In a recent op-ed, "Sexual Assault: The Culture of Protection" (Feb. 28), the author describes a deficiency in campus-wide dialogue regarding sexual assault, namely that people tend to disregard the role of men (and the Greek system as a whole) in perpetrating crimes and instead focus on what women can do to protect themselves from assaults.
While her point is ultimately correct, perhaps it would be useful to examine why some men tend to disregard vitriolic feminist rhetoric when it comes to the sensitive subject of sexual assault.
Now, I will not claim to speak for all men, or even for all men who oppose views such as those that the author of last week's op-ed espouses; instead, I would like to present one masculine opinion about the state of affairs of sexual assault discussions at Dartmouth.
First things first: the crime of "rape" no longer exists under New Hampshire. It has been reclassified under the N.H. criminal code, Section RSA 632-A:2, as aggravated felonious sexual assault. Such an assault, when applied to people over 16 years of age, must involve penetration (of the vagina, anus or mouth). Thus, no man can ever be "raped" by a woman, even if he is beaten, tied down and forced to have sex with her.
This situation seems unjust, and is indicative of the sorts of hypocrisies and double standards that are common in laws and policies regarding sexual assault.
Aggravated felonious sexual assault occurs when a woman (or man, if the perpetrator is also a man) does not consent to the sexual contact or is helpless to resist it. This means, among other things, that if alcohol or drugs are taken by the victim at any point during the day or night, then she or he is consequently unable to give consent to sexual activity.
This presents several problems for Dartmouth students, and for males in particular. For example, a guy and girl could meet at a frat, have a few beers, flirt, go home with each other and eventually have sex. In such a scenario, which probably happens multiple times every weekend at Dartmouth, the male would technically have committed aggravated felonious sexual assault, since the woman, having imbibed alcohol, was incapable of giving true consent.
But doesn't there seem to be something wrong with this? Is such a system just? How can two people perform the same actions and yet only one of them be guilty of a crime?
To make matters more complicated, the male does not even need to know that the woman has been drinking, and she does not need to be visibly drunk in order for him to commit a felony. If all of a woman's words and actions say, "Yes, I want to have sex with you," a man can still be guilty of "rape" if she later claims that she had been drinking or taking drugs before having sex.
What is a man to do?
The vast majority of sexual assault cases fall under RSA 632-A:4, which is defined as sexual contact with a person over 13 years of age for the purpose of sexual gratification, under the circumstances described under 632-A:2. This means that a person must give consent to have his or her genitals touched, without alcohol or drugs being involved.
Now, maybe the author of last week's op-ed has never been to a Dartmouth dance party, but if she were to attend one, she would see numerous girls gyrating, thrusting, groping and grabbing at men's pelvises for the purpose of sexual gratification.
How many of these women are prosecuted for sexual assault?
My goal is not to discredit those women who have truly been victims of sexual violence, but rather to point out just a few of the myriad hypocrisies and double standards that exist in sexual assault laws and policies.
Men have been disenfranchised from the system with respect to sexual violence, and I think it is this feeling that accounts for much of male apathy towards arguments like those presented in last week's op-ed.
This op-ed's goal is not to discredit those women who have truly been victims of sexual violence, but rather to point out just a few of the myriad hypocrisies and double standards that exist in sexual assault laws and policies. Men have been disenfranchised from the system with respect to sexual violence, and I think it is this feeling that accounts for much of male apathy towards arguments like those presented in the Feb. 28 coumn.