Something is very wrong at (with?) Duke University. Four years after the embarrassing Duke Lacrosse rape scandal in which 88 professors rushed to a guilty verdict with a public letter condemning both the players and community of rampant sexism and racism, the school has issued a new Sexual Conduct Policy that makes it nearly impossible for students to engage in healthy or pleasurable sex.
Two days ago Wendy Kaminer pointed out some very troubling provisions of the policy in an article for The Atlantic. As written, the policy would make much of the sex on campus de facto assault.
Duke’s new rules governing sexual misconduct and coercion are so vague, subjective, presumptive of guilt, and oblivious to the dynamics of consensual sexual relations that they pose a risk of prosecution even for students engaging in innocent foreplay.
Some specifics:
1. “Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.”
- Perceived by whom?
- What is a real and recognizable power differential? Some have suggested this could refer to a varsity basketball player with a regular student. Professor and student? How about TA and student? Law school student and undergrad? Frat star and freshman girl hoping to pledge a sorority?
- Unintentional coercion may be inferred by the victim. If a woman is offended, she may validly claim coercion. This raises the question: What if a woman is propositioned by a guy she finds unattractive? Is that coercion? Then John Scheyer looks her way and she heads straight for his room. Is that not coercion?
2. “Consent is an affirmative decision to engage in mutually acceptable sexual activity given by clear actions and words, but relying solely on upon non-verbal communication can lead to miscommunication.”
- What constitutes clear actions and words? Can speech slurred by alcohol produce clear words? What about actions without words? A come hither look and stepping out of one’s jeans? How about a girl silently sliding her hands into his jeans?
- What about verbal communication that is not speech? How can you be sure whether a moan is an expression of desire or dread? Accompanying body language helps, but what if a moan is of the “I’m going to regret this in the morning, but what the hell” variety?
- Consensual sex can be engaged in with enthusiasm or reluctance. If emotions are muddled, how is clearly expressed consent even possible?
3. “Duke University is committed to providing an environment free of personal affronts against individuals… “
- What constitutes a personal affront? Can a man feel affronted? What constitutes sexual assault on the part of a woman? If a drunken woman lifts up her shirt and throws herself at a guy and he isn’t interested, is her lewd behavior an affront? Or can she feel affronted by his disinterest?
- Since most sex on campus, and nearly all sexual assault occurs under the influence of alcohol, how will Duke address underage drinking to provide an environment free of personal affronts?
- Duke has served as the poster child for hookup culture on more than one occasion during the last several years. (See Rolling Stone, Laura Sessions Stepp and Tom Wolfe). What steps have been taken so far to address a student body wallowing in the bodily fluids of strangers?
4. Consent is invalid if either party is intoxicated to any degree.
- That means that nearly all sex at Duke is de facto coerced and constitutes misconduct.
Cathy Young writes today in the Boston Globe about Duke’s Sexist Sexual Misconduct Policy:
Duke is back in the news with a campus policy that ostensibly seeks to prevent sexual assault — but, in fact, infantilizes women, redefines much consensual sex as potentially criminal, and does a grave disservice to both sexes.
Her concerns include the following in addition to those cited above:
1. Women are not the sole judges of whether they have been assaulted. It is not uncommon for a woman to seek counseling without claiming rape, only to be told that they have been the victim of a criminal act. There are cases where women do need to understand that they have been raped, even if they know the person, and that they have every right to prosecute their claim. It is also not uncommon for the counselor to have a particular political ideology that involves coercing the student into claiming assault, regardless of her own doubts.
“Most insidiously, under the new Duke policy the “offender’’ may face sanctions even if the “victim’’ doesn’t think she is one. If a woman has a sexual encounter she regrets and tells a friend who decides she was coerced, the friend’s third-party report can trigger an investigation. And if she tells a dorm adviser or a women’s center staffer, they are obligated to report the incident.”
2. In an ongoing sexual relationship, a woman who is “not in the mood,” but passively has sex anyway may be viewed as a rape victim.
“The man’s behavior may be inconsiderate. However, adult college students have no more of a right to be protected from such ordinary pressures in relationships than, say, from being cajoled into buying expensive gifts for their significant other.”
