The National Center for Education Statistics---okay, I will say tens of millions of people have been in the thousands of colleges and universities over the years since the inception of colleges and universities 50-300+ years ago (rape isn't exclusive to co-educational institutions). Whether added together equals billion(s) of people over the 50-300+ years of the existence of thousands of college and universities in the USA...whatever. Happy now? Back to the point.

Not gonna lie, have been wondering this too.

What does that possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Your definition of straw man is different from any definition I'm familiar with. Asking a question in no way commits such a fallacy. To address your question, yes, I would say if a man says no and the woman persists, she raped him.

I've never said I encourage a lack of agency in college women. I find it absurd and dangerous that you want college men to think it's not rape to have sex with women who have already told them no.

Well, it *is* Greekchat. Most contributors to the forum are affiliated with Greek life somehow.

I think it's a good guide, and some of the things I like are that it say you need to get a "yes," verbal or otherwise, and generally encourages communication. It also talks about patterns of behavior and the excessive testing or violation of boundaries, which I think is really good, as I think that big violations often come from the same people who make little violations.

What I don't like is that, in the section on Prevention, there's not enough emphasis, well, not being a rapist. I think identifying rapey behavior and bystander intervention are good, but I'd like to see a section on behaviors that are not acceptable.

You might find of interest this semiannual report by Yale of reported sexual misconduct there.

http://provost.yale.edu/sites/defaul...014_Report.pdf

I think it's a good guide, too. I like how it addresses all Yale affiliates (students and employees). I find it particularly interesting that the University prohibits romantic relationships between faculty members and undergraduates: It is uncommon (at least compared to all the universities where I've worked) to have such a strict policy.

Wow. The Descriptive Summaries of Complaints section is interesting.

I really like the way they're going about this. Between the detailed guide and the explanation of how particular cases have been resolved, they're doing themselves a big favor (from an administrative point of view). Fewer gray areas and more transparency are a campus administrator's best friend.

your question was based on a factual element that was not an issue that was considered in the Swarthmore case, ie. did she or didn't she fight back?


. You haven't said it directly but that is certainly the result. Unless I am misunderstanding you, any time a person initiates sex after they have been told no once, any sex that follows is rape.


. And I am. Is it a requirement to disclose my affiliation?

I haven't read the guidelines, but I just wanted to say that everything you two have posted here sounds such like the right approach to this problem: clearly establishing norms, clearly establishing appropriate behavior, and attempting to address the many cultural patterns and behaviors that can lead to sexual assault in any form.

For sure. More clarity for all parties. I would imagine the prohibition of romantic relationships between faculty and students stems from the fact that a faculty member is inherently in a "power" position over a student. Male OR female!

President Sullivan at UVA announced that all GLOs will be reinstated on 9 January, but that this will be contingent upon satisfactory and workable policies to address this most serious matter.

I am satisfied that UVA is now on the right track with its ad hoc committee. Hopefully, what will emerge from this is something that provides clarity and protection for all parties.

Oh, for Pete's Sake. Of course it's not a requirement to disclose your affiliation. It's just standard practice to introduce yourself, along with your Greek affiliation, on a Greeklife-related message board.

My "question" was never mine to begin with. You're the one who insinuated that a rape has not occurred if the woman didn't fight back. Forget the whole fighting back thing and go back to the question I originally asked you. The Swathmore woman told the guy no and he had sex with her anyway. I asked you, if that's not rape, then what is it?

I'll be honest, your attitude about this is both disgusting and alarming. Especially for someone with college age children. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to your daughter, I bet you'd stop putting quotation marks around "victim."

To be fair, they only prohibit relationships between faculty and undergraduates. And I can understand why a school would want to have this guideline in place, I just haven't seen it. In fact, I know many couples who wouldn't be together if the school(s) involved had such a guideline in place.

OR either of her sons! Young college men need to understand how and under what circumstances they make themselves vulnerable to accusations.

Yes. Yale College refers to its undergrads.

Yours is a very truncated version of the facts in the Swarthmore case.
He initiated sex and she "basically" said no. So he stopped his physical advances. He then initiated sex again and she said she "just kinda laid there and didn't do anything. I had already said no. And I was tired..."



I find your attitude alarming too. Do you have a daughter? Would you tell her to just lay there passively because it's up to her partner not to do something she doesn't want?

:rolleyes:

Ah yes, now we are at the "do you have a daughter...would you tell her...." segment of the discussion.

Guess what? Being able to empathize and relate to this topic does not require having a daughter or having children at all. It requires understanding the historical and contemporary singificance of sexual violence. It requires awareness of the many women and men who were and are "silent victims" during and after the incidents.

I understand the apprehension that people have with definitions of rape and varying experiences that can make it more difficult to consider some instances rape. I understand that. I also understand that people blur the lines which can cause assumptions and resulting confusions among women and men. I understand that.

What I don't understand is the apparent inability to grasp a larger message even if you disagree with the details of a particular incident. THAT I cannot understand other than it being a defense mechanism resulting from a need to maintain the "silent consent" and "blame feminism" approaches.

I am not the one that brought daughters into the discussion, nor did I ever intimate that only someone having daughters can relate and empathize to this subject.

I fully grasp the larger message. I don't see that endless discussion of it, rather than the messy ambiguities, is going to prevent future rapes.

The "teach men not to rape" meme displays a misunderstanding (willfully so, for many) of the nature of rape and rapists.

You intimated that no one teaches women to be silent resisters and, even if people don't teach women to be silent resisters, that means that the behavior cannot still be learned. You also intimated that this is about people just laying there silently because it is up to the other person to stop. That isn't necessarily the rationale behind this.

There are many, many, many people who believe and therefore teach women to give in whenever sex is requested of them and to either lay there silently or participate just to get it over with in a less injurous and less time consuming manner. For the women who were not taught this, they can still learn the behavior through interactions with sexual partners who insist on "sliding it in" regardless of the circumstances.

Then stop pretending that silence means consent just because honorgal gives silent consent.


We've pretty much established that the people involved in this GC discussion don't believe the onus is 100% on men to "not rape". There are power dynamics and gender dynamics that cause perplexities, misunderstandings, and horrible socialization for both women and men.

So, move on to what is really being addressed.

/redundant thread just like the UVA thread

This is not the message that the vast majority of students matriculating to college have gotten. In fact, just the opposite, starting with curriculum in kindergarden. It's only when they get to college that women are being told they are all victims, or potential victims.


I think we've established the opposite. At least some people have strenuously said they don't think women have even the onus to object (verbally or non verbally) to a second pass. Especially not if they are tired. So what "onus" do you think is (or should be) on women, and could you be specific, please.

Will repost the link to the Slate article, if anyone who missed it is interested. It sums up (but not quickly, it's long and informative) how I see both the big picture and the more detailed one.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double...html#section-6

This part is particularly representative of what I've tried to convey, (my lack of writing skills and others' intentional misreading of what I've written, not withstanding):

You are wrong.

Why are people pretending this stuff begins in college? Even this is an example of what children are experiencing and learning at an early age. Many girls and boys learn in elementary school - high school about supposed differences between girls/women and boys/men. Many are taught explicitly and through watching other people about interactions among genders, the (incorrect) belief that males/boys/men are more sexual, slut shaming of women, sexualization of basic behaviors, playing dumb to get a boy, participating in sex to attract a boy, men as in charge of sex, husbands as deserving sex from wives whenever requested, etc.

Do you define "onus" in a similar manner as you define "strawman" and "jump the shark"?

How interesting. The one example you give isn't even from the United States.

Didn't have time to read it properly, and I'm late to take my dad out to dinner for his birthday. But I will certainly check it out when I get back

Onus? The dictionary definition is usually "obligation".

Do you believe many USA children somehow don't experience those things? Ooookay...if these topics were of no concern until college, USA organizations would not be trying to reach children to raise awareness on date rape, domestic violence, sexual violence, and consent. The last paragraph of this article illustrates issues that arise long before college: http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/...-feel-owed-sex

No need to say all of that. Just stop typing and start typing when you're available.

