October 22, 2015

"Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face."

"To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough."

Said the U.K. college student, who posed for a picture holding a "This is not what a rapist looks like sign."



I don't find the sign very convincing. Why would a rapist look a particular way? Rapists smile for photographs. Rapists wear shirts and sweaters. Rapists can be young white men. Rapists deny that they are rapists. Anyway, I'm willing to assume the anti-rape training session was long, tedious, and pitched at a low intellectual level. But "massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face"? The "biggest insult ... in a good few years"? "Incredibly hurtful"? To be fair, perhaps the training session was too successful in teaching him how to be super-sensitive. I hear the old REM track playing, everybody hurts.

I'm reading this over at Think Progress, where the headline is "Male Student Says He Doesn’t Need To Be Taught Not To Rape. Here’s Why He’s Wrong." First, I'd like to say that I find there to be something microaggressive about headlines like "Here’s Why He’s Wrong." So controlling. I feel stifled. Why not "Here's why I believe he's mistaken"? Acknowledge the existence of other people and their perspectives. It's taking me a while to settle down and read this column, which was written by a woman named Casey Quinlan.
[George] Lawlor asserts that he doesn’t “look like a rapist.” But what, exactly, does that mean? Lawlor never describes what a rapist should look like. 
That was my reaction too.
And, unlike the stereotype that sexual predators are strangers who jump out of the bushes, most rapists are actually people who the survivor trusted or at least knew....
Good point. 
Plus, despite the fact that Lawlor assumes most students know what consent is — even in what he calls “nuanced situations where consent isn’t immediately obvious” — the evidence suggests that college students aren’t entirely aware.
True.  But Quinlan doesn't take account of how long the training session was or how patronizing. I don't know either, but Lawlor's original blog post is available. It's called "Why I don’t need consent lessons," which suggests that he'd object even to a short presentation on a sophisticated intellectual level. Lawlor, "summoned to this year’s 'I Heart Consent Training Sessions,'" was "overcome by anger." The idea of any training at all — not just tedious, patronizing training — made him so mad he was overcome. To be overcome is to be defeated, as if by an enemy in battle. That's the nature of his anger. That's a mental state at odds with the simpering image in the photograph.
Let me explain, I love consent. Of course people should only interact with mutual agreement, but I still found this invitation loathsome. Like any self-respecting individual would, I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face. To be invited to such a waste of time was the biggest insult I’ve received in a good few years. It implies I have an insufficient understanding of what does and does not constitute consent and that’s incredibly hurtful. I can’t stress that enough.
Oh! For the first time, I realize that his intense reaction was to not to a long, patronizing training session, but to the invitation. He objects, strongly, to any training at all, including anything about the subtleties of consent:
I also know about those more nuanced situations where consent isn’t immediately obvious as any decent, empathetic human being does. Yes means yes, no means no. It’s really that simple. 
So it's nuanced... and yet it's really simple? Isn't it possible that the training session would open up some complexities that you hadn't thought about? Do you really know how drunk or nearly drunk your partner is allowed to be before you're doing something wrong?
... The only people who’ll turn up will be people who (surprise, surprise) already know when it’s okay to shag someone. No new information will be taught or learned....

Self-appointed teachers of consent: get off your fucking high horse. I don’t need your help to understand basic human interaction. 
If you don't go to the session, you don't know that you won't learn something and you don't know how "basic" the information will be. And why so angry? Why use the word "shag" and "fucking" in this context?
Next time you consider inviting me or anyone else to another bullshit event like this, have a little respect for the intelligence and decency of your peers. You might find that’s a more effective solution than accusing them of being vile rapists-in-waiting who can only be taught otherwise by a smug, righteous, self-congratulatory intervention.
Again, why is this man so angry? The invitation was to the "I Heart Consent Training Sessions." Where is the accusation that he's a "vile rapists-in-waiting" or that those leading the sessions are "smug, righteous, [and] self-congratulatory"? How does he know the event is "bullshit"?

Now, maybe this exaggerated language is his idea of satire. And maybe he's trying to give back the kind of rhetoric he feels he's heard from the anti-rape activists and the point is to crank up other students and get them into the mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore mode.

I'm done reacting to this character. What do you think?

183 comments:

Michael K said...

I was overcome with boredom reading that tedious post.

Nichevo said...

You're just miffed because he didn't want to go to your seminar?

Ann Althouse said...

"I was overcome with boredom reading that tedious post."

I had a moment of angst before absorbing the word "that" (which is not "this").

Could have used a trigger warning: This is not about you.

Oso Negro said...

I think he looks gay. Not likely to rape women at all. Probably what Titus would call a "bottom."

Ann Althouse said...

"You're just miffed because he didn't want to go to your seminar?"

Years ago, in the 1990s, I taught a rape seminar. It wasn't about training students to conduct their sexual encounters properly! It was a law school seminar, dealing with the legal issues, reading cases and commentary on cases. People didn't "go" to the seminar. The registered for a class, which they took for credit. It was an elective. We discussed the issues, and it certainly didn't involve telling anyone what to think other than to require them to analyze legal materials in a professional way.

Grant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

Come, now. You must understand the reference. "This is what democracy looks like" and all that. Hurtful. Bitch-slap. The guy may not be Seinfeld, but he's trying for parody, and he has a good point.

Hagar said...

"Teach women not to rape!"

Brando said...

I can imagine useful information being taught at an anti-rape seminar--make sure the other person isn't too drunk or stoned to consent (and how drunk is "too drunk"--no bright line rule, but worth discussing in an open forum) as well as how to prevent yourrself or a friend from being raped, where to report, and all the existing legal implications and campus policies. Even if the campus rules are unfair or ridiculous, better to know what they are, and go ahead and protest them if you want to.

Of course, if the content of the training is itself useless and stupid ("remember no means no! Don't be a rapist!") then I could see how someone would be insulted by it. I'd be interested in more specifics about this particular training before determining it is useful or a waste of time.

tim in vermont said...

Was he invited or compelled? If he was "invited" a simple "no" would have done fine, along with an eye roll. If he was compelled? Then I can see him blowing off a little steam, though it might be a good lesson for him that often "less is more" when it comes to rhetoric.

That being said, off to the joycamp, as they are termed in Newspeak, or "Fun camp" as Hillary calls them, for re-education. After all, we must create the new man, and those who can't be re-educated must be shot once we have gotten all the work out of them we can having them build wind turbines or whatever.

If however the seminar explained how it was that if a couple has drunken sex, only the man is the rapist but everybody is equal and it all makes perfect logical sense, then it might be worthwhile.

I would think a better seminar, judging by yesterday's post, would be how to give a girl a proper rogering that will leave her rosy cheeked the morning after might be both more useful and better received.

Saint Croix said...

What would the feminist reaction be to a seminar on how not to kill babies?

MayBee said...

I'll accept any pushback these ridiculous training sessions receive.
I'm not going to dissect how he did it. He's brave enough for trying something.

Brando said...

In my old job I had to give anti-harassment training, and rather than the obvious claptrap ("our company is actually opposed to sexual and other harassment") we focused more on gray area situations and solicited feedback from the attendees. Most harassment complaints I'm aware of have fallen into the category of "gray area" or "completely trumped up crap brought by a struggling employee". I have yet to see a situation where someone might have benefitted from being told "hey, don't sexually harass others!"

Bob Boyd said...

Did they force him or did he consent?
To attending the class, I mean.

Bob Ellison said...

Saint Croix, that's a good question. We could also do "How not to murder black people" for white people, and "How to avoid making money" for Jews. The opportunities are boundless!

MayBee said...

It is amazing what we are willing to put people through in the name of false statistics.

Unknown said...

Rapists are going to rape- even rapists who attend seminars on consent. The idea of creating nuances to look for consent will not stop rape and will not stop drunk sex. This is dumb and a waste and more than likely an attempt to politically and culturally stunt good men.

Bob Ellison said...

I'd like to extend an open invitation to my "How not to sting people" seminar to all the mosquitoes out there. No pressure, no hurt-- just a group hug (without touching or stinging) on what's right and what's not right.

For you non-mosquitoes, we'll have coffee and doughnuts in our "Existing means yes to a mosquito" lounge next door.

Fen said...

They need a "stop lying about being raped" class for the women.

tim in vermont said...

I agree that his picture is pointless. He could still be a rapist and look like that. I think he is still at a high school level in this whole public debate thing, but we can't always choose the people on our side in politics.

MadisonMan said...

"Here’s Why He’s Wrong."

A now-classic clickbait sentence (classic meaning it doesn't work anymore). Are you going to click on something that says Here's why I believe he is wrong.

Drago said...

Maybe rapists don't self-identify as rapists on the days they don't rape.

Thus, on those days, they cannot properly be considered rapists and are properly excused from just such a class.

On the other days the rapist can simply self-identify as muslim and that any rapes that occur are simply one of their allowed practices against infidels.

That "rapist" would suddenly become untouchable according to our leftist peers.

Win-win!

Ann Althouse said...

"Come, now. You must understand the reference. "This is what democracy looks like" and all that. Hurtful. Bitch-slap. The guy may not be Seinfeld, but he's trying for parody, and he has a good point."

I said maybe it's satire, so you can't accuse me of not detecting an effort at humor.

Whether humor is a good idea in this context is another matter.

Nichevo said...

They should have a coupon: five years off your next rape sentence if you see our show! Then see if more rapists are attendees or non-attendees.

Monkeyboy said...

When rape has been redefined as "consensual sex a woman later felt bad about" then yes, he does need training.
He needs to know that passing out during sex can get him charged with rape, that saving text messages that confirm consent isn't enough to exonerate him, and that having an alibi placing you at another location is not enough to prevent you being charged with rape.

What a brave new world we live in.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I found this to be a massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face.

I have no idea if this guy is a rapist. However, based on his phrasing, I'm pretty sure he has no interest in raping women.

rhhardin said...

I think he doesn't want to listen to dipshits.

Ann Althouse said...

"What would the feminist reaction be to a seminar on how not to kill babies?"

First, there the question of whether it's required. Let's assume it's just an invitation, which is, I think, all this consent seminar was (or Lawlor would probably have complained about the compulsion).

Then, what would this seminar actually be? I'll assume it's respectful, not haranguing, and done on a sophisticated level appropriate to college students, focusing on the choice that, under the law, women have a right to make for themselves. That is, it's not a political rally demanding that one be anti-abortion, but an analysis of how to understand what the unborn entity is and when and whether the freedom to have an abortion should be exercised. I don't see why a feminist should object to such a seminar, if those were truly the facts and the facts are understood. Those are big "ifs" though.

Bill Harshaw said...

Reminded of mandatory training sessions in the government: affirmative action (1970's), sexual harassment (1990's), American Disability Act (1990's). I think the key is the "mandatory"--it feels like someone is telling you/forcing you to be a better person. Many of us rebelled against our mother on that issue long ago. (As with one's mother, there was sometimes good stuff in the training, but only if the emotional barriers were let down)

Bob Boyd said...

Maybe he was the only guy they invited...

MayBee said...

Then, what would this seminar actually be? I'll assume it's respectful, not haranguing, and done on a sophisticated level appropriate to college students

Why make that assumption?

The whole idea of this seminar- and the need for "consensual sex" training for college students is haranguing.

Caroline Walker said...

The sexular pagan progressives who dominate the ivory towers of academe have succeeded in rendering sex as tedious and dreadful as spending your morning at the DMV. I see the dawn of a restored sense of virtue on the horizon, as young adults tire of bureaucratic, transactional rutting and rediscover the wonder and adventure that properly belongs to the realm of relationships bound in chastity, fidelity and monagamy. It will be like opening a window in a dank cell.

Nichevo said...

There you go! All rapists must convert to Islam, then they can go home and take the rapee infidel with them as lawful Koranic prize. You wouldn't mind so much, being raped by an Other, right? Then it's cultural exchange.

Monkeyboy said...

I don't see why a feminist should object to such a seminar, if those were truly the facts and the facts are understood.

Suzanne Venker, author of 'The War on Men" was invited by the "uncomfortable
learning" group to give a talk on Wiliams College.

A student protesting the author of the book in question said "When you bring a misogynistic, white supremacist mens rights activist to campus in the name of dialogue and the other side, you are not only causing actual mental, social, psychological and physical harm to students, but you are also paying for the continued dispersal of violent ideologies that kill our black and brown (trans) femme sisters you are dipping your hands in their blood..."

Saint Croix said...

It's weird to single out a crime and attempt to indoctrinate people into not committing that crime.

You are cordially invited to Don't Have Sex With Farm Animals!

Arson, Not a Good Idea!

Stop Robbing Banks 101

Bob Ellison said...

Oh, but I can. You said:

"I don't find the sign very convincing. Why would a rapist look a particular way?"

Are you trying for irony?

Most of the rest of your post seems like plain assertion that the guy must be sincere. At the end, you say:

"Now, maybe this exaggerated language is his idea of satire."

Ya think? That doesn't seem like a recognition of the voice he chose. It's a cop-out on your part.

Saint Croix said...

Why the emphasis on rape? Why is rape singled out as the one crime that needs to be taught in this fashion?

Nichevo said...

I don't see why a feminist should object to such a seminar,


And you wonder why people call you stupid. The reason that they would have "object," to put it mildly, is because it would be detrimental to their objectives. Do you really think, or merely pretend, that anything else would matter? Where are these honest unicorn feminists who are paying attention to the other side of the coin? For them there is no other side of the coin.

Laslo Spatula said...

Regardless of the politics, I'm bored of the 'photo of me holding a written message' thing.

Self-congratulatory, mostly.

To paraphrase the REM song Althouse mentions: Everybody FEELS too damned much.

In this instance though I am not sure if it is just his face that makes him look like a pissy twat.

I am Laslo.

Saint Croix said...

Rapists smile for photographs. Rapists wear shirts and sweaters. Rapists can be young white men. Rapists deny that they are rapists.

Maybe it's the presumption of guilt that's annoying him. Let's try the presumption of innocence for a while.

Innocent people smile for photographs. Innocent people wear shirts and sweaters. Innocent people can be young white men. Innocent people deny that they are rapists.

Nichevo said...

Oh I know! You know how there is that show on ABC called how to get away with murder? Have a class on how to get away with rape! How, Professor, would you, oh advocatus diaboli to be sure, teach that? I don't mean kill your victim and treat her with cleansers to remove DNA, I mean how to walk out of the courtroom with the vic boggling.

MayBee said...

The idea that a regular, normal male might be wrong because they say they don't have to be taught not to rape is preposterous.

Even couching it as "I think he's wrong" doesn't get past the preposterous level. This guy knows if he needs to be taught not to rape or not. This guy knows if he is inclined to rape or not. The idea that men don't know themselves well enough to know that is what makes this whole line of seminar, activism, and blog post so annoying. That's why I applaud this guy. Make noise, buddy!

MayBee said...

Maybe it's the presumption of guilt that's annoying him.

There. Saint Croix said it more succinctly.

MayBee said...

Woman says she doesn't need to be taught not to kill babies. Here's why she's wrong.

Bay Area Guy said...

Althouse - suggest you create a "Leftwing Nonsense" tag.

Monkeyboy said...

Why the emphasis on rape? Why is rape singled out as the one crime that needs to be taught in this fashion?

"You are being expelled for stealing books from the student store"
"I didn't steal them I bought them"
"We decided later that we didn't really want to sell them to you"
"I have a receipt"
"Everyone responds to theft differently"
"But I have proof I didn't do it I want a lawyer"
"God it's like you're robbing us all over again."

hawkeyedjb said...

Perhaps St Croix has the right idea - more seminars. But when you think about it, does that really seem like the right answer when we know that campuses are seething hotbeds of rape and assault? In Chicago, they are having a murder epidemic. Is anyone suggesting that seminars on "Don't murder anyone" will turn the tide? No, what both the city of Chicago and university campuses need is a massive police presence to stop the crime waves.

Twenty percent (or maybe more) of women on campuses are sexually assaulted. President Obama has said so. If one in five Chicagoans were murdered, would the reaction really be "we need seminars?" Why do we think that is the answer to the astounding campus rape epidemic?

Laslo Spatula said...

The upbringing of a man who does not understand consent will not be overcome by an hour or two seminar.

These people need to be identified and drugged and then forced to watch horrible acts while their eyelids are clamped open.

Sure, they'll never like Beethoven again, but it is a small price to pay.

I am Laslo.

Roughcoat said...