After the Duke Lacrosse debacle, one can only wonder who’s behind this ridiculous new policy. Kaminer is surprised:
Duke’s insensitivity to due process for students accused of sexual offenses is especially shameful, given the university’s complicity in the wrongful and malicious 2006 indictment of three lacrosse players (and public vilification of the team) for a rape that never occurred. The case cost Duke money as well as prestige, but university officials seem to regard this travesty as a mere public relations problem they have managed to solve.
She is not surprised, however, that the policy has been introduced by the Duke Women’s Center, and she clarifies the reason so few young women identify as feminist:
It’s not hard to understand why many college women who value individual liberty tend to disdain feminism. They’re often unaware of how much they have benefited from the rights and opportunities won by second wave feminism that flourished before they were born; but they’re exposed regularly to the dangerous excesses and idiocies of the feminist dogmas that help shape Duke’s sexual misconduct policy.
You may be interested to learn that in 2006 when the Duke 88 signed their letter condemning the lacrosse players and the Duke community, 72% of the professors in Women’s Studies signed it.
In contrast, the following departments had zero signers:
- Engineering
- Law
- Biology
- Anatomy
- Chemistry
- Computer Science
- Genetics
- Psychology
- Religion
- Economics
Indeed, 17 Economics professors sent a letter of support to the accused, welcoming them to enroll in their classes.
They’re baaaaack, and they haven’t learned a thing. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about whether the inmates are running the asylum.
Update:
From the Duke Chronicle student newspaper:
Five incidents of “forcible sexual offenses” were reported on campus in 2007, according to the most-recent Clery Campus Security Report. But Duke officials and the National Institute of Justice suggest the real number of offenses may be much higher.
“The higher IQ, the more manipulative they are, the more cunning they are… imagine the sex offenders we have here at Duke-cream of the crop,” said Women’s Center Director Ada Gregory.
Related posts:
{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }
Haha, it's been many, many years since I thought of Mr. Bill. Ooooohhhhhhhhh.
Actually, the "jury" for sexual misconduct will contain only one student instead of the usual two for other offenses. So the Women's Studies profs can always outvote the token student voice. It's probably a moot point, since they will undoubtedly select a student with no interest in heteronormative life, except to see it criticized.
Wow.
Here's my piece of advice to all of the budding betas at duke. I offer it as a student of another academically prestigous school, so I understand the dynamics of their sexual marketplace to an extent.
With this new policy, you have four options:
1. Go to another school and party. You're lucky to be in that unique college triangle down there and that helps your situation immensely. Chapel Hill isn't too far away, and there are many other great schools in NC you could probably visit every so often. Limit your gaming to these areas and maybe you'll avoid all of the crap I'm about to say in point 2.
2. Exercise very extreme caution in every interaction you have with Duke females that could even be remotely construed as romantic/sexual in nature. If you're in a social setting, at a frat party, or anything like that, be damn careful. Watch how much you drink especially, as that can lead to you making many more mistakes with these girls.
If you're a beta(and I'm willing to bet a majority of the guys at Duke probably lean towards that side of the spectrum), getting a girl at a school like Duke will already serve as a challenge. The sex ratio is against you and the smart girls there make consistent, quick pulls very difficult for anyone who isn't a true alpha.
But if you do go for it, your game had better be very tight, and I mean it. You'd better get yourself(and your game) right before you make any move to hookup with a girl there, and that requires A LOT more than just a few shots of liquid courage. If you decide to take the risk and slip up with your game, and she realizes this mid-hookup, she will work to find a way to rationalize her "mistake". If you're lucky, she could just tell her friends that she was drunk.
If you're not, she'll claim you tried to force her. Under your school's new policy, this equates to a royal screwing. One word to an adviser by one of her gal pals and you'll be done.
Such scenarios aren't rare, and there are plenty of crazy girls(who aren't all that easy to spot either) that will gladly throw you under the bus because you just weren't smooth enough and turned them off. all it takes is ONE drunk screw up on your part. You all have great futures ahead of you. Don't let them annihilate that.
3. Limit your pool of available girls on campus. Avoid all normal social scenes(frats, sororities, etc) and stick to a few small clubs. Go to church. Make this your social circle and pick girls out from here. You'll need to approach them differently and you will have a VERY small pool to choose from, but it can be managed. If this works as well as possible, you might end up with a great relationship. It'll be a bit of an uphill battle, though.
This option might be a little more difficult if you're an athlete, but it isn't impossible.
