Wednesday, April 06, 2011

Removing the organ and demanding the function

"From what I can see, the [White House] initiative against sexual harassment in colleges is the height of hypocrisy. Nothing about coed dorms, nothing about wild drinking and drugging, nothing about immodest dress, nothing about Sex Weeks and sex toys and the frankest kind of sexual advice dispensed in student newspapers, and nothing about taking responsibility for one’s own behavior. They want to protect the atmosphere of sexual license while tightening the rules to make it easier to accuse someone of assault."

--Carol Iannone, Phi Beta Cons

11 comments:

Singring said...

Blaming coed dorms for harassment - well, I guess that's just your regular, run-of-the-mill conservative prude paranoia.

And of course - no girl is ever raped. She just 'accuses' other people of doing so.

Singring said...

Wow.

Martin, honestly, please consider taking down this post. The very next line in the article you cite is this:

'It could be seen as a continuation of the effort to destroy masculinity by neutering men.'

I think we should all agree that anyone who proposes that anti-harassment and anti-rape laws are an effort to 'neuter men' quite frankly does not deserve any attention.

KyCobb said...

It sounds like Carol Iannone would very much like a fundamentalist islamic country where women are required to be completely covered from head to toe so that the harlots don't force innocent men to assault them.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

Honestly [not really], please consider taking down this comment as it is very clear you completely misinterpreted the post.

She is referring, of course, to the idea that you can put young, hormone-powered men in close proximity with young, nubile women and expect them not to act on their natural inclinations. The only way they won't is by thinking they are not what they actually are (Ionnane's "neutering")

The policies colleges follow are sheer idiocy. They actively encourage a highly charged sexual atmosphere and then turn around and wonder why there are rapes on campus.

Duh.

Martin Cothran said...

Singring,

I'm interested. Do you think rape is an act different in any fundamental way than any other form of non-sexual physical battery?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

It sounds like Carol Iannone would very much like a fundamentalist islamic country where women are required to be completely covered from head to toe so that the harlots don't force innocent men to assault them.

No. Just to stop encouraging the very problems they are complaining about.

Singring said...

'She is referring, of course, to the idea that you can put young, hormone-powered men in close proximity with young, nubile women and expect them not to act on their natural inclinations.'

So are you suggesting that it is the natural instinct of men to assault women? Is this really the kind of thing you want to be saying?

You know, from that statement we could infer that it is the 'purpose' of men to assault women, which would make it not only morally acceptable according to your previous statements on teh issue, but actually would make it a moral good.

Also, maybe it has escaped you, but not only women are victims of sexual assault - these laws protect both ways.

'They actively encourage a highly charged sexual atmosphere'

Really? Coed dorms automatically lead to a 'highly charged' sexual atmosphere? I have spent time in sexually mixed dorms - in Europe - and let me tell you that I have rarely been in a more sexually relaxed atmosphere. Perhaps it is a consequence of prude American upbringing that kids get to college and then on occasion run rampant when out of view of their parents?

Just an idea...

'Do you think rape is an act different in any fundamental way than any other form of non-sexual physical battery?'

Yes and no. It certainly is the same class of offense, but rape usually includes a violation of sex organs - unlike physical battery - and is thus potentially far more traumatizing. Moreover, prosecuting rape is different from any other form of physical battery, because you can sexually assault or rape somebody without leaving behind much physical evidence. Which is precisely why there are specific laws dealing with these kinds of crimes.

Of course, Ms. Iannone appears to think it would be more appropriate to prosecute the people being raped - after all how dare they wear certain kinds of clothing that force those poor,boys to just act out their 'natural instinct'?

Andrew said...

You guys think in caricatures.

Singring said...

Let's do a little quiz, shall we?

Who said this:

'This is why every time someone walks into the school with a gun, we have to suffer the indignity of liberal journalists asking, "How could this have happened?" And then we have to endure pious sermons about the how we need more security in schools and how we need better gun laws.

For liberals, evil is not a human problem it's a policy question.

In fact, the interesting thing about these kinds of responses is that they seldom have much to do with what actually caused the crime. '

If you guessed 'Martin Cothran', score 1 point.

Who said this:

'The policies colleges follow are sheer idiocy. They actively encourage a highly charged sexual atmosphere and then turn around and wonder why there are rapes on campus.'

Right again - it was of course our favourite logical thinker, Martin Cothran (1 point for that).

In other words: When there's a school schooting, its clearly the shooter's fault and has nothing to do with school or public policy, but when a frat boy rapes a girl at a party, its the 'college policies' that are at fault.

'Duh' indeed.

One Brow said...

Martin Cothran said...
She is referring, of course, to the idea that you can put young, hormone-powered men in close proximity with young, nubile women and expect them not to act on their natural inclinations. The only way they won't is by thinking they are not what they actually are (Ionnane's "neutering")

I was around quite a few women that were drunk and mildly clothed, yet managed to avoid sexually assaulting any of them. I certainly never thought of myself as being neutered because of it. This is truly curious stance of yours.

Art said...

LOL

Undoubtedly, Iannone (and probably Martin) views 1920 as the nadir of American history.

(Unless Martin, like Rand Paul, thinks the title belongs to the year 1870. Or 1964.....)