The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (NCHERM) advises colleges on sexual assault policy and plays a major role in shaping the public discourse about sexual misconduct on campus. It's client list reads like a who's who of American institutions of higher learning. The federal initiatives reflected in the Department of Education's April 4 "Dear Colleague" letter were a reaction to its efforts. (See, e.g., here.)
Here is an example of what NCHERM thinks constitutes sexual misconduct (found on page 9 of this document). What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
24 comments:
And ladies and gentlemen, I was involved in a case involving facts that mirrored this example one time. But I'd like to hear from you.
What he simply did was whine repeatedly about what he wanted. If whining and trying to verbally coerce someone to do something that they don't want is a crime then just about every female would be in jail.
He didn't force her in his room, he didn't force her to stay, he didn't prevent her from leaving at any time and didn't force her to do anything. She was free to make any choice she wanted to and leave whenever she wanted.
This is only misconduct or a crime if you presume females are helpless, do not have the cognitive ability to make their own decisions and need to be constantly monitored and protected by a nanny state. It's pretty insulting to them.
Wow. Whatever happened to "just say "no"?
I guess the old standard was a woman felt moral and empowered by saying no.
Now a woman proceeds to participate in the sex act,THEN asserts her moral indignation by accusing him of rape for affirmation. She's now anoited "victim" sainthood -she's "empowered" by having a "win" under her belt, and she's a "survivor" to boot!!!!
The girl who simply said "no"? A wuss. A traitor. Someone who didn't do her part.
So obviously, when a woman continually goes on and on until you succumb to her wishes and buy her the 'gift' - she is now guilty of theft... right?
Their entire argument depends on their frail understanding of coercion, and whether coercion implies force. Needless to say, the latter is obviously false.
Constant whining and persuasion until the other party CONSENTS does not fulfill the definition of coercion. He did not use "threats, rewards, intimidation or force", her actions were voluntary and her own. Treating it otherwise would open up a slippery slope where EVERY SINGLE INTERACTION could be interpreted as coercion, and women have absolutely no incentive or jugdgement of their own, can not make decisions, their actions are involuntary, have no free will, are no human.
This entire situation is absurd, she didn't go to the guy's room after a party and spend 4 hours getting convinced for nothing. What did she expect, chess? Okay, she didn't want intercourse, we get it. But she agreed to a handjob, and he didn't force the intercourse either!
And yet this is somehow rape? ABSURD!
Firstly, if she says no, she says no. that's it. dump her and go home. maybe you get another chance at the party. just accept the no.
Secondly, here's my big problem with the text:
All of the aggressors in the examples (Bill, Jiang, Kevin) have male names, and all of the victims (Amanda, Beth, Amy) have female sounding names.
Example 3: "Kevin is not sure how much Amy has had, but he's pretty sure it's a lot" (Amy, we are led to assume, vomits just before sex) Things aren't so clear cut in real life.
As I said [in reddit (1):
I'm not an expert in whether "she" is drunk, or tricked out on highballs, lowballs, goofballs, tarballs, ecstasy, downers, cocaine, gummy worms, or tequila worms.
Maybe she's totally sober and just responding to the party atmosphere.
I don't know. I'm not trained in sobriety verification. Kevin may have seen Amy vomit. If he hadn't, is it still rape?
33% of men and 23% of women drank to increase their chance of sex.(2)
1 in 20 women has NEVER had sex sober as they lack body confidence. (3)
Should males be default defenders of females who get themselves drunk (4)?
(1)(http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/jxbo1/consensual_sex_and_drunk_women/c2fx00m)
(2) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7389980.stm
(3)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1215262/One-20-women-NEVER-sex-sober-lack-body-confidence.html
(4) http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1870
She wasn't coerced, but what he was doing was a clear-cut case of sexual harassment plain and simple. If someone says "No", they mean if. Anything beyond that is harassment.
Though I can't speak for legal definitions, their use of coercion doesn't seem to match dictionary definitions.
