Verbal Consent: Elon says that effective consent may only be obtained with "a comprehensible, unambiguous, verbal, positive and enthusiastic statement of consent for each sexual act . . . ." While the definition is ostensibly gender neutral (political correctness mandates nothing less), the unmistakable goal is to deconstruct, and then reconstruct, Elon men to create a female-friendly, sexual utopia on campus.
The problem with Elon's definition, of course, is that it punishes men for engaging in sexual relations even when actual consent is present if consent is not obtained in the "proper" Elon-manner, and that is sick beyond measure.
There is a world of difference between interactions that occur in the bedroom and those that occur in the boardroom. Unlike the latter, the former have never been marked by carefully phrased language crafted from legal formbooks, but rather by looks, nods, gentle caresses, and barely decipherable grunts emanating from sweaty embraces. Often the entire encounter is, to paraphrase the eminent Judge Cardozo, instinct with consent, imperfectly expressed.
But the progressives at Elon who control the public discourse on all things gender have decided they know better than our ancestors, and they have tossed eons of cumulative human experience onto a scrapheap of feminist indifference. Their hubris borders on the pathological.
Enthusiastic Consent: The Elon definition also requires that consent be "enthusiastic," a condition, no doubt, that is gauged by the "enthusiasm meters" Elon surely has installed in young women's bedrooms (because how else would "enthusiasm" be measured to discern if a violation of this policy has occurred?). The fact that some people are incapable of showing much enthusiasm about anything, even when they are much enthused, seems to have escaped the notice of the enlightened feminists at Elon. Sex with such persons would always be rape.
Unimpaired Consent: Elon's Web site doesn't stop there. It also mandates that consent be "unimpaired" from alcohol or drugs. Note that it does not talk of "incapacitation," but of "impairment," and Elon's definition exceeds even the Title IX standard mandated by the über-feminist Department of Education. As explained by Brett Sokolow, founder of the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management that advises colleges on sex policies: ". . . being impaired while engaging in sex in no way implicates Title IX. . . . incapacitated sex will implicate Title IX, but confusing incapacitation with impairment helps no one here, especially the students who are trying to understand their experiences." http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/10/28/essay-ocr-guidelines-sexual-assault-hurt-colleges-and-students and http://atixa.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/43/.
Verbal or Emotional Pressure: Elon's Web site doesn't stop there. It also says that "consent cannot be established if one person is pressuring the other - this can be . . . verbal or emotional pressure." Let us understand what this means: men who do what society has been telling them to do for decades -- ask for sex before proceeding -- are punished for asking in a boorish, immature, or annoying manner, even when the woman agrees to proceed.
Consent has its roots in contract law, and the closest concept in the common law to sexual coercion is duress, a concept employed to invalidate contracts. A contract is voidable for duress if a victim's manifestation of assent has been induced by an improper threat, and if the victim has no reasonable alternative but to agree. Nagging for sex does not involve an improper threat, and a woman has a reasonable alternative to proceeding in the face of nagging: she can say no, and she can walk away. Aside from trivializing the experience of actual rape victims, this standard is insulting to women since it assumes they are more akin to infants than free moral agents capable of saying "yes" when they want sex, and "no" when they don't.
Moreover, fundamental notions of fairness dictate that college rules of conduct also be sufficiently definite to warn the accused when he's in violation of them. College sex policies should not be free-floating standards of purported misconduct -- rape in the air -- that mean whatever some arbitrary disciplinary hearing panel say they mean. The Elon definition would not pass Constitutional muster. A man can, presumably, ask for sex, but he can't ask too much -- but how much is too much? When does asking become nagging? When does "seduction" turn into "coercion"? The indistinct line he's told he can't cross is as clear as a dense New England fog. There is no mistaking midnight for noon, but at what point does twilight become night? Here, it's impossible to say.
Conclusion: Sexual assault laws and policies should not be a clearinghouse to redress every less than ideal sexual encounter. The only pertinent inquiry should be whether the woman manifested consent to engage in the sex act when she had a reasonable alternative not to. Once such consent is found, Big Brother/Sister should stay out of the bedroom.
To her credit, Whitney Gregory, director of Student Conduct at Elon, admits that "students don't always find it practical to pursue a verbal agreement to engage in sexual activity, and so verbal consent is not always the standard by which the outcome of cases is determined." But Anne Royster, director of Student Development, former coordinator for Elon's personal health programs and community well-being, has heard countless students' accounts of sexual violence and assault and said she believes and practices that effective consent cannot be given in the absence of a verbal "yes," even if body language and lack of a verbal "no" indicate otherwise. She also said she also doesn't think effective consent can be given between two individuals having met each other for the first time at a party — a potential stage-setter for regretted sex. See here: http://www.elon.edu/pendulum/Story.aspx?id=5953.
That's the same Anne Royster who doesn't think false false rape claims should be highly publicized. See here: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/05/elon-university-doesnt-want-false-rape.html.
Elon's policy seems premised not on sound principles of public policy, but on gender get-evenism. It is the product of the politics of revenge. Young men thinking of attending Elon need to be aware of it.
Posts
15 comments:
If "no" means no, then no means "no".
"Right." I'm sure.
"It is the product of the politics of revenge".
