Free Minds & Free Markets

How the Government Stole Sex

Screw morality—the state is now intervening in American bedrooms under the mantle of stopping sex discrimination.

modified from UNO&TOU/Flickrmodified from UNO&TOU/FlickrFornication. Sodomy. Adultery. Not so long ago, the U.S. criminalized pretty much all sex outside of marriage. As these laws have been struck down by courts or allowed to settle into obsolescence, it would seem that sexual liberty has been vindicated as an important American value. But while the courts have been busy ushering the government out of our bedrooms, it's been creeping right back in under new pretenses. Gone is the language of morals, tradition, and order—the state now intervenes in our sex lives bearing the mantles of safety, exploitation, and sex discrimination. 

"We are living in a new sex bureaucracy," warn Harvard Law School professors Jacob Gersen and Jeannie Suk in an upcoming paper for the California Law Review. Contra court decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas—which decriminalized sodomy in Georgia and affirmed a constitutional right to sexual privacy—"the space of sex" is still "thoroughly regulated" in America, they write. And "the bureaucracy dedicated to that regulation of sex is growing. It operates largely apart from criminal enforcement, but its actions are inseparable from criminal overtones and implications."

Gersen and Suk's paper, titled "Bureaucratic Sex Creep," is mostly focused on federal overreach with regard to colleges and student sex lives, though they say this is only one realm of such regulatory creep. In great detail, the authors trace the roots of how the feds came to be in the business of encouraging "enthusiastic" sexual communication between teenagers and how everything from forcible rape to unwelcome comments between students became the prerogative of Washington paper-pushers and campus "Title IX coordinators." This "bureaucratic turn" may be "counterproductive to the goal of actually addressing the harms of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment," they warn, while also depriving due process to the accused and encouraging bizarre new sexual norms overall. 

The All-Purpose Title IX

When President Richard Nixon signed the Educational Amendments of 1972, thereby unleashing Title IX upon the country, women were still up against some seriously discriminatory practices by U.S. universities. At the University of Virginia, for instance, women were totally excluded from enrolling in the College of Arts and Sciences until 1970. At Georgetown University, married women were barred from attending the school's nursing program. Title IX, which said that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance," was concocted as a remedy for such institutionalized discrimination. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has described Title IX as "conditioning an offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate." Under the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 (which was passed despite President Ronald Reagan's veto), all schools receiving any federal financial assistance, whether directly or indirectly, were declared to be bound by Title IX.

By the mid-1970s, the conversation about Title IX and its enforcement largely centered on the elimination of sex discrimination in school athletics programs. This remained a major focus of the law's enforcement throughout the 1990s.

Yet eventually, "grievance procedures initially required ... to ensure that individuals would have a place to complain about a school’s discrimination have today become a lever by which the federal bureaucracy monitors schools’ policies and procedures regulating sexual behavior," write Gersen and Suk in their paper. "How did this come to pass?" It turns on the concept of a "hostile environment." In the 1990s, for a variety of reasons, schools came to understand sexual harassment to be a form of sex discrimination, under the theory that it could make the educational environment "hostile" to the person being harassed. 

"The concept of a 'hostile environment' that the school had a responsibility to correct, then, enabled Title IX—a command to schools not to discriminate—to reach not only the conduct of the school and its agents, but also student conduct," Gersen and Suk explain. Colleges started "recast(ing) the grievance procedures as a forum for schools to hear complaints about harassing conduct by students" toward other students. 

In recent years, the understanding of school obligations under Title IX has morphed again. In 2011, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR)—the arm of the Department of Education tasked with Title IX upkeep—started including "sexual violence" as a form of sexual discrimination. Until this time, schools handled sexual violence in a variety of ways, with some encouraging students to go directly to police and others more reliant on their own administrative proceedings. But whatever tack schools took, the issue of student-on-student sexual violence was not seen as one related to sex discrimination and Title IX compliance. In issuing compliance guidance to the University of Montana in 2011, however, the OCR stated that any sexual misconduct investigations and disciplinary actions "must meet the Title IX requirement of affording a complainant a prompt and equitable resolution." The guidance made explicit "that a school’s discipline process for sexual assault is regulated by OCR’s interpretations of Title IX," write Gersen and Suk.

