Do you think that we will even get out of September before the first lesbian on lesbian Title IX lawsuit comes out of the UC system?

Some may complain that the site says it is maintained by students, so some might claim it isn't official policy. But it is portrayed as an official publication of the sociology department, providing accurate information to the world. In this case it appears that the students acted as agents of the university in posting the definitions. This is no personal website of a student.

http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/goshen-college-declares-all-male-students-who-stare-at-women-are-rapists/

But this case is pushing it. Straight from the Goshen College website, on a page titled “What men can do to stop rape”:

> “Don’t allow psychological rape or commit it yourself. Psychological rape consists of verbal harassment, whistles, kissing noises, heavy breathing, sly comments or stares. These are all assaults on any woman’s sense of well-being.”

I'm crushing your head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4pmlHRokg

So some college bimbo is dressed up like a slut (or Kim K), I look at her, so I've committed Stranger Sexual Assault? If I were a lesbian or gay male would it still be SSA? Does that mean that any straight male going to UCSB has to poke his eyes out?

Amy, your last sentence sounds like you've been getting advice from Katy Perry.

Maybe what campus really wants is an etiquette guide. Rather than calling it sexual assault why don't they just say "we expect you to not be rude"

Probably they dont because etiquette sounds froofy... but a lot of what they describe IS an etiquette issue, why not call it what it is?

I believe the part about the tasers...

But I'm sure that these people have nothing whatsoever to do but try to continue their helicoptered existence, even though Mommy is not there with a baby-wipe.

I had somebody accuse me of being rude (who'da thunk it?) for pointing out that their tirade about "microaggression" was essentially trying to forbid other people from existing.

Radwaste:
I once had a woman yell at me because I held the door open for her (like I was taught). I didn't budge, she wouldn't go through the door, people were backing up behind her (laughing). I finally said "get your fat a** through the door b*****". She did. I guess she just wanted to be dominated...

a lot of what they describe IS an etiquette issue, why not call it what it is?

There's no power in telling students they shouldn't be rude.

Calling rudeness (like whistling, etc.) rape -- accusing people of rape if they do these things -- has a lot more power.

The only snuff films available come out of the Middle East, and are generally productions of a particular set of practitioners of the Religion of Peace. But they're little to no sex occurring, so to term them "sex snuff films" is...over dramatic.

Was this written by the ghost of Andrea Dworkin?

I'd be tempted to yell "hey, hot mama" and see if I can entangle their little speech code with a First Amendment defense.

And for our lovely blog hostess: don't tase me, babe!

Probably they dont because etiquette sounds froofy... but a lot of what they describe IS an etiquette issue, why not call it what it is?

Because they would look ridiculous expelling someone for being rude. If you call it "sexual assault", then it doesn't look ridiculous.

And yes, I'm using scare quotes there. But now I see why their comfort with the practices of the Religion of Peace is so high: they both believe that men are ravaging lust machines that can not control themselves.

In the one case, they lock up the women, in the other they want to lock up the men.

Note that prostitution and porn are also listed as sexual assault.

Porn can involve women. But what about the mens--have these people never seen Fuckin', Truckin' Studs?
Are these delicate blossoms planning on entering the work force after college? I'm not sure a want to hire someone who gets flustered or distressed because someone looked at her.

Is "Survivor" now the more PC term?

I survived my dreams last night. How am I going to be protected in the future?

Staring, whistling and comments are assault? So they have outlawed flirting. Do they assume men and women get together without the man ever looking at the woman? Like ordering a box of paper from Amazon where you don't care what brand it is? How exactly do they think this is going to work in the real world?

"How exactly do they think this is going to work in the real world?"

Of course, they don't really care. The purpose is to make ordinary behavior criminal. Then, use it to selectively prosecute the politically disfavored.

Oh, good. A new identity for me! I'm a prolific identity collector. Now I'm a survivor, too.

It seems that one day I was at the gym sitting in one of those plastic chairs by the pool. I waiting for the water aerobics class to finish so I could do some lap swimming. An elderly woman in the pool saw me plunk myself into the white plastic chair and said to me, "Are you a lifeguard?"

I smiled and said no (which she already knew because this pool does not have lifeguards), but I used to be one.

"You look like a lifeguard," she said. "You've got the body of a lifeguard."

Goodness. I was sexually harassed by an old lady. I emailed a wise and witty counselor, who assured me that I did not have the right to rebuff such comments, even if they do make me feel icky.

I wasn't thinking of saying something like, "I could prove I'm no lifeguard. Go drown and I won't save you." But more along the lines of, "I don't care for comments like that, thank you."

But no, I'm not even allowed to say that. The lady meant no harm; she thought she was paying me a compliment, so I should just smile pleasantly.

I wonder, though, what if the genders were reversed. What if some old man said that to a younger.

I'm so traumatized. (Actually, I'm not. I just got over it. I wouldn't even know the woman if I saw her again.)

"So they have outlawed flirting." Craig...

no, C, as CousinD pointed out, this is Selective.
It will also be retroactive...

Selective in that, if you are a studmuffin, you can get away with many things. See: Bill Clinton et al. EVEN IF old Billy himself wasn't stud material, his charisma and power made him one. On the other hand, boring old Mr. Normal has no-chance-and-damn-well-better-keep-his-creepy-eyes-offa-me...
so you better not be looking at girls/women or been seen to be looking because the sisterhood can get you busted on another's behalf.

Retroactive in that past wrongs, imagined or not, will always be remembered. Including past wrongs from some other guy you've never even met.

Essentially this is a culmination of the idea that the only important rule is: "things are only wrong when I say they are wrong..." Or the humpty-dumpty rule:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

― Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

The upshot of all of it is that 'tis probably better to avoid the stinging nettles of life, and the briar patches where they are grown... after all, they provide you with precisely nothing, while wishing everything of you.

Uncorked?

It's pretty obvious what the writer meant, but I'm trying to imagine how "uncoerced" transmuted into "uncorked". My best guess is that one person wrote it down, and a second person who was unfamiliar with the word read it aloud to a third person.

I want an example of a person who was whistled at and did not survive the experience.

I know a guy who didn't survive being whistled at Dee. Poor drunk bastard.

To be fair it was a train whistle. And that's who they should be prosecuting, trains. Few people survive being sexually assaulted by a train. Instead they blame the victim. Say 'You shouldn't take a nap on railroad tracks.' Disgusting!

And yes, this is a joke. For the very few people who don't get it.

Rex: It was probably autocorrect that turned some misspelling of "coerced" into "corked". Time to write up my rules of public writing:

1. Proofread, proofread, proofread.

2. If you don't know a word well enough to recognize that some other word was substituted, don't use it.

3. If you have that problem with a word as simple as "uncoerced", go back to 4th grade (or earlier) and pay attention this time.

4. Or if you already have 16+ years of formal education and you make mistakes like that, just quit school and whatever job you are bungling via gross stupidity. The only job-related public communication you should be doing is, "Do you want fries with that?", and that is acceptable only because they teach you the words.