Sex Crimes

Colleges, Please Don't Criminalize Drinking, Sex, or Drunk Sex

You don't know what you're doing

|

Occidental College
Wikimedia Commons

Slate's Amanda Hess revisits Occidental College's handling of the sexual assault accusation against "John Doe" and makes a persuasive case that the decision to expel a male student for having mutually-drunk sex—with a female student who had at various points initiated the encounter—was wrong. Hess claims incidents like the Occidental case demonstrate that, "Colleges need to find a way to mold policies that can be applied consistently to men and women, help students cope with traumatic experiences as they embark on adulthood, punish the sexual offenders in their midst, and acknowledge that not all drunk sex is assault."

I agree, though I would assert much more strongly that college administrators should play no formal role in the adjudication of sex crimes. Nor should they adopt policies that prohibit, ban, or punish vices like drunkenness or partying—the paths recently chosen at Dartmouth College and the University of Virginia.

First, a quick review of the Occidental case: both students—"John" and "Jane"—had consumed copious amounts of vodka before John decided to host a dance party in his dorm room. According to witnesses, Jane made the first moves on John, trying to kiss him and grab him. He was neither enthusiastic nor particularly willing (at this point) but later tried to convince everyone else to leave the room. Jane began grinding on top of John while he was laying down, but her friends pulled her out of the room. Later, she returned to John's room at his invitation and they had sex. Two students interrupted them; the first received three verbal affirmative responses from Jane that she was "okay," and the second left quietly after determining that the encounter was unfolding in a clearly consensual manner.

To make a long story short, Jane eventually filed a sexual assault complaint. The college determined that she had been too intoxicated to consent to sex and expelled John.

And intoxicated she was. But so was John. Which raises the question: If two students have sex, the decision to initiate was mutual, and both were drunk, why is the woman a victim and the man a rapist? As Hess explains in her piece:

Despite universities' moves to punish drunk sex, it's simply not always clear when it's OK to have sex with people when you, or they, or both of you have been drinking.

When I asked a dozen college students around the country to draw their own lines between drunken sex and sexual assault, I got 12 different answers. …

Most colleges don't have "rape" policies—they have "sexual misconduct" policies, outlawing a wide range of nonconsensual activities in a way that may or may not match up with local laws.

In addition to maintaining nonsensical "sexual misconduct" policies, a growing number of universities are compounding the already bad state and federal alcohol laws by imposing even more draconian anti-drinking ordinances on students. Dartmouth, for example, will become a dry campus. And in response to a horrific attack on a female student—sorry, an attack that never actually happened, according to police and university administrators—UVA has decided to restrict fraternities' ability to serve booze. UVA sororities are dealing with self-imposed Victorianism after their national organization prohibited sisters from attending certain fraternity parties.

The real issue is not that these efforts are disproportionate to the actual level of sexual assault on campuses (although that does seem to be the case), it's that the abolition of due process, the restoration of prohibition, and re-establishment of anti-modern sex and dating norms for women are not good answers to the problem of campus rape in the first place.

More from Reason on the unfortunate rise of neo-Victorianism here.

NEXT: How to Address Anger Over Shootings By Police? Hide Cops' Names, Of Course!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I hate this band, but it’s somewhat fitting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeMeDihwyrg

    1. Damnit, it’s been years since I heard anything by Sublime.

      1. I used to work with some kids who thought they were gods. Got so tired of that band, and I never even liked them to begin with. That’s OK though. I’d get them back by putting on Megadeth whenever they weren’t looking.

      2. Me too, and I couldn’t be happier about it.

    2. I found the Raleigh Soliloquies fascinating.

    3. I rather like Sublime. Some of their songs got a bit overdone, but their two actual albums are pretty good, I thought.

    4. But the rape in that song was really more rape rape than date rape.

  2. I kept waiting for Hess to write that John Doe deserved to be expelled. Slate let me down this time.

    1. So that’s two feminist apostates at Slate: Emily Yoffe, who had the gall to suggest women could avoid rapey situations by not getting blackout drunk alone at parties, and now Hess.

      Darth Marcotte finds their lack of faith…disturbing.

      1. Marcotte has been strangely quiet. I think maybe her editors have slapped her hands to prevent her from embarrassing them again.

        1. I think she mostly writes for the progressive insane asylums that are AlterNet and Raw Stoy now. They drop the banhammer swiftly over there to keep the echochamber pure.

          She gets mocked pretty routinely in the Slate comments.

      2. The case against John Doe was absurd. Neither party actually remembered having sex. But interviews with 3rd parties confirmed the sex did happen.

        Jane Doe’s friends took her back to her room. She then left her room, navigated back to John Doe’s room, and climbed. During sex she explicitly told a 3rd party everything was fine.

        And still John Doe was expelled. I hope he crushes the University in his lawsuit.

        1. . . . and climbed into his bed.

          1. Not just that, she is the only one who remembers any sex act. She remembers giving him a blow job. According to crazy feminist logic that would mean she was the rapist as the boy was blackout drunk at the time.

            1. No, according to feminist logic the man is always at fault, regardless of circumstance or evidence.

              1. Well, at least a bunch of the mainstream ones try to claim their policies apply equally to men and women, even if reality proves the lie. So I try to go for the position that will convince the on the fence folks.

        2. During sex she explicitly told a 3rd party everything was fine.

          I’m trying to figure out exactly how this happened. Was she on the phone while they were grinding away? Texting people while giving him a BJ? Or were they all in the same room together?

          Kids these days . . . .

          1. The impression I got was that she snuck out of her room to go back and bang him, so her friends went to find her, and that’s when they talked to her. Then they (probably) left after she assured them that she was fine.

          2. Two people came looking for her at different times. Both opened the door to see the couple having sex. Jane Doe told one of the people everything was fine. The other person looked in, figured everything was fined, and closed the door.

          3. Two students interrupted them; the first received three verbal affirmative responses from Jane that she was “okay,” and the second left quietly after determining that the encounter was unfolding in a clearly consensual manner.

            From the article. Apparently they were also too drunk to lock the door.

            1. Well, if they had, a SWAT team would have been knocking it down, throwing grenades, and spraying with dorm with bullets.

            2. Or at least tie a sock to it

  3. the first received three verbal affirmative responses from Jane that she was “okay,”

    I went to college in a different era.

  4. Dartmouth, for example, will become a dry campus.

    So when the predictable increase in drunk driving by students happens will that be a sign of victory?

    1. Just make drinking and driving illegal = problem solved. Duh!

  5. I’m of the opinion drunk sex should be like drunk driving. If you are sober enough that you could be charged with drunk driving you are sober enough to consent to sex. If you have been drugged or forced to drink to the point that the cops wouldn’t hold you responsible for driving drunk then you were raped.

    1. Has anyone argued against this?

  6. This kind of shit is what convinces me that Western civilization is circling the drain. The geniuses who run our universities trying to figure what sex is! Jesus crackers, college students are supposed to be adults. If they can’t even figure out sex, why the fuck are we letting them vote?

    1. Morality infantilizes human sexuality while it, perversely, can explain with textbook clarity the sexual mores of animals in a pond or on a savanna.

      The penis and the vulva strike more fear into collective humanity than even death or demons.

  7. If you take away the sex, alcohol, and drugs, how will colleges and universities recruit young students? I mean, kids expect something for the shitloads of money they have to spend to get a permission slip to work, right?

  8. It wouldn’t be college if we didn’t have drunk sex.

    1. A bit of a long, but relevant, story:

      Back in college, I had a fling that lasted a month or so with my roommate’s girlfriend’s roommate. She was nuts, but also loved sex. Eventually I broke it off due to her insanity, and a week later she was DDing a big group back to the dorms from a party. She tried to come onto me, I said no, and the last thing I remember is shaking my roommate saying “Don’t let me screw her!”, then the next thing I remember is several hours later in the middle of sex with her. My dresser was knocked over. When we woke up in the morning I was bruised over my entire crotch.

      At no point since then have I thought “that chick raped me”. It’s: “I was an idiot that night. I need to drink less if I’m going to be that stupid while blacked out.”

      1. Check your privilege and stop taking responsibility for your own actions.

      2. If the numbers were played fairly and evenly the amount of ‘chicks’ raping males would be vastly higher than they currently are.

        I’ve been ‘raped’ and ‘sexually assaulted’ several times over the years by several babes and enjoyed every minute of it. Seems oddly unethical to posit such but so it goes…

  9. In the current college environment. A man is not so drunk that he can’t get it up is responsible entirely for where he penis ends up. Any woman that has had even a sniff of alcohol has no responsibility of any kind for whatever enters her vagina.

    1. I should preview. It looks like a drunkard is typing my posts.

      1. I assume everyone here is drunk.
        /tips jug up on elbow and drinks deeply

        1. I assume everyone is at work.

          Not that those two things are mutually exclusive.

          1. True. I post a lot less on days off.

    2. It’s seriously hilarious but confusing at the same time how radical feminists screams that women are smart and aren’t chattle but at the same time take away their agency in situations like this.

      1. Radical feminists take away women’s agency in all situations. It’s just the ingrained patriarchy, or whatever.

  10. What happened to “The College Experience?”

  11. The “mutually drunk but he’s still a rapist” thinking really just boils down to: “but…but…he’s the penetrator!” When confronted with a situation where the woman is on top it devolves further to: “he’s hard so he clearly isn’t as drunk.” When you point out that lot’s of men could punch a hole through sheetrock upon waking up in the morning it reverts to blatant namecalling.

    1. So can a lesbian rape a woman?

      1. Unpossible.

        Unless the lesbian on top gender identifies as male.

        In which case, don’t call her “her” or “lesbian” because that is a clear microagression you cisgendered oppressor.

      2. Shhhh, we don’t talk about lesbian rape, or lesbian domestic abuse for that matter. Women are perfect, how could a relationship between two women be less than perfect.

        1. You must know different lesbians than I do.

          1. If they’re like the one’s I know, they’re more than willing to complain about women and/or rape by women but get fundamentally morally outraged by and will certainly disproportionately drop the hammer of law on a male sexually aggressive or other. Certainly not universally, but reciprocity of any manner of sexual understanding is by no means guaranteed.

            If a woman is having sex and a man is watching, the women I know, with few exceptions (orientation irrelevant), are disgusted by the man. Regardless of consent.

            1. Where do they come down on men watching drunken, all-girl wrestling matches? The ones I know seem OK with that.

    2. When you point out that lot’s of men could punch a hole through sheetrock upon waking up in the morning it reverts to blatant namecalling.

      This, of course, sidesteps the whole arousal =/= desire issue that is firmly established in feminist circles as well.

      1. Well, that’s what I was getting at. How is having a stiffy conclusive evidence of my ability to form intent when the little fucker wakes up of his own accord and demands attention like a four month old puppy?

    3. When you point out that lot’s of men could punch a hole through sheetrock upon waking up in the morning

      I miss being young

  12. Fucking while drunk. Expel both, or expel neither.

  13. Which raises the question: If two students have sex, the decision to initiate was mutual, and both were drunk, why is the woman a victim and the man a rapist?

    Duh: He, being male, had the privilege to say no. She, not being male, lacked this option.

  14. I suppose this will be called trolling but…expel them for sex outside of marriage. What employer will even blink at seeing that on their record? It won’t be a permanent black mark like “rape.”

    1. Actually, I think that’s a good idea (albeit unconventional).

      If schools are going to be in the Puritan business of protecting a woman’s virtue, why even judge the situation where both are intoxicated? Kick them both out. Obviously public opinion is going to prohibit the school from keeping John because the idiot masses have deemed him a rapist…and Jane’s obviously a piece of shit for convincing a drunk guy to have consensual sex with her, then filing a complaint after the fact.

      If everyone gets punished whenever this sort of thing happens, maybe it’ll convince students that going to the school to adjudicate what should be criminal matters is a bad idea. Then they’ll either use the court system the way they’re supposed to or use some exercise some good judgment for once in their personal lives.

      1. There is a certain merit in draconian systems of justice, after all. They’re consistent.

    2. If a college wants to have that policy, fine, as long as everyone knows the deal up front. I think BYU and some other colleges that are still actually religiously oriented have policies like that.
      I think that’s a silly way to treat supposed adults. But I don’t have to go to that school.

      1. If a PRIVATE college wants to have that policy, fine, as long as everyone knows the deal up front.

        If they take a single dime of taxpayer money, however, they can fuck right the hell off.

        1. I think it should be public schools as well. All alcohol-related allegations of sexual misconduct result in the expulsion of both accused and accuser. That way there’s little to gain for either party in bad behavior. And as a taxpayer, I don’t want my money going to pay out for lawsuits from idiots who can’t hold their liquor and exercise good judgment in their social lives.

          1. I think it should be public schools as well.

            Respectfully…horseshit!

