The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Oberlin College Is Decadent and Depraved

Posted on | June 2, 2016 | 29 Comments

 

In March 2013, Oberlin College students staged a “Day of Solidarity” protest against “hate” at their elite private liberal arts school, where annual tuition is $50,586. The alleged incidents of “hate” that had prompted this protest were eventually exposed as a hoax, perpetrated by campus leftists, which was neither the first nor the last time Oberlin worked itself into a frenzy over a phony “hate” hoax. Oberlin is arguably the worst college in America — worse even than such Ivy League sewers as Yale, Harvard, Brown and Columbia — where foolish parents send their foolish children to be tutored in folly by professional fools.

It is impossible to exaggerate just how awful “elite” education in America has become, and difficult to explain why it is so bad. William F. Buckley Jr.first described the degenerate tendencies of modern elite education in his 1951 classic God and Man at Yale. As I have summarized the book’s core insight, “Buckley saw that Yale, originally founded as a Christian school, had quietly abandoned Christianity and adopted a new religion, liberalism.” The outlines of this problem were clearly apparent to Buckley at Yale while Harry Truman was still president, yet academia did nothing to halt the decay of moral and intellectual standards, so that when university campuses erupted in riots in the 1960s — young radicals terrorizing their liberal elders — conservatives could say, “We told you so.” Liberals can never admit they’re wrong, so the lessons that should have been learned from the ’60s were ignored, and meanwhile the radicals were burrowing into the academic bureaucracy. Beginning in the 1990s, a series of purges swept through higher education. The humanities and social sciences were eviscerated and corrupted by the proponents of “critical theory.” If any student wished to learn anything about history without a Marxist filter, he had to do so by reading old books, as all the recent “scholarship” was devoted to reinterpreting the past through a prism of race/class/gender.

Meanwhile, in the name of “multiculturalism,” the curriculum was restructured, admissions criteria were altered and hiring policies were systematically biased in order to create a statistically acceptable representation of “diversity” on elite campuses. We should note, by the way, that the pursuit of “diversity” in admissions was never difficult at community colleges or second-tier state universities. It was only at the top-tier state schools (e.g., the University of Michigan and the University of California-Berkeley) and at highly selective private schools (e.g., the Ivy League) that admissions quotas became controversial. Many in academia accepted and promoted the idea that all ethnic groups had a “right” to be proportionately represented in the student body (and on the faculty) of universities, so that “underrepresentation” was considered proof of discrimination and social injustice. Equality of opportunity was not enough, equality of outcomes was demanded, and this egalitarian mission required the destruction of moral and intellectual standards in academia. Higher education has become a pervasively dishonest enterprise, a corrupt racket wherein parents, students and taxpayers are systematically swindled in order to provide lucrative employment for administrators and faculty whose income is dependent upon the illusion of “prestige” surrounding such schools as Oberlin College.

How bad is it at Oberlin? Nathan Heller of the New Yorker risked a visit to the lunatic campus and here are a few excerpts from his article:

On February 25th, TheTower.org published an article that included screenshots from the Facebook feed of Joy Karega, an assistant professor of rhetoric and composition at Oberlin. The posts suggested, among other things, that Zionists had been involved in the 9/11 plot, that isis was a puppet of Mossad and the C.I.A., and that the Rothschild family owned “your news, the media, your oil, and your government.” The posts did not sit well with everyone at Oberlin, where, weeks earlier, a group of alumni and students had written the president with worries about anti-Semitism on campus; the board of trustees denounced Karega’s Facebook activities. As a teacher, however, she’d been beloved by many students and considered an important faculty advocate for the school’s black undergraduates. The need for allyship became acute. And so, with spring approaching, students and faculty at one of America’s most progressive colleges felt pressured to make an awkward judgment: whether to ally themselves with the black community or whether to ally themselves with the offended Jews. . . .
g, at Oberlin, I tracked down Cyrus Eosphoros, the student who’d worried about the triggering effects of “Antigone.” . . . Eosphoros is a shy guy with a lambent confidence. He was a candid, stylish writer for the school newspaper and a senator in student government. That day, he wore a distressed bomber jacket and Clubmaster glasses. His hair was done in the manner of Beaver Cleaver’s, with a cool blue streak across the top. Eosphoros is a trans man. He was educated in Mexico, walks with crutches, and suffers from A.D.H.D. and bipolar disorder. (He’d lately been on suicide watch.) He has cut off contact with his mother, and he supports himself with jobs at the library and the development office. He said, “I’m kind of about as much of a diversity checklist as you can get while still technically being a white man.” . . .
If the new campus activism has a central paradigm, it is intersectionality: a theory, originating in black feminism, that sees identity-based oppression operating in crosshatching ways. Encountering sexism as a white, Ivy-educated, middle-class woman in a law office, for example, calls for different solutions than encountering sexism as a black woman working a minimum-wage job. The theory is often used to support experiential authority, because, well, who knows what it means to live at an intersection better than the person there? . . .
In the post-Foucaultian tradition, it’s thought to be impossible to isolate accepted “knowledge” from power structures, and sometimes that principle is turned backward, to link personal discomfort with larger abuses of power. “Students believe that their gender, their ethnicity, their race, whatever, gives them a sort of privileged knowledge — a community-based knowledge — that other groups don’t have,” [music Professor James] O’Leary went on. The trouble comes when their perspectives clash. . . .
Aaron Pressman, a politics and law-and-society major, told me that he has always felt free to express his opinions on campus, but has faced “a lot of social backlash.” One of his ambitions is to become a public defender, and he has studied the free-speech work of the A.C.L.U. Last year, when he noticed a broadly worded clause about flirtatious speech in Oberlin’s new sexual-harassment policy, he advocated for more precise language. (His research told him that such broad prohibitions were often used to target ethnic groups.) “A student came up to me several days later and started screaming at me, saying I’m not allowed to have this opinion, because I’m a white cisgender male,” Pressman recalled. He feels that his white maleness shouldn’t be disqualifying. “I’ve had people respond to me, ‘You could never understand—your culture has never been oppressed.’ ” Pressman laughed. “I’m, like, ‘Really? The Holocaust?’” . . .
“Oberlin does a really good job of analyzing intersectionality in the classroom — even in discussions, people are aware of who’s talking, who’s taking up space,” Kiley Petersen, a junior, told me. “But there’s a disconnect in trying to apply these frames of intersectionality and progressive change to departments and this school as a whole.” Some students have sought their own solutions. Earlier this year, a sophomore, Chloe Vassot, published an essay in the college paper urging white students like her to speak up less in class in certain circumstances. “I understand that I am not just an individual concerned only with comfort but also a part of a society that I believe will benefit from my silence,” she wrote. . . .

You can read the whole depressing thing. What’s most depressing about it is that people actually pay money to attend Oberlin. Heck, $50,586 a year is nearly a thousand bucks a week, and imagine all the fun things you could do with that kind of money. You could develop a heroin addiction, for example. A teenage junkie could spend four years shooting up and, by age 22, would probably be less confused than a typical Oberlin graduate.

Oh, sure, it’s probably a bad thing to be addicted to heroin, but you never hear a junkie babbling about “frames of intersectionality,” do you?

 


Category: Education

The Deliberate Ugliness of Feminism

Posted on | June 2, 2016 | 59 Comments

 

Working on a longer piece today, so to get something up quickly, let’s talk a bit about the phenomenon of aposematism in nature:

The function of aposematism is to prevent attack, by warning potential predators that the prey animal has defences such as being unpalatable or poisonous. The easily detected warning is a primary defence mechanism, and the non-visible defences are secondary. Aposematic signals are primarily visual, using bright colours and high-contrast patterns such as stripes.

