From the male perspective: If you are going to err with women, it is better to err on the side of boldness. Timidity or shyness will get you nowhere. And if you get a "no" or one of those "how-dare-you" looks, be respectful and walk away.

"Timidity or shyness will get you nowhere."

This is absolutely true - a man never got the girl by not asking her out.

The quickest way to get laid (when single) is to ask for it in some way.

W/some women it's straightforward. W/other women it's a little trickier. W/GIRLS (their mental age/attitude) it's not worth the trouble or effort.

So I'm confused. Doesn't affirmative consent mean you ask for sex? Isn't that the new rule? He was just following the rules...

Obviously, young people need to know in advance that boors exist and how to deal with them without the help of their superiors all the time.

(Semi-related)

A letter to Newsweek, from Sept. 2004:

"I applaud your succinct and articulate examination of the problem of parents who have difficulty saying no when their children want 'what everybody else has' ('The Power of No,' Sept. 13). As a career educator I repeatedly say to parents that one of the most harmful things you can say to your children is 'All I want is for you to be happy.' I point out that it is far more essential for parents to be adult enough to say, 'Life is going to throw you curveballs, and it is more important that I teach you how to deal with that.' You alluded to the fact, but never said, that an important lesson for children is to learn how to deal with peer pressure. If parents give in to their children, for the myriad reasons that you suggested, how will the children ever learn the skill of standing up for principles?"
Mary Lou Dillon
Nyack, N.Y.

Now, can we also talk about the importance of teaching young men (and women) that there's more than one way to ask for sex and that some ways really ARE rude and unacceptable, even if you think you're just being "honest"? That has always been the case, after all. (Not to mention the long-running theory that kids everywhere tend to listen more to their peers more than their parents; all the more reason for parents to enforce their lessons even harder.)

In the meantime, here's an interesting column by Katha Pollitt (she's also an English professor, BTW):

http://www.thenation.com/article/the-schools-where-free-speech-goes-to-die/

"The Schools Where Free Speech Goes to Die: Some of the worst offenders against the First Amendment are religious colleges."

First paragraphs:

"Trigger warnings, safe spaces, micro-aggressions—in 2015, pundits, politicians, and other serious people had a lot of fun bemoaning academia as a liberal la-la land where hands are held and minds are coddled. I’m rather old-school when it comes to free expression. I didn’t go for author and Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis’s notorious essay cheering professor-student affairs, but surely it was overkill for grad students to bring charges against her under Title IX for having a 'chilling effect' on student victims’ willingness to come forward. Wouldn’t writing a letter to the editor sufficed? As for dropping Ovid’s Metamorphoses from the Literature Humanities core class at Columbia after students demanded trigger warnings about its accounts of rape: Wasn’t it bad enough that Ovid was shipped off to Romania? Must his beautiful poems follow him into exile?

"Attacks on 'political correctness' champion educational values: the importance of grappling with challenging ideas and texts, mixing it up with different kinds of people, expanding your worldview, facing uncomfortable facts. How will students grow into strong, independent adults in a tough and complex world if they’ve spent four years lying on a mental fainting couch? Good question. There’s a whole swath of academia, though, that gets left out of the discussion, despite the fact that its restrictions on speech and behavior, on what is taught in the classroom or argued in a lecture series, would make Yale and Northwestern and the rest look like New Orleans during Mardi Gras..."

I love the last paragraph, too.

And, from the comment by Larry Gilman, underneath:

"...The helix of irony rounds another turn when one considers that Wheaton, where all things C. S. Lewis (including personal relics like furniture) are enshrined at the famous Marion Wade Center, could never have hired Lewis; he rejected Biblical inerrancy..."

re lenona's post: Katha Pollitt says " I’m referring, of course, to evangelical and Catholic colleges."

Despite the title the article is about the dangers (DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!) inherent if an evangelical college wants to impose (YES IMPOSE) their belief system on the students/teachers it wants to attend/employ. My example: Say a christian group wants a christian to be a leader rather than a non-christian.

WOW! Who would have thought! (It's like these groups think they are something special, unique, and of interest to a particular group of like-minded people.)

What's her (Katha Pollitt) point?

(HINT: "If students are being denied a broad, mind-stretching education at universities often considered among the best in the world, what about the biased, blinkered, partial education that students are receiving at religious colleges?")

NO bias by Ms. Pollitt against religious colleges is present in her presentation of facts is present at any time I'm sure. (Just ignore "... blinkered, partial education, ...)

Let me know when Cal. State bans Muslim and African American groups because they will not let white conservatives be their leaders. (Oh, right, it's okay 'cause you know they are not religious groups.)

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/23234/

"Two Christian student groups that were derecognized by the California State University system last year have been allowed to return.

It came at a steep price, though: They have agreed in writing to let non-Christians run for elected leadership positions in each chapter across CSU’s 23 campuses."

The question is how "normal" people are to react to the rules of "fragile" people in an anti-fragile fashion.

It's been a year and she's still not over it. Still talking about herself evey other sentence. The guy dodged a bullet there.

To Bob

Well, here's one point she made, among several:

"...And with Title IX exemptions in hand, colleges are free to ban and expel LGBT students, discriminate against women, use the Bible as a science text, and fire professors who disagree—without putting their federal funding at risk. The truth-in-advertising principle may protect the right of private colleges to do this. But the last time I looked, separation of church and state was still in the Bill of Rights..."

lenona,

Congress and the U.S. Department of Education disagree with you. Sorry about that.

"The question is how "normal" people are to react to the rules of "fragile" people in an anti-fragile fashion."

False premise Stephan. It is not a moral or legal obligation for others to protect those who have intentionally infantilized themselves. You treat the fragile no different than you treat anyone else. The consequences of their inability to cope are on them.

The real issue was for parents. Like in many situations there is a difference between feeling good and doing good. It feels good to protect your children from hurt or harm. But this does not do good. Since they will encounter complicated or dangerous situations refusing to educate them in order to 'protect their innocence' is abusive.

Lenona,

Even those dead white slave owning guys who wrote the constitution and the bill'o'rights disagree with your interpretation.

I don't know what the issue is here but if this is the first time that this cupcake has ever been hit on, she must have lived in a convent. And I'm not so sure about that.

So let me get this right

Nut job feminist women push for affirmative consent, a set of rules that quite literally makes any sexual encounter a felony should you fail to verbally ask for(and receive verbal and enthusiastic consent for) any and every escalation in sexual activity from holding hands and kissing up to sex

This guy does that, and he is still wrong?

Its been a year and it still upsetting to her that a guy propositioned her.

Nice name drop too, not very subtle at all in your efforts to NOT name names

Maybe it's been a year since she got hit on and she is reminiscing trying to figure out what went wrong.

"use the Bible as a science text..."

I'm going to toss out a provocative question here. How is this any different, in any manner whatsoever, from teaching Marxism as a viable economic system -- which is something that most private and nearly all public colleges do? There is no a single word in the writings of Marx that is any more scientific than anything in the Bible. Yet one is controversial to the point that many people demand that it be banned even in private, but the other is regarded as sage.

lujlp, since he wasn't her boyfriend, it was ludicrous for him to think that it's polite to ask for sex from someone he hasn't even kissed yet. Can we all agree on that?

And, maybe I've forgotten something already, but is there any proof that she was talking about this without someone's ASKING her, first, about whether she ever went through an incident like that? Otherwise, she might not have talked about it at all.

To Bob:

You mean, disagree with Pollitt, per se.

I'm pretty sure Pollitt meant that if there ARE such disagreements, Congress et al need to be consistent in how they enforce the rules.

Anything else in her column that doesn't make sense to you? Or in the comment by Larry that I mentioned?

it was ludicrous for him to think that it's polite to ask for sex from someone he hasn't even kissed yet. Can we all agree on that?

Hell Fucking No we can not agree, for several point

1. No one made the claim he thought his proposition was polite. I just pointed out under pain of federal law his proposition was required to be stated verbally

2. Even this girl admits she isnt giving the exact words he used, it could have been 'wanna fuck?' it could have been a fucking Shakespearean sonnet for all we know. Hell it might have been nothing more than asking if she was interested in dating.

All we do know is in feminist la la land FACTS are immaterial to FEELINGS. To her how she subjectively felt about it after the fact is all that matters, not the objective facts of the proposition.

3. Crack post feminist theory posits (and female driven hookup culture seems to confirm) that men and women are the same, ergo there is no reason for men to assume women do not want sex just as often as they do.

This man broke no laws, in fact he scrupulously FOLLOWED the law.

He had no position of authority or supervision over her. No sexual harassment

As a recent volunteer in that origination she out ranked him. No sexual harassment

He, even according to her, asked only once and never mentioned it again once she said no. No sexual harassment

Yet a year later she is claiming she was harassed and he is using his leadership roles in various organizations to harass and possibly assault women.

So no, we fucking cant agree that he was impolite because we dont fucking know what he actually said, and what few fucking facts we do have suggest this woman (who has a documented history of mental problems) is still obsessing over a non incident that happened over a year ago.

What jujilp said but not as politely.

The rules/laws are you have to ask, again, and again, and again.

So what's her problem? It's against the rules/laws to be subtle, indirect, or coy.

It has to be straight up "What to have sex?" in those exact words AND EVEN THEN, EVEN IF SHE REALLY REALLY ENJOYED IT, you had better hope that she or her friends NEVER EVER think differently.

So not only should he ask but he should get her permission noted by an impartial party who will back him up if trouble comes knocking at his door.

Is that clear enough? It's what the rules/law requires.

lenona,
"To Bob:

You mean, disagree with Pollitt, per se.

I'm pretty sure Pollitt meant that if there ARE such disagreements, Congress et al need to be consistent in how they enforce the rules."

Since Pollitt (1) purposely started her article off w/a misleading title (no comparison of facts just the statement as if it's obvious w/o saying), (2) obviously is biased against religious colleges (see my post), and (3) was totally incorrect about exemptions from Title IX, I have no clue about what Pollitt "meant" for her article to be about.

If it was to be an interesting informative article about the cons of religious colleges then she failed.

If she is a Professor then she has failed at more things than just the writing of this article.

(My feelings are not based on my thoughts of how religious colleges should be run or on religious matters at all. Pollitt has taken up precious time and has not provided any useful information for comtemplation.)

Bob, can I just say, I appreciate it when people understand my obscenity laden rants are me being polite

"...because tour team is an incredibly safe space for me..."

This is an amazingly clueless idiot, from which I will flee, and of whom I will advise everyone else to flee. This attitude is that of the systemically incompetent, unable even to get toast from the toaster if it doesn't pop up, forget defending home and family when it is necessary.

Her helicopter parents must be so proud...

Whining is not a valid lifestyle just because, at one time, you were among those who responded to your whining.

(3) was totally incorrect about exemptions from Title IX,
_____________________________________

Proof, please?

Specifically, here's what she said - what's inaccurate about it?

"According to a report by the Human Rights Campaign, there was a sharp uptick last year in the number of schools that requested and received exemptions to Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination. From 2013 to 2015, 35 schools obtained waivers from the US Department of Education that would allow them to discriminate against students and faculty who are LGBT, female, or pregnant."