Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Left's Creeping Totalitarianism on Affirmative Consent

Depriving men of their due process rights won't help women

campus sexfossilmike / Foter / CC BY-NCLiberal backers of feminists seem to be trading their long-cherished principle that the "ends don't justify the means" for the battle cry of "by any means necessary." How else to interpret the unabashed support that Ezra Klein, among the most influential young liberals in the country, recently extended to affirmative consent (or "yes means yes") laws that are proliferating across American campuses to deal with an alleged rape epidemic?

To his credit, Klein unflinchingly and rightly acknowledges that California's law constitutes a draconian assault on the due process rights of men whom it would regard as guilty until proven otherwise, vastly increasing the prospects of false convictions. (I made a similar point in a previous column here.) But then Klein goes off the rails. He declares that this "terrible law is necessary." Why? Because there is an ugly "culture of entitlement" among American men and "ugly problems don't have pretty solutions."

What's truly ugly is accepting totalitarian notions of justice to address a problem that is nowhere near as rampant as the proponents of "yes means yes" laws claim.

What's driving Klein to such extremism is a 2007 Justice Department study that one in five women experience sexual assault on campus. If this factoid (it would dignify it too much to call it a statistic) were true, it would dwarf the crime rate even in the most brutal African ethnic wars, Heather MacDonald points out. Indeed, she notes, in 2012, Newark's rate of all violent crimes — murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — was 1.1 percent. (And she has little reason to dismiss the statistic because it offers an excuse to return women to their chastity belts.)

So how did Justice arrive at this figure, which has become gospel through repetition in feminist circles? Via a poorly constructed study that relied on responses from a self selected — not a random — sample of students at two colleges, and deployed a rather loose definition of "assault" that included an unwanted kiss.

Klein — ironically, a champion of the hot new genre of supposedly fact-based "explanatory" journalism — swallowed this figure whole, even though it was effectively debunked by the National Crime and Victimization Survey conducted by the federal government's own Bureau of Justice Statistics last year. Widely regarded as the "gold standard" for accurately assessing crime rates even in categories like rape where a large portion go unreported, the survey found that the proportion of women subjected to rape or sexual assault fell 64 percent between 1995 and 2005, standing at a mere 1.1 per 1,000 women in 2010. What's more, 18- to 24-year-olds in college were no more likely to face rape or assault than peers who weren't in college. This isn't to minimize the terrible trauma endured by young women who have been the victims of sexual assault — it is only to place them in the proper numerical context.

And there are plenty of other indicators beyond statistics suggesting that many American women don't exactly feel like they live in a vicious rape culture. If they did, Scout Willis, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore's daughter, wouldn't have fearlessly strolled topless in Manhattan to protest Instagram's policies against nude pictures last summer. Sure, she's quasi-famous. Nonetheless, try doing that in the pre-sexual revolution America or modern-day India (my native country) without getting assaulted or worse.

Willis chose going topless as her form of protest precisely because, contrary to Klein's assertion, there is no longer a "culture of entitlement" among American men. Her stunt was possible only because social mores that used to work against women now work for them. Far from facing any sanction, she could count on those around her acknowledging — even cheering (like me) — her right to wield her sexuality as she saw fit without becoming prey to jerks who believe she's "asking for it."

But social mores can't be enforced in a bedroom. No amount of attitude adjustment can protect every woman in every private setting where all she can rely on for her personal safety is the internal moral compass and mental balance of her partner. However, if there were a big disjunction between the broader culture and the personal morality of men, women would automatically adjust their behavior — just as one automatically locks one's home in an unsafe neighborhood. They would take common sense precautions and avoid excessive drinking or sleeping with multiple partners so as to reduce the odds of running into a creep. But if the hook-up culture is pervasive on campuses, it's because they don't find the risk they take to be incommensurable with the sexual upside they expect. That such a culture exists suggests that "yes means yes" laws are an overreaction to a vanishing problem.

The sexual revolution gave women control over their sexual destiny by letting them conduct their sexual lives based on their own individual risk-reward assessment without being stigmatized as prudes or sluts. Its promise never was and never will be to guarantee complete safety — an impossible goal. What's more, this revolution managed to deliver its gains without sacrificing liberal norms of justice. It is implausible and dangerous to suggest that after all these gains these norms now must be trampled for further progress.

