Phenomenal post Aspazia. This one ought to be linked all throughout the web.
Quick question, you wrote:
"While the subtext of this college policy does suggest a 2nd wave view of woman's sexuality as passive and helpless to men's predatory sexual behavior"
I'm not familiar with what exactly is implied by the different "waves" of feminism. Briefly, what is the 2nd wave, and how does it relate to that sentence? Also, any secondary literature you would recomend for a summary of what it means to be part of the various waves?
I really liked this post. It did get me thinking, which automatically gets kudos from me.
While I am not a feminist, gender-anomalous and all, I do see how a policy like this can be demeaning. I'm not sure as I understand it properly, but it is almost like the woman is being relegated to a secondary human status. I keep getting the feeling like others have to do the protecting, but I know that isn't right.
Bah! I'll just keep thinking about it. Need to do some conscious raising anyway.
I see your point. Our school paper (as I think would a lot of others as well) carries a weekly report on the number of crimes committed on campus.
As a new student, I remember reading about two separate incidents during the same week. In one case, a female student returning home late had been nabbed from behind by someone who then made off with her purse and some other belongings. In the second case, another female student had been beaten up and brutally raped in an isolated part of the campus. The article had termed both these crimes simply as 'sexual assaults', which seemed very strange, given the vast difference in the magnitude of the two incidents.
Welcome to the "right" Aspazia. We have been arguing this for some time. I own my sexuality and desires, which is why I said no many times. I was a virgin until I married my minister. I am so happy to say that after I graduate, my husband and I will have a baby (I'm due in August 
)
Thank you for this post. You are on the right track, Aspazia.
Hillsdale Honey
Impressive and highly nuanced post.
Perhaps I can support Aspazia from a decidedly less right-wing perspective than some earlier commenters. The whole issue makes me think of “Saint Kinsey,” the famous sex researcher from the 1950s. How Kinsey got under puritanical America’s skin was by daring to look at sex and sexuality naturalistically, as a phenomenon of the human animal. He dared to look at what actually happens, rather than what ought to happen according to a particular moral code. He dared to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
This has been reinforced by anti-AIDS activism and research. The potential for AIDS to reinforce traditional blinders and prejudices about sexuality has been extremely great. But instead, at least in the research community, the need to deal with AIDS has had the opposite effect – it has led researchers and activists to look into sexual activities, in a diversity of cultures worldwide, which had been hidden or stigmatized or simply not talked about. In order to deal with the epidemic it has become necessary to be honest – in detail -- about sex as it is really practiced, something which is difficult to do because cultures tend to view sex through prescriptive codes of propriety and morality, codes which don’t actually describe or address real practices which are much harder to find out about or to discuss in a transparent way.
Somehow, though, this spirit of naturalism about genital actions is not carried forward into thinking about how people hook up romantically or sexually, particularly on college campuses which have the kinds of policies Aspazia describes. It is as though there was some kind of law of conservation of taboo, and when taboos are lifted from thought about one aspect of sexual behavior, they are imposed onto another.
Specifically my argument is that by requiring consent to follow a prescriptive (verbal) protocol, such policies obviate and occlude the critical question, which should be researched naturalistically, as to how consent actually takes place, either in the student culture in general or in any particular case. And in particular cases, measuring consent against the prescriptive verbal protocol actually can prevent and forestall any real investigation as to the presence or absence of consent (as most of us would understand it). That seems to be what happened in the case that most troubles Aspazia. (By the way, this factor, which is particular to university policies as far as I know, means that this case is several standard deviations weirder – particularly from a philosophical perspective -- than the usual “false accusation” case or scenario.)
There are some similarities, at least in their effects, between the kind of consent policy that Aspazia is referring to and the biblical Right’s abstinence-only version of sex education. Both of them impose prescriptive norms for behavior, norms which don’t seem to fit (or even to affect, much) real practices among the target population of modern young Americans. Both of them make honest discussion of what actually goes on more difficult, since persons who dissent from the policy – or even who have honest questions about where it fits with their own experiences and lives -- can be accused of going against religion/ morality or against feminism. Arguably, both of them conflate harmless or even positive experiences of sexuality with those which are predatory and cause real harm – they may cast too wide a net in their anxiety to be protective. Both of them probably impede the ability to develop policies which effectively and realistically target the behaviors they find most objectionable. And not least, perhaps both of them are evidence that human beings just can’t seem to be rational and naturalistic about sex and sexuality. A certain amount of hypocrisy and dogma seems always to invade the regulation of human sexual behavior, even among those who imagine themselves liberated and enlightened.
humbition--
Your comments are always so thoughtful and well written. I think you should do a guest post on this topic. I hate to see what you said buried in the comments. Thank you! (And, I am serious about a guest post gig!)