            The government does NOT have the power to discriminate against college students. If a student wants to get drunk and fuck, he/she is perfectly within their rights to do so, just like any other ADULT!

            1. The government does NOT have the power to discriminate against college students. If a student wants to get drunk and fuck, he/she is perfectly within their rights to do so, just like any other ADULT!

              Respectfully…double horseshit!

              This is the exact situation we have. Schools take government money and have disparate and inconsistent policies with respect to drinky-sexy-no-noes, they then abandon, change, or revamp those policies when the government rattles the Title IX saber and the culture gets corroded and one dimwit is legally empowered and the other dimwit is paid off, all at taxpayer expense.

              Sure, the best solution would be schools that don’t take money, then schools that take money but don’t draft policy, but consistent and equitable bedrock policy that produces less legal empowerment and fewer payouts from *any* school would better than what we’ve got.

              1. Fine. When they stop taking MY money (as in tax money), they can tell me how to act on THEIR property. Otherwise, normal laws apply.

                1. Actually, most public schools I’ve seen already ban drinking alcohol entirely on their property and in their facilities. So they’re already telling you how to act on their grounds.

                  The question is whether they should be adjudicating alleged crimes that are already difficult for trained, experienced professionals to adjudicate in a court of law. I would argue that they are completely unsuited to do so, and that in a situation where an accusation of rape arises in a situation where both people were willingly intoxicated, the school should simply kick out both parties to end their own involvement in the mess.

                  They’re not the judicial system. We should stop putting the onus on them, and create a negative incentive for irresponsible people to do so. If someone believes they were raped, they should file a police report and deal with it in the courts. If someone is falsely accused of rape, the proper venue for combating that is also the courts.

            2. The government does NOT have the power to discriminate against college students.

              Actually, as evidenced by the events in this article, that is clearly a power that schools possess.

              You’re arguing that they should not have that authority or that the authority should not be considered legitimate. I agree. But until such time as the actual court system and society tells them so, this is the best way to remove them from acting as a court.

              In the case of public schools, it’s an issue that could actually be handled by the legislature.

              1. that in a situation where an accusation of rape arises in a situation where both people were willingly intoxicated, the school should simply kick out both parties to end their own involvement in the mess.

                Why would the school kick anyone out? It’s none of their concern. Both parties are innocent until proven guilty. If they are convicted, fine, but it’s a criminal matter.

                You’re arguing that they should not have that authority or that the authority should not be considered legitimate. I agree.

                Fair nuff.

                1. Why would the school kick anyone out? It’s none of their concern.

                  Exactly…and that’s what a published policy of kicking out both students for alcohol-related sexual incidents would be saying. “This is none of our concern, but since you chose to drag us into your personal problems, we’re removing the distraction you caused from our institution of higher learning.”

                  Both parties are innocent until proven guilty.

                  Actually, whenever two people get intoxicated, have sex, and one of them claims it’s rape and files a complaint with the administration, that person would be admitting that they’re guilty of violating the policy I suggested.

                  The policy is not about determining guilt or innocence in a rape. It’s about telling students that when they believe a crime took place, they need to take it to the legal system, not the school.

                  1. A potential downside to this, however, would be in cases where someone does commit a rape, the victim takes it to court, and the rapist files a complaint with the school to get the victim kicked out (either before or after the verdict). This shouldn’t be overlooked, because I’ve known a couple of people I’m very certain have committed rape (one was convicted) and that’s exactly the kind of petty, weasel shit they’d pull to get a last shot at their victim.

      2. I think that’s a silly way to treat supposed adults.

        I would argue that if someone gets drunk, initiates sex with someone else, then files a complaint about it the next day while minimizing their own behavior in the matter, they forfeit any privilege of being treated like an adult.

        I like beer as much as the next person, but if students are going to keep putting the school in this position where they have to investigate and adjudicate rape allegations (and get grilled for it no matter what the outcome), then kicking both people out of school makes the most sense.

        You can’t claim they endorse rape, because they expelled the alleged rapist. You can’t claim they condone irresponsible allegations of crimes, because they expelled the accuser. As long as it’s clearly established policy on the part of the school, the courts will probably back the school if either student sues. The school then doesn’t have the responsibility of being the cop, juror, and judge.

        1. My response was to the suggestion of expelling students for sex out of marriage. Which I assumed meant any sex outside of marriage given who it came from.