My God ... it's filled with words.

BDNYC said...

The two sentence headline with the "here's why he's wrong" slap is so overused and irritating. I believe Vox was the site that started the formulation, or at least it was the site that seemed to use it for every headline.

Bob Boyd said...

If you click on the word 'workshops' in the linked article it takes you to a page where the first line of the story is:

"Sexual consent workshops are now mandatory at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the UK, and voluntary workshops are taking place across other campuses around the country."

Whether Lawlor was required to attend is not clear, but much of the discussion surrounding this photo is about the drive to make the classes mandatory at colleges throughout the UK and the US.
It seems a little ironic that these particular activists want to gratify their own needs and desires by forcing unwilling subjects to submit to their ejaculations.

Gabriel said...

The assumption behind "teach men not to rape" is that men don't know what "rape" is, and do things to women that are "rape" but which men are socialized to think is not.

I am not endorsing this assumption. I am stating it. What these activists consider to be "rape" is a radical redefinition from how most people use the word, as other commenters here point out.

So, yes, the organizers really do think that men need to be taught not to "rape" because they believe most people are wrong about what "rape" is and need to be educated on it.

There was a time, supposedly, when it made no sense to people to say that a husband had "raped" his wife. I do not know if this was ever true, or if it is like the tiresome myth of the "rule of thumb" that never existed in any Western legal code. But assume for the sake of argument that it was true, then at one time "teach husbands not to rape" would have meant explaining that a wife has to consent to sex and that it is a crime for her husband to ignore her consent.

Kyzernick said...

I submit that his selfie with the sign is still better than Michelle Obama and her #bringbackourgirls hashtag campaign.

Roughcoat said...

Whether humor is a good idea in this context is another matter.

Humor is serious business, no time for laughs.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger Sweeny said...

I have seen pictures of ordinary-looking men with the caption, "This is what a rapist looks like." The idea is that anyone can be a rapist; you don't have to look scuzzy.

But that is also what rapists don't look like. In fact, since most men aren't rapists, it what most rapists don't look like. It seems to me that he's trying to make the point, "Don't assume just because I'm a male that I'm a rapist."

Since there is a powerful strand of feminism that says all males kinda want to be rapists, I can see how he got pissed off. The invitation can easily be seen as a personal insult: "We have to keep you from doing what you really want to do, so you have to learn that you'll get in big trouble if you do the following ..."

n.n said...

This is not what a woman who casts false aspersions looks like.

From presumption of discrimination to presumption of harassment to presumption of rape over several decades, this is how a society that denigrates individual dignity and debases human life progresses.

Oh, well. Pro-choice. At least the elective abortion of wholly innocent human life will be reduced, and the Planned Parenthood corporation and consumers of clinical cannibalism will be starved of eligible victims. Silver lining, I suppose.

Bob Boyd said...

Laslo said "I am not sure if it is just his face that makes him look like a pissy twat."

Its also his hands. He has PTH. Classic case.

tim in vermont said...

Useful advice fore not getting accused of rape, but not foolproof, but if you wanna get laid, you are gonna have to take some risks.

Call her afterwards. Remember that a rape charge can now be retroactive.

Never fuck somebody just once. It's low class anyways. Unless she has some serious hygiene issues, never fuck somebody just once.

If you don't want to see her anymore, have the class to tell her in person. Yeah she may well throw a scene, but that's where the phrase "man up" came from.

You are correct, men have to live to higher standards than women, that's because a womb is incredibly precious in terms of evolution, and sperm is incredibly cheap. Any woman can get all she wants anytime if she is willing to drop her standards.

Bruce Hayden said...

When I first read about this, my impression was that his overreaction was because the training was somewhere between mandatory and quasi-mandatory. And that this was an opening volley in defense of guys in the War on Men on campus. These attacks are based on the bogus one in five statistics pushed so hard by gender studies warriors.

The problem is that guys are starting to wise up that they are the real victims here, and the real victors are the newly empowered gender studies grads who are able to build nice academic sinecures by stoking this panic. And the guys know what is really going on on campus. The problem is a combination of a huge alcohol problem combined with too many women competing for too few men on campus. The girls get blotto drunk in order to loosen up enough that they can have a hope of getting laid, and, as a result, maybe getting into a relationship with that guy. But that means that a lot of co-eds are ultimately dissatisfied with their sexual actions. They blame the guys they slept with, despite bearing much of the responsibility themselves - which is that the more women and fewer men there are, the more the men are the ones in demand in the sexual marketplace. And that means that the men are even less likely to want to settle down with one woman for sex, when so many others are offering their bodies to these men. Of course, the more the gender studies warriors push this, the worse it gets, as the ratios of women and men on campus continue to deteriorate. But that is fine, since that means the women are that much more desperate for a man, and that ultimately means more jobs for gender studies grads in these new Title IX compliance offices. And, yes, gender studies grads are probably less affected by this dynamic because a lot of them are apparently lesbians.

jaydub said...

The feminists who teach these siminars need employment, too. It's better that they are employed in academia rather than out in the real world where they could screw something up that actually mattered.

Larry J said...

I'm beginning to think that incoming male freshmen should receive training on how to avoid the SJWs:

1. You're not welcome here. Just accept that fact up front.
2. Avoid all of the women at this university. If you want to date, go with a townie or someone back home.
3. You're presumed guilty until proven innocent, and you aren't allowed to prove your innocence.
4. Avoid all "social science" classes and professors.
5. Go to class, study, graduate as quickly as you can, and get the hell out of here.

Martha said...

Way back 2000 my freshman son was required to attend a meeting held in his co-Ed freshmen dorm the first week of orientation at Harvard. The topic was essentially how not to be expelled for inappropriate sexual behavior. Only the male students were required to attend. That meeting was a real education—it scared the bejesus out of him.

Laslo Spatula said...

Can't women just sometimes lie back and Think of England?

I am Laslo.

William said...

The thing I admire the most about Charles Manson is that he really takes the trouble to look like a depraved killer. But, with the exception of George Bundy, most depraved killers truly look a little off. It's hard to commit to a life of depravity without looking a little depraved.......This young man looks pleasant and presentable. If someone takes the trouble to look respectable, they are generally respectable. More often than not, people are who they pretend to be. The only thing off about him is holding of the sign. For this he is stereotyped here as a latent homosexual or some kind of smug misogynist.....,,.What's the politically correct, feminist approved way of saying that you're being too politically correct.

MayBee said...

I want to know what has happened to these women as young girls, that they are so scared of men and so scared of being alone with men and possibly unable to say "no" to men. Women in my college years- in the 80's didn't have this problem. Young dating women in the 90's didn't have these problems.

Is it that there are so many stepfathers out there now? So many absentee fathers? So many dual working families who haven't given their daughters enough time? What is the social phenomenon that has caused this reaction in women>

Caligula said...

I don't know if the training was indeed a "massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face," although I'm pretty sure if attendace is optional I'd decline.

Then again, my reference point here is a mandatory anti-racism training at a previous employer, which was simply abusive. In it, the "facilitators" (as they called themselves) would select a (white) victim, ask the victim if he/she was racist. If the victim said "no," the victim would be badgered, hectored, shouted at, etc. until the victim confessed to assorted acts and inclinations toward racism; if "yes," admission of specific past behaviors and present beliefs was demanded.

This was not training for those accused of bad behavior; it was mandatory training required for all employees. The ultimate purpose of the training presumably was to reduce corporate exposure to civil liability; I can't imagine that it actually reduced racism but expect it may have hardened racist attitudes in those already inclined toward racism.


So, I do suspect the working assumption behind this training, that they may at least include "all men are rapists" (in the sense that although not all men have raped, all will do so if/when presented with opportunity). If so, perhaps it does amount to a "massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face." Especially if, even if it's nominally not mandatory, there is significant social pressure to attend (and perhaps participate).

hawkeyedjb said...

"Can't women just sometimes lie back and Think of England?"

Teach women not to lie.

MayBee said...

The thing I admire the most about Charles Manson is that he really takes the trouble to look like a depraved killer.

And yet, he was able to develop a whole cult of women eager to have sex with him.

EMD said...

I think a really good World War would help us sort some stuff out. Really.

Bruce Hayden said...

Tim - texting or email is much better. Unless you can record your verbal chats on the phone. Then save the emails, texts, etc for the next couple of years. That may not protect you from getting expelled, but if you are, then the emails, texts, and recordings can make a large settlement against the school and accuser much more probable. The problem is that a lot of the kangaroo courts run to try these cases intentionally don't let the guys introduce this sort of evidence, presumably because that would lessen the probability that they be convicted and expelled. But having them helps make the case that the guys were railroaded by the campus kangaroo courts.

damikesc said...

According to college feminists, having a penis makes you look like a rapist. Good on him for refusing to play along. Men should file Title IX suits against these things --- hell, against women's studies courses as a general rule.

Of course, if the content of the training is itself useless and stupid ("remember no means no! Don't be a rapist!") then I could see how someone would be insulted by it. I'd be interested in more specifics about this particular training before determining it is useful or a waste of time.

We can safely guess what wasn't mentioned.

"Being black out drunk with strangers is incredibly stupid". Cause that'd be victim blaming. Better to teach criminals not to steal than to teach somebody to lock a door.

I'll assume it's respectful, not haranguing, and done on a sophisticated level appropriate to college students, focusing on the choice that, under the law, women have a right to make for themselves.

Colleges have students have safe spaces to avoid hearing people they disagree with speaking. You're making assumptions that have little apparent basis in reality.

SGT Ted said...

Assuming that all ordinary men need a class on how not to be a rapist is like assuming that all ordinary women need a class on how not to be a whore.

The entire premise of the class is misandrist. If you don't get that Ann, I don't know what to tell you.

n.n said...

The reason for escalating the war on human dignity is several-fold. First, it is profitable for the social complex. Second, there is an anti-native push. Third, decent people are protesting the legalization and subsequent normalization of elective abortion and clinical cannibalism of wholly innocent human lives by the millions. The effort to exploit the so-called "rape-rape" moral ambiguity is the last gasp of these various special interests to retain political, social, and economic benefits.

Bruce Hayden said...

Maybee - I don't think the problem has much to do with the women or their upbringing, and everything to do with the feminization of colleges and universities. Much of it seems to revolve around the sex ratios. The worse the ratio for women, the more they have to do to get a decent guy, and the less the guys need to do to get laid. Intellectually, young women typically know this, as the sex ratio on campus is a big factor for many of them when deciding where to go. But I suspect they really don't understand it emotionally until they personally experience it themselves.

MayBee said...

Maybee - I don't think the problem has much to do with the women or their upbringing, and everything to do with the feminization of colleges and universities.

That might explain why women are having sex and competing with other women for sex.

It doesn't explain their fearful response to men, or their belief that all college age men must be trained not to rape, or their belief there is a rape culture. In fact, if it's a buyer's market for women, it should diminish those fears. The guys don't have to try as hard. Yet these women assume men are trying so hard to have sex they are actually forcing women to have sex.

It's fear. There's a social pathology there.

Fernandinande said...

"This is not what a rapist looks like [sign]."

Pretty much correct. This is what rapists look like.

Jason said...

He looks a bit like Paul Bernardo, eh?

Chris N said...

So, I ducked out of sex toy demonstration night for Human Sexuality 101 and headed over to mandatory 'don't rape' training.

I've got my head on straight, and ladies appreciate that.

Honestly, I was supposed to be at a production of The Vagina Monologues,' for class credit, but the Slut-Shamers pulled a Blue Bulb Call Box during a protest gone awry.

The 'Historical Inclusion Of Women' flyers didn't include the pronoun 'Xe'

exhelodrvr1 said...

It's very reasonable to be insulted by being forced to take a class on "consent," especially in light of the anti-male bias in this area that has been festering the past 10-20 years. It might be wise to take the class, so that he understands what he is dealing with, but it is still insulting.

Sebastian said...

"Don't assume just because I'm a male that I'm a rapist."

That's his mistake.

And if you complain, you get bitch-slapped by the headmistress.

I wonder how many consent seminars they're organizing in Rotherham.

exhelodrvr1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laslo Spatula said...

If I decidedly do not have sex with a woman who is passed out -- but I do masturbate and ejaculate on her face -- is that Rape?

Asking for a friend.

I am Laslo.

traditionalguy said...

So do rapists look like autistic people. They lack social intelligence, the poor dears.

What makes a man a rapist is the freedom from lawful restraints in a society. Teach lawlessness and reap the whirlwind from many men. War is the hunter gatherer ethos organized into Army tactics. That describes Ginghiss Khan and Mohammed from Mecca. Now those guys were successful rapists because they had an ideology that eliminated lawful restraint.

Diamondhead said...

He could have made his point better, but he's a college student. College students, by and large, are callow. If you read his sign a certain way, he's really just saying that he himself is not a rapist. It actually sounds like he has no idea what really goes on in consent training, since what he's saying is "this isn't a hard concept! You're not going to tell me anything I don't already know." In fact, consent training will teach you that a sex partner could initiate an encounter but in fact be unable to consent at all because she had a single glass of wine. Or that consent could be given verbally by a sex partner but the consent is invalidated by a power differential between the two. Or that quite literally, verbal consent could be given during a sexual encounter and withdrawn the next day. All three of those instances would be considered rape by your average consent trainer.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If he's upset over being invited wait 'till he's in a job and is ordered to go.

He's offended people view him a certain way (as a potential rapist in need of education to prevent his rapey ways). He sees that other people get to enforce a right to not be offended and wants a piece of that action. He's both wrong and stupid--wrong because it turns out only certain groups have the right not to be offended (surprise surprise it's Leftists and their friends) and he's stupid because no one should have that right.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Use of the word "survivor" is purely histrionic, especially since so much of what constitutes sexual assault on today's campuses consists of an inappropriate touch or word.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If you want an actual test you should encourage him to form some group for the purpose of educating people about some topic along lines Leftists violently oppose. Abortion, for example. If he formed a group "I Heart Not Murdering Babies" and sent out invitations to fellow students for some quick discussions about the facts of abortion (fetal development timeline, things like that) do you think there'd be some angry responses? Hey, he's just putting some facts out there, it's just education, you shouldn't be offended by the invitation, you might lean something!

Caligula said...

It's not all that difficult to see the campus "war on rape" as latter-day McCarthyism. Certainly the basic elements are there, such as:

1. A real threat is exaggerated for political purposes: bogus statistics are produced to promote the seriousness of the problem.
2. Characterized by wild, often false accusations.
3. Demands for relaxation of due process.
4. Destruction of career opportunities is more common result than imprisonment.
5. Government involvement and support of the witch hunters.


"Why would you object, if you have nothing to hide?"

campy said...

All men are rapists, and that's all they are.

n.n said...

He's right on another level, too. Since the establishment of a pro-choice cult, the social complex has introduced politically favored congruences. A man who appears to be a "woman", may retain the biological apparatus to commit rape. So, in order to be consistent, the social complex needs to portray both men and "women" as presumptive rapists.

Ladies, watch your six.

tim in vermont said...

@Bruce, I wasn't speaking in terms of legal advice, I was speaking in terms of accepting, as the line in the movie said "all bitches is crazy!" I was speaking in the terms of showing some empathy for somebody who has, after all, shared and intimate experience with you. I think that people need closure, even from one-sided relationships, and it is only decent to provide it. Even though I doubt the Mattress Girl guy actually raped her, he was a bit of a cad, and being a cad is enough to get your name dragged through the mud. Some old fashioned standards from men would go a long ways, I think.

Once you are accused, you have already lost, to take a spin on a business truism.

tim in vermont said...

I think it is good advice for every woman to view all men as potential rapists, and to avoid compromising situations until they trust that man, but that would mean denying themselves the possibility of sex with some guy they momentarily found desirable.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

I don't consent to being subject to your assumption that I don't understand the concept of consent.
Thought rape, the next frontier.

lgv said...

I think you have said enough. He's wrong, no matter how stupid or vapid this seminar was. There is a reason these mandatory sessions are pathetic, but he didn't make the point.

Move on.

lgv said...

Blogger Fernandinande said...
"This is not what a rapist looks like [sign]."

Pretty much correct. This is what rapists look like.

I thought it would be a link to a picture of Bill Clinton.

Gahrie said...

Some old fashioned standards from men would go a long ways, I think.

Many men have never had standards. The solution used to be that women did. Now women don't anymore either. The difference is, women often feel guilty later, while men almost never do.

