When sex is consensual...

BY DANIEL PRICE

Back in the dark ages, no didn't always mean no, but yes always meant yes. After a while, we decided that no meant no and yes meant yes. Now, however, we are approaching the other edge of the spectrum where no still means no, but yes doesn't necessarily mean yes.

The subject to which I am referring is date rape. First, let me be perfectly clear: if a woman says that she does not want to have sex, then it is completely wrong to force her to, regardless of what she is wearing, her body language, or any other signals. But what is right and what is wrong is no longer so clear. Several colleges across the country are barring students from having sex when the woman is intoxicated or otherwise impaired under the premise that, under such circumstances, she is unable to consent. In other words, if she is drunk then yes doesn't mean yes.

These policies place a heavy burden on the man. It is not always possible to determine whether someone is drunk, especially if you have never met before. It is even harder to determine if their judgment is "impaired." Thus, if a woman says yes to sex and the guy is unable to tell that she has had one too many at the last party, he can still find himself thrown out of college for rape.

The second example raises the question of equity to an even higher level. Suppose both the man and the woman have been drinking. The woman says yes to sex and the man, since his own judgment is impaired, fails to recognize that she is also impaired. Under the same guidelines, the man is still guilty of rape, despite the fact that responsibility for the supposed failure of communication clearly rests with both of the people involved.

I am not arguing that simply claiming drunkenness is an acceptable defense against rape. What I am arguing is that women must take responsibility for their words just as men must take responsibility for their actions. Schools must recognize each of these responsibilities in their regulations, even in the most sensitive areas.

It would be easy to write all of this off as meaningless hypothetical nit-picking if not for two things. First, the issue is important, current and immediately relevant. Secondly, it's not all hypothetical. In February1996 at Brown University, Adam Lack, a junior, had sex with a freshman after a frat party. He claims that he was sober and that she did not appear drunk. After they had sex, which he claims she initiated, she spent the night with him and gave him her phone number. A month and a half later however, the woman filed a complaint with Brown's equivalent of the Executive Committee, saying that she had been too drunk to consent to sex. Lack was found guilty of rape because, the committee said, he should have known she was drunk. The disciplinary board said that it was irrelevant whether she had either verbally consented to or initiated the sexual encounter.

It is up to the administration to set lines that students are prohibited to cross. Clearly one of those lines must be nonconsensual sex. A competent rule-maker, however, will set reasonable guidelines and lay blame only on the responsible parties. The rules governing students at Brown and elsewhere however, hold students culpable for other's actions--in this case, for a woman's decision to drink to the point at which she can no longer answer questions as if she were sober.

That is an indication of reactionary, illogical, and ultimately dangerous use of power.

Daniel Price is a junior in Trumbull.

Back to Opinion...