Sometimes things make my head hurt trying to process what they really mean - this article is one of them
http://thebrownandwhite.com/2016/12/01/unwanted-consensual-sex/
I particularly struggle with this statement:
How can someone who has sex with someone who consents but doesn’t want it then be held accountable through some formal sexual misconduct case? It just feels like all logic has gone out the window.
My head hurts too now…
They could go through the process but honestly, it would take the very rare person who would be willing to go through a misconduct case for “consensual” (and I use that word loosely in this case) yet unwanted sex. People already aren’t taken seriously when it is a very clear-cut non-consensual encounter so something like this is going to be infinitely more difficult.
This type of social culture needs to change. Now. There is NEVER, EVER an expectation of sex. Parents MUST teach their children that sex is never something one MUST do and they need to give a clear “no” when they don’t want to do it. It breaks my heart that many women (generally, of course there are men who do this as well) still believe they owe their partner sex.
@romanigypsyeyes I completely agree. It would be my hope that all people feel comfortable consenting, or not, based upon their desire to have sex and not because of a sense of obligation. However I also believe that if anyone consents to sex even though they don’t want it, they still have in fact consented and the person with whom they have sex should not suffer negative repercussions from the school administration.
Consent must be very clear and if consent is not given then clearly there is an issue if sex occurs. However if consent is given it has been given - you can’t put that genie back in the bottle because the person didn’t want to have sex.
I feel that this type of policy further removes personal accountability from the sex equation. As individuals I believe we need to be accountable for the consent we give, and if we do give it, we can’t then hold another person accountable for doing something that we consented to.
Yes I agree very much adigel. It is an oxymoron to toss around terms like “unwanted consensual”. Consent is giving permission for something to happen. If you consent to something you don’t want to happen, that’s on the consenter. You don’t blame the other person for “making you consent.” in the absence of threats or force.
Even the concept of “coercion” has been twisted…most dictionaries define coercion as Webster’s does: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will. Nagging is not coercion. Begging is not coercion. Rude or annoying, yes. Coercion no. I’m all about "consent’ education. I’d prefer it in the home and not at schools, but so be it. It doesn’t hurt anybody to watch a video or sit through a lecture…most of us do it on ethics every year at our work places even if we’re ethical. But let’s not get confused about what is and isn’t behavior that grown-ups contemplating sex should be able to handle.
“Unwanted consensual” describes many chores in life.
If they really charge kids for this the ACLU should file suit against the schools, this would be taking it too far. Unless the consent was ‘coerced’ in some way (ie the partner told the person with the complaint “if you don’t have sex with me, I’ll break up with you” (which is borderline, I’ll admit), or “If you don’t have sex with me, I’ll tell everyone you are terrible in bed”), how the hell could they prosecute because the person said “yes” but “didn’t really mean it”, how the hell would the partner know what was in his/her mind? Is someone suppposed to say “hey, wanna have fun”, other person says “ok”, then say “are you sure? Are you really, really sure? You sure you aren’t doing this to please me?”…it is one thing when there are questions about impairment, or true coercion (force, blackmail), but someone who says one thing and feels another? Hate to tell the people making rules like this, but that is the nature of being human “Honey, how does this look on my butt?” “It looks as good as it always has” “Honey, I want to go pick out pillows and curtains today, can you help me?” “Of course”…(speaking as a long time husband, you learn where to say no and where to go along with the flow lol…and I can’t imagine what the other side of this is lol).
I think Salvemini takes the concept of “coercion” a step too far and then the article quotes some study to give her credibility.
In my own mind coercion would be something like a professor saying to a student “I am going to give you an F if you don’t have sex with me.” And even in circumstances like that I struggle somewhat with the concept of “coercion.” That problem is solved by calling his or her bluff and bringing the threat to the appropriate individuals. Not only will you not get an F but he/she will not likely be grading your tests anymore.
I really take issue with this comment from the article:
No sorry, I do not think that and question how many other women actually do. Inviting them the next time is the common way to reciprocate when someone wants to pay and rejects your offer to contribute. I don’t get this concept of feeling “indebted” after a date. They have asked for your time and you gave that to them by accepting the invitation.