You interpreted the people in this thread to be saying that if a woman has the physical, mental, and emotional ability to express opposition, she should be silent? Is that what you read?

Yes, absolutely it is.

Some would argue it is more dangerous to fight back when you can't possibly win a physical fight. When I worked cashier jobs back in the day, I was always told that if someone attempted to rob the place to hand them the money. Your life is more important than anything else. It's survival instinct.

I would argue that from kindergarten, we are all taught that we could be victims when we are weaker/smaller than potential attackers. Never heard of Stranger Danger training? Bank tellers are taught to give a robber the money. The general message is always "protect your life first". I was taught that in the event of a home invasion, to pretend I was asleep because a robber has less reason to kill someone who has not seen his or her face.

The other night, I started to fall asleep while watching TV in bed with the light on. I was so sleepy that I knew I needed to reach for the remote and turn the TV off and reach up to turn off the light but I was too sleepy to do it and fell asleep with the light and TV on. That's the state I'm imagining this young lady was in when her ex-boyfriend decided he was having her sex with her even though she'd said no already.

Maybe you and your husband understand each other and you sometimes say "no" when you really mean "get me in the mood and I will". IMO, it's much smarter to communicate directly and intentionally. If I said "No, not tonight" to a partner, I would mean "NO, Not tonight". No mind reading necessary. No ambiguity. No means No. When we give the message that "No means no except when it means yes", it confuses the issue for everybody.

I think honorgal knows that what she and Mr.Honorgal find to be comfortable in the confines of their comfy, cozy marriage only muddies the waters.

She came right out of the gate attempting to discredit both me and the document Yale developed to more effectively deal with this most serious matter on their own campus.

Honorgal, You have as yet addressed the topic of this thread. Perhaps you should start your own thread about the matter that is important to you.

TMI alert... my long term boyfriend and I may do this because sometimes it's accurate to how we feel ("not in the mod, but you can try" type of deal) but we have talked about this and agreed what is okay and what the difference between "get me in the mood and I will" and a hard "no really, not tonight" is and we respect that.

We have also been together for several years. I think if that type of intimacy develops it develops over time and I know things are different in different relationships so I can't imagine prescribing what I do in my relationship to anyone else.

I have to say there's also a difference I think in someone saying "maybe not tonight" or "no" and then changing their mind and becoming an active participant and pursuing a sexual encounter just as much as the person who has been in the mood all along. That is someone changing their mind.

I don't know what happened in the Swarthmore story because I wasn't there but I didn't read it as someone changing their mind. The girl didn't say she became an active participant. She said she just laid there and let him do what he wanted. That's a big difference.

Even if people in sexual relationships have "an understanding" it is important to pay attention to verbal and nonverbal cues (communication) and err on the side of caution if sexual advances are not reciprocated. Being together a certain number of years doesn't prevent victimization.

It is also important to define "agency". Based on the true definition and practical application of "agency/sense of agency", there is no "agency" if someone doesn't feel physically, mentally, and emotionally safe in responding. That is why "onus" cannot be used in this instance. However, those of us in this thread who know that, also wish that more potential victims had the physical, mental, and emotional ability to react in a manner that would not increase the risk. Ideally, we wish there would be fewer potential victims in the first place. But we are cognizant of the realities of this topic and know that "why didn't you resist or fight back" is a common response to victims which ignores the realities of many experiences of sexual victimization. Yet, we are definitely not creating a template that states that all potential victims across all circumstances should be silent. If someone has the physical, mental, and emotional ability (meaning, capability and it does not increase the risk) then the person should respond in the manner necessary to prevent or escape the victimization.

No, but I can see that you most definitely think that. And no need to start another thread. That's silly. It's perfectly clear what the group think is.

What is the "group think"?

Don't believe that you can't be interpreted as displaying "group think" just because you feel lone in this thread and are attempting to martyrize yourself. The things that you are typing are very much in line with the dominant perspective that has existed for generations. You insist that your views on "agency" and "onus" and "silent consent" should pertain to every circumstance. And you refuse to acknowledge the societal issues that are pervasive long before college and also impact the people who don't go to college (most people don't go to college but they can still experience sexual concerns outside of the college bubble).

Yep, most people don't go to college. Do you really think I'm unaware of this fact, or that it hasn't played into my assessment of the validity of the "college rape crisis"?

How absurd. It's most definitely not the dominate view among college administrators, faculty, and the folks at OCR. And they run the show on college campuses.

And you are an expert on the inner workings of college campuses because you have a daughter there, never mind that at least two commenters on this thread work in higher education.

Oh good grief. Where did I claim that I'm an expert?

LOL! Thank you for validating my opinion on that dominate view.

The "inner workings"? Y'all are a trip.

It's troubling to me that there's no expectation of reasonableness here when the consequences to the sexual partner are so severe. I think it's unreasonable to invite a (recent) former lover into your bed, wish for him to stop his second attempt at intimacy, and say and do nothing to convey your wishes. In fact, I think it's insane. Of COURSE there are circumstances where women reasonably fear physical or emotional punishment for saying "no," and of course it's rape if they stay silent due to that intimidation. But this survivor didn't claim any fear of this kind -- not even based on earlier trauma, much less this guy's actions. It's not clear to me that this guy knew that she didn't want to have sex at the time it happened. (If she'd even shaken her head, I'd want him in jail. But she didn't.)

I support an affirmative consent rule that's clear to everyone as a community standard. I applaud schools working to establish that standard explicitly. But it wasn't in place at the time and place of that case. I don't think expulsion and the "rapist" label are the right consequence for these facts.

It is difficult to determine your awareness because you are all over the place.

You want to dismiss the existence of a "college rape crisis" but you are unwilling to believe these issues are learned prior to college.

The fact is these issues exist before and beyond college. The "college bubble" which places these issues in a small confined space is the only reason why a "societal rape crisis" and "world rape crisis" are called a "college rape crisis."

Something being a "crisis" does not mean what you interpret it to mean in this context. Just as "agency" and "onus" do not mean what you take them to mean in every context.

That is your interpretation.

We won't call you all's silent consent with your partner "rape" just as you all should not dismiss this perspective as "unreasonable".

In addition, I find it interesting that discussions of rape lead people to believe humans are truly rational, logical, and reasonable. Most discussions of offending and victimization consider the inconsistencies and complexities of humanity (while still maintaining that even an irrational person can be a victim who didn't deserve to be a victim even if there were misunderstandings on the part of the offender and/or victim). Discussions of rape conveniently do not.

People who do not believe they have physical, mental, and emotional ability to resist are operating based on their own risk assessment and logic. That may seem unreasonable and shortsighted to you but, as with most forms of crime and deviance, it is easy for people not in the situation (or people whose situation ended differently) to say what should be done in an ideal situation.

On the contrary. It's the "college rape crisis" that is all over the place. Varying fact situations and criminal and non-criminal behavior is lumped into one big shit storm to make the case that colleges are dark, dangerous places where 1 in 5 young women are raped and all men are considered rapists unless they can prove they got consent. If true, the sane response would be to reform the criminal justice system to lock up the rapists where they belong. There is broad consensus in our society that rapists deserve jail time.

And yet, that solution is vehemently rejected by those using the term "crisis" (activists, administrators, the media and the federal government). It's only then that they start talking about "murky gray areas and the complexities".

We are also told that a victim must always remain in control of the aftermath, in deciding how or if to seek justice. But also that college administrations and law enforcement are absolutely the only ones to be held accountable for letting all these rapists escape punishment.

It's incoherent.



The focus is on colleges simply because it's the easiest target, not because there actually IS a rape crisis. It IS a bubble and that's where the activists have the power to jettison due process.

In all fairness, the more people you have in one area, the higher the likelihood that some crime may be committed. Think about it. I don't agree that all men are rapists and I am angry when people lie about rape because it really takes away from people who have actually been victimized but, I don't think we should ignore it all together. We need to address the "hook-up culture" that we have. We need to acknowledge that it isn't okay to put something in someone's drink or that "no" might mean "yes" to some people. I'm just as upset as you with how the Greek community has been raked through the mud over these claims but, I think we need to address any kind of criminal activities--especially rape, on a college campus.