Many have noticed this “warning sign” phenomenon in the characteristic costumes of Third Wave feminists of the “Social Justice Warrior” (SJW) variety — weirdly colored hairstyles, facial piercings, tattoos, etc. Quite often, we find this aposematic appearance accompanied by obesity (because “fat feminism” is an actual movement) and LGBT sexuality, so that a clichéd type can be discerned in the vicinity of “social justice” activism. Strange appearance is a way for disgruntled misfits to turn their maladjusted anti-social attitudes into a visible display, so everybody who sees them knows how much they hate Mommy and Daddy.

“Only when we recognize that ‘manhood’ and ‘womanhood’ are made-up categories, invented to control human beings and violently imposed, can we truly understand the nature of sexism. . . .
“Questioning gender . . . is an essential part of the feminism that has sustained me through two decades of personal and political struggle. In the end, feminists and the LGBT community have this in common: We’re all gender traitors.”
— Laurie Penny, “How to Be a Genderqueer Feminist,” 2015

This kind of “gender” weirdness is clearly related to the breakdown of family, cultural decline and rampant immorality in post-Christian society, reflecting what Ashton Blackwell has called “Dark Feminism”:

These young women think they are “feminists” because feminism appeals to their frustrations, insecurities, and their bitterness over being used for casual sex. . . .
[Y]oung women in general have become darker and more bitter, and with good reason . . .
The dress style of the alternative scene — piercings, black apparel, combat boots, and surly expressions — broadcasts, “Stay away from me, I’m dangerous.” . . .
Septum piercings and unnatural hair colors have become so common that they have lost their whiff of punk subversion . . . The witchy, neo-pagan look is trendy . . .

More than a half-century into the Sexual Revolution, many young people have become disoriented by the pervasive social anarchy in a Culture of Narcissism that has renounced God and worships the sacred Self. Because they are unable to ignore their own flaws, however, many self-obsessed adolescents become disillusioned and are plunged into existential despair — “Nobody will ever love me!” — that in turn produces inchoate rage and makes them easily recruited to the Cult of Social Justice.

Well, I could continue that lecture, but this is just a quick post for your morning reading while I work on a much longer piece, and so I guess it’s time to explain why I was thinking about this subject today.

Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of “normal” as an achievement. Teenage rebellion is nothing new, but many young people are now going off the rails permanently, deliberately wrecking themselves in ways that make it unlikely they will ever fully recover. It is easy to dismiss this as a “fringe” phenomenon — the pierced septum, the strange hair, the deranged look in their eyes — and especially to laugh at the references to witchcraft, astrology and other occult obsessions. Unfortunately, however, these are real human beings, and not fictional TV characters. When you talk to the parents of these freaky misfits, as I occasionally do, you hear tales of a confounding mystery. Their child was a seemingly normal teenager, doing well in school and extracurricular activities until, quite suddenly, they began acting out in bizarre ways.

Perhaps there is an entirely secular explanation. Psychologists and other social scientists can probably provide useful insights into these eruptions of adolescent craziness, but I think it unwise to ignore the spiritual dimensions of this problem. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools . . . God gave them over to a reprobate mind . . . disobedient to parents . . . without natural affection” (Romans 1:22, 28, 30-31).

+ + + + + +

The Sex Trouble project has been supported by contributions from readers. The first edition of Sex Trouble: Radical Feminism and the War on Human Nature is available from Amazon.com, $11.96 in paperback or $1.99 in Kindle ebook format.





 


Category: Sex Trouble

‘An Alphabet Squad of Weird Genders’

Posted on | June 2, 2016 | 39 Comments

Last week, I posted “More Feminists, More Gender Theory,” about the radical feminist Rachel Ivey’s video declaration: “Gender is a hierarchical system which maintains the subordination of females as a class to males through force.” In the comments, Fail Burton remarked:

The reason gay feminists push comics like Lumberjanes is because they don’t produce children but instead prefer to harvest those of others. As you say, eventually a civilization will run out of children to turn into an alphabet squad of weird genders and the birthrate falls below that capable of sustaining a civilization. Naturally, you will then be raided and conquered by some other civilization which has not learned to hate itself. But then, feminists aren’t the brightest lightbulbs when it comes to figuring out how all this sustains itself in real world terms. I’m having trouble seeing a cult of transvestites harvesting sugar cane using donkeys in central Egypt.

Now, it helps to know that “Lumberjanes” is a sort of cult/fringe comic-book series that is (a) badly drawn and (b) showered with critical praise, as anything vaguely “feminist” tends to be nowadays. Back when I was 13 or 14, I was into Robert Crumb and other “underground” comics, but there was no Internet social media circa 1973, so “The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers” never got a deal with a major studio, whereas 20th-Century Fox is all over “Lumberjanes.” Anyway . . .

This comment by Fail Burton caused much amusement for the “alphabet squad of weird genders” on Feminist Tumblr:

this is literally the least coherent or logical thing i’ve ever read

HARVESTING CHILDREN I CAN’T STOP LAUGHING

I understand all these words separately but not together

I’m so confused, is this like… insulting even? It’s too incoherent to even offend me

The claim that the comment was incoherent, you see, derives from the lack of context. All these LGBT feminists saw was Fail Burton’s comment, and not the extended discussion of gender theory that prompted the comment. And what I had written was this:

Lady Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” She might well have added, the problem with feminism is that eventually you run out of other people’s daughters. . . .
How many children does the typical feminist have? Not many. Insofar as they do not eschew heterosexual intercourse altogether, feminists are more likely to have abortions than to have children.

Why this caused Fail Burton to think of “Lumberjanes,” I don’t know, but you see the relevance: Celebrations of “alternative” gender/sexuality aimed at children and teenagers certainly are intended to encourage such deviant behavior, which predictably will reduce birthrates. This is not a trivial concern, as I have explained: “The demographic collapse of industrialized societies, due to their abnormally low birth rates, is a very serious social problem.” Fail Burton is correct in saying feminists utterly disregard “how all this sustains itself in real world terms.”

Within the Cult of Social Justice, the only problems anyone cares about are racism, sexism, homophobia, global warming, etc. Their worldview is the stuff of Bernie Sanders speeches and Women’s Studies textbooks — the sort of silliness gripping the campus of Oberlin College.

And just incidentally, how do you think sugar cane is harvested in Egypt? Did you know that Egypt is one of the top 20 sugar-producing countries in the world, producing some 2 million metric tons annually?

You can learn a lot reading this blog . . .

 

Category: Sex Trouble

Julie Bindel Is Right: Marriage Can Never Be Feminist (So Don’t Marry a Feminist)

Posted on | June 1, 2016 | 40 Comments

“Marriage is not about equality. It’s about perpetuating male privilege.”
— Julie Bindel, U.K. Guardian, May 25

Julie Bindel is a British feminist notorious for saying that all males should be rounded up and put “in some kind of camp.” She is a radical lesbian who is against heterosexuality, per se. This anti-male ideology is endorsed by many leading feminists, including Professor Charlotte Bunch, Professor Marilyn Frye, Professor Sheila Jeffreys and others. As Professor Susan M. Shaw and Professor Janet Lee declare in their textbook Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions, all women are oppressed by “heteropatriarchy,” a system of “inequality and privilege.”

Quite obviously, therefore, marriage is incompatible with feminism, and Julie Bindel wants to make sure everybody understands this:

Dress it up, subvert it, deny it all you want — marriage is an institution that has curtailed women’s freedom for centuries. But instead of rejecting the patriarchal and outdated tradition, some feminists have decided to “reclaim” it. We may have progressed since the Industrial Revolution, where Mary Wollstonecraft described marriage as “little more than a state of legal prostitution,” but let’s not kid ourselves. Even today, marriage is not about equality. It’s about perpetuating male privilege. Being given away by your father may seem cute and romantic, but it stems from a time when women were seen literally as their father’s, and then their husband’s, property. The majority of brides still opt for a white gown, but the implication that brides should be virgins is both ludicrous and insulting to women. That a female who has had sex is somehow spoiled goods goes against everything feminists claim to stand for. I know feminists who have taken their husband’s name because they say it’s easier. Easier than changing your personal email address, utilities bills and bank account details, I suppose. You’re basically being branded, so anyone who sees your name knows immediately who you belong to. Even if a woman does away with all these traditions, accept it — marriage can never be a feminist act. It has formed the backdrop to women’s oppression for centuries and it continues to do so. Forced marriage, child brides and polygamy all show how human rights of women and girls all too often go hand-in-hand with marriage. It was not until 1991 that rape in marriage was made a criminal offense in England and Wales, and today it is still perfectly legal for a man to rape his wife in 47 countries worldwide. If you want to get marriage, then just get on with it, but please stop pretending that because you’re a feminist, it’s some kind of subversive statement. I love Snoop Dogg despite his woman-hating lyrics, but I don’t pretend that listening to him is a feminist act, and women should stop pretending that marriage is anything other than a tool for their own oppression. Anyway, as the late human rights lawyer Paula Ettelbrick said, “Marriage is a great institution, if you like living in institutions.”

You can argue with Julie Bindel about the details of her anti-marriage rant, if you wish, but I never argue with feminists. All I do is quote them, so that everyone understands what I mean when I say Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It.

Of course, it would be impossible for feminists to be oppressed by marriage, if men did not make the mistake of marrying feminists. Honestly, I can’t imagine why any man would do such a foolish thing:

Never talk to a feminist.
Guys: Learn to take a hint. Learn to walk away.
If a woman tells you she is a feminist, say nothing and walk away.
No feminist wants to hear what a man has to say, and life is too short to waste your time taking to feminists. Just walk away.
Leave feminists alone, and then they can complain about that.

Avoiding feminists, however, does not mean that a man is not oppressing feminists, to whom the very existence of males is oppressive.





 


Category: Marriage, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox, 06.01.16

Posted on | June 1, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox, 06.01.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Guess What Texas Teacher Alexandra Vera Is Wanted By The Law For…
Michelle Malkin: The $16 Billion Tax Credit Black Hole
Twitchy: Poll – Would Dems Want Hillary To Keep Running If Indicted?


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: The Graying Of America’s Homeless
American Thinker: The Myths Of American Slavery
BLACKFIVE: Book Review – Five Presidents by Clint Hill and Lisa McCubbin
Da Tech Guy: The Unexpectedly Chronicles – Doug Mataconis Still Defending Hillary After All These Years
Don Surber: Third Parties Are A Joke
Jammie Wearing Fools: Former Granny Clinton Chief Of Staff Blames Benghazi For Her E-Mail Mess
Joe For America: Joe The Plumber Backs Trump All The Way – “Stop Holier-Than-Thou Nonsense”
JustOneMinute: When Cronies Collide
Pamela Geller: Dalai Lama Says “Too Many” Refugees, Europe…Cannot Become An Arab Country
Protein Wisdom: Happy Memorial Day!
Shark Tank: Glenn Beck Suspended By SiriusXM
Shot In The Dark: To The Entire American Media
STUMP: 80% Funding Roundup – New Category Announced
The Jawa Report: Condell – The Moment Of Truth
The Lonely Conservative: Surviving Stone Age Politics
The Political Hat: Being Denied Service For Affirming Reality
The Quinton Report No, Rep. Elijah Cummings Doesn’t Drive For Lyft In DC…
This Ain’t Hell: “Fat Leonard” May Sink 30 Admirals
Weasel Zippers: EPA Still Blocking Its IG From Investigating Wrongdoing At Agency
Megan McArdle: Barbecuing For Vegans – A Survival Guide


Shop Amazon Fashion – Take 20% Off Women’s Swimwear & Cover-Ups
Shop Amazon – Father’s Day deals in Tools & Home Improvement

Category: Linkagery

Student Offers to Debate Feminists About the ‘Rape Epidemic’ and Guess What?

Posted on | June 1, 2016 | 6 Comments

UCSB students protested against rape in 2015.