This is why it is a very welcome development that 28 current and former Harvard law faculty members mounted a counter offensive to the left's jihad on men this week. They issued a statement denouncing their university's affirmative consent policy as lacking in "the most basic elements of fairness and due process [and being] overwhelmingly stacked against the accused," and urged Harvard to throw it out, even if that meant losing federal dollars.

Throwing sons and brothers under the bus for crimes they haven't committed in a utopian quest to protect women from their lovers perverts justice, and reminds us that utopianism and totalitarianism are often two sides of the same coin.

This column originally appeared in The Week. You can find Ms. Dalmia's full Week archive here.

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.

  • Restoras||

    Shikha, when the stars blink, at Tenagra.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Hit and Run when the walls fell.

  • Pendulum||

    +1 Mirab, his sails unfurled.

  • Brian||

    Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

  • ||

    Shikha, her lips part, the crowd swells.

    (wayyyyyy too many Star Trek fans on this)

  • XM||

    "Even if there's no widespread rape on campus, if the new consent law stops even one rape or save just one child, then it would have been worth it"

    Voter ID, E-verify, enforcing immigration laws and protecting private property rights.

    "But that's different though."

    Voter IDs are free. If a company provides only 18 out of 20 contraceptives, you can limit your trips to Starbucks and buy contraceptives yourselves.

    If a girl you had sex with feels that you fit a profile of a rapist and alleges that she didn't consent, you will no longer have a shot a normal life in this country.

    Misplaced priorities.

  • Sheriff Bart||

    I would posit that the human version of "Utopia" is not even possible without tyranny. It would involve such dramatically different visions that agreement would not be possible. It won't stop progs from trying to establish it at the point of a gun, however.

  • ||

    You posit that? I thought it had been empirically established....over and over again.

    For progs, the necessity of establishing utopia at the point of a gun is simply an excuse for pointing guns. They know full well utopia will never arrive.

  • SugarFree||

    No, the progs can have their utopia, it's just a nightmare for everyone else.

  • Idle Hands||

    It's nice being the one picking the things that everyone else needs.

  • coma44||

    "It's nice being the one picking the things that everyone else needs."

    It's good to be the king!

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No, they don't know that Utopia won't arrive. They would if they were a tenth as smart as they think tney are.

  • lap83||

    suggested alt text: making the beast with two heads?

  • JW||

    Is that picture from the Beelblebrox family album?

  • From the Tundra||

    I don't recall Zaphod having tits...

  • Bill Dalasio||

    So, I can't help but wonder, what will Ezra have to say when a President Gingrich or (God forbid) a President Santorum declares that there's an "ugly culture of entitlement" among progressives and, while the government's shutting down opposition may technically violate their free speech and free association rights, "ugly problems don't have pretty solutions."?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    He will call them fascists, *if* they do it. Do the legislative records of Gingritch and Santorum justify speculation of their censoring propensities? Or are they simply generic moustache-twirling villains who do evil on principle?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Generally the latter. But, it's beside the point. Eventually, at some point, there will be someone on Team Red who'll realize that the precedent this sort of nonsense creates can be exploited for their own ends. If people you don't like don't have rights, neither do you.

  • dpbisme||

    The precedent being set is the scary part... First they fine you for choosing to not buy Health Insurance because you are healthy and have other needs for that money... So you cheat on your taxes to because of the injustice of it.. They use the IRS against you to because of you politics and if they catch you cheating because of Obamacare they will go out of their way to destroy your life...

  • JW||

    Funny how the left's love of consent, like "choice", never extends beyond the groin region.

    KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BUSINESS.

  • Rev-Match||

    KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BUSINESS.

    but, PAY FOR WHAT GOES ON WITH MY BUSINESS!.

  • Marktaylor||

    Yeah, the left is totally creeping in authoritarianism, it hasn't been their open agenda for a hundred years or anything.

  • John C. Randolph||

    More like 166 years. Marx kicked off his plan for world dictatorship 1848.

    -jcr

  • Mitch Connor||

    I think if I were a single college student or even a single man today I would video tape every single casual sexual encounter. I would not post it or share it. But I would keep it, just in case.

  • ||

    I think if I were a single college student or even a single man today I would video tape every single casual sexual encounter.

    Without consent? Edgy.

  • Mitch Connor||

    In NY State, I'm aloud to record or video and conversation without the other party's consent as long as I am part of the conversation. I can't record other people if I am not participating.

    It is only a crime if I distribute the sex act.

    So, here in NYC, I'm OK.

  • ||

    In NY State, I'm aloud to record or video and conversation without the other party's consent as long as I am part of the conversation.

    You assumed I meant consent to being video taped.

    Rapist.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If it's a one-party consent state (Which California is not) I recommend it. Even if it is an all-party consent state, I still recommend it.

    Better an illegal recording charge than a rape charge.

  • Mitch Connor||

    I could not agree with you more....you coward :

  • ||

    Better an illegal recording charge than a rape charge.

    I'm sure, if the rape charge is leveled against you, a collection of quasi-illicit recordings will only bolster your case.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    If your attorney can get the recording admitted and then introduce it after meeting any predicate rules necessary for the introduction, then yes, it will bolster your case. A judge may even dismiss sua sponte...

    Dammit, there I go being optimistic again. I forget that America has a legal system, not a justice system.

  • Free Society||

    One party consent or no, I believe there remains a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in committing sexual acts, whereas a state's wiretapping pertain to recorded conversations and 'public place' interactions where the reasonable expectation of privacy would be lower.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Once someone accuses you of rape in regard to a specific event and certain sexual acts, all "reasonable expectation of privacy" is out the window because the accuser has thrown them headfirst out the window by bringing the sex acts to a public forum.

  • Slocum||

    But a video wouldn't prove your partner wasn't 'incapacitated' (unless you're planning on having her blow into a breathalyzer on camera). And under California's new standards, if the video didn't include frequent double-checks for ongoing verbal consent, it might even be used to make the case against you.

  • ||

    If they did, Scout Willis, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore's daughter, wouldn't have fearlessly strolled topless in Manhattan to protest Instagram's policies against nude pictures last summer. Sure, she's quasi-famous.

    Sure, she's quasi-famous *entitlement*, had a camera crew with her the whole way *entitlement*, chose *entitlement* some of the best neighborhoods to walk through *entitlement* in the middle of the day *entitlement* in the summer *entitlement*.

    What was the point again? Oh yeah, something about wielding the double-edged sword of female nudity to slay a scarecrow of oppressive decency laws.

    Something gives me the impression that Scout wouldn't sit one second topless next an overweight mother of three on the bus at midnight in February to volunteer at a soup kitchen in Chelsea.

    Thanks for lending more credence to shitty youtube gestures and the 1%er problems they represent Shikha.

  • Tommy_Grand||

    all women support YMY b/c it is for justice

    all men oppose it because they are rapist

    except me, ezra, because i am a marvellous hero to women

    seeking: college-age female interns to help me spread justice

  • geo1113||

    Klein...swallowed!

  • radar||

    How on earth has Ezra Klein, a man of no particular achievement or distinction, become "one of the most influential young liberals in this country"? What the fucking fuck?

  • JW||

    It's the bigotry of low expectations.

  • Free Society||

    Poorly reasoned ideas and logical contradictions resonate with progressive liberals. It's no wonder that the likes of Ezra Klein sprout up like mushrooms on a pile of shit.

  • scareduck||

    The answer to that comes from the estimable Fredrik deBoer:


    ... Klein arrives at a straightforwardly illogical conclusion and embraces it. Not that there’s much actual challenge here, of course. Ezra is no dummy. He knows privileged lefty culture too well to risk questioning this law. As he is surely aware, there is all kinds of risk in going against the grain when it comes to this issue, and essentially no reward. After all, as Shikha Dalmia recently found out the hard way, there is a price to be paid for failing to endorse the consensus here.

    And as goes Ezra, so will go elite media. Klein has always been one of those interesting media figures, at once a weather vane and the weather [emphasis mine - RMc]. Brad Delong once showed up in my comments to tell me that criticizing Klein is “career-limiting.” That amounts to essentially proving every criticism I’ve ever made about the media. But it’s not wrong.


    (more)

  • scareduck||

    And what I think deBoer means by "weather vane and the weather" is that Klein is both a molder of lefty opinion and its thermometer. He has a keen understanding of what is permissible in liberal discourse, and what must be suppressed. That is, like all good modern liberals, he believes the French Revolution failed because it killed the wrong people.

  • Free Society||

    The Left's Creeping Totalitarianism on Affirmative Consent Everything
  • scareduck||

    Liberal backers of feminists seem to be trading their long-cherished principle that the "ends don't justify the means" for the battle cry of "by any means necessary."

    The full quote (starts with "Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies" here) is too long, but Mencken's observation even in the 1920's was accurate today: the only right liberals understand and support is the right to plunder. Why else the fist-shaking rage at Citizens United, or the wholesale destruction of due process for rape suspects?

  • ||

    " Liberal backers of feminists seem to be trading their long-cherished principle that the "ends don't justify the means"..."

    Citation needed.

  • Tony||

    Klein's argument is better than the Taub one that he credits with changing his mind, and even explores a larger philosophical point about law in the practical world. It's also quite disturbing. Dalmia, however, misses the point of both by insisting that the onus remain on the would-be victim to prevent rape (don't drink so much!). My issue is that I can't figure out how this law does anything to reduce genuine sexual assault. I'm skeptical that Klein is right in that it will strike fear into men's hearts. That sounds like a law meant to discourage sex, not rape.

    The takeaway seems to be that the old standard put the burden on (mostly) women, while the new one puts it on the "sexual aggressor." (How there is a sexual aggressor in a consensual encounter, I'm not sure.)

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Dalmia, however, misses the point of both by insisting that the onus remain on the would-be victim to prevent rape


    She hasn't been saying that or "insisting" on that, Tony. Don't sully what has been a surprisingly well thought-out commentary from your part by putting words in her mouth.

  • ||

    I'm convinced that "Tony" is some kind of sock puppet that gets passed around by 5 or 6 people. Sometimes he's almost rational, other times he basically claims that Jews who died in the holocaust had no right to life because the law said so.

  • Tony||

    They *should* have had a right to life. They clearly didn't. And you saying so isn't going to retroactively save a single Jewish life, is it?

  • Free Society||

    They *should* have had a right to life. They clearly didn't. And you saying so isn't going to retroactively save a single Jewish life, is it?

    You have it backwards. Rights, particularly rights like 'the right to live' are innate. The Jews had a right to life that was violated, that doesn't mean they didn't have such a right. Murder wouldn't be murder if the victim had no 'right to live'. You couldn't call what happened to the Jews a 'crime' if not for their innate right to live.

  • Tony||

    This conversation is ridiculous. I don't like it when you guys declare that certain rights are "innate" because that means you guys get to decide which rights those are.

    Rights are social constructs, period. They didn't exist in nature before humans showed up, and they didn't really exist for almost all of human history.

    To say people had rights when they didn't get to practice them, in the most horrific way imaginable, is to say nothing useful.

  • John C. Randolph||

    you guys get to decide which rights those are.

    No, rent-boy. Human rights derive from the non-aggression principle, and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to decide what they are.

    You fascist shitheads can pretend that rights are arbitrary, but people still know crime when we see it, even in countries where the government has been saturating them with propaganda from infancy.

    -jcr

  • Free Society||

    I don't like it when you guys declare that certain rights are "innate" because that means you guys get to decide which rights those are

    What could me more innate than a right to live? Only sociopaths, nihilists and desperately confused people deny it because it's universally applicable.

    Rights are social constructs, period. They didn't exist in nature before humans showed up, and they didn't really exist for almost all of human history.

    Derp. No shit they are. They are logically identifiable rules of conduct that can be universally applied.

    To say people had rights when they didn't get to practice them, in the most horrific way imaginable, is to say nothing useful.

    So the Jews had no right to live, what's the ethical problem with killing them? Bashing a newborn baby's skull against a train car has the same moral content as if you threw a rock at the train car, according to what you are saying.

    Nice job showing up hours later to make a reply and "get the last word". Its par for your course.

  • Brian||

    See, what he does is simply define the concepts of rights away, such that violated rights are "not useful", i.e., don't mean anything, so that, since government (theoretically) has the last word (under simplified assumptions), then the government defines what rights are.

    At the same time, he realizes this is absolutely psycho, and suggests no moral compass whatsoever, so he says things like "Jews *should* have had the right". However, this concept of "should" implies right and wrong, which takes us right back into a concept of rights. Apparently, Jews should have had the right to life, implying it was wrong to kill them, implying that the Holocaust was a massive human rights violation, implying that the concept of rights does have meaning and usefulness, even when it does not, in fact, hinge on the right being respected, practiced, endorsed by government, etc. His concept of *should* have had a right concedes the entire point, since its equivalent to the common concept of "human rights", but he's either too stupid or obtuse to understand it.