What is it that such 'womyn' want revenge for considering the special class protected status females have enjoyed in America for so long?
Atlas Laughed
Then "yes" means "yes", and the next morning it doesn't change to "no."
I am so happy my sons are out of college.
Nov 11, 2011 10:41:00 AM
If "yes" really means (I have the right to change my mind later), then yes really means "no".
All young men need to be warned of this dangerous feminist option.
Is this just a pendulum swinging too far the other way or something more?
I strongly believe in written policies and education to help young people understand what consent means, on both sides of the gender fence. But this creates a bizarre formalized contract environment in which a misstep would seem to spell disaster. It's as if the young men or women need to rely on the good will of their partner not to turn something clearly consensual into assault because one of them forgot a "yes" at any point.
I believe in enthusiastic consent as a concept and that people need to be taught what that means. But it's not this.
And isn't it ultimately irrelevant? If someone is going to lie one way or the other, saying that the partner did or didn't say a "yes" would just be another part of the lie. It's still two people alone (for the most part), so where's the proof?
Men can use this bullshit just as effectively as women; I have myself. Women are far more tactile and sexually suggestive than men (they cannot resist touching men and flaunting themselves) and it is only necessary to lay a complaint every time a woman makes an advance that has not been previously agreed to show them, again, that they can only suffer from feminist initiatives.
Andrew, excellent points. The problem this poses is in those murky encounters where it's really tough to say what happened, but at Elon, the disciplinary board can latch onto one thing as an easy out (". . . well, he admitted there was no verbalization, so that's all we need: guilty . . .").
I loathe and detest the idea of anyone getting away with rape. Consent -- real consent, not "well, she didn't object" in the absence of anything more -- is crucial. The problem is that people manifest consent in an infinite variety of ways, and verbalized bedroom contracts isn't generally among them. I am very wary of making "enthusiasm" a condition for finding consent. I know people who are incapable of mustering what others would call "enthusiasm" about anything. But I think a critical part of educating our young people about these matters should include the idea that sex is a very complicated thing for a lot of people, especially women (women, we are told by recent studies, experience much greater after-the-fact regret about one night stands than men). While people have to be able to rely on what others tell them, enthusiastic or not, it would be helpful to tell our young men and our young women that women are probably more conflicted about this than men are, and that it's probably a good idea to engage in some real communication -- where women can be honest about their feelings, and men should listen.
I do not believe that men should be punished when women who don't want to have sex go along with them and have sex for whatever reason -- perhaps they are looking to cultivate a relationship by having sex. Let's stop blaming the men for relying on what women tell them, either verbally or by conduct, and start insisting that women tell them the truth about whether they want to have sex. And if the guy nags for sex, women who don't want to do it need to walk away and not placate him.
Even "sure" is not sufficiently enthusiastic enough and therefor is a "no".
The boys will steer clear of Elon and it will go the way of Antioch. Antioch ran the boys off then the girls stopped coming to.
Ugh, this is just absolute garbage, and it actually ruins sex between consenting adults!
My current boyfriend refuses to sleep with me if I've had a glass of wine or a beer because I can't consent if I'm even a little bit intoxicated. I've expressed multiple times that this is absolutely absurd, and that I am giving consent now, sober, so why can't we have tipsy sex?
But the feminists have trained men to ask every five minutes, "Is this okay?" and it is maddening. If I am in a committed relationship with somebody, and we have had sex, consent it given. We should be teaching women to say, "No, that's not okay" not teaching men to play Sex Jeopardy every time I drop my panties! Absolutely infuriating. When did women become so weak that they can't just say no?
Also, as a comment to your general blog, I have been sexually abused, assaulted, and molested, and I have never called it rape. Women throw that word around so much it doesn't mean anything anymore. I've also had drunk sex I regretted, and it wasn't rape.
What is wrong with people?
You start to see why people are openly questioning the value of college these days. The broads who cooked up this policy will be over 30 fat and single in a few years.
One cannot associate with the opposite sex under those conditions. The College, has effectively made it illegal for any man (no matter what apparent consent he has) to engage in any form of sexual activity.
The women might as well be in a convent, and as one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb it is in practice likely to bring about the very behaviour that the rules seek to stamp out.
I suppose the college is imposing these rules to prevent itself from being sued.
"Consent -- real consent, not "well, she didn't object" in the absence of anything more -- is crucial."
I think this highlights a difference between law and morality. I agree that people should obtain clear consent. However, the law should only apply to the violation of non-consent, not merely the absence obvious consent. Clear objection should be required. That a woman says "no" isn't too much to ask before throwing someone in prison. It also shouldn't be too much to ask before throwing someone out of school.
No I disagree, there is a part of life that these crypto-facists are afraid of, that is going on right next door but they never quite see it in their small world they can just smell it. It's called human freedom, and self determination, they fear this unplanned and authentic way of behaving, and are too weak to be able to deal with it.
If you make everything illegal, then the law is automatically broken and therefore looses it's power to regulate. The only thing that making everything illegal, everything rape, everything sexual assault does, is that at any moment, you will have deal with unlimited coercion by government or officials. Thus by making everything illegal, you make a society lawless, and thus legalize everything.
Post a Comment