexual violence? Debatable, I'm sure, but you can at least see where it'd be something most people would frown upon.
Ok, now take those definitions and apply them as they're being used lately, to relationships between university students. Do the power dynamics even come close to matching the ones implied by the definitions? Does "showing someone you're unhappy" really encompass the same type of blackmail as threatening somoene's job, or to take away their means of support?

Listen, I believe the ridiculous should be ridiculed, but I don't know if that's enough in this case. If everyone involved admitted that making rules and law to define, codify, and judge the multitude of interactions involved in normal human social and sexual relations is just damn difficult and should be approached with humility we'd be better off. The problem, really, is people acting as though these definitions are not only accurate but in fact sacrosanct, and then using these to advance their particular ideological goals. By that I mean they'll apply these definitions to normal circumstances, conclude from that there is an epidemic of sexual violence, and on that basis insist that their perferred policitcal wishes be grated. Any opposition to this last is called collusion with the perpetrators of violence, effectively ruling dissent out of bounds. This not only debases language and law, it harms democracy in a pluralistic society. Pseudo-feminist Leftist Authoritarianism must be destroyed!; 9/26/14, 12:57 PM
LYNNDH said...: Solution: Guys, don't talk, look or in any way interact with a woman college student while in college. It's safer that way. Not much fun though.; 9/26/14, 12:58 PM
kimsch said...: LYNNDH,

Then they'd be withholding sex and they're still guilty!

As with pulling the race card for every perceived slight, pulling the sexual violence card for any relational interaction (physical, or not) cheapens actual harm done to others.; 9/26/14, 1:10 PM
Shanna said...: As with pulling the race card for every perceived slight, pulling the sexual violence card for any relational interaction (physical, or not) cheapens actual harm done to others.

Indeed. These people are harming real victims with stupid definitions and other nonsense.; 9/26/14, 1:25 PM
rhhardin said...: Advice violence is called for.; 9/26/14, 1:25 PM
Birkel said...: Puritanism was always a 'progressive' movement. Say, that Prohibition thing worked so well, let's apply the same principles to other drugs and sex. Awesome!; 9/26/14, 1:29 PM
rhhardin said...: Very often when I pass a woman in the grocery store, sex is withheld.

This is by mutual agreement on both sides.

Who has the time anymore.; 9/26/14, 1:29 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: The point of the document is simple- relationships based on threats and control are wrong.

It's easy to understand and hard to disagree with, so selectively misreading one sentence is the only way to go if you want to discredit the whole thing.

Pretty common tactic, and it's always dishonest.; 9/26/14, 1:31 PM
rhhardin said...: Withholding sex in a relationship isn't wrong, it's just unwise.

Which is to say that there are consequences that you might not choose if you foresaw them.

Maybe the paper is an advice column, but written as a criminal statute.; 9/26/14, 1:35 PM
Todd said...: John Lynch said...
The point of the document is simple- relationships based on threats and control are wrong.

It's easy to understand and hard to disagree with, so selectively misreading one sentence is the only way to go if you want to discredit the whole thing.

Pretty common tactic, and it's always dishonest.
9/26/14, 1:31 PM

I read what was printed. If I feel like sex and my partner says no, is not my partner expressing control over my wanting to have sex with them? By the "plan" language of this document, I have been violated. Do not shoot the messenger because a bunch of bureaucrats have stuck their noses too far into an issue and now it is all muddied up. Most here are simply pointing out the absurdity of the results of these rules. 40 years ago, what constituted sexual violence was pretty well understood by any sane adult. Today you need a 3 page document to describe it and it is one thin line at each end with a football field of gray in between. The funny part in all this is that real incidents of sexual violence is down nationally so to ensure that there is a "big" problem to solve, the definition has to be expanded and smudged to now include more and more behavior.

A young man would be CRAZY to go to collage today. On line school is far saver.; 9/26/14, 1:50 PM
Jupiter said...: John Lynch said...
"The point of the document is simple- relationships based on threats and control are wrong."

Have you ever read a contract, John? You will find that they generally contain numerous highly credible threats, and are clearly designed to control a relationship. So maybe things aren't quite as simple as you suppose.

For example, if my wife tells me she will divorce me if I sleep with another woman, that would be a threat intended to control an aspect of our relationship. Are you suggesting that there would be something wrong with my wife insisting that I abide by our marriage vow?; 9/26/14, 2:03 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: John Lynch said...
The point of the document is simple- relationships based on threats and control are wrong.
It's easy to understand and hard to disagree with, so selectively misreading one sentence is the only way to go if you want to discredit the whole thing.
Pretty common tactic, and it's always dishonest.

The point of the document is simple, sure. The scope of the document's definitions and the paractical application of same is not simple, and is the actual problem. As I said earlier, no one disputes that certain types of coercion are wrong and should be illegal. Everyone should also recognize that some behaviors that could fall under that definition are normal, common, and shouldn't be considered illegal. It is ridiculous and dangerous to conflate the two, and doing so in an obvious attempt to exercise political power should be mocked and shut down.

CONTEXT is exactly what people laughing at this are emphasising, John--the definitions highlighted are broad enough to apply in a number of contexts where the power dynamics you mention are not applicable, and thus in context any rules relying on these definitions will be flawed. It's not dishonest point point that out. I assumed good faith on the part of the definitions' authors in my evaluation--they're still unnacceptably broad in context.; 9/26/14, 2:06 PM
Jaq said...: Townies. I always liked the townies when I indulged in them, though there was always the issue of them being of age, which usually was not a problem with the college girls.; 9/26/14, 2:38 PM
Jupiter said...: "As I said earlier, no one disputes that certain types of coercion are wrong and should be illegal."

Hmmm... I think that is true so long as it is kept general. If you start naming specific, non-violent threats, I think you will find that there is a very large area of dispute. All is fair in love and war.; 9/26/14, 2:47 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Jupiter said...Hmmm... I think that is true so long as it is kept general. If you start naming specific, non-violent threats, I think you will find that there is a very large area of dispute. All is fair in love and war.

Thus the "certain types." If a cop says "sleep with me or you will be arrested," a judge says "sleep with me or you will be found guilty," or a boss says "sleep with me or you will be fired" I doubt anyone would argue that behavior was just or should be legally protected. That would be true even if one the parties in question claimed to be in love.
A girlfriend saying "sleep with me or I will break up with you" or a boyfriend saying "sleep with me or I will move out," though, is a horse of another color. Conflating the former situations with the latter is the problem being mocked here.; 9/26/14, 2:57 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: If you can find it the Chris Rock bit about sexual harassment and "just tryin' to get laid" would probably work well in this thread.; 9/26/14, 3:03 PM
Jupiter said...: ' a boss says "sleep with me or you will be fired" I doubt anyone would argue that behavior was just or should be legally protected. '

If by "sleep" you mean, "have sex", a porn star or legal prostitute (NV) who refuses to have sex with whoever her boss tells her to will certainly be fired.

I would go further. I would say that if an employer chooses to make sex part of the job description, that is a contractual matter. If the Army can require you to get shot at, and possibly killed, I really don't see why an employer can't require you to have sex or seek employment elsewhere. I would say that your easy assertion that such an arrangement "should" be illegal shows that you have not given much thought to the matter. You are simply supposing that the current laws are correct, which is fairly unlikely simply on the face of it.

Enforcement of contracts is one of the most important governmental functions. The question of which contracts the government should refuse to enforce, or even disallow, is a fundamental one. There is nothing "simple" about it.; 9/26/14, 3:45 PM
Barry Dauphin said...: "Examples of sexual violence include... withholding sex...."

It looks like Tim Tebow will have a lot to answer for.; 9/26/14, 4:34 PM
Fen said...: Advice to college men: Don't stick your dick in crazy.

Unfortunately for you, that means 19 in 20 women you meet.

Good luck.; 9/26/14, 4:52 PM
The Godfather said...: Entirely aside from whether the conduct described under "sexual violence" is or is not reprehensible, most of the activities described are NOT violent:

"Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex [not violence]; criticizing the partner sexually [not violence]; touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways [not necessarily violence; it depends on what happens]; withholding sex and affection [not violence]; always demanding sex [not necessarily violence, although the demand could be backed up by violence, so then it would qualify]; forcing partner to strip as a form of humiliation [violence is implied by “forcing”] (maybe in front of children), to witness sexual acts [not violence], to participate in uncomfortable sex [I have no idea what this means] or sex after an episode of violence [violence could be involved, but if this is just make-up sex, it isn’t violence], to have sex with other people [not violence]; and using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex [violence]."

Now I know that as a matter of legal or contract draftsmanship, you can define a term to mean something totally different from its generally accepted meaning (you can define "wife" to include "husband", for example), but why do it in this case -- except to make the conduct sound more reprehensible than the normal person would understand such conduct to be, so that the poor victim of this system will be branded as having committed sexual violence because he (or she, but let's get real) threatened to end the relationship if they didn't have sex tonight.; 9/26/14, 5:18 PM
Alex said...: This is why men are giving up. It's fucked if you do, fucked if you don't. Better to not play the game.; 9/26/14, 5:27 PM
Anonymous said...: Will relief come April 15? What allowances comply with the Indomitable Retinue Sisters' code?; 9/26/14, 5:32 PM
Chuck said...: The University of Michigan's batshit crazy Title IX administrators are running so scared over the case of Brendan Gibbons, the football kicker who was accused of sexual assault in 2009, was investigated by the police (he COOPERATED in the investigation, without counsel), with a result that the investigation was dropped when the complainant stopped cooperating with police.

When the Obama Department of Education changed Title IX policies three years later, Michigan reopened the long-discarded case against Gibbons, and expelled him following a closed administrative hearing.

U-M is now being sued by another student for another dubious expulsion. I expect that U-M (my alma mater, along with Professor Althouse) will be made to look very, very bad.

http://michigandaily.com/article/suspended-university-student-files-lawsuit-after-sloppy-sexual-assault-investigation; 9/26/14, 5:41 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Jupiter said... You are simply supposing that the current laws are correct, which is fairly unlikely simply on the face of it.

Probably the first time I've been accused of that! I could type "certain types" again, but if the style of argumentation will be "if the Army can require you to get shot, another employer can require you to do x" I'm not sure there's a point.; 9/26/14, 6:04 PM
effinayright said...: So....if I decide not to masturbate, am I still committing self-abuse?; 9/26/14, 7:22 PM
Fred Drinkwater said...: That's deep, man. DEEP.
(And then, for some reason, this ran through my mind: "In a State of Nature, life is Nasty, Brutish, and Short." A bit random, sure, but there you are...); 9/27/14, 12:45 PM
30yearProf said...: I'm a victim, I'm a victim.

I was first assaulted as a teenager. And it continued as became a young adult.

I won't disclose what's happening now, though.; 9/29/14, 10:19 PM