U of Michigan: withholding sex = sexual violence

[EasterJoy]

I still say that refusing to engage in sexual relations could never possibly be sexual violence, under any circumstances. It would be saying that something that is “not A” can be called violent A simply because the second person wants A but the first person refuses A. That is complete nonsense, but it fairly typical for our culture these days. But I did notice that none of the definitions include ANY mention of a relationship that does not yet exist, which means that anyone who remains outside of relationship and never even commences a relationship would not be vulnerable to accusation of relationship wrongdoing.

They don’t say it very well, but they aren’t talking about sexual violence. Domestic violence includes much more than that. They are talking about controlling behavior that uses refusal of sex specifically or withdrawal of love generally as a way to keep the other person under control. They are talking about refusal of sex that is specifically meant to harm the other person. If your partner doesn’t dance to your tune, you reject them.

That refusal isn’t sexual violence, but it is a serious relational offense. The refusal in this case is meant as a rejection, an attack, or a means of punishment. If an unmarried person not only engages in extramarital sex but uses their sexual faculty to in a cold-blooded controlling way, that is a further perversion of the sexual faculty over and above the basic sin against purity.

It isn’t as if a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. Some are obviously worse than others. It is like stealing a gun not just to have the gun, but in order to use the gun in a crime against its owner.

 

[Vico]

What a nice subjective list, perfect for liberals to interpret in whatever way they want to paint men as abusers. Just throw in some made up terms like “relational aggression” and “healthy relationships” (healthy as defined by ivory tower academics of course) and we’re good to go!

I think most Catholics will object to the use of partners vs spouses as scandalous phrasing. Certainly there are several uncharitable behaviors listed involving physical force and psychological pressure that would also apply to spouses.

 

[fpt]

The exception of the non-practice of the marital act is one of rules of marriage. That means that the spouse who is refusing of making one flesh with the spouse has to explain and justify to the other the reasons of this refusal: those reasons must be real, just, fair, realistic, true, actual and objective. The unilateral refusal coming from one spouse of practice the marital act after the conjugal request for the conjugal sex has to be motivated and justified, in all honesty, in the conjugal love and the conjugal tenderness. The conjugal talk, the conjugal explanation, the conjugal discussion, the conjugal information, the conjugal dialogue are very essential, important and helpful and they have to be genuine.

The " war between spouses about the use of the sexuality " is morally wrong. The “conjugal sexual battle” between spouses is not moral.

 

[EasterJoy]

The exception of the non-practice of the marital act is one of rules of marriage. That means that the spouse who is refusing of making one flesh with the spouse has to explain and justify to the other the reasons of this refusal: those reasons must be real, just, fair, realistic, true, actual and objective. The unilateral refusal coming from one spouse of practice the marital act after the conjugal request for the conjugal sex has to be motivated and justified, in all honesty, in the conjugal love and the conjugal tenderness. The conjugal talk, the conjugal explanation, the conjugal discussion, the conjugal information, the conjugal dialogue are very essential, important and helpful and they have to be genuine.

The " war between spouses about the use of the sexuality " is morally wrong. The “conjugal sexual battle” between spouses is not moral.

The problem, of course, is that university counselling services have to deal with all sorts of pseudo-marital arrangements where the two people involved have very different understandings about what they have a duty to do or a right to expect from their “relationship.” Some people are expecting marital “rights” on third date! People might have all sorts of "ex"s of one sort or another that they run into on campus on a regular basis. All the worst things that can happen in the worst marriages can happen in these pseudo-marital relationships, with none of the protections or clear expectations (not to mention none of the graces) that true marriage offers. It is a mental health nightmare.

I remember the endless dramas in the dorm I lived in my first year. Honestly, it was like a soap opera. In real life, routinely ignoring the 6th and 9th Commandments makes for story lines that are even less entertaining than the fictional ones on TV. They are profoundly sad, that is what they are.

 

[fpt]

The natural offense, by omission, is a possible thing, and thus the sin by omission is still existing, even about the conjugal sexuality. The refusal of practicing the marital act is in this category of sins: *it is a lack of justice and a lack of charity in link with the marital debt if the conditions of the conjugal refusal are not present. *Yes, the rules of marriage are quite serious.

