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.