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):