 

[fpt]

The problem, of course, is that university counselling services have to deal with all sorts of pseudo-marital arrangements where the two people involved have very different understandings about what they have a duty to do or a right to expect from their “relationship.” Some people are expecting marital “rights” on third date! People might have all sorts of "ex"s of one sort or another that they run into on campus on a regular basis. All the worst things that can happen in the worst marriages can happen in these pseudo-marital relationships, with none of the protections or clear expectations (not to mention none of the graces) that true marriage offers. It is a mental health nightmare.

I remember the endless dramas in the dorm I lived in my first year. Honestly, it was like a soap opera. In real life, routinely ignoring the 6th and 9th Commandments makes for story lines that are even less entertaining than the fictional ones on TV. They are profoundly sad, that is what they are.

By definition, out of the natural marriage or out of the supernatural marriage (sacramental marriage), the sexual contract, the sexual covenant, the sexual consortium and the sexual institution are not existing, thus **the marital sexual debt and all the rules about the sexual obligation and Co are not existing. **

Morally speaking, in those situations (out of the marriage), they have to respect the same rules than the married persons, except the rules coming from the sexual contract, the sexual covenant, the sexual consortium and the sexual institution, per se: for them, the conjugal sexual debt is not existing. They have to respect, only: the consensual agreement for the use of the sexuality, the respect of the natural sexual act, the refusal of the contraception and of the abortion, the refusal of the masturbation, … etc.

Your statement is very all right, all those situations, out of the marriage, are sad. And more, even in the catholic marriage,** the understanding of the marital debt is often misunderstood, in the two sides. The knowledge of the natural moral regime of the marital act for practicing or for not practicing is not very known.**

 

[EasterJoy]

By definition, out of the natural marriage or out of the supernatural marriage (sacramental marriage), the sexual contract, the sexual covenant, the sexual consortium and the sexual institution are not existing, thus **the marital sexual debt and all the rules about the sexual obligation and Co are not existing. **

Morally speaking, in those situations (out of the marriage), they have to respect the same rules than the married persons, except the rules coming from the sexual contract, the sexual covenant, the sexual consortium and the sexual institution, per se: for them, the conjugal sexual debt is not existing. They have to respect, only: the consensual agreement for the use of the sexuality, the respect of the natural sexual act, the refusal of the contraception and of the abortion, the refusal of the masturbation, … etc.

Your statement is very all right, all those situations, out of the marriage, are sad. And more, even in the catholic marriage,** the understanding of the marital debt is often misunderstood, in the two sides. The knowledge of the natural moral regime of the marital act for practicing or for not practicing is not very known**.

The problem is that if one is living as if married and thinking as one would if married, then on a psychological level one is going to take a partner’s treatment as if one is married or else at least live in a very confusing state in which the spoken and the unspoken are out of synch.

Marriage is not an invented institution, but an institution that recognizes a reality about human beings that is rooted in our dignity as human beings. We can explain marriage, we can write laws and rituals that reflect the truth of marriage truly, but marriage truly is created by God, something we cannot change by willing the state of our healthy self to be other than what God intended it to be.

This is precisely what a university health service doesn’t have the luxury of enforcing. They are going to have students cohabitating outside of marriage, no matter what they do. They are going to have students in abusive situations in those pseudo-marriages, no matter what they do. They are going to have students who are very confused about what the state of their relationship is or what the boundaries are. In a way, it is an impossible situation. There are ways to cope, but there aren’t any really good ones.

 

[Lookingforjoy]

What a nice subjective list, perfect for liberals to interpret in whatever way they want to paint men as abusers. Just throw in some made up terms like “relational aggression” and “healthy relationships” (healthy as defined by ivory tower academics of course) and we’re good to go!

Honestly, is it too difficult to assume that the university drew up this list with good intentions to help people identify signs of an unhealthy relationship?

And honestly, do you really feel that all of the items on that list are petty, subjective complaints?

And honestly, is taking jabs at liberals worth minimizing what survivors of sexual abuse have to endure?

Is this the attitude of our Church? I don’t think so. If so, I would be scared to bring up my daughters in this faith.

 

[Estevao]

Honestly, is it too difficult to assume that the university drew up this list with good intentions to help people identify signs of an unhealthy relationship?

And honestly, do you really feel that all of the items on that list are petty, subjective complaints?

Yes, most universities have practically empty “sexual assault support centers” that only stay alive by continually lowering the bar on what counts as “sexual assault” (with subjective, petty lists like this) and making up show trials of men who get implicated in trumped up complaints, get expelled and have their lives ruined when they were both at fault.

And honestly, is taking jabs at liberals worth minimizing what survivors of sexual abuse have to endure?

I don’t think I did this.

Is this the attitude of our Church? I don’t think so. If so, I would be scared to bring up my daughters in this faith.

If you send your daughters to a university they will probably lose their faith anyway given the polls I’ve seen.

 

[EasterJoy]

Honestly, is it too difficult to assume that the university drew up this list with good intentions to help people identify signs of an unhealthy relationship?

And honestly, do you really feel that all of the items on that list are petty, subjective complaints?

And honestly, is taking jabs at liberals worth minimizing what survivors of sexual abuse have to endure?

Is this the attitude of our Church? I don’t think so. If so, I would be scared to bring up my daughters in this faith.

Well, the Church would not classify the items on that list as petty or subjective complaints, excepting those that imply that someone not married can claim the rights or is subject to the duties that belong only to spouses. Other than that, there are abuses that no one ought to have to endure, not if he or she was selling themselves as a prostitute. (The Church does not teach that sinners “deserve” to be abused or preyed upon.)

The Church would do what relatively few universities have the luxury of doing: That is, encouraging people to avoid extramarital sexual relationships because these are mutually damaging, even when the participants do not feel preyed upon, used, or abused. I don’t think people working for secular universities are ever allowed to point that out to students or staff. That essentially puts them in the situation of being medics in a sexual-social war zone in which many feel bound to take the field as surely as if there actually were a draft in place. They have to do the best they can to treat the wounded, but they don’t get to call the war off, nor even point out that the wounds they are treating could have been prevented by avoiding immorality.

It is not fair to judge people trying to work under those conditions as if they were free to speak the truth or to actively work to turn people from the rampant immorality that is doing so much damage to the souls and psyches of those under their care. Some of them do not get that the “war zone” is an avoidable cause of carnage, but those who do don’t have any more power to stop it.

 

[Lookingforjoy]

I don’t think people working for secular universities are ever allowed to point that out to students or staff. That essentially puts them in the situation of being medics in a sexual-social war zone in which many feel bound to take the field as surely as if there actually were a draft in place. They have to do the best they can to treat the wounded, but they don’t get to call the war off, nor even point out that the wounds they are treating could have been prevented by avoiding immorality.

It is not fair to judge people trying to work under those conditions as if they were free to speak the truth or to actively work to turn people from the rampant immorality that is doing so much damage to the souls and psyches of those under their care. Some of them do not get that the “war zone” is an avoidable cause of carnage, but those who do don’t have any more power to stop it.

Well said and so true!

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Yes, most universities have practically empty “sexual assault support centers” that only stay alive by continually lowering the bar on what counts as “sexual assault” (with subjective, petty lists like this) and making up show trials of men who get implicated in trumped up complaints, get expelled and have their lives ruined when they were both at fault.

Practically empty sexual assault centers? Would you rather that they were busier?

Your questions and comments on women that are all over this board point to a hostility and mistrust of women as though we operate with a hive mind that is hostile toward men.

If you send your daughters to a university they will probably lose their faith anyway given the polls I’ve seen.

Faith can be lost by visiting a Catholic forum regularly, too.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, most universities have practically empty “sexual assault support centers” that only stay alive by continually lowering the bar on what counts as “sexual assault” (with subjective, petty lists like this) and making up show trials of men who get implicated in trumped up complaints, get expelled and have their lives ruined when they were both at fault…

If you send your daughters to a university they will probably lose their faith anyway given the polls I’ve seen.

“Most universities”? You’ve toured “most universities,” and know that they a) have “sexual assault support centers” and b) that these are empty? I tell you what: a great many Christian fathers would have a much lower bar concerning what constituted a violation of their daughters than contemporary universities do. They do not let young men off the hook on the excuse that their daughter was complicit in a crime against her purity, either. There was also a time when men feared the consequences of violating a young woman’s trust much more than they do now. IOW: getting expelled is not the worst thing that has ever happened to a fellow who did not show a protected woman enough respect, whether *she *was complaining or not. Fearing what your university may do when they find out what you’ve done is nothing compared to what her father would do, if he finds out.

As for men who are “implicated in trumped-up complaints,” I have to ask you this: How many men at university either come or leave with the idea that sexual purity is a virtue? How many are worried only that their lives might be “ruined” because they have to transfer to a different college over their sexual choices and how many are worried that they are going to go to hell even though they were “both at fault”?

It boggles my mind that you could be worried that your daughter might lose her faith at a Catholic university on one hand, and yet seem to be the most worried that when your son is committing mortal sins of the flesh, he might suffer some of the unjust consequences that a university might dish out. He’s doing stuff that could doom his immortal soul, and you’re defending his excuse that “the woman whom you put here with me—she gave me fruit from the tree, so I ate it”?

Why would you not say this: Hey, students! Do you know what can happen to you if you put yourself in a near occasion of sin? Do you know what can happen if you put yourself in a compromising position? Do you know you will have no defense against a false accusation when you get into bed with someone you aren’t married to? Do you know that you ought to feel responsible for what you do when you are drunk? Do you know that other people will take advantage of you in that position, and you may not be believed when you accuse them of what they did? Do you know that what a “little” licentiousness might do to your career or even your psyche is nothing compared to what it will be doing to your soul? Do you know that sexual sins offend God even if they temporarily please that attractive person you want to catch? Do you know you are enslaving yourselves, whether or not either of you likes what you are doing?

People working at secular universities can’t say that. Parents can. Other than having not just the right but the duty of refusing to have sex or to get into passionate situations prior to marriage, I don’t see much on that list that a Catholic ought to claim to have the freedom to do. “It was his/her fault, too” is not an excuse.

And by the way, do not fool yourself. If your grown child moves anywhere away from you, he or she will be in danger of losing the faith, whether or not he or she goes to college.

The great danger of our times is not college, but the lie aimed at anyone old enough to hear it that one can legitimately claim “I am spiritual, just not religious.” The sense that religion’s primary function is not support for some aspect of the self is being shouted down. The idea that practicing religion is duty and a virtue pleasing to God is being derided at every level of society. If that attitude insinuates itself into a soul, even keeping the body in the pews will not prevent the damage it will do.

 

[Estevao]

post

I just want to keep my response short. I don’t agree with double standards. I don’t agree with treating men unfairly when women get off the hook for something that takes two people to do. These kinds of standards that universities make result in numerous cases of men having their academic careers trashed in kangaroo courts claiming “sexual assault” or “rape” when they don’t deserve it.

However I would raise my daughter seems irrelevant, what I am concerned about is quasi-legal standards that are unjust.

Practically empty sexual assault centers? Would you rather that they were busier?

Your questions and comments on women that are all over this board point to a hostility and mistrust of women as though we operate with a hive mind that is hostile toward men.

I don’t assume that of all women, but I would definitely assume it of women who self-identify as “feminists” as that term and movement is generally known today. The numerous examples of double standards against men goes basically unconfronted in a movement supposedly working toward equality.

Faith can be lost by visiting a Catholic forum regularly, too.

You lose charity and hope before you lose faith. If you’re at the point of losing faith, you’re already in trouble and whatever some jerk like me says on the interwebs is the least of your problems.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I just want to keep my response short. I don’t agree with double standards. I don’t agree with treating men unfairly when women get off the hook for something that takes two people to do. These kinds of standards that universities make result in numerous cases of men having their academic careers trashed in kangaroo courts claiming “sexual assault” or “rape” when they don’t deserve it.

This does happen. But sexual assaults in which no one is held accountable, the victim is shamed and the perp is allowed to go on with their education and also go on to assault others, happens more often.

I don’t assume that of all women, but I would definitely assume it of women who self-identify as “feminists” as that term and movement is generally known today. The numerous examples of double standards against men goes basically unconfronted in a movement supposedly working toward equality.

I don’t think I considered myself a feminist until a short time ago. I support Feminists for Life but always felt awkward because I didn’t think “feminist” fit me. BTW, I’ve worked as a victim advocate and I continue to work with advocates and still didn’t identify as a feminist. But it was the constant anti-feminist threads that were posted on here my misogynistic men that turned things for me. They were relentless, and I felt the hate. Once those guys were banned the forum was easier to navigate without encountering the vitriol but I was reminded that I can’t assume that men on a Catholic board truly love and respect women.

Also, being a feminist doesn’t mean everything you think it means. If you expect women to have a hive mind, you will never discover what we truly think and what we want. So, if you want to put me into that tiny box that fits your definition of feminism, fine. It’s good to know what I’m/we’re up against.

You lose charity and hope before you lose faith. If you’re at the point of losing faith, you’re already in trouble and whatever some jerk like me says on the interwebs is the least of your problems.

Indeed. My hope has taken a beating.

 

[EasterJoy]

I just want to keep my response short. I don’t agree with double standards. I don’t agree with treating men unfairly when women get off the hook for something that takes two people to do. These kinds of standards that universities make result in numerous cases of men having their academic careers trashed in kangaroo courts claiming “sexual assault” or “rape” when they don’t deserve it.

If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Mark 9:43-48

Do you get my point, though, that it seems odd to be concerned that a few men might be losing their careers by foolishly having sex with women they barely know, while thousands upon thousands might be risking going to hell with their partners by doing the same thing with a consensual partner? Is their academic career the most precious thing they stand to lose by what they have done? These are the standards on university campuses that ought to be of the most concern, don’t you think? If a man’s soul is saved because he’s afraid of losing his financial future although he isn’t afraid of losing his soul, is that the worst part of this scenario?

You’re caught in bed with a woman not your wife, a woman you have no intention of making your wife, someone you chose in order to indulge your mutual lust. Which should we teach a college man to fear more: the blind human judgment of a university or the Final Judgment?

As Steven Covey says, “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”

What would you say is the main thing?

What has me the most concerned about this university policy is that by some twisted logic it might be considered abusive for a Christian to refuse to have sex before marriage, or to be in a sexual relationship and then think better of it and say, “no, I’m not having sex outside of marriage again, and if you don’t like that, then we’d better break up.” That is not abusive, even though it is withholding sex. Telling someone that wanting sex before marriage is sinful could be taken as “judging their sexual feelings,” but that is not abusive. I have seen many twisted ideas gain widespread acceptance in my lifetime. The right to say “no” to sex before marriage seems to me worth defending, lest it be gone before we ever thought it needed defense.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

(…)
What has me the most concerned about this university policy is that by some twisted logic it might be considered abusive for a Christian to refuse to have sex before marriage, or to be in a sexual relationship and then think better of it and say, “no, I’m not having sex outside of marriage again, and if you don’t like that, then we’d better break up.” That is not abusive, even though it is withholding sex. Telling someone that wanting sex before marriage is sinful could be taken as “judging their sexual feelings,” but that is not abusive. I have seen many twisted ideas gain widespread acceptance in my lifetime. The right to say “no” to sex before marriage seems to me worth defending, lest it be gone before we ever thought it needed defense.

I wouldn’t worry about it becoming a thing because it’s already a thing. I don’t have any brochures on chastity handy but I recall that one of the things that is considered a red flag is someone who doesn’t respect the other person’s morals or values or saying no after previous sexual activity. People already do this.

Is this an actual policy or something the university is putting forth as a point to determine a healthy relationship?

 

[EasterJoy]

I wouldn’t worry about it becoming a thing because it’s already a thing. I don’t have any brochures on chastity handy but I recall that one of the things that is considered a red flag is someone who doesn’t respect the other person’s morals or values or saying no after previous sexual activity. People already do this.

Is this an actual policy or something the university is putting forth as a point to determine a healthy relationship?

This is apparently part of the university’s effort to educate not about sexual assault, but about domestic violence. This part of their definition page is very telling:

Domestic violence can be a single act or a pattern of behavior in relationships, which Michigan law defines as: currently or formerly married, currently or formerly dating, currently or formerly living together, or having a child in common. Domestic violence may be known by other terms, including intimate partner violence or relationship abuse.

They are trying to do something good, which is to educate people about how people who are supposed to love them are actually victimizing them. The problem is that their definitions are so vague and all-encompassing that they are implying that a partner could be abusive by doing something a partner has every right to do. If your wife tries to control you by withdrawing affection and sex, that is one thing. When the woman you were formerly dating does it, though, that is called “breaking up.” It is her right to do that. If you think she is using her right in a way that is jerking you around, you don’t let her back into your life.

Some people have this idea that if you let them fall in love with you and then you break up with them, you have somehow perpetrated a crime on them. That is not the way it works. Other people think that if you marry someone and you aren’t liking it, you ought to be able to just leave without considering any different than the sort of tragedy that happens when you broke up without marriage. People talk as if the emotional connection is “real” and the exchange of the vows of marriage gives no more to the relationship than “just a piece of paper.” I even know a guy who feels put upon because his wife didn’t cope with it when he decided what he really needed was to live life as a woman! He takes this as evidence that she doesn’t “love him unconditionally”!!! This is how screwed up the perception of what marriage is has become.

This is a very confused world we live in, and I think it is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.