On a daily basis on this Web site, one story about injustice to men cascades upon the next, until they collapse of their own weight to form a sort of dark and twisted kaleidoscope of misandry. It is little wonder that readers sometimes find it difficult to tell the difference between bad news and awful, appalling, and dreadful news. This post is about awful, appalling, and dreadful news.
There is an unprecedented effort underway on college campuses across America to re-engineer male sexual conduct in a grossly misguided effort to construct a female-friendly sexual utopia. More and more colleges are punishing men for engaging in a form of consensual sexual behavior obtained by supposed emotional or verbal “pressuring.” They call it “sexual coercion,” and it sanctions men not for forcing themselves on, or physically threatening, women, but for doing nothing more than nagging for sex. Men are being punished for doing precisely what, for decades, society has been telling them they’re supposed to do — ask for sex.
Readers who have sons in college, or whose sons are about to enter college, need to check the school’s sexual misconduct policy. If it punishes students for sexual coercion, those readers need to express their acute displeasure to the school’s administration and board of trustees. Get specific. Relate the things mentioned in this article and see if they can refute any of it.
Sexual nagging is now a punishable offense
Sexual coercion is a nebulous, amorphous blob of a concept that is defined in myriad ways. No rational person questions policies that punish sex procured by physical threats. That’s not what we’re referring to here. The policies at issue go far beyond this and punish men (even though they are couched in gender neutral terms, make no mistake: the policies are meant to police male conduct) for sex procured after “unreasonable” verbal or emotional pressuring.
The import of these policies must be clearly understood: even though the woman agreed to have sex, the school can invalidate her manifested assent by later deciding that the man’s conduct in obtaining it was too boorish, too overbearing, or too insensitive. Most importantly, for the first time, men are being held responsible for sexual misconduct even though their “victims” have reasonable alternatives to engaging in the sex act but choose not to exercise them.
If that sounds like so much spin from a men’s rights blog, or if it sounds too far-fetched to be true, don’t trust us. Look at an example given by Brett Sokolow’s NCHERM, the organization that advises colleges across America on their sexual misconduct policies. If there is a sexual grievance industry (and there is), NCHERM is General Motors and Apple combined. In NCHERM’s Model Sexual Misconduct Policy, found here http://www.ncherm.org/documents/MODELSEXUALMISCONDUCTPOLICY1-10.pdf, adopted in whole or in part by many colleges, the following example appears, which is as chilling as it is legally and morally misguided:
Amanda and Bill meet at a party. They spend the evening dancing and getting to know each other. Bill convinces Amanda to come up to his room. From 11:00pm until 3:00am, Bill uses every line he can think of to convince Amanda to have sex with him, but she adamantly refuses. He keeps at her, and begins to question her religious convictions, and accuses her of being “a prude.” Finally, it seems to Bill that her resolve is weakening, and he convinces her to give him a “hand job” (hand to genital contact). Amanda would never had done it but for Bill’s incessant advances. He feels that he successfully seduced her, and that she wanted to do it all along, but was playing shy and hard to get. Why else would she have come up to his room alone after the party? If she really didn’t want it, she could have left. Bill is responsible for violating the university Non‐Consensual Sexual Contact policy. It is likely that a university hearing board would find that the degree and duration of the pressure Bill applied to Amanda are unreasonable. Bill coerced Amanda into performing unwanted sexual touching upon him. Where sexual activity is coerced, it is forced. Consent is not effective when forced. Sex without effective consent is sexual misconduct. p.9
In NCHERM’s example, Bill “convinced” Amanda to give him a hand-job — he asked, and she agreed. She willingly stayed in his room for hours, apparently listening to his boorish and pathetic entreaties. Amanda had a reasonable alternative to engaging in the sex act but chose not to exercise it: at any time she was free to say “good night” and to get up and leave. She didn’t do it. Yet Bill is responsible for Amanda’s choice? Come again?
Giving a horny college guy a hand-job because he wants it, or to shut him up, or because the woman wants to foster a relationship with him and sees that as a way to do it, is not sexual misconduct in any setting other than the rarefied, über-PC halls of academia. Bill may be many things – boorish, immature and even selfish – but based on the limited information available to us in NCHERM’s example, he is not a rapist and shouldn’t be punished because he asked for sex in a way Amanda later decided was offensive.
Until now, rape law has never been a clearinghouse to redress every less than ideal sexual encounter. Katie Roiphie once summed it up in a landmark New York Times piece: “With their expansive version of rape, rape-crisis feminists are inventing a kinder, gentler sexuality. Beneath the broad definition of rape, these feminists are endorsing their own Utopian vision of sexual relations: sex without struggle, sex without power, sex without persuasion, sex without pursuit. If verbal coercion constitutes rape, then the word rape itself expands to include any kind of sex a woman experiences as negative.”
NCHERM’s example, above, accomplishes the seemingly impossible task of insulting both genders at once: it insults men by telling them they are akin to rapists even when they ask and get permission for sex, and it insults women by suggesting they are not free moral agents capable of saying “yes” when they want sex, and “no” when they don’t. It is political correctness with a hard-on, radical feminism run amok.
Fatal legal impediments
There are at least two fatal, insurmountable legal problems with this kind of “sexual coercion.” First, it punishes acts that are, by any rational standard, consensual. Second, prohibitions against sexual coercion do not pass due process muster because they are not sufficiently definite to warn the accused that he’s violated a policy.
Consent. Consent in the rape milieu has its roots in contract law, and it is there that we need to seek guidance. Not all agreements formed with apparent assent are legally binding. Duress is a common law concept employed to invalidate contracts due to the absence of the kind of freely given consent that society has decided is necessary to bind people to their promises. The classic example is a loaded gun pointed at someone’s head with a threat that “either your brains or your signature will be on the contract,” per Don Corleone. A contract is voidable for duress if (1) the victim’s manifestation of assent has been induced by an improper threat, and (2) the victim has no reasonable alternative except to manifest assent.
NCHERM’s brand of “sexual coercion” fails on both counts. Asking for sex is not an improper threat, and being able to say “no” and to get up and leave the guy’s room is a reasonable alternative. End of inquiry. Big Sister needs to get out of the bedroom.
