MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Vanessa Grigoriadis on the 'Blurred Lines' of Consensual Sex and Assault on Campus

Is rape culture out of control, or have we entered a new era of "sexual McCarthyism?"

"Young women are really putting their foot down and saying, 'These are our bodies,'" says Vanessa Grigoriadis, author of the new book, Blurred Lines: Rethinking Sex, Power, and Consent on Campus. "'We don't care what you, 55-year-old college president, think is consent.'"

From the conviction of Vanderbilt University football players for raping an unconscious student to the he-said-she-said story behind Columbia University's "mattress girl" to the discredited Rolling Stone account of a gang rape at the University of Virginia, few topics generate more emotion and outrage than sexual assault on college campuses.

Grigoriadis's book is a deeply researched and nuanced take on campus relationships and the often-fuzzy boundary separating consensual sex from assault. Over the past three years, she interviewed over 100 students and 80 administrators on 20 different campuses, and her findings further complicate an already complicated story.

Millennial college students are actually having less sex than their baby boomer and Gen X counterparts did, writes Grigoriadis, but today's encounters take place in a hyper-sexualized and "pornified" social media context that has rewritten the rules of consent and privacy.

The result is confusion and recriminations from all sides when it comes to sex and assault on campuses. Are assault rates and rape culture out of control, or have we entered what left-wing Northwestern Professor Laura Kipnis has called a new era of "sexual McCarthyism?"

In a wide-ranging interview, Reason's Nick Gillespie and Grigoriadis, a National Magazine Award-winning journalist who writes for Vanity Fair and The New York Times Magazine, grapple with this question, the proper role of campus tribunals in administering justice, what constitutes due process for alleged offenders as well as victims, and whether a "yes means yes" affirmative-consent standard should be the norm.

Edited by Justin Monticello. Cameras by Jim Epstein and Andrew Heaton. Music by Silent Partner.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

This is a rush transcript. Check all quotes against the audio for accuracy.

Gillespie: Your book is not only richly reported, it's filled with interviews with dozens, if not hundreds of students, administrators, researchers ... It's a deeply nuanced look as a subject that typically evokes really sharply polarized positions. But you write, 'It's tempting to chant "believe woman" and simply leave it at that, but there's a mushy middle here or a blurry middle.' Describe what you mean by that mushy middle or blurry middle.

Grigoriadis: I went to 20 campuses. I talked to students themselves, tried to interact as a peer, not as an adult coming, asking weird intrusive questions, right? I'm kind of a gonzo journalist out of the Rolling Stone mold. I put on a backpack, I look relatively young, not like a gen X mother of two, which is what I actually am. And went to campus food courts, went to frat parties ... I took my babysitter's ID, she's 24-years-old. So I would take that with me to campuses so I could show that to bouncers at college bars, and at frat parties to get in, so that the person wouldn't think that I was using the worst fake ID in the world of my actual age in the 1970s.

So, I spoke with these students and what I learned is, yes, of course, there is rape on campus. And I'm talking about physically violent rape, where a woman's will is overridden, and also, rape of women and men who are passed out from drinking, right? Almost like a necrophilia kind of thing. It's really repulsive. But much more often, what I was finding is people, kids, talking to me about cases that were blurry. And they weren't blurry in terms of the way we might have once thought about sexual assault, where a woman just kind of protests and says, 'No, no, no,' but the guy knows that this is just a faux thing.

Gillespie: Right. I mean, it's not the Hollywood fantasy of the '40s or even the '60s of where, 'No, no, no,' and then the kiss and it dissolves into a marriage scene or something.

Grigoriadis: Right, exactly.

Gillespie: I mean, these are genuinely cases of ... Apart from the clear cases of assault, there are things-

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.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    I'm so sick of this liberal SJW bitch give a nuanced opinion about mattress girl that doesn't just say that a.)she was a slutty bitch just begging for it, b.)we can deduce from this case that basically any women crying rape probably is faking it and that c.)all of this is the fault of radical feminists in the Humanities departments at elite universities. It went on for like two and a half pages, Nick, why didn't you tell her to put a sock in it for cryin' out loud?

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Ugh, so I listened to this interview, and while she does raise some good points, it is clear she doesn't understand basic legal principles. The examples she cites are ridiculous. A girl that gives head because she wanted the guy to be happy, but would not have consented if asked for affirmative consent? For fuck's sake. Any standard for consent that tries to guarantee no regrets is impractical and immoral.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    As libertarians how does this issue inform us on ideas related to government overreach?

  • DesigNate||

    This is the perfect response to that cocksucker.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    That's nothing... I make $7,232/hr responding to morons on the he internet. For more information go to www.sorospaysmebigbucks.com

  • Citizen X - #6||

    And you still can't pay your mortgage?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Marxists are traditionally bad with money.

  • Qsl||

    In a perfect world, the issues she is talking about (confirmation of consent, norms of dating, etc.) would be addressed through social change. Worst case scenario, if you didn't like the cultural norms of getting drunk and nervously fumbling through some intimate touching, you could always move to Utah or somesuch, or at least have your own chastity belt where it is plainly obvious whether you are down for sex or not. After so many generations of feminism and that social change not happening, you take the Cultural Revolution route and have it enforced through law.

    Giving her a most charitable reading, she is essentially asking for a change in contract law, with a safe space created for some buyer's remorse and forms filled out in triplicate, much like a mortgage, where even after you've signed the paperwork, you have 10 days to change your mind. Unfortunately, the terms for this isn't that each party goes their separate way, but jail terms for one or the other. Ouch.

    This is essentially asking to return to having a chaperone for dating, with government acting as the stern father figure. I find it amusing that after so many years of demanding government get out of the bedroom, younger women now apparently need a referee in the boudoir. Given that many of them also want Big Daddy Government to forgive their student debit; amusing, but not surprising.

  • ||

    Well said.

  • Cy||

    It makes you wonder how many of these women have ever had to pay their own bills. If they've ever had to actually take care of the themselves.

  • ||

    Obvious troll is being a too bit obvious in his trolling.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Cleverness is not amsoc's strong suit.

  • Brian||

    Why are you pretending to know something about sex and college?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    So, you're saying that when you go to college and get laid you spend your days worrying about falsified rape allegations? I'm glad I'm a 98-year old virgin who dropped out in the 6th grade. Whew!

  • BambiB||

    I'm just glad I don't have to deal with the current generation of women. They sound way more fucked up than when I was in college - and the women I went to school with were plenty fucked up to begin with.

    If there wasn't a pussy between their legs - there'd be a bounty on them.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    Gillespie, as always, goes straight for the mushy middle.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, bad move. Start with the man in the boat, then go for the mushy middle.

  • Lily Bulero||

    "Gillespie, as always, goes straight for the mushy middle."

    Ewwwwww!

  • Rich||

    "'We don't care what you, 55-year-old college president, think is consent.'"

    "55-Year-Old College President Files Rape Charges Against Young Woman"

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I'm pretty sure i've seen a couple variations of that video.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    And if you haven't, BUCS will hook you up.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Brazzer's "big Tits in School" series?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "'We don't care what you, 55-year-old college president, think is consent.'"

    So, is she demanding the same 55-year-old college president define and oversee this 'consent'? Is she demanding the colleges become the defacto chaperone to help young, vulnerable, weak-willed women navigate public life?

    I'll listen to the interview, but this sure smacks of someone saying they don't trust the institution to make decisions for them, so they want more institutions to make decisions for them.

  • damikesc||

    It seems she is advocating a definition of consent that can be changed after the fact based on the whims of the woman. Sounds totally plausible.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, basically.

    Rape is among those crimes that boils down to a he said, she said trial most times so it's uniquely terrible as a criminal statute. Technically, all sex can be defined as rape since it's a crime that only exists in those circumstances where women say it does. That's not sarcasm, it's actually more or less the way it is.

    The most laughable part is the assumption that the types of examples this lady wants to put forward are solely things that happen to women. It is assumed across the board by almost everyone that men can't be raped. That's an interesting claim to make, ladies. You're telling me there's a category of crime that women are incapable of committing? Very interesting.

    This women, whoever she is, seems uniquely terrible at making her case. Maybe I should write a book, because I'm at least as lucid as she is.

  • BYODB||


    I went to 20 campuses. I talked to students themselves, tried to interact as a peer, not as an adult coming, asking weird intrusive questions, right? I'm kind of a gonzo journalist out of the Rolling Stone mold.

    *facepalm*

    Well, this is about the kind of 'research' I expected to be honest. I'm not sure how seriously I should take anyone who claims any kind of proximity to gonzo journalism though. If she can't even get that right, I'm pretty loathe to trust any claim she makes whatsoever. Sorry.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Anyone tying their journalistic practices to the weakest of all the muppets isn't worth listening to.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Any references to men being victims are usually in a joking sense, and very often associated with prison. Apparently, rape should only be taken seriously when it comes to the "correct" people.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You could have listened and then commented.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm listening now. I find her straight reporting on modern attitudes informative, but she said something a bit shocking at around 10:50. She asks the question that because of this very blurry Nungesser situation, and the fact that there simply was no evidence, then what really did Columbia do wrong?

    The answer is self-evident. Columbia took positive action against Nungesser based on a complete lack of physical evidence. then she points out that Emma did take her case to the police, but they didn't find enough evidence to make an arrest or bring charges. She seems to suggest that going to Columbia was the right response because there's no reason to believe the police's interpretation of the events might have been imperfect or flat out wrong.

    Again, that's the problem, the Universities are using a lower standard of evidence and absolutely horrible standards of due process- plus, University staff are exactly the wrong people to run a parallel justice system.

    So as I stated above, her thesis is that women "want a new standard of consent". They seem to be demanding that new standard be administered and codified, and adjudicated by the 50 year old college president.

    I think she makes some good arguments which are certainly worth debating, but I'm still getting a concerning message.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    because there's no reason to believe the police's interpretation of the events might have been imperfect or flat out wrong.

    Should read, no reason to believe the police's interpretation of events might have been correct or accurate.

  • Heraclitus||

    The university can only kick the guy out. They can't lock him up. One would think readers at Reason would appreciate that an organization has the power to choose who patronizes their establishment.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If they provide him with a full refund and compensation for his tuition, plus compensate him for his time, sure.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Further, she seems to be confident that Universities are, and I quote "Getting better all the time" at adjudicating these cases.

    They're NOT SUPPOSED TO BE adjudicating these cases. Do we really want a parallel justice system occurring on our campuses, that have an explicit lower standard of evidence and completely lacking of due process.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Of course, that's what happens when mob rule wins over due process.

  • Principal Spittle||

    Yes getting better all the time. Hillary Clinton is going to be their new professor of intersectional power grasping. Offering lectures on accuser smearing, pandering and moral irrelevantism.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Obviously the only answer is mandatory body cams.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I'll bet I know some websites that would be willing to provide them for free. At least for the hotter girls.

  • damikesc||

    And they didn't take her case. So why are we so sure that the police, who have historically had a terrible record with rape, and let's remember, we are talking about date rape here, for the most part, right? We are not talking about blood and bruises and physical evidence. The vagina is built to have a baby come out of it. There has to be a hell of a lot of force going on, right?

    Lack of any actual evidence does that to you. And the "hell of a lot of force" causing bleeding, etc? I must ask, has she never had sex? It doesn't take much force to make the not terribly thick tissue inside the vagina to be cut.

    The second thing is, is that on an evidence tip, like many of these cases, there's really no evidence to be had here. We don't have the photos that demonstrate exactly what he did.

    Her texts and messages certainly didn't remotely come across as somebody who was so victimized by a rape that she had to carry around a mattress about it. There WAS evidence. Just none of it backed up HER.

  • Chipper Morning, Mean Girl||

    I did not give affirmative consent to reading whole bolded paragraphs. Use blockquote, please.

  • Rubbish!||

    Why the elastic vagina point when discussing Mattress Girl? She complains of a poop chute violation, and that is not where babies come from as far as I know.

  • damikesc||

    So there's no question that the standard for the sexualization of the female in the public eye, and everybody's in the public eye now, has just risen astronomically.

    I'm ecstatic that men don't have any issues with sexualization. Makes the higher suicide rate all the more baffling, no?

    A feeling that, 'This is my body. Boys, stay away until I tell you what you can do.'

    Aren't a lot of feminists finding it hard to find a good man?

    Sweetie, you need to realize --- women want to date a man who is a "higher caliber" than they are, yet they have produced a system where woman outnumber men, significantly, on college campuses. A man would have to be an absolute idiot to date ONE girl in college when, quite bluntly, there are way more women who want men than vice versa,

  • croaker||

    Sexbots. Get in on the ground floor.

  • Ken Hagler||

    Shouldn't that be "A man would have to be an absolute idiot to date any girl in college when she can destroy his life on a whim at any time thereafter"?

  • damikesc||

    I will suggest my boys use hookers. They are better at it anyway and less likely to ruin your life in the process.

  • damikesc||

    I'm not skeptical that due process has not been abrogated in some of these cases, but what I think people should understand is, universities are getting better all the time at handling these cases.

    Oh, they're violating due process a little less now. Well, that's splendid. I'll note the South in the 1950's didn't really lynch blacks as much as in the 20's. Those civil rights types were just whiny, right?

    That is just the accused boy's story. I didn't hear the girl's part. It didn't get that far in the court yet. Right?

    The complaints seem to be "The school is violating my due process rights". Not sure how the girl's views on it would mean a fucking thing.

    My point to that would also be, so he got a settlement? What was that settlement? They already found him innocent. That just seems to me to be more media manipulation of the story. You know?

    Is she really this stupid? He was found innocent AND the college gave the liar CREDIT for further defaming him. This isn't a problem?

    And I think a lot of universities have changed, and they're not getting their due here.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    The above frustrated male had the same issues as I did with the interview, Nick. Shame... shame... shame for letting this women speak her dreckith.

  • damikesc||

    Shame on him for not calling out blatant bullshit. I don't think Nick would be "Well, you're right, police captain. Your cops have shot fewer people. Good job" and not mentioned the issue that they are still doing so regardless.

  • Texasmotiv||

    To Nick's credit there seem to be several moments where he's sitting there respectfully while his eyes are screaming, "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!?"

  • damikesc||

    But there's also a question of, should attempted assaults be included? Just because a girl went home with a guy and she felt he was creepy and weird and threw him out, she's not sure that she was almost assaulted there, right? I think that probably shouldn't be included.

    Mighty noble of you there. We shouldn't label absolute non-assaults as assaults, even if the girl thinks there is a chance he might do so. Solid.

    I think putting all of these things in some big pot and stirring it around the way a lot of activists have is just really created one of the most intense backlashes of misogyny that I have seen in my lifetime.

    As usual, all it takes for misogyny to be claimed is to disagree with feminists.

  • BYODB||

    Feminists and the left and gone full circle from 'stay out of the bedroom' to 'omnipresent government everywhere, especially the bedroom.'

  • damikesc||

    Yeah. I mean, look. In New York, Connecticut, California, Illinois, all of these states have, for all public and private colleges, a 'yes means yes' standard. So, 'no means no' is not enough. Silence is not consent. You must get some sort of feedback from the partner.

    How would one prove they received consent? Backers of these laws can never explain how, outside of recording the tryst, you can be protected. If the girl says "yes", but decides later she REALLY meant "no", how does the guy prove she said "yes" at the time?

  • BYODB||

    Simple: Assume only the women is telling the truth. That is the preferred standard.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Not only record, but upload the video to some websites that specialize in videos of this nature....concerning college students.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Would, but only with her informed, sober consent, duly notarized.

  • geo1113||

    Ha. My exact thoughts.

  • Shapu||

    Except that many (most?) of these "consent" standards also allow for consent to be revoked at any time during the encounter. So, good luck with that informed, sober consent, duly notarized.

  • BYODB||

    Then all you need to point to is the notary stamp to the tramp.

  • Dadlobby||

    Totally from the FEMALE liberal social justice warrior perspective. So what is it, are women capable of being in control sexually, (women rule) or do they need the protection of government? Is it OK for women to portray themselves as sexual objects then complain when they are viewed sexually? I call BS on Reason for calling the mattress girls a "he said- she said" when the guy was proven innocent in a tribunal and then successful in a lawsuit. A far cry from not being found guilty, yet he is still slandered as "possibly guilty". The police may have a "historically bad record" of prosecution because you need evidence of a crime and in these instances there is NONE. There is a crisis in false allegations and perjury in the areas of rape, sexual assault, child abuse and sexual assault, and domestic violence against MEN and a system which treats men as guilty until they prove themselves innocent and she, as a good SJW, want us all to believe every allegation a woman makes.

  • Zeb||

    I call BS on Reason for calling the mattress girls a "he said- she said" when the guy was proven innocent in a tribunal and then successful in a lawsuit.

    Those things don't prove him innocent. Just that he wasn't guilty, even by the low standard of preponderance of the evidence.

    Since the whole case hinges on whether sexual encounters were consensual calling it "he said/she said" is pretty accurate.

  • Shapu||

    Since the whole case hinges on whether sexual encounters were consensual calling it "he said/she said" is pretty accurate.

    Only if you disregard all the evidence in the case which suppported his version of events and not hers. And also forget the fact that it wasn't till eight months later that she decided that it had been a non-consensual encounter and her text messages to "f**k [her] in the butt" were some post-traumatic bullshit.

  • Zeb||

    I'm making a very narrow point about proving innocence. I agree that the evidence shows he is very likely innocent. But he has not been proven innocent either legally or actually.

  • BYODB||

    That's because in the American justice system you're only supposed to prove guilt. Innocence is the assumed state of being. Ergo if someone is not proven guilty, they are in fact innocent.

  • BYODB||

    Although, I will admit, if there were no criminal charges filed than it remains undecided although in that case there is certainly an argument that they are still innocent as guilt remains unproven. I'll rightly admit that I don't always see it that way, but it's the ideal.

  • Shapu||

    Geez, how incoherent can you get? "Sure, these accusations will at best upturn and at worst completely destroy the accused's life, but if it's 50/50, she should win." Huh?

    And criticizing Yoffe's reporting as anecdotal? While defending universities not providing any real data because that would violate educational privacy? No, educational privacy only prevents them from discussing particular students and cases, it doesn't prevent them from releasing aggregated data. As it is, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that these campus star chambers are disproportionately victimizing minorities, especially blacks, and foreigners.

    Nick, this was a spectacularly mushy interview. Why not take her to task on her incoherence and counterfactuals? Is she really that ignorant of the Columbia case? No, it was not a "he said, she said" thing. All the evidence was on his side. Yes, she did file a police report, but more than a year later, and then she, not the police, declined to pursue the case when it didn't seem like they would just take her word for it.

    This interview could have been illuminating. But, instead, it was just a mess of mishmashed datapoints and unsupported assertions.

    (And this supposed "yes means yes" insanity, how the hell is the falsely accused supposed to be able to prove anything? It really seems to be a call to enshrine the "guilty until proven innocent" mentality, just in case the preponderance of evidence standard was not enough for the job.)

  • Marshal||

    Nick, this was a spectacularly mushy interview. Why not take her to task on her incoherence and counterfactuals?

    There are so few people on the left capable of even having a discussion this counts as moderate. Of course this tells us quite a bit about the left but also about the right. Would any Reasoner interviewing a right winger only slightly skeptical of the worst immigration fearmongerings simply accept their other assertions which conflicting with the libertarian mainstream?

    I've never seen it happen.

  • Longtobefree||

    "grapple with this question, the proper role of campus tribunals in administering justice, what constitutes due process for alleged offenders as well as victims"

    Campus tribunals have no business in the justice business; one time the state should be involved.
    Due process is well defined in the federal constitution and related court cases.

  • John C. Randolph||

    If only we had a process for weighing the evidence before an impartial jury to determine questions of guilt or innocence, instead of leaving it up to tax-dependent, unemployable marxists with collectivist agendas to push...

    -jcr

  • BYODB||

    It's a he said, she said crime so demanding evidence is a problem. Usually that's a sign of a shit law, and maybe that's true with rape, but I'm not sure how one would go about that. Civil Law? Seems probable. It doesn't seem like that's on the table though, and I doubt it will be any time soon.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Ok, tried listening to it, but I bailed when she tried to tell me that Beyonce and Taylor Swift are "non-manufactured stars". They are marketing department creatures just like every other wave of top-40 shitmongers since the 1960s.

    -jcr

  • damikesc||

    Ok, tried listening to it, but I bailed when she tried to tell me that Beyonce and Taylor Swift are "non-manufactured stars". They are marketing department creatures just like every other wave of top-40 shitmongers since the 1960s.

    Yeah, both are as genuine as the finest polyester.

  • Gbob||

    Look, I might have given initial consent by starting to read the article, but that doesn't mean I agreed to be raped by the virulent stupidity that was Nick and his interview subject. I wanted to report it, but then I realized that I would be waiting on the judgement of some 55 year old dude to tell me what is and isn't rape. I might even be forced to show some of that stupid "evidence" stuff, and who has time for that?

    Nick should be expelled from Reason for raping me.

  • Rubbish!||

    That's definitely a preponderance. He's guilty.

    I wonder why he's still there. Why doesn't Reason care about rape?

  • mockmock||

    Another poor interview by Gillespie. The main focus of the interview after the author gives her overview of her book should have been why the author thinks that due process and beyond a reasonable doubt came into existence in the first place. And a good interview would have held to why these should be a "universal" while the author, I assume, would plead "special cases".

  • Empress Trudy||

    The smartest move would be for college men to stop any relations with college women and stand back and wait them to scream that that's terrible too. Then laugh at them. If I were still in college I would not speak to anyone of the other gender or genders at all about anything ever

  • Longtobefree||

    And you would be expelled for sexual discrimination.
    Kirk was wrong.

  • Joe Emenaker||

    "The result is confusion... from all sides when it comes to sex and assault on campuses"

    I don't (and never did) find it confusing at all: If you've got reason to believe that someone is, later, going to regret having had sex with you (eg. you told them you're single and you're not, that you're going to pay them and you're not going to, that you don't have an STD and you really do, that you're planning on dating or being exclusive with them and you're not, or you think that they're not of their full mental capacity, etc.), then don't have sex with them.

    Christ! It's not rocket science. Basically, unless you're confident that they're going to look back with on it with enough enjoyment to want to do it *again*, then drive on, man.

  • damikesc||

    I don't (and never did) find it confusing at all: If you've got reason to believe that someone is, later, going to regret having had sex with you (eg. you told them you're single and you're not, that you're going to pay them and you're not going to, that you don't have an STD and you really do, that you're planning on dating or being exclusive with them and you're not, or you think that they're not of their full mental capacity, etc.), then don't have sex with them.

    Hey, California is making intentionally not telling others of your AIDS status as a misdemeanor instead of a felony.

    So, you can now lie, with only the risk of a slap of the wrist, to blood banks and partners about your condition.

    Have fun with AIDS back in the blood supply, Cali.

  • ||

    Why does she sound like Malibu Stacy?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Is it me or does she seem a bit young to be a Gen-Xer. Most of the G-Xers I know are getting a bit long in the tooth.

  • ||

    She claims to be Gen-X? Not unless she was born by 1980 and she don't look 37 to me. And the 45 year-old women she dismissed are EXACTLY in the Gen-X range.

    Blurred lines indeed.

  • ||

    Alright. Got a chance to look her up. Born in 1973.

    Gen X she is.

    But not in our spirit I say.

    Gen X is a kick ass generation.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Man she doesn't look like she was born in 73. Hats off to her.

  • Marshal||

    DeVos said all of this mumbo jumbo about how these cases, nobody even knows that the charges are against them, and blah blah blah blah blah blah. I don't think that's the case, not at our prestigious universities anymore. Universities would have to have a death wish to not be upholding due process in campus sexual assault cases at this point.

    What a terrible thought process. We know from multiple testimonies this happens routinely but we're supposed to conclude it can't possibly be true because the people running Title IX are not this stupid? This reminds me of people who attacked Robby on the UVA rape because they simply presumed no reporter would ever do such a bad job they couldn't be bothered to honestly evaluate the report. How'd that work out for dear Anna?

    Here's a tip: Title IX enforcers are this stupid. The entire process is stupid from start to finish. Further a big reason it is so unbelievably stupid is that people like Vanessa Grigoriadis defend it without even bothering to understand it first.

  • ||

    Almost like a necrophilia kind of thing. It's really repulsive.

    I. just. Wow.

    Just when I thought 'pass-out drunk sex = rape' couldn't get any more obnoxiously sensationalist, Nick finds a woman who manages to frame it as 'pass-out drunk sex = corpse rape'. Reason off.

  • Heraclitus||

    I though Reason had upped its game by doing this interview but then I went to the comments section...

    Folks, don't forget that you are all libertarians. Universities can pick and choose who they want as customers. If they determine that someone who does not adhere to proper consent rules should not patronize their institution then shouldn't that be their right? There is an article on this website running right now that says bakeries should be allowed to discriminate against gay weddings. Given that, it does not seem so problematic to be able to deny service to an arrogant, creepy frat boy who traumatizes half of your customers. If you own a coffee shop and women stop showing up because you have a reputation for serving creepy guys who sexually assault women would you say the coffee shop must get a police indictment before they can refuse them service? Kind of takes away the freedom of the University to run their business and they serve fit. Amiright?

  • Think It Through||

    7/10, would.

  • Mark22||

    "'We don't care what you, 55-year-old college president, think is consent.'"

    And we don't care what you think about anything, because you're a self-righteous immature little prick.

  • macsnafu||

    Wow. You know, it's like...um, I'm not really sure, uh, what to, uh, say about this. It's as if, um...you know? Right. Amirite?

    Nick sat with her for nearly an hour and this is what turned out? Sheesh? I'm so sick of people whose answer is "let's talk about this."

  • zx741258||

    Reading the transcript of a a video is useless, it is disjointed, etc. Any point is lost trying to follow the written word. Mattress girl at Columbia is silly to bring up, bad dating decision? She contacted him after, then her academic adviser convinced her to claim sexual assault instead of bad dating decision. Then adviser lost in court, school lost in court and mattress girl made a soft-core video of the incident. Yes this is weird enough for me, thank you.

    What was trying to be accomplished here?

  • Newspaper Directory||

    The major purpose of a web directory is to provide directory users with a categorized list of high quality websites from a chosen field or industry.

Click here to follow Reason on Instagram

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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