November 30, 2016



At Clark University, Bringing A Girl Flowers Is Rape

Just check out one of the definitions of rape from this sexual assault e-booklet from the Dean of Students (who, on a side note, favors some creative punctuation):

Coercion

Coercion is the use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to something they may not want to do - like being sexual or performing certain sexual acts. Examples of some coercive statements include: "If you love me you would have sex with me.", "If you don't have sex with me I will find someone who will.", and "I'm not sure I can be with someone who doesn't want to have sex with me." Coercive statements are often part of many campus acquaintance rapes. Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault.

In case you're all, well, it says, "Coercive statements are often part of many campus acquaintance rapes..."

Check this out -- the "coerced sexual contact" bit:

Rape / Sexual Assault

Although the legal definition of rape varies from state to state, rape is generally defined as forced or nonconsensual sexual contact. Rape and/or sexual assault is forced, manipulated, or coerced sexual contact by a stranger, friend or acquaintance. It is an act of aggression and power combined with some form of sex. A person is forced into sexual contact through verbal coercion, threats, physical restraint, and/or physical violence. Consent is not given.

Under this definition, yes, bringing a woman flowers because you're hoping to get in her pants is "emotional manipulation."

That may sound a little sinister to some, but in other worlds, we call it "sweet-talking" or "working in sales."

As psychologist Robert Cialdini notes, you can persuade somebody to do things they don't want to do -- like buy a washing machine -- by, for example, asking them a question they're likely to give a "yes" answer to. Apparently, if you get them to say yes to something, they're more likely to say yes to the next question you ask them.

As I write in "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck," simply giving somebody a gift can trigger an urge in us to do something in return -- reciprocity, that is.

To keep our giving and taking in balance, humans developed a built-in social bookkeeping department. Basically, there's some little old lady in a green eyeshade inside each of us who pokes us--"Wake up, idiot!"--when somebody's mooching off us so we'll get mad and try to even the score. When somebody does something nice for us, our inner accountant cranks up feelings of obligation, and we get itchy to pay the person back. A fascinating modern example of reciprocity in action is a 1971 study by psychology professor Dennis Regan. Participants were told it was research on art appreciation. The actual study--on the psychological effects of having a favor done--took place during the breaks between the series of questions about art. Regan's research assistant, posing as a study participant, left the room during the break. He'd either come back with two Cokes-- one for himself and one he gave to the other participant--or come back empty-handed (the control group condition). After all the art questions were completed, the research assistant posing as a participant asked the other participant a favor, explaining that he was selling raffle tickets and that he'd win a much-needed $50 prize if he sold the most. He added that any purchase "would help" but "the more the better." Well, "the more" and "the better" is exactly what he got from the subjects he'd given the Coke, who ended up buying twice as many tickets as those who'd gotten nothing from him. Regan's results have been replicated many times since, in the lab and out, by Hare Krishnas, who saw a marked increase in donations when they gave out a flower, book, or magazine before asking for money; by organizations whose fund-raising letters pull in far more money when they include a small gift, like personalized address labels...

There's so much that's terribly wrong in this Clark U e-booklet on sexual assault, from the bullshit "1 in 6" stat they lay out to this:

Rape and sexual assault are about power and dominance; they are not about sex and certainly not about feelings of love and/or affection. Rape is a hate crime based on gender, power and control.

What about men who get raped in prison? Is that about "gender"?

Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer dispelled the utter bullshit about rape being about "power and dominance." It's about sex, which is why most rape victims are not babies or grannies but young, fertile women.

And check this out:

Consent

Consent is clear permission between intimate partners that what they are doing is okay and safe. To consent to something - like being sexual - means you confidently agree to do it based on your own free will without any influence or pressure. You cannot legally consent if you are drinking or under the influence of drugs as your ability to consent has been impaired.

I like to drink wine and then have sex. Does this really mean I "cannot legally consent" -- or that, like many people, I enjoy sex with a bit of a buzz on, which I choose to do as a sentient adultperson?

What underlies so much in this Clark U booklet is hatred of men, fear of men, and the notion that if you're born with a vagina, you're basically this fragile little baby bunny, entirely lacking in self-determination...to the point where some man need only put a dozen posies in front of you and you'll drop trou (or whatever) and bend over for him to stick it in.

As I've said before: Count me the fuck out.

UPDATE: Eugene Volokh (via @ChSommers) reports that Clark "has taken has removed the definition from its site, and reports that the definition was 'not current Clark policy,' though it had still been present at the Dean of Students office's web site..."

via @yeyoza

*