So their frame work of nagging=coercion=equal force=nonconsent=sexual misconduct gets destroyed at the start as nagging =/= coercion
Hmm. I thought a woman was allowed to change her mind. Or does that apply only when she originally says "yes" and then changes her mind to say "no"?
I suppose it's easier to just brand him a criminal and be done with it than to require her to continue to go through the enormous bother of saying "no" if he has the audacity to ask for a handjob more than once.
The more innocent young men that gender-feminists can persecute, the stronger the gender-feminist community gets.
It is that simple folks; but the real perversion lies in the use of state and federal dollars and agencies to manufacture "Empowerment" rhetoric this specific gender-feminist community.
At this rate, hetero-sexual males will soon feel uncomfortable in university settings around the country; and what are the full implications of this??
I believe there are state and federally funded organizations that are using protocol perversions and semantics games to manufacture "Empowerment" rhetoric for the gender-feminist community.
I also believe this "manufactured statistics Alliance" is not only a perversion...its unconstitutional.
Elsewhere in the policy manual:
"There is a difference between seduction and coercion. Coercing someone into sexual activity violates this policy just as much as physically forcing someone into sex. Coercion happens when someone unreasonably pressures someone else for sex." (PAGE 2)
"Consent cannot be procured by use of physical force, compelling threats, intimidating behavior, or coercion. Coercion is unreasonable pressure for sexual activity. Coercive behavior differs from seductive behavior based on the type of pressure someone uses to get consent from another. When someone makes clear to you that they do not want sex, that they want to stop, or that they do not want to go past a certain point of sexual interaction, continued pressure beyond that point can be coercive." (Page 7)
If I saw only the three examples, without the whole documents, I would have thought it was a clever satire written by our friend ScareCrow.
If a woman lets herself be talked into an intercourse, it is rape.
If a woman participates in an intercourse, but doesn't really initiate it, it is rape.
If a woman initiates it, it is rape anyway.
Moreover: nobody can have intercourse while drunk. Because, mind you, a drunk woman can't give a genuine consent.
Never ever have even totalitarian states tried to regulate sex life of their citizens to such absurd extent.
My poor American friends... ask for written consent every time you feel bold enough to have sex with an American woman. Don't forget to check the validity of the date, seal, and the lawyer's signature.
Though, of course, even in this case she can say she changed her mind in the middle of the intercourse... et voila, you're a bloody rapist again.
Jean, a woman can change her mind from "yes" to "no" and everyone acknowledges that the guy must stop. But when a woman changes her mind from "no" to "yes," the motivations for that change must be scrutinized: while "secuction" is an acceptable motivation, "coercion" is not.
But at what point does "seduction" become "coercion"? Anyone can tell the difference between midnight and noon, but at what point does twilight become night? No means no is a fairly easy, bright-line test. This isn't. Here, a male can be expelled from school, his life forever altered in a significant way, if college adjudicators determine, based on who-knows-what, that he crossed a fuzzy, indistinct line from "seduction" to "coercion." And everyone's view of where that line is will be different. He's expelled even though SHE stayed in HIS room for four hours when she had the power to leave; and even though she agreed to do it without threats of force, blackmail, or duress (the legal kind, not Brett Sokolow's version).
The principal problem with Sokolow's strange world view on coercion is that it doesn't hold people responsible for their own actions. Amanda had the power to leave. Yet, Bill's cajoling was so terribly uncomfortable that she stayed -- for four hours? Seriously?
Everyone, Mr. Sokolow, finds themselves in uncomofortable situations where they are asked to do something they'd rather not. The adult response is to say "no." And if someone keeps asking another person to do something she'd rather not do, she has the power to continue to say "no." She even has the power to leave. In the example, Amanda was a willing visitor to Bill's room, not a prisoner at Abu Ghraib. Bill was being an immature, horny boy trying to get sex from Amanda; he wasn't Dick Cheney waterboarding a key Al Qaeda operative for information.
If Amanda finally gave in, could the motivation have been to foster a long-term relationship with Bill?
And does Brett Sokolow's example now require college boys to read the minds of their dates? She can change her mind from "ye" to "no," and that means the boy must stop. But if she changes her mind from "no" to "yes," the boy must enlist the Amazing Kreskin to know what she's really thinking.
And if Amanda cajoles Bill to drive home with her on the weekend to attend her mother's birthday party even though she knows he really doesn't want to, would Brett Sokolow call that sexual harassment? Oh, but I am sure that's different.
"Coercion" is being used bc it's completely arbitrary and meaningless. A male simply asks a female at a party to go back to his room. Thats coercion!! She was too weak to resist the pressure so she couldn't really consent. It's a term the schools can use to create more guilty males so they can show how great they are defending the helpless innocent women.Oh, and to get more funding.
The one shown in the JPG image is just absurd. Calling that rape is like calling a sucker punch murder.
The other two examples - lame.
Like any tripe that comes from academia, it lacks any basis in reality.
It is all written by fuzzy sweater wearing sh*t-heads.
Here, this is a good example of rape:
Jill is walking through a parking lot. Jack is out on parole and hiding behind a car.
Jack jumps out, and hits Jill in the head with a rock. He then pulls her into his car, and has sex with her while she is unconscious.
Those academic morons wouldn't know what rape was if it crawled up their *ss and died.
Notice that they fail to provide a "clear and cut" example of a rape.
Every thing is fuzzy - like their brains.
I am going to mock this on my blog.
Aren't we getting just a wee bit excited about a lousy hand job?
To me one of the weirdest things about feminists is how they're always talking about empowering women on the one hand while encouraging them to fall apart and play victim on the flimsiest of pretexts on the other.
I mean if giving an unwanted handjob in college to a guy she's been voluntarily alone with for four hours is among the worst things that can happen to a woman, I think I'd like to be a woman, please.
The thing that NCHERM appears to leave out of their example is the actual definition of coercion.
Coercion is not simply "pressuring someone." Coercion must include a threat. It is inducing someone to commit an act by instilling fear of harm or property damage.
In the case of Bill and Amanda, Bill may have been condescending, but he made no threat and did not instill fear of harm.
In most situations consent is implied if one cooperates and is not coerced. Active participation is considered to imply consent. In the case of Jiang and Beth active participation may be questionable. she could be considered an active participant up to the point of having the flashback. At this point she is no longer actively participating, but intercourse is already underway. the question is at what point is she not responsible for communicating with Jiang? If Beth never communicates a lack of consent and Jiang is unaware of her past, and if she has actively participated up to this point, how is he to know when consent is withdrawn?
Many jurisdictions would consider the case of Kevin and Amy to be rape and criminal prosecution may be pursued. Even if she consented, if he was aware of her condition, he could be held responsible. It isn't particularly fair to make him responsible for her dimished capacity, especially if he has been drinking as well, but it is the law in many jurisdictions.
But as someone else pointed out, in every scenario the male is the perp and the female is the victim. NCHERM doesn't seem to think that women can be perpetrators of sexual violence or harassment.
TDOM
Hieronymus Braintree, if there were actual coercion, not just pleading and talking someone into doing something, a handjob certainly would be offensive. No one should be forced to do anything. Except, of course, procure health insurance under the new Obama law, and serve in the military if drafted (men only).
Archivist,
A coerced handjob would be offensive but I don't see any coercion in the example presented. Cajoling? Yes. Coercion? No.
I think we're on the same page, dude. Honest.
Right, HB, we are on the same page.
Is Bill's behaviour admirable? - No
Should he get a lecture about being more respectful next time? - uite possibly
Should he be expelled? - Certainly not.
Gender feminists don't like hetero-sexuals, so they have no qualms about persecuting innocent hetero-males on false Rape charges.
I don't believe gender-feminists should have any say in hetero-sexual relations, for they have a concerted interest in destroying "hetero-dominance", which should disqualify them from any objective rational assesments.
College gender-Raunch professors want to use a "saws-all with a dildo strapped on the end of it", on a womens vagina as a class project.
I wander what type of students are gonna line up for his class??
Is a jar of Vaseline gonna be mandatory??
Post a Comment