Yale confirms it: When it comes to rape, “No” really does mean “Yes”!

14 Sep

This absolutely made my day.  Completely hilarious.

bitter

A bunch of obviously confused women’s studies majors, where they basically train in contradiction, irrationality and hypocrisy, decided to explain to their kindergarten adult students exactly what consensual sex looks like and what the penalties will be for failing to grasp the Rules for Fucking at Yale.

Called the “Sexual Misconduct Scenarios”, the memo is designed to get students to understand that if they are having any kind of sex that is not robotic and not routinely peppered with super romantic legalese, they are doing it wrong and will get no cookies.  No.  Cookies.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/09/10/sexual-misconduct-scenarios-released/

And also that if she says “No” a whole bunch of times and then you have sex anyways, “No” actually means “Yes” and you get ALL THE COOKIES!  Hooray!

cookies

Let’s just dive right in.

Oh, and you can ignore all the bullshit androgynous names, since Team Fucking gave up by the last one, and just called the dude Tyler.

1. Ryo and Casey are dating. Casey is uncertain about whether they should have sex, but Ryo is persuasive and finally obtains Casey’s voluntary agreement. As they engage in sex, Casey says “wait – stop – that hurts.” Ryo nonetheless continues for several more minutes, restraining Casey. Afterwards, Casey is upset. Ryo apologizes, but says they were past the point of interruption.

 

While there was initial consent, that consent was withdrawn. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

You can see the team high fiving each other for an unmistakable slam dunk!   Woo hoo! We nailed it!

“That hurts”?  What is “that”?  Is Casey referring to a particular angle or thrust or to the whole sexual encounter? Is the hurt something that can be remedied and then carry on, tally ho?

Basically, Yale is going to expel Ryo for forgetting to bring lube? And Casey reached a degree of trauma that can only be described as “upset”? Ryo is a clod, no doubt, but in order for that to be rape, Casey is gonna have to be a little more clear.

stop

“Dude, you’re hurting me.  You need to stop right now.”

Fail.  Scenario is totally ambiguous.

2. Jessie and Vic have been flirting all semester, and agree to meet at a party. After dancing closely together for a while, Vic proposes going to one of their rooms and Jessie agrees. On the walk to Jessie’s room, they send a few texts, letting Vic’s friends know not to worry and asking Jessie’s roommate to please sleep somewhere else. Once in the room, they begin touching. Each is interested in hearing what the other wants, and each is paying attention to the other’s signals. They reach and sustain clear agreement upon mutually desired sexual activities.

This is consensual sex: Vic and Jessie reached positive, voluntary, unambiguous agreement to engage in sexual conduct together.

Vic: Baby, do I have your sustained clear agreement?

Jessie: Oh yeah, this is mutually desired activity.

Vic: Ooh, is consent still in effect?

Jessie: Mmmm, but check back in twenty seconds, honey, in case ambiguity arises.

Vic: Oh no, baby, no ambiguity.  I can get expelled for that.  Did you bring the lube?

Very. Sexy.

Fail.

Who has sex like this?  Who wants to?

3. Sidney and Harper are dating. On several occasions they are physically intimate, but within limits set by Sidney, who is opposed to having sex at this stage of their relationship. One night, when they are being intimate within their mutually agreed upon boundaries, Harper begins to cross them. Sidney expresses concern, but Harper is encouraging, saying “it will be okay just this once.” Sidney replies “we shouldn’t do this,” but continues to touch Harper in an intimate way. As Harper initiates sex, Sidney says “this is a bad idea” and begins to cry, but embraces Harper and the two proceed to have sex.

 

Initial consent was followed by ambiguity. Sidney’s acquiescence to sex was accompanied by too much dismay to constitute unambiguous agreement, especially given Sidney’s longstanding prior refusal to engage in sex. The UWC penalty would likely fall in the range of probation to suspension.

no

And BOOM!

“No” really does mean “Yes”.

Sure, Harper is probably going to face a suspension of some sort, but that’s a small price to pay for the knowledge that no matter how many times she said no, you can turn that into a yes by fucking a crying girl.

WTF?

I still wouldn’t call this rape, not by a long shot, but what kind of douchebag has sex with a woman who is crying?  If her kitten just died, or she failed an important exam or her highlights turned out just terrible, I can see the sex and tears scenario, but this is what passes for acceptable by the #rapeculture brigade?

And what is the initial consent, might I ask?  That Sidney expressed reservations but continued to touch him?  So the act of touching implies consent?

Really?

Good to know.

4. Jamie and Cameron are at a party. It is crowded on the dance floor and they are briefly pressed together. Later, Jamie encounters Cameron in the hallway and smiles. Cameron, who is now very drunk, follows Jamie into the bathroom and forces Jamie to have sex.

There was no consent to have sex. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

Finally.  An actual rape. The appropriate reaction is a criminal conviction.  Who gives a fuck what UWC thinks?

5. Devin and Ansley are engaging in a consensual sexual encounter, which Devin begins to intensify. Ansley responds by pulling away slightly, moving Devin’s hands and saying “not so fast; I’m not sure.” Devin cooperates briefly but then intensifies the contact once more. Ansley inches backwards and then becomes still. Nonetheless, Devin has sex with Ansley.

While the initial sexual activity was consensual, that consent was not sustained. The UWC penalty would likely range from multi-semester suspension to expulsion.

 

Oh, she inches backwards and becomes still?

Yeah, no.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

If you no longer consent to sexual activity then you need to let the other person KNOW that.  Devin CANNOT read Ashley’s fucking mind.  And don’t give me this “if she goes still” it’s rape bullshit.

legs

Ever hear of the mannequin?

http://www.steadyhealth.com/I_flex_my_legs_when_I_masturbate__t133309.html

http://www.lpsg.com/109876-who-else-has-to-tense.html

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/80936

http://dartmouthsexperts.blogspot.ca/2008/03/i-can-only-have-orgasm-with-my-legs_06.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121027223802AAFHqTx

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/community/forums/thread/1519683

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/sexual-health-women/272498-can-only-orgasm-my-legs-closed-tight.html

Lots of women stiffen with pleasure.  If you’re stiffening because you are no longer down with sex, then SAY so.

Fail.

100% fail.

6. Alexis and Riley are studying together in Riley’s room. During a break in their studying, they rub each other’s shoulders. Alexis then introduces some intimate touching. Riley moves closer and says “Okay, but I don’t want to go too far – we still have a lot of work to do.” Alexis continues to touch Riley in an intimate way. Riley willingly agrees to some contact, but mostly sets boundaries. Alexis jokes that they deserve to have sex as a reward for their hard work studying; Riley laughs. After their studying is done, Alexis suggests again that they should have sex. Riley responds they should probably get some sleep but continues to touch Alexis. After a few more minutes, Alexis asks once more. Riley pauses, then says okay and pulls Alexis closer. They have sex.

 

This is consensual sex. Despite initial hesitation, the ultimate agreement to have sex was voluntary and unambiguous. There is no violation of the sexual misconduct policy. The UWC would likely counsel Alexis about the inappropriateness of sexual pressure, and recommend SHARE’s sensitivity training program.

Aaaand BOOM!

“No” means “Yes”.  Again.  And this time the price is just a little sensitivity training.

Really, Yale, what exactly are you trying to teach?

Personally, I think no means yes a whole lot of time, but this seems rather….inconsistent, shall we say with the whole No Means No argument.

I think you’re gonna have to pick one, or just throw your hands up and let individual women take responsibility for their own sexual choices.

Oh, wait.

How can you punish men if women are actually responsible for their own choices?

Such a conundrum.

7. Morgan and Kai are friends who begin dancing and kissing at a party. They are both drunk, although not to the point of incapacitation. Together they decide to go to Kai’s room. They undress each other and begin touching each other. Morgan moves as if to engage in oral sex and looks up at Kai questioningly. Kai nods in agreement and Morgan proceeds. Subsequently, without pausing to check for further agreement, Kai begins to perform oral sex on Morgan. Morgan lies still for a few minutes, then moves away, saying it is late and they should sleep.

There was initial agreement, but the bounds of that agreement were not clear. Kai may have thought that Morgan had consented to reciprocal oral sex, but took no steps to obtain unambiguous agreement. The UWC penalty would likely be a reprimand.

Seriously?  This makes approximately zero sense, no matter how you spin it.

If Morgan is the woman, then she gives a Kai a blowjob, which he has agreed to with a nod.  Then when Kai turns around and goes down on Morgan, she lies still (see mannequin, above) and then moves away.

If Kai is the woman, then Morgan kneels in front to her and performs cunnilingus, and then when Kai returns the favor and starts giving Morgan a blowjob, he lies still and then moves away.