University of California-Santa Barbara senior Andrew Cavarno decided to challenge the widespread claim that 1-in-5 college females are victims of sexual assault. With the support of Young Americans for Liberty (YAL), Carvano scheduled an event called, “Is There a Rape Epidemic? Rape Hysteria, Due Process, and Free Speech.” Here is what happened:

This event was intended to be a panel discussion, with propositions from both sides of the argument. Yet, we have found it incredibly difficult to find anyone who is willing to present the affirmative position — that there is indeed a rape epidemic on college campuses, and that the measures taken by the universities to combat these problems are therefore fair / justified. We have contacted every single feminist studies professor at UCSB… but none are willing to present the affirmative position. In the words of the chair of the Feminist Studies Department, Professor Laury Oaks, “It is important to not have debates.”

In other words, having incited hysteria on university campuses, causing federal officials to impose new policies regulating student sexual behavior, feminists refuse to discuss the facts about this alleged “epidemic” of sexual assault. This unwillingness to talk about rape on campus is a reversal of the situation a year ago, when UCSB feminists led a 13-hour sit-in protest at the offices of university Chancellor Henry Yang. Despite the lack of response from campus feminists, Andrew Cavarno went ahead with his event May 18:

“There is absolutely no evidence of a rape epidemic on college campuses,” Cavarno said. “The word epidemic implies that there’s a sudden wave of sexual violence, or that things are getting worse — this is just not the case.” . . .
Pointing to an empty chair beside him, Cavarno emphasized that no one with an opposing view was present to make the case for the statistic, even after having sent out “hundreds of emails.”
“Why is that chair empty?” Cavarno asked, “If all the evidence is truly on that side, if it is beyond reproach, if there’s no reason to debate this, then why is this chair empty?” . . .
Cavarno argued that the way schools handle sexual assault often ruins the careers and social lives of men by unfairly branding them as rapists. Cavarno then wrapped up his speech saying “feminism teaches the notion that men are not deserving of empathy,” concluding that “schools should not adjudicate sexual assault.”

Carvano was interviewed by Jennifer Kabbany of the College Fix:

Cavarno said he believes feminist professors, student activists and rape advocates are unwilling to participate in a two-sided discussion because they have already achieved complete hegemony over the conversation.
“They have nothing to gain from engaging with the other side,” he said. “They simply portray anyone who disagrees with the victim statistics as a sexist rape apologist, suggesting any skepticism could only be explained through bigotry or ignorance, rather than through genuine disagreement. This prevents people from questioning their narrative, for fear of being demonized as misogynistic or insensitive to rape survivors. This strategy effectively shuts down any meaningful opportunity to have a productive dialogue.”

Carvano is exactly right. Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It and, like all other totalitarians, feminists seek to exempt themselves from criticism by silence their opponents. Because their movement’s anti-male hate propaganda cannot withstand critical scrutiny, feminists engage in character assassination against anyone who questions their claims. The “complete hegemony” of feminists in academia means that no one in the faculty or administration will challenge the “campus rape epidemic” narrative for fear of being branded a “sexist rape apologist.” Only rarely does any student like Andrew Cavarno dare to speak the truth and, in doing so, expose the lies of feminism:  “It is important to not have debates.”

Professor Laura Oaks is paid $98,000 a year not to debate facts.





 


Category: Education, Sex Trouble

Why Do College Girls Lie About Rape?

Posted on | June 1, 2016 | 14 Comments

 

Revenge.

The most obvious motive for falsely accusing someone of a crime is apparent in a case at Brown University, where the former co-captain of the mock trial team alleges that he was the victim of what the College Fix calls “an elaborate revenge plot” by a girl on the team. According to a complaint filed by “John Doe,” he was suspended from Brown after “Ann Roe” claimed that he coerced her into performing oral sex, a false accusation he says was inspired by Ann’s jealousy of John’s interest in “Kay Stiles,” another member of the mock trial team.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system where such accusations are judged as disciplinary proceedings. Feminists who claim there is a “campus rape epidemic” have been dismissive of concerns about false accusations and due process. Feminists contend that false accusations of rape are so rare that this possibility can be ignored, and the question of why women sometimes do lie about rape is treated dismissively. After a high-profile claim of gang-rape at the University of Virginia was exposed as a hoax, Janet Bloomfield examined the motives behind such false accusations: “12 Women Who Lied About Being Raped And Why They Did It.” Despite these concerns, however, states have passed laws and universities have implemented policies based on so-called “affirmative consent” doctrine which effectively makes it impossible for an accused student to prove his innocence. The mere accusation of sexual misconduct is now regarded as tantamount to proof of guilt, as the “John Doe” case at Brown University illustrates.

According to the amended complaint filed Tuesday in a Rhode Island state court, “Ann Roe” is an evil little bitch. OK, the phrase “evil little bitch” is not actually used in the court document, but the story it tells is frightening. John had been depressed over his breakup with his “high school sweetheart” after his freshman year at Brown, and returned to campus for his sophomore year in fall 2014 determined to recover from his heartbreak “by actively dating other women.” John tried flirting with “Kay Stiles,” unsuccessfully, but had better luck with “Ann Roe,” who texted him in November that she was “dying for some sort of human contact” because she hadn’t seen her boyfriend in two months. Four days later, John and Ann hooked up:

After John finished digitally penetrating Ann, she told John that it was her turn. She unzipped John’s pants and pulled them down to John’s ankles with his help. She then proceeded to give John oral sex. . . .
As John neared ejaculation, he asked Ann if he could do so in her mouth. Ann agreed.
After John ejaculated, John and Ann sat down, cuddled, and started kissing again.

Allegedly, I hasten to add, because this is simply John Doe’s version of the story — it’s a typical “he said/she said” case — and so I cannot vouch for John’s courtesy in asking permission to ejaculate in Ann’s mouth.

Pardon me for interrupting the narrative, but am I the only one who notices how the hookup culture produces weird protocols of etiquette? What rules apply in a situation like this? What is considered the appropriate way for a girl to perform oral sex on a boy, and what reciprocal obligations does the boy incur in such a transaction? When did universities become the Sex Police with supervisory authority over such encounters, tasked with ensuring that every action which may occur in these private circumstances is entirely consensual? Isn’t it obvious that this task is ultimately impossible? Criminal courts are the appropriate venue to adjudicate a rape charge, but no district attorney would ever go to court with a “he said/she said” case like the one described in John Doe v. Brown University. When rape is treated as a campus disciplinary matter, however, accused students are denied the legal protections any common criminal would have in a court of law. This in turn enables a vindictive liar to destroy any boy who is foolish enough to hook up with her, which is what John Doe alleges happened with Ann Roe.

The complaint describes a series of text messages between Ann and John that began four days after their Nov. 10, 2014, hookup:

The UC-Irvine mock trial event was coming up in California, and John told Ann to “[r]emember to pretend like you didn’t give me a mind blowing b–job.” She replied, “[o]nly if you remember to pretend you’re not imagining f–king the s– out of me” and “no one will suspect how much you want to [orgasm] inside me.” Ann finished by saying “sounds like we’ve got a plan [winking smile].” However, John was better at pretending than Ann expected, and Ann grew impatient.
John’s texts became short and infrequent. On November 15, 2014, Ann contacted John and asked, “whacha been up to stranger?” John responded that he was busy and couldn’t talk. Ann replied, “All righty no problem, we’ll catch up later. Night!”
The next day, Ann texted John about her mock trial performance and stated, “I wish I could see you in action.”
The next day, November 16, Ann texted John and hinted that she would like to get together. However, John replied that he had to get some work done. Ann responded, “All righty . . . Hit me up sometime if you’re bored [winking smile] see ya!”
On November 19, 2014, Ann told John that she was having boyfriend trouble and wanted him to cheer her up over the weekend. Upon information and belief, she had actually broken up with her boyfriend because of her feelings for John. John, however, declined.
Ann told John that she was “not trying to chase” him, but that he was torturing her and driving her “completely insane.” John told Ann that he had feelings for someone else — Kay, one of her best friends.

Oh, my goodness.

However high John Doe’s SAT score may be, he’s not too smart about women. She gives you oral sex and breaks up with her boyfriend and tells you you’re driving her “completely insane” and then you decide to tell her you’ve got the hots for one of her best friends? To compound his stupidity, John then asked Ann to “put in a good word for him with Kay.” Naturally, Ann badmouthed him, telling Kay that John was an “a–hole” and Ann then “began disparaging John to members of the mock trial team.” After months of conducting a personal vendetta against John, in November 2015, “Ann filed a complaint with the Title IX office accusing John of sexual assault.” In her telling of their encounter, Ann only “submitted” to giving John oral sex “out of fear,” feeling she “had no choice to avoid being raped.” Even though John had text messages from Ann that contradicted her version of events — showing that she was actively pursuing him after their hookup — and although witnesses testified that Ann had told them about their hookup in a way that made it sound “sexy and hot,” John was suspended. His lawsuit says that Brown was wrong to retroactively apply a new “affirmative consent” policy, instituted in 2015, to his 2014 encounter with Ann. The new policy makes it an offense to “manipulate” someone into sex, and John had used that term in a text to Ann, so that he in effect “confessed” to sexual assault as Brown now defines it. Yet reading John Doe’s version of events — corroborated with text messages — the far more plausible interpretation is that Ann, desiring a serious romantic relationship with John, became embittered when she realized that he viewed their hookup as strictly casual and that when she learned John had more serious feelings for her friend Kay, this turned Ann’s bitterness to vindictive rage.

There is only one way that college boys can be safe from false accusations: NEVER TALK TO A COLLEGE GIRL! Warn your sons, America.




 

Category: Education, Sex Trouble

In The Mailbox, 05.31.16

Posted on | May 31, 2016 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox, 05.31.16

— compiled by Wombat-socho


OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Arlington National Cemetery – Thank You
Da Tech Guy: Pat Austin – State Representative Objects To The Declaration Of Independence
Michelle Malkin: Fallen Marine’s Mom Teaches Powerful Memorial Day Lesson
Twitchy: Spokesman For Candidate Who Never Holds Press Conferences Horrified By Trump Press Conference


RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Power: Iraqi Special Forces Launch Ground Attack On Fallujah
American Thinker: It Is Time For Trump To Unify The Party
BLACKFIVE: Memorial Day
Don Surber: Trump’s Map Of The United States Of America
Jammie Wearing Fools: Sausage-Wielding Gang Attacks Vegan Cafe
Joe For America: George Soros Snaps, Says Trump Is Aiding ISIS
JustOneMinute: A Salt On Conventional Wisdom, or, The Science Was Settled, Part Umpty-Bump
Pamela Geller: Half Of Muslims In Massive Idomeni Migrant Camp Go Missing
Protein Wisdom: No, #NeverTrump Can’t “Fail”
Shark Tank: Marco Rubio For Senate In 2016?
Shot In The Dark: “Something’s Wrong With Our Bloody Ships Today”, Part I
STUMP: Rauner Refuses To Kick The Can (And I Announce A New Project)
The Jawa Report: Memorial Day 2016
The Lonely Conservative: Poll Finds Americans Feeling Hopeless About 2016 Election
The Political Hat: Storm Troopers Of Political Correctness
The Quinton Report: Ad Attacks Rep. Renee Ellmers On Abortion
This Ain’t Hell: Every Day Should Be Your Memorial Day
Weasel Zippers: Obama Proclaims June “LGBT Pride Month”, Orders Americans To “Celebrate Diversity”
Megan McArdle: Attention, Media People – Peter Thiel Changes Nothing


A Meep In Manhattan
Shop Amazon Fashion – Take 20% Off Women’s Swimwear & Cover-Ups

Category: Linkagery
« go back — keep looking »