Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Duke University and the Accidental Sex Offender
The Atlantic ^ | April 12, 2009 | Wendy Kaminer

Posted on 04/19/2010 12:31:34 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin

The Atlantic

Duke University and the Accidental Sex Offender By Wendy Kaminer April 12, 2010

Celibacy is probably not a feasible option for most undergraduates, but students at Duke University may want to consider it anyway. Duke's new rules governing sexual misconduct and coercion are so vague, subjective, presumptive of guilt, and oblivious to the dynamics of consensual sexual relations that they pose a risk of prosecution even for students engaging in innocent foreplay. Sexual misconduct at Duke includes "inappropriate (or non-consensual) touching," as well as rape; "inappropriate touching" and "acts of a sexual nature" that require clear consent include ("but are not limited to") touching and "attempted touching" of an "unwilling person's" erogenous zones, "either directly or indirectly."

I don't know what constitutes a non-consensual, indirect, attempted touch, but I wouldn't try it at Duke, where actionable "coercion" may be unintentional and merely inferred, or imagined, by a self-proclaimed victim: "Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion." This suggests that students risk inadvertently committing sexual offenses if they engage in sex with classmates perceived as physically or psychologically weaker, less intelligent, or simply less popular. How might presumptively powerful students avoid unintentionally exploiting this "unintentional atmosphere of coercion?" The university explicitly "mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity."

(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: duke; sex
The concise and most appropriate solution to all of this is to simply come to the radical realization of the "abyss" in Duke University, and, in the light of this terrifying realization, to cease any endeavor for association or solidarity with Duke University in any capacity.
1 posted on 04/19/2010 12:31:35 PM PDT by Arec Barrwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin; Revolting cat!
they pose a risk of prosecution even for students engaging in innocent foreplay

Innocent foreplay. What kind of a defense is that?

Duke's policy is politically correct to the extreme but I doubt this phrase would hold up in court.

2 posted on 04/19/2010 12:34:45 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (We've gone from phony soldiers to phony conservative protesters. Nothing about liberalism is genuine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Any university where the Chairman of the Board of Trustees said, in explaining why he would not come to the defense of the falsely-accused (but unPC) lacrosse students, “Sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization”,

is a place to stay away from.


3 posted on 04/19/2010 12:34:54 PM PDT by CondorFlight (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

non-consensual, indirect, attempted touch, but I wouldn’t try it at Duke, where actionable “coercion” may be unintentional and merely inferred, or imagined, by a self-proclaimed victim: “Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.”

Wow...that’s scarey. So all a woman has to do is Imagine that you are intentionally or unintentionally trying to get a woman in bed and you are guilty? THANK GOD I didn’t go to DUKE and Thank God women can’t read my thoughts.LOL...I would be GUILTY!!!


4 posted on 04/19/2010 12:37:15 PM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
Ain't no such thing as an "accidental sex offender," only (today) "stupid sex offenders." There are convicted sex offenders who are innocent (though there are FReepers who deny this), but the traps and tricks and overbearing prosecutions (cheered by the howling mob) that have gone on for such a long time are now being broadened. Again.

It's one of the best tricks in the feminazi playbook.

And if you're stupid, you'll get trapped.

5 posted on 04/19/2010 12:37:35 PM PDT by Clint Williams (America -- a great idea, didn't last. R.I.P. America 3/21/2010.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
The university explicitly "mandates that each participant obtains and gives consent in each instance of sexual activity."

Has "LegalZoom" made the appropriate forms available yet?

6 posted on 04/19/2010 12:39:07 PM PDT by RobinOfKingston (Democrats, the party of evil. Republicans, the party of stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight
“Sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization”,

Or, as stated in another place, "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

7 posted on 04/19/2010 12:44:15 PM PDT by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

A roommate of mine in college was walking home from a bar one night and met a girl that he assumed, by the way she talked and walked, that she was very drunk and took her home and slept with her.

In the morning it occurred to him that she was not drunk at all but rather mentally retarded.


8 posted on 04/19/2010 12:45:45 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

We are already at an extreme level of absurdity in the workplace when simply saying “good morning” can be interpreted as a sexual advance.


9 posted on 04/19/2010 12:46:07 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (From this point forward the Democratic Party will be referred to as the Communist Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Now I know why.

I recently visited the Duke campus and was amazed at the number and prominence of day glo green emergency call boxes. They must be for calling and reporting an accidental sex offense.

They can likely also be used to report a completed rape or perhaps calling for help once the horse has left the barn.


10 posted on 04/19/2010 12:47:25 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 . Ostracize Democrats. There can be no Democrat friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

This new sexual conduct guidelines sounds a whole lot like the totalitarian technique of making virtually everything a crime, so that every single (male) person can be prosecuted any time the ruling party finds it convenient. Of course, the unwritten part of this code is that it will only be used to persecute straight white guys. Duke, along with many, if not most, other universities in this country, is an anti-American, anti-freedom cancer.


11 posted on 04/19/2010 12:50:15 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek

Well, try saying it with your pants on.

Just sayin’ ;)


12 posted on 04/19/2010 12:50:44 PM PDT by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SJSAMPLE

As a proud Carolina fan, I simply say Duck Fuke!


13 posted on 04/19/2010 12:57:03 PM PDT by Free America52 (The White guys are getting pissed off. We beat Hitler Hirohito and Krushchev. Obama will be easy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

The solution is to let it become known known that no employer will hire graduates of Duke or any other school with such a policy on the grounds that anyone stupid enough to attend such a school is clearly not intelligent enough to work for the employer.


14 posted on 04/19/2010 1:00:58 PM PDT by Curmudgeon2K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CondorFlight

“Sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization”,


and these people don’t want us to call them fascists...


15 posted on 04/19/2010 1:03:23 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fred Hayek

Reminds me of the sign

“how did you get ‘racist’ from ‘good morning’”


16 posted on 04/19/2010 1:03:59 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

From a post on another thread, regarding the psycho environment in the workplace:

On one of the construction sites I had worked, there were two electricians working on terminations in a junction box, one man, one woman. They were a good team, got the stuff done on time and accurately. One day the man says to the woman “Nice T-shirt”. She took it as a complement since the T-shirt had the Texas A&M logo, where his kids were at. Another woman was walking by, heard the comment, and filed a “third party sexual harrassment complaint”, claiming that the man was making an unsolicited compliment (and thus a sexual advance). The man was fired on the spot, even though the woman with the Aggie T-shirt claimed that such a complaint was frivolous.

The environment is such that people are afraid to have any kind of social interaction, else who will be offended.

So, the thought police on the college campuses are now at the workplace as well.


17 posted on 04/19/2010 1:05:19 PM PDT by Fred Hayek (From this point forward the Democratic Party will be referred to as the Communist Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Even if she HAD been drunk, that alone wouldn’t have given him the green light to sleep with her.


18 posted on 04/19/2010 1:14:48 PM PDT by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin
touching and "attempted touching" of an "unwilling person's" erogenous zones, "either directly or indirectly."

So, if a girl sent a naked picture of herself to someone but she didn't give the OK for that person to touch the picture, then they would be guilty of "indirectly" sexually harassing the girl.

Sounds fair to me. Not.

19 posted on 04/19/2010 1:18:24 PM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Julia H.
Even if she HAD been drunk, that alone wouldn’t have given him the green light to sleep with her.

Of course not.

In the morning my roommate, my girlfriend and I took her home and explained to her parents what happened. While the dad wanted to kill my roommate, mom explained that this was likely not the first time an event such as this had occurred, but that my roommate was the first to take her home, explain and apologize.

The girl continued to come by our house looking for her "boyfriend" and each time, including the night that he met his soon to be wife, he would have to explain to her that he was sorry and that they were not boyfriend and girlfriend.

We are still friends and when given a chance we will still give him grief about that night.

20 posted on 04/19/2010 1:26:32 PM PDT by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MrB

By saying “good moaning”


21 posted on 04/19/2010 1:46:08 PM PDT by usslsm51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

So to comply, you will need to exchange prior to sex disclosure and approval forms, signed and notarized, have the entire sex episode videotaped for evidence, plus have an advocate for the female and an advocate for the male watching at all times prepared to step in and stop the whole episode if in there opinion, the person they are advocating for, indicates that they no longer want to continue with the sex.

[/sarc]


22 posted on 04/19/2010 1:59:36 PM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arec Barrwin

Duke had a highly -placed helth care official, a homosexual, who was offering his 5 yo adopted son on the internet for sex; he was going by the name of perv dads for fun. It should be as highly celebrated case as Matthew Sheppard was, or at least as much so as some of the priests’ cases. I don’t suppose the Duke policy addressed anything like that.


23 posted on 04/19/2010 2:03:57 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson