Dorm room doors don't lock?

Also, I went looking for a link to a cartoon with the caption "Some of us long for the days of the old taboos" and all I found was me referencing it in your blog comments back in 2005.

Clearly I am a curmudgeon. Get off my lawn.

But seriously, it used to be that there were ways you acted and ways you didn't act. I am talking about several decades back, when co-ed dorms were kind of a shocking thing to think about. When the old rules disintegrate, I guess people may differ as to what they think is normal and OK and fun. Then they disagree as to what is consensual - see Kobe's non-apology, wherein he says that he thought the sex was consensual but now realized that the girl didn't think so. (What the heck sense does that make?) Then you get a big weird mess.

For instance, if the girl in this story thought screwing in a dorm room with the door unlocked was cool, but having people join in for "a bit of rough" wasn't, and the boys didn't initially see a distinction, then they would now need to deny joining in at all because it definitely now looks like rape, whatever it looked like to them at the time. Not seriously speculating that this is what happened. And not wanting to slut-shame. But you can conduct your life in an orderly way and eliminate all kinds of unpleasant experiences for yourself, and this applies equally to both sexes. If things happened exactly as the boys said they did, they are still being charged with rape when all they did was act like voyeuristic churls.

I don't understand the point of this post. Every campus probably goes through a rape investigation every month. How many of these investigations turn into Duke Lacrosse scandals?

And Laura, this is not about "old taboos," unless by "old" you mean "back when women weren't allowed to go to college." And even then, college boys were bringing girls back to their dorms (or to motel rooms, or frequenting brothels, or buying prostitutes like the Duke Lacrosse players).

The police and the courts will have to decide if she was raped by these boys. (Insinuating that this is another Duke Lacross Scandal is no different than what the Duke 88 did: it presumes that the girl is lying.)

But there's still some clear wrong here. College students are allowed to have consensual sex. But college students are not allowed to enter someone else's dorm without permission. That's part of every dorm's basic policies as well as the law of the land. Prank or not, these guys did the entering part of breaking and entering.

If they *knew* before they entered that the couple was having sex, then they also committed a sex crime along the lines of voyeurism. Clearly, part of the "prank" was getting a glimpse of the couple having sex. So regardless of whether or not they raped the girl, these boys should be going to jail as sex offenders.

The context of a college dorm doesn't change anything. If the guys in the apartment next to mine walked into my apartment when they heard me having sex, they'd be breaking the law and would be prosecuted. Writing it off as a "drunken prank" is just cowardice (and only proves how accepting we've become, not of sex -- which Laura clearly thinks is distasteful in this situation -- but of frat-boy criminality. (I mean, did any of the Duke Lacrosse boys get kicked out of school for procuring prostitutes? I certainly hope so. Or did the sin of the faculty somehow absolve the boys of their crimes?)

And Laura, this is not about "old taboos," unless by "old" you mean "back when women weren't allowed to go to college."

Luther, please. I graduated from college in 1982. Men were not allowed past the dorm lobby except when we were moving in and out. When maintenance men had to come in, they were escorted by the RA. Granted, this was in Mississippi, but we were definitely women allowed to go to college. I think you are a fairly widely-read person, so you really should realize that the way things are now are not the ways they have always been. You can acknowledge that without having to agree with me that the way things are now is not a 100 percent improvement.

The Duke Lacrosse boys didn't procure a prostitute, they hired a couple of strippers to perform. I find that distasteful, actually, but not so distasteful as to conflate the two.

As to breaking and entering, if the team members were accustomed to going in and out of each others' rooms, and the door wasn't locked, I don't think you can argue that. And if there are ABSOLUTELY NO RULES ANYMORE then I don't think you can argue that the guys thought that sneaking into a room where their buddy was getting some action crossed the line into making them sex offenders. I don't think they necessarily would have thought she would think it was a big deal. Why would they? Nobody thinks any of this stuff through anymore, except those of us who find this sort of thing "distasteful" as you say, and we only dare to speak up if we don't mind your slings and arrows.

I think where you and I part company, Luther, is that you think people ought to be able to engage in whatever activity they want without consequence, and I think we'd be better off with some ground rules so that everyone clearly understands what is and is not acceptable. But that genie won't go back in the bottle.

"I think where you and I part company, Luther, is that you think people ought to be able to engage in whatever activity they want without consequence, and I think we'd be better off with some ground rules so that everyone clearly understands what is and is not acceptable."

How about "it is not acceptable to engage in sexual relations without the other party's consent"? Someone will argue undoubtedly argue that consent is a complicated, ambiguous matter--that one person's silence is another's consent. But I would argue that most good moral principles are like this, that the very nature of human freedom is a complex one, and that banning sex in dorm rooms is hardly a solution. There was plenty of campus rape before the advent of coed dorms (and I think that this was Luther's point).

Laura, my first point was exactly as Peter wrote above: rape on college campuses, or by college boys, has been a problem long before coed dorms. Rape is not caused by coed dorms.

Breaking and entering has nothing to do with what people are accustomed to doing. If these boys made a simple mistake, walked into their buddy's room, saw the situation, and immediately left, I don't think there'd be an issue here. But the boys themselves admit that is not the case. They admit they went with the intent of catching the couple in the act of sex. They admit that neither the boy nor the girl engaged in the act would have wanted them to come in.

And let's not pretend "there are absolutely no rules." Campuses have plenty of rules -- and this blog is often the place where basic training in those rules (indiscriminately labeled "sensitivity training") is derided. No freshman on a college campus can avoid being told that any sexual contact or interaction without explicit consent is a sexual offense legally and a breach of school policy. When these boys broke into a room and watched a girl having sex without her consent, they violated state and college rules. If, as she alledges, they also forced her to perform other activities, then they are rapists plain and simple.

I'd love to see if this issue were about personal property. If I walk into a store and grab a few CDs and walk out, who would defend me? I could say, "Well, the library lets me do that, so the norms are just all hazy. And my buddies don't mind if I borrow their stuff without asking. So why does Best Buy mind so much?" Would you be convinced if I said, "Well, Best Buy shouldn't show me all that tantalizing music if they don't want me to take it. I mean, they sell to anyone. They are like sluts of buying and selling. So I just figured I could take what I wanted"?

So no, Laura, I don't think a person should be able to engage in any activity without suffering the consequences. But voyeurism, invasion of privacy, and gang rape are not consequences of consensual sex, any more than shoplifting is a consequence of selling CDs. We do have rules about what is or is not acceptable. It is quite clear. They are called laws, and ignorance of the law is not a justification for breaking it.

Luther, I hope you are not suggesting that I think consensual sex ought to lead to gang rape.

I'm not changing my mind here. You and Peter express your viewpoints, that's fine, but the fact is, it used not to be expected and accepted that a girl screw a boy in his dorm room. Now it is. That has changed, big time. In the change, a whole lot of other standards went overboard and I don't think kids today have a consensus as to what acceptable behavior is.

If her story is correct, throw them in prison.

If their story is correct, I'm simply not convinced that they understood how violated she would feel from their watching what she apparently felt was not a big deal for her to do. She evidently wants to be liberated and all, and that's fine, but then they need to have the sensitivity for her tender womanhood that used to be accorded to women who acted with some refinement and restraint. That just doesn't follow.

If a girl wants to be treated with courtesy and respect, it doesn't make sense that she should not respect herself, but expect others to respect her. This is more applicable to girls who get so drunk that they are not in control of their bodies, and expect total strangers to be more solicitous of them than they are of themselves; but it's also applicable to girls who will have sex with boys in unlocked dorm rooms.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because we've discussed this before, and neither you nor I are budging.

Great. So Laura, can I put you down as a supporter of my new law. It's called: "Rob Drunk People." A drunk person cannot expect others to follow the law even if s/he is doing something completely legal (i.e., getting drunk), so once a person gets drunk, it would be legal to rob him/her. Or beat him/her. Or murder him/her. Or, as you said, rape him/her.

I also think only those who respect themselves should be covered by laws. Let's pass a law called "Defense of the Prim and Proper," which will state that only those girls who follow our code of moral behavior will be given protection by the law. If you are promiscuous, you cannot expect others to follow the law governing voyeurism, rape, invasion of privacy, robbery, torture, and murder. Not that being promiscuous is against the law, or that breaking the law would mean losing one's own legal rights, of course. Oy vey.

"...college students are not allowed to enter someone else's dorm without permission. That's part of every dorm's basic policies as well as the law of the land. Prank or not, these guys did the entering part of breaking and entering."

It's potentially more serious than that. Trespass + intent to commit an offense therein = burglary.

"If they *knew* before they entered that the couple was having sex, then they also committed a sex crime along the lines of voyeurism."

Which could also be the underlying predicate intent crime for the burglary, without the state having to prove they intended to commit the rape before they entered the room.

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I say because (a) you're stupid, or (b) you can't refute my argument. I don't think you're stupid.

Laura wrote:

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I say because (a) you're stupid, or (b) you can't refute my argument. I don't think you're stupid.

