At least per this apparently official page from the University of Michigan; one hopes the institution is not planning to incorporate those notions into its (federally shaped) student discipline policies. [College Fix]
P.S. Related on “campus rape culture” furor: Cathy Young/Slate, Coyote, Scott Greenfield.
11 Comments
Reading about this today made me realize that UM is merely following on the heels of the CDC, which issued a report defining “sexual violence” to include “sexual coercion,” defined as “sexual penetration that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way” such as “being worn down by someone who repeatedly asked for sex or showed they were unhappy.”
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_digest_final-a.pdf
In other words, whenever you think this theatre of “rape culture” can’t get more absurd, you are proven wrong. And I can’t help but notice the sheer number of CDC employees involved in publishing this drivel. Something to keep in mind next time we’re told there is “nothing left to cut” in the federal budget.
I’ve always wondered what part of “Disease” can’t the CDC comprehend?
“…being worn down by someone who repeatedly [asks] … or showed they were unhappy; feeling pressured by being lied to, being told promises that were untrue, having someone threaten…”
Sounds like a typical mediation session for tort litigation.
“In other words, whenever you think this theatre of “rape culture” can’t get more absurd, you are proven wrong. ”
My goodness what a false leap. Can anyone now conclude that Michigan defines this as rape?
No should mean no and trying to wear a person down to have sex with you is wrong. It is not a crime. But it is okay for a school to want to persuade students not to want young people to do this.
People get wrongfully accused of rape in this country just like any other crime. It is behind awful. But the bigger problem is that women are getting raped.
(My gosh, I’m so glad to disagree with commenters again. My last few comments have been tough!)
Withholding sex? Discounting feelings?
That’s sexual violence?
So now it’s women who are the perpetrators, not the victims?
Who decided that?
UM defined it as sexual violence. There’s a “leap” between sexual violence and rape?
I can agree with that. But redefining nonviolent acts as violent isn’t the way to go. Embezzlement is nonviolent, but it’s still illegal. And the language used can matter GREATLY if a student is found to have violated the Conduct Code for reasons of “sexual violence”. Imagine having that on your permanent record.
It’s all so clear: penis in vagina is always rape, even when consensual, but withholding intercourse is sexual violence. Get with the program, people.
No means no. So when the man says (anything) and the woman says NO, that’s it, right?
Except this policy calls that “withholding sex” and that’s abusive.
So the woman is the abuser and the man should call 911 and she should go to jail.
But if the man says “Oh. You said no. You really should say yes because I’m about to call 911 and you’re going to jail for abusive sex.” Now SHE should call 911 because he’s being coercive.
What a wonderful policy.
Let me get this straight. So if I go through the normal (nonverbal) seduction process, I’m a rapist for not stopping to ask for express consent 37 times before I even get to second base — but if I really want my way I can just wait until she says NO, then threaten to report her?
I can’t see anyone taking this policy seriously, no matter what side they’re on. It sounds like more of a parody or snark along the lines of, “If women’s feelings count for that much, then so do men’s.”
I agree with that view. But it’ll be better served if one or several of the men expelled by schools that follow DOE’s policy sues the federal government for (indirectly) imposing a system that violates students’ right of privacy and denies them due process. I don’t see how the feds can legitimately impose such a thing by bribery any more than they can by statute.
Under Threats: “Some abusers threaten to destroy property of his partner, especially that which means a lot to her.” I think their PC roots showed.
The problem with this moonbattery is that, while it may be good intentioned, ( I argue otherwise in other posts.) it defines the threshold so low that the charge becomes meaningless.
Withholding sex, attempting to guilt someone into having sex (often referred to as a “mercy f**k.), discounting feelings, and the other “crimes” this policy defines as “sexual violence,” are often bad, and even malicious acts. They may be part of a pattern of abuse. But by defining them as “sexual violence,” it demeans the victims of real sexual violence. If badgering someone into having sex is akin to rape, then rape must not be a big thing. It’s like the “all penetrative sex is rape” crap spewed by some of the Feminazi crowd. If all sex is rape, then rape must not only be decriminalized, it must be lauded from the rooftops. Clearly that is not the right answer.
One of the roots of this malaise is an attempt to fix all interpersonal problems with policy and legislation. “If we only write the laws right, everyone will be happy, healthy, and wise.” It ain’t so. People must be left to wend their way through the maze of interpersonal conflicts on their own. They need to be allowed to grow up.