Yale's Comprehensive Sexual Misconduct Guide

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Who knew that extreme feminism would try to turn the mechanics of sex into such a soul-sucking, lawyer-driven transaction, overseen by an army of campus administrators pouring over the minute details of individual sexual encounters.

"Extreme feminism" didn't do that. Patriarchy and sexism did that and it began centuries ago once humans started the "man as dominant" thing and realized that a penis can go inside a vagina, mouth, and butthole.

But, just as with the UVA thread, when all else fails blame feminism (extreme or not). That'll teach those damn feminists.

Both women and men should be responsible and should be held accountable. That's what feminism's original purpose is before people get to different waves and interpretations--gender equality from start to finish.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Both women and men should be responsible and should be held accountable. That's what feminism's original purpose is before people get to different waves and interpretations--gender equality from start to finish.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately that's not where we are today.

[DrPhil]

So the Yale thread replaces the UVA thread. Oh....

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So the Yale thread replaces the UVA thread. Oh....

So it seems.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

So it seems.

Then this is where I, again, tell the "silent consenters" to get over it.

How you have sex with your sexual partner does not translate to a universality of "silent consent" or "despite exhaustion consent".

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by honorgal

You brought up physical assault and asked if it's only rape if she physically fights back. I'm simply pointing out that it's not germane to this particular set of facts

Actually, it was AGDee who asked you (for what I assume to be clarification about your position on this) the question below, which is still unanswered:

Originally Posted by AGDee

Are you saying it's only rape if you physically fight back?

Is that what you're saying? IS her lack of physically fighting back what prevents this from being considered rape in your mind?

Originally Posted by DrPhil

So the Yale thread replaces the UVA thread. Oh....

Which replaced the other thread (from months ago) where honorgal did the same thing.

I can only wonder why she's on such a campaign. The vast majority of her posts pertain to this topic.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Actually, it was AGDee who asked you (for what I assume to be clarification about your position on this) the question below, which is still unanswered:


Is that what you're saying? IS her lack of physically fighting back what prevents this from being considered rape in your mind?

I thought both of you asked the same thing and that I was answering you both. Sorry if I did not make that clear. It's a straw-man argument, with regard to the Swarthmore case.

I can only wonder why she's on such a campaign.

It's in the news a lot. And more interesting to me as a topic than badges or recruitment.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by honorgal

It's a straw-man argument, with regard to the Swarthmore case.

It's not a straw-man argument at all. In fact, it's not even an argument. It's simply a question. Is her lack of physically fighting back what prevents you from considering the situation rape?

I get that the Swathmore case is difficult because of the relationship the two had previously had; I know lines aren't always so clearly drawn in the sand. But, in my opinion, when a woman says no and a man has sex with her anyway, that's rape whether the woman physically fought back or not.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

It's not a straw-man argument at all. In fact, it's not even an argument. It's simply a question. Is her lack of physically fighting back what prevents you from considering the situation rape?

. No. It wasn't even a factor in the Swarthmore case. That's why its a straw man.

I get that the Swathmore case is difficult because of the relationship the two had previously had; I know lines aren't always so clearly drawn in the sand. But, in my opinion, when a woman says no and a man has sex with her anyway, that's rape whether the woman physically fought back or not.

How about when the situation is reversed? A woman initiates, the man says no, and the woman persists? Is that rape?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

I get that the Swathmore case is difficult because of the relationship the two had previously had; I know lines aren't always so clearly drawn in the sand. But, in my opinion, when a woman says no and a man has sex with her anyway, that's rape whether the woman physically fought back or not.

I'm not questioning why she didn't physically fight back. I do question why you would encourage such a total lack of agency in college women. I find it absurd. And dangerous.

[1964Alum]

I posted Yale's guide as it DOES address some of these murkier, gray areas. It gives much more explicit definitions of the different forms that sexual aggression may take. And it was also found to be in compliance with Title IX guidelines, which many other campuses are wresting with now.

I have no doubt that individuals of good will are making good faith efforts to give clarity to some of these more complex issues. Hopefully, this kind of clarity will also give young men on campuses on college campuses across the country clearer boundaries and definition to what is acceptable and what is not.

This has nothing to do with "feminism" or any other political agenda but rather finding workable solutions in dealing with a most serious problem that affects all students.

Honorgal, Which GLO are you a member of?

[robinseggblue]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

Honorgal, Which GLO are you a member of?

Not gonna lie, have been wondering this too.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

Honorgal, Which GLO are you a member of?

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

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by honorgal

. No. It wasn't even a factor in the Swarthmore case. That's why its a straw man.

How about when the situation is reversed? A woman initiates, the man says no, and the woman persists? Is that rape?

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.

Originally Posted by honorgal

I'm not questioning why she didn't physically fight back. I do question why you would encourage such a total lack of agency in college women. I find it absurd. And dangerous.

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.

Originally Posted by honorgal

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

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

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

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.

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?

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.

. 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.

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

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