If you're addressing Matt (aka Luther), as I suspect you are, you are correct:

Laura, you wrote the following: "If a girl wants to be treated with courtesy and respect, it doesn't make sense that she should not respect herself, but expect others to respect her. This is more applicable to girls who get so drunk that they are not in control of their bodies, and expect total strangers to be more solicitous of them than they are of themselves; but it's also applicable to girls who will have sex with boys in unlocked dorm rooms."

The idea that people under the influence of alcohol -- a completely legal situation -- should not expect total strangers to respect their legal rights (to not have non-consensual sex, for example) is absurd, but it seems to me that's what you're implying here.

It's fine for people to have a low opinion of drunk girls; it's not fine for them to treat them in an illegal manner.

Next, you seem to argue that how the boys "felt" about the situation is material to the case. That also makes no sense, any more than how a psychopath feels is material to the case. The boys might not have considered their actions wrong, but their actions were illegal. Plain and simple.

I'm not trying to misunderstand or misrepresent your position here.

Minerva, when are you going to man up and face your own hypocrisy? You cannot out people online while hiding behind a lame pseudonym. It's bad manners. And according to Laura, those with bad manners lose their legal rights.

Luther, you seem to think that girls have no agency.

We've been through this before.

Do you really think it's prudent for a girl to get so drunk she doesn't know what's going on, around complete strangers?

Seriously. Stop right there.

Here I am, a 21-year-old girl. I do not want to be raped. Remember that I can't control other people, but presumably I can control whether I get drunk. Is it prudent for me to get drunk out of my mind in a frat house filled with drunken boys I don't know? Yes or no.

Answer that, and then we can move on to how the boys felt and why that is material.

I'm not trying to misunderstand or misrepresent your position here.

Posted by Luther Blissett at November 29, 2009 9:37 PM

And according to Laura, those with bad manners lose their legal rights.

Posted by Luther Blissett at November 30, 2009 5:27 PM

Luther, I'd like a retraction. Otherwise this conversation is at an end. There's no point in me arguing with someone who is arguing with a straw woman.

Laura, do you think it's prudent for Best Buy to have more merchandise than any single store can possibly keep an eye on? Because by not having security guards on each aisle, they are clearly inviting shoplifting.

It's the same situation. It is perfectly legal to get drunk.

No one seems to question it when a drunk couple gets robbed on a date in New York City -- no, that's clearly the thief's fault. But if a drunk girl gets raped, people immediately start insinuating that her imprudent behavior somehow mitigates the crime done against her.

So sure, Laura, it's never prudent to get so drunk that one loses touch with what's going on around one. However, one is still protected by the law, and those around one are still protected and governed by the law.

Frat boys, too, have agency. They, too, make decisions to rape and need to be held responsible for them. Again, at this point in history, any boy in college who is not aware that sex with a blind-drunk person is rape is not bright enough to be in college.

Sorry, Laura. I was being flippant toward Minerva, and I should not have brought your ideas into it.

However, I worry that, at some level, your ideas are heading in this direction. You wrote: "Is it prudent for me to get drunk out of my mind in a frat house filled with drunken boys I don't know? Yes or no."

Prudence has no bearing on the law. Is it prudent to go out after dark? Is it prudent to ever have cash in your pocket? Is it prudent to drive a nice car? Is it prudent to leave property in your car? Is it prudent to have windows? Is it prudent to live in a country with as high a crime rate as this one? Is it prudent to do anything that could possibly cause any harm to oneself or others? The answers to those questions have nothing to do with the law. A robbery victim's prudence does not mitigate her status as a victim. Being a drunk girl in a frat house is no more "inviting," no less prudent, than having windows in your house that any thief can break.

I worry than any discussion of a rape victim's "prudence" is a backhanded attempt to blame the victim.

"I worry than any discussion of a rape victim's 'prudence' is a backhanded attempt to blame the victim."

Well, I worry that people's abstract, theoretical political concepts cause them to give impressionable young folks bad advice. I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about people having common sense and taking care of themselves. If a girl gets drunk, and a boy rapes her, and he is convicted and goes to prison, fine, but she was still raped. Would it not have been preferable for her not to have had that experience at all?

Minerva, when are you going to man up and face your own hypocrisy? You cannot out people online while hiding behind a lame pseudonym. It's bad manners. And according to Laura, those with bad manners lose their legal rights.

Man up??? Why on earth do you assume that I'm a man? What a terribly sexist thing to say!

And I haven't . . . as you put it . . . "outed" you, though for your deeds while at Penn you richly deserve to be. Indeed, I have not mentioned your last name, and by being willfully silent, I have specifically NOT "outed" you!

And as to your silly and demonstrably false assertion that one "cannot out people online while hiding behind a lame pseudonym," I can only say: Of course one can!

Oh, Minerva, I assumed you were a woman by your pseuodnym. "Man up" is really very sexist of me, but it's sexist whether or not you're a woman or a man.

Apparently, you know what I did last summer. How very dramatic. I'd love to know what I did at Penn. You insinuate some dark deeds went down. I hope they don't involve -- o the horror -- email flame wars! Because my reputation as a sexist could never recover if people knew I got into pointless arguments on-line. Who would guess that about me? I've changed so much!

And just for the record: Minerva, that time you did that thing, you know, back when?, well, that was some serious evil. (I love playing the slander through insinuation game!)

Luther, most people who post on this blog know what you did at Penn, and wonder how you have the audacity to post on Erin's blog.

It's people like you who are the true descendants of Joseph McCarthy.

Do you play the witch-hunt game at your current place of employment?

John, talking to other grad students about a professor is not a witch hunt. I never talked to any chairs, deans, ombudsmen, etc. about a professor. Last I checked, sharing one's opinion with one's peers is not a witch hunt. I didn't know grad students had to be in the John Drake Free Speech Zone to voice an opinion about their professors. I wonder what FIRE would say about that.

This is getting way off-topic, but . . .

Matt, your chats with other grad students were hardly so innocent as you'd like now to pretend, and it is a measure of your contempt for those of us who know what you did at Penn that you'd now play the innocent.

You participated in the mobbing of a very decent, honest and tolerant human being with the intent to isolate her, torment her and drive her from the campus if not academia. Your innocent chats with other graduate students were venomous and unspeakably cruel assaults on Erin.

Anyone who's read this blog has a good sense of who Erin is and what she represents, and her decency and sense of fair play is the polar opposite to your dastardly behavior at Penn and your gamesmanship here.

You have every right to now hide behind your right to free speech while you were assaulting her, and well you should, for it is your only refuge, flaccid though it is.

And I love this: "I never talked to any chairs, deans, ombudsmen, etc. about a professor." Well, aren't you the noble creature!

To your behavior then and your denial now, I can only say: Good God man! Have you no shame, have you no decency? Have you none whatsoever?

Free speech, "Luther"? More like destructive hate speech.

Your intolerance for ideas outside your narrow worldview caused you to try and destroy a person's career.

You are reprehensible, and your continued presence here a testament to your unbridled hubris.

I can only thank God you were not rewarded for your efforts with a position in higher education, but weep at the fact that your intolerance is still being passed on to the next generation in your secondary ed classroom.

Yeah, see, what's obvious here is that as much was said behind my back as I said behind Erin's back. I'm happy to have an open discussion, any time, about what I said about Erin to Penn grad students. We can also have an open discussion about what Erin -- a tenured Ivy League professor -- said about graduate students in a public forum, such that people in England knew about her opinion of specific American grad students.

Silly insinuations aside here, the worst I ever did was disagree with her. I never sought her exit from Penn. I was never myself a happy member of the Penn community. Feel free to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Oh, poor baby. Has your reputation preceded you? Do you prior actions serve to color everything you say here?

I'll leave it up to Erin to provide the evidence, if she so desires. It's her blog, after all.

John, what's with the "poor baby" routine? I'm just saying that no one came out of those events smelling like a rose. I don't care what you people think of me. I'm not whining about it. Drake, I don't know you from Adam, and Minerva I wouldn't know if I saw her in my porridge.

Matt, you are a real piece of work . . .

No, I'm not going to debate your role in the attack on Erin . . . I'll not give you a forum for resuming your attacks on her, which I'm sure you'd relish.

Just to be clear — your attempt to turn victim into perpetrator and perp into victim is transparent.

But beyond that, why should I . . . or anyone else . . . trust you? Because a graduate student or two — who undoubtedly joined the mob to destroy her — claimed she said "bad things" about graduate students in England? Ever hear of "fruit from the poison tree?"

I know full well what happened at Penn . . . up to and including Gradiquette, "Student A", the anti-Erin graduate student meetings and that grotesque website, set up by a stalker, which mocked her and in every imaginable way savaged her, even after she'd left Penn!

You know full well whereof I speak, and I didn't have to talk to anyone behind your back to know your role in this.

Good God man! What did she ever do to deserve what you and your fellow graduate students, with faculty complicity, did to her? As I've said before: it was the intellectual equivalent of a gang rape.

And what is your continued obsession with her?

Again I ask: have you no conscience, no shame? None whatsoever?