    So, in short, he's redefining everyone else's concept of rights into should have a right, and redefining rights such that they only matter when the government decides what they are, all for the purpose of giving government the final say, while retaining just enough of the original concept to avoid coming across like a monster. In other words, quibbling, semantic, word game bullshit. He loves that stuff.

  • Free Society||

    His concept of *should* have had a right concedes the entire point, since its equivalent to the common concept of "human rights", but he's either too stupid or obtuse to understand it.

    You're exactly right. He's denying the validity of normative ethics using arguments predicated on the validity of normative ethics.

    redefining rights such that they only matter when the government decides what they are,

    Since he is a true state worshiping fascist if ever there was one. He is a rationalizer of atrocious crimes, it's just what he does.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Certain rights are declared to be innate so they exist independent of an organization like the government or the church. Innate rights are axioms that allow us to create self consistent laws (theorems). Without an axiomatic foundation, a self consistent set of laws is impossible.

    Maybe that's why Progs reject axiomatic principles of governance. Gives them the wiggle room to insert whimsy, fiat, and generally do what ever the fuck they want when they want.

  • Brian||

    I just think it's bizarre when they try to reject the concepts of rights altogether (as you say, who wants the restriction on the wiggle room), and then they go on long lectures about how wrong it is to pollute, how wrong it is to be a racist, how wrong it is to be a bigot, how wrong it is not to tax people to help insert group here, etc. But then, start talking about the government doing something wrong, and they suddenly start debating the validity of the concept of wrong itself.

    They constantly use the language of moral lecturing, right up until the ethical sunlight starts shining on themselves, in which case, it suddenly and surprisingly stops existing. Go figure.

  • Free Society||

    It's grade A sophistry in defense of the state.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    They *should* have had a right to life. They clearly didn't.


    Aaaand... he's back to his old, ridiculous self.

    Tony, rights are not laws of physics. They're moral principles that allow people to live together, based on truths that are self-evident, for instance: your life is not someone else's. If YOU tell me that you need a PHYSICAL barrier to stop YOU from murdering someone, then I feel sorry for your neighbors.

    If you want to disregard and dismiss reason, go ahead. But at least say you are, so people here stop wasting their time with you.

  • angus||

    A massive, immeasurably large grey area lies between the potential non-existence natural rights and the wholesale slaughter of everybody.

    But (since this is the internet where inane black/white arguments rule and we are not neighbours) if all that is holding YOU back is INTERNAL reasoning stopping YOU from murdering someone, then I feel sorry for your neighbours.

  • Tony||

    You must be careful with the word "self-evident." It has a strict epistemological meaning, and otherwise you should just say "evident." Some thinkers with whom I sympathize do not believe any proposition is "self-evident." The fact that my life isn't someone else's is clearly one of these things that isn't. Some people have--conventionally and legally--literally belonged to other people. So that can't always be true.

    People who talk about things as self-evident haven't thought deeply enough.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Some thinkers with whom I sympathize do not believe any proposition is "self-evident."

    Those aren't thinkers, rent-boy. They're just sophists, doing what sophists do: concocting half-assed excuses for violence.

    -jcr

  • Free Society||

    You must be careful with the word "self-evident."

    The badness of certain actions towards other people is indeed self-evident.

    The fact that my life isn't someone else's is clearly one of these things that isn't.

    But who should be the owner of you? If you give any answer other than you yourself should be the owner, and you try to apply that rule universally to all humans and you see that it is logically impossible and in fact absurd, for everyone to be a slave to everyone else.

    Some people have--conventionally and legally--literally belonged to other people. So that can't always be true.

    If those slaves didn't have a right to self-ownership, then slavery is not a bad thing. It wouldn't be injustice to enslave people if they didn't have some right to self-ownership.

  • Tony||

    Can you guys not tell whether something is bad just by looking at it and seeing people suffering? Does it have to pass through a flimsy philosophical word game?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Can you guys not tell whether something is bad just by looking at it and seeing people suffering? Does it have to pass through a flimsy philosophical word game?

    Yes, we can. That's why we don't hand wave the entire idea away with simplistic, stupid notions like "rights are whatever government says they are." That's a redefinition of rights, which is precisely described by the phrase "word game", as well as "quibbling, semantic bullshit."

  • Free Society||

    Can you guys not tell whether something is bad just by looking at it and seeing people suffering? Does it have to pass through a flimsy philosophical word game?

