![[Image: 200px-Antioch_LOGO.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Antioch_LOGO.jpg/200px-Antioch_LOGO.jpg){kind=logo}
Antioch College is a small, liberal arts college in rural Ohio. It recently shut down in 2008 because of a lack of funding, but reopened recently and has received many applications – although the enrollment in October 2012 was only 75 students. Apparently, many students turned down the chance to attend an elite school to help rebuild the decayed institution.
Let’s review a bit of the College’s history. It was founded in the middle of the 1800’s, and was a bastion of progressive politics from its inception. It was one of the first schools to accept applications from black people. It’s stature grew over time, and had its heyday in the 1960’s and 1970’s. It was a center for the anti-war movement, anti-racism and feminism. The school began to decay in the 1980’s and 1990’s and really tailed off in the 2000’s – and wasn’t helped by it’s absurd sexual assault policy.
Before we get into the policy, let’s do a quick review of how the campus operates. The school is committed to democracy and community governance – which includes students. Students play a real, active role in the governance of the campus and the development of school policy. Students have to engage in co-op work in order to graduate, which is a good idea. The students take 12-week periods throughout undergrad in paid, full-time employment, locally or nationally. Also, the students do not receive grades, but detailed breakdowns, over several paragraphs, of their professor’s opinions of the student’s performance. Part of this is to break the clear hierarchy of a professor and their students – remember, hierarchy is very, very bad.
However, let’s dig into the history of the sexual assault policy. In 1990-1991 term, a couple date rapes were reported to the school. Remember this – two date rapes that were never substantiated was used as the impetus for producing this policy. A group called “Womyn of Antioch” began to rumble about how the school did not take sexual assault seriously enough and some womyn actually stated the school actually wanted to encourage sexual assault of women – sound familiar? That spurred the group to produce a new university code applying to sexual assault. It wasn’t formalized at the time – but it was the next year.
The code developed a new standard for decided whether a woman consented to a sex act or sexual contact – “the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual contact or conduct.” Also, the school stated a position that sexual assault isn’t just a violation of an individual, but a violation of the community. Yes, they collectivized sexual assault – it isn’t just one woman’s problem, but every man and woman’s problem. Sure, the piece was gender-neutral, but feminist writing on quickly reassure their distraught readers that it really is about women, even it recognizes the rare time when a man is sexually assaulted, it really is helping women. The policy was modified, refined and codified in 1996. In the time before that, the policy attracted a media circus, which mostly mocked the approach. Some commenters, such as the insufferable Ellen Goodman, endorsed the approach in the national press. The attention was not welcome for the university, as they see themselves as morally superior and more advanced the average citizen in the US. Per usual, the school developed a superiority complex in their students.
Let’s tackle the policy. There are two very striking aspects of the policy, both relating to consent and what it means. First, is the need for verbal approval. The policy explicitly states that silence is not consent, body language is not consent – unless a person explicitly states he or she consents, then it is not consent. The aforementioned Ellen Goodman mentions that in movies women can consent with eye contact and body language, but this school takes the better approach of requiring verbal consent. My take is that people who support this policy just suck at life. They don’t know how to interpret body language, most definitely in the sexual arena. To them, a man and woman vibing and hooking up is incredibly foreign. The dance of seduction is beyond their kin. In their world, the only way people hook is through an escalation of verbal agreements. Like many players on this forum, I have been told by women if men ask them to kiss or whatever is an extreme turn-off.
Back on point, let’s look at the escalation doctrine. In order to meet the consent standard, you must ask and receive verbal approval for any escalation of sex. For example, let’s say you scored with a fly Antioch honey (do they exist?), and you have verbally escalated to making out. Before grabbing her ass or tits, you have to ask for it. So, you have to stop kissing, and ask if you can touch her boob. Then, if you want to suck on her tits, you have to ask for that. If you want to do anything beyond that hasn’t already been verbally agreed to, you have to ask. Can you imagine doing this drunk – can you remember all the shit you asked for? It is an incredibly fumbling way to approach sex. If some lizard brings you to her room, is making out with you, body on body – she knows damn well where she wants this go. She wants to fuck. You know damn well what you want. You want to fuck.
Let’s assume a scenario where a woman you are with tries to stick a finger up your ass – and like most straight guys, you are not about that. That isn’t sexual assault – that’s just an uncomfortable situation. If she really insists on doing and won’t relent, then I’m stopping hooking up with her. Under this policy, I could go to the administration and initiate proceedings against her – possibly getting her kicked out. That is bullshit. She was foul for trying to finger some dude’s ass, but she isn’t a sexual assaulter.
At the end of the day, this policy is just sexual Puritanism taking the form of feminist sexual policy. It smacks of some shit you would have gotten from some hyper-conservative bible-thumping Christian in the past – like a Cotton Mather type of person. This sort of policy does nothing to stop sexual assault, and penalizes a whole raft of behavior that really is just misunderstanding or nothing at all. All it does it create a chilling effect on the expression of sexuality - which I think is the real impetus for this policy.
What spurned me to right this was the thread here on this forum about the woman who retroactively deemed the sex she had with her man rape. That is not rape. These sorts of self-absorbed women who use the defense of rape to self-aggrandize, explain away bad decisions, etc. really piss me off. Personally, a female friend of mine was walking back from the bar that was literally two blocks away from my apartment dorm. I buddy and I were drinking Jack Daniels and listening to country in my room. She texts me telling me she is coming and she is scared – nothing more. She walks right into my room, and some dude is like 10 steps behind her. She had no idea who he is, he followed her from the bar; he thought she was going to her apartment. In his view, nobody else was in the apartment so he assumed she was going back to her empty apartment.
Dude’s eyes got big as fuck when he saw me and my friend. Dude immediately bolts, but my friend and I caught him and stomped the fucking faggot the fuck out – pardon my language. The guy starts crying about how he is going to call the cops because we fucked him up pretty good. I told him if he called the cops, we will tell you followed some woman back to her apartment room without you knowing her. That’s sounds a lot more interesting to cops than some drunk ass-beating. Dude left and I saw him again a couple months later at the same bar. I was going to approach him, but he left once we made eye contact and he saw me cracking my knuckles.
That is serious stuff. That shit should be prosecuted if the woman wants it. My friend didn’t want to report anything because, in her mind, we served justice. In fact, she watched some of the beating and confessed she was really turned on – my buddy smashed the hell out of her that night, after we talked her through the situation. That sort of stuff is inappropriate – and should be handled by the appropriate authorities – the police, not some angry feminist activists on a college campus.
Criminal law already covers sexual assault and all that. Also, there are Constitutional safeguards that the accused gets that they do not at the college level. In my situation, at worst, you got him on criminal trespass if the prosecutor can’t prove attempted rape (not sure what you need to build a case for that). There is no need for this extra administrative BS to deal with the issue. Not only is the issue far, far overblown by feminists on college campuses, but it is a waste of money. A woman reviewed the collegiate approaches to sexual assault and she noted how very little the resources are used by women on campus. Activists state that it is because women are still afraid to come forward – the more honest conclusion is that sexual assault isn’t as common as feminists so burningly desire.
In conclusion, the administrative framework developed to deal with sexual assault cases by universities generally is woefully lacking – especially after Obama lowered the evidentiary standard. Antioch’s approach is far, far worse. According this standard, men and women repeatedly sexual assault each other. It ignores how people who are digging each other interact and fuck and it needlessly puts a student’s academic future at risk. While feminists do lie about the prevalence of sexual assault, when it does happen it is serious and should be dealt with in a way consistent with the victim’s desires. Ridiculous policies like this do nothing to alleviate the issue targeted and do much to destroy the joy coming from sex.
