The Monsters of Ohio State

Avatar

Tod Kelly

Tod is a writer from the Pacific Northwest. He is also serves as Executive Producer and host of both the 7 Deadly Sins Show at Portland's historic Mission Theatre and 7DS: Pants On Fire! at the White Eagle Hotel & Saloon. He is  a regular inactive for Marie Claire International and the Daily Beast, and is currently writing a book on the sudden rise of exorcisms in the United States. Follow him on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

64 Responses

  1. Avatar Patrick
    Ignored
    says:

    What’s interesting (and funny) about all of these sources is that they all link to one another. What no one seems to bother to have checked out at all is the actual OSU SCoC.

    Sigh.

    At some point, it’s time to start revoking press credentials or something. Somehow.Report

  2. Avatar notme
    Ignored
    says:

    Why is this even surprising? It is the end logic of academic liberals.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to notme
      Ignored
      says:

      … said the guy who did’t read the post that was about the journalists who didn’t read the Code of Conduct.Report

      • Avatar notme in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Sorry if I wasn’t clear. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was true they way colleges are going. It is how academic liberals think.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        It is how academic liberals think.

        How do they think?Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Sorry if I wasn’t clear. It wouldn’t surprise me if it was true they way colleges are going. It is how academic liberals think.
        You were perfectly clear. You just read the first paragraph and didn’t get to the important part, and accepted it as true because it fit your preconceived notions.

        And now you look bad, because it’s very, very obvious that you’re just as lazy as the people linking this BS.

        Congrats.Report

    • Avatar James Hanley in reply to notme
      Ignored
      says:

      Notme,
      As an academic libertarian who works daily alongside academic liberals, I think I can speak with a certain amount of authority gained through first-hand knowledge unleavened with much sympathy for the type.

      And what I would say is that your stereotype is patently silly.Report

      • Avatar Damon in reply to James Hanley
        Ignored
        says:

        As a non academic libertarian, who lives in a socialist state, and has followed many cases of public school insanity in my home state and county, I can say that the stereotype is patently similiar to other examples that have taken place in the past few years in other areas, not only in details but in general tone.Report

  3. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    California just passed an affirmative consent law for the UC and CSU systems that is raising some eyebrows including from some on the left who think it infantilizes women too much and question whether it is wise to have a separate standard for college students:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119459/californias-campus-consent-laws-every-sex-act-potential-crime

    Whenever a new law passes, there is a lot of fear-mongering about negative side effects or unintended consequences. Sometimes but not always those unintended consequences hemming and hawing are overblown and sometimes the negative consequences dwarf any benefit that the law was intended to give. Where a law is on this spectrum probably depends on ideology.

    I don’t think the new California law will be as bad as the TNR article states and plenty of young men and women will be having sex at college. I do think it raises some interesting observations though.Report

    • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      Given the massive rape problems colleges have, I can understand the urge to start trying to find something — anything– that might put a dent in the problem.

      *shrug*. Unfortunately, to a large extent it’s cultural and those attitudes need to be handled earlier than college, during far more formative years.

      It’s doubly hard because the seeds get planted WAY before any kids are even thinking about sex (or generally even aware of what it is) — it’s built into a lot of our culture and media, into our very definitions of ‘normal’ relationships.

      I guess the simplest explanation is the way a lot of men — especially young men — talk about sex. As if sex is something the women own, something they have to be convinced to part with — rather than a mutual act. Getting the woman to “give it up” — like it’s a possession or an item to be one, rather than two people deciding to bone.

      Why wouldn’t some men get resentful, if sex is some treasure the woman won’t share? Hoarding it all to herself? How mean, how selfish, right? That’s the way we pitch it, as a society. \

      Men desire it, women guard it. Antagonism from the get-go.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        I believe people in the sex-positive community call this the commodity model of sex. Historically, because sex before marriage was officially disapproved of since antiquity, there has been a certain logic about this. Men have been taught that sex is something that is there by right and women were raised with the idea that they should guard sex and not give it outside of marriage.

        Changing how people think about sex will help but not as much as the sex-positive people think it would. As a French novelist whose name I can’t spell pointed out, but more elegantly, free love has the same problems as the free market. Some people are going to do very well, others decently, but many other people are going to have horrible love and sex lives even if they do everything ostensibly right. There is an element of chance and luck that simply can’t be wished away. Romantic and sexual frustration needs to be accounted for in some way besides just deal with it. People with bad love/sex lives aren’t going to accept thats the way of free love any more than the losers of the free market are going to be fine with their poverty.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        I think you need to get laid more, Lee. Saul, too.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        You don’t need free love, you just need the understand that sex is a mutual arrangement — you don’t even get off the ground unless both parties are interested.

        That’s not ‘free love’. That’s accepting the other party is an independent entity with their own particular list of criteria.Report

      • Avatar dhex in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        i want to hear more about the obamacare of sex plan. do i get to keep my old sex plan if i like it? who’s going to handle the sexbamacare.gov site launch?Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        If people are below a certain sexrate do they qualify for sexsubsidies?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        @stillwater

        You have a way of winning friends and influencing people.

        Or were you purposefully trying to be nasty?Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        free love has the same problems as the free market. Some people are going to do very well, others decently, but many other people are going to have horrible love and sex lives even if they do everything ostensibly right.

        The Arabs coined the word for an equalizing agent here: Al-Cohol. Obviously, don’t use so much of it that consent (or safely driving home!) becomes an impossibility. But it does loosen up inhibitions enough to facilitate interaction when used responsibly.Report

      • Avatar Rufus F. in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Lee Esq. Probably Michel Houellebecq.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        @rufus-f, thats the one.

        @stillwater, like its that it easy.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        @burt-likko, I have found that alcohol doesn’t really work that way for me.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        if sex is some treasure the woman won’t share? Hoarding it all to herself?

        Suddenly this sounds like the copyright arguments.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        I guess the simplest explanation is the way a lot of men — especially young men — talk about sex. As if sex is something the women own, something they have to be convinced to part with — rather than a mutual act.

        Yes. It is obviously a problem that too many men talk about the world in a manner that accurately, if not always precisely, reflects the reality of the world instead of talking about it in a manner that reflects our preferred feminist ideology. Maybe if we get to boys young enough, we can root out all of that toxic masculinity.

        I look forward to the day when we all, men and women alike, receive our mandated pixie cuts and androgynous drab coveralls. Ideologically enforced equality is the answer to all of our ills.Report

      • Avatar Gabriel Conroy in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        @stillwater ,

        I have to ditto what @saul-degraw said here. That wasn’t a nice comment.Report

      • Avatar ScarletNumbers in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        @leeesq

        Burt Likko: [Alcohol] does loosen up inhibitions enough to facilitate interaction when used responsibly.

        LeeEsq: I have found that alcohol doesn’t really work that way for me.

        He means that alcohol should be used on your potential partner, not yourself.Report

      • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Lee, Saul, GC,

        Yeah, that comment not only sounded like it conveyed some nastiness but it probably did as well. Maybe some of my frustration with cops shooting unarmed black guys carried over to this thread. So sorry for that.

        On the upside, I didn’t really mean for the comment to imply a judgment about a person’s sex life as much as a judgment about judging other folk’s sex lives when it’s pretty clear that judgment isn’t informed by any of the behaviors, intentions, logic or analysis upon which that judgment is based. Hence my saying (obliquely) that if a person got laid more they’d realize that the comfortable, academic, a priori, (whatever) view being expressed is nonsense. Same goes for j r’s comment, btw. He expressed his view as an incontrovertible and obvious *fact* but my experience – as well as overall view – is that he’s obviously wrong.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        There is some truth to the idea that women are the “gatekeepers” has some truth to it, because we’ve set up gender roles that way: men as the pursuers, women as the pursued. That system benefits men for the most part, so men complaining about it as a gendered issue is somewhat comical.

        On the other hand, “I’m not succeeding, so it’s women’s fault” is a pretty common and entirely inaccurate view. It’s basically just a way of avoiding self-criticism.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Hence my saying (obliquely) that if a person got laid more they’d realize that the comfortable, academic, a priori, (whatever) view being expressed is nonsense. Same goes for j r’s comment, btw. He expressed his view as an incontrovertible and obvious *fact* but my experience – as well as overall view – is that he’s obviously wrong.

        This is a pretty good example of the manner in which progressive feminists want to have it both ways. You want to be able to dismiss, as myth, the idea that there are meaningful differences between how men and women tend to view sex, but you want to be able to deploy the myth of the loser who can’t get laid to dismiss someone who disagrees with you.

        I get why you do this. It is convenient to be able to jump in and out of traditional conceptions depending on which is the most convenient. I get it, but I don’t buy it. And no one else should buy it either. If I’ve said something incorrect, then make the case based on the accuracy of what I said and not on whether or not it meets up with your ideological priors.

        Here is what I am going to do. I am going to make a statement that I believe to be true. I believe it to be accurate. And I believe it to be precise enough as to be meaningful. If you disagree with this statement, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

        Here is the statement:

        I don’t think that there is a significant level of a priori difference between the male and female sex drives. There are lots of men with low sex drives and lots of women with high sex drives. On average, women tend to want sex about as much as men. The meaningful difference is that women are generally much more selective about with whom they want to have sex. The fact that men tend to be much less selective sets up a situation in which women are the de facto gatekeepers in the sexual marketplace. Even in situations where the man and the women like each other in equal amounts, its more likely that the man is pushing for sex sooner and the woman waiting to see what the man’s true intentions are.Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Yes. It is obviously a problem that too many men talk about the world in a manner that accurately, if not always precisely, reflects the reality of the world instead of talking about it in a manner that reflects our preferred feminist ideology. Maybe if we get to boys young enough, we can root out all of that toxic masculinity.
        WTF? Did you take a blow to the head?Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        @j-r I think you might be talking past feminists here.

        Dropping the whole political tribe moniker, I don’t know of any women who would disagree with what you’re saying. (In fact, the only people I can think of that I know that would disagree would be men, because for whatever reason even though it’s 2014 a lot of men still seem to cling to the idea that women don’t like sex that much.) Where they will disagree with you (or maybe not you, but many people who make this particular argument), rather, is the notion that therefore women have all the power — both in male-female relationships, and in the general social hierarchy.

        In other words, the historical problem with the observation you made isn’t that it isn’t true, it’s that it is then used as a “logical” reason not to take women seriously with any legitimate grievance they might have, up to and including physical abuse and glass ceilings.

        I say this not because I think you’re making that argument (I know you better than that), but because I’m not sure when I read these threads the degree to which you are aware that this is the particular stream in which you’re paddling agains the tide.Report

      • Avatar j r in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        WTF? Did you take a blow to the head?

        I’m sorry. Does @mike-schilling have this site’s only sarcasm license?

        I think it is the human condition to want it both ways.

        Of course it is. And if individual women want to have it both ways (keeping some of the benefits of traditional gender roles, while breaking free from the unfair constraints), I wish them the best of luck and will even support them on occasion. However, when you take that from the individual level and turn it into a systematic ideology, I am going to push back against that ideology.

        In other words, the historical problem with the observation you made isn’t that it isn’t true, it’s that it is then used as a “logical” reason not to take women seriously with any legitimate grievance they might have, up to and including physical abuse and glass ceilings.

        That sounds like a pretty good reason to start from a position based firmly in reality, not in ideology. It’s like anti-drug efforts that tell kids that all drugs are equally as bad and that if you take a puff of a joint, you might as well me mainlining smack. That approach works a little bit in scaring kids away from drugs, but sooner or later they are going to learn that not all drugs are the same and they are going disregard all the sensible advice mixed in with the scare tactics.

        All I have said repeatedly on this issue is that if you want to get to a point where sexual relationships between men and women (or between men and men and women and women) are characterized by better communication and clearly affirmative signals of consent (which I would like as well), then you have to start from a place of accurately understanding the sexual marketplace. Otherwise, you make the same mistake as those anti-drug messages.

        And I definitely realize that I am swimming against the tide. What fun would it be to do it any other way?Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        jr,
        respectfully, I don’t think you’ve considered what actually goes on at bars very much. There are an awful lot of women who aren’t very selective about “one night stands”. Most of them tend to look somewhat undesirable (what’s the term? “whales”?), or be otherwise not on the “long term dating” market (might have a husband).
        If there wasn’t an appreciable chance that a guy could get laid, he wouldn’t go to “looker” bars.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Does@mike-schillinghave this site’s only sarcasm license?

        No, but so far he’s the only one who’s been able to afford the fee.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m sorry. Does@mike-schilling have this site’s only sarcasm license?

        You do have to pass the written test.Report

      • Avatar Glyph in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Oo, a SARcasm license. That’s REAL useful.Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        This is going to get a tad autobiographical but I date a lot, its just that I seem to have a big problem in getting past the first date. I have no idea how this is. Most of my dates aren’t what I’d consider bad ones. Many times the woman does seem to be having a good time. They just conclude that we wouldn’t make a good couple sometime between the end of the date and when I try to get the second date. Most people who know me, men and women, do like me and consider me to be an intelligent, good-natured, humurous fellow. Its just that I can’t seem to generate the chemistry that many people consider very important for a second date. I have no idea how women see me but it doesn’t seem to be as prospective romantic partner or one-night stand but at the same time its not as a creep or “nice guy.”Report

      • Avatar Kim in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Lee,
        “I have no idea how women see me”
        … you might try asking.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        WTF? Did you take a blow to the head?

        Come to think of it, had trauma really would explain most of the tenets of left-wing feminism.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Damn it, Swype, why do you always have to go for the ironic typos?Report

      • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Morat20
        Ignored
        says:

        Kim, I believe that is considered “nice guy” (TM) behavior and even if it wasn’t, asking a person who romantically rejected you is not something that polite people are supposed to do. Rejection is supposed to be accepted with grace.Report

    • Avatar Doctor Jay in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I think that affirmative consent as a ethical principle is a very good one. As a legal principle, it sucks it. I quote an argument made by a friend of mine (who is a lawyer):

      As a thought experiment, let’s try the counterfactual case: two parties engage in intercourse without affirmatively communicating consent, and have an underlying (albeit uncommunicated) attitude of consent toward intercourse. The insane counterfactual police, having learned of this event, pick one of them up for rape.

      Their partner protests, arguing that they did in fact consent to intercourse, despite not having communicated it affirmatively at the time. If affirmative consent is the ‘true’ element of the crime, this does not matter whatsoever to the conviction: because the partner did not affirmatively consent, the other partner committed the crime of rape in persisting with intercourse. If the partner’s actual-albeit-uncommunicated consent should matter to the conviction, then that consent is the ‘true’ element of the crime, and all the affirmative consent standard has done is shift the burden of the proof to the defendant.

      Report

    • Avatar Mike Dwyer in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      I would really urge everyone to listen to/watch the latest Joe Rogan podcast (language NSFW) here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjMX4_4faX4

      At the 20 minute mark they begin discussing campus rape and I found myself nodding my head almost the entire time. A big part of the discussion is that how laws like the ones that Saul linked to are actually anti-feminist and enshrine them as likely victims.Report

  4. Avatar Vikram Bath
    Ignored
    says:

    Tod, I think you are not choosing the best link for OSU’s student conduct policy. Here is the PDF version: http://studentaffairs.osu.edu/csc/

    If you go by the link you provide, I could actually get Limbaugh’s point because the part you characterize as “advice” and has the verbiage they object to comes on a page immediately after the page you link to. It wouldn’t be clear to me as a student whether to consider this advice a binding part of the code or not. It’s when you pull up the PDF that you see no sign of this “effective consent” stuff.

    Also, just FYI, OSU is in the process of changing its code of conduct.Report

  5. Avatar zic
    Ignored
    says:

    Next thing you know, they’ll be saying the school is calling for death sex panels.Report

  6. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    OSU is asking its students, when interacting with POTASes, to be civil. You know that’s the first step towards fascism.Report

  7. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    @j-r

    Re: Wanting it both ways.

    I think it is the human condition to want it both ways. It is much easier to see how others want it both ways instead of how you want it both ways though and this is true of all people, myself included.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *