In Campus Follies 7 we dealt with the "campus rape crisis".
In this installment, it is time to take a more detailed look at this same topic. And to accomplish that, we shall return to that notorious party school, the University of California at Santa Barbara.
You see, the Ole Ygg decided to visit that school a while back with Mrs. Ygg and Ygg Jr.
The Ygg family happened into a dormitory, and in a glass case the ever observant Ole Ygg spotted a document entitled "Date Rape Guidelines."
Now suddenly, a routine tour of yet another college campus was transformed into a special delight. Not only did the Ygg have a chance to observe life on a U.C system campus famed for fun, but was to receive a lesson in applied ideology as well!
Now the particular example of ideology had special significance, posted as it was on a "men's" floor at a notorious bastion of fun-loving sexism.
After all, this was not Berkeley. The Ole Ygg was dying of curiosity to see what a University Administrator might have to say to all of these young revelers ensconced in Santa Barbara.
To Ygg's amazement, he found not ideology but something quite different. It was in fact a set of instructions:
-- You may not follow a woman student. Following a woman student is harassment or stalking.
-- You may ask a woman for a date, but you may not ask repeatedly, as such repeated requests constitute harassment.
-- You must never touch or attempt to kiss a woman unless you have permission. When in doubt, ask first.
-- When kissing a woman student, you may not commence other more sexually oriented activity without first obtaining her consent again to this additional activity.
-- If engaged in kissing or other forms of foreplay and the woman says "no" to further advances you must immediately desist. Do not attempt to persuade her or change her mind.
-- Never have sex with a woman student who has been drinking or who you know to be intoxicated. Having sex with an intoxicated woman is rape.
-- Before you commence sexual intercourse with a woman you must ask for explicit permission and the woman must clearly answer with a "yes" before you may proceed. Silence means "no".
-- If, as you are about to commence sexual intercourse, or during the act of intercourse, the woman changes her mind you must immediately withdraw and stop all sexual activity.
Now the Ole Ygg was stunned. While it has been a while, the Ole Ygg had relations with a statistically significant sample of young ladies years ago and never once did one of them "change her mind".
So Ygg pointed out these date rape guidelines to Mrs. Ygg. Upon seeing the subject, Mrs. Ygg immediately said "stop reading that - ignore it - don't make a scene!" It was a typical middle class reaction. When someone does something rude, you just ignore it.
To Mrs. Ygg, the date rape guidelines provoked the same reaction as someone farting in public. You pretend it didn't happen and move on. And indeed that is the reaction of most middle class people to public displays of nonsensical ideology. Ignore it and move on.
But then the Ole Ygg asked: Wouldn't the average female be offended by these guidelines?
After all, what is the assumption here? That they are weak? That they are all manipulative little princesses incapable of enