“Coercion is the use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to something they may not want to do – like being sexual or performing certain sexual acts. Examples of some coercive statements include: “If you love me you would have sex with me .”, “If you don’t have sex with me I will find someone who will.”, and “I’m not sure I can be with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with me.” Coercive statements are often part of many campus acquaintance rapes. Being coerced into having sex or performing sexual acts is not consenting to having sex and is considered rape/sexual assault.”
—The Clark University Dean of Students office, in its definition of “Rape and Sexual Assault and Related Terms”
That’s right; Clark University’s position was that when a manipulative boy friend or, presumably, girl friend, used the age-old ploy of emotional blackmail to wheedle for sex, it constituted sexual assault. KABOOM! Brains…on…walls, can’t… typxvtu…pfg
OK, I’m better now. The Worchester, Mass. university quietly removed the outrageous definition as soon as it turned up, with appropriate mockery, on the web, and then denied it had ever been there. (This is the place where Instapundit would note the tuition paid by Clark students.)
Writes a stunned Prof. Volokh:
So saying “If you don’t have sex with me I will find someone who will” is “coercion,” and thus means that any resulting sex is not consensual. This means that getting sex that way is “rape and/or sexual assault” (because it’s “coerced sexual contact”), and in particular may well be “acquaintance rape.”
Words fail me — though they apparently failed the Clark University Dean of Students office as well.
It sounds like his head might have exploded too!
Gee, do you think this kind of increasingly common gender bullying and distortion of reason, fairness and logic for ideological ends might have caused some non-racist, non-sexist individuals to wonder what further horrors feminist-pandering President Hillary Clinton would have encouraged, and to vote for someone else? Do you think some non-white supremacists might reasonably conclude that if eight years of a hard-left, divisive, victim-mongering Democratic administration could lead a school to employ this kind of Orwellian definition to throw young men out of their college, then eight years had done damage enough?
If I may digress a bit: I just had a long-time friend, whom I had once hired to assist in an ethics seminar, summarily de-friend me on Facebook today after I pointed out that this insulting, false, hateful, sexist, smug and divisive screed in the New Yorker was not “spot-on,” as she wrote (to a throng of “likes”) when she posted it, but was, in truth, miserable, arrogant, bigoted, partyist, crap. Here is a sample…if you read the whole thing, position plastic tarps around the room first:
“Now is the time to stop suggesting that sexism was absent in the election because white women did not overwhelmingly vote for Clinton. Misogyny is not the sole preserve of men…Clinton was expected to be perfect, according to contradictory standards, in an election that became a referendum on her likability.
Now is the time to ask why America is far behind many other countries (see: Rwanda) in its representation of women in politics. Now is the time to explore mainstream attitudes toward women’s ambition, to ponder to what extent the ordinary political calculations that all politicians make translate as moral failures when we see them in women. Clinton’s careful calibration was read as deviousness. But would a male politician who is carefully calibrated—Mitt Romney, for example—merely read as carefully calibrated? Now is the time to be precise about the meanings of words. Trump saying “They let you do it” about assaulting women does not imply consent, because consent is what happens before an act…”
I should note that this wasn’t even the part of the essay that I chose to dismantle in my reply to its Facebook exposure.
Now is the time to realize that it is hollow-eyed, mouth-foaming, self-righteous lunatics like Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the author of this mess, that many, many voters did not want to see get their hands on the levers of power, especially with a complicit journalism establishment, lest the derangement of Clark University find its way into our laws and culture.