"This is a very significant, even fundamental, shift in OCR’s position. 

As recently as 2005, OCR stated to a school that it 'was under no obligation to conduct an independent investigation of an allegation of sexual assault if it 'involved a possible violation of the penal law, the determination of which is the exclusive province of the police and the office of the district attorney.'"

Blurred Lines & Bureaucratic Immunity

"Between 1972 and 2011, a statutory ban on discrimination was transformed into a bureaucratic structure consisting of policies, procedures, and organizational forms that regulate sexual conduct," state Gersen and Suk plainly. If adjudicating student sexual misconduct was essential for schools to be Title IX compliant, than OCR suddenly had a new realm to play in: micromanaging and monitoring this adjudication progress.

To this end, the OCR began offering its own definitions of things like sexual harassment, sexual violence, and affirmative consent and strong-arming schools into accepting these definitions as their own. But the definitions leave much to be desired. If you've read any critiques of campus sexual assault stats in the past few years, you probably know that much research in this area if plagued by vague and confusing definitions and conflation of everything from "unwelcome comments about appearance" to violent sexual assault. (You can find some of my previous critiques of this here, here, and here.)

The root of the confusion lies in federal government guidance. For instance, here's a definition the White House offered universities in a model survey on campus sexual violence:

Sexual violence refers to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient and include remarks about physical appearance; persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient; unwanted touching; and unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration. These behaviors could be initiated by someone known or unknown to the recipient, including someone they are in a relationship with.

As Gersen and Suk note, "the public debate about Title IX and sexual assault on college campuses gives the impression that the target of this bureaucracy is sexual violence: that is, rape and sexual assault." But the federal government's concept of sexual violence has expanded to include all "unrequested conduct of a sexual nature that is regarded by someone as undesirable."

"These are significant shifts in legal and social understandings," write Gersen and Suk. "The broader the class of conduct that is regulated in the name of regulating sexual violence as a form of sex discrimination, the larger the footprint of the growing sex bureaucracy." 

Meanwhile, the federal sex bureaucracy has also found a way to insulate its actions from normal channels of scrutiny.

The 2011 OCR guidance, which came in the form of a "dear colleague letter," was not necessarily binding. But "because the threat of lost federal funds [for non-compliance with Title IX regulations] is a big stick to wield, and because the political climate makes being seen as not opposing sexual violence a public relations nightmare, all universities have complied rather than challenge OCR's actions even administratively, much less in litigation," Gersen and Suk note.

"As a result, the agency achieved complete compliance with its nonbinding guidance document without ever having to defend its reasoning through public comments or judicial review."

Had the OCR gone through the normal rule-issuing process, "unfair aspects could be challenged as a violation of due process requirements of the federal Constitution or as arbitrary and capricious," the Harvard law professors explain.

But when a private institution adopts the very same procedures, there is no federal due process claim because it is not the government acting, nor is there an [Administrative Procedure Act] claim to be made. There is a plausible argument that the government’s defunding threat coerces adoption of its preferred procedures and therefore constitutes state action to which due process requirements attach. But as of this date, this claim has not succeeded in court. Thus, the off-loading of government responsibility to new mini-bureaucracies inside schools has made it difficult to subject the federal sex bureaucracy to judicial scrutiny.

Department of Sex Pre-Crime

Under the OCR's 21st century interpretation of Title IX, it is no longer enough for schools to avoid institutionalized sex discrimination.

"OCR now says that compliance with Title IX requires schools to put in place measures that 'may bring potentially problematic conduct to the school’s attention before it becomes serious enough to create a hostile environment,'" Gersen and Suk explain in their paper. "Compliance is not merely about putting an end to a hostile environment but also about anticipating and ferreting out 'problematic conduct' that has not yet developed to the level of hostile environment."

In order to meet these demands, schools have been 1) hiring more Title IX coordinators and creating dedicated Title IX compliance offices, 2) pouncing on every Title IX complaint by students, no matter how unfounded, with utmost seriousness, and 3) talking to students a lot about how they should be having sex. 

With the first response, "the sex bureaucracy has managed to plant seeds of its own replication within the parties it regulates," write Gersen and Suk, "and the plants are blossoming." The Association of Title IX administrators now has more than 1,400 members.

"In essence, these are privately administered bureaucracies mandated by the federal bureaucracy, deciding liability for sexual conduct that is called criminal but may not be even a civil wrong. Thousands of these mini-bureaucracies now exist," they point out, "occupying an uneasy space between the criminal and the administrative."

This has serious implications for academic freedom, as many U.S. professors have recently found out. The quintessential case is Laura Kipnis, a Northwestern University professor whose Chronicle of Higher Education article criticizing Title IX was itself reported as a possible violation of Title IX; other professors who stuck up for Kipnis also found themselves under scrutiny. But many such instances exist—for more examples, see this recent report from the American Association of University Professors. Given the broad new definitions of sexual of harassment and schools' uber-sensitivity to Title IX compliance, we have both professors and students under investigation for conduct that most people wouldn't blink an eye about. We also have college administrators eager to nip potential claims off at the bud by prescribing to students good sexual etiquette.

Again, OCR has offered guidance here, suggesting that schools address "risk factors" for sexual violence including exposure to pornography, having non-consensual sexual fantasies, or having a "preference for impersonal sex." What this means is that "the federal government requires schools to be involved in constructing sexual norms and putting a stamp of disapproval on sexual practices like impersonal sex, pornography consumption, and sexual fantasies," Gersen and Suk note. 

The feds also require schools to engage in "bystander intervention" training programs. The White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault explains that sexual bystanders "are a key piece of prevention work." But by bystanders, the government doesn't mean people who actually witness sexual assaults in action or about to occur. Rather, these programs are focused on teaching students about alleged signs that someone is in a risky relationship or that someone may hold sexual attitudes that make them more likely to commit sexual violence, and then encouraging these students to intervene in some way.

"Bystander intervention programs," write Gersen and Suk, "seek to produce the sense that we are all implicated in the sexual environment and in proto-sexual interactions taking place around us. Responsibility for the potential sexual interactions surrounding us belongs to us all. There are no innocent bystanders, and perhaps no fully innocent interactions, because non-problematic sexual behaviors can become problematic. We all must monitor the sexual environment to see if we can investigate and intervene. We are all part of the sex bureaucracy."

Shaping Sexual Norms

Most of us probably wouldn't classify a single unwanted kiss, caress, or remark as sexual assault. But these are included in many modern reports about sexual violence at college, thanks to definitions and model "campus climate" surveys provided by the White House. In spreading these definitions, the government doesn't just ensure that we get surveys showing epidemic levels of sexual violence on campus but also helps shape young people's sexual views. 

"To the extent that sexual climate surveys educate students about what (the surveyor or government believes) sexual misconduct is," write Gersen and Suk, "these instruments are another part of the sexual education and reform program, altering (not merely measuring) understandings about what sex is ordinary and what sex is misconduct. The survey pushes these understandings in a particular direction—toward more expansive definitions of sexual violence."

The professors suggest that the federal bureaucracy's concept of sexual violence echoes that of second wave feminist Catharine MacKinnon, who said in 1987: "Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated."

The American Association of Universities (AAU) adopted definitions similar to those used by the White House when conducting a large 2015 study on sexual violence at U.S. universities. But the language of the survey jumps back and forth between non-consensual and unwanted frequently when describing sexual misconduct, eliciting the idea that sexual violence turns not on any objective actions on the part of the "perpetrator" or the "victim" but on how the latter feels about it deep in his or her heart.

In both the White House and the AAU surveys, "'unwanted simply becomes the marker of sexual violence," Gersen and Suk write.

Consent, as a word and as a concept, fades. In terms of data reliability, treating these terms in the same breath has the effect of measuring the incidence as an aggregation of nonconsensual and unwanted sexual contact. More importantly, it contributes to individual and ultimately social understandings that unwanted is the same thing as nonconsensual—that we should feel similarly about unwanted sexual contact and nonconsensual sexual contact.

"We have seen notions of nonconsent transform rapidly, from traditional criminal notions of overcoming resistance and acting against someone’s will, to regulatory notions of a lack of affirmative agreement, to unwantedness and undesirability," point out the Harvard Law professors. "The consent line moves further with each crop of students across the country taught that they should seek not just agreement to engage in sex but also enthusiasm and excitement." 

