In light of SexFest and Respect Works, I would like to address a serious yet often overlooked issue regarding consent and sexual assault. On the spectrum of sexual encounters many recognize a gray area between consensual sex and rape. Media and recent discourse suggest fewer sexual assaults fit the stereotypical image, and more and more people are lamenting over the classification of some “gray area” exchanges as rape. It is time for Dartmouth to formally recognize a new class of sexual interaction with its own separate consequences that reflects behavior that lies somewhere on the middle of the spectrum — sexual coercion.
There is no nationally recognized definition of “sexual coercion,” but in various states’ legislation (like New Hampshire’s) it usually refers to sexual encounters that involve a threat or fear of violence and/or an intimidating, coercive environment. Dartmouth’s recently updated policy on sexual assault addresses coercion in its definition of consent: “Consent must be voluntarily given and is not valid if obtained by physical force, coercion or threat.” However, coercion itself is not defined, nor is there any attempt to distinguish between context and gravity of situations and the subsequent punishments. While sexual assault may include coercion as defined above, not all encounters in which one party somehow feels coerced involve outright violence or explicit threats, and therefore may not fall under the category of “sexual assault.” That the College only acknowledges a single grievance entitled “sexual assault” with an all-encompassing disciplinary process is unacceptable. When a sexual encounter is deemed inappropriate by one party involved but that individual does not believe, for whatever reason, that it fully meets the College’s standards for sexual assault, should the situation go completely unaddressed? I would say no.
Dartmouth should formally recognize situations in which an individual does not accept what I would refer to as “soft indications of no” until one party reluctantly gives in, feeling violated nonetheless, but leaving the other party feeling like the encounter was entirely consensual.
What exactly is a “soft indication of no”? There are many verbal and nonverbal cues to this end. Many involve excuses as to why one does not wish to continue, whether it’s claims of the hour being too late, nervousness that roommates might overhear or merely citing exhaustion. In other words, a “no, because.” Too often the other party assumes the person making excuses does not want to appear desperate or is just playing coy. The thought seems to be that if the person gives in after a bit of prompting, the sexual contact was wanted anyway. The tacit assumption is that assertive verbal or physical reactions are the only valid indication of unwillingness to engage in the encounter, and anything less is silent compliance.
But this does not take into account reality. It is uncomfortable to yell or use force, particularly when the other person is a familiar face — a friend, a classmate or a romantic interest. In some cases, an individual gives in due to worry that the aggressor’s insistence could escalate into violence. It can be difficult to weigh all of one’s choices and make a decision in such an intimidating situation, especially having seen peers who have been met with mixed responses and even outright criticism after accusing someone of assault.
The aggressors in these situations can be the typical guy or girl who may not have malicious intentions, but due to lack of education or indication otherwise assumes that nothing is wrong in such encounters. While a lack of education does not excuse a coercive individual, it does complicate things enough that such encounters may not be entirely equivalent to what the College currently classifies as “sexual assault.” But they do still need to be addressed, because at the very least they can lead to confusion and emotional distress for both parties afterward.
New College policy against the variety of sexual coercion that I have described could carry a lesser punishment than those of sexual assault cases and would be for the benefit and protection of all parties involved. The College would not have to try to interpret and judge these situations based on standards and statutes that all parties involved may feel do not fit the type of situation at hand. A situation similar to what I have described would currently have to be reported as sexual assault, if at all. If the College, as it likely would, finds that what occurred can’t fit neatly enough into the definition of assault, the accused person is completely let off the hook. In contrast, if the college finds the person guilty, the alleged aggressor is forevermore labeled as a sexual assailant. Recognizing sexual coercion as a separate entity and assigning it different, likely less serious, consequences would acknowledge that something unethical took place without using the ill-fitting labels of “rape” or “not rape.” Adjusting our definition accounts for the reality that sexual activity consists of a broader spectrum of behavior and allows us to recognize that coercion is something we desperately need to teach about and advocate against.
As noted during Respect Works and echoed in a recent Dartblog post entitled “If There’s a Will, Maybe There’s a Way,” Yale University does not deem such encounters to be sexual assault. The university would, however, recommend the aggressor be taught about “sexual pressure” by their University-wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct and take part in a sensitivity training program. Perhaps a similar program at Dartmouth that involves counseling and education related to sex, consent and respect could be advantageous.
More nuanced decisions regarding consequences, including the possibility of the program I have described, may help victims in “gray area” cases feel more comfortable reporting, as many are wary of labeling these interactions as sexual assault. Often, a person who feels coerced struggles with the decision of whether or not to report, conflicted because he or she does not know if the other person’s actions were severe enough to warrant the College’s thorough sexual assault investigation. A program specifically aimed at addressing sexual coercion may lead to less hesitation to report, particularly if the program is excluded from permanent disciplinary records. The College’s current definition of sexual assault does not allow for the nuance necessary to account for these situations, which does both the survivor and the community a disservice.