The aforementioned approach isn’t some loony invention of a misogynistic, far right, Neanderthal, men’s rights bogeyman. To illustrate how extreme NCHERM’s policy is, note that legal scholars sympathetic to the feminist rape agenda accept the approach referenced above – because it is the only approach that works: “When a complainant believes that he or she does not have any alternative choice but to submit to unwanted sexual demands, even a verbal ‘yes’ does not necessarily indicate genuine consent.” M. Buchhandler-Raphael, The Failure of Consent: Re-Conceptualizing Rape as Sexual Abuse of Power, 18 Mich. J. Gender & L. 147, 183 (2011). The example cited by the legal scholar to support this proposition is a case where a woman gave a teen male and his friend a ride home. When they stopped in a secluded area, the teens told her she would not be able to leave until she had sex with them, so she ostensibly gave her permission. Assuming that she reasonably felt threatened by the young men’s words, as the legal scholar seems to accept, the woman’s ostensible consent was fatally tainted because she had no alternative but to engage in sex. That example is in a different universe than NCHERM’s, and it underscores how extreme NCHERM’s policy is.
Due process. Our criminal law is not a guessing game. A valid criminal statute puts the public on clear notice as to the conduct that is forbidden. “A penal statute, . . . to be valid, must be sufficiently definite to show what acts the legislature intended to punish.” William Lawrence Clark et al, A Treatise on the Law of Crimes at 59 (1996). This is a component of due process. “The test is whether the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices.” Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223 (1951). A law that does not meet that standard is unconstitutionally vague.
College sex policies should not be free-floating standards of purported wrongdoing and should not punish rape “in the air.” Fundamental notions of fairness dictate that college rules of conduct be sufficiently definite to warn the accused when he’s in violation of them.
Look at NCHERM’s definition and decide for yourself if you can pinpoint when sexual coercion occurs. According to NCHERM’s Model Policy: “Consent cannot be procured by . . . coercion. Coercion is unreasonable pressure for sexual activity. Coercive behavior differs from seductive behavior based on the type of pressure someone uses to get consent from another. When someone makes clear to you that they do not want sex, that they want to stop, or that they do not want to go past a certain point of sexual interaction, continued pressure beyond that point can be coercive.” (Page 7) The model policy further states: “There is a difference between seduction and coercion. Coercing someone into sexual activity violates this policy just as much as physically forcing someone into sex. Coercion happens when someone unreasonably pressures someone else for sex.” (Page 2)
Let us analyze. What does “unreasonable pressure” mean in a culture where sex roles of pursuer and “hard to get” have been fairly divided along gender lines for eons? The guy can ask for sex, but he can’t ask too much, and he might be expelled if he crosses some indistinct, blurry line that’s about as clear as a dense New England fog. Does a “no” at 7:00 o’clock mean the topic of sex is off-limits? For how long? Until 10:00 o’clock? Midnight? The entire night? When does asking become nagging? Does the policy prohibit any nagging for sex whatsoever? Is a little nagging acceptable? At what point does a little nagging become excessive nagging? When will one more nag be enough to expel a young man? When does “seduction” magically turn into “coercion”? There is no mistaking midnight for noon, but at what point does twilight become night?
To say that the contours are fuzzy is an understatement. No one — no one — can be sure at what point the line is crossed. As a law, it is unworkable nonsense. As a policy, it is grossly unjust to men and insulting to both genders.
Actual school policies
Here is a sampling of schools that follow the NCHERM definition, or otherwise include “coercion” in their definitions of “consent” — and this list is by no means exhaustive. It’s the tip of the iceberg to illustrate the breadth of the effort to punish sex procured by verbal or emotion pressuring:
Some schools parrot the NCHERM model policy (page 7) definition of coercion, above: Colorado State University-Pueblo; Loyola University Chicago; Franklin University.
Other schools parrot page 2 of the NCHERM model policy: Kean University (“There is a difference between seduction and coercion. Coercing someone into sexual activity violates this policy just as much as physically forcing someone into sex. Coercion happens when someone unreasonably pressures someone else for sex.”). Notre Dame College also buys into NCHERM’s “coercion” versus “seduction” distinction: “Consent cannot be procured by use of physical force, compelling threats, intimidating behavior, or coercion. Coercion is unreasonable pressure for sexual activity. Coercive behavior differs from seductive behavior based on the type of pressure someone uses to get consent from another.”
Other schools attempt, without success, to better define the parameters of “coercion”: Gettysburg College’s definition is singularly unhelpful and stretches the limits of vagueness: “Coercion exists when a sexual initiator engages in sexually pressuring and/or oppressive behavior that violates the norms of the community, such that the application of pressure or oppression causes the object of the behavior to engage in unwanted sexual behavior. Coercion may be differentiated from seduction by the repetition of the coercive activity beyond what is reasonable, the degree of pressure applied, environmental factors such as isolation and the initiator’s knowledge that the pressure is unwanted.” Dickinson College employs language almost identical to Gettysburg College’s definition.
Trinity University has a definition of “coercion” that requires men to be mind-readers: “There is a world of difference between seduction and coercion. Seduction implies that both people involved are ‘playing the same game.’ Coercion on the other hand occurs when one person does not want to ‘play along.’ Seduction becomes coercion; coercion begins not when the sexual advance is made, but when someone pushes past the point of realization that the person does not want to be convinced.”
Other schools punt and leave the definition of “coercion” up to amorphous “reasonable” standards: University of Vermont (“Consent is communicated either by words or clear, unambiguous actions that are not achieved through manipulation, intimidation, fear or other acts that a reasonable person would construe as coercion.”) Columbia’s policy provides: “The use of coercion in instances of sexual assault involves the use of pressure, manipulation, substances, and/or force.” The policy handbooks of some schools just mention that “coercion” is prohibited without bothering to try and define it: Dennison University; Marquette University; Clemson University; Syracuse University; Duke University; Wesleyan University.
Kansas State University is, at least, honest in acknowledging that by prohibiting sex by coercion, it is going beyond the commonly understood definition of “sexual assault”: “The Kansas State University policy prohibits not only those acts commonly understood to constitute ‘sexual assault,’ but also all attempts to coerce sexual activity. Individuals can be in violation of the Kansas State University policy without being in violation of the Kansas legal statutes.”
A policy bordering on pathology
Transmogrifying “sexual coercion” into a punishable offense has been a feminist dream for decades. “Sexual coercion” has its roots in an extremist feminist tradition of rape advocacy that encourages purported victims to engorge the definitions of “rape” and “sexual assault” to include all manner of alleged violations that are neither “rape” nor “sexual assault.” Time once famously wrote: “Catherine Comins, assistant dean of student life at Vassar, . . . sees some value in this loose use of ‘rape.’ She says angry victims of various forms of sexual intimidation cry rape to regain their sense of power. ‘To use the word carefully would be to be careful for the sake of the violator, and the survivors don’t care a hoot about him.’ Comins argues that men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. ‘They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I didn’t violate her, could I have?’ ‘Do I have the potential to do to her what they say I did?’ Those are good questions.’” Time correctly noted: “Taken to extremes, there is an ugly element of vengeance at work here. Rape is an abuse of power. But so are false accusations of rape . . . .” See here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101910603-157165,00.html
Writer Joanne Jacobs aptly explained: “In the largest survey of campus date rape, 43 percent of women classified as rape victims had not realized they’d been raped.” Was this because women were hesitant to label rape as a crime? “Hesitant to label rape a crime?” Ms. Jacobs scoffed. “No, they were hesitant to label having sex ‘when you did not want it because you were overwhelmed by continual arguments and pressure’ as rape, which is what happened to most of the ‘victims.’ They weren’t raped; they were nagged.”
Writer Sarah Overstreet once wrote: “Our college students need the tools of personal power and responsibility, not a false definition of rape. So do we all. Lacking the skills or confidence to resist verbal coercion doesn’t make it a crime.”
By allowing the lunatics to write policy for the asylum, we’ve tumbled down a rabbit hole so dark and deep it will be difficult to climb out. For decades we’ve preached that when a woman says “no,” the man must stop. Now we are telling young men that when a woman says “yes,” they are still rapists because they didn’t ask in a politically correct manner. They’ve trivialized sexual assault to the point that women who truly do not have reasonable alternatives except to give in to sexual abuse are being lumped in with women who merely regretted the exercise of their own free will the morning after. Is it any wonder that so few outside the feminist community believe there is a campus rape crisis? And is it any wonder that young women are not reporting these “offenses”?
The latter point, strangely, is the only saving grace. While colleges are reimagining “proper” male sexual conduct in an effort to construct a progressive, supposedly female-friendly, sexual utopia, why aren’t many more men being punished for “coercion”? The reason “coercion” policies are not expelling college men in massive numbers is because college women, largely, aren’t buying the notion that their male peers are predators, and they aren’t reporting the men’s “misconduct.” Heather MacDonald summed it up: “One group on campus isn’t buying the politics of the campus ‘rape’ movement, however: students. To the despair of rape industrialists everywhere, students have held on to the view that women usually have considerable power to determine whether a campus social event ends with intercourse.”
Still, though, the fact that policies are in place to allow women to use the power of a college tribunal to punish men for being nothing more than sexual naggers is unjust in the extreme.
At their core, these campus policies are premised on a smug, PC elitism that seeks to smack down what their purveyors regard as undeserved male privilege. They are making a statement that masculinity itself must be changed to make campuses less burdensome for the “historically oppressed” gender. We have sadly reached the point where American colleges prefer to punish, by suspension or expulsion, a male student who convinces a woman to have sex, rather than put the women through the bother of just saying “no” and walking away if she doesn’t want to do it. That is a policy bordering on pathology.
The real question is, why in the hell are parents tolerating it?
1 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Alek Novy:
Stu:
Jean Valjean:
Charbroil:
Peegies:
Doug1:
A+ article. Well researched, meticulously documented, and thorough.
Excellent article – what happens is entirely up to the interpretation of the woman and she is free to change her mind at any point whatsoever.
I feel sorry for any man in college these days.
Even if you don’t get charged with anything, college is STILL miserable and based on feminist equality (hate).
I just went back to school so I can try to eventually get a job that pays well without having to break my back. My back is literally broken. It is 10% gone N.O.W.. But hey, I guess I deserve it. Gotta make room for female supremacy in all areas at all costs.
When I walk around from class to class etc., not only do I get dirty looks like “what are you doing here?”, they actually DO ask what I’m doing there. NOTE: I never said or did ANYTHING. I’m just aware of my surroundings.
I consistently walk by things written in hallways like “consent is sexy”/ Rape “Awareness” (the kind of awareness that disregards facts and being a decent human being) Month.
Poems by that misandric sexist scumbag pig Carol Ann Duffy written in dry erase IN the hallways.
Students lingering from a previous class talking with the “professor” about “stuff” with the “teacher” replying , “Ya, men are creepy.” and “I’m so sorry that happened to you. It’s because there are so many white males in this town.” I’m not kidding.
It’s like The Borg of Tory Shepherds.
It disgusts me to no end that these “equality” ridden cretins will go off to make decent money without ever breaking their backs and call the shots with just about everything. All at the expense and well being of decent men.
It’s absolutely unfathomable that an article and/ or subjects like this receive opposition under the guise of “equality”. But truth like this will and does. It’s utterly amazing.
Say something (ANYTHING) factual and based on true equality to The Borg like, “Actually there are more white women in just the house and senate than there are black, hispanic, asian, and native american men COMBINED in high level politics.” and you are a suddenly a misogynist…and a rapist.
Feminists are a FAR cry from the egalitarians that they try and make themselves out to be.
Feminist logic: If you have a cavity, brush your teeth more than usual so the cavity will eventually go away.
Feminist logic: 11 out of 10 women are victims of EVERYTHING.
Academia is melting pot of ideas.
ONE idea.
Hey, sorry, a bit off topic, but is that actually your cat?
Hi Poester99. That is just a random picture I found when I searched about cats and heights.
Hopefully I’ll have a picture of my actual cat on here soon.
The boys don’t believe it, until it destroys them. Then everyone believes they deserve whatever happened to them.
The so-cons are fine with this, as they are getting what they wanted, sex in most circumstances being illegal and/or actionable, and the male half of the equation bearing 100% of the mandatory consequences.
“The real question is, why in the hell are parents tolerating it?”
If you’re the mother or father of a daughter or daughters you are perfectly fine with this, believe me.
If you have a son, either he’s rejecting higher education completely, or “Oh, that’ll never happen to him.”
The question is, how much longer before the consent rule becomes written into law in every jurisdiction in the country, like Sweden? That’s the ultimate goal.
Feminists HATE the fact that the male is the dominant and the female the submissive in the sex act. They seek to socially engineer a natural biological dynamic. The Gender Egalitarian Utopia cannot be realized until feminists control the sex act between men and women.
I disagree. They love this fact, and use it against men all the time.