Jeff--
"I'm not familiar with what exactly is implied by the different "waves" of feminism. Briefly, what is the 2nd wave, and how does it relate to that sentence? Also, any secondary literature you would recomend for a summary of what it means to be part of the various waves?"
Well, the first wave is the suffragettes--Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton etc. You can watch Ken Burns documentary on this or the recent commerical film _Iron Jawed Angels_.
Sara Evans _Tidal Wave_ is a good historical account of the second wave. Also classic works by Kate Millett, the Red Stockings, Betty Friedan, Andrea Dworkin, etc. The Second Wave is connected with birth control, ERA, abortion, equal pay, etc. Many would argue that feminism hasn't really moved beyond the second wave, particularly in terms of the political issues.
Many scholars, however, are now referring to a "third wave," inspired by young women who are more empowered sexually (sex positive feminists) and also by critiques that second wave feminism didn't address the concerns of women of color or LGBTQ folks. This third wave is still murky, in the making, and I think we need some critical distance on this era to figure out what, if anything, organizes it.
I hope that helps.
Technical point: False convictions deter too in principle, so it's not as if removing a non-guilty student from campus is to do nothing or show no interest to reduce campus rapes.
I'm pretty ignorant about rape and its issues: Is the common law language defining emotional distress or assault not helpful to defining rape? Or how do the courts define rape, for that matter? Do they avoid defining it, and just let the jury decide? Are there no standard jury instructions courts use "if you find such and such occurred then you must find the defendant raped the plaintiff"? I suppose the problem is to distinguish non-violent violations from non-violent behavior that doesn't rise to the level of a violation. What does the distribution of actual violations on campus look like? Is it skewed deep to the non-violent side? If not, perhaps a worthy goal is a definition of rape that captures the easily distinguished cases. You'd be able to "convict" the deserving and you'd also have code language that didn't obscure the violative nature of the offense. Not that the code should ignore the hard-to-formulate kinds of rape, but maybe it should be two tier: Rape I and Rape II ("rape"/"coercive sex"/"nonconsensual sex") . Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.
You also forgot to include in that "1ST Wave" of feminists the following women:
Ida B. Wells-Barnett
Mary Church Terrell
Anna Julia Cooper
These women worked tirelessly for black rights and women's rights.
At a time when all the women (were white), and all the blacks (were men), many black women in the suffrage movement were brave.
I paraphrase the title of a well-known book on black women's place in our country's history, especially feminism.
For many years, as it is still now, people think of white women when they hear the word "women", especially when talking about the strides made by women; many people think of black men when they hear the word "blacks", as if many black women during the 1ST wave, 2ND wave and during the cvil rights era did nothing to advance the cause of both blacks and women. But, there were many unsung black women who made a difference, even if their efforts was not wanted or appreciated by white women of the first or second wave.
Oh, and some other notable black women of the 2ND wave are as follows:
Shirley Chisholm
Florence Kennedy
Fannie Lou Hamer
Ella Baker
They definately deserve to not be forgotten.
The third wave of feminism is upon us.
What white women do now to work with black women and other women of color will tell whether we really have come very far.
The furture is being written now.
Now is the chance for all women to return to what feminism truly is:
The theory of the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.
Thanks for the info Asp!
Great post. I am offended and pissed off across the board.
This is a great post and I hope everything is improved... one way or another.
Even if you change the code, how do you correct the unjust implementation?
soul searcher, by changing the code, you create an atmosphere where implementation is more just. one way to achieve this is through more transparency. i also hope that you have taken note that it is the feminist community and liberal, progressive community that is demanding these changes, not to mention that the campus's leading feminisits and many progressives came to the defense of the one falsely accussed. i have heard that you blame these two communities for this policy, which is misplaced blame. you need to question and reform your political assumptions about feminists and progressives.
d.c. dude
I've brought this to the attention of alas, a blog which will certainly bring it more visibility. It so happened that it was relevant to a current thread on alas.
For those readers as well as the denizens of this blog I want to nuance my comment above. When I say that we need to research naturalistically how consent is achieved at colleges, I don't mean to abdicate our own responsibility to define consent. That is, I am not saying "if she doesn't think it's rape at the time then it automatically isn't rape."
We have a right to teach people what it means to consent in a meaningful way. The ethical ideal, which may or may not be possible to fully legislate, seems to me to have to do with "mutual desire" (NOT arousal) and/or "enthusiastic participation."
Such a way of defining consent goes far toward a more stringent concept than the common one in the culture. Nevertheless verbal consent is neither necessary nor, in my opinion, sufficient to determine consent according to this ethical standard.
So by naturalistic research I mean, OK, we observe interactions which we see as unproblematically consensual, arrived at by means which are culturally common but which differ from the verbal consent protocol. Can we fairly redefine such interactions as nonconsensual? and why would we do such a thing?
excellent, thought-provoking post.
I really liked this post, and I have to admit that at first glance I had a gut feeling that I would not. I do, however, think you made a couple of generalizations which I don’t totally get. First
“All colleges are required to report the number of rapes, assaults, and thefts that occur on a campus. This information has to be made available to prospective students and their parents. And, no college wants to report the real number of rapes and assualt that takes place. The conduct code in place allows them to rename what happened as sexual misconduct. This prevents the charge from being an actual felony or crime according to the PA code.”
I agree that the callow practice of redefining rape to C it’s A in the public eye (and ratings) is terrible. It is, however, important to understand that all cases are brought to the local district attorney before proceeding with a college investigation or follow through. It is often the ambiguity of these instances which leads to no official follow through on the part of the state. It is also important to understand that in the event of official follow through, the institutions hands are tied (i.e. they legally can do nothing) until that investigation is completed. The state investigation is often half assed and far from timely.
“The conduct code also makes it easy to get any student who has been accused of rape off campus immediately, in order to protect the college from any liability.”
I think that I can agree with the point your making here, but I always felt that this policy was more intended to protect the environment of the victim – i.e. getting this person away from the extremely small community in which both live.
“So, the code is not designed to really punish students and send a serious a message that rape and sexual assualt is not tolerated.”
A semester suspension is not necessarily the “norm” for sanctioning. The more serious instances have always resulted in expulsion. Again, in these same cases – of which I can think of only one – the state decided not to follow up on its own accord due to lack of evidence. In this same case, were the college to have a different policy, the student would have most likely stayed on campus and finished his time here after doing something that (in the eyes of any rational person) was flagrant rape.
“only to serve their self-interest and not to actually prevent rape or sexual assault” Seriously? I really doubt that a college (any college) created sexual misconduct policies without the intent of reducing rape and sexual assault. I mean I get where your coming from here, but I think that to place the entire motivation for these policies on self interest is a little much.
And also, because I felt like I had to comment.
“sports teams and fraternities--wherein sexual assualt of women seems like a rite of passage,” There is no way that sexual assault is a rite of passage…that’s ridiculous. Sex…maybe and likely, but sexual assault? I think you could potentially argue that the importance placed on sex may lead some to sexual assault, but that doesn’t mean that the same person goes back and tells everyone what he did and gets high fives for it. If this were the case…it would be delt with I can assure you of that. Now I’m not saying I know everything about what goes on here, but I do certainly know more than the average bear – and this would not be tolerated. 99% of the people in these institutions feel the same way about rape as you and I do, and the other 1% didn’t get the way they are from the fraternity or the sports team – they most likely brought that problem with them.
“And, the college doesn't actually want to take on the fraternities or sports teams, since it is precisely these college institutions that attract so many men--willing to pay high tuition costs--to a liberal arts college.”
Again, I agree, and this is a problem. However, and I think within a short timeline, you will see this begin to change. How, you ask? By doing exactly what you suggested…making them more transparent.
So again, great post. I really do agree with a lot of what you have said, and this is coming from someone who has long supported this policy. I too have facilitated a number of the orientation discussions. I have always felt them to be productive and informative. I have had a number of men leave the room better off (in my own opinion) than when they came in. I do agree that the lumping term of sexual assault is problematic given the varying degrees of offenses. This post also got me thinking about how truly one sided and problematic this policy is. One of the things that I do feel a number of freshman have gained from our discussions is the fact that their conception of rape (when they come here) is often far from the reality of the situation. They often only understand the “Hollywood version” of the issue, a forced and brutal offence. This is one thing I always attempt to lead them away from. I guess that my ability to do this given the aforementioned policy is exactly why I have always liked it.
I am curious of how specifically you think we could improve the policy. I get the need for varying degrees, but would be interested in what changes could make the policy more fair, realistic, and protective for all of our students. Given all that you have said, I have been thinking about how I would write the policy to make it better. I haven’t gotten very far, but I’m curious, how would you re-write it? I mean I know you alluded to a lot of things but I would be interested in what exactly a better policy would say to get all of those good points across. My apologies for this ending up so long.
A.B.---
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am going to respond, however, to a few of your comments where I respectfully disagree.
"It is, however, important to understand that all cases are brought to the local district attorney before proceeding with a college investigation or follow through. It is often the ambiguity of these instances which leads to no official follow through on the part of the state. It is also important to understand that in the event of official follow through, the institutions hands are tied (i.e. they legally can do nothing) until that investigation is completed. The state investigation is often half assed and far from timely."
This is not correct. The D.A. will get a recommendation from the local borough police to take or not take the case if the investigation believes that a violation of the P.A. Code took place. However, the college proceeds with its own kangaroo court regardless of the D.A. or the police. In fact, the college sees its code and procedures as totally separate from the local borough and D.A.'s office. If the D.A. takes the case, the college is still able to find the student responsible or not according to its own policies. What is more troublesome is that the college sets the hearing date usually within a week of the allegations and does no investigation other than take the statements of the two students involved. The evidence collected from the hospital, for example, does not enter into the college hearing. Witnesses are discouraged since College Life feels that they are always "friends" and therefore not credible. And, the whole hearing is taped, so that if the D.A. didn't have a case before the college's own hearing, he/she might have one after the hearing.
I don't agree that the state is more likely to half ass the cases. The college absolutely HALF ASSES the cases. The standards of evidence are the lowest of any evidence standards. And, the college policy is so total that almost anyone can be convicted under it. The fact that the state takes longer is GOOD. That is DUE PROCESS. Forcible rape is a felony charge. The College has no business renaming this "sexual misconduct" and then holding a bogus hearing. If you are going to charge someone with a felony, then you need the presumption of innocence. This is the hallmark of our country!
"Seriously? I really doubt that a college (any college) created sexual misconduct policies without the intent of reducing rape and sexual assault. I mean I get where your coming from here, but I think that to place the entire motivation for these policies on self interest is a little much."
I would love to believe you are right. But, from my interactions, I have yet to see that this college takes rape and sexual assualt seriously. You know, students spend a lot of time learning the Honor Code and taking an exam. They get only 45 minutes during orientation to learn what consent is, and not in a very meaningful way since most facilitiators are pretty unversed in the nuances and subtleties of rape/consent/law. It took the college years to create more lighting on campus. When the "groper" was assaulting women, it took the college an unbelieveable amount of time before it did ANYTHING to make students aware of what was happening, and that was AFTER he had RAPED a student. I have yet to see any substantial programming coming out of the Women's Center on this issue. I could go on and on. But, the bottom line is that if the college wasn't likely to be sued by the federal government for not protecting a student from her rapist, then I doubt we would have the policies that we now have. Sorry.
"There is no way that sexual assault is a rite of passage…that’s ridiculous. Sex…maybe and likely, but sexual assault? I think you could potentially argue that the importance placed on sex may lead some to sexual assault, but that doesn’t mean that the same person goes back and tells everyone what he did and gets high fives for it. If this were the case…it would be delt with I can assure you of that. Now I’m not saying I know everything about what goes on here, but I do certainly know more than the average bear – and this would not be tolerated. 99% of the people in these institutions feel the same way about rape as you and I do, and the other 1% didn’t get the way they are from the fraternity or the sports team – they most likely brought that problem with them."
Part of what was in my mind here is the Duke Rape Case, which, is a pretty commonplace thing on most college campuses, including our own. Plenty of date rapes, gang rapes, and sexual assaults have occurred in fraternities on our own campus. Sometimes the college has dealt with it. But, they can only deal with it if the women come forward and few will. I was asked to be on a "task force" a few years ago (after the groper incident). I asked the female students that we were interviewing how easy it would be to tell one of their friends they were raped. Universallly, they all said it would be impossible. In part because they would be socially ostracized, not believed, or called a slut. But, if you want an excellent anthropological study of rape in fraternties, read _Fraternity Gang Rape_ by Peggy Sanday. Also, you might want to read _Pledged_by Alexandra Robinson. While perhaps you were fortunate to be around a group of guys who would not tolerate rape/rapists, the fact is that the incidents of rape among people on sports teams or fraternities is incredibly high. It amazes me sometimes that we even allow these institutions, particularly fraternities, to continue to exist here given what goes on there.
"I am curious of how specifically you think we could improve the policy. I get the need for varying degrees, but would be interested in what changes could make the policy more fair, realistic, and protective for all of our students. Given all that you have said, I have been thinking about how I would write the policy to make it better. I haven’t gotten very far, but I’m curious, how would you re-write it? I mean I know you alluded to a lot of things but I would be interested in what exactly a better policy would say to get all of those good points across."
I sincerely hope someone will ask me to participate in the rewriting of the policy. I would totally eliminate many of the sections, particularly the "hugging, kissing, etc." The fact is that the way our policy stands now, it is absolutely UNENFORCEABLE and thereby anyone found guilty under it has been discriminated against, since almost every student on this campus breaks it regularly. I also FIRMLY believe that we have NO business handling felony cases on this campus. Sure, the college is within its rights to do so, but it is a total violation of civil liberties and therefore immoral. If a felony has occured, especially a sex crime, then we need a thorough and professional investigation. We need to get the victim advoctates/therapist. And the accused has the right to counsel. I happen to be on the board of Survivors in town, and know that this D.A. cares alot about rape/assault. I would trust the professionals to handle this and not three students, and a few college life employees. It is an embarrassment. But, I would be happy, any time, to be part of group that would radically revise our policy. Take out the "subjective" language that allows the jury a lot of latitude to selectively enforce it. Etc.
Thanks again A.B.. As you can see, I am passionate about this issue.
Again this is all so interesting to me, especially since I have been thinking about this a lot lately due to a number of conversations revolving around my work-place…
I should clarify that when I said DA…I shouldn’t have. I think I was thinking possibly of the borough police (or maybe their investigator)… All that I know is that whoever gets consulted first, have disappointed me on at least one or two occasions with a lack of official follow through. It is on these same occasions which the college has had to decide whether or not to follow through. I would have agreed with the decision to do so because no one doing anything in these instances would have been a serious mistake. That being said, I see where your coming from about the college process and agree that three students and some admins have no place deciding the outcome of a felon. I think that the main point I was trying to make is (at least to my knowledge) the opportunity for a thorough and professional investigation exists each time something like this happens. I am also pretty sure that they get all if not more information than the college does, and I just don’t understand why they often don’t do anything with it. I guess, that I feel, that I would rather have the college half ass it than have no ass at all… I would agree, however, that I would rather not have this occur under the current system in place at the college – it certainly needs to be re-vamped. I would also agree with many of your comments on evidence and due process; I guess I just can't get my head around something happening and nothing happening because of it. I guess, at this point i'm not really sure what to think...
“The fact is that the way our policy stands now, it is absolutely UNENFORCEABLE and thereby anyone found guilty under it has been discriminated against, since almost every student on this campus breaks it regularly.”
I think you bring up such a good point here and I was literally just complaining about the same thing happening concerning some other policies on campus. I still, however, am straining to come up with a way to make the policy better (outside of some of the suggestions you already made). I mean what large scale changes will actually make the changes I think were both agreeing need to be made.
“Plenty of date rapes, gang rapes, and sexual assaults have occurred in fraternities on our own campus. Sometimes the college has dealt with it. But, they can only deal with it if the women come forward, which few will.”
Couldn’t that be said about any case in a college atmosphere whether it be a fraternity or dorm? I’m very "on the fence" as far as this issue goes. There is a part of me that says yes the fraternities provide an atmosphere which harbors these types of activities. I think that in these cases those organizations should be outed for what they are, and held accountable. On the other side, these activities are certainly not the case everywhere or in every organization. Should we shut down every dorm that has a similar occurrence (this, obviously, is a really stupid analogy). I just think that yes these things do occur there and yes these organizations should be removed. I feel particularly strong about this because it’s these actions which proliferate the stereotype. Is the stereotype founded in reality; yes…Is it true everywhere in every organization; no.
“It amazes me sometimes that we even allow these institutions, particularly fraternities, to continue to exist here given what goes on there.”
I agree, and frankly we shouldn’t. However to punish all for the actions of a few just doesn’t seem fair (unless of course they are all really doing it). The real and obvious problem lies in the apparent inability to even hold the few fully accountable at most institutions. While I understand that rates of rape are higher on sports teams and in fraternity houses, I’m still hesitant to totally attribute the cause of these actions solely on the fraternity or team. Now I know that this line of argument opens up a lot of holes – i.e. Fraternity houses create the atmosphere of acceptance, let students reside in general anonymity, fail to provide supervision, etc. I don’t disagree with any of that and its something I work to change. I do think, though, at the end of the day any given action is the result of an individual; an individual who regardless of their various associations makes their own decisions. I also understand that life’s not really that clear cut.
I had always thought that one of the beneficial things to our SA code was the subjectivity. I’m more or less an eternal optimist and had always assumed that if/when this subjectivity were abused, it would be cleared up in the long run (of course I have been proven wrong on that…). I always knew, however, that the brand (whether guilty or not) would leave a serious scar... I guess my appreciation of the subjectivity existed because I thought it gave people a better atmosphere (and better opportunity) to come forward and combat these problems here. I also thought it helped people better understand how they need to be accountable for their actions. However, all this reading has really gotten me thinking… I have never really looked at similar policies anywhere else. I wonder, if you have found another institution that has a good one. I too hope that some time goes into making a revision or two, and quite frankly would be interested in being a part of that process.
The point about false accusations took me back to college in the late 1960s (in Berkeley). The standard advice, to professors, or any other male who happened to have a room/office in a public building, was this: "Never, ever, under any circumstances, close the door when there is a female student in there with you. Because if she gets irritated, rips her dress, and screams, you have NO defense." The only difference now looks to be that she doesn't have to sacrifice the dress to acheive the same end.
It may seem strange, but one of the biggest reasons that this kind of policy has bothered me is that, because literally interpreted it would seem to apply to so much of "normal" courtship, it might actually frighten some sensitive (and respectful of women) young men away from their own sexual/ romantic needs and expression. I wonder if I am way off here. In postmodern terms I guess that I'm worried about the "good subjects" of the policy as well as the "bad subjects." I am NOT talking about misogynists who use the policies as an excuse (for telling themselves and others that you just can't date women anymore), something which I have also seen on the web.
My suggestions for changing the policies: get rid of verbal prior consent, especially for handholding, hugs, and even possibly kisses -- I am trying to develop a good way of explaining how nonverbal consent works, and if done right it's just as rigorous, i.e. it doesn't work by "messages" and and certainly not as pseudo-contractual "promises" as viewed by entitlement. Nonverbal consent is in the moment and is part of an ongoing feedback process that goes back and forth between the parties, and unethical sex is often (I propose) definable as one person's overriding of the ongoing relational feedback, including nonverbal feedback.
(What is all that hugs and touching stuff doing under sexual assault anyway, isn't it usually boilerplate for sexual harassment, and would that be lesser? I may be confused here.)
I think it should be made clear, especially for the sake of the "good subjects" that I mention above, that the normal cycle of "making a move" and response (positive or respected negative), is not a target of the policy. Slavoj Zizek of all people seems to think that sexual harassment policies demonize the moment of "making a move" that founds any relationship. I suggest that you try to revise the policies to prove him wrong!
I also think that intention has to be a part of the enforcement of the policy -- maybe it is. I have read about some policies of this kind where the feelings of the complainant are the only thing taken into consideration regardless of the intentions of the accused. Now, the feelings of the complainant are probably usually right about these intentions, as we normally calibrate our feelings based on what we think the other person's intentions toward us are! Still, other factors can intervene, including racial or ethnic stereotyping, personal histories, etc. In legal cases "mens rea" -- I'm not a lawyer and I just picked up this term the other day -- always makes a difference although it doesn't just refer to the "say so" of the accused. In fact the intentions of the accused are determined by others (judge and jury), using their mirror neurons and their knowledge of the circumstances and contexts of the case.
If there are good reasons to disagree with my ideas here I welcome learning about them. But, at least I think my intentions are good -- whatever that is worth! I hope I have been wise in overriding my resistance to setting down these proposals and ideas.
I emphasized young men because of the bias that aspazia says exists in the enforcement of the policies. But I would worry about young female "good subjects" too.
It seems that many times when we try to develop an answer to remediate some cultural script, we end up reinscribing the very script we are trying to remediate. In this case, might we be seeing some reinscription of traditional, and maybe even patriarchal, scripts about sexuality? Even if that is not the whole truth it is still worthy of discussion.
Commenting by HaloScan
