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

[Blueintheface]

I knew/dated at least three such women before I turned 23.

No, I was not the male they accused of assaulting them.

The ponytailed variety.

[wally]

It seems that folks are talking past each other and confusing two distinct, and perhaps mutually exclusive, groups in this thread. One group of people have been sexually assaulted. All of them feel a degree of shame and carry emotional wounds from their experience. Out of shame, fear, or whatever, some do not report or even admit their experiences, which is unfortunate on several levels. I'd bet virtually nobody who has really been sexually abused or assaulted is glad it happened because now they're getting attention. The other group of people is the group the George Will crowd is talking about - people who have not been assaulted but claim to be for the attention. Unfortunately, pointing this group of people out casts doubt on everyone in the first group who comes forward, and probably keeps people in the first group from coming forward. This is why Will should have picked another topic to write about.

Cowboy nails it. Anybody who has been abused or assaulted, or is close to someone who has been (I am), find the notion that attention from the incident is a "hidden reward" from the most horrific experience in their life to be insulting and demeaning. Ask yourself this question: "if you had truly ben sexually assaulted, are you now more or less likely to report, having read that article?" I haven't read it and I won't read it because I don't want to drive the article hit count up any higher, as I believe it should never have been written and we shouldn't be having this discussion.

The person I am close to never reported anything. The abuse/assault occurred while they were young and helpless and there is no physical evidence to support an accusation, unless there were other victims that would also come forward. This is where a lot of victims are, in that they understand that if they are the sole victim, it comes down to "my word against yours" and why relive all of your darkest memories if no justice comes of it. So they try to move on and make the most out of a traumatic experience, that affects all of their relationships now. They probably now suffer from anxiety/depression/PTSD or some other emotional/mental disorder. The person I am close to has contemplated ending their life on many occasions.

I agree that narcissists falsely accusing is horrible, and can create a nightmare for the accused. False accusations cheapen legitimate ones and it should be left to professionals to privately sort out whether they are legit. Using Mr. Will's own line of reasoning, he probably thinks that a history of slavery and racial discrimination is now benefitting African Americans. I'll bet that even if he really does think that, he is too chicken shit to write that article, better to find some other controversial topic with less risk to himself. I wonder if he was ever abused... probably not.

[pellegrino]

I guess this is where we disagree. She said no, and he stopped-he relented, at least initially. He started again, and then she didn't say no. Why didn't she say no again? Because it was more convenient to just let him get his rocks off? Because she possibly wanted to have sex too, in spite of the boundaries they had allegedly established? I don't know.

But with two people who have been in a prolonged sexual relationship, and where her actions of getting into bed with him--not really the actions of someone who is trying to maintain a platonic friendship, btw--could reasonably be interpreted as an invitation to get busy, I think there is a little bit more of a burden on her to make sure he knows where she stands before something like that amounts to sexual assault. Anyone who has been in a sexual relationship knows that sometimes a woman--or a man for that matter--may not initially be interested in sex, and that a little foreplay can get the person interested. When that happens, that's consensual sex, not sexual assault, IMO. Maybe that makes me an old white male administrator. I guess that makes my wife an old white administrator, too, since she just read the scenario in Will's column and doesn't think it constitutes sexual assault.

I tend to agree with this, but with reservations. The woman in question should have been smarter and not gotten into bed with him. If it's her house then she breaks up with him and sends him packing. Do not let him stay the night, and most certainly do not say "I don't want to have sex anymore" and then get in bed with him. That said, the phippopotamus is right. She was raped, even if it wasn't forceful or violent, and I agree with and support that legal standard. Rape should be qualified as any sexual act that is not fully consentual. The fact that the standard isn't investigated or prosecuted in even one situation, let alone the four phippo referred to is highly problematic and indicative of just how far we are from understanding and eradicating sexual crimes.

However, while I agree that no means no, it's somewhat naive to assume that everyone understands that in every situation. Sure, in an ideal culture everyone would understand that an individual and communication about sexual relationships would be flawless Women would never play hard to get, tease, act provocatively for attention or to create and prolong sexual tension and the excitement that comes with it, and men would always understand exactly what a woman's intent was, even if the woman herself didn't know, or was sending mixed signals (i.e. saying no, but then getting in bed with him).

I guess my point is this: As the father of three girls, I will do be relentless in teaching my girls that men do not think like they do and that while they should never be ashamed of their bodies or their sexuality, they must also be aware of what signals they are sending and how those signals may be interpreted. If they do not want to have sex then they need to clearly and if necessary forcefully communicate that and be relentless in extricating themselves (or their partner) from a situation that may get out of hand. No means no, but that doesn't mean that it is understood and respected the first time it is said, especially if the agressor is aroused. Evolution, both biological and cultural, has given men the role of being the agressors and women the role of pursued, and whether or not that is right, wrong, fair or unfair is irrelevant, it is what it is and no woman should ever assume that just saying no will be enough to stop a man from initiating or continuing sexual contact anymore than a man should assume that if she says no she's just playing hard to get and really does want it as bad as he does. Both men and women need to be educated about each other's expectations and desires and both men and women need to find ways to communicate effectively about sex.

I've read that the prevalence of false reports is much more prevalent in cultures in which a premium is placed on chastity, for some of the reasons suggested. I've also read that underreporting is the most prevalent in the same cultures. I don't know if that is true, but a relative of mine worked for BYU police circa 2000 or so, and he said that they absolutely fudged the numbers to look better than they were.

Now I'm curious and would like elaboration on anything you (or anyone else) might know about rape culture in Provo.

[Pheidippides]

Now I'm curious and would like elaboration on anything you (or anyone else) might know about rape culture in Provo.

This is what he told me (we were both students at the time). He went on an unsolicited rant about how Rape Hill still had problems but that date rape was effectively not included in the statistics or that otherwise the BYU police department did everything they could to exclude any and all cases from their statistics, and that the true figure was easily double or triple what was being reported. The reason was to keep the school from getting a black eye because it wouldn't look good or safe to have a lot of rapes reported. All hearsay, of course, but that's what he said, and his frustration was that they were doing this instead of cracking down on the actual crimes. I'm actually seeing him in a couple of days, and I can ask him to elaborate more - but that was almost 15 years ago, so I don't expect either of us to have fresh memories.

[pellegrino]

This is what he told me (we were both students at the time). He went on an unsolicited rant about how Rape Hill still had problems but that date rape was effectively not included in the statistics or that otherwise the BYU police department did everything they could to exclude any and all cases from their statistics, and that the true figure was easily double or triple what was being reported. The reason was to keep the school from getting a black eye because it wouldn't look good or safe to have a lot of rapes reported. All hearsay, of course, but that's what he said, and his frustration was that they were doing this instead of cracking down on the actual crimes. I'm actually seeing him in a couple of days, and I can ask him to elaborate more - but that was almost 15 years ago, so I don't expect either of us to have fresh memories.

thanks, that is interesting, and would not be surprising. We all know how obsessed with PR Mormon culture is. It drives people and the organization to do strange, even unethical things.

[smokymountainrain]

thanks, that is interesting, and would not be surprising. We all know how obsessed with PR Mormon culture is. It drives people and the organization to do strange, even unethical things.

Not that it makes it right, but I doubt this is unique to BYU or the Mormon culture.

Nik said:

BYU police department did everything they could to exclude any and all cases from their statistics, and that the true figure was easily double or triple what was being reported. The reason was to keep the school from getting a black eye because it wouldn't look good or safe to have a lot of rapes reported.

I imagine that would be the case for any university campus.

[frank ryan]

This is a bit of a thread jack, but not only is it (in my opinion and just about everyone working in mental health) accepted that the majority of rapes go unreported for women, the same is true for males. Men get raped to and rarely report it and not just by other men but by women as well. They tend to keep those events well-hidden and even in continued therapy it will take a long time for them to disclose that.

The perceptions that rape and trauma are epidemic go back to the birth of psychology. When Freud was working with upper class Austrian women his initial findings were that mental illness typically evolved from unhealthy coping mechanisms that were formed as a result of trauma, usually sexual, and almost always experienced at a young age. He was so upset with his findings and didn't to belief them that he turned his focus to sexual development instead.

One my favorite contemporary therapists is actually an MD (Irvin Yalom) He started taking informal surveys in groups he ran regarding people's deepest secrets. He said it was nearly universally three things 1. Fear of being alone 2. fear of being a failure or inadequate and 3. Something sexual (be it trauma, orientation, proclivity, fantasies etc.).

[Pheidippides]

Not that it makes it right, but I doubt this is unique to BYU or the Mormon culture.

Nik said:


I imagine that would be the case for any university campus.

Agreed, and (while I haven't followed closely) I think a few campuses are suffering from this exact thing right now. And, again, this was complete heresay.

[pellegrino]

Not that it makes it right, but I doubt this is unique to BYU or the Mormon culture.

Nik said:


I imagine that would be the case for any university campus.

Please, don't misunderstand my observation of Mormon culture as ignorance of, or refusal to recognize that similar problems exist outside of Mormondom.

[Donuthole]

The example in the article is rape according to the two bar exams I've taken. , and in fact that exact scenario was the object of study in at least my law school's crim law class

I would like to see the score on your exam essay if that scenario had been presented and your answer had been "No means no. It's really not any more complicated than that."

Cowboy nails it. Anybody who has been abused or assaulted, or is close to someone who has been (I am), find the notion that attention from the incident is a "hidden reward" from the most horrific experience in their life to be insulting and demeaning. Ask yourself this question: "if you had truly ben sexually assaulted, are you now more or less likely to report, having read that article?" I haven't read it and I won't read it because I don't want to drive the article hit count up any higher, as I believe it should never have been written and we shouldn't be having this discussion.

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.

I tend to agree with this, but with reservations. The woman in question should have been smarter and not gotten into bed with him. If it's her house then she breaks up with him and sends him packing. Do not let him stay the night, and most certainly do not say "I don't want to have sex anymore" and then get in bed with him. That said, the phippopotamus is right. She was raped, even if it wasn't forceful or violent, and I agree with and support that legal standard. Rape should be qualified as any sexual act that is not fully consentual [sic]. The fact that the standard isn't investigated or prosecuted in even one situation, let alone the four phippo referred to is highly problematic and indicative of just how far we are from understanding and eradicating sexual crimes.

However, while I agree that no means no, it's somewhat naive to assume that everyone understands that in every situation. Sure, in an ideal culture everyone would understand that an individual and communication about sexual relationships would be flawless Women would never play hard to get, tease, act provocatively for attention or to create and prolong sexual tension and the excitement that comes with it, and men would always understand exactly what a woman's intent was, even if the woman herself didn't know, or was sending mixed signals (i.e. saying no, but then getting in bed with him).

I tend to have reservations about my opinions as well, so we agree there, too. And I think I pretty much agree with your definition of rape. The problem is, how do you define "fully consensual." If a woman says in her mind "I don't really want sex right now, but if it will get him to stop pestering me about it so I can sleep, then I'll do it" is that fully consensual? Because that's essentially what the girl in Will's scenario did. I do not believe that saying no once means you never have to say no again.

[creekster]

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.

[Pheidippides]

[QUOTE=Donuthole;1102029]I would like to see the score on your exam essay if that scenario had been presented and your answer had been "No means no. It's really not any more complicated than that."

Do you have more meaningless hypotheticals to toss out, or are you now going to resume being an old white - what was your word? Misogynist? Prick? Fuckwad? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

[Donuthole]

[QUOTE=Pheidippides;1102034]

I would like to see the score on your exam essay if that scenario had been presented and your answer had been "No means no. It's really not any more complicated than that."

Do you have more meaningless hypotheticals to toss out, or are you now going to resume being an old white - what was your word? Misogynist? Prick? Fuckwad? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention.

Lol. Resume? Pretty presumptuous of you to assume I ever stopped. Glad to know your skin is as thin as ever, though.

[ERCougar]

I would like to see the score on your exam essay if that scenario had been presented and your answer had been "No means no. It's really not any more complicated than that."



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.


I tend to have reservations about my opinions as well, so we agree there, too. And I think I pretty much agree with your definition of rape. The problem is, how do you define "fully consensual." If a woman says in her mind "I don't really want sex right now, but if it will get him to stop pestering me about it so I can sleep, then I'll do it" is that fully consensual? Because that's essentially what the girl in Will's scenario did. I do not believe that saying no once means you never have to say no again.

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.

[Topper]

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.

This is perhaps the best summation, spoken by a monkey of all creatures.