          Expelling, or perhaps suspending both parties to an alleged rape I think could be a bit more justified, if only to eliminate the disruption that such a dispute causes.

          I think the best way would be to treat them like adults, and also give them the responsibility of adults. If you have been raped, call the police, not the dean. And if you can’t handle being on campus while the investigation is going on, take a leave of absence. That should be the only response from the school. The school is offering classes and renting rooms. If you get raped in an off campus apartment, you don’t go to the fucking condo board about it.

          1. I got the “outside of marriage” angle of your suggestion, and didn’t agree with that, but it queued a variation on that idea for me that I thought had merit.

            I disagree with suspending both parties…that still invites school adjudication. Expelling people involved in alcohol-related incidents such as this is defensible, both from a standpoint of liability to the school and as an impartial code of behavior for students to avoid irresponsible behavior.

            If students want to get drunk, fine. If students want to have sex, fine. If students want to get drunk and have sex, fine. If students want to get drunk, have sex, and then fob the consequences for their behavior off on the school, they can find a different place to get their education.

          2. And if you can’t handle being on campus while the investigation is going on, take a leave of absence.

            There are several problems with assuming that this is an easy fix.

            College campuses are inherently political. If someone is accused of criminal behavior on campuses, a variety of people will weigh in on it and attempt to influence the outcome. They’ll take sides, either with the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator. They’ll attempt to coerce the school into supporting their preferred outcome.

            My solution isn’t about protecting the students’ ability to go to college (which, by the way, is not a right). It’s about protecting the school from the liability of dealing with students who can’t behave responsibly, which detracts from what should be their primary focus…delivering a quality education for those who aren’t disruptive.

    3. If they made it clear that they expected students to not have sex outside of marriage BEFORE THOSE STUDENTS ENROLLED, that would be well within their rights (provided they were private schools).

      Otherwise, that’s some crazy horseshit, Eddie.

      1. I wouldn’t want the college to keep its light under a bushel – it should publicize its policy.

        You know, they used to do that – both the policy and the publicity.

  15. I have no problem with a college having rules of deportment on it’s campus for students.

    Military schools are expected to have stiffer discipline structures than public universities etc etc.

    But they should be the same for everyone and shit like this has gone so far down the rabbit hole I look for The Onion tag whenever I read an article like this. The administrators here reflects the same overall thought process that is in play in the story about child abuse in England in another Reason wrticle.

  16. It’s amazing how certain people are full-on intent on infantilizing young people as much as humanly possible. I’m still kind of trying to figure out where this impulse comes from. It’s just so…creepy and weird.

    1. Liberals need to protect their market, man.

    2. http://www.slate.com/articles/…..ected.html

      Universities Are Right?and Within Their Rights?to Crack Down on Speech and Behavior

      Students today are more like children than adults and need protection.

      1. Is this just another version of people getting older and being jealous and bitter at younger people for their youth?

        1. It was Eric Posner. I didn’t bother to read it. The headline was everything I needed to know.

          1. Something tells me there is not one scintilla of honest soul-searching as to WHY students act like this.

      2. Holy mother of God:

        “Second, and more important?at least for libertarians partisans of the free market?the universities are simply catering to demand in the marketplace for education. While critics sometimes give the impression that lefty professors and clueless administrators originated the speech and sex codes, the truth is that universities adopted them because that’s what most students want. If students want to learn biology and art history in an environment where they needn’t worry about being offended or raped, why shouldn’t they? As long as universities are free to choose whatever rules they want, students with different views can sort themselves into universities with different rules. Indeed, students who want the greatest speech protections can attend public universities, which (unlike private universities) are governed by the First Amendment. Libertarians might reflect on the irony that the private market, in which they normally put faith, reflects a preference among students for speech restrictions.”

        He gives no evidence that students favor speech restrictions. These restrictions are created by administrators and to my knowledge they don’t poll students on their opinions first.

        He’s blatantly lying.

        1. Are you…are you surprised?

          Also realize he’s probably projecting his own opinions on the students as well.

          1. What’s especially gross is that maybe you could argue a small minority of students push for these restrictions. I think that’s true and that what happens is that students with very strong opinions on ‘social justice’ make a lot of noise and administrators just give into them out of a) fear or b) laziness.

            So a very small segment of the student population advocates these things and forces it on the rest of the students.

            Eric Posner thinks this is a ‘democracy.’

            1. THIS but he also ignores the role teachers and administrators play in Car Ramrodding these stupid notions into students’ heads in the first place.

        2. He’s blatantly lying.

          I said it was Eric Posner.

      3. Also, Posner might literally be retarded. He says this about students:

        “They suffer from impulse control.”

        No, they would suffer from a LACK of impulse control. Posner writes in this clipped, staccato style as if he never learned that commas exist and he apparently doesn’t even know that impulse control is a good thing.

        1. impulse control is a good thing

          Not if you want everything controlled by the government.

      4. Students today are more like children than adults and need protection.

        So, when they graduate from college they’ll still be children and will still need protection, because there’s only one way to become a functioning adult: real-world experience.

        Naturally the progs don’t want people to grow up. People who grow up develop nasty habits, like thinking for themselves instead of worshiping Dear Leaders. Can’t have that!

  17. It seems to me that if being drunk absolves you of any responsibility for decisions you make, DWI shouldn’t be a crime. If you can’t legally consent to sex, how can you legally be liable for your decision to drive?

    Of course, if someone is really incapacitated by alcohol or other drugs, it would be rape. But that clearly wasn’t the case here. Either you are responsible for stupid shit you do when drunk or you aren’t. And if you are the sort of person who gets drunk and fucks random people and then regrets it, you probably shouldn’t get drunk outside of very controlled settings.

    1. Either you are responsible for stupid shit you do when drunk or you aren’t.

      The differing standard between drunk driving and drunk sex has confused me since I was old enough to understand what drunk sex was.

      Of course, if someone is really incapacitated by alcohol or other drugs, it would be rape.

      I would also add that if one party tricks the other into getting drunk/high it would be rape too (though it seems hard to sneak the alcohol in unlike say a roofie).

      1. I would also add that if one party tricks the other into getting drunk/high it would be rape too

        Yeah. As long as “tricks” means actual deception like, as you say, slipping a roofie or something like that.

        1. What about the deception in the sex scene in Revenge of the Nerds?

              1. While the movie was funny, in real life that would probably lead to an arrest.

          1. That’s a different question than this intoxicated consent one.

            But yes, I classify that as rape.

  18. expel them for sex outside of marriage.

    Good thinking. Just what I would expect of a Dark Ages cultist.

  19. Wouldn’t it be grand if college actually became hard enough that a person couldn’t party and get blind drunk and fuck anything with a heartbeat all the time and get a degree? Perhaps this makes me a curmudgeon, but seriously, since the State basically took over higher education, and everyone got in, even if they were barely above functional literacy, college has been simply four more years of high-school. It’s the filling in between K-12 and being in the 401k/mortgage “programs”- it’s the continued ensnaring of everyone in The Leviathan. And it’s to keep everyone babysat and indoctrinated. Only it became one big drunkfest party, and all that goes with it.

    1. Yeah. 3, 4 at the most nights a week is all you should be getting drunk at college. Anything else gets in the way of your studies.

      What I found at college was that if you don’t waste a lot of time dicking around and putting things off, you can have plenty of time to work hard at academics and have fun.

  20. “And intoxicated she was. But so was John. Which raises the question: If two students have sex, the decision to initiate was mutual, and both were drunk, why is the woman a victim and the man a rapist?”

    Answer: Campus feminists, who exert considerable influence over administrators, want this. So does Obama, who always wants to show his feminist colors and secure the female vote. Both the feminists and Obama want colleges to punish men. I don’t think either of them is the least bit interested in fairness, due process. I suspect they believe “It’s better to convict 10 innocent men than to let a guilty one go free.” Convicting 10 innocent men drives up the numbers that prove “the rape culture,” which in turn justifies punishing men.

    I truly hate to say this, but ruining innocent young men’s lives strikes me as a sure-fire way of creating the mass killers everyone fears.

    I sincerely believe it all could have been so very different — so much better — between men and women. There’s still hope. See:

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    It’s a detailed look at what I think is the sexes’ most alienating and destructive behavioral difference, which is responsible for much of what is called sexual assault of women. It reveals why many people conclude that when both the man and the woman are 100 percent responsible, as Roave points out, the woman is a victim and the man a rapist.

    1. I truly hate to say this, but ruining innocent young men’s lives strikes me as a sure-fire way of creating the mass killers everyone fears.

      Or serial rapists.

      1. Yes. If you’re convicted of a crime you didn’t commit, you may as well commit the crime before going to jail.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.