<p>I do agree with that Pizza but simply don’t agree that the burden should be on one person. I think people can misread subtle signals but there is nothing subtle about a woman getting into bed with someone or vice versa to me that signals intent - </p>
<p>Right. Well, I don’t want to have sex with my husband every single time I get into bed with him. My getting into bed with him does not imply consent. In no court of law would it be upheld as consent, not the marriage, not my getting into bed, though the law used to allow a man to rape his wife. </p>
<p>Times change.</p>
<p>Also, in a dorm situation, the bed is the only place to sit or be. So, it’s a lovely idea, but a guy had better be on the safe side and get some actual verbal consent before he assumes a bed means “yes.” </p>
<p>Yes or no works but if someone wants to file for sexual assault then what was happening before they both landed in bed has to be relevant and the investigation must be thorough and impartial is my primary perspective. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This describes the world in which I was raised. (I’m 58) Boys learned to round as many bases as possible before the girl insisted he stop. Sometimes it was necessary to almost forcibly insist he stop. Like kicking him out of bed. Sometimes her force wasn’t adequate.</p>
<p>Lots of us taught our sons not to be those boys. We raised young men who look for enthusiastic participation, who might even think it important to wait for their partner to initiate new sorts of sexual activity. And we taught mutual satisfaction was truly important. </p>
<p>As I listen to this discussion go on and on, I keep trying to understand why it is so difficult for intelligent people to agree on it at all. </p>
<p>I think perhaps the difference stems from a shift from an older view of sex as something that women give to men, to viewing it as a shared experience.</p>
<p>If you view sex as something a woman gives a man, it is easier to see how once you agree to give it, it does not matter what the man does. It is not necessarily a mutually beneficial experience, she is providing a service. This view sees sex as similar to buying a product at the store. Once store sells you an item, it is not their business what you do with it. </p>
<p>For people with this view, I can at least understand how the need for ongoing consent and a mutual experience is perplexing. A man invests in a relationship with a single minded goal of earning sex. Once he has earned that permission, it is his turn to claim his reward. Why is ongoing consent important, and why should it be mutually fulfilling?</p>
<p>I think that this can be hard to understand that type of view for those of us who see relationships as a shared experience rather than giving something to get something. In this type of relationship there is not moment in the process of intimacy where the woman is saying “Okay, do whatever you want to me, you have earned it.” Instead, intimacy progresses on a continuum where ongoing consent is required, and there is no point that is seen as a blanket approval for taking additional steps. Additionally, there is a greater emphasis on the importance of the interaction being mutually pleasurable. In this view, men enjoy many potential benefits from the relationship and are not single-mindedly participating in the relationship to get sex.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the inability to agree on anything in this thread stems from the lack of awareness that the prism through which one person is viewing this may be completely different from yours. This can be frustrating for both sides, and leads to clear communication and consensus among participants with one view or the other, but little progress, in the discussion across views.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>That’s why I posted Millett and Butler. Julia Kristeva was a writer recommended to me over brunch just now.</p>
<p>Mutually satisfying? OMG. Well, it’s no wonder there is so much “rape”. Good grief.</p>
<p>The idea it isn’t a given that sex is supposed to be mutually satisfying really disturbs me. </p>
<p>Drunk hook-up sex is not about relationships at all and it’s frequently unsatisfying for both parties if they even remember clearly what happened. </p>
<p>I"m pretty disturbed by that idea, too, alh, it seems to be from the dinosaur ages.</p>
<p>* Overall, my position is very simple: if both male and female are intoxicated, then both cannot consent and if sex happens then both are equally responsible. There is a point where biology automatically takes over.*</p>
<p>I also found this idea incredibly disturbing. It took me a while to even believe it wasn’t some innocent misstatement due to fast typing.</p>
<p>I appreciate everything you are writing about women’s bodies. Thank you. There may be high school students reading this thread.</p>
<p>I’m not so sure it’s generational. I think, unless my memory is clouded, I went after what I wanted 
and I’m in my mid fifties, not with great frequency, but enough times. I don’t recall anyone being less or more enthusiastic than I and I definitely recall saying “enough, I’m not into this” and getting away from whatever was going on if a situation just didn’t feel right. And I think you are correct that everyone views things through their own personal beliefs and experiences which is why I find it difficult to believe that a college tribunal could possibly successfully make decisions with an absence of clear guidelines. I think it’s alittle sad that the message to males is to stay away from women who have been drinking as if the women have the bubonic plague as that attitude is as polarizing as the 40s and 50s view that "good girls don’t.’ but then it’s time for “this generation of women” to decide how they want to shape their futures as our generation certainly did - that’s the way it works in the world. Things tend to be cyclical and our 1950s mom may have thought they were “providing a service”, but not so much in my and my friends world in our twenties who felt we made our own histories on our own terms, and like like any new cycle, I’m trying to figure out exactly what it is today’s women want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure if you were serious or being facetious, but actually they should (read this thread). High schools kids are having sex. I don’t know the statistics, but it “feels” like more than their parents were but maybe they are simply more outspoken about it. Education is the root of it all…and just about everyone on this thread has agreed with that. There might be less problems in the colleges and universities if kids were getting the full story at a younger age if not from their parents from someone.</p>
<p>Yes, just as I’m sure you find the message to men to refrain from having sex with drunk women sad, it was unutterably sad to have to say to girls who were really far too young to hear this that they needed to be careful around groups of young men, that they needed to watch their drinks, be careful not to go with a guy alone, no matter how nice he originally seemed to be. It was a sad situation to have to explain that while most young men are not predators, a few are, and they are carefully watching for certain things. And, then, to say, and even if you do all of this, you have a chance of being assaulted or raped. If you are raped or assualted, you need to get to the police, get to the hospital, fight light hell so you will have resistance marks on your body. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly what this generation of women is doing. they are demanding rapists be removed from campus. They are refusing to be silenced. They are naming themselves so they can speak of what happened to them. They are changing things greatly. I’ve worked with young women for a long time now. I haven’t seen this much change ever. They are taking their power back from the rapists in the shadows. They are demanding a mutual power in the sex world. If this is “sad” to you? Maybe you just long for a different kind of girl.</p>
<p>Hmmm. What age is too young to hear that advice? I learned it at around age 11 mostly from rape-themed movies of the week in the late-70’s.</p>
<p>Yes I was being absolutely serious about high school students reading this thread. Yes, I know high school and middle school students are sexually active. This is not much different from when I was in HS and middle school. In fact, not different at all, now that I think about it.</p>
<p>I hope the attitudes will be different. I hope.</p>
<p>I am pretty sure many of us are still posting on this thread for the possible benefit of younger lurkers.</p>
<p>adding: okay poetgrl, I want to give your last post 100 likes.</p>
<p>What age is it too young? No age. I was completely forthright with my girls.</p>
<p>But, I’m not sure why it’s so sad to have to tell young men to refrain from sex with drunk women compared to the things we have to tell our girls.</p>
<p>Actually, the things you have to tell your children from a young age to keep them safe is sad. But, it’s the way it is.</p>
<p>The major difference in high schools is that girls used to disappear when they got pregnant. Now, they have an infant care center on campus. Is that better? I don’t know. </p>
<p>deleted</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The first thought that crossed my mind when I read the article was that common sense must be looking at this from afar and is shaking its head at how stupid we, as a society, have become. </p>
<p>The one thing the article really highlights is why there is this “increase” in what is called sexual assault and this rape culture mantra, i.e., there is an inordinate increase in what people deem as non-consent. </p>
<p>I was trying for the life of me to understand this supposed increase in sexual assault to epidemic proportions, but I get it now because one cannot have sexual assault without non-consent. Therefore, simply increase the parameters of what is defined as non-consent and without changing the amount of sex, sexual assault now is epidemic. Talk about a definitional change wreaking havoc. When “Sounds like a good idea,” and “I would like that,” does not mean consent, we are definitely no longer in Kansas. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My SO put this too-tired issue much more bluntly. She told me:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The SO thinks it is just wrong that women are being taught that is OK to be consciously passive by choice then be able to claim rape. It was not as if these females are claiming they were afraid of being beaten or of retaliation. We are talking outright passivity. No wonder many accused males are pissed. If my SO did that to me, I would be pissed too. </p>
<p>And the article also really points out that in the tribunals the accused is not even allowed to present actions and other consenting cues that are basic common sense. The tribunals only focus on did the guy ask her to have sex and did she loudly and definitively say yes. When consent is ONLY considered to be a verbal cue and is not considered a series of affirmative and assertive actions, is not considered a written text, and is not considered as going into your purse and getting a condom, then we are not only not in Kansas, we may have left the planet. </p>
<p>No wonder the courts are involved. Something has to try and bring logic and common sense back to the drawing board because it is clear too many humans are consciously ignoring both.</p>
<p>I think it’s sad perhaps because I think it is polarizing. I’m not sure what the statistics are for pregnancies under the age of 21, but i do believe that the use of condoms is far higher now than in the pre-AIDS day of my younger years where so often it was assumed rightfully or wrongly that women would be on the pill. And yes, I imagine if I had daughters I WOULD have had those conversations poetgrl regardless of what happens with Title IX.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not a clue what you mean here. Please feel free to explain.</p>
<p>And you still have yet to explain what exactly is wrong with my statement. You may not like it, but you do not state where it is inaccurate.</p>