Going too far to define nonconsensual sex

Submitted by Mastodon on Tue, 2013-09-24 05:19

Article here. Excerpt:

In the spring, an Obama administration initiative directing colleges and universities to toughen their policies on student sexual misconduct raised concerns among civil libertarians about unreasonably intrusive regulations. Now, reports from one of the nation's top universities confirm that these concerns were justified.

Yale, which promised a crackdown on campus sexual offenses under pressure from a federal civil rights investigation in 2011, is now policing "non-consensual sex" defined in a way that trivializes sexual violence, infantilizes women and men, and intrudes into private lives.
...
By these standards, many of us -- male or female, straight or gay -- have been both perpetrators and victims of "nonconsensual sex" more than once. The truth is that many people, both women and men, are put off by spontaneity-destroying checks for agreement. Many people have sex when they feel ambivalent. As long as there is no coercion and everyone is free to say no or to stop, these messy issues are for adults (even young adults) to work out between each other without intervention by the authorities. What happened to keeping the government -- or government-guided university administrators -- out of the bedroom?'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

If male college students were smart, they would simply refuse to have sex with any university going woman out of protest. Rejection hurts women far more than it does men. Perhaps the lack of action received by female college students would humble them enough to realize that these draconian policies need to go.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by xtrnl on Tue, 2013-09-24 20:23

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the entire intent of these laws it to outlaw young-uns having sex. The can't ban it outright, so they go this roundabout way of doing ti.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by MrWombat on Wed, 2013-09-25 03:32