4. Go ghost. Avoid the sexual marketplace altogether. I only recommend this as a last resort.
But the good news is that these matters will be decided under a cloak of privacy (undoubtedly for the protection of the accused), with decisions made by a panel of extremely open minded womens studies professors. Despite the cloak of privacy, film of the first proceeding has managed to leak out – it's pretty reassuring. (see link below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQf8NZs3qb4
Athlone, this is EXCELLENT advice, and if my son were a Duke student, I'd make him sit down right now and read it. I'll take exception to number 4, though it's no doubt the safest approach. In general, I would say that they key is sober sex. No other kind is above reproach.
I think the Ball State Ass Slapper needs to transfer to Duke. That should make things interesting.
OK, I had to Google that. Passer By, you may have too much time on your hands! If that guy shows up at Duke, you can bet the Women's Studies profs will swing the gavel!
Please don't try and defend him. He is a clear-cut case of sexual harassment.
Exactly where did I try to defend him? I just think the fur would fly at Duke if he were there.
P.S. I think the reaction that appears to be in favor of the ass slapper, is really a reaction against the school, which essentially felt compelled to declare a campus-wide emergency and call for periods of healing, encouraging victims to get the "treatment" they need, etc. We can all agree that what he is doing is dickish and out of line, but I don't think anyone was traumatized. Even the women of BSU seem to want to make a joke of it. I mean, a woman could walk around campus and grab every guy's crotch and butt she sees and it wouldn't elicit that sort of over the top reaction. But, that said, he's definitely a tool for doing it, and I'm sure it's really annoying and a bit startling when it happens. What makes it especially dickish is the riding away so they can't respond with the slap in the face he deserves.
What do you do, when you read news like this that makes you so angry?
Do mellow in in it, let the anger ruin your day?
Do you ignore it, and try to pretend like it didn't happen?
Do you try and see things from a different view? "Maybe if I were a woman this news would make me feel safe."
I mean, it's not like I'm anti-feminism. I know that misogyny and rape culture are still a problem. Part of me wants to gets involved in the feminist movement, even if that just means wearing a TiWaFLL shirt and writing the occassional letter to the editor.
But…I can't help but feel angry towards feminists sometimes (a lot of the time). For example, I was going to take women's studies course, but then a female professor (with an Obama sticker!) explained how hateful some of instructors were. And I quit reading Feministing because the editors are so vicious and single-minded.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it hurts. It's wierd to feeling angry and sympathetic at the same, and I don't what to do with these feelings.
Your use of the word "dickish" is problamatic because 1) it's sexist (what makes a penis inherantly obnoxious?) and 2) it's trivializing (people generally use that word to describe minor offenses, like poor tipping). It's a serious problem when women can't walk to class without worrying about getting her butt slapped.
And just because women sex offenders don't always get due contempt, doesn't mean we should be light on male offenders.
I'm sorry, which news and what anger? I'm honestly not really angry. I just put the kids to bed, had a glass of wine and gave my lovely wife a kiss and a light slap on the ass (she didn't call any campus authorities – so far – knock on wood).
Are you angry about the butt slapper? The BSU overreaction? The ass slapper fan page in response to the overreaction? The sexual conduct policy at Duke? My comment (I hope not)? Maybe you weren't responding me here, in which case feel free to ignore my question. I'm just not sure if you're asking about my perceived anger or something you're angry about (or neither).
The stupid. It Burns!! Geez, other than taking up AM's useful suggestions, I'd be one of the ones papering the sororities with fake consent forms every weekend. You know, just for practice & hope too. But yeah, this just about knocks them down a couple of ranks, eh? Why not institute the usual & typical 'DADT' policy here. Unless & until you feel that it's likely criminal or fairly serious? Then go to the police. Simple as that. It's difficult enough trying to get a handle on all this rather than some asinine bureaucratic idiocy trying to define the indefinable. Really. Silly. And Stupid! (Even for Uni too). Cheers, 'VJ'
In this case, I was referring to anger against the people responsible for Duke's policy. In more general terms, I'm angry at feminists who promote women's welfare at the expense of all other values.
This is like a written equivalent of the rape prevention tool that was actually a condom lined with spikes on the inside. The idea was that a penis would get trapped inside and the rapist would have to visit a hospital to get it removed and therefore turn himself in.
Good in theory but a horrible misplacement of power when evil bitches can easily use it to ruin lives.
Going ghost is the *only* rational action in such an atmosphere. Boys… the authorities *don't* like you, *don't* trust you and apparently *don't* want you at the university.
Again, as I've said on this blog before… it's not necessarily the women whom are the enemy, it's the State. Apparently, universities are also trumpeting the same nonsense.
Is it any wonder why male enrollment at universities, as a percent of the total population is falling?
Good question – I hadn't linked declining male enrollment to hostile sexual conduct policies. My sense is that there is a strong correlation, but the association is indirect, i.e. not causal. My hope is that enough people will write about this absurd policy that Duke will rescind it. It is getting a fair amount of press – if that happens then perhaps other colleges will think this through more fairly.
Tell me about it! I really like the quote by Wendy Kaminer about why young women eschew feminism. I grew up with that Second Wave and much of it was admirable and well-intentioned. I benefited personally, as did all the women of my generation. There was always a man-hating element, but they were the fringe element with their hairy legs. Now it seems like they (or their daughters?) are the only women in charge of feminism. These Women's Studies profs are completely untethered from reality. And by the way, they also seem to hate heterosexual sex – reading this policy, one really does get the distinct impression that penis = evil.
I have to say that I'm stunned the President of Duke would allow this – they took a huge hit of negative publicity four years ago. In some ways, though, even that helped Duke. Sales of Lacrosse t-shirts went through the roof, applications went up, and fundraising flourished. Still, they are now the subject of derisive ridicule. It will be interesting to see whether they will retract this. They only will when and if they perceive $ (or applicants) are at stake.
One reason that universities are keen to implement policies like this is because they get way fewer rape reports than they expect (and seemingly, hope for). If there are very few convictions on top of very few reports, then what would that say about the "rape crisis" that certain women's studies types perceive in the university culture?
I don't agree with everything in the linked article below, but it's an illuminating counterpoint to the dogma that might animate university administrators to put a heavy thumb on the scales when they hear a rape allegation.
http://city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.htm…
Codes like the one promulgated at Duke simply serve to emphasize the point that the vast majority of men would be better served by avoiding most sexual relationships during college. Sex, whether we like to admit it or not, is to a large extent about power. Some men on campus have status and, thus, power, but the vast majority of male students have little status, or at least not enough status. Duke's code of sexual conduct does not reflect an attempt to address imbalances in power between genders when it comes to sex, it is in fact a reflection of a young woman's enormous sexual bargaining power. I went to an Ivy with a similar set of rules of conduct in the late 80's and early 90's. I viewed college then as a kind of social experiment, the purpose of which was to change male sexual conduct in a manner that benefits female agency. At core, it all comes down to women's ambivalent stance towards casual sex – sometimes they want it, sometimes they don't, sometimes they thought they wanted but it turned out bad. In any case, women want sex on their terms, and because they're young they don't need to compromise. Men acquiesce to this charade because they know young women have sexual power, because they don't want to be celibate, especially with their hormones raging, and institutional power is on the side of women (a majority of college students are women so don't expect this to change). I'm encouraging young men to look at the broader picture. I think if young men and women could sit at a table and discuss this topic as equal partners, we could come up with a common sense definition of what constitutes sexual assault. The ambiguity in Duke's code allows women broader flexibility to define sexuality in a manner more comfortable to them. It's not really about sexual assault. Men should think long term. College is a passing phase. The experiment run by college administrations breaks down in the real world because men, as they gain status, and women as they age, begin to see their sexual bargaining power begin to approach parity and eventually reverse. Men can then approach sex with more comfort, be true to themselves without fear, in a less hostile environment.
Thanks for the link – I recently read this article, and found it very interesting. A key excerpt:
Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.
Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.
All subsequent feminist rape studies have resulted in this discrepancy between the researchers’ conclusions and the subjects’ own views. A survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped—a result that the university’s director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services calls “discouraging.”
That says it all about feminist dogma and the agenda on college campuses. Classifying nearly all sex as rape makes victims out of innocent students, but it also muddies the water a great deal so that real sexual assaults get ignored. Records show clearly that very few male students are disciplined regardless of the claims. The potential is there to ruin a young man's life with a false claim, but universities fear lawsuits from the families of the accused, and tend to mete out only the mildest reprimands.
Only by having a reasonable policy can women who are assaulted be truly heard and prosecute their cases in a way that will bring true rapists to justice.
djb, I agree with everything you say here. I think policies like this are made by rabid Women's Studies professors, without real input from the women students. When the Duke players were accused, the female and male students both rallied hard on their behalf, wearing wristbands and headbands proclaiming their support. Many wore Duke LAX t-shirts, caps, etc. I think that most female students are able to see the ridiculousness of a policy like this one. By the way, this policy makes life uncomfortable for women too – it codifies ways in which males might complain about sexual pressure. Granted, that's unlikely, but it's still troubling – a very poorly written policy all the way around.
So yeah djb, the power imbalance for Beta guys might lessen and then turn around in their 40's, just in time for them to be considered 'dirty old men' by the vast majority of the female population. Advantage: Outsourcing!
But this is a prescription for disaster too, how do you tell a significant portion of the male population to now write off 5-6 Years of their lives with effectively no access to college age females as part of the college 'deal'? In addition to paying 50K+ for the privilege too? Yeah, again Outsource the problem. Pick up on the 'townies' or just go out of town. It'll make the campus a hen haven & ghost town in weeks too.
And they're always forever wondering 'where are all the eligible nice guys? They simply can't afford to have a lawyer on retainer to follow them around to try and comply with your silly ridiculously nonsensical & unworkable 'dating' rules. Just too stupid for words, & willfully so too. Cheers, 'VJ'
This is where the claim from men comes from that women hate beta males, and want to get rid of them. Feminists target men, but the ones who are least likely to be accused are the players! So the "nice guys" are more likely to be accused of harrassment. I never really got that before, but this policy illustrates it perfectly.
The message is clear – don't go to Duke if you're a guy. Even basketball players should stay away. After all, their title-winning basketball players have a higher status than anyone else on campus (which makes them de facto rapists if they aren't behaving like monks), and the school has already shown their willingness to treat guys as guilty even if proven innocent.
In a few years, Duke can go the way of Antioch College, home of the famed Sexual Offense Prevention Policy.
"As written, the policy would make much of the sex on campus de facto assault."
The phrase you are looking for is "de jure".
"De facto" means that something is not necessarily recognized by the law, but exists in fact.
"De jure" means "according to the law".
When something that isn't actually assault is included in the legal definition of assault, it is de jure assault, but not de facto.
This policy is being compared to Antioch's ridiculous policy in the 90s. What bunk. I have to say I agree with you about the message Duke is sending. Currently, accepted students are making their decisions. It would be interesting to know how many young men accepted to Duke will make a different choice. We'll never know exactly, but the "yield" may dip this year, which would be interesting.
Re basketball players, does anyone believe the school would discipline them? The guys who stand to lose the most here are the men with less social status.
Thanks Kenrick! I stand corrected, and I realize I've been using that phrase incorrectly for years, haha! It's nice to have such a smart bunch of readers
"Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion."
Meditate for a moment on the phrase "power differential". Typically this evokes an employer-employee or teacher-student relationship, where one person seems manifestly to have more power to affect the other person's life or fortunes. But one can rephrase this in terms of need: if the employee needs to keep his/her paycheck more than the employer needs to keep the job filled at the moment, then the employer has more relative power. We can then see that the reverse is also possible, as say when the movie producer (who is nominally the employer) really needs to keep the movie star satisfied (even if he/she is nominally the employee) because the producer's career is over if this film doesn't get made with this star, while the star has a lot of other options.
So it makes some sense to generalize "power differentials" by saying that in any interaction or relationship, barring physical violence, the party who has less to lose by ending or breaking off the involvement is the party with greater power. (This is one of the principles of Game, as I understand it — manifestly caring less increases your leverage — and so should sound familiar.)
With this understanding in mind, it then seems clear that in a typical male-female encounter between similarly attractive college-aged people it's the young woman who has the relative power: in a generic match-up, it's a very good bet that the guy is harder up, has fewer options, and has gone longer without sex and/or a relationship, than the girl has. So, does this mean that the Duke policy should recognize women's upper hand and put a burden of proper behavior on them? If a girl abuses her power by leading a guy on and then laughingly dismissing him, is she guilty of harassment? should she be brought up on charges? Those who would deploy a phrase like "power differential" should be honest about where power really lies.
Not quibbling with your point here, but realized that pussy and c*nt aren't exactly compliments either. On the other hand, having balls is a good thing. Language is interesting.
I didn't even stoop to apply to Duke Law School because of the university administration's handling of the LAX case. I would almost certainly have been accepted. I'm not reporting this to gloat, but to support your prediction that students will vote on this sort of thing with their feet.