    Word gaming is precisely what you are doing. If you can tell it's bad just by looking at it then you just acknowledged the innateness of ethical norms.

    You redefining 'rights' as the arbitrary whims of authority figures is the flimsiest of word games. Your game is undeserving of being described as "philosophical" however. 'Sophistry' better describes what you do.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    They *should* have had a right to life. They clearly didn't. And you saying so isn't going to retroactively save a single Jewish life, is it?

    I'm saying that your concept of "*should* have had a right" is identical to practically every reasonable person's concept of "rights", making your entire attempt to avoid recognizing rights outside of government equal to semantic, word game, quibbling bullshit.

  • Tony||

    I'm not the one who brings this subject up, so I'm not the one doing the quibbling. I find it tedious--though sometimes libertarians do need to be set right that they aren't the only school of thought ever to have discovered the universal and immutable set of rights people possess.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    I'm not the one who brings this subject up, so I'm not the one doing the quibbling.

    quib·ble: argue or raise objections about a trivial matter.

    What part of bringing a subject up is required for engaging in quibbling? I thought you were a liberal arts major. Shouldn't you know what words mean?

    sometimes libertarians do need to be set right that they aren't the only school of thought ever to have discovered the universal and immutable set of rights people possess.


    Your point escapes me. Almost completely incoherent.

  • angus||

    You are right. And by lowering the evidentiary standard of sexual assault it is likely that this will lead to a reduction in penalty for what is currently deemed to be sexual assault. There does not appear to be scope for differentiating between rape (of not obtaining total informed consent) and forcible rape.

    Under the new law to hold someone down and violate them; or provide them with untrue information pertaining to the nature of long term relationship will be equally rapey.

  • Mark22||

    Dalmia, however, misses the point of both by insisting that the onus remain on the would-be victim to prevent rape

    We convict people if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Logically, it follows that if crimes are committed in contexts where it is impossible to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they can't be convicted. That's why it is prudent not to go into such contexts.

    Furthermore, this particular behavior, namely getting drunk, is one that really isn't something society should encourage. Now, prohibition clearly doesn't work, but there is no reason the law should go out of its way to protect people who make bad choices, like drinking too much alcohol.

    Therefore, yes, the onus in this case remains on women: don't drink too much and don't go to some remote place with a guy you don't trust. It's the same onus that remains on men in other contexts. Learn to live with it.

  • OldMexican||

    What's truly ugly is accepting totalitarian notions of justice to address a problem that is nowhere near as rampant as the proponents of "yes means yes" laws claim any problem that strikes their fancy.


    There. More accurate.

  • Rev-Match||

    Damn, should have read the comments before posting.

  • Rev-Match||

    What's truly ugly is accepting totalitarian notions of justice to address a problem that is nowhere near as rampant as the proponents of "yes means yes" laws claim.

  • wareagle||

    and Orwell's junior anti-sex league comes to life.

  • XM||

    I thought the guy in the picture had men boobs and the girl was on top him, holy cow.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Shikha writes:
    Liberal backers of feminists seem to be trading their long-cherished principle that the "ends don't justify the means" for the battle cry of "by any means necessary."

    ????

    "By any means necessary" has always been the Progressive Theocracy's modus operandi. Naked force for the Cause.

  • Richard Fitzwell||

    One. In. Five. ?

    If any other business in the US harmed 20% of their female clientele the government would seize all assets and jail CEOs.

    Why is our government promoting, nay even providing loan money, to young Adult women and men to attend these putrid pools of disrepute? Does the government want Our Girls to suffer these disgraceful attacks?

    Shut. Down. The. College. Rape. Factories.

    #ShutDowntheRapeFactories

    http://wp.me/p31sf8-1cC

  • toadboy65||

    You did not discuss the funding aspect of this. There is a lot of money to be made in victim's advocacy programs, counseling, and no doubt rape prevention technology, like putting call boxes and cameras everywhere. The size of and urgency in implementing such programs is based on the one in four number, which also means that rape is more prevalent on US colleges than it was in wartime Rwanda.

  • Mark22||

    The left's [and right's] creeping totalitarianism

    FTFY, and you can stop there.

  • msimmons||

    The 1 in 5 faux-tistic supports the broader faux war on women. Sell the lie to soft-skulled yutes who will carry it forward to the day they become "journalists" or politicians or teachers and school administrators themselves.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online