This absolutely made my day. Completely hilarious.
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!
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While there was initial consent, that consent was withdrawn.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.
“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.
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.
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
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?
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/
So, we can summarize the Yale Fucking Rules as follows:
- Being an inconsiderate sexual partner IS rape
- Having robotic, tedious, constantly assessing legal consent sex is NOT rape. Or fun.
- Having sex with a crying woman who has continuously said no is NOT rape.
- Dragging someone in the bathroom and forcibly fucking them IS rape.
- Being unable to read someone’s mind IS rape.
- Pressuring someone to have sex when they would rather study is NOT rape.
- Being bad at oral sex IS rape.
- 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
In which case, definitely do not forget the lube.
Lots of love,
JB
