Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hugging without permission now ‘sexual assault’ at U.Va.

Hugging without permission now ‘sexual assault’ at U.Va.

Punishing even innocent human contacts.

http://youtu.be/QwQmYSASlXo

I and my wife are happily married, and neither of us is abusive, much less criminal.

But under the University of Virginia’s broad new “sexual assault” policy, my wife could be deemed guilty of “sexual assault” when she hugs me without advance permission.

So, apparently, would any couple in America that engages in making out, without lots of explicit discussion in advance — that is, pretty much every person in America who is married or in a committed relationship.  U. Va.’s policy bans a wide array of conduct that is perfectly legal under Virginia state law, and that neither involves sexual intercourse, nor occurs against anyone’s wishes. This is an outrageous invasion of students’ privacy, and an insult to U.Va. alumni and state taxpayers (like me).

U.Va. adopted its new “Interim Policy on Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment” to appease the Office for Civil Rights, where I used to work.

Under its policy, if you hug your boyfriend, and as an inevitable result your “clothed” “body parts” (such as “breasts”) touch him, you could be accused of “sexual assault” that “consists of” “sexual contact.” That’s because U.Va. now defines such touching, “however slight,” as sexual assault, lumping together both touching and intercourse as “sexual assault” when they are deemed “sexual” and occur without “affirmative consent.”

(“Affirmative consent” is a misleading term, and does not include certain types of consent that occur in the real world, and are recognized by the courts, as I explain at this link. The new policy further warns that “Relying solely on non-verbal  communication before or during sexual activity can lead to misunderstanding and may result in a violation of this Policy.”

Any “intentional touching of the breasts, buttocks,” etc., is deemed “sexual contact,” as is “touching another with any of these body parts.”  The relevant portions of U.Va.’s policy are reprinted at the bottom of the article at this link.).

The practical effect of the new policy is to ban making out as it is practiced by virtually all couples in the real world. U.Va.’s new policy requires “affirmative consent” (rather than “effective consent,” as it previously did) — “clear,” “active” “permission” — not just for sex, but also sexual contact, such as the touching that commonly occurs during making out and heavy petting.  No one ever says things like “may I touch your breast” before doing so, especially when the touching is likely to be welcome.  In the real world, these things are welcomed after they begin, not authorized or permitted in advance. But U.Va.’s policy effectively forbids ratification after the fact (i.e., making out) by banning any touching “however slight” without such authorization, so if you touch your partner an instant before they welcome it, you’ve presumably violated the policy.

It thus forbids the gradual, step-by-step escalation of intimacy without verbal discussion that is how making out actually happens in the real world.  That is pointlessly intrusive.  Conduct should not be banned where it was not “unwelcome,” and not against the victim’s will, since unwelcomeness is an essential element of a Title IX sexual harassment claim (U.Va.’s policy was adopted under Title IX, which the courts have interpreted as requiring that colleges not ignore sexual assaults and other behavior that constitutes unwelcome sexual harassment that is severe and pervasive.  For potential legal and constitutional problems created by policies similar to U.Va.’s, see this link.)

There is no evidence that U.Va.’s policy will do anything to prevent sexual assault, or that that women want to be explicitly asked for consent at every step while making out.  The “affirmative” consent requirement will not help rape victims or prevent rape, since rapes are seldom the result of mixed signals, and rapists, who already lie about whether they have committed rape, will just lie and claim the victim affirmatively consented by saying “yes” to sex.  Nor do women want to constantly be asked for consent over and over again, every time intimacy deepens during making out, as many college affirmative-consent policies seem to require.  At The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf quotes from the misadventures of a man raised by feminist parents who tried to follow “affirmative consent” in his dating relationships with women, who discovered just how much it annoyed them: “one of my first partners threw up her hands in disgust. ‘How am I supposed to get turned on when you keep asking for permission for everything like a little boy?’”

In some ways, U.Va.’s new policy echoes the controversial “affirmative-consent” law passed by California’s left-wing legislature last year, over objections from even liberal newspapers like the Los Angeles Times. Some advocates of that deeply intrusive law argued that it requires “state-mandated dirty talk,” such as forcing couples to discuss explicit sexual details (like agreeing in advance on each touching of intimate areas) during sexual encounters.

They want to require such discussion even when it would serve no useful purpose, such as where the touching is almost certain to be welcome, based on the fact that it was welcomed by the recipient in similar past circumstances. Perhaps echoing this mindset, U.Va.’s policy states that “Affirmative Consent to sexual activity on a prior occasion does not, by itself, constitute Affirmative Consent to future sexual activity,” and that “Affirmative Consent to one form of sexual activity does not, by itself, constitute Affirmative Consent to another form of sexual activity.”

For example, one advocate of “affirmative consent” endorsed expelling a male student merely for touching his partner while making out without reaching verbal agreement prior to the touching (for asking “does this feel good” while doing it, to see if she wanted him to stop, rather than saying “may I touch your breast” before doing it). That affirmative-consent advocate said that if it’s not feasible for a man to discuss every individual touching of a woman’s intimate areas in advance (as some “affirmative consent” policies literally require for a couple taking things on a step-by-step basis), he should instead seek consent from his date to a wide array of touching and licking in advance, using this disturbingly graphic example:

“Listen, I think you’re hot, I’m really attracted to you. Someday, maybe even tonight, I hope to run my hands, my mouth all over your body, over all your parts. But we might not be there yet, and I need to know that if I start to touch you in a place you’re not comfortable with, you’ll just tell me to stop, and we’ll stop immediately. You’ll feel okay, you won’t feel assaulted.”

How many women would ever want to hear something that creepy and explicit from their date? (Especially the passage in italics)?  It would disturb many women, and few men could bring themselves to say something so awkward. And it would serve little purpose: There is nothing inherently bad about something merely because it occurred without advance permission (I like it when my wife or daughter suddenly hug me without asking for permission).

Requiring “affirmative consent” intrudes deeply into people’s private lives.

Ezra Klein, a former Democratic operative and leading supporter of “affirmative consent” rules, says they will define as guilty of sexual assault some people who “slip naturally from cuddling to sex” without a series of agreements in between, since the “affirmative consent” requirement

tries to change, through brute legislative force, the most private and intimate of adult acts. It is sweeping in its redefinition of acceptable consent; two college seniors who’ve been in a loving relationship since they met during the first week of their freshman years, and who, with the ease of the committed, slip naturally from cuddling to sex, could fail its test.

[It] is a necessarily extreme solution to an extreme problem. Its overreach is precisely its value….

If [it] is taken even remotely seriously it will settle like a cold winter on college campuses, throwing everyday sexual practice into doubt and creating a haze of fear and confusion over what counts as consent. This is the case against it, and also the case for it. . . . men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter… To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

But creating a “world where men are afraid” constitutes precisely the sort of sexually hostile educational environment that Title IX and the Fourteenth Amendment forbid state officials to create.  Creating an anti-male climate constitutes sexual harassment. (See, e.g., Hartman v. Pena, 914 F.Supp. 225 (N.D. Ill. 1995), a case in which a judge allowed male employees to sue over an intimidating, anti-male sexual-harassment sensitivity training seminar)).

[Featured Image: Consent Video]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

One of my sons is in deep sh!t. He’s not very talkative, and he’s cuter ‘n hell.

If he offends some girl because he decides not to put out, is he going to get charged with assault?

What’s a mother to do?

“Some advocates of that deeply intrusive law argued that it requires “’state-mandated dirty talk…”’

Yep. “That which is not forbidden will be made mandatory”.

All this is about demonizing and de-naturing men. It comes from the “rape culturists” of the feminist movement. They hate us. They really, really hate us.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    Well, if that is true, and I think you make a good argument, then they will have to ban books like “Brave New World” by Huxley because the conduct in them violates the student code.

    So, feminists will have to moved on from bra burning to mandatory book burning.

    LSBeene in reply to Ragspierre. | April 9, 2015 at 7:02 pm

    Truly what it is about is criminalizing male behavior.

    The power is all in the hands of the woman. Every man must be in fear of angering any woman – even if he never dated her.

    If he leads her on – he can be charged later.

    If he blows her off – he can be charged later.

    If he “won’t take a hint” and go away – he can be charged later.

    If he teases her (like women sometimes tease men) or does not fulfill her sexually – he can be charged later.

    IOW – if he does not become competely submissive to all her wants and needs and moods – he can have his life destroyed.

    And, yes, this is on purpose.

wasn’t there case last year where a mentally handicapped kid who hugs a lot was in trouble for this?
I say men should start filing all sorts of charges using this every time any women even touches them.

    snopercod in reply to dmacleo. | April 9, 2015 at 8:19 pm

    I say men should start filing all sorts of charges using this every time any women even touches them.

    Are you kidding??? At my age, I LOVE it when women hug me!

These Twenty-First Century fanatical prudes would make heterosexuality legally dangerous. Is that the goal, or is it only “necessary collateral damage”?

No wonder men are going MGTOW.

And attractive, eligible, young women out there wonder why they aren’t getting dates and wonder why no one seems attracted to them.

If you’re a guy, and you do anything with a girl these days, it could be considered sexual assault. Why risk your school, career, life, and future over something that’s supposed to be normal?

They told me if I voted for Conservatives, life on American campuses would become a war between sexes, and the administrations puritanical drudges policing normal human attraction, with active witch-hunts against offenders.

And…

Who knew it would be the Cultural Left deploying the bedroom police? Aren’t these the same people who were grab ass “Free Love” advocates in days gone by? After eviscerating commonly held chastity standards, they now want to compel an expectation of chastity. Vaat a con-tree.

    n.n in reply to Mark30339. | April 9, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    “Make love, not war” was a pathway con to “Make abortion, not life”. Liberty is only suitable for men and women capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior. The juvenile delinquents have indulged in their immature fantasies to the detriment of society and humanity. Now it’s time, again, to pay for their pro-choice or selective ways.

    Phillep Harding in reply to Mark30339. | April 10, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    The people who claim to be Lefties are actually extreme right wing. The people who regard themselves as conservatives are actually moderate left.

    Don’t think about it too much or you will get a headache.

    And, yes, total control of all aspects of the lives of the subjects in implicite in the basic assumptions of the “Left”.

So much for the separation of Church and State. However, the secular Cult that replaces it has a brutish way to spread its religion or moral philosophy, including a degenerate policy for “planning” children.

Either there is a progressive rape and rape-rape condition that can be proven beyond statistical inference (i.e. stereotype) and extrapolation (i.e. prejudice), that warrants wielding a hatchet, or these activists are on a witch hunt targeting normal human behavior.

Also, since we have an interest to discern cause and effect, the role of civil and human rights activists to debase human life and degrade relationships to a cheap and tawdry caricature must be noted. The state-established Cult has demonstrated it cannot reconcile human dignity, intrinsic value, equal protection, and its own narcissistic interests.

In response to Valerie – and not one bit of snark:

WOMEN, in my experience, are not used to taking no for an answer when they have become aroused. They do not fear these laws because …. well, they just don’t.

So imagine your son deciding that he’s “gone far enough” – and saying no, and some gal deciding she’s ticked off – he’s done.

If he continues he can be charged, and if he declines he’s in fear of her wrath.

    AZ_Langer in reply to LSBeene. | April 9, 2015 at 10:34 pm

    This woman disagrees with your choice of nouns; females who behave as you describe aren’t women, they’re children.

      LSBeene in reply to AZ_Langer. | April 10, 2015 at 1:17 pm

      AZ – I certainly take your point, and I agree.

      Please understand my PoV and what I’m trying to get across – allow me to explain?

      ANY group, be it men or women, black or white or brown, gay or straight – ANY group who is told the rules do not apply to them will have SOME in that group act in ways that are completely unethical.

      The normal social and legal deterrents are removed in our PC victim culture. One must not “blame the victim” – even if the person is using the *mechanism of victimhood* as a weapon (even if it’s obivous).

      (bit of analysis below – you might enjoy, but I won’t be offended if you don’t read it)

      So you don’t think I’m “bashing women”, I’ll start with boys.

      Boys – as we know – have certain stereotypical traits. We know about them, talk about them, and plan on dealing with them.

      Hyper-kinetic, emotionally brusque, tactile oriented etc.

      We give boys direction, set boundaries and we set punishments for crossing those boundaries.

      **WITH GIRLS – we can’t even start to talk about any stereotypical traits unless it’s praise – so we cannot correct stereotypically bad “female” behavior : gossip, whisper campaigns, and violence by proxy are “non-existant” as “problems” and will not be addressed.

      Plus – many women avoid claiming agency or responsibility about sex : “It ‘just happened'” or “HE took off my clothes and had sex with me” (instead of WE) – it’s all passive voice and a lack of action and all the events happened TO her, as though she was some timid wall flower.

      Later, when her friends hear this – to them, it sound like she was non participating or not consenting.

      And then she’s stuck with that story and the man’s future is destroyed.

        AZ_Langer in reply to LSBeene. | April 10, 2015 at 9:24 pm

        I agree with you more than you realize, LS. My objection is calling females who are manipulative and refuse to accept responsibility “women.” I don’t consider them mature, and wonder how many of them will ever grow up.

        I don’t like what young men have to endure today: They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t, according to a whim that’s subject to change at any time in the future. I’d advise them all to run away, but that would probably be considered microaggression.

        What a sad state of affairs.

      Phillep Harding in reply to AZ_Langer. | April 10, 2015 at 1:43 pm

      Not legally. And, even if they were judged to be mentally incompetent, they can still bring charges.

Gremlin1974 | April 9, 2015 at 7:19 pm

So according to U.Va. a Group Hug is actually an Orgy, gotcha!

As far as affirmative consent, I have a buddy who refers to these policies as “Microsoft Sex”, basically you have to click “Are you Sure” before each major step.

My biggest problem with Affirmative Consent is that without witnesses it is basically useless. (Since I doubt most universities would not accept a “50 Shades contract”.) So without a witness either side could change their story making the affirmative consent worthless. And who whats to ask their buddy; “Hey man can you come listen in while I ask this girl where I can stick it?”

Henry Hawkins | April 9, 2015 at 7:45 pm

Can’t wait for the first gay-on-gay unpermissioned hug trial.

Well, it should be illegal to steal a kiss. 🙂

“The only recognized purpose of marriage was to beget children for the service of the Party. Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation. … There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes”

Henry Hawkins | April 9, 2015 at 8:46 pm

Personally, I was never able to get a grip on celibacy. I did beat anorexia though.

Sad to say, but this kind of silly nanny-ism won’t stop unless hundreds and hundreds of male students report the many thousands of female students who give them spontaneous hugs.

Only when administrators see a disparity in the number of females being hurt by this infantilization of adults will they reconsider any of this absurdity. I think someone else coined the term “black knight” as being a male who over reacts to those females who cross lines that every male knows he cannot cross. For example, it is still a topic for humor when a female hits a male but vice versa is a justifiable serious issue. When female co-workers and relatives make jokes about wives slapping men, etc. I now always ask why they find domestic abuse to be a joke?

stevewhitemd | April 9, 2015 at 9:48 pm

Any chance Ezra Klein can be caught doing something against the new policy and as a result charged?

This is such insanity. Stop the world, I want to get off now.

Given what I’ve been reading lately, I won’t be surprised if someone decides to withdraw permission several months after the fact.

give it another two or three years and it will be impossible for a co-ed on a campus to find a guy to date her. There will be such a premium on “townies” that they will have their choice of young men to date.

    Phillep Harding in reply to jack burton. | April 10, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    Yup. And college men will be regarded as high value husband material while college women will be regarded as haz-mat.

DINORightMarie | April 9, 2015 at 10:55 pm

Oh, my.

How far we’ve fallen from, “…..if you can’t be with the one you love, honey, love the one you’re with….” and “…..hug it out…” (or was it “hugs not drugs”? 😉 ) and “…..hug therapy….”

Bubble-wrapped isolation. That is what these fascists must want.

Good luck to UVA with this rule. I have watched young people hug their friends, of both sexes, for the past 15 years with my own now grown children. And a very high percentage (maybe 75%) of it is girls/young women initiating it. While they were all hugging, my kids friends would look at me like they were going to hug me too and I would shake my head NO. I’m not from the huggy generation. This is expressing friendship and camaraderie which will be forbidden which further isolates young people.

I keep seeing a lot of folks, here and at other sites, and in general conversation with this mistaken mindset:

“When 40 lawsuits happen, they’ll learn”

“When this happens to this professor, they’ll learn”

“When women or gays start having this happen, they’ll learn”

No – no they won’t. It’s not “learn” – it’s an ideology. It’s an entire belief system – based on class warfare and divide and conquer.

They’ll never admit their ideology is wrong – never.

To answer each one from above:

1) Lawsuits will change it: They’ll lobby to change the laws. They’ll raise tuition. They’ll use it to claim FURTHER victim hood in the name of all students as a “chilling effect”. They’ll NEVER admit they’re wrong.

2) Professors being accused will change it : wrong. As it is the rules for hearing boards for admin and staff and prof’s are written in a contract and are not applicable – they are the elite and the rule makers, and the rules do not apply to them.

Even if a respected and beloved lefty professor IS charged, it’s just the cost of doing business. Are they really going to give up their belief system due to a few good people being ruined? Hell no.

3) “Gays and women” being hurt: As it is I can tell you from EXPERIENCE – a MAN reporting this kind of thing gets a VERY different reception from when a woman reports it. But, even if a few women were charged and booted (or gays) are they going to give up their entire money / gravy train and their tightly held beliefs just because some innocent people get ruined? Don’t count on it.

And – really – here’s how we CAN win: demand the rules apply to the general population or that they are unfair. Either a rule or law is applicable to all, or it’s a targeted attack on a certain population.

    Phillep Harding in reply to LSBeene. | April 10, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Has George Zimmerman learned anything?

    I doubt it.

    AZ_Langer in reply to LSBeene. | April 10, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    That’s a pretty sick ideology. Worse yet, apparently many of those who perceive themselves to be victims are eager to have others charged.

    I’m not young, and I’ve never been offended by a hug; but charging someone for behavior I considered improper wouldn’t be my first instinct. It’s amazing how effective a simple, “stop it,” can be. If it doesn’t work the first time, say it again more firmly. If whatever offensive behavior continues beyond the second warning, then you can consider further action. I’ve never had to tell anyone (even a female once) more than one time to back off.

    I love hugs, so I hope my friends haven’t been brainwashed.

Phillep Harding | April 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm

I can hardly wait for women to start bringing sexual harrassment charges against other women.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend