As I said on Twitter (about the contents of this Clark U booklet):

@amyalkon
It's basically the institutional demonization of male sexuality.

Under this definition, yes, bringing a woman flowers because you're hoping to get in her pants is "emotional manipulation."

There is a lot not to like about it, but it doesn't say that, and to claim it does is just wrong.

The passage you were quoting was about wheedling 'if you loved me you would' words. I agree that doesn't constitute rape. But extending it to gifts is silly.

Don't the people who write these rules realize they are admitting they themeselves are rapists? I'd bet a lot that every rule they write is one they have broken.

These are written by women KGF and by their definitions women are only raped and never rapists. That is why their definitions are junk. They know that using traditional definitions of rape that school campuses are very safe. In order to justify their existence and their funding they have to use fake definitions and made up statistics or get a real job doing something useful.

30 years ago it was common to claim that a woman was raped on every college campus every day. I.e. 365 rapes per campus each year. Blatantly untrue. So these things aren't new at least.

@ Ltw - you're missing the point, and by quoting the 'example' provided by the SJWs who write this stuff, you're allowing them to frame the debate.

When they use a vague term like 'emotional manipulation', they do so carefully and deliberately, because words like that can be used to mean, whatever they want them to mean. Yes, including things like gifts. Just because they give examples of what they say it means, doesn't mean that they are limiting what it means to those examples. They're just trying to frame your thinking.

Note also the subtle reframing of the word 'coerce'. The dictionary definition of 'coerce' includes the specific element of the use of force, or the threat of force - but these SJWs have now redefined 'coerce' to mean any form of persuasion, including vague and undefined terms like 'emotional manipulation'.

The purpose of policies and indoctrination like this is to redefine rape and sexual assault to be 'anything a man says or does, or doesn't say or do.' Anything at all.

llater,

llamas

SJW definition of "rape":

"I felt obligated to have sex because he brought me flowers and bought dinner and drinks. I let him stay the night because he was so insistent. Then he initiated sex again during the night without asking me. I feel so abused."

Dead man walking.

The passage you were quoting was about wheedling 'if you loved me you would' words. ~ Ltw at November 30, 2016 5:08 AM

If that's enough to coerce an unwilling woman into having sex, then she's got more problems than a wheedling boyfriend.

These types of rules are removing the behavioral responsibility from women and putting it entirely on men. Women are no longer responsible for their own bad behavior, but men can be blamed for anything a woman does and later regrets.

These types of rules raise girls to be emotionally needy women, to be easily manipulated; they do not raise girls to be strong independent women, the type of women feminists claim to want.

These types of rules were developed by princesses who blame men for where they came up short in their own lives. They are not about the girls the promulgators claim to be protecting, but about the promulgators themselves.

Churchill once said something about putting the best military minds in a room and what you'd get back is the sum of all their fears. These types of rules are the sum of feminists' fears and weaknesses.

Well, considered as part of Marxism's war against marriage & the traditional family, Clark University's policy is as purpose-built as a chainsaw.

> I agree that doesn't constitute rape

Well, Twinklepants, maybe that's how you do things up there in New Zealand, but this is America, where things are different.

"If you don't have sex with me I will find someone who will.", and "I'm not sure I can be with someone who doesn't want to have sex with me."

This sounds more like open communication to me. You are being up front and honest so it won't come as such a surprise when you ditch that frigid bitch.

CtG wrote:

'These types of rules are removing the behavioral responsibility from women and putting it entirely on men. Women are no longer responsible for their own bad behavior, but men can be blamed for anything a woman does and later regrets.'

Bingo! That's the goal.

Note also the all-purpose, all-circumstances, unprovable

'You cannot legally consent if you are drinking . . .'

In other words, if a woman has been drinking (note there is no concept of incapacity, merely having consumed any amount of alcohol is enough), then all sex can be defined as rape, at any time. And there's no way to prove whether or not the woman has been drinking - her word that she has is enough to make a rape accusation that cannot be refuted. Even if she enthusiastically consented at the time, she can (effectively) nullify her consent at any later time simply by saying 'Yes, but I was drinking'.

It's a great catch, that Catch-22.

Male college students are simply insane if they have anything to do with female students at a college where these rules apply. Your are literally placing your life and your future in her hands - forever. Why would you? At least with the criminal justice system, you have rules of evidence and procedure, and laws that are clearly-written and defined. I don't think it's too far to go to advise male college students to avoid being alone with any female student or students at any time.

llater,

llamas

But, Ltw, flowers ARE often "emotional manipulation." A guy doesn't bring them to a woman at random. He doesn't bring them to his buddy. He brings them to a woman to try to soften her emotions -- to get her to be a sex partner. Gifts are a way males throughout numerous species get females to be sex partners.

"What about men who get raped in prison? Is that about "gender"? "

You missed a more basic point. Emotional manipulation goes both ways. Women can also be very good at manipulating men emotionally- if you don't I'll find someone else. Or the more basic, OMG- I didn't realize you're a fag...

Using their definition, men are 'raped' about as often as women. That is, feel pressured into sex against their initial inclinations.

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/50349

Y'know, I can remember when the Left was opposed to laws that regulated sex. The premise of many of those laws was that women lacked the capacity to make informed decisions about sex, and that sex by and large was an imposition upon women, not something that they wanted. So the government found it necessary to regulate sex to protect these fragile flowers. But back when feminism had a more broad-based membership than it has now, a lot of women said, "Hey, wait a minute. We like sex and we want sex. We don't want the government telling us who we can have sex with or what we are allowed to do. We're big girls and we can take responsibility for our own behavior." And lo, between 1965 and 1975, all of the social-conservative laws regulating consensual sex were repealed.

Feminism has now done a 180. It is now very sex-negative. In order to avoid having to reconcile with reality, it now has to go back to the old idea that sex is an unwanted imposition upon women, one which they neither desire nor have any control over. So we're back to the sex-regulation laws. The people targeted by these laws has changed (old scapegoats, meet the new scapegoats), but the principle is the same: women are incapable of agency regarding romantic and sexual matters, so the government must restrain what sex women may engage in. The new laws do it in a less direct matter, by imposing severe consequences upon non-ruling-class men who dare to engage in relations with women, but the goal is the same.

People always and everywhere are conflicted about and confused about sex. At the same time they want it and don't want it (with any particular person). Normally we don't like people touching us but for sex there is some (!) touching involved which is why alcohol is often helpful--it lowers inhibitions. There is always negotiation and bargaining involved. Always. It also takes time to warm up the other person (usually the girl). Girls want to hear that you love them, and giving gifts is one way to show that. But claiming love and giving gifts can be lies. caveat emptor. Boys and girls both must develop lie detectors or end up with an insincere partner. Rules like these deny all of this.

From yesterday's linky page:

College women: unsafe at any speed.

Y'know, I can remember when the Left was opposed to laws that regulated sex.

They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney the government would be all up in my sex life. And they were right!

Wait till they use Obamacare as an excuse to regulate your sex practices. You might catch/give something, or cause an unplanned pregnancy and cost the government actual money!!! So, no you can't do that!!

Orwell was prescient: control sex and you can control people. This is about making the New Soviet Man: a sexless automaton who obeys orders instinctively.

Not someone with actual agency. Not someone with a functioning sex drive.

Yes, rape has to do (in part) with sex. But it should not be assumed to be the "main" factor. Especially when you remember that, unlike with homeless people who steal food, no one has ever suffered any physical damage from a lack of sex - not even a lack of masturbation.

From a 2014 thread - edited slightly :

If rape were ONLY about power, there are plenty of non-sexual, legal ways that sadistic people can use to make others feel powerless. (Many of us, for example, have childhood memories of Snape-like teachers - as did Rowling herself.)

However, it's been pretty well proven that many (most?) rapists have consensual sex available to them via other people, especially those who are adults - and many of the rapists are powerful people in society as well. Even so, to narcissists, who are often egged on in their narcissism by their fans, there's never such a thing as enough power, whether over one individual or many individuals. This is why many teen star athletes and adult celebrities are notorious for getting angry whenever they hear the word "no," whether it's in a sexual context or not.

So it seems that rape DOES have plenty to do with the "need" for power, per se, when what the perpetrators really likely need is to be taught a little humility (not that I know how that can be taught to adults, per se). Especially when it comes to TEEN offenders, who tend to be the ones with anger management issues and entitlement issues, even when they're not athletes. Just because your teen sons and daughters are old enough to KNOW what the penalties are for minors who commit felonies (that includes genderless crimes like stealing or driving drunk, of course) doesn't mean they're old enough to be unsupervised at parties - or on weekends. They have to know that you're watching them - and that you WON'T act as their lawyers when they break the law. I.e., they have to be at least somewhat afraid of their parents to grow up properly.

(end of excerpts)

Btw, does anyone know if there's any difference between the verbs "force" and "coerce"? If there isn't, I don't see the point in using the latter word so much.

Also, even Wendy McElroy (who said she was once raped) admitted that there are multiple possible factors. Quote:

"...People murder for money, for love, out of jealousy or patriotism ...the rationalizations go on and on. Rape is every bit as complex. Men rape because of sexual hunger, from a need to prove themselves, from hatred of women, or a desire for revenge, as a political statement, or from peer pressure (as in gang rapes). Men rape from a constellation of complicated motives, which become further blurred when you introduce drunkenness or drug use."

(Though I don't quite like the way she makes it sound as though rape isn't really different from stealing food - in the first example, to boot.)

"...male college students (should) avoid being alone with any female student...at any time."
-Llamas

Right you are, Llamas

And I advise male students..."Off-campus pussy is just as good as on-campus pussy."

Btw, does anyone know if there's any difference between the verbs "force" and "coerce"? If there isn't, I don't see the point in using the latter word so much. ~ lenona at November 30, 2016 11:01 AM

"Force" generally implies active pressure, a capacity of exercising a physical influence or producing an effect.

"Coerce" is generally used to indicate a more subtle type of pressure. To coerce would include to blackmail or to psychologically manipulate someone into doing something. Coercion could include a threat of force.

To "force" someone to have sex generally indicates exerting a physical pressure to submit. To "coerce" someone into having sex indicates blackmail or psychological pressure.

CtG - no, actually, the definition of 'coerce' includes an element of force. As, for example, sayeth Merriam Webster

1: to restrain or dominate by force

2: to compel to an act or choice

3: to achieve by force or threat

The words you're looking for are 'persuade', 'coax', 'wheedle' and so forth.

llater,

llamas

"I'm not sure I can be with someone who won't have sex with me."

This is exactly the kind of thing adults in relationships need to talk about. Is a man (or woman) who wants sex supposed to stick around forever with a partner who won't have sex because talking about it is somehow manipulative?

And I advise male students..."Off-campus pussy is just as good as on-campus pussy."

And it can get a guy expelled just as easily.

And I advise male students..."Off-campus pussy is just as good as on-campus pussy." - Nick

Two point to keep in mind.

One, as a man, withholding sex from a woman is sexual assault. So even if she is drunk and you dont have sex with her you cans still have a Title IX investigation launched on you

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19448/

Two, off capmus pussy is just as dangerous

http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/02/male-student-had-drunken-sex-with-female

I think it's a bit of an ambiguity in the language. My sense of how the words should be used:

Persuade: I am persuading you if I can convince you to voluntarily do something that I want. I might use emotionally manipulative language that will make you feel guilty or hurt unless you consent to what I want. But if you don't, no harm (other than maybe feeling bad for a little while) will befall you.

Coerce: I am compelling you to do what I want by blackmail, or threat of physical harm. If you don't do what I want (and assuming I'm serious about my threat), you or someone close to you will be harmed.

Force: I physically make you do what I want.

I think the confusion comes in that we say that someone may be "coerced by force", by which we really mean coerced by threat of physical harm. There might also be some ambiguity depending on the specific actions -- I may coerce you by an application of physical force (e.g. beating you) such that you agree to do what I want to forestall further harm to you.

"Off-campus pussy is just as good as on-campus pussy."

Right up until the on-campus busy bodies decide to bring action against the student in this situation on behalf of the off-campus pussy. Because the student has obviously intimidated her into silence.

I'm really thinking that a sex worker time share arrangement might be the best. At least there is a contractual obligation there showing some intent and agency on the part of the provider.

Otherwise, we really need to rethink giving women the right to vote. If you can't be trusted with sex, how can you be trusted with the vote?

according to their own rules, every female on planet earth is a rapist.

Feminists acknowledge (between the lines) that the masculine will has great power over the weak female mind.

CtG: "These types of rules are removing the behavioral responsibility from women and putting it entirely on men. Women are no longer responsible for their own bad behavior, but men can be blamed for anything a woman does and later regrets."

cc: "People always and everywhere are conflicted about and confused about sex. At the same time they want it and don't want it (with any particular person). Normally we don't like people touching us but for sex there is some (!) touching involved which is why alcohol is often helpful--it lowers inhibitions. There is always negotiation and bargaining involved. Always."

Yep.

CtG - no, actually, the definition of 'coerce' includes an element of force. As, for example, sayeth Merriam Webster
_______________________________

Thanks, llamas. As I was saying...

Btw, when I first heard the word "coerce," years ago, I thought it meant "to trick."

re coerce: I have read several accounts of girls accusing a male of sexual assault because they viewed the male as having so much status (big football star) that they couldn't say no. This is just so bizarre because the male has no defense, can't know this is what the girl thinks, etc. Yet it is considered valid.

cc, that's interesting in light of the long American tradition of middle-class men pursuing and marrying "the girl from the wrong side of the tracks", thereby elevating her, her offspring, and sometimes her extended family into the middle class. It's been a big factor in economic mobility in our nation. I guess the kind of girls you are talking about advocate that only ruling-class women should have access to successful men. I wonder if they realize that that's what they advocate. Probably not.

"You cannot legally consent if you are drinking or under the influence of drugs as your ability to consent has been impaired."

So how do drunk people legally consent to sobriety tests?

I don't like to have sex while tipsy, I like to have sex as drunk as I can get without passing out or puking!
lol!

And I hate sweet talking in order to get into my pants, bullshit ain't sexy, cut the crap and you get better chances.

What is really sexy is persistence! Well, I'm bothered by it but for some reason a lot of women I didn't wanted to get into bed with managed to get me in bed by using it, so it must be very sexy!
lol!

my grandfather has bought my grandmother a bouquet of flowers every week for more than 50 years. I was so Inspired by their loving relationship that I have done the same thing with my wife. I don't make as much as my grandfather so I only do it once a month instead. my wife has said that it makes her feel loved and apreciated.

"You know what, cunt"... this guy starts out. (Taking issue with what I wrote in the post.)

https://twitter.com/KarlToona/status/805211743844593664

Because I'm actually willing to hear out opposing viewpoints, and even interested in them, I listened to it until he called me "cunt" the second time in about 30 seconds and turned it off.

What a dimwit.

Here he had somebody willing to listen to an opposing point of view -- his, for some four plus minutes of a YouTube video -- and he thought he'd get ahead by calling me names.

The idiot then pointed out that I'd written a book with profanity in the title. Profanity in the title, yes -- which is different from namecalling. I don't go around saying, "Hey, fuckbag," "Hey, ugly," etc., and expect to get somebody to sit and listen to my viewpoint in return.

Meanwhile, the guy who made the video and some friend went after me for a while on Twitter about how I have no understanding or...?sympathy? for victims of prison rape -- until I posted this link/excerpt that is actually linked right in this post above (on the stat bit):

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/07/09/the_fallacious.html

Oh, and interestingly, though there's some disputing of the statistics, it seems the people most likely to be raped are men in prison.

If feminists are truly for equality and equal protection, where are the marches to stop prison rape?

And no, contrary to the disgusting thinking, "Oh, they're in jail; they deserve what they get," we have a justice system that assigns punishment; prison rape should not be a part of it. We have a duty, when we put a person behind bars, to see they are only serving the sentence handed down by the judge; that they are not being sexually tortured by their fellow prisoners.

I am actually somebody who thinks my own viewpoint can be improved by listening to people who think differently, so I will listen -- until you start calling me "cunt." It's simply a bad strategy. Gets people feeling attacked, not ready to listen and consider.

I recognize when people are just dumb and self-indulgent, plus the guy says he's been victimized, so I didn't take some huge offense. I'm simply not going to sit and hand over my attention as somebody's calling me "cunt."

llamas/Amy

I wasn't saying the definition was reasonable. Just that extending it to gifts (when it doesn't actually say that, even if it is potentially implied) is erecting a huge straw man that gives SJWs easy grounds for dismissing the argument as hysterical.

My comment was on tactics, not on the point.