Yale's Comprehensive Sexual Misconduct Guide

[LAblondeGPhi]

Warning, this is a long rant.

I'm going to go ahead and say that I'm conflicted on the Ms. Sendrow story and I feel sorry for both the individuals involved. After reading the quoted paragraph above, I see a pretty complex interpersonal situation that was probably filled with confusing actions and interpretations on both sides - both before and after the sexual incident.

Unfortunately, we still live in a culture where there are double-standards about male and female sexuality. Men are still seen as being on the hunt for sex, and women are still seen as needing to protect their virtue, and I think those assumptions play into too many of these gray area scenarios.

How many magazine articles have you read that told women not to "give it up" too soon when dating a new guy, or he'll lose interest in her?

How many times have you witnessed a double-standard applied to a young man and a young woman who have virtually identical sexual histories?

How many times have you heard a woman referred to as "sl**" for behavior men actively applaud each other for and congratulate? Now compare it to how frequently you actually hear any word remotely similar applied to men.

How many pop-culture depictions (or examples from your own personal life) have you seen where a woman seems to fight with herself about having sex that she wants vs. the feeling of what she "should" do?

What I mean to say with all of this is that we are a society that still buys in - enough - to the notion that men often can, or, "have to", convince a woman to have sex with him even when she wants to. We buy into this notion that women are still overcoming all of those virtue roadblocks. We buy into the idea that women need to "appear" to put up a little bit of a fight or she'll look a certain way.

On top of ALL that - in the case of Ms. Sendrow - you add the complexity of a relationship that has been freshly broken off, but with incredibly unclear boundaries. I've seen many, many relationships where people continued to hook up for months or years after breaking up with each other. It's always the same story - "in my head, I know the relationship isn't right... but we're still so attracted to each other"... blah blah. This encounter sounds awfully similar to those situations.

Whew... ok ... coming to a conclusion soon, I promise.

Now - I don't want you all to think that I'm a woman-hating, rape-defending, excuses-taking maniac. What I'm trying to say is that I do believe there are cases that are much more cut-and-dry than others - the same with ALLLL kinds of other crimes (murder or manslaughter or self defense?).

Interpersonal interactions are rarely so simple to understand or parse - and sexual/romantic interactions can be some of the most difficult to interpret. I think that underestimating the complexities of life really does a disservice to this discussion of sexual assault and violence. I think that both men and women bear plenty of responsibility around sexual assault prevention - in many, many different ways that go all the way back to how we support and treat each other's romantic relationships and actions. It goes back to how we all treat sex and judge the sexual lives of others. It goes back to how we re-enforce, or squash, potentially problematic attitudes towards sex and romance.

Basically, it's complex. I would love to buy into this "no means no" line in the sand for every circumstance, but in some cases, I just don't.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Where does anyone say that physical assault has to be involved for a rape to occur? She said no. Why does she have to keep saying it? She never gave consent, yet he had sex with her. AFTER she had already said no. Again, I ask you: If this isn't rape, then what is it?

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

[catiebug]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I'm kind of appalled that you think it is ok just because it is your husband.

But don't you know that's the way they do it at Yale. </snark>

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

You're promoting "if she says no, just wear her down until she stops saying no" and it's irresponsible as shit.

I'm doing no such thing. In fact, it's you who is being irresponsible as shit.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

Unfortunately, we still live in a culture where there are double-standards about male and female sexuality. Men are still seen as being on the hunt for sex, and women are still seen as needing to protect their virtue

YUP. In addition to everything you mentioned about slut-shaming, these things also play into the notion that guys have to "get some" to be manly or something. There's the question of, "why would you ever want to have sex with someone who didn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY consent?" Surely it's not *that* physically pleasurable to have sex with someone who is not actively participating. But if you feel that the act is somehow tied into your masculinity, you are less likely to back off and jerk it the next morning.

Oh, which are other points that occurred to me as I was writing this: there's no reason that masturbation should be taboo, there's no reason that penis-in-vagina sex should be considered differently from other sex acts, and in general, a lot of our Neo-Victorian norms about sex lead to less good sex for everyone.

[LAblondeGPhi]

I tried to express it in my post above, but I'll be more explicit:

Originally Posted by honorgal

She "basically said no" (those are her words, according to the mag article) and he stopped. He then tried to initiate sex again and she was "too tired" to "basically" say no again. This is a common scenario in bedrooms across America every single night. I wouldn't call it rape. But if it is, my husband and I are both guilty.

Originally Posted by AGDee

I absolutely call it rape and when it happened to me, my first call the next morning was to a divorce attorney. I couldn't call the police because, at that time, spousal rape was legal. It didn't mean I had to put up with it. If I say NO to a man and he continues to try and I'm not able to fight him, it is absolutely rape. Are you saying it's only rape if you physically fight back? Because that's also one way to suffer additional physical assault. Sometime the least traumatic thing to do is to be passive and hope it's over quickly. That doesn't mean it isn't rape.

I'm kind of appalled that you think it is ok just because it is your husband.

AGDee - I'm sincerely sorry that this happened to you. That's an experience that no one - wife or otherwise - should have to experience. I'm glad that you were able to get out of that relationship, and that you are in a better place today.

That said, I think we can agree that honorgal was talking about a different type of interaction that is much more typical in marriages - one that eventually results in consensual sex even if a verbal "OK" or "Yes" isn't explicitly given.

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

I respect what you and your husband have apparently established as cool for your relationship. Just stop expecting everybody else to be cool with it. A three-month relationship is NOT the same as a marriage on any measurable metric.

That seems like a pretty creepy and unfair assumption you made there. Way to not even TRY to understand what she was saying.

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

You're promoting "if she says no, just wear her down until she stops saying no" and it's irresponsible as shit.

I don't think she was promoting anything of the kind. I DO think, however, that this attitude is far too prevalent in our society, and one of the contributing factors to the most difficult-to-interpret sexual assault cases.

I didn't initially set out to get all defend-y about honorgal's position, but I gotta say that I think she's one of the few people in this thread to point out how damn not black-and-white the world is. There's a reason this is a complex issue.

I'm all for teaching our young men that "no means no", but I don't think the burden is on men alone. There are plenty of norms, cultural feedback, and yes - some women - who feed into the notion that women are always playing hard to get. Note: I am NOT saying that some women play hard to get and then are "asking" for mistreatment.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

There's the question of, "why would you ever want to have sex with someone who didn't ENTHUSIASTICALLY consent?"

People have consensual sex all the time when they do not have the same level of desire or enthusiasm. And that does not just include marital sex.

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.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by LAblondeGPhi

I tried to express it in my post above, but I'll be more explicit:





AGDee - I'm sincerely sorry that this happened to you. That's an experience that no one - wife or otherwise - should have to experience. I'm glad that you were able to get out of that relationship, and that you are in a better place today.

That said, I think we can agree that honorgal was talking about a different type of interaction that is much more typical in marriages - one that eventually results in consensual sex even if a verbal "OK" or "Yes" isn't explicitly given.



That seems like a pretty creepy and unfair assumption you made there. Way to not even TRY to understand what she was saying.


I don't think she was promoting anything of the kind. I DO think, however, that this attitude is far too prevalent in our society, and one of the contributing factors to the most difficult-to-interpret sexual assault cases.

I didn't initially set out to get all defend-y about honorgal's position, but I gotta say that I think she's one of the few people in this thread to point out how damn not black-and-white the world is. There's a reason this is a complex issue.

I'm all for teaching our young men that "no means no", but I don't think the burden is on men alone. There are plenty of norms, cultural feedback, and yes - some women - who feed into the notion that women are always playing hard to get. Note: I am NOT saying that some women play hard to get and then are "asking" for mistreatment.

I generally agree with what you have written, but I would say it doesnt apply with respect to predator rapists. They arent going to be amenable to messages about consent and enthusiasm. Fortunately, the vast, vast majority of men are not rapists. Unfortunately, conflating those evil predators with the guy in the Swarthmore story is not going to make it easier to lock up the rapists where they belong. It's making it more difficult.

The burden used to be on women to restrain male desire. Society didn't recognize the legitimacy of female desire. We have come a long long way from that society. Is it universal? No, of course not. But nowhere is the liberation and equality of women encouraged, celebrated and taken as a given than on our college campuses. On average, these young women and men are the most privileged and enlightened and equal generation in the history of the world. But then we come to the subject of sex, or vulgar behavior or hurt feelings, and extreme feminists start swooning and fainting on behalf of these poor, delicate co-ed flowers. It's offensive to me that some are encouraging the complete lack of agency, the total passiveness, of the girl in the Swarthmore story, by insisting that it be called and adjudicated as rape.

[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.

[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]

Originally Posted by honorgal

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

Partly for two reasons:
1. People like you pretend feminism started this nonsense.
2. People like you equate the range of sexual victimization across billions of people with "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".