The guys with the highest status won't have a problem with this or any policy because they don't have to bother with beta-male kabuki to get a girl into bed, they receive invitations.
A lot MRA types claim that declining enrollment is, at least in substantial part, a product of an overall hostility toward men on campuses, and this policy would be an example or evidence of such hostility. But I dont' think the claim is that these types of policies themselves are the specific cause (just one more straw on the camel's back, I guess).
All this stuff seems to me to be a product of people feeling a need to placate the most vocal complainers, who typically are complete outliers in terms of their point of view. In this case, they always come armed with shaming language for anyone who opposes them, and nobody really feels the need to go through that. And I suppose I understand why, I mean, what's in it for university administrator someone to oppose the proponents of this policy, other than a giant headache. Look what they did to Larry Summers for suggesting that there might actually be one area where men naturally do a little better (or, more accurately, that unusually talented men do a bit better than unusually talented women).
Good point. The term power differential is so nebulous as to be ridiculous. It can be physical, status, emotional, there are endless possibilities.
By the way, the feminists really lost me in the mid-90s. NOW President Patricia Ireland was most vociferous in calling for the prosecution of Bob Packwood, which is fine. A year later, NOW stood fast in its support of Bill Clinton, despite the greatest imaginable power differential in a sexual relationship.
Unfortunately, those who deploy this phrase are not honest, even with themselves. All we can do is stand up and make a ruckus!
Truer words were never spoken.
Sexul harassment == male initiation behavior from an unacceptable male
Good! I'm glad to hear that students would consider that. In fairness, as I put in the post, no Law Professors were on board with the early rush to judgment in the lacrosse case. I do hope that there is awareness among potential undergraduates – it will mostly come through their parents if it's in the news enough.
Yes, some women will say, "Who does he think he is?" and be offended if the male is not high status. Those women will giggle and preen if the biggest jerk on campus takes their number. However, this is not true of all women. Still, it's the former women most likely to have sex with numerous partners, so they probably account for the majority of complainants.
Yeah, I realize the law professors didn't sign the petition. But they weren't exactly lining up to bash it, either. Regarding the president of the university, The Economist wrote that he "did little, if anything, to defend the lacrosse players or to criticise the faculty for its lynching mob mentality."
I liken casual sex i to the famous prisoner's dilemma we all learned in Micro 101. Young women A hears about a hot party at the most popular frat house at Duke. She knows the extremely popular male athlete B will be there. She really is attracted to him. Is she thinking about sex? Maybe, but more likely she wants to be associated as his girlfriend. At the party, popular male athlete B makes a move, and now comes the classic prisoner's dilemma. Young woman A knows that popular athlete B wants sex. She's ambivalent. Sure, she's attracted to him, but she doesn't want to be viewed as a slut and she would really like to be his girlfriend. Now, if she does have sex, then she can get the great reward of being associated with him, but she can also be pumped and dumped and lose her reputation at the same time, not to mentioned feel used. Now comes the Duke sexual conduct policy. It lessens ever so slightly, I suppose, the downward risk for women of casual sex if there is a perceived "power differential," but as we grownups know, the rules don't apply with the same force to the really powerful. Flash forward five years. Young woman A is no longer so young, and starts to think about children and family. If she has learned anything, she knows that ultra high status men are not necessarily reliable commitment material. So she begins to look for the "Dad," not the "Cad.". She still knows that all men want sex, but she still takes a risk. Will she lose potential commitment if she has sex too early? Will he bolt if she doesn't have sex? Again, the classic prisoner's dilemma, but this time more in the favor of the average man and without an institution protruding into the private decision of consenting adults. Remember there are no social institutions in the adult world that would force a man to commit in order to have sex, or scare away a man who would "use" a woman in this way. I would say in this most recentt case, depending on what the man has to offer, a woman would compromise on sex much more readily than in college, when she knows she has legions of young, horny men breathing down her neck. Men are buses after all. Flash forward another 5 years. Now the biological clock is beginning to tick. Not-so-young woman A needs to broaden her perspective, but again that pesky prisoner's dilemma about sex. Add to the pressure younger women who may also have sex to ensure commitment, and the average man's chances rise much higher, especially given the compromises not-so-young woman A has already made. Thus, it is always more likely that an average man's chances of sex will increase as he gets older. Life is long. Wait it out, and gain wisdom in the process.
What frightens me is that any institution which has the presumption to wield the powers of the state to forbid sexual behavior is just as likely in the future to make it obligatory.
At my age, I tremble to think of the powers of persuasion that may be used when the bitter harpies my age decide they don't receive enough male attention, and decide to remedy that through the courts.
True. In fact, I've read that some of the most radical Women's Studies profs who did sign have since been awarded various high honors and prestigious positions. I have no idea what the Pres. is thinking, but reputations are made and broken by U.S. News and World Report – Duke is playing with fire here. Something tells me you wound up at a very, very fine law school anyway – not your problem.
Hahaha! Somehow I missed this until just now. Hmmm, it's good to know that as I approach my senior years I may be able to head on down to Duke and nab myself a varsity athlete, whether he likes it or not!
Clarence, welcome, thanks so much for those links. I found them excellent, and bookmarked them for more thorough reading. That was actually my first visit to Feminist Critics – it looks like a very interesting blog, and I'll make a point of checking that out in future as well.
Ms Walsh:
There's a good discussion of this report on the feminist critics blog here:
http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/05/29/ch…
And the subject of rapes on campus is discussed pretty extensively in the comments of the the three posts located here:
http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/radicalmi…
My personal belief is that around ten to fifteen percent of girls in a college campus will indeed be raped by the time they leave. However these rapes will often be of the she passed out drunk and he continued having sex with her and other alchoholic he said and she saids mostly taking place between alpha frat males and fraternity girls.
djb, you are not the first commenter to invoke the comparison with the Prisoner's Dilemma, but I like your twist on it here re time passing. By the way, as the average guy's chances improve, woman A's outlook worsens. In fact, he may well prefer woman C, who never hung out with the Duke frats in the first place.
Re the Duke policy, if it were ever enforced, it would basically destroy campus life. Young people having zero sex is not a recipe for happy students. There was already a policy in place for dealing with genuine assaults, it's just that the women's studies folks weren't happy with the number of reported rapes (too low). Therefore, the new policy won't be enforced, until someone starts the ball rolling to accuse some poor chump falsely. It's a disaster waiting to happen, and I hope when it does it gets the same media treatment that Duke got in 2006.
Something tells me that Duke will be happy to prosecute any complaint, even though many universities won't get involved with off-campus cases. What's ironic, and tragic, is that the most powerful students, if accused, will threaten a high-profile lawsuit, and the school will back down. It's the AFC who stands to lose the most here. Duke is not going to be expelling its precious basketball players, no matter who they have sex with and under what circumstances.
P.S. I just spent time on your blog – wow. I should hate it but I don't. It's honest, and I'm totally hooked. You know how to tell a story, young buck.
Duke has done a superb job making men feel like 2nd class citizens. I wonder how they would apply this to incidents that occur off of campus.
The power differential part is the most worrying to me.
My recent post Puja – Dana Pt. 2
Even Roissy has cried over a woman.
Of course he has, how do you think he got so screwed up? Of course, that woman may have been his mother…..
Thank you. Maybe the fact that I reveal my soft underbelly keeps you from hating my blog. Most game bloggers like Roissy never show any signs of weakness, but in between posts on my conquests, I'm discussing my first love. All men have these experiences, but game bloggers usually don't reveal it. Even Roissy has cried over a woman.
My recent post Puja – Dana Pt. 2
Look at the bright side. These policies might make sex on campus an unheard of phenomena. Young people might start studying again rather than wasting their parents money (or our tax dollars) on just getting laid. Nobody should be having sex at college anyway. There are literally thousands upon thousands of colleges across the globe where the majority of students are virgins and not having sex but actually LEARNING. These are in countries with culture and tradition of course. They do still exist (though no thanks to globalization).
Unfortunately, I think that this policy puts men at risk, but not women, so it's not likely to discourage the women who are already having sex with multiple people. It's the guys who need to be very, very careful. I will say that I do think there are many people on campus, and you've pointed it out before, who are studying hard and participating in activities that they can actually put on a resume. They won't be affected for the most part. Real sexual assault can happen anywhere, but it's far more likely in venues where everyone's getting drunk and stupid.
If the men stop having sex with women, due to these policies, then by default it stops the women from having sex too, unless they start having it with other women.
It's a win-win.
There are some men – the top dogs, if you will, who are consistently invited to have sex. They are not likely to participate in any boycott, and could probably prove that a woman publicly demonstrated behavior implying consent. Of course, if a woman throws herself at a man for sex, she's unlikely to have second thoughts in the morning. These women have been hardened by repeated casual hookups.
This would just further isolate all the other guys, who try to get sex the old-fashioned way – by romancing a girl. They are now sitting ducks for harrassment claims, which may constitute a "personal affront."
So you're saying the Alpha top dogs will continue to have sex with women and not be at risk for a false allegation? Fair enough. These are the men college women wanna have sex with anyway, so I don't see a problem here. The men who would be at risk sit like ducks and avoid getting their lives ruined by a false allegation. The women still get the sex they want from the Alpha men. And the Alpha men still avoid false allegations.
As long as nobody's life is ruined it's a win-win for all.
Perhaps no one's life is ruined, but there is enormous opportunity cost. The \”dads\” lose out to the \”cads\” more than ever, now fearing any approach may not only carry the risk of rejection, but the real possibility of affronting the woman. Women who are not willing to ride the pump and dump train, i.e., who are not promiscuous, look around and wonder more than ever where all the nice guys went.
Susan, that is just ridiculous. The good guys can also befriend and court and the good girls. That means ACTUAL DATING. You know – taking her to movies, plays, dinner, etc. This could go on for weeks or months without even touching her – just like the old days. Surely they would not be falsely accused of rape just by sitting next to a woman in a movie theatre.
The problem is, these self-proclaimed, so-called "nice guys" don't want to court and date a woman anymore.
If women are looking around and wondering where all the "nice guys" went – they don't exist anymore. All American men are cheapass horndogs – even if they are "geeks" and "nerds".
You know I'm right.
Home Girls: travel abroad. Foreign men still know how to take a woman out and treat her like a lady. And pay for it to boot!
Interesting, Culture Importer. Where are you from? Because I always hear that men in other countries find American women aggressive and unattractive. In the U.S., there really is little ACTUAL DATING, anymore, especially among the young. Plays? I can't imagine a man under 50 taking a woman to a play on a date.
I don't agree that all American men are bad. There are a lot of really good men, trying to figure it out as they go, just like the women. The vast majority of women and men are not comfortable with a steady diet of casual sex.
"The vast majority of women and men are not comfortable with a steady diet of casual sex. "
Then why are they not dating like I suggested?
"I always hear that men in other countries find American women aggressive and unattractive."
Pure bullshit. They love us. I would NEVER trade in my foreign lovers for American men. It's the difference between Organic Bleu and Kraft.
Your question is an excellent one. Why are people not dating, or at least pursuing relationships that would suit them better? I don't fully know the answer. There is enormous reinforcement in the culture for hooking up – and both sexes are under peer pressure to get together with the opposite sex and score. Still, there are so many young women and men just feeling totally left out, and they're not finding each other. The ones who aren't conforming to what's popular in the culture feel like failures, which doesn't help. Also, many would argue that the current climate enables a wide swath of women to succeed in bedding the most dominant men, which is what women are programmed to want instinctively.
Haha, love your blue cheese analogy! You've confused me though – I felt sure you were a guy! You're an American woman?
Yes Susan, I'm an American woman who's had several serious marriage proposals from foreign men – both here and abroad. Contrary to popular belief, there is a HUGE market for cute, smart American women around the world.
I really don't buy that the nice girls and nice guys who feel "left out" are "not finding each other". They are just not ATTRACTED to each other's looks, and that's why no moves are made, from either side.
Well obviously it's understandable that lots of people wouldn't be attracted to certain other people. But a third to half the population? Mutually unattractive to the other half? If that's true, we're even pickier and more unreasonable that I thought.
Interesting information about foreign men – any countries you prefer?
Another problem with classifying nearly all sex as rape is that it would undermine the millenia-old idea that rape is abhorrent and detestable. And if that idea is undermined, that would actually increase the occurrence of rape.
Think about it. For thousands of years, rape has been considered abhorrent and detestable, an act worthy of a nithing, and these policies might destroy that tradition.
.-= Michael´s last blog ..Michael was tagged in this photo. =-.
What kind of woman complains that there are too few rapes?
Do people in Los Angeles or Chicago complain there are too few murders?
.-= Michael´s last blog ..Michael was tagged in this photo. =-.