U of Michigan: withholding sex = sexual violence

[styrgwillidar]

…
That’s a step in the right direction, since nothing solves marital problems so well as assigning lots of blame.
…

Knew a couple who found themselves constantly arguing over even trivial matters and went to a therapist. His observation was it centered mostly on arguing over who was at fault over a situation vice solving whatever the real issue was. His solution:

• Blame was assigned on a weekly basis, alternating between him and her. They had to limit the arguing/conversation to the situation, why it was a problem, how to resolve. Their arguing dropped precipitously and got even better when the realized they didn’t have to assign blame to either one of them and could just pick a relative of the week to blame.

 

[DarkLight]

OK. So now *everyone *is a victim. If your partner pressures you to have sex, you’re a victim, and if a partner doesn’t respect the feelings behind the pressure you put on them to have sex, you are a victim. That’s a step in the right direction, since nothing solves marital problems so well as assigning lots of blame.

(Oh, they did not say “spouse.” They said “partner.” Do they mean withholding sex *outside *of marriage? Please tell me they don’t…)

The difficulty is often in differentiating between an abusive relationship and one that simply has a lot of strife in it. It may sound easy but once you’re in that spot it’s not. And a proper understanding of blame is often crucial for getting out of a true abusive relationship. Otherwise you’ll be spending all your time trying to work out problems with someone who sees the real problem as the fact that you have ideas of your own and don’t always do what they want.

 

[MJJean]

There is no longer any presumption of marriage for discussion of sexual relationships…)

My point was that anyone in a sexual relationship, even when not married, now has societal obligations imposed upon them, making it seem like they owe sex to their partner…

This is far from new. The above has been true at least since I was a teen and I’m darn near 40! I literally don’t know personally of a time when there was a presumption of marriage for sexual relationships. Usually the opposite was true. We presumed there was sex going on and didn’t presume the couple would be getting married.

Growing into adulthood in the early 90’s (I turned 18 in 1993) we just assumed if a couple was together for more than a few months they were “doing the deed” and that it was acceptable and even desirable to end a relationship if the other party withheld sex or if the sex was sub-par. Not only did one owe sex to their partner, but if they expected to keep said partner the sex also had to be top notch.

 

[mommamaree]

This is far from new. The above has been true at least since I was a teen and I’m darn near 40! I literally don’t know personally of a time when there was a presumption of marriage for sexual relationships. Usually the opposite was true. We presumed there was sex going on and didn’t presume the couple would be getting married.

Growing into adulthood in the early 90’s (I turned 18 in 1993) we just assumed if a couple was together for more than a few months they were “doing the deed” and that it was acceptable and even desirable to end a relationship if the other party withheld sex or if the sex was sub-par. Not only did one owe sex to their partner, but if they expected to keep said partner the sex also had to be top notch.

I am almost your age. When I was growing up, the pressure to have sex outside of marriage did exist, but so did chaste relationships. The pressure has gotten completely out of hand, and the age at which first sexual experiences are occurring has dropped dramatically, well below the legal age of consent. The difference between Gen X and Gen Y (aka millennials) is tremendous.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Anyone here think that universities will some day go back to concentrating on actually teaching useful subjects?

Well, you see, that’s the rub. The burning question when I was in college in the early '60s was, "Should we educate students, or train them to do a job?” This phenomenon was also observed when the original British code-breakers in WW-II were recruited from "proper young men who studied Greek and Latin.” The later-recruited mathematician and physicist code-breakers were looked down upon as "tradesmen” by the rest of the "educated” aristocratic officer corps, but they got the job done. See Battle of Wits by Stephen Budiansky]

To be considered “educated”, you have to know a lot of BS that is of no use whatsoever. If a particular knowledge [e.g., math and the sciences] has utility, it is considered a "trade” and is looked down upon by the aristocratic snobs. Perhaps we here in the U.S. inherited some of this attitude from the British.

This problem is not new. “We waste our efforts on the inane. We are educated not for life but for the classroom,” Seneca wrote of ancient Roman education.

And Dr. Stephen H. Balch of the National Association of Scholars notes

“the inability of these domains [social studies] to produce [a] useful social product in anything like the amounts generated by the study of nature… . Absent the prestige, support, and self-confidence that such social product confers, the humanities and social sciences have sought them instead through affiliation with what they believe to be deserving movements and causes, each in need of intellectual justification and defense. And, of course, the loss of scientific temper also reflects the dual fact/value quality of the questions with which humane scholarship deals. Passion is woven into its very fabric.”
“More Crises Than One”
nas.org/print/print/More_Crises_than_One–SHB.pdf

 

[KCT]

I read a pro-ab*rtion article recently that said forcing a woman to carry a baby she doesn’t want is torture.

Talk about redefining terms…

 

[Gordon_Sims]

OK. So now *everyone *is a victim. If your partner pressures you to have sex, you’re a victim, and if a partner doesn’t respect the feelings behind the pressure you put on them to have sex, you are a victim. That’s a step in the right direction, since nothing solves marital problems so well as assigning lots of blame.

(Oh, they did not say “spouse.” They said “partner.” Do they mean withholding sex *outside *of marriage? Please tell me they don’t…)

The perpetual victim mindset has been steadily growing over the last couple decades, although this is beyond even where I thought it would go. Years back, some friends and I were discussing some possible long-term situations that could come about from the victimhood mentality after reading an article that stated that some state had just expanded its legal definition of rape (or was considering such language) to include cases where a woman decided up to a month after consensual sex that it was a bad idea and she regretted it. We honestly never thought there’d be a day when “No means no,” had morphed into “No means rape!” I wonder how they’ll reconcile this when the first “victim” complains to school authorities that he didn’t actually rape the girl, but instead was defending himself against her violent sexual attack.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… We honestly never thought there’d be a day when “No means no,” had morphed into “No means rape!” …

This kind of situation sounds more like it morphed into “Yes means rape!” But, hey, why not, considering some people are agitating for “abortion” up to 30 days after birth?

And some say that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

Over the last century, we saw in the movies an increase in the glorification of the rogue. Is it any wonder the number of rogues increased? “Victimhood is where it’s at. If there aren’t enough real victims, some new ones must be created.” – Dr. Thomas Sowell

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I am almost your age. When I was growing up, the pressure to have sex outside of marriage did exist, but so did chaste relationships. The pressure has gotten completely out of hand, and the age at which first sexual experiences are occurring has dropped dramatically, well below the legal age of consent. The difference between Gen X and Gen Y (aka millennials) is tremendous.

You couldn’t be more right. The struggles we’ve had dealing with our son and his peers are mind-boggling at times. If you want to get depressed about our society’s future, ask a bunch of millenials what they consider to be their “rights” sometime. Then ask them what they consider to be their responsibilities, or what part they feel they should have in securing those rights for themselves. I can’t even count how many of my son’s friends believe they have a right to/are entitled to room and board, unlimited food & drink, transportation, entertainment, a consequence-free constant stream of sexual gratification, free education and free health care without ever having to contribute anything on their own. Sadly, most of them have parents or other relatives who enable this behavior, with two prime examples being the one whose grandmother made him get a job but doesn’t make him pay for anything, including his illegal drugs; and the girl whose parents bought her sexy lingerie, porn and various “toys” for her 20th birthday (for the record, our son no longer associates with those two winners). I’ve had way too many heated conversations with his peers (females included) about why their attitude that a girl doesn’t have the right to say no when the guy [pick a situation] is wrong.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

This kind of situation sounds more like it morphed into “Yes means rape!” But, hey, why not, considering some people are agitating for “abortion” up to 30 days after birth?

And some say that the slippery slope argument is a fallacy.

Over the last century, we saw in the movies an increase in the glorification of the rogue. Is it any wonder the number of rogues increased? “Victimhood is where it’s at. If there aren’t enough real victims, some new ones must be created.” – Dr. Thomas Sowell

My thinking is that if saying no equals sexual violence, then no is the same thing as rape. And common sense will tell you that if someone is trying to commit a sexual attack upon you, you should defend yourself. If “no” equals a sexual attack, I can think of only one way to defend oneself against it. I think a little more of sanity slips away with every passing day.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This headline is grossly misleading. The “University of Michigan” did not advocate for this. Some schmo at the U put it on a website. There is a BIG difference.

 

[unstoppable_II]

My thinking is that if saying no equals sexual violence, then no is the same thing as rape. And common sense will tell you that if someone is trying to commit a sexual attack upon you, you should defend yourself. If “no” equals a sexual attack, I can think of only one way to defend oneself against it. I think a little more of sanity slips away with every passing day.

On two separate occasions, I was the victim of women at work who wore the boss’ rank to get what they wanted. I considered them sex attacks, but according to PC, men, by definition, cannot be victims, especially of sex attacks.

 

[EasterJoy]

My thinking is that if saying no equals sexual violence, then no is the same thing as rape. And common sense will tell you that if someone is trying to commit a sexual attack upon you, you should defend yourself. If “no” equals a sexual attack, I can think of only one way to defend oneself against it. I think a little more of sanity slips away with every passing day.

To be fair, the web site was not just about criminal behaviors. It was about relational aggression. They mean to talk about someone who uses consent for sex as a way to control the other person.

I understand what they are trying to do. It is like the laws that put in stiff penalties for animal abuse. It isn’t that animal abuse is the same as abusing a child or a vulnerable adult. It is that it was noticed how many people who abuse children or vulnerable adults started their “career” with animals. Relational abuse rarely starts at its most escalated form. That doesn’t mean that those who use minor offenses in a way likely to grow into something far worse are the same as people who have boundaries that allow themselves minor (but real) transgressions.

I think they need to have a better way to talk about this than to treat all kinds of abuse as the same thing and all kinds of relational aggression as the same thing. The oversimplification is counterproductive. It does not educate, but misinforms…unfortunately. As I said, I think they have worthwhile goals, given the limited jurisdiction of the people trying to make their campus a safer place.

 

[randomusername]

I doubt this will ever make it’s way into any legal systems though. It’s just what happens when people with too much time on their hands decide to get all philosophical. They tend to get very strange, nonsensical conclusions.

Most of the world would agree that this makes no sense but no doubt the University of Michigan will continue to to spout utter drivel and say that it’s some of the brightest stuff ever thought of.

 

[unstoppable_II]

I doubt this will ever make it’s way into any legal systems though. It’s just what happens when people with too much time on their hands decide to get all philosophical. They tend to get very strange, nonsensical conclusions.

Most of the world would agree that this makes no sense but no doubt the University of Michigan will continue to to spout utter drivel and say that it’s some of the brightest stuff ever thought of.

As long as there is federal funding to “buy” a solution to this manufactured “problem,” the universities will be selling.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I doubt this will ever make it’s way into any legal systems though. It’s just what happens when people with too much time on their hands decide to get all philosophical. They tend to get very strange, nonsensical conclusions.

Most of the world would agree that this makes no sense but no doubt the University of Michigan will continue to to spout utter drivel and say that it’s some of the brightest stuff ever thought of.

It doesn’t need to make it into the legal system. Not all abuse or unhealthy behavior in a relationship is criminal or needs to be criminalized.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Most of the world would agree that this makes no sense but no doubt the University of Michigan will continue to to spout utter drivel and say that it’s some of the brightest stuff ever thought of.

Is there a rational basis for your antipathy to universities? You seem to be ascribing any view of any member of a group to the group itself. On that basis, the Catholic Church would not come out looking very wise, either.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… On that basis, the Catholic Church would not come out looking very wise, either.

I take it you mean Catholic colleges?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

To be fair, the web site was not just about criminal behaviors. It was about relational aggression. They mean to talk about someone who uses consent for sex as a way to control the other person.

I understand what they are trying to do. It is like the laws that put in stiff penalties for animal abuse. It isn’t that animal abuse is the same as abusing a child or a vulnerable adult. It is that it was noticed how many people who abuse children or vulnerable adults started their “career” with animals. Relational abuse rarely starts at its most escalated form. That doesn’t mean that those who use minor offenses in a way likely to grow into something far worse are the same as people who have boundaries that allow themselves minor (but real) transgressions.

I think they need to have a better way to talk about this than to treat all kinds of abuse as the same thing and all kinds of relational aggression as the same thing. The oversimplification is counterproductive. It does not educate, but misinforms…unfortunately. As I said, I think they have worthwhile goals, given the limited jurisdiction of the people trying to make their campus a safer place.

This. Especially the bolded.

I’m concerned that quite a few posters are either unable or unwilling to nuance this.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
I think they need to have a better way to talk about this than to treat all kinds of abuse as the same thing and all kinds of relational aggression as the same thing. The oversimplification is counterproductive. It does not educate, but misinforms…unfortunately. As I said, I think they have worthwhile goals, given the limited jurisdiction of the people trying to make their campus a safer place.

I think you should read Heather MacDonald’s “Campus Rape Myth” at city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html
It’s not about making the campus “safer”, it’s about getting more federal funding. She stopped just short of saying that the law in this area is a de facto bill of attainder against men.