To try and quash ambiguity, schools and advocacy organizations began stressing to students that a lack of resistance or objection cannot be counted as consent. As this idea gained traction, people began suggesting that out of an abundance of caution, it wasn't enough not to hear a no from a partner, one should focus on obtaining an affirmative (verbal or otherwise) indication of agreement. "Only yes means yes."

But it turned out this didn't change much—students are still super confused about consent (in one study, half of MIT students said it's possible to "accidentally" rape someone). And students were still reporting to schools incidents where one believed the other had indicated agreement and the other did not. So the new line became "enthusiastic" consent.  Now students are told that it's not enough for a partner to indicate that something is OK or merely say yes meekly. Now, the consent must be "enthusiastic," "excited," etc.

"Very rapidly," point out Suk and Gersen, "the consent line shifted again in many places to make enthusiasm a requirement of consent itself—anything less than enthusiasm is sexual assault. At each point, an attempt to remain a healthy distance from the cliff’s edge results in a change in where the cliff is." With the blurring of the definitions of consent and sexual violence, there's now "a significant disconnect between the current discussions in our country about the epidemic of campus rape" and the activity that is "now routinely investigated as sexual misconduct," Gersen and Suk conclude. 

Photo Credit: modified from UNO&TOU/Flickr

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That is how properly conduct a thorough examination for deer ticks.

  • Mustang||

    Bureaucratic Sex Creep

    Best band name, or best band name EVER?

  • Rich||

    "With Slick Willy on sex, uh, SAX!"

  • Mr Lizard||

    First hit single "vaginal paper cuts"

  • Glide||

    I was thinking more like the worst superhero name ever.

  • Strelnikov||

    Worst bedtime story, ever.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Back in my day we lit a candle and took back the night.

  • R C Dean||

    Will these abstract euphemisms for maturation never end?

  • ||

    That's very mature of you.

  • Strelnikov||


  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Title IX is now fully weaponized, as many anti-discrimination laws become. This one now gives ladies carte blanche to define in the eyes of the law the context of any relationship, real or imagined. The mass fever pitch will eventually subside, but only when a new weapon is found. In the meantime, there's little hope for the lads who find themselves targeted.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    The sad thing is most people won't be interested or care, but the office of civil rights & Title IX are just such a perfect case study for the kind of bureaucratic and legislative mission creep that happens constantly in the federal government.

  • Jerryskids||

    HA! - Just as I was posting my comment, you and your "mission creep" pop up here. Mission creep is a feature, not a bug.

  • retiredfire||

    And what has been the basis for such creep?
    Yep, the interpretation found to have come from the odious 14th amendment, written as a stick-in-the-eye for former Confederacy supporters, that has turned the Constitution on its head.
    The overriding concern, with the enactment of laws, used to be if there was a compelling public interest in infringing on the people's liberty.
    Since the statists have discovered the ability to use the 14th, all that seems to be a concern is if a law can be applied "equally", though equality is a situation that is impossible in human interaction.
    For the first hundred years of that amendment's existence, it was not used this way but around the time there was no one left to remember why it was enacted, it became the weapon for tearing down this, formerly, free nation.

  • ||

    Government is the natural home for sadistic control freak busybodies; it draws them like flies. The bigger the government gets--and it just keeps getting bigger--the more of this we will get.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It's exiting!

  • Mustang||

    No, it's not. That's the problem.

  • Jerryskids||

    This "bureaucratic turn" may be "counterproductive to the goal of actually addressing the harms of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment," they warn, while also depriving due process to the accused and encouraging bizarre new sexual norms overall.

    I keep trying to tell you, the primary goal of any organization is to grow the organization and where the secondary goals - the stated goals of the organization - conflict with the primary goal, the secondary goals lose out. "Mission creep" - a process whereby the organization expands its activities to the point where it is so busy doing other things that it can no longer adequately perform its intended purpose - isn't a bug of the system, its a feature. You can study and issue findings all you want about how the non-essential functions of a bureaucracy interfere with its primary function but as long as you continue to believe the primary function is something other than growing the bureaucracy, you're wrong and you're wrong because you don't understand what the primary function is.

  • ||

    Incentives, incentives, incentives. What are the incentives for government/bureaucracy? To grow. All other considerations are secondary. Since it is monopolistic, there is no reason to do a good job or be efficient or please the "customers". Its only incentive is to grow and parasite more. And so it does.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    The only thing a bureaucracy does well is feed itself.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I have a solution that will put an end to all of the issues raised in this thoroughly depressing article: ban sex.

