The new sex ed: Yes can also mean no

 

http://newsmachete.com/?news=1154

 

In the new sex ed, boys are presumed to be rapists until proven otherwise. Why else would boys be required, every few minutes, to repeatedly ask women if they are enjoying the sex, and if they fail to ask, boys can be accused of rape?

Consent from the person you are kissing — or more — is not merely silence or a lack of protest, Shafia Zaloom, a health educator at the Urban School of San Francisco, told the students. They listened raptly, but several did not disguise how puzzled they felt.

“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.

“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”

Look at how the bar keeps rising! At first, there was common sense that if a woman didn’t object, there was no problem. Then a woman had to consent. Then a woman has to be specifically asked about sex and has to specifically consent. Now a woman has to consent at each level of sexual intimacy. At the rate things are going, men will be required to ask for consent each time they want to move six inches forwards or backwards.

With Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature on a bill this month, California became the first state to require that all high school health education classes give lessons on affirmative consent, which includes explaining that someone who is drunk or asleep cannot grant consent.

Someone who is drunk cannot give consent? Who determines what drunk is? How many people drink before having sex? Most do, I think.

“There’s really no clear standard yet — what we have is a lot of ambiguity on how these standards really work in the court of law,” said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “The standard is not logical — nobody really works that way. The problem with teaching this to high school students is that you are only going to sow more confusion. They are getting mixed messages depending where they go afterward.”

Last year, Corey Mock, a student at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, was expelled after officials there found him guilty of sexual misconduct because he could not prove he had obtained verbal consent from a woman who accused him of sexual assault. But a Davidson County Chancery Court judge ruled in August that the university had “improperly shifted the burden of proof and imposed an untenable standard upon Mr. Mock to disprove the accusation.” The judge called the university’s ruling “arbitrary and capricious.”

Men are guilty until proven innocent. Why do liberals only apply this standard to men wanting to have consensual sex?

I think there is a certain mindset in feminists who are pushing this. The article had a photo of two high school girls who looked worried and were holding each others hands tightly for support, as if they were witnessing an airplane disaster instead of talking about sex. I think this is being pushed by feminists who are uptight about sex, or those who decide to have sex but because they are mixed up (as feminists usually are) they decide afterwards they didn’t like it, sometimes weeks or months afterwards, like Columbia University’s famously nutty “mattress girl” who carried her sex bed around with her and made a porn video to protest (or celebrate?) rough sex.

 

But why should everyone else be punished for feminist nuttyness? The common sense standard worked–if a woman is unhappy, she should say something, and the man should stop. Anything else is simply perpetuating the left’s “war on men”, an asymetrical counterpart to the Republican’s non-existent “war on women.”

Exit question: I couldn’t help but notice that Shafia is a Muslim name. Do you think in Shafia’s culture men are very fastidious about constantly asking the woman’s permission before engaging in sexual intercourse?

(Abridged version originally published in AT)

Lesbian Harassment in College? Lawsuit Alleges ‘Sexually Charged’ Hazing

http://theothermccain.com/2015/05/21/lesbian-harassment-in-college-lawsuit-alleges-sexually-charged-hazing/

 

Earlier this month, St. Joseph’s University announced it had suspended its women’s softball program after “a parent and student came forward in late March, alleging freshman had been forced to drink alcohol and engage in sexual conduct when they joined the team in the fall.” Four players were suspended in April after reports of what Philadelphia ABC affiliate WPVI-TV called “allegations too graphic to be outlined.” Now a former player has filed a federal lawsuit:

 

A former softball player at St. Joseph’s University claims in a lawsuit that she endured sexually charged hazing so bad that she contemplated suicide and was forced to quit the team.
The federal lawsuit by the unidentified plaintiff against the university and softball coach Terri Adams alleges “a widespread and well-known culture of abusive and sexually charged hazing” on the team.
The plaintiff alleges that during a weeklong hazing period in 2013, the player was subjected to demeaning behavior such as being forced to perform a sexually lewd dance, to ask and answer sexual questions and tell sexual stories. She alleges that she saw other freshman players forced to simulate sex acts. . . .
The lawsuit alleges that throughout her freshman year and continuing into her sophomore year, she was given demeaning nicknames, harassed and belittled and was “often reduced to tears and began having suicidal thoughts.” She said she was eventually forced to quit the team.
The suit alleges that officials were aware of the activities andintimidated and threatened her for trying to draw attention to them.

 

 

(Hat tip: Lead and Gold on Twitter.)

Anybody who knows anything about women’s collegiate sports knows how prevalent lesbianism is among female varsity athletes. So the “culture of abusive and sexually charge hazing” was lesbian hazing, and the “sex acts” players were “forced to simulate” were lesbian sex acts and, while I haven’t seen the full complaint yet, it is entirely reasonable for the reader to assume that the upperclassmen who led the hazing were lesbians, and that the team’s coach is also a lesbian. Yet the word “lesbian” appears nowhere in any of the media coverage of these allegations, because it would be considered homophobic to mention it. Because facts are nowhate, you see.

No one in the media dares even suggest the nature of the psychological brutality allegedly inflicted on this girl “subjected to demeaning behavior” and driven to the brink of suicide because, perhaps, she didn’t conform to the “well-known culture” enforced by her lesbian teammates.

This happened at Saint Joseph’s University, a private Catholic school where annual tuition is $40,580. Does anyone imagine that the pious Catholics who founded Saint Joseph’s in 1851 could have imagined such a thing? Or do you suppose that the alumni whose contributions help support this university are aware of what is being taught to Saint Joseph’s students today? The Gender Studies program at the university requires all students minoring in the subject to take “Seminar in Feminist Theories,” and here is the course description:

GEN 200 Seminar in Feminist Theories
This course provides a survey of feminist frameworks for thinking about sex, gender and oppression. The course begins with a consideration of whether the distinction between gender and sex is tenable, what it means to say that a category is socially constructed and how socially constructed categories can be oppressive. Given women’s diversity, the latter part of the course considers critiques of attempts to provide a single systematic feminist framework. This will lead us to rethink the project of feminist theory and consider its possible new directions.

 

In other words, this is a crash course in feminist gender theory — ” the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — and every student who pursues a minor in Gender Studies at Saint Joseph’s is required to take this class. The Pope has specifically condemned “gender theory,” and yet it is being promulgated at a Catholic university where lesbian softball players allegedly harassed a teammate so severely that she contemplated suicide and quit the team.

This is what “gender equality” means in 2015.

Gosh, somebody really ought to write a book about this . . .

UPDATE: Thanks to Stephen Sheiko on Twitter for sending the link to the full federal complaint in Jane Doe v. Saint Joseph’s University, which is an absolutely horrifying document to read. Coach Terri Adams began recruiting this player while the girl was just a sophomore in high school, and repeatedly assured the girl and her parents what a “wholesome” family-oriented Catholic environment SJU provided. The hazing included a letter to freshmen players that made explicit reference to same-sex activity and yet — here’s your kick-in-the-head irony — the plaintiff says that she was later subjected to gaybaiting!

Members of the team told the girl she was a lesbian and should “come out” as such, despite the allegedly “wholesome” Catholic atmosphere that Coach Adams had promised. You will notice that the lawsuit referencesassistant coach Brooke Darreff, who graduated from SJU in 2010 and returned to the university in 2012 as a graduate student to help coach the softball team. What was Coach Darreff’s major? Psychology.

Anybody want to convince me that a 27-year-old psychology graduate student doesn’t know what this kind of sexualized torture of teenage girls is intended to accomplish? Bullshit.