If they hated it, they would be writing manifestos about how women need to stop being lazy and start approaching first, touching first, asking out first, initiating sex first…
But they don’t. In fact, even the most radical feminist mock men who ARENT dominant (re: nice guy bashing in femiblogs).
They want to have their cake eat it too. They want men to BOTH be dominant AND take the fall.
In other words, call their bluff. I do this all the time. Ask on a femi blog.
“Hey, what do you say we pass a law where no men nowhere is allowed to ask out, or kiss or initiate sex with a woman… so that it ‘gives women space’ to start doing it themselves”
See them throw a hissy fit
They ONLY want the ABILITY to have an excuse to CONTROL men through laws that are VAGUE and give the woman interpretational power.
CALL THEIR BLUFF
Tell them (I do) that I would be fully in favor in passing a law that makes it illegal for any man to do any part of the courting process first, and so that it’s only legal for women to do it
IT drives them crazy when you call their bluff. Because THEY DO want men to do all the work – they just want to have the ability to control men through an excuse of disliking it.
CALL
THEIR
BLUFF
LOL-Beautiful Alek!!!
Woof woof !
I like this one.
-Or go watch the movie ‘Teeth’, and all that shit won’t be a problem for a while.
And then watch it again, when it does..
Alek -
Your post, here, impelled me to write a rant that I’m thinking of posting on my own new blog, “Beyond The Sunset.” I have already gone through my first flame-war on that site, 108 comments, though you might regard it as no more than a spat.
I’d like to discuss this with you, if you’re willing to discuss it with me. Please send your response to “beijaflorbeyondthesunset.wordpress.com” – either way.
Precisely Alek.
This is some crazy ass shit! I’m so glad I’m not in college anymore. These petty rules that these bastards are making are for one purpose: hate. Let’s punish these college guys for having a penis that gets aroused when in the presence of some hot college girls. Let’s condemn them for being biologically hardwired to want to mate. So Bill asked Amanda for sex. She said no. Even if he asked again and again, she could have just walked out the damn door. But she agreed. Though her agreement was non verbal, she consented to giving him a hj. And they’re saying that Bill is a perpetrator?? Seriously! I can see now. Are men and women going to be handing out contracts in the future for us to sign? Better yet, let’s make sure we have a notary public present so that they can stamp our contracts saying that we both agreed to engage in consensual sex just in case she runs to the police the morning after accusing me of forcing her against her will. Before we each sign our contracts, let me check around her room for a paper shredder.
God help any guy that invites them to Open Mike Night at Barnes and Noble.
And remember everyone: it’s illegal for women to have sex if they’ve been drinking.
I’m still waiting for a good opportunity to use this one in a round-table discussion with a bunch of women. It would probably have the same effect as a couple sprays from a bottle of liquid-ass.
If VAWA passes, yes it will be illegal to have sex with a female that has had a drink in college. The FBI says it’s illegal as of right now for everyone. It will count as a rape for statistics. Not sure if any states have that definition yet, though I know the military does.
So if a woman has had a beer and the male student nags, I guess he’s expelled twice.
So, If a college male says, “can’t we have sex tonight?” she says “I have a headache”. He says, “please, I really want to have sex” and she gives in. He can be expelled? Unreal. Women are so pathetically weak and infantile. Is it considered rape for his college record?
If he says nothing and just walks out is he passive aggressively raping her?
Whitney – Brilliant.
Yoips ! That actually might be an offence one day.
It’s interesting to imagine what sort of trouble could be sown by publicising widely that now just about every single woman in the bar is jail bait, regardless of if they are of age or not.
Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972 is the cornerstone for feminist’s lawsuits and government cutting federal funds to colleges if schools fail to act to sex issues involving women. While Title IX is also written in”gender neutral” terms, it is enforced primarily for women. Most MRA activist find it booring, but it has destroyed many men’s college opportunity and cost millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Seminal lawsuit, Iron Arrow Honor Society v. Heckler (while eduction issues were under HEW rather than Dept. of Education) illustrates the issue.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=67
After the Supreme Court refused to hear MHSAA appeal the court ordered the association to pay feminist $ 6 milllion in legal fees. Since the association assets were only$ 5 milllion, eventual settlement was that they pay #1 million per year.
http://thesportdigest.com/2011/01/can-there-be-sport-without-attorneys/
Paucity of comments; are we afraid to touch this?
There may be some reasonable reluctance to.
However, no-one has accused me of trying to seduce anyone in the last few decades, so I’ll comment.
I love the part in the Ncherm Manifesto where it says students “accused” of sexual misconduct, by the Campus Sex Commissar, might be obliged to report to “the police.” Well there ya go, no criminal offense suggested, no charges, no trial, no evidence, no conviction, but declare yourself an Offender at the cops.
The title of the Manifesto is revealing: not a Student Code of Behavior, putting the emphasis on proper behavior; but a Student Code of Sexual Misbehavior, which echoes 19th century moral panic: You’re Already Misbehaving If You’re a Boy and Reading This.
The goal seems to be to make it unpalatable to be a straight male; & to make it as hard as possible to practice natural heterosexuality.
Also noteworthy is that there is virtually no reference to female autonomy and self-governance. Dear tipsy girl: that consent you gave to a guy, we lesbo-Nannies have hereby revoked it.
It wasn’t something we wanted you to do.
Also absent is any suggestion, that women teach each other how to defend themselves in sexual situations; the entire tone of the document is that girls are bimbos on strings, and we’ll pull them from now on, fellas, thank you very much.
Incidently, the (implicit) Speech Codes (commonly located within Behavior Codes) are equally tilted against white men, and are far, far more insidious and dangerous. But that’s a more complex political problem, not to be discussed here.
One of the weird things about feminists claiming that they’re all about empowering women is that there’s rarely, if any, talk about teaching women how to set boundaries by clearly stating their intentions regarding sex, reminding them that have the power to walk out if a guy won’t stop nagging or that she can inform him that her refusal is the final word and any continued pressure will be considered harassment and any sex will be considered rape. There seems to be no apparent thought at all to informing women that if they don’t want to have sex then don’t go home with a guy or bring him back to their place.
According to feminists, teaching women how to take control is verbotten on the grounds that any such expectation constitutes victim blaming.
As a guy, my understanding is that if I refuse to take obvious precautions to avoid trouble, if I don’t exercise control where I obviously can and then, instead of taking responsibility for my own miscues, lay any and all blame for any bad shit that predictably follow at others, it is my understanding that that is the very sort of thing to get one marked as a weasel. Failing to teach or encourage women to take control to prevent unwanted sexual experiences or rape seems a perfect way to guarantee an augmentation of both. If one’s goal is to stop rape, the strategy makes no real sense.
If, on the other hand, one’s real desire is to increase the frequency of rape accusations and, therefore, the number of women claiming to be rape victims and do it while pretending to be after the opposite, why then the strategy makes all the sense in the world.
There is actually a post about this on Reddit by a girl who claimed “I was raped, but I wasn’t; but it was rape, but sometimes I feel it isn’t, but legally it’s rape; but I don’t know.” that is receiving a lot of comments at the moment. It fits the whole, “I figured it was going to happen so I just gave in. I’m such a victim” excuse.
http://www.reddit.com/r/Feminism/comments/owh2n/reddit_seems_to_have_a_problem/
Is the original post still available?
“And remember everyone: it’s illegal for women to have sex if they’ve been drinking.”
Maybe this could explain why Islam is the fastest religion in the world.
What the hell is going on here ? Have we all gone mad ?
I thought the deal was when you went to uni you went there so you could learn junk, not be scared all the time.
There is definitely something lousy going on here and the buggers that fix the rules like this are getting off on it.
Nasty people doing crappy things making it crap for the rest of us so they can have a warm feeling in their tums.
If I was at uni with this lot going on I’d be wanting an F for sure.
Did I say that ?
“Still, though, the fact that policies are in place to allow women to use the power of a college tribunal to punish men for being nothing more than sexual naggers is unjust in the extreme.”
Yep, this current phase of rape witch-hunting on college campuses is the latest metastasization of the feminist witch-hunting of males.
Feminists usually say that 1 in 4 women will be raped in her lifetime. I usually reply, “1 in 1 women are liars”. Certainly there are more liars in this world than there are rapists. I think that less than 1/10 of a % of men in society are rapists. But 100% of women have lied or will lie in her lifetime. Nobody is ever 100% honest their whole life. It’s impossible to be that honest. And everybody in society knows this but for some reason when a woman claims she was raped we suddenly have to believe her? And if you don’t believe her right away the feminists scream “How dare you consider the idea that she could be lying?!” But the fact is, there’s more of a chance she IS lying than the accused male is of raping her. Feminist will then LIE and say that “No woman EVER lies about rape!”… but then you look up the Strauss Kahn and the Duke Lacrosse cases and a plethora of other ones in which a woman is just taking advantage of the system by using her privileged status in society to get herself a payday at the expense of some rich guy or guys she’s decided to rape out of money. It’s ridiculous!
Excellent article.
Check it out:
http://youtu.be/d40Ex3fi2t4
Re: the term “sexual nagging”
I have to say I doubt the value of using the above term.
Here’s how the Oxford Online dictionary defines the verb ‘to nag’:
Nag v. [with object]; harass (someone) constantly to do something that they are averse to.
In other words, harassment is implied in the word for the majority of English speakers. Perhaps there are regional differences in meaning?
At any rate, we have to be clear: is there a form of sexual “harassment” which is harmless or even beneficial?
There is a form of non-sexual harassment that is beneficial: “Her mother constantly nagged her to clean up her room.”
Nevertheless, this nag-word does seem accusatory and to put men on the defensive, and I wonder whether we couldn’t find a better word.
E.g., sexual persistence
The point being that persuading someone of the desirability of sex, or of any intimacy, is part of the nature and the act of seduction. It has always been and should not be turned into moral panic.
Responsible people are aware of that on both ends of the equation. On the receiving side, people are supposed to know their rights; and on the giving side, they should know when persistence is CLEARLY NOT APPROPRIATE, and in the extreme. Comments?
I do not agree. Take NCHERM’s example: the “nag” term is certainly apt. I see no need to call in Madison Avenue to repackage his conduct to make it appear natural, or wholesome, or good. That’s beside the point. Paul and I noted in our article that, for all we care, folks can call the guy’s conduct leading up to the woman’s consent whatever they want — boorish, immature, insensitive . . . . None of it — NONE OF IT — negates the fact that she agreed to the sex act. It is wholly unimportant whether an outsider would approve of the guy’s conduct. Frankly, I see nothing commendable about it, but that’s me.
Again, who cares? The only thing important was that she agreed to do it of her own free will. There was no improper threat and she had a reasonable alternative. She could have left.
But call it “sexual persistence” if you must. Or cajoling. Or coaxing. Call it a ham sandwich for all we care. Our point is not to insist that every aspect of male conduct is natural, or good, or wholesome, or worthy of emulation. Our point is simply that the sine qua non of sexual assault is the absence of consent, but schools have bowed to the worst kinds of PC pressure and are turning consensual acts into punishable offenses.
NCHERM’s Brett Sokolow is a Malvern, PA attorney — that’s a town near the end of Philadelphia’s iconic Main Line. Brett ought to know better. I should sit him down at the food court at King of Prussia Mall some time and give him a lesson on the law of consent. Brett has done some good things, but he’s so far off the mark here that it is scary.
Not surprisingly, I agree with Pierce on this 100%.
Using your logic I want to prosecute my ex-wife for theft by coercion. Back in my blue pill days I often surrendered to her constant nagging for material goods. She was good at it; and expert in shame and manipulation. And she was relentless. There were times that her desires for material objects were the last thing I heard at night and the first thing I heard in the morning.
And I still CHOSE to give in and give up the cash. No amount of rationalization can take away the fact that I made choices and I was responsible, 100%, for all of them.
With all respect, your approach is to infantilize women, and I question your need to do so.
Hey Paul, not intending to move you off topic but how do I change my picture on here?
Mouse click on your picture. It will take you straight to gravatar.com.
Thank you! It worked!!!
That example sums it up beautifully. It’s all about having free agency. Women agree to sex for all sorts of reasons. I get the sense that our feminist friends think that unless women want the sex — in and of itself — as much as the men, it’s rape.
I often use the example of when my wife was trying to get pregnant. I was called upon to perform my, er, services at times that were not always convenient for me. I must be frank that when I was in the middle of writing a brief, my heart wasn’t always in it as much as other times. Did I consent? Of course I did.
Before I was married, when my then-fiance got me to help her sister move, I don’t recall anyone asking if I gave my enthusiastic consent to do it. I consented, but I wasn’t especially enthusiastic.
People in relationships do things for each other all the time. If one person is always taking advantage of the other, as I assume Paul’s ex did, then that’s a problem. But there is a solution: end it. The solution is not to have him arrested or expelled.
Interesting notes.
I might agree, except that a person — male or female– ‘harassing for money’ is not doing the same thing, in the same category of coercion as a person ‘harassing for sex’.
Count Almaviva going after Figero’s Susana is not the same as Count Almaviva asking Figero for a Payday Loan. That’s the 18th century’s definition of sexual harassment vs other forms of coercion.
A potato is not the same as a hot potato.
There is an entire period of industrial revolution, 1750 to about 1940, where a female on the job was systematically vulnerable to sexual coercion. This is still true in many parts of Europe, to say nothing of the Far East. That was certainly not as true for men. That’s why the word “nagging,” when understood as “harassment,” might be challenged.
Only for political reasons, of course.
Small clarification on what I wrote, just above.
Naturally, ‘nagging’ for sex with an employee (or fellow employee) is not the same as ‘nagging’ for sex with a date who’s followed you to your hotel room. That should be obvious– to the Judge at sentencing! But if the judge is persuaded that some form of coercion has taken place, then the judge is inclined to punish, because admitting to coercion is culpable.
The point, then, is about the vocabulary we ourselves use. If you “agree” that a certain form of ‘coercion’ is valid in private dating settings, you are allowing the criminal implications to take root.
So my point is that the 2 parties to private sex must be able to recognize pleading for sex as intrinsically natural and normal; and, on the other hand, to see that clear coercion for sex is not normal; but that steps to end that coercion are initiated by the unwilling partner, with the willing partner taking responsibility for pulling back.
I had a woman try to coerce me into sex. It is very bad behavior.
The way to deal with it is to tell the person to go fuck herself. Running to the authorities about it is a) not going to do anything good, b) going to do a whole world of harm to somebody who might have behaved fine if you gave them a chance.
If you cannot deal with bad manners, then you cannot deal with life and need to live under supervision. Is this what feminists really want – have women locked away safely from the real world? Perhaps the thought turns them on.
This is beyond just wrong. Women want us to persue them, work for and damn near beg for sex. All under the guise of “Making them work for it” or “Playing hard to get.” Then if they do decide they have seen us grovel long enough and the next day decide that they regret it. We are now rapists.
If this becomes a law that is enforced in every jurisdiction in the U.S. then it will destroy more families than the VAWA law alone. Lets put this into a scenario.
You have been married to your beautiful and amazing wife for over five years now. it is a cold and snowy December day. the snow is so high now that it would be dangerous to drive to work. So you decide to call in and take the day off.
Your wife and you spend the day snuggling on the couch watching the movies. You decide that it has been few days and would like to make love to your wife. So you start by giving her a foot massage. Then as it progresses into kissing and light foreplay, your wife stops you and tells you that she does not want to sleep with you tonight.
Feeling slightly affronted and rejected you argue a little. Explaining to her that it has been a few days and that she looks so beautiful in the light of sunset. You continue to compliment her. After a few seconds she changes her mind and say “yes.”
If this new coersion policy becomes a national law then the following is likely to happen in thousands of homes across the country.
Three days later you are at work, just starting to put your tools away since it is almost time to go home. All of your work friends are doing the same near by. You are all joking and having a good time when the door to the shop opens and two police officers and a detective walk in. They scan the room, when they see you they make a bee line right for you. Suddenly your stomach feels like it has dropped a couple of inches.
The only thought going through your head is the hopes that nothing bad has happened to your wife. When the detective stops two feet away from you and says in a loud and authoritative voice that you are being placed under arrest for the rape of your wife.
Now, Three years later you are unemployed. No buisness owner wants to employ a convicted rapist no matter what the reason for the charge was. You are homless because you cannot find a job and you are divorced.
Your ex-wife tracks you down three days later and invites you to lunch, her treat of course. After a few minutes of akward silence, She appologizes. She explains that three years ago she had been seeing a therapist for emotional issue’s that stemmed from her childhood. When they had started talking about that snowy day. Your ex-wife said that she had been telling the therapist that it had been an amazing day just snuggled up and watching movies.
The therapist had only heard a small part about the sex that day but had heard enough to convince her patient that she had been coerced and as such had been raped. It had taken the Therapist two days to convince her young patient to press charges but in the end her ability to find something small in someones past and twist it and turn it until it seems a much larger issue than it really is had won out.
This is only one scenario of hundreds that could occur across the country if this should become a law. Lets not let that happen. If we can stop this now before it really gets a foothold then we might not have to worry about it ever becoming law.
Lol.
Therapist is a word that contains the_rapist.
Therapists are aware of this. They struggle to cope with this traumatic association.
In the back of their minds, this name of theirs makes them rapists, not just a rapist, but the rapist. Could anyone cope??
So they begin to advise women to go after “rape” where they can find it. This is called ‘compensation for a guilty conscience’. It’s all so tragically unnecessary. We could call them Vultures, no rape association inside that. I just wish we could help them.
Or as is more likely, the therapist contacts the police and you are prosecuted over your wife’s objections. This is due to the government requirements that the therapist report it and that it be prosecuted even if the wife says it was not rape.
Very True, Like I said though this is but one of many, many possible scenario’s.
My last girlfriend wasn’t into blowjobs. One night I convinced/nagged her into performing oral sex on me (there was no force involved at all). It was the only time she ever gave me a blowjob.
I guess this puts me in the “rapist” category now.
Those who can’t get any, ensure others can’t either…
No college male in his right mind should have sex under these conditions. We have the same exact policy here at my college. The problem is that no male college students seem to be very worried about it so it will continually get worse. Actually, it cannot possibly get worse. We are already at a time in which if the woman claims that the man asked for sex before intercourse, it is rape. How can things even get worse? If they are going to have such as stupid anti male policy, they need to at least create a dress code for female students. I mean, good grief. The girls literally wear shorts with their butts exposed and skirts so short that hardly any fabric even touches their seats and I am not even allowed to talk to them. I can see where this alone could be a huge factor in male suicide. They cram their sexuality down my throat but I am a creep who never even gets a second glance. How depressing. I want out of this hell hole now.
Just keep putting up more stickers and posters, we MUST grow the movement particularly at UNI.
Hmm yaaas.
When I taught at college, I used to be greeted in the morning, front row, by a row of diaphenous blouses; and, in the second row, by a row of cleavages. The hip-huggers were in the third row, and the boys were in the rear.
Of course, that never happened; I could not have noticed it without getting charged.
Aren’t there any all male colleges nowadays?
No, feminists said it violates title IX and is discriminatory. But all girls schools don’t fall into those categories.
Here’s something I posted in the comments section of one of Girlwriteswhat’s articles & I thought you all might enjoy it & it’s relevant to this article:
“HEY! I know I don’t even know you, & just met you last night, but I’m forcing you to pay for the most important life decision I’ll ever make for the next 18-22 years (college for Jr. & all) since I initiated drunken sex with you. Oh, & speaking of that, I regret last night because I was drinking & therefore was not using good judgment so I’m texting you from the police station where I just reported that you raped me. You see, my gender is too stupid to be accountable for our actions of face the consequences of them.”
(One year later) “Now that you’re in prison for the next 20 years for rape, I’ll be writing you on this stationary- here’s a photo of your daughter you’ll never get to meet, because she won’t want to meet a P.O.S. rapist like you even 20 years from now when you get out. Oh, & by that time the back child support will have mounted up to at least half a million when you calculate the interest the government adds (they have to get their cut you know- it’s big business for them!). Of course no one is going to hire a rapist like you when you get out, so therefore you won’t be able to pay your back child support which will be also be a condition of your parole – so it’ll be back to prison for you!”
(2 years later) “Of course since I’m a single mother the government pays for this nice apartment I’m now in & is sending me these nice big checks every month so I don’t even have to work! Plus because I’m a single mother they’re paying for my college & daycare/medical too! I never realized how lucrative raising a bastard child was! I’m studying to become a ballerina & getting a degree in cinematography that are both completely worthless in the real world.
But hey, I’m having a great time and I met a guy who your daughter has really taken a liking to- she calls him ‘daddy’ now. He’s unemployed & drinks a little too much & has a prison record himself for manslaughter, but he told me it was all just a big misunderstanding & he was railroaded through court when he was convicted.
Sorry to hear about the HIV you were infected with since you’re being raped in prison everyday, but hey, that’s what rapists deserve! You brought this all on yourself!”
Sexual coercion isn’t right regardless of who’s doing it or who is the victim, although I do agree with the article. Also, due to how the law is written, females who committing sexual coercion to males get away without any consequences and this must be corrected. At least in campuses of my country all forms of sex are prohibited and all participants are punished equally.
Meh, not buying it. There is no such thing as sexual coercion. There is rape, and there is consent. Anything else is an abdication of personal accountability. Good grief, are we no longer responsible for saying no when we want to?
We are responsible for saying no and must say it whenever we are able to, but the problem is if someone point a gun to me asking me for sex and I would get shot if I don’t give consent, isn’t that sexual coercion? Or is it something else?
yes, that is rape. I inferred from your post that you were talking about verbal coercion, or “nagging” for sex.
It’s not that simple. Personal accountability presumes some sort of equivalent power or awareness between the protagonists. Coercion often occurs in situations where that power or awareness is totally unbalanced and so does seduction, the female equivalent of coercion.
Of course these laws only effect the people who don’t need even need these laws to effect them- as if a real jump out of the bushes rapist (1 millionth of the population) would actually give a flying fuck about any of this. Same as with VAWA – if someone wants to beat the crap out of someone or kill them- BAM! In 2 seconds it’s done (and happens everyday) no restraining order is going to stop a truly violent psycho. And then as with gun laws- criminals don’t give a FUCK about gun laws!
This development doesn’t concern me – I swore off western women long ago.
If they bring in new laws to dissuade the young college guys from having anything to do with the today’s women, it’s probably doing them a huge favor.
Just so I understand it – “yes” now means “no” ?
None of us should be surprised at this development. It is entirely consistent with the radfem manifesto to destroy all heterosexual relationships.
“It is entirely consistent with the radfem manifesto to destroy all heterosexual relationships.”
Along with any logic, reason, responsibility and accountability.
You forgot “sense”.
“Just keep putting up more stickers and posters, we MUST grow the movement particularly at UNI.”
Hey Ben, if you want a source for stickers & posters, go here: http://americanfemaleposters.blogspot.com/
Those are all mine. Plus if you have an idea for one you would like me to do, let me know.
Man, those were AWESOME!!! I will definitely like a shipment of all of the above! This is just what this campus needs in order to fight back against all the anti-male posters plastered all over this place!
Oh, and I am in the US, not Austrailia; I didn’t know if your second comment was intended for me or not. I will be in contact with you ASAP.
Your work is great!
Feel free to send me correspondence any time at robinson.ben7714@yahoo.com
oh- wait- I didn’t realize you were in Australia. Well, nonetheless some of those you could still use. And I’ll still help you out all the same.
“On a daily basis on this Web site, one story about injustice to men cascades upon the next, until they collapse of their own weight to form a sort of dark and twisted kaleidoscope of misandry. It is little wonder that readers sometimes find it difficult to tell the difference between bad news and awful, appalling, and dreadful news. This post is about awful, appalling, and dreadful news.”
I had to register just to tell you how much I enjoyed your opening paragraph. Yes, I’m that lazy, and yes, I enjoyed the imagery of your words so much that it overcame my immense laziness.
Throughout the developed world, legislators have capitulated to femfascist lobbyists to create legislation that punishes a man for acquiescing to a woman’s public manipulation of him with her chronic vicitimhood AND for refusing acquiescence to a woman’s public manipulation of him with her chronic vicitimhood. It’s a no win situation for any man (unless the woman wants it to be). A Catch-22 of Biblical and life-alterning proportions. Can a more fascist approach to social engineering and politicization of human behavior and administration of rights without responsibilities be imagined? Oh, wait. I forgot our entire system of family law.
Paul and Pierce, apologies for the threadjack but I just had to show you this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mariska-hargitay/personal-fouls_b_1228974.html
I personally can’t stand Hargitay– IMHO she doesn’t act on Law & Order: SVU so much as just strut around with an ‘oh-look-at-how-enlightened-I-am’ attitude. Plus, I’ve a hunch your own research shows her “1-in-6″ anti-male sexual violence rate claim is actually way too low. Nevertheless, I’m wondering if this is piece is a step in the right direction.
And of course, thanks for another fantastic AVfM piece.
Try threading the needle below. The female animal in the flesh is obviously far from feminist fantasy. It’s always back to the infantile little girl in Woman, one who hopes Man will risk for her, make her choices for her, and be responsible for her…and of course bear false rape charges for her should he be unable to ‘force her’ right.
From Loving, Longing, Leaving by Michael Weller (Theatre Communications Group, 2011):
Jan: Then make me (want you).
Adam: What, force myself on you?
Jan: If that’s what it takes.
Adam (half joking): You want me to ravage you?
Jan: I want to know that you want me more than anything in the world. I want you to stop being so complicated, make your demands known, and let me say a simple yes or no.
Adam: You hate it when I impose myself—
Jan: I hate it when you approach halfway, then linger on the sidelines all patient and kind, watching out for my needs. Being sensitive (italics) to me. All that touchy feel awareness, I hate how much you notice me, how you wait for me to make the first move, why can’t you just—like that night in the taxi, come after me, you know yes ravage me, give me no choice for christ sake—
Adam: You hate that.
Jan: So what? I love it, too, You fly a thousand miles to fuck this woman, why can’t you make the same effort for me, risk me saying no, risk my anger, my resistance. For once in your life take me on and win me.
Um, wow, Primal, this is really heavy, and really big. I think I’ll say cathartic to read this truth that we have sensed to be true in the face of the lies we are harrassed with. And since harrassmet is now technically tantamount to rape, we can safely say we have been raped with lies to the contrary.
All of the lies and deceit just makes me so sick that I’m down to the bile.
It gets bigger…that is even more ironic as the ‘patriarchal violence’ comes in.
From Living, Longing, Leaving by Michael Weller:
(They exchange a long look. He moves to kiss her.)
Jan: What are you—
Adam: Don’t move.
Jan: Not now, I didn’t mean right….now—
(She struggles against him, but he kisses her.)
You can’t just—I meant, in general.
(He keeps moving in on her)
It’s too late, Adam. You should have done this without my having to tell you.
Adam: I’ve never wanted anyone else in the world since / but you won’t give yourself to me, okay if this is how you want it—
Jan: Stop Adam!!!
Adam: Shut up.
(He slaps her.)
Jan: (Stunned.) Adam!!!
Adam: (Horrified at himself): Oh god, Jan, I’m so—
Jan: Don’t say anything:
(She responds by grabbing him. For a moment it seems like rage, then it becomes a wild desperate sexual encounter. She cries with pain.)
My foot (injured earlier), oh jesus, it hurts sweetie….Just let me / a painkiller, anything, pleeease….
Adam: No. Right now.
(She succumbs eagerly, with noises and gasps…They move onto the table…he sweeps data charts onto the floor.)
Jan: What we are doing isn’t us….
Jan: Officer, he RAPED me!
Adam: What? No… It was concentual…
Police Officer: Right…. [draws his baton] You have the right to remain silen you fucking perv.
Adam: Ow! Ahhh, I surrender!
Police Officer: I said SILENT. [whack]
* names have been changed to protect the “innocent”.
Here’s the deal, in one sentence. If repeated requests are rape, then all marketers and advertisers are rapists. Let me repeat that, if repeated requests are rape, then all marketers and advertisements and autistic people are guilty of the crime of rape.
Seriously, the depth of depravity makes you want to go fucking insane.
We must fight, we must beat these scumfucks.
Yes, the depth of the depravity is INTENDED to drive us mad. (Paradoxically, mad men are far better fuckers for mean girls than are ‘sensitive’ nice guys.) We need merely walk away and be glad though….and that depends on inside work which we don’t know how to do very well as males…YET anyway. Instead of “I want to know that you want me more than anything in the world. I want you to stop being so complicated, make your demands known, and let me say a simple yes or no.” I’d say “you are a disgustingly infantile and perversely twisted creature who is repulsive to me….now get the fuck away from me…how’s that simple known demand work for you?”
Wouldn’t a girlfriend nagging for that wedding or the diamond ring constitute rape too?
It seems to me that this is just an extra effort by feminists to completely rid males from colleges and Universities by making it as male unfriendly as possible. Females already outnumber males 66% to 33% in most colleges and Universities today. So I’m sure they’re hoping to monopolize higher education completely as to ensure their female supremacy agenda holds its power in the future by only having a society in which females are able to obtain college and University degrees. This would guarantee them a monopoly into the top positions of both corporate and political society while leaving men at the mercy of their power and control. Then they would be able to pass even more radical anti-male laws without challenge.
Don’t worry, Queef. Most of the degrees women are getting are social work, accounting, business administration, and women’s studies. Most of the arts and sciences (real curricula and degrees) are still dominated by men because women can’t be bothered with real thought or challenge or learning. Despite their disproportionately low numbers relative to women, men still dominate in universities.
The US government has promoted hysteria and lies concerning domestic violence, rape and child abuse contrary to any facts or scientific evidence to snatch and hold children hostages for ransom and traffic them on a scale never before experienced in human history. Governments use the ransom and associated federal subsidies to buy off part of the population at the expense of another part in exchange for political power. Interpretation of these developments should not be misrepresented as a conspiracy theory. One scholar (Doug Casey, Casey Research) explains that, “I think the reason it looks like conspiracy is because these people (our leaders and others in the government and central banks) are sociopaths. They are essentially destructive, but their interests are occasionally roughly aligned in some ways. So it looks like a conspiracy but it’s not.” Trafficking children is child abuse and is a very easy and convenient mechanism for generating revenue with which to buy power. False allegations are just another way of trafficking children, even if it is at a university level.
OT:
Make VAWA more male friendly: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2012/02/tell-senate-to-go-with-senator.html
I’m glad my boys are out of college. I thought it was bad enough when they had to attend a mandatory ” preventing sexual harassment” class to graduate, of course taught by the womens studies professors.
I thought the dating contract they both brought home was a joke.
The colleges anti-male sex policies are just over the top misandrist.
This crap from NCHERM and the colleges is pure, unadulterated hatred of men. Bloody insanity……
I have a hard time understanding why more Males are not attending universirty on line, lately. I know it sounds simplistic, but what other choice is there when so many schools are baiscally telling ALL Males:
“Fuck off, all of you evil Males!!!, We in higher academia, like all the rest of society today, hate, fear and distrust you, both individually and as a group and we can and will criminalize and incarcerate any and all of you, for no other reason than the basis of your gender, should you ever attempt set foot here!!!” ?
Until all of this implodes completely, my son will be gaining his higher education from in front of a computer screen. At this point, it would be nothing less than lunacy to try and send him to most any college campus.
Any other choice than net-u-cation, is simply too dangerous to him and therefore, out of the question.