I wonder if Salvemini, described as “Lehigh’s equal opportunity compliance coordinator,” would actually have anything to do with potential discipline for this, or if the paper just went around until they found someone in administration who would give a quote that would stir the pot enough for an article.
I hate to be “that guy”, but this seems like such an ivory tower problem to me… Doesn’t it sort of kill the mood when you have to communicate intentions perfectly clearly to each other prior to having sex?! I know if I were a female, I would want my partner to be smooth about his lead in, and not be asking me “Jane Mary Doe, do you hereby accept my offer to engage in sexual intercourse with you at around 6:05 pm today, 12/2/2016? Please respond with a yes or no into the voice recorder”… I mean it feels like that’s where we are heading! :-?
IMO, it’s either consensual or it’s not, period.
Salvemini is the Title IX coordinator in the general counsel’s office. Yes, the Title IX coordinator usually has a lot to say about which cases are investigated and how.
“honestly, it would take the very rare person who would be willing to go through a misconduct case for “consensual” (and I use that word loosely in this case) yet unwanted sex.”
A person in a heartbroken rage? A person with a personality disorder? A confused teenager encouraged and supported by the Title IX coordinator?
We all agree that there are lots of people out there evil or crazy enough to rape a fellow student. That’s not in question. So why is it hard to buy that there might be people evil or crazy (or confused and manipulated) enough to use administrative process to attack a fellow student?
“they need to give a clear “no” when they don’t want to do it”
@romanigypsyeyes, I agree with you on all points, but this suggestion is often considered blaming the victim.
@Hanna I know. It’s a fine line. I get accused of victim-blaming but I consider myself more of a realist. I teach how not to rape but I also fully recognize that we live in a rape culture society and it is not changing anytime soon. In the mean time, I will continue to teach people how to stay safe because, again, I’m a realist.
Also, I didn’t say no one would file this kind of report. I said it would be the rare person. And I stick by that.
I am a Lehigh alum. I follow the school newspaper on Facebook which is how I even saw this article in the first place. I sent an email to Karen Salvemini, Equal Opportunity Compliance Coordinator at Lehigh, expressing my significant concern with this policy/position. Will be interesting to see if I get a reply.
Oh heavens they exist. The kids (or at the the male types that come and go from my home) have a word for that person cray-cray. Crazy to the second power…and yes there are cray-cray people “out there.”
I think it was SNL that did a skit a year or two ago in which this young man and woman were making out on a sofa. The guy asks if she is ready, the girl says yes. Suddenly a lawyer pops up from behind the sofa with a contract that both sign and he notarizes. After the lawyer leaves the couple turn on the TV.
You don’t need to be victim shaming to see a policy that can be abused as easily as this one could be. Crying rape, non consensual sex at least can have some proof of things, if the victim is drunk, if other people testify they heard the person say no, if others witnessed a victim being held down, it is a lot easier to prove or question…but the state of mind of the person who consented? Good god, that is like giving carte blanch to anyone angry enough or feeling vengeful, because how the heck do you know what the person was thinking? I can just see it, someone breaks up with someone else, then comes the 'we had sex, and I felt coerced" bs…it is precisely because I don’t want to see victims shamed that this kind of rule is so open to abuse, it is carte blanche to use this as revenge, since their state of mind cannot be challenged or proven…
The policy itself is crazy. Its beauty is its arbitrariness though. It will keep people like this woman employed forever enforcing imaginary transgressions and fomenting divides.
We wonder why college is expensive. I have one idea for cost saving at Lehigh.
In favor of young men (especially athletes) keeping a pile of condoms and a pile contracts in a drawer next to the bed.
It takes a special person to believe that people are so devoid of free will that they require “special policies” to protect themselves from themselves…clearly the author in the link is one of these “special people.”…
Is that “Special” as in the church lady on SNL (Dana Carvey), with her famous line “Now isn’t that special?” lol. Put this down to someone with too much time on their hands and not enough common sense and/or trying to justify their job…
Kind of reminds me of the Woody Allen movie “Bananas” when the revolutionary who becomes dictator issues a law that people have to wear their underwear on the outside, to prove they have changed them and they are clean…