Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Sexual discrimination justified by rules against sexual discrimin

Once you start making bizarre Jesuitical rules about personal conduct, you have to face some bizarre Jesuitical situations.  Like this one.  

Duke's own policy is remarkably...bizarrely Jesuitical.  It appears that if a male has sex with a female, and both are too drunk to give consent, then the male has raped the female.  If the male is too drunk and the female is sober, there is no rape.  And so on, as interpreted by Duke sex-Jesuits

The cool thing is that this is all because of Title IX, which requires that there is no discrimination based on sex

Very cool:  a (plausible) requirement that there be no discrimination based on sex is being used to justify the claim that women are so weak and helpless that they are not responsible for their own choices, and need middle-aged Puritans to protect them.

Where will it end?  It may not end.  We asked for it, now we deserve to get it, good and hard.


Anonymous said...

It will end when the lawyers more avaricious than politically correct see the bags of money stacked around these potential cases. A class action claim will have potential plaintiffs coming out of the woodwork angling for a few thousand here and a few thousand there since many have attended more than one university.

This is a plausible igniter to the pending and massive change universities are trying to dodge today.

Mark Sherman

Anonymous said...

This policy has existed at Duke for a while. Fraternities and some other groups were (are?) even required to take asinine training programs in which the "both too drunk = male rapes female" point was explicitly stated. I vividly recall a good friend of mine raising his hand, being called upon by the training leaders, and asking the question, "If both people are drunk, does that mean they raped each other?" The response was, "Yes", without a hint of irony, although that didn't mean the female party would have ever been officially accused of misconduct or a crime. It's much easier to maintain a totally delusional view than to try to establish a coherent theory of consent that can withstand basic logical scrutiny while supporting desirable outcomes to ill-considered choices.

John Thacker said...

The crazy thing is that when you relax the definition of rape this much (to include basically all the "I was drunk and regretted it" cases), the proportion of male victims of rape jumps from 5-14 percent all the way to 38%.

The looser the definition you use, the greater percentage of victims are men, including lots of cases where the woman was the aggressor. (You also end up with cases where they both raped each other.)