    I know I sound just like another shill for Big Wank, but if we all got together and promised to stay pure, it would work.

  • ||

    Or we could just tax it.

  • Rich||


    "Withholding before withdrawal!"

  • W. Chipper Dove||

    "Now raise your right hand, unless it's otherwise occupied...."

  • dantheserene||

    Don't you mean *pull* together?

  • Cute Little Bunny Rabbit||

    +1 cumfiscation

  • The Last American Hero||

    Does this mean the piping hot chicks on the school's dance squad are going to have to start putting out for the Beta Males now? I mean, those dudes have been facing sex discrimination on college campuses for a long time now.

  • DesigNate||

    No because even those "Beta Males" (we just called them nerds back in my day) are part of the patriarchy and therefore have all the power. Because reasons.

  • ||

    The American Association of Universities (AAU) adopted definitions similar to those used by the White House when conducting a large 2015 study on sexual violence at U.S. universities. But the language of the survey jumps back and forth between non-consensual and unwanted frequently when describing sexual misconduct, eliciting the idea that sexual violence turns not on any subjective actions on the part of the "perpetrator" or the "victim" but on how the latter feels about it deep in his or her heart.

    I think you mean objective, as subjective is what you are contrasting it with.

  • Elizabeth Nolan Brown||

    yep! thanks for pointing out

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Citizen X||

    You owe me a new keyboard that does NOT have coffee in it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok, here.

  • But Enough About Me||

    "Ewwwwwww, *gross*!

    /teenage niece

  • robc||

    At least thw right wing nannies werent vague in their laws.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    At the University of Virginia, for instance, women were totally excluded from enrolling in the College of Arts and Sciences until 1970. At Georgetown University, married women were barred from attending the school's nursing program.

    I have it on firmest authority that if only women were subjected to gender-based harassment and discrimination, like men, then they would understand why gender-based harassment and discrimination were wrong and make it stop.

  • kbolino||

    I would say they did learn it. That was the first generation. They taught it to their children, who mostly agreed but didn't really care. That was the second generation. They didn't really teach it to their children. That's whose attending college now.

  • kbolino||


  • Hamster of Doom||

    Truth. Now filter that through the irony of men who think this is a valid point.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    If nursing back then was like teaching, then suspect that it was the single nurses who pressured for a ban on married nurses. Certainly in the teaching context, many teachers' unions used to see teaching as a jobs programs for their single-lady members, and in that sense it was unfair to hire married teachers who already has husbands to support them. If a married teacher happened to be good at teaching kids, that was a strictly secondary, or tertiary, or "why are you even bringing that up" consideration.

  • MaleMatters||

    Yes. Glad you brought this up. The discrimination against married women was discrimination FOR single women.

  • R C Dean||

    At the University of Virginia, for instance, women were totally excluded from enrolling in the College of Arts and Sciences until 1970.

    Fifty-six (56) years ago. Almost as long as the period between the Constitutional Convention and the Civil War. More than twice as long as the period between the First and Second World Wars. I doubt there is a single person at UVA today who worked there in 1970.

    Relevance to today's problems? Zero.

  • dantheserene||

    That's actually 46 years, but I don't want to impede your roll.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    We'd probably make some progress if these nerds pissed off, amiright?

  • ebohlman||

    It was only 29 years after the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

  • John||

    If you operate on the assumption that all men are potential rapists and women in constant danger of harassment and sexual assault whenever they are around men, then isn't the solution to adopt strict separation of the sexes similar to what Islamic society's do? Western feminists have traditionally proposed punishing and restricting men in hopes of getting them to change their nature as a way to combat this problem. If you take western feminists at their word, this approach clearly hasn't worked. So, isn't it time to try the other approach?

    I wonder how long it will be before western feminists get crazy enough to advocate such a thing.

  • Notorious UGCC||

    It will probably get done in the name of "we must accommodate these Muslim immigrants, and you're not a *bigot* like Donald Trump, are you?"

    So we'll get public swimming pools sex-segregated during certain hours, "you go girl" affirmations of women who "choose" to wear burkas, and turning the other way in response to evidence that women are being coerced into sharia-compliant behavior.

  • John||

    If it is up to the Progs, that is exactly what we will get. We will also get gays being told to go back into the closet in the name of sensitivity to Muslims. That is what is happening in Europe. Violence against gays by Muslims is something that polite people in Europe don't talk about.

  • Eman||

    ooh, I dunno about that (gay "rights" taking second place), but taken to it's logical extreme isn't the smallest unit you can divide people into an individual? how are we (as a society, I mean) going to deal with getting to that point, where you might actually have to respect individuals as autonomous beings? yuck

  • R C Dean||

    The Euros are already starting to run women-only trains. Sharia through the back door, so to speak.

  • toolkien||

  • Vernon Depner||

    Where have you been? There's been a separatist wing in feminism since the '70s.

  • ||

    Radicals may be wrong (as feminists are), but they usually are more consistent. Take sex-positive feminists: being sexually submissive: great ("it's actually power!" [but we're not making that power part of the calculation of patriarchy]); being "domestically submissive" (sandwiches): evil. They refrain from being radical (and consistent) because they prefer that kind of sex.

  • ||

    John: Segregation logical.

    Someone would think so. But they are playing princess.* They want dominant men (including initiating things, not commonly ruling over them), and to be desired and pursued (a narcissistic... touch [of association]). Yet their "philosophy", a less than coherent body of thought, and some other part of themselves, wants to be equal and the same. The matter, unsurprisingly, ends in confusion and arbitrariness. It gets the funniest when "belief feminists" handle "victim blaming" and pretend play that there is no "wrong reaction" to sexual assault. There they field frequent instances of women who made their "rapist" breakfast the next morning, who had sex with him again, and who felt romantically attached. Evidence of the absence of wrongdoing becomes evidence of wrongdoing. It's victim claiming, princess-privilege gaining, and actual victimizing of others (men). (In passing: "Damocles sex". Note that it can be sexy. Danger, transgression, desire, power.)

  • ||

    Part 2:

    There's an interesting parallel, men are not as easily offended, and not as vindictive as women [Benenson, Human Nature]): "Not only can boys and men engage in friendly but serious competition without destroying their friendship, but they can even try to kill one another, then make up later." Men compete against each other for status, resources, and women (interference competition. But they also need each other to fight other groups of men. This comes down to a sort of "valuable relationships hypothesis", and the corresponding disposition to reconcile. If the relationship with a particular (kind of) man is a valuable one, having sex with him again would be a female form of reconciliation. This is relevant to having more sex with a "rapist"; The question being, what makes him - and the relationship - valuable, and what implications does it have for the original "rape", and, by extension, for rape phantasies?

    (If convenient, I may add data on "getting romantic with one's rapist", which I don't have access to, at the moment.) *Not all women play princess. Of those who do, not all do it badly.

  • John||

    Feminists more than anything deny human nature and pretend that all the differences between men and women are social constructs. This is of course absurd. I think believing in this absurdity is what drives them crazy.

  • MaleMatters||

    May I recommend:

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

  • Notorious UGCC||

    For all practical purposes, prog slogans about "sexual autonomy and dignity" translate to "tearing down sexual standards we don't like (that is, the standards which tend to make for a better civilization), while forcing new sexual standards on everyone, especially including people who don't like them."

  • Hamster of Doom||

    (that is, the standards which tend to make for a better civilization)
  • Notorious UGCC||

    preach it!

  • ||

    Sexual violence refers to a range of behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient and include remarks about physical appearance; persistent sexual advances that are undesired by the recipient; unwanted touching; and unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration or attempted penetration.

    How depressing that not a single one of those actions contains an element of...violence. When words mean whatever the government wants they mean nothing. But then that's the whole point.

  • Dr. Mister||

    Unwanted penetration is definitely violence, and arguably unwanted touching as well.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Look, I don't care how deep the government gets into the bedroom as long as whatever I believe in isn't hampered.

  • wspackman||

    I'm baffled about what evolutionary force could explain our gradual move away from coupled sexual conduct. Is it perhaps a compliment to the advancements we are making in technology and biological science? The data points are pretty compelling:
    * age of puberty is falling
    * age of childbearing is increasing
    * age of first intercourse is rising
    * technology aided sexual [removed]apps, sexting, pornography) is rising
    * bio-engineering embryos is advancing

    Maybe it's all okay - evolutionary naturally tend to work to a species advantage after all. Here's a great article on how sexting is creating a new, safe way for people to explore their developing sexuality with better control and safety. (https://theconversation. com/how-sexting-is-creating-a- safe-space-for-curious-millennials-56453).

    Nevertheless, we are destroying a lot of lives in the process. Regulating sexual conduct is volatile enough but the fact that its being regulated both through criminalization and social demonization is a shame - particularly when it comes to biologically natural adolescent sexuality.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    I'm baffled about what evolutionary force could explain our gradual move away from coupled sexual conduct.

    High population densities, low child mortality rates, and low risk from predators.

  • Pat (PM)||

    We also have college administrators eager to nip potential claims off at the bud by proscribing to students good sexual etiquette.

    Nearly certain you meant "prescribing". To proscribe is to forbid.

  • Pat (PM)||


    But b bystanders, the government doesn't mean people who actually witness sexual assaults in action or about to occur.

    You forgot the "y" in "by" before "bystanders".

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    I'm so thankful that The Left drove Social Conservatives out of my bedroom.....
    now, if I could only get rid of The Left.
    I asked my friend Fiona Glenanne if she had any suggestions, and she just asked if we could shoot them.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    +1 reference I understood

  • MaleMatters||

    Good -- and scary -- commentary.

    This is part of liberals' war on men, all the while proclaiming there is a war on women.

    Re: "Most of us probably wouldn't classify a single unwanted kiss, caress, or remark as sexual assault. But these are included in many modern reports about sexual violence at college"

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

    This may be the most thorough analysis you can find of what I think is the sexes' most alienating and destructive behavioral difference. I believe this difference creates much of what has come to be called sexual assault of women.

    You can't say men want more sex than women do. You can only say they pursue it more. While women generally pursue it less, they may desire it as much as men. The above explains it.

    Men may have to go on strike.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Men may have to go on strike.

    Kind of like Lysistrata in reverse? Or maybe just gayness all around?

  • Strelnikov||

    Better title for the paper: Bureaucratic Sex CreepS".

  • Eman||

    more bureaucrats involved in my sex life? kinky. I wonder what kind of person a job like that would appeal to.

  • Brian||

    Personally, I miss the days when playing with my lady friend was also a big middle finger to the state.

  • uunderstand||

    Big Middle Finger. Now that's the best name for a band ever.

  • prurisejun||

    Part time and full time free online jobs ,my unkel makes $45 /hr on the computer . He has been out of work for 4 months but last month her pay check was $4510 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    Its original & new site...visited Here...AXC0117


  • D. M. Michell||

    Government interference with sex, sexual choices, and any and all non-violent, non-coercive, consensual adult sexual behavior is based on religious and person moral beliefs (which are the same as religion) and therefore should be banned by the Constitution's Establishment Clause as the laws and regulations are tantamount to establishing some people's moral/religious beliefs on others who do not subscribe to those beliefs/religions.

  • Somebody else||

    "such as Lawrence v. Texas—which decriminalized sodomy in Georgia and affirmed a constitutional right to sexual privacy"

    I think it might have been Texas, not Georgia.

  • josh||

    "how the government stole sex"

    i was wondering where it went...

  • Hank Phillips||

    Was this the same Richard Nixon who passed the anti-libertarian campaign subsidies law within 24 hours of the LP forming? And wasn't 1972 the year of the first Libertarian Party Platform? Funny how the specter of competition shifts both the nationalsocialist and fascist parties into high gear for suddenly changing the law. All anyone need to is cast a spoiler vote for the LP platform and candidates and those looters will--as always--scramble to throw bureaucracies under the bus to keep their own hands in the till.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: How the Government Stole Sex

    1. Is this anything like, "How the Grinch Stole Christmas?"

    2. Sex and fun is not for the unwashed masses here in the Union of Soviet Socialist Slave States of America. Those are for our obvious betters enslaving us.

    3. The little people in this country has sex everyday. Those enslaving us fuck us every day.


    Before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here ...

    Clik This Link inYour Browser

  • loisperez12345||

    Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link……

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…


  • susanlong0001||

    til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ....

    Click This Link inYour Browser....



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