Withholding sex, attempting to guilt someone into having sex (often referred to as a “mercy f**k.), discounting feelings, and the other “crimes” this policy defines as “sexual violence,” are often bad, and even malicious acts. They may be part of a pattern of abuse. But by defining them as “sexual violence,” it demeans the victims of real sexual violence. If badgering someone into having sex is akin to rape, then rape must not be a big thing. It’s like the “all penetrative sex is rape” crap spewed by some of the Feminazi crowd. If all sex is rape, then rape must not only be decriminalized, it must be lauded from the rooftops. Clearly that is not the right answer.

One of the roots of this malaise is an attempt to fix all interpersonal problems with policy and legislation. “If we only write the laws right, everyone will be happy, healthy, and wise.” It ain’t so. People must be left to wend their way through the maze of interpersonal conflicts on their own. They need to be allowed to grow up.

I can’t see anyone taking this policy seriously, no matter what side they’re on. It sounds like more of a parody or snark along the lines of, “If women’s feelings count for that much, then so do men’s.”

I agree with that view. But it’ll be better served if one or several of the men expelled by schools that follow DOE’s policy sues the federal government for (indirectly) imposing a system that violates students’ right of privacy and denies them due process. I don’t see how the feds can legitimately impose such a thing by bribery any more than they can by statute.

Except this policy calls that “withholding sex” and that’s abusive.

So the woman is the abuser and the man should call 911 and she should go to jail.

But if the man says “Oh. You said no. You really should say yes because I’m about to call 911 and you’re going to jail for abusive sex.” Now SHE should call 911 because he’s being coercive.

What a wonderful policy.

My goodness what a false leap. Can anyone now conclude that Michigan defines this as rape?

UM defined it as sexual violence. There’s a “leap” between sexual violence and rape?

No should mean no and trying to wear a person down to have sex with you is wrong. It is not a crime. But it is okay for a school to want to persuade students not to want young people to do this.

I can agree with that. But redefining nonviolent acts as violent isn’t the way to go. Embezzlement is nonviolent, but it’s still illegal. And the language used can matter GREATLY if a student is found to have violated the Conduct Code for reasons of “sexual violence”. Imagine having that on your permanent record.

That’s sexual violence?

So now it’s women who are the perpetrators, not the victims?

Who decided that?

My goodness what a false leap. Can anyone now conclude that Michigan defines this as rape?

No should mean no and trying to wear a person down to have sex with you is wrong. It is not a crime. But it is okay for a school to want to persuade students not to want young people to do this.

People get wrongfully accused of rape in this country just like any other crime. It is behind awful. But the bigger problem is that women are getting raped.

(My gosh, I’m so glad to disagree with commenters again. My last few comments have been tough!)

Sounds like a typical mediation session for tort litigation.