WTF are you thinking George Will? It isn't cool to be a victim of sexual assault.

[Sullyute]

There was a recent post on Feminist Mormon housewives about sexual assault on mormon women. The comments are pretty damning. Many are from experiences at BYU.

yes even mormon women

[wally]

I dislike the idea that something is too sensitive to discuss and should therefore not be discussed or written. We live in a culture which fosters victimhood in many ways, and unfortunately that also reaches the area of sexual assault. As with anything, there are true victims who deserve every bit of help, legal or otherwise, and there are those who claim to be victims when they know they aren't. But if we're going to learn and progress as a society, we have to discuss these distinctions, even when some of the perspectives seem ignorant or insensitive.

Fair enough, we disagree on this. However, I am curious, what do you mean by a "culture that fosters victimhood?" I am left to assume that this extends to the social services like welfare and whatever else. Am I misunderstanding?

[wally]

Why cant both of these positions be true? The current approach does tend to encourage victimhood (IMO) but it is also undoubtedly true that some actual victims are constrained from reporting or pursuing their attackers. To that end, Will's piece has been successful in the sense that it is fostering these discussions. It also promotes his name, which I ma sure he enjoys.

I am not so sure that this is the case. Many victims of sexual assault/molestation/etc. are constrained primarily by fear. They were put in a position of being overpowered and dominated by somebody in a horrible way. That fear can permeate all aspects of life for the rest of their lives. Now if public discourse includes statements like "tons of chicks lie about being victimized", then my assertion is that this serves to dissuade real victims from reporting real crimes and real predators. In our discussion here we are talking about details like "whose apartment the assault occurs in" and "how many times they 'say no'" factoring into whether we, jurors in the courts of public opinion, believe them to be victims or simply "crying wolf" to game the system. Let me tell you that some the victims I know would rather not report anything and let a predator off the hook than relive the nightmares only to get raked over the coals of some sort of cross-examination.

[creekster]

I am not so sure that this is the case. Many victims of sexual assault/molestation/etc. are constrained primarily by fear. They were put in a position of being overpowered and dominated by somebody in a horrible way. That fear can permeate all aspects of life for the rest of their lives. Now if public discourse includes statements like "tons of chicks lie about being victimized", then my assertion is that this serves to dissuade real victims from reporting real crimes and real predators. In our discussion here we are talking about details like "whose apartment the assault occurs in" and "how many times they 'say no'" factoring into whether we, jurors in the courts of public opinion, believe them to be victims or simply "crying wolf" to game the system. Let me tell you that some the victims I know would rather not report anything and let a predator off the hook than relive the nightmares only to get raked over the coals of some sort of cross-examination.

First, you are discussing it here (and I am glad to read your point of view) and that is of great value to those of us not as closely acquainted with the issue as you seem to be.

Second, this discussion would not be taking place at all without the piece. So while the piece itself may not be to your liking, I think it has served a useful purpose.

Third, I fail to see how never discussing can aid those who fall into the category you describe.

[pellegrino]

I agree with you that topics should not be off limits and really, the focus of Will's essay wasn't sexual assault--that's just where his foot was lodged the most firmly in his mouth. The bigger idea of victimization is an important one to discuss.

Again though, you (and others) are misreading the scenario. I'm not sure if Will pointed it out, but the girl was very clear that she wanted no further sexual contact--ever. This wasn't a case of 'not being in the mood'. Legally, apparently no means no, so it doesn't matter, but it certainly adds to his douchebaggery. They were friends, she probably didn't have the energy or the will to disturb the friendship and send him home, and was probably reassured that he wouldn't try anything. Friends share beds platonically sometimes. That may not have been particularly smart, but it doesn't justify continued attempts to 'just finish' (seriously, doesn't that phrase alone just tell you what a db he was?). And it's her freaking room and bed. It's on him to get the hell out.

Again, we're taking her at her word. But Will is also taking at her word and acts like it's no big deal. It is. It warrants investigation, which the school did not do.

I don't have a problem with labeling that scenario as sexual assault, but I think it was an assault that could have very easily been avoided. Is it her fault it happened? Absolutely not, but just because it isn't her fault doesn't mean she couldn't have done something to avoid it. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but I will teach my daughters to expect such behavior from all men, Mormon or not.

[pellegrino]

Fair enough, we disagree on this. However, I am curious, what do you mean by a "culture that fosters victimhood?" I am left to assume that this extends to the social services like welfare and whatever else. Am I misunderstanding?

If you look closely at a fair amount of academic discourse out there (at least in the humanities), you'll see that it focuses on the oppressed (physically, mentally, and politically), the underrepresented, the misunderstood, etc. I think a lot of theoretical discourse out there fosters interpreting narratives as victimization. That can be good, because it can bring attention to problems of exploitation, but it is bad when taken to the extreme. There are academics who read everything in terms of the theories they espouse, regardless of whether or not the narrative fits the theory. What inevitably ends up happening is that everything looks like a nail that needs to be fixed with the hammer of a certain theory. I think Will attempted to address this, but fell well short. Inevitable given the constraints of a 500 word column.

[frank ryan]

A different perspective on college rape.http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/i-wa...ed-status.html

[UVACoug]

There are a couple of key differences though. If we take her at her word, she indicated that not only was she not in the mood, so to speak, she was never going to be--she wanted to go back to being friends. So they aren't really in an ongoing sexual relationship and there's no reason for him to think that she just needed a little foreplay. Second, they're at her house, in her bed. Where else is she supposed to go and why is she the one who has to leave? I think it's not a far stretch to imagine him agreeing not to try anything and her just trying to be the nice friend and too tired to really insist he go home.
I'm not defending her actions--like I said, she's not going to garner a lot of sympathy. Who knows what really happened, but at the very least, her claim warrants investigation. Instead, when she reported it, it was completely ignored. That's a problem.

Not completely relevant, but I don't think what you are describing would constitute sexual assault legally. Pressuring someone to have sex is not assault, even if you know they will give in just to get you to go away. There has to be some force. It doesn't necessarily have to be physical force (it can be mental coercion), but I don't think what you are describing would meet the legal definition of coercion.

I agree that the guy you're describing is doing something wrong though, and that its good to raise awareness that such pressure is not acceptable.

[frank ryan]

Not completely relevant, but I don't think what you are describing would constitute sexual assault legally. Pressuring someone to have sex is not assault, even if you know they will give in just to get you to go away. There has to be some force. It doesn't necessarily have to be physical force (it can be mental coercion), but I don't think what you are describing would meet the legal definition of coercion.

I agree that the guy you're describing is doing something wrong though, and that its good to raise awareness that such pressure is not acceptable.

You don't have to be held down to not be able to consent.

[UVACoug]

You don't have to be held down to not be able to consent.

I agree, which is why I said mental coercion can constitute sexual assault. It's also true, however, that you can legally consent without verbalizing it ... and that you can legally consent for reasons other than a desire to have sex. Sometimes those reasons are unhealthy and the result of pressure. That doesn't turn consensual sex into rape (legally). In some circumstances I wish it did, but not everything that is immoral is illegal.

[frank ryan]

That's what I said.

So if a girl says clearly says no it's cool to keep going ?

[UVACoug]

So if a girl says clearly says no it's cool to keep going ?

Of course not. Where did I say that was OK? You seem to be pretty defensive. I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just giving my perspective on what I understand the law to be. Maybe the law should be different.

With that said, do you think it is possible for a girl to say no ... and then an hour later change her mind? In that scenario is the guy a rapist for making another attempt? I don't think he would be guilty of sexual assault in the eyes of the law. He may be a scumbag for making another pass at her after she asked him not to. Probably depends on the context (did she invite him into her bed?). She may be legitimately traumatized from such a scenario. Doesn't necessarily make what happened a crime.

[frank ryan]

Of course not. Where did I say that was OK? You seem to be pretty defensive. I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just giving my perspective on what I understand the law to be. Maybe the law should be different.

With that said, do you think it is possible for a girl to say no ... and then an hour later change her mind? In that scenario is the guy a rapist for making another attempt? I don't think he would be guilty of sexual assault in the eyes of the law. He may be a scumbag for making another pass at her after she asked him not to. Probably depends on the context (did she invite him into her bed?). She may be legitimately traumatized from such a scenario. Doesn't necessarily make what happened a crime.

It wasn't an hour later where she changed his mind according to the article. It was a couple of minutes and she didn't resist but that's not consent.

[UVACoug]

It wasn't an hour later where she changed his mind according to the article. It was a couple of minutes and she didn't resist but that's not consent.

I'm not talking specifically about the column. I haven't even read it (I probably should have before I posted). I'm just commenting about what has been described here and the law in general.

With that said, I would be shocked if anyone has been convicted of sexual assault under the scenario you describe. Its wrong. The guy is scum. Maybe it should be a crime, but I don't think it is. I could, of course, be wrong (would certainly not be the first time). I'm not a criminal lawyer. I did take criminal law not too long ago from an uber-feminist* who literally wrote the book on rape jurisprudence. We spent a lot of time talking about these kinds of scenarios. I seem to remember the standard in most states being a bit higher than saying no once, inviting a guy into your bed, and then putting forward no further resistance.

* One of my favorite professors, by the way.

[ERCougar]

Only they know what happened. But at the very least, it warrants investigation, and is a terrible example to cite of appropriate institutional behavior. That's why I say George Will is so clueless on this.