Matthew Sablan said...

" I have yet to see a situation where someone might have benefitted from being told "hey, don't sexually harass others!""

-- No one's tried a Costanza defense? "If I'd know that was frowned upon!" Or however the quote goes.

traditionalguy said...

The trouble with defining Rape is that we now categorize it as a single act. The traditional Rapine is male raiding parties killing the local men and carrying off the women and children for a life of continuous sex slavery.

Gahrie said...

How happy would a woman be if she was invited to a anti-rape training session where she would be informed that all women are potential sluts, an be forced to endure an hour or more of comments basically repeating this point over and over?

Gahrie said...

The entire premise of the class is misandrist. If you don't get that Ann, I don't know what to tell you.

Fishes don't notice the water....

tim in vermont said...

I thought it would be a link to a picture of Bill Clinton

I expected BC^2, Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby, because he used the plural "rapists"

Michael said...

What would be your reaction to an invitation to a seminar for young women on how to avoid giving ambiguous signals, or how to avoid placing yourself in unnecessary jeopardy? You (maybe not you, but ThinkProgress) would be horrified, you'd claim it was patronizing and blaming the victim, and your reaction would not be much different from this young man's. The Left's fundamental guideline for determining a position on any of these matters seems to be: the woman is always right and the man is always wrong. No wonder fewer and fewer people take them seriously.

None of which is to say that the guy's writing isn't over the top and stupid, but if it had been measured he wouldn't be briefly famous, would he? We get the culture we encourage, and deserve.

tim in vermont said...

I'm done reacting to this character

Exactly, he's created a character.

Gahrie said...

Then, what would this seminar actually be? I'll assume it's respectful, not haranguing,

Do you honestly think that an anti-rape seminar on a college campus in today's environment is going to be respectful to men and not haranguing to them?

Because I don't.

Gahrie said...

Why the emphasis on rape? Why is rape singled out as the one crime that needs to be taught in this fashion?

Because it gives women a "legitimate" reason to denigrate men and increase their power and privileges.

Gahrie said...

But that means that a lot of co-eds are ultimately dissatisfied with their sexual actions.

Damn men, failing to satisfy women!

They blame the guys they slept with, despite bearing much of the responsibility themselves

Women do not responsibilities, only rights.

Gahrie said...

1. You're not welcome here. Just accept that fact up front.
2. Avoid all of the women at this university. If you want to date, go with a townie or someone back home.
3. You're presumed guilty until proven innocent, and you aren't allowed to prove your innocence.
4. Avoid all "social science" classes and professors.
5. Go to class, study, graduate as quickly as you can, and get the hell out of here.


This is almost exactly the advice I give my college bound male high schoolers.

Gahrie said...

What is the social phenomenon that has caused this reaction in women>

Feminism

Anonymous said...

There was a time when this guy wouldn't have needed the training. But the emerging "Being The Kind Of Guy She Won't Regret Fucking Tomorrow Means Yes" standard requires a certain amount of explanation.

Terry said...

Does Althouse really believe the purpose of these seminars is to prevent students from raping one another?
Are our prisons full of people who read an article like this and wonder how there lives would have turned out differently if only they had attended a rape prevention seminar?

Roughcoat said...

How lovely to sit here in the shade
With none of the woes of man and maid
I'm glad I'm not young anymore

The tiny remark that tortures you
The fear that your friends won't like her too
I'm glad I'm not young anymore
The longing to end the stale affair
Until you find out she doesn't care
I'm glad that I'm not young anymore

buwaya puti said...

I still say the simplest rule is best - ban sex on school property. The university is a no-sex zone. Also ban alcohol on school property, as well as being under the influence on school property. Violations of either are grounds for expulsion for all parties involved.
Anything that goes on outside school property is none of the school's business.
Better than this would be an explicit rejection of in loco parentis, which makes too much sense I suppose.

holdfast said...

"I'll assume it's respectful, not haranguing, and done on a sophisticated level appropriate to college students, focusing on the choice that, under the law, women have a right to make for themselves."

You know what they say about the word ass-u-me . . .

Terry said...

The guy is trying to be the change he wants to see in the world. It's a tikkun thing, progressives just don't get it.

n.n said...

Perhaps a seminar to teach that dating is not merely for entertainment would help. It was once about courtship, not casual sexual relations. And while it may hurt the profits of the abortion industry, Planned Parenthood corporation, and investors, it would also reduce the diverse and, apparently, progressive incidence of rape-rape.

jr565 said...

"George] Lawlor asserts that he doesn’t “look like a rapist.” But what, exactly, does that mean? Lawlor never describes what a rapist should look like. "

but the SJW types are essentially asserting that there are millions and millions of rapists on college campuses, who would essentially look like him. Since it's a blanket indictment of men on college campuses who are either rapists or contributing or allowing for rape culture.

BudBrown said...

Ted, not George, Bundy. He attacked the FSU Chi Omega house. Got convicted
with flimsy evidence. If he hadn't started spilling his guts right before
the execution we'd maybe be wondering today if we'd gotten the right guy.

jr565 said...

"I'm reading this over at Think Progress, where the headline is "Male Student Says He Doesn’t Need To Be Taught Not To Rape. Here’s Why He’s Wrong."

what male hasn't been taught that rape is wrong? We have prison sentences for rape, and if rapists are found guilty of rape, they go to jail.
No one is operating thunder the assumption that people who commit rapes somehow don't realize that what they're doing is criminal.
Have you ever heard a rapist say "holy cow! Are you telling me rape is actually wrong? My mind is being blown here. You mean I can't force sex on people against their will? Why has nobody told me this info before? I could have avoided all those rapes if I just knew. I wish there were a college seminar somewhere where someone could have told me this"
That never would happen because EVERYONE KNOWS Rape is wrong. Including the rapists.

n.n said...

What, exactly, does a murderer (e.g. abortionist) look like?

What, exactly, does a pedophile (e.g. rape, not rape-rape) look like?

What, exactly, does a bigot (e.g. "=") look like?

What, exactly, does a cannibal -- clinical consumer of human flesh -- look like?

A potential rapist of men is likely to appear as male and "male".

A potential rapist of women is likely to appear as male and "male".

The potential for rape progresses with normalization of denigration of individual dignity (e.g. presumption of guilty), debasement of human life (e.g. abortion, cannibalism), and progressive morality (e.g. recreational sexual relations). The social complex, and Feminists specifically, are exploiting and profiting from the dysfunction they sowed.

jr565 said...

This whole teach men not to rape idea really reminds me of the Mr Sketch show about child star Josh Fenderman (take off of Corey Feldman) who loses all his money, and then blames it on the money itself.
"There is only one thing I CAN blame and that's the money itself.i didn't know how to spend this money. it didn't come with INSTRUCTIONS.or.... A MANUAL. I did t realize if you exchanged it it for property or services that they took it for good. Let me just say this, alright? The money is gone. I'm from Hollywood. I make millions of dollars pretending to be other people. But no one was pretending when they took this money from me."
http://youtu.be/O6fez3AHUzQ

Rape culture would have us believe that men are like Josh Fenderman. We just don't get that rape is a bad thing. We need additional instructions and/ or manuals otherwise our natural assumption will be that it's ok to rape. Josh Fenderman however was satire. This "teach men not to rape" is meant to be serious.
So, you can see why someone might get offended when they are told they need to be taught (as if they weren't already) that it's wrong to rape.

prairie wind said...

That's the first time I have ever stopped reading one of your posts in the middle, Althouse, and this is a topic I care about. You seemed intent not on understanding what he meant but on finding a way to explain how he didn't make sense.

The kid's point seems clear: teaching young men--who are highly unlikely to commit rape--how not to rape is stupid and insulting. Even if the seminar was for men AND women, we know who gets in trouble for rape more often. We know who the seminar is aimed at.

damikesc said...

4. Avoid all "social science" classes and professors.

Disagree. File Title IX suits on ALL of them. Make them live by the law.

The topic was essentially how not to be expelled for inappropriate sexual behavior. Only the male students were required to attend.

Which reeks of a blatant Title IX violation.

Is it that there are so many stepfathers out there now? So many absentee fathers? So many dual working families who haven't given their daughters enough time? What is the social phenomenon that has caused this reaction in women>

Also no shortage of women who will keep their daughters from seeing the men who fathered them AND denigrate the bio-dads to them ad infinitum.

This was not training for those accused of bad behavior; it was mandatory training required for all employees. The ultimate purpose of the training presumably was to reduce corporate exposure to civil liability; I can't imagine that it actually reduced racism but expect it may have hardened racist attitudes in those already inclined toward racism.

I, personally, would've filed a lawsuit over it. Hostile work environment, bare minimum.

How happy would a woman be if she was invited to a anti-rape training session where she would be informed that all women are potential sluts, an be forced to endure an hour or more of comments basically repeating this point over and over?

Or a black person sent to an anti-racism training session and having the theories behind CRT just blasted in their face for an hour straight as being pure racism...except, they are inherently virulently racist.

mccullough said...

He's a college student. Let's cut him some slack. The problem with college is that many administrators and faculty put about the same amount of thought into this stuff as this lad.. The students are just trying to make their way.

Freeman Hunt said...

It's a muddled way of objecting to the how not to rape training.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I think younger folk have learned to stoke and deploy genuine rage over slights. Including the obviously annoying slight of being imprisoned and made to listen to useless patronizing lectures. His outrage seems genuine (if it's not, then why would we even talk about him? he's otherwise unexceptional)

His "what an X looks like" is parody, I think, of the dual "this is what a feminist looks like" and "i need feminism because ... [handwritten just so]" memes.

Terry said...

I suppose the next feminist ploy will be to claim that 100% of girls are violently raped while attending college.

MaxedOutMama said...

I think he is trying to assert by example the fact that much of the debate about "consent" currently is not about consent or the lack of consent, but about how a young woman might feel later about having consented. So, if you find his response very odd, then logically he would believe that you are indicting the "consent" training. What he is being exposed to is similar to the article you just linked about "bad sex".

If one were to reframe these discussions as being about sexual ethics, it might work better and be more accessible to young men. Just being dumped into an incoherent bath of someone else's emotions gives no clear guidelines.

Men also have emotions, and the atmosphere on campus ignores that. The message that "You are always wrong if you made me feel bad later," is not a guideline for male sexual ethics, because they can't know what they are supposed to do and not do. He is entirely justified in being insulted IMO.

If women cannot be honest with themselves about their desires and their emotional needs, expecting a young man to work it out in the context of a relatively casual sexual encounter is not remotely reasonable.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ann,

I don't think you're competent to blog about men, so I'm going to invite you to my seminar "Blogging about men, a class to teach women what they need to know before they blog."

Now, are you insulted? Do you want to know who this pin-headed loser is who thinks he can tell you how to do what you've been doing for years?

Do you think this "invitation" is to a deeply intellectual talk? Or to an indoctrination and propaganda session?

Do you now understand his problem with the situation? Or are you just too lacking in empathy for the Other?

n.n said...

It's meant as a parody to highlight the dangers of normalizing progressive morality, casual sexual relations, elective abortion, clinical cannibalism, constructed congruences, class diversity and other schemes exploited by the State-established pro-choice cult to violate human and civil rights, denigrate individual dignity, and debase human life.

Big Mike said...

And maybe he's trying to give back the kind of rhetoric he feels he's heard from the anti-rape activists and the point is to crank up other students and get them into the mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore mode.

You wrote that as though it's maybe not a good thing.

David said...

I'm 72. I'm tired of hearing people tell young men how to act. The young men must be getting tired of it too. The assumption in the invitation is that, unless you follow our instructions, you likely will blunder into a serious crime. The approach is patronizing, disrespectful and prejudicial. It's packaged as being helpful, but it's underlying assumption is that men are shit unless seriously reeducated. Thought control should be resisted. I commend this guy for his resistance, and could care less about the artfulness of his protest.

Another approach would be go go to the seminar, and tell them why you think it's bullshit. That's likely what I would have done back in the day. Now I just keep quiet. There is bullshit around every corner. It's exhausting to contemplate what will be necessary for these young people to overcome their educations.

William said...

People aren't always who they claim to be. If you had said two years ago that Bill Cosby appeared to be a rapist, then you would have been a racist on the same level as those pigs who thought that the talented and inventive Ahmad was some kind of terrorist just because he brought a timing device with lots of weird looking wires to school. The important principle to remember here is that you can't go wrong if you dump on a white kid in a check sweater. Those pricks are responsible for most of the world's problems. You can tell just by looking at him that he wants to own a SUV someday. Environmental rapist.

MaxedOutMama said...

tim in vermont @10/22/15, 10:03 AM

Yes, you are entirely right, but you are ignoring the "sex-positivism" movement on campuses. So men are getting exceedingly mixed messages - "We want to screw casually just as much as you," and then "You BASTARD."

Women have always made the rules for consensual sex, or men have made the rules for non-consensual sex. But men are men. They want to understand the rules, and rules are independent and objective, not subjectively based. Creating a social environment in which many women are going to end up feeling emotionally abused is a recipe for disaster - the women want to talk about what went wrong WITHOUT admitting their real needs.

Since Yale's first "Sex Week" in 2002, it has become the fashion for universities to promote what is often an orgy type of culture. And feminists have been very much on board at these functions. And usually there are porn stars or strippers or that type of thing brought in. The Kinkoids heavily embraced and pushed this:
https://allenagabosch.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/a-sex-positive-renaissance/

So young women watch what gets the men all excited, and then they try to do that, thinking that it's going to make them male magnets. Talk about mixed signals. That's why you have young women getting into the bondage/anal sex - they think it's going to make a man durably interested. And of course it does not work out that way.

Women are more likely to be front and center in these campus crusades:
http://www.thenation.com/article/student-sex-column-movement/

It is a highly confusing social environment for both young men and women.

Men on campus, should they try to talk to other men about what's really wrong, would be excoriated. Women who try to talk about how this doesn't work will be shouted down.

And of course, sex and young people being what they are, the young people who have happily paired up wonder through the sex-positive weekends cheerfully, conveying a confusing message.

furious_a said...

No tilted-concern-head hold-up-a-written-sign viral picture is complete without a really awesome Power Fist

Ron Winkleheimer said...

A useful seminar would have been about one minute long and consist of someone telling them:

"Don't be alone with a female student, limit your interactions with female students to the bare minimum and keep all discussion limited to subjects pertaining to academics, and for God's sake, don't sleep with any female students. Because, if you do, they can accuse you of rape at any time and regardless of the actual facts of the situation and whatever proof you can provide that you are not guilty, your life will be screwed up.

furious_a said...

But "massive, painful, bitchy slap in the face"? The "biggest insult ... in a good few years"?

Innocent until proven guilty, Althouse. Myself was overcome with *eyes-roll* at the woman-splaining.

I knew what was up with the Diversity-Racket Sensitivity Training when I asked during one mandatory meeting what recourse there was for an individual falsely accused of Harassment. The only things more apparent than the radio silence from the head of the table were the noticeable temperature drop and lights-out-at-the-snake-farm hissing.

furious_a said...

Every Rape Training Seminar(tm) should include a short-film about Emma Sulkowicz and her stalk-ee entitled "The Worst-Case Scenario".

It's just not worth it, young man, it just isn't.

n.n said...

Separation of Church and State is a myth propagated by people who intend to establish their Church as arbiters of behavioral development.

Traditional religious/moral philosophy taught to respect individual dignity and recognize intrinsic value, but it did not enjoy the political, social, and economic benefits of a multi-trillion dollar state-established Church to redistribute wealth and suppress competing interests. And, of course, the pro-choice Church enjoys the freedom selective principles.

The social revolution is approaching a dysfunctional convergence, and has reached an absolute dysfunctional state with its various pro-choice doctrines, ranging from class diversity to dysfunctional relationships to elective abortion to clinical cannibalism.

Beach Brutus said...

I think the UK student perceived the "invitation" the same way I perceived an inquiry from my wife when she asks me if I am cheating on her. I hurtingly respond - "How can you accuse me of that" - she relies, "I'm not accusing you, I'm just asking." But the question, or here invitation, is an accusation. If someone asks you if you had ever tried Scope, or invited you to the mouthwash fair at the student union, you can fairly infer them accusing you of having bad breath.

furious_a said...

The White People's version of Driving While Black.

OGWiseman said...

I think he's a terrible writer, and thus look forward to his inevitable book deal and speaking tour of MRA-meetups across the country. Next!

furious_a said...

He is angry because the "solution" here is likely not targeting the problem...

..."targeting the problem" was never "the solution"'s intent. The intent appears to be create a full-employment scheme for Diversity Racket hustlers and to provoke and maintain a permanent low-intensity conflict between students/work-colleagues/etc. for furtherance of the Racket.

Or is that too cynical?

Larry J said...

jr565 said...
This whole teach men not to rape idea really reminds me of the Mr Sketch show about child star Josh Fenderman (take off of Corey Feldman) who loses all his money, and then blames it on the money itself.


I'm reminded of a quote by Mencken: “For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong.”

Are the women spouting this nonsense really so stupid as to believe what they're saying? If it were that simple, we could just tell criminals to stop committing all crime. That would save billions of dollars by letting us close all of the criminal courts, fire the prosecutors and judges, close the prisons, etc. It's all so simple! And clean. And wrong.

furious_a said...

The College Experience(tm) anymore is Footloose set in some black-hole antimatter universe where the Rev. Shaw character is the hip, turtleneck-wearing guitar-playing Dean of Students and Ren and Ariel are the squares refusing to sign their "informed consent" cards.

I'm so glad I went to college back in aught-diggity, when the Student Life commissars enforced curfews instead of Acceptable Thoughts(tm).

Speaking of anti-matter, MaryG and I agree on something!

furious_a said...

What is good for men is not necessarily bad for women/families.

Wrong, wrong, WRONG! Life is a pizza, and if Men get a slice then women/children/mintorities/etc. are left with the sausage bits and onions stuck to the box.

furious_a said...

It's the War of All Against All, driven right down to our most intimate, private thoughts and moments. You WILL be made to CARE.

And the SJWs don't care about the damage, as long as they're the Mad Max warlords left squatting atop the rubble.

Freeman Hunt said...

There could be an entire convention, the How to Not Be a Criminal Convention, with seminars entitled How Not to Rape, How Not to Rob, How Not to Murder, Defenestration is Wrong, and the like.

"Hey, Robert, here's a brochure for a convention I heard about. I think you might get something out of it."

Will Robert be offended? Will anyone be surprised if he takes offense?

tim in vermont said...

I think all of these men who say in threads here and elsewhere that they are telling their sons to stay away from college girls are doing them a disservice. They should teach their sons how to be respectful to a lady, and demonstrate that respect with their own wives.

I mean teach them the old fashioned values that worked, year in year out, for centuries.

Gusty Winds said...

As long as were are talking about "Back to the Future" and its predictive accuracy, this type of BS is probably how the "Orgasmitron" came to be in Woody Allen's "Sleeper" and actual sex was replace by the sex pill in "Barbarella".

The campus leftist probably made it too dangerous to even touch each other.



Gusty Winds said...

Do female students have to attend seminars on how to give consent?

Does "I want your cock" or "fuck me hard" constitute consent?

I feel bad for my kids that they even have to go to college in a few years and deal with this shit. What a waste.

tim in vermont said...

Maybe because they are saying that they are counseling their sons to avoid college girls.

Not that you are interested in an honest discussion, Mary.

tim in vermont said...

You yourself might be a dog who is led by his prick, but many many good men exist, who have self-discipline, self-control, respect and love for women: their sisters, mothers, girlfriends, and just platonic friends

Most, the vast majority of men are good men. It still makes good sense for a young woman to be sure of that before she gets herself into a situation with a new young man where she may easily lose control.

But I don't know why I am wasting my time. You just want to attack.

tim in vermont said...

Who taught them about sexual morals, anyone at home

It would seem, sadly, that there are a significant number of young women who accept instruction on the matter from radical feminists.

tim in vermont said...

Educate me Mary. So a young woman should trust every man who comes along, get into his panel van after having met him an hour before, never worry about date rape drugs in her drink? Is that your advice to a girl going off to college?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Maybe because they are saying that they are counseling their sons to avoid college girls.

I certainly think that men should be respectful to a lady, and I show respect to my wife. In fact, as a Christian I think that sex should be only between married couples (a man and a women even.) However, I also know that that is very much a minority opinion.

I would counsel male students to avoid female college students because being respectful towards them is no guarantee that they will not falsely accuse you of rape. Look at the case in the University of Virginia. An entire fraternity was accused of rape by a woman who was simply looking for sympathy from a man who she desired, but did not desire her. And many of the other cases in the media seem to amount to women seeking revenge after a one night stand. In fact, lets go even further. I suggest that not engaging in one night stands is showing respect. That not using women as an object to gratify your sexual appetites with no regard to her feelings or regard for her as a human being is showing respect. To not engage in sex with women of loose sexual character is respect. But it would appear that to many young people, raised on porn and relativism, those believes are considered hopelessly outdated and old fashioned, in fact, positively Victorian.

So, from a practical standpoint, I would advise a young man in college, that while the vast majority of women are not crazy or evil, there are few, and it can be very difficult if not impossible to identify those few and therefore, in the current moral panic witch hunting environment found on college campuses, prudence would dictate minimizing the chances of being accused as much as possible. Because, an accusation is pretty much the same as a conviction.

clint said...

Professor, I would like to cordially invite you to a training session where you can learn how not to sexually abuse children.

Please don't read anything into this. I'm just trying to help.

:)

tim in vermont said...

I would counsel male students to avoid female college students because being respectful towards them is no guarantee that they will not falsely accuse you of rape. Look at the case in the University of Virginia. An entire fraternity was accused of rape by a woman who was simply looking for sympathy from a man who she desired, but did not desire her. And many of the other cases in the media seem to amount to women seeking revenge after a one night stand.

Why not tell them that "one night stands" are not OK? Why not tell them that a young woman needs closure after a relationship, not to be ignored, that 'casual' sex means more to a woman than it does to a man?

R. Chatt said...

Regarding his character -- he exemplifies self absorption and extreme egotism. Very immature and annoyingly defensive. He doesn't know it but the whole world does not actually function just like him but he assumes it does. There may actually be young men who coming from a different background, either sheltered and unexperienced about sex, or perhaps the opposite and very experienced in sex, who come into a college situation and don't know what is expected and acceptable. Those young men might want to meet in a sex segregated situation to discuss these issues to avoid getting into trouble.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

But hey, that moral panic witch hunting environment found on college campuses is going to end up bringing back Victorian sexual mores, just without the icky Christianity stuff. And that's the point of it anyway.

Gahrie said...

They should teach their sons how to be respectful to a lady, and demonstrate that respect with their own wives.

The problem is, they are increasingly unlikely to encounter very many actual ladies among the females on campus these days. It is basically the problem...they want to act like sluts and be treated as ladies, and cry rape when they aren't.

tim in vermont said...

Is that too old-fashioned for you, or too difficult in your estimation for young men to accomplish?

Yes, that is too old fashioned for me, but at least now I can understand where you are coming from. I am not going to make any more posts for Althouse to have to delete.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Why not tell them that "one night stands" are not OK? Why not tell them that a young woman needs closure after a relationship, not to be ignored, that 'casual' sex means more to a woman than it does to a man?

I did say that men shouldn't engage in one night stands. Our only disagreement seems to be that you think acting like a gentleman will be sufficient to safeguard a man from a false rape accusation. I think that the current situation on campus is such that men are in danger of a false rape accusation regardless of what they do and that they need to do everything possible to safeguard themselves from false rape accusations.

That would include not acting in what you and I consider immoral or disrespectful behavior.

tim in vermont said...

Likely will end up divorced, is my bet.

Possibly, but haven't yet after a very long time.

tim in vermont said...

Our only disagreement seems to be that you think acting like a gentleman will be sufficient to safeguard a man from a false rape accusation.

No, I said a loving relationship with a girl at that age is too good a life experience to miss, and that there are no guarantees in life.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It was none of Mary's business but I have college age daughters, and I know many of their friends. There are tons of great girls just looking for a guy who will love them and treat them with respect, if my limited sample is any indication.

I have no doubt that is true. That doesn't change the fact that men's due process rights on college campuses are mostly non-existent.

tim in vermont said...

Yet... you also "wink and nod" at the doggy behaviors of men: like giving advice on how to fuck and use someone, but getting yourself "off the hook" afterwards, by making sure you do a follow-up fuck or send flowers/candy the next day..

Yeah, I probably shouldn't have used that language, but what I meant was that you shouldn't use women like Kleenex and you should take their emotions into account. You shouldn't sleep with somebody and never talk to them again, it's wrong and it's hurtful. When you end a relationship, the other party deserves the respect of a face to face meeting. These things are all true.

But you have a fundamental objection to pre-marital sex, so we will never agree on that.

mikee said...

As a research associate at a military lab in the 1990s, I was forced to attend the sensitivity training for all Naval personnel following the Tailhook scandal.

500 men were packed into an auditorium all day, laughing their asses off at the idiocy of the presentation they were forced to watch.

Times have not changed. If something progressive does not work, do it again, HARDER!

Nichevo said...

Tim, you're getting trolled, she's yanking your chain. She has nothing against sluttery except as a club to beat others with. She was just bragging the other day about all the dick she gets. Playing to her audience is all.

I'm coming to feel about her and Althouse like I did about Iraq and Iran during their 80s war: too bad they can't both lose.

Gusty Winds said...

clint said...Professor, I would like to cordially invite you to a training session where you can learn how not to sexually abuse children.

Exactly. Imagine if every College Professor had to attend a seminar on why it is unethical to sleep with their students. It used to be one on the perks.







Nichevo said...

Once more in English, sugar tits. What did I do now?

Rick said...

If you don't go to the session, you don't know that you won't learn something and you don't know how "basic" the information will be.

What are the chances you could learn something useful from the people who passed a law criminalizing effectively every sexual encounter ever? Maybe you could learn new ways in which they are crazy, but is that worth learning?


tim in vermont said...

Nichevo,
Yeah, That's pretty obvious. I never read her comments but I should have known better. Whatever, it was good for me.

damikesc said...

I bet if I gave a college girl a pamphlet to "Those jeans make your ass look fat" conference, they'd be offended. Even if I didn't say their jeans made their ass look fat.

Because they didn't.

Their ass being fat did that.

damikesc said...

Most all "practical" students are there to get an education, not to get laid and drunk. This is out-of-class behavior that does not need addressing because others were taught sexual values, at home, in their teens... (and even earlier, by positive role modeling by the parents in an intact family and a stable community.)


Men and women both fall in this category.


Only one group is punished for it.

I think all of these men who say in threads here and elsewhere that they are telling their sons to stay away from college girls are doing them a disservice. They should teach their sons how to be respectful to a lady, and demonstrate that respect with their own wives.

Great theory. How many feminists are "ladies", however? I wouldn't expect my sons to treat a bitch any more kindly than she treated them.

Char Char Binks said...

I look like a rapist.

Why can't I be Laslo?

Anonymous said...

Particularly in the college setting, these kinds of mandatory sessions are not only usually a waste of time, they tend to be undercut by the college anyway. Because unlike a corporate HR-sponsored seminar which is likely focused only on ways to stay out of work and/or legal trouble, the college will also be doing its best to promote a culture of free sex on campus, even though it should be obvious that making it easy to have sex will increase the incidences of unconsensual sex.

Back in my freshman days, one of the very first housing-sponsored events was condom tasting. Because nothing says welcome to college ladies than trying to help them figure out which flavor they'd like to taste when doing the nasty. Similarly the policy of handing out condoms like free candy. Hint to college officials - the guys picking those condoms up probably intend on using them to have sex, and odds are most of them will be used with women.

It is one thing to try and rationally encourage reasonable consent standards. It is quite another to do everything possible to promote sexual encounters with no questions and no consequences, ignore for the most part the student drinking and drug problems, and then act shocked when bad stuff happens when sex, drugs, and alcohol get mixed.

BN said...

Well, I guess I'm late to this party, eh? what's the fuckin' point?

But... because, you know, I've had a drink or a two... or maybe three... or so...

Two points:

Well, shit's been deleted, so who knows what I was gonna say, but here ya go:

Perfesser said: "Whether humor is a good idea in this context is another matter."

Lol. Tha's funny! ...except for the humor part. Ver fuckin' boten! Off with yer head!



BN said...

oops... that was just one point, huh? Don't worry... more to come... this is along fuckin'--and by "fuckin'--I mean FUCKIN', thread!

BN said...

Mary (mi amore) said: "Yet... you also "wink and nod" at the doggy behaviors of men..."

Well, ok, but I was in prison at the time, so I kinda have an excuse...

I mean... you know.

[Delete this now! Please!]

Wait. Were we talkin' about rape? Never mind; don't delete it. Wait. What? Only women get raped? Wait. What?

BN said...

Laslo said: "Can't women just sometimes lie back and Think of England?"

Dude, I thought you were the dude!

1) Women never just lie back... they talk, and talk, and talk, and talk... and ad finuckin' item.

2) Women never think of England; they think only of themselves. Duh...

I know. Right? Misogynistic!

But isn't that the point? Divide and fuckin' conquer!

Men and women used to know how to have sex together (and love, but we don't focus on that anymore--so "Victorian"). What a wonderful world we have built!

Who knew "free love" would lead to this?

What curse was our children and grandchildren given to be born in this time?

Oh... yeah.


Us.


CEL said...

Maybe his upset stems from the nakedly misandrist starting point of the lecture. Maybe he hates being patronized. Odds are there isn't going to be any give and take on how the second party should be clear about consenting and not back and forth. As I believe I once heard Camille Paglia tell Gloria Steinem, and I paraphrase, "No doesn't always mean no sweating in the back of a Chevy." Sex is much too complicated psychologically to be reduced to "Yes means yes." And, by the way, yes does not always mean yes, either. That doesn't mean it is rape. It just means it is complicated. And back to the "invitation", I doubt there was any serious thought given to the situation in which the female forces the issue with a drunk guy, or in which a lesbian forces her partner. And I bet the starting point is that sex between two impaired people can never have a male victim and never result in a female being anything other than a victim. There are lots of reasons to be offended at the presumptuous invitation from by all appearance man-hating administrators.

Bruce Hayden said...

That Bruce Hayden's view, if I have read the thread correctly..

Yes and no. My view is that you will find a number of co-eds at almost any college or university who don't buy into getting blotto drunk, etc. And, who aren't the ones putting out without any commitment from a guy on the off chance that they will be able to snag them. But, for the most part, they aren't the ones getting "sexually assaulted" either. Maybe it is just the cases that make the press (because they falsely accuse, and often convict, the guys, who push back), but many, if not most, of the "sexual assaults" that supposedly happen on campuses, seem to involve young women who cannot land the guys they want, and/or got blotto drunk trying to get close to some guy, sometimes any guy, on a Friday or Saturday night.

My kid graduated a couple years ago, and had friends who got caught up in this. Several girls gave up their virginity to guys who looked at them only as one night stands, and not surprisingly, their girl friends thought that was "sexual assault", or even "rape". But, the scarier part involved the binge drinking. Both sexes, but esp. the young women, would start to pre-party with their same sex friends mid Friday afternoon, unless it was an Ivy League (or similar selectivity), when the partying often started Thursday afternoon. Then, they would got to both sex parties after everyone was quite awash in alcohol. By the end of the evening, many would be totally wasted, some nearing incapacitation. At my kid's school, they inevitably had a couple kids "transported" every weekend - this means that the paramedics had to be called to transport some of the kids to the ER. We are talking in many cases of enough alcohol that they would be 3x or so the legal limit if they were to drive, but that is one of the reasons they stay on campus, so that they don't have to drive (drunk). And, for every kid who got transported, friends probably had to keep several more from falling asleep until they sobered up a bit. Yes, both boys and girls did this, but because of different metabolisms and sizes, the co-eds seemed to get closer to overdosing on alcohol than the men did. Note though that a lot of the students seem to have calmed down a bit by their junior and senior years.

This is so different from when I was an undergraduate some 40 years earlier. Then, the only women who would drink more than one drink in an evening were in a serious relationship with a guy. And, we guys didn't tend to drink that much, even in a fraternity, with beer in the Coke machine and a full bar downstairs. We are talking 3-4 beers or mixed drinks in an evening, compared to the 8-10-12 that we are seeing now.

But, as I said above, plenty of young women do not get involved in this, or don't get involved that much. And, not surprisingly, find that this approach is more likely to lead to a long term relationship than if they had slept around after getting blotto drunk a lot. Or, really, almost begging for sex. Deferred gratification is, as is typical, advantageous in the long run.