“Campus sexual assault is an all-hands-on-deck epidemic in America.”
— Rep. Nancy Pelosi, July 7, 2015
Pardon the deliberately provocative clickbait headline, but the campus “rape culture” discourse keeps avoiding this issue. There is an obvious connection between (a) claims that sexual assault is an “epidemic” among college and university students; (b) the phenomenon of binge drinking among students, most of whom are below the legal drinking age; and (c) the adamant insistence of feminists that it is “slut-shaming” and “victim blaming” to suggest how (a) and (b) are most likely related.
A blog post is probably not an appropriate forum to conduct a psychology seminar, but anyone familiar with the research knows how promiscuity correlates with low self-esteem, and how alcohol abuse correlates with depression. It is not necessary to consult the work of academic experts, however, to know that drunks commonly wake up with hangovers and feelings of profound remorse for the irresponsible behavior they engaged in during their night of extreme inebriation.
“The plural of ‘anecdote’ is data,” as they say. There is a negative feedback loop of low self-esteem, drunkenness, impulsive behavior, shame and depression involved in the typical downward spiral of the alcoholic’s life. Getting the drunk to sober up and stay sober is usually just the beginning of recovery, because there are always unresolved emotional issues related to this pattern of irresponsible behavior.
What does it tell us, then, when we repeatedly see stories about alleged “sexual assault” which, when subjected to close scrutiny, turn out to be variations on the same familiar tale of youthful misadventure? Two drunk teenagers hooked up, then the female drunk teenager claimed (often months after the incident) that she was raped by the male drunk teenager? This is actually becoming part of the “consent” message:
Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk.
Jake and Josie hooked up.
Josie could NOT consent.
The next day Jake was charged with rape.
A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent to sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime.
It only takes a single day to ruin your life.
Think about it! Be responsible.
Are you kidding me? While we may say it is always “irresponsible” to get drunk and have sex, this is something college kids do quite routinely. When two people are both in “these circumstances,” how can anyone fairly assert that the male is guilty of a felony, while a drunken hookup makes the female a helpless victim? How does such a claim — that males bear 100% responsibility in heterosexual encounters, and that females never bear any responsibility — comport with the idea that feminism is about men and women being equal? Am I the only one who sees how “social justice” in this context becomes the exact opposite of justice?
[University of Minnesota student body president Joelle] Stangler describes yes means yes policies as “common practice.” But these policies are anything but common practice. People don’t have sex by asking “May I kiss you?” “May I touch you here?” etc. . . .
Really, anything the accuser decides later they didn’t like can become grounds for an accusation. And if the accuser was drinking, consent is automatically negated, even if the accused had been drinking as well (and would presumably therefore be unable to consent). The policy shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, meaning they have to prove a crime didn’t happen, which, short of a video recording, is impossible in a he said/she said situation.
Under “these circumstances” — where radical feminists are demanding the implementation of policies that have the effect of criminalizing heterosexuality on campus and denying male students their basic civil rights — every college boy who hooks up with a college girl should be advised to seek psychiatric treatment immediately, because any guy who has sex on campus in 2015 must obviously be crazy.
Any attempt to discuss the “affirmative consent” agenda, especially in the context of due-process rights and the climate of anti-male hysteria feminists have created on campus, results in skeptics being branded “rape apologists.” Shrugging off this slander is easy enough for an adult — what do I care what a left-wing Minnesota college kid thinks of me? — but what we must take seriously is how this rhetoric functions as a terroristic intimidation tactic that silences dissent on campus. Ms. Stangler’s student government produced a 20-page report entitled “Guys Don’t Get Consent” (PDF) which made no mention of false accusations and said nothing at all about the psychological factors involved in binge drinking and sexual promiscuity among college-age females. Instead, the UM report blamed “masculinity” and asserted (based on a survey of about 60 male students and focus groups with 18 of those) that male students at the university are all clueless creeps:
“Telling guys to ‘stop at no’ is useless. They already know that no means no. What they don’t know is that not-yes also means no. The idea of affirmative consent is foreign.”
Feminist crusaders like Ms. Stangler seem to believe new laws and mandatory lectures about “affirmative consent” are the solution, but parents of male college students can implement a far more effective solution: Tell your sons to avoid female students, period.
When your sons return to campus this fall, they will enter a climate where all male students are viewed as rape suspects, where new federal policiesencourage rape accusations, where accusations are treated as tantamount to proof of guilt, and where university officials are under heavy pressure from the Obama administration to increase the number of punitive procedures against male students. Any heterosexual activity on campus poses a grave risk for male students in this climate of frenzied hysteria, where feminists are hunting for rapists with more fanatical zeal than 17th-century Puritans hunted witches in Salem.
Responsible parents must sternly warn their sons going off to college not only to avoid sex with female students, but also never to speak to any woman on campus. The feminist campaign against masculinity, as evidenced in the University of Minnesota report, will have the effect of producing accusations of “harassment” against male students who attempt to flirt with female students, or who say or do anything that any female student may find offensive.
What do feminists find offensive? Men having sex with women.
“That consent rather than nonmutuality is the line between rape and intercourse further exposes the inequality in normal social expectations. . . . If sex is ordinarily accepted as something men do to women, the better question would be whether consent is a meaningful concept. . . .
“Sexuality, then, is a form of power. . . Women and men are divided by gender, made into the sexes as we know them, by the social requirements of heterosexuality, which institutionalizes male sexual dominance and female sexual submission.”
— Catharine MacKinnon, “Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: An Agenda for Theory” (1982)
The Feminist-Industrial Complex of Women’s Studies programs on the 21st-century campus teaches female students to hate and fear men. Before parents send a son off to college, they should advise him to expect that he will be viewed with contempt and suspicion by every female on campus. No matter how handsome he is or how popular he was in high school, your son would be a fool to presume that any female college student might ever find him attractive. Your son’s confidence in his judgment, based on his previous romantic successes, could be the hubristhat precedes nemesis in so many campus tragedies.
If anyone thinks I am exaggerating the dangers facing male college students, let them consider what happened to Paul Nungesser, what happened to Daniel Kopin, and what happened to Joshua Strange. Or consider the cases discussed by Professor K.C. Johnson at Minding the Campus. Over and over, we have seen these stories of male students who had no idea that they had encountered nemesis in the form of a female student whose emotional problems would result in accusations of sexual assault. Nor did these male students realize that such an accusation — often many weeks or months after the incident — would put them into the Kafkaesque nightmare of campus disciplinary tribunals where an accused student has none of the civil rights afforded to any common criminal in a court of law. Feminists have a cynical contempt for truth and no regard at all for the rights of innocent men destroyed by such false accusations. This dishonest campaign of deliberate cruelty is making more and more males casualties “in the Obama administration’s war on men,” as James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal said.
Promiscuity is rampant among female college students, many of whom are infected with sexually transmitted diseases. Wesleyan University’s Ella Dawson is infected with herpes, which is incurable, and a footnote on page 7 of Paul Nungesser’s lawsuit mentions that his accuser Emma Sulkowicz was reportedly treated for chlamydia. “According to Stanford University’s Sexual Health Peer Resource Center, 1 in 4 college students have an STD,” Dr. Laura Berman reports, and parents must warn their sons against this danger. Even if he were willing to accept such a grave risk to his health, however, the male student must be warned that many females on campus are psychologically disturbed.
Joelle Stengler reports that 25 percent of University of Minnesota students have mental health problems, and college-age women are particularly prone to these disorders. The student newspaper at the University of Michigan profiled a mentally ill female student they called “Maria” who has been twice arrested for assaulting police officers while in drunken blackouts. Maria is being treated with four different drugs:
The Klonopin treats her anxiety. The Lomictal and Seroquel act as mood stabilizers. The Vyvanse helps her focus. . . .
Over the last decade, it has become more and more common for college-aged women to be on the types of medication that Maria takes. The chance of a major depressive episode in 18 to 29-year-olds is three times higher than in individuals 60 years or older, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Most of these episodes occur in females. A quarter of American women take a drug for a mental health disorder, compared to 15 percent of men. The ratio of women to men on anti-anxiety meds is 2 to 1.
Whereas emotionally unbalanced young women were once institutionalized in psychiatric wards, now they are on university campuses and, like Maria at Michigan, many mentally ill female students “self-medicate” with alcohol. How can any male student know whether the girl he hooks up with at a college party — drinking, dancing, seemingly eager to be his sexual partner — is among the 1-in-4 with mental health problems? Wouldn’t he be safer if he operated with the assumption that every girl at the party is a psychiatric basket case, a deranged crazy-bomb just waiting to explode?