I guess they could both be men, or both be women, but it comes down to something fairly obvious, no?

shark

Someone sucks at oral sex.

Ladies, nail down that deep throat technique, or you could face reprimand.  Gents, perfect that muff dive or your record will be permanently amended.

And I’m almost speechless…

8. Tyler and Jordan are both drinking heavily at an off-campus event. Tyler becomes extremely drunk. Jordan offers to take Tyler home. On the way, Tyler has trouble walking, and makes several wrong turns. Once in Tyler’s room, Jordan initiates sexual activity. Tyler looks confused and tries to go to sleep. Jordan has sex with Tyler.

There was no consent to have sex. A person who is incapacitated—lacking the ability to make or act on considered decisions to engage in sexual activity—cannot give consent. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

Wow.  A case of male rape.  And Jordan gets expelled.

I’ll just hold my breath waiting for that to happen in real life.

Call me a cynical bitch, but isn’t it rather touching that the single case where gender is unambiguous, and the man is the one raped, is the very case in which drunk women are excused for their behaviour by proxy?

…lacking the ability to make or act on considered decisions to engage in sexual activity  is rape.

And who will the accused be in most of these scenarios?

Men.

Why?

Because women never get drunk and take advantage of men?

Bullshit.

It’s because men aren’t self-pathologizing, perpetual victims weeping  while constantly seeking someone else to blame for banging that fat chick while drunk.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/09/four-fat-chicks-walk-into-a-bar-looking-for-a-good-time/

yale

So, we can summarize the Yale Fucking Rules as follows:

  1. Being an inconsiderate sexual partner IS rape
  2. Having robotic, tedious, constantly assessing legal consent sex is NOT rape.  Or fun.
  3. Having sex with a crying woman who has continuously said no is NOT rape.
  4. Dragging someone in the bathroom and forcibly fucking them IS rape.
  5. Being unable to read someone’s mind IS rape.
  6. Pressuring someone to have sex when they would rather study is NOT rape.
  7. Being bad at oral sex IS rape.
  8. Having sex with drunk women IS rape.

Holy hell, Batman.

I think Yale is gonna have to change their motto:

Lux et veritas

Light and truth?

More like

Erratus et inconditus.

Lost and confused.

Then again, on the bright side, at least Yale has cleared up that “No” does indeed mean “Yes”.  Now they can get to work figuring out if “Yes” really does mean “Anal”.

http://bigthink.com/focal-point/no-means-yes-yes-means-anal-frat-banned-from-yale

lube

In which case, definitely do not forget the lube.

Lots of love,

JB

59 Responses to “Yale confirms it: When it comes to rape, “No” really does mean “Yes”!”

  1. Daniel Reeves September 14, 2013 at 03:08 #

    Sounds like Yale’s doing an Anticoch http://www.returnofkings.com/15345/one-colleges-bizarre-approach-to-sexual-assault

  2. Xayadvara September 14, 2013 at 06:21 #

    “I still wouldn’t call this rape, not by a long shot, but what kind of douchebag has sex with a woman who is crying?”

    Err, JB?

    I am not sure of the mechanics of it, but some of us do get a boner watching a woman cry …… as to whether they will act on their ‘baser impulses’ is another question.

    • mamaziller September 20, 2013 at 07:50 #

      yea I am female but like BDSM and the idea of the female crying or not getting pleasure.. where do we fall in this. I am married though and monogamous.

  3. Exfernal September 14, 2013 at 09:45 #

    “Tyler becomes extremely drunk.”

    High probability of a limp “whiskey dick”. Consequently, “rapey” ladies would have considerable difficulty with pleasuring themselves that way. In a reversed scenario that particular problem doesn’t arise, obviously.

    • The Lucky Lothario September 14, 2013 at 10:58 #

      Just because ‘whiskey dick’ affects some men doesn’t mean it should be assumed and used to discount the very real fact that men can still become aroused involuntarily. It is not the case that male arousal implies consent.

      By the flipside of that logic, any woman who orgasmed (or indeed felt any arousal) during rape would be consenting. This is obviously not true so why should it be true with the gender flipped?

      • Exfernal September 14, 2013 at 15:03 #

        Who argues for discounting involuntary arousal?

        It’s worth pointing out that expected ratio between both scenarios happening would rather not be 1:1. Even if with equal likelihood of both being reported.

      • matt September 16, 2013 at 17:28 #

        I’ve had drunken sex a couple times…like blackout drunk during my college years (wouldn’t necessarily recommend it-one of the times i regretted immensely) where I had memory lapses and couldn’t even remember the sex encounter. I had no problem with “whiskey dick”. every guy is different but there are many guys out there (especially if you’re young where a stiff breeze can cause involuntary arousal) that are able to have sex while drunk.

  4. earl September 14, 2013 at 14:02 #

    How about this idea?

    Keep sex in marriage…no ambiguity there. Have all the sex you want to your heart’s desire to your spouse and only your spouse.

    Of course they wouldn’t like that idea either…as I would be seen as a prude. Meanwhile these people are putting a bunch of unneccesarry rules and penalties on ambigous situations…who is the more prude one here?

    • Marlo Rocci September 14, 2013 at 14:49 #

      Actually, marriage doesn’t affect the rape laws one bit. Legally a married man is on the exact same footing as an unmarried man. He still has to be prepared to prove consent in court for each time he nails his wife.

      • earl September 14, 2013 at 17:16 #

        I’m aware of that…but I also subscribe to God’s law. Or natural law if you will.

        If it wasn’t for sex…why would guys even marry? Sex and marriage are congruent ideas.

        • Take The Red Pill September 14, 2013 at 17:40 #

          “God’s law” and/or “natural law” means nothing and does not help you (if you are a man charged with “rayyyype”) in court.
          A man is better off emigrating or shunning women entirely and Going His Own Way.
          Today’s man-hating harpies are best left alone to have sex with each other; that seems to be what they want, anyway.

          • earl September 15, 2013 at 12:31 #

            “God’s law” and/or “natural law” means nothing and does not help you (if you are a man charged with “rayyyype”) in court.”

            You are going against a judge’s inherit biases…besides I’m only having sex with my future wife so I don’t have to worry about it.

            But let’s say I get falsely accused of rape by some tart…and obviously I never had sex with her in the first place. Women are so detail oriented that asking her…where did we have sex, what color was the sheets, what color was the room, what position were we in, what were you feeling, what day did it happen, what time, what bodily injuries did you suffer, etc. You keep asking enough questions you can find a hole in her story that makes it incongruent to what you were actually doing.

        • Marlo Rocci September 14, 2013 at 22:23 #

          Until your god shows up in family court, it’s a moot point. I could just as say Thor commands me to steal Ferraris, and therefore it’s just that I do so.

          • judgybitch September 14, 2013 at 22:24 #

            Wait.

            Are you saying it ISN’T?

            Thor has spoken and must be obeyed.

          • earl September 15, 2013 at 12:17 #

            My God would show up in family court…it’s yours that you should be concerned about.

            • GrimGhost September 15, 2013 at 14:45 #

              Now you’ve just proven you can’t be taken seriously. But please, keep spouting.

          • imnobody00 September 16, 2013 at 15:05 #

            (I won’t talk about the Thor nonsense. There are answers all over the Internet. But you can’t discuss with those who don’t want to know and they replace arguments with contempt)

            God doesn’t appear in family court (he is God not a lawyer) but there was a time that His willing was done in family court. Yes, you remember, back then when people was sane and didn’t make those stupid rules created by dimwits.

            When most children were raised by two parents (the horror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and jail had a tenth of the current prison population. Those oppressive times were women had to work as mothers and not work as mothers and fathers at the same time (weird!). When a person could earn a decent salary (oppressive!!!). When a person could marry and was entitled to regular sex (this is really retarded, I accept). When we didn’t have a deficit that will bring our economy and our pensions to ruin.

            I don’t know how we survived this oppressive Christian heteronormative cisgendered patriarchy. Thank Thor it is gone.

            Compare: Thou shalt not commit adultery

            (Easy. Simple. You know what the rules are. You cannot break them unintentionallly).

            Compare with

            Thou shalt receive sustained reciprocal consent for each action you perform in bed. So thou shalt bring the lube, you sinner, and if the woman thou are fornicating with repents, then thou are in big trouble, pal. Thou shalt end up in prison because she said “No” (it was a pleasure “No”) and now she is interpreting this “No” as an on-the-fly withdrawal of consent.

            I am happy we have now these progressive enlightened rules. This way I have two options: become celibate (it is not going to happen) or being at the mercy of a woman who can destroy my life (taking my children and my money or putting me in prison) any time she wants.

            It is great to live in a progressive world like ours! Enjoy!

        • Marlo Rocci September 15, 2013 at 02:32 #

          By the way, there actually aren’t any “conventional marriages” in the bible. It’s all multiple wives, harems, slaves, virgins captured in battle, concubines and incest. Even Jesus is sort of an out of wedlock pregnancy. If you were really living biblically, you’d have 6 wives and be doing your sister.

          And if Natural law was followed, harems are more natural for our species when you look at our closest cousins, the Bonobo Chimpanzee.

          Before you cite God’s law, you might want to know what it is first.

          • Marlo Rocci September 15, 2013 at 04:04 #

            I always laugh when someone cites the Christianity for a guide for moral behavior. if you want a diatribe of psychotic sociopathic behavior, it’s in the bible.

          • earl September 15, 2013 at 12:16 #

            Gee because humans only started doing evil things when feminism came about.

            Meanwhile the Bible only keeps telling us over and over the best way to live life…and then cites examples of what happens when you don’t. God made it pretty simple…10 rules. I’d take 10 straight forward rules…over the hundreds of ambiguous laws that can only be interpreted by a judge’s own inherit biases.

            All those examples you provided…also made whomever was doing it end up in some sort of misery. That is abnormal law.

            And when it comes to the pregnancy of Jesus…that is an example so different from everyone else’s.

            • Marlo Rocci September 15, 2013 at 15:09 #

              Excuse me, but it’s the god of the bible who pretty much does all the evil things. Try reading it again. Mass genocide, ethnic cleansing. Ordering the rape of virgins. Ordering child murders. Yeah, he’s a real winner that deity of yours. It really sounds like you didn’t even read the thing.

              And those 10 rules? The first four are about kissing his ass. And they leave out harming children. Partly because he accepts children as human sacrifice (no, not talking about Abraham and Issac here, and if you read it you would know who I am talking about).

              • Liz September 15, 2013 at 16:28 #

                Didn’t you recently assert that grandfathers should be euthanized because they are useless human beings?

            • LostSailor September 15, 2013 at 20:09 #

              The God of the bible is certainly a changeable fellow. He tells Adam to not eat of a certain tree or else “when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Sounds pretty immediate to me. Then he creates “the woman,” who tricks Adam into a mid-day snack. But He decides to not carry out the immediate penalty and just kicks them out of his gated community. As a result, the woman finally gets a name instead. Which might have been what she was going for all along. (“Hey, Adam! OMG! We’re naked! And why the hell am I still just called “the woman” anyway?”)

              God then later regrets creating man, so he nearly wipes them all out, except for Noah (Yay Noah, the man to invent wine-making. Good on ya, bud!)

              God later shows himself to be angry, vengeful, and jealous. There’s a lot of smiting going on. Though actually I kind of like smiting.

              By the end of the thing, God has mellowed to be all about Love. Well, except for the whole Lake of Fire thing.

              So, I doubt he’d actually show up in court to defend a husband against a rape charge from a wife.

              As for the circumstances of Mary’s pregnancy, Joseph seems to have been pretty marginal, a fine example of the irrelevance of fathers and the virtues of single motherhood. But, I suppose if you’ve been cuckolded by God, you sort of have to give Mary a pass…

              • Marlo Rocci September 16, 2013 at 01:14 #

                Hey, if god created man in god’s image, then his dick isn’t any bigger than mine.

    • princesspixiepointless September 14, 2013 at 19:39 #

      Agreed. But what if your spouse turns into a control freak man hating Christian child abuser and then sees any attempts as intimacy as rape?

      Then what?

      • earl September 15, 2013 at 12:23 #

        You mean to tell me that while courting her she is a sweet feminine soul who never hits me, touches me first, loves my masculine charms, and lets me make the final decision and then after marrying her she turns into a demon.

        I wouldn’t see the signs or the red flags of her being a control freak, a man hater, or an abuser beforehand. Every time I touch her non sexually she gets an awful look on her face.

        Give me a little credit here.

  5. roe September 14, 2013 at 14:06 #

    “what kind of douchebag has sex with a woman who is crying?”

    The first time my wife had an orgasm with me, she broke down in tears. I was extremely concerned, and hugged her to me. “Good cry,” she managed to whisper. She was overcome with positive emotion.

    So, on occasions where this happens (not often), I have very gently escalated to intercourse, because I know what’s going on. Obviously, I’m highly attuned to her body language in these circumstances and would stop if there were any doubt whatsoever about what’s going on in her head.

    This is just to reinforce the point: all this micro-regulation of sexual behaviour is attempting to fix a far more fundamental issue: that sex in college often happens under terrible pre-conditions – without emotional intimacy, under the influence of substances which lower inhibitions and interfere with effective communication.

    The thing is – in my (admittedly limited) experience many peole have a few negative sexual experiences – not rapey, mind, but uncomfortable, clumsy, and confusing – in order to get to the good stuff.

    Expelling students for this is, obviously, lunacy.

    • earl September 14, 2013 at 14:13 #

      Yeah these people seem to create situations that either don’t line up with reality…of if it is a woman…it’s her story and the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

    • princesspixiepointless September 14, 2013 at 19:42 #

      Great point.

      The first time I had a real and proper orgasm, the emotional relief was too much and I cried my eyes out.

      Luckily I was with one of the good guys.

      (Not an orgy, just too tipsy to bother with correct grammar)

      Well said.

      • Marlo Rocci September 15, 2013 at 04:06 #

        hey, don’t knock orgies.

      • Liz September 15, 2013 at 16:31 #

        The best, truly mind-blowing orgasms, always make me cry.

        • Master Beta September 16, 2013 at 08:51 #

          Fuck, you ladies must have much better orgasms than us :(

  6. Marlo Rocci September 14, 2013 at 14:40 #

    Here’s what needs to happen to make this stop: Yale men need to stop dating Yale women. There are plenty of women on the internet they can hook up with and New York is just a short distance away. And trust me, there are literally millions of girls in the US that would love to snag a Yale man. And if you’re a hot commodity, you simply don’t have to put up with this shit.

  7. aneroidocean September 14, 2013 at 14:50 #

    thank you jb, thank you

  8. baux September 14, 2013 at 19:27 #

    I find great irony in the fact that one of the manosphere’s most prominent writers is a woman.
    You’re killing it over here, consistently delivering a diverse array of subject matter to consider. Keep up the good work.

    • gwallan September 14, 2013 at 23:42 #

      Not ironic at all. In matters pertaining to “gender” mens’ voices have been silenced from the outset. This may be slowly changing but in the meantime the women who speak out are essential to the broader process.

      • patriarchal landmine September 18, 2013 at 17:53 #

        indeed, pretty much every post on this blog is something that has already been said before, and better, by another man on another site.

        • judgybitch September 18, 2013 at 17:56 #

          It’s not really a competition, though, landmine. It doesn’t matter who said it first or better. What matters is that a whole lot of people are saying the same things, over and over again.

  9. Jeff September 14, 2013 at 20:28 #

    I’m in basic agreement with JB and the majority of the posters here, so now I’m wondering, what would the circumstances have to be to find a woman guilty of raping a man when either/both are drunk?

    I don’t see how there is physical evidence involved. When the guys says “I was raped” and the girl says “we both wanted it”, it’s a stalemate.

  10. Jeremy September 14, 2013 at 22:47 #
    4. Jamie and Cameron are at a party. It is crowded on the dance floor and they are briefly pressed together. Later, Jamie encounters Cameron in the hallway and smiles. Cameron, who is now very drunk, follows Jamie into the bathroom and forces Jamie to have sex.

    There was no consent to have sex. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

    Finally. An actual rape. The appropriate reaction is a criminal conviction. Who gives a fuck what UWC thinks?

    This is still ambiguous. HE was the one who was drunk. If women are not responsible for their activity or potential implications of consent while drunk, why is he guilty of misinterpreting her actions while he is drunk? If women can get drunk, have sex without communication as to consent, and then claim rape… how can a man get drunk and be guilty of rape? I’d say, if we’re going to be fair, at worst he’s guilty of reckless endangerment for getting drunk while possessing the physical capability of forcing himself on someone.

    Now, if we’re going to say that women who get drunk, act sexy and inviting and are raped cannot then claim rape, then I’m fine with criminalizing all rape by men while they are drunk.

    //fairs fair.

    • Jeremy September 15, 2013 at 03:03 #

      I am surprised I trolled no one with this comment.
      Oh well, I was playing devils advocate.

  11. patriarchal landmine September 15, 2013 at 06:09 #

    learning, years after the fact, what every man alive has already known about “rape” and “consent.”

  12. moseszd September 15, 2013 at 12:54 #

    Lots of women stiffen with pleasure.

    My wife does. In fact, looking back on it, I think every woman I’ve had sex with has gone ‘rigid’ before orgasm.

  13. Nicky September 15, 2013 at 13:02 #

    Erm…. Sorry, JB, but I’ve definitely heard Tyler used for both genders. I’m actually quite impressed that they used ambiguous names throughout. I just wish I could believe they would ACT in a gender-blind way too. Seriously doubt it though. I suspect they want to make it clear that rape isn’t just a heterosexual problem, and the woman is only actually seen as a potential rapist if her partner is also female.

    And really, it comes down to two simple rules: If you don’t consent/change your mind – say so! If your partner is unable to communicate this, stop! FAR simpler than needing to mind read each other or talk constantly.

    • feeriker September 16, 2013 at 13:46 #

      Erm…. Sorry, JB, but I’ve definitely heard Tyler used for both genders. I’m actually quite impressed that they used ambiguous names throughout.

      Is anyone else awaiting the day when the feminist influence leads to a fiat law decreeing that ALL names shall be gender neutral?

    • Goober September 17, 2013 at 14:56 #

      If you are physically capable of consent, you must resist or it isn’t rape. You cannot in good faith imprison people because they were incapable of reading their partners mind…/

  14. Dude Where's My Freedom? September 15, 2013 at 16:58 #

    It would be a lot less confusing if they simply said, “Attention men, every time you have sex with a female on this campus, whether or not it was rape will be determined by the following process

  15. LostSailor September 15, 2013 at 20:18 #

    obviously confused women’s studies majors

    Those descriptive adjectives are redundantly axiomatic. But a neat acronym: OCWSMs

    if they are having any kind of sex that is not robotic and not routinely peppered with super romantic legalese, they are doing it wrong

    Oedipal considerations aside, that sounds like a horrible game of “mother, may I.” Very sexy…

    And Casey reached a degree of trauma that can only be described as “upset”?

    Hey, JB, that’s not fair. Casey is an upset survivor. Show some respect to her lived experience without invisiblizing the trauma of being upset. Because that upsets the OCWSMs. And the cycle is propagated anew…

    Who has sex like this? Who wants to?

    No one. Ever. But keep in mind this was a document written by academics in response to OCWSMs. It’s not supposed to make sense.

    So the act of touching implies consent?

    Harper and Sydney are just idiots. I can see how this could play out at the disciplinary hearing:

    Sydney: “But I said “no.” He should have listened.”

    Harper: “I was listening for her unambiguous consent and while I thought she might have said something at that point in the encounter, it was very muffled since she said it while gobbling my knob.”

    Court: “You just should have known anyway. Expelled!!”

    And don’t give me this “if she goes still” it’s rape bullshit.

    Unfortunately, in my younger years, I’ve had women come on to me for whom this would describe the height of their sexual enthusiasm. That last bit should have read Nonetheless, Devin has completely robotic and intensely unsatisfactory sex with Ansley and resolves to never again go out with such frigid women.

    “Okay, but I don’t want to go too far – we still have a lot of work to do.”

    Said no student ever. Academics can sure be idiots. I know. I work with some of them.

    Someone sucks at oral sex.

    Such as the authors of these guidelines.

    And yes, this should absolutely be on a T-shirt. Yale: No Means Yes, Yes Means Anal!”

    I’ve never been so glad I didn’t go to fucking Yale. Besides the fact that New Haven is a pit…

    Gotta run. America’s Cup racing is on live. And these boats are screaming speed machines. At least until one of them flips, like nearly happened to the Kiwis yesterday.

  16. Marlo Rocci September 16, 2013 at 00:18 #

    At some point the rules for consent are going to get so convoluted that either men will stop trying to have sex or stop caring about having consent.

  17. Master Beta September 16, 2013 at 08:53 #

    So…… Can two people who don’t speak the same language have consensual sex? That’s what I want to know.

  18. JBfan September 23, 2013 at 00:12 #

    Wow. Just wow. This is the worst “guide to not raping accidentally/being raped accidentally” (as if it were a good idea in the first place). Completely muddies the waters and destroys the message it set out to make to start with. And TBH these slutwalking “activists” and “anti-rape” activists (as if the average rapist gives a toss in the first place), are clueless about the solution to such a horrible crime. Like Ricky Gervais mentions in his stand up “why did you rape her?” “I forgot!” “You’d forget your head if it wasn’t screwed on, get out of here you scamp!”

    Seems Yale aren’t so smart after all!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,309 other followers

%d bloggers like this: