#METOO But Not #YOUTOO
It's so absurd. Just as there's been this massive push for women to name those who've forced sexual encounters on them there's a companion push to force both men and women into sexual encounters.
Most notably, there's the completely insane notion that a lesbian not wanting to have sex with a person with a penis is a bigot and not just -- obviously -- a lesbian!
And from The College Fix, Alexander Pease writes about Williams College suspending a male student based on his failure to pursue a relationship with a female student after "kissing and touching" her, per a lawsuit filed against the school:
Both the unnamed Hispanic student "John Doe" and his accuser "Sally Smith" are foreign students. She accused him of sexual misconduct not because he acted without her consent, John claims, but because he was "culturally insensitive" after their amorous encounters....While Sally claimed that John did not obtain her "affirmative consent" in the amorous encounters - which apparently stopped at breast-touching - it was really her "conservative religious values" that motivated the accusation, the suit claims.
The college Code of Conduct expressly states that "consent once given may be withdrawn at any time," but Sally tried to withdraw her consent after the encounters, as judged by her messages to John, he says.
Sally initiated the relationship with John in November 2016, telling "a number of her friends" before their first dinner that she was interested in him. She told him on a walk after dinner that she had "never kissed a boy" owing to the "restrictive cultural norms in her home country."
John asked for Sally's permission to kiss her in his dorm room, and she agreed. The kissing escalated to "consensual touching" while fully clothed.
Two days later she sent him a message saying "I've liked you quite a lot" and calling their amorous encounter "amazing." She apologized for "being so weird and awkward the entire time."
Though she values "the emotional aspects" of the encounter "over the physical ones, I've been feeling so different and liberated after it," Sally wrote. "I've not been this happy ever since I started college."
When he responded four days later, John showed less enthusiasm, saying that they should "hang out at some point next week" but warning that "I'm just going to be super busy until the end of the semester."
He blew her off, in other words.
And then he again blew her off:
They didn't talk again until January, when Sally interviewed for a position in a campus organization where John served in leadership. She asked to speak with him before learning she got the position, which he communicated to her at their meeting in his dorm room.Sally "expressed anger about what she saw as Doe's cultural insensitivity around their prior interaction" - failing to seek a romantic relationship with her after showing physical affection.
While John told Sally he was "emotionally unavailable," he again asked to kiss her, and she agreed again. The suit claims that he "asked Smith before initiating any new touching and did nothing without her consent."
She rejected his first request to touch her breasts but approved his second request a few minutes later.
Several days later, John asked Sally why her friends were "treating him strangely." She told him he had "emotionally manipulat[ed]" her, "tak[en] advantage of [her] lack of knowledge of American cultural norms" and "disrespect[ed]" her own cultural norms.
Of course, due process was denied John in the Title IX kangaroo court setting:
The three-member panel - all appointed by Sandstrom (right) - eventually concluded that John violated Sally's consent in January but not November.It cited her "discomfort" after the November encounter, as evidenced by her message to John about valuing "emotional" over "physical" aspects of the relationship. The panel ignored the other parts that described Sally as "liberated" by the "amazing" encounter.
Rather than cite contemporaneous evidence that Sally told John she viewed their encounters as nonconsensual, the panel cited witness statements that came to that conclusion.
It also misread an email John had sent Bossong, the director of sexual assault prevention and response, as admitting that Sally "felt that he had mistreated her" in November. In fact, the email conveyed that Sally was upset John hadn't pursued a relationship with her after kissing her, the suit claims.
Bingo. So now certain people must have sex and relationships against their will.
I can't speak for other college towns, but Austin is just covered over with prostitutes. There are low-end brothels all over town, especially North Austin, usually in strip centers or along the Interstate in industrial parks. The local alternative paper has multiple pages of ads for prostitutes catering to every whim for very reasonable prices, and any majordomo at any of the downtown hotels can easily get you fixed up with some high-quality quim at any time. The really good thing about buying pussy is that someone leaves at the end, and this is true at all price points. Everyone parts on friendly terms, and no college student ever got expelled from UT for buying sex.
So why do college-age males still fraternize with modern college females? It is truly unclear to me why this is still the case when commercial alternatives are available. Older women are usually very grateful for the sex, make few emotional demands, and are readily available in Austin. Pillaging the ranks of female seniors at the local high schools is still a thing, I believe.
I guess what I'm driving at is that there are options out there.
roadgeek at March 5, 2020 10:02 PM
When I think of all the boys I loved and left as a teen...
Yeah, it's caddish behavior, but it's also part of the search for love. We fool around and experiment. We think someone could be the one, we realize they aren't.
It sucks when someone you dated a few times turns out not to be into you. It really does.
But in this case it doesn't even sound like he was some roué who wanted to use her for sex and leave her... sounds like he was interested, but when she got weird he changed his mind.
He has the right to withdraw consent, too.
NicoleK at March 5, 2020 10:52 PM
"...no college student ever got expelled from UT for buying sex."
No student's been expelled YET. You better believe if some Lizzie Warren wannabee got offended it would happen.
"He has the right to withdraw consent, too."
No, he's male. He has responsibilities, not rights.
dee nile at March 6, 2020 4:23 AM
College men are going to get the message soon that if you say "hi" to a woman on campus, you are making a lifelong commitment to her. The knock-on effects are predicable and inevitable.
Cousin Dave at March 6, 2020 6:25 AM
no college student ever got expelled from UT for buying sex
You mean "yet". If the escort should complain to t.u. about said student, I'm sure they could accuse him of exploiting someone who was doing sex work against her will or because she had no other choice.
When in doubt: women = victims, men = perpetrators. Unless they identify as women, in which case it gets weird.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 6, 2020 6:35 AM
It seems this girl was from a culture where getting at all physical meant marriage. He did not know this. She got hurt. But in america a little kissing happens a hundred times before people settle down. For (fake) courts to adjudicate awkward consensual encounters and degree of emotional thoughtfulness is to ask far more of courts than they can deliver.
It certainly sounded consensual to me. She was expecting a degree of empathy and mind reading that is not possible. When men complain that women are crazy, this is what they mean.
cc at March 6, 2020 8:30 AM
I'll turn it over to the Georgia Satellites for the last word:
I R A Darth Aggie at March 6, 2020 10:34 AM
This kind of problem could be solved very easily by issuing each incoming freshperson a significant other upon arrival at campus. Pairings would be done at random, and would be unchangeable.
This program, like calculus or freshman comp, would be just one of those things that must be endured, but would eliminate any possible misunderstanding or respect for preference or desire. What possible downside could there be?
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy@GMail.com) at March 6, 2020 10:55 AM
If the Corps had wanted me married, they would have issued me a wife.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 6, 2020 11:58 AM
RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy@GMail.com) at March 6, 2020 10:55 AM
If the Corps had wanted me married, they would have issued me a wife.
I R A Darth Aggie at March 6, 2020 11:58 AM
One each, OD green in Color. Report of survey required when lost or misplaced.
Isab at March 6, 2020 2:06 PM
So, let me understand this.
She is expecting someone, while not in HER country, to be sensitive to HER culture norms; while admitting that she doesn't understand norms of the country they are in?
Can "John" go to her country and demand that they respect his culture while he doesn't learn theirs?
charles at March 6, 2020 7:54 PM
"Can "John" go to her country and demand that they respect his culture while he doesn't learn theirs?"
He can if he doesn't mind dying for it.
iowaan at March 7, 2020 10:53 AM
"It seems this girl was from a culture where getting at all physical meant marriage."
Isn't that one of the ten simple rules for dating my daughter?
He was just suspended. If she'd told them he lost interest when she told him she wasn't born a woman, she could have gotten him expelled.
bw1 at March 7, 2020 11:39 AM
A lullaby our mother used to sing to us:
Her mother never told her,
the things a young girl should know
about the ways of college men,
and how they come and go.
Now age has taken her beauty,
and sin has left its sad scar
so please remember your mothers boys,
and let her sleep under the bar.
bw1 at March 8, 2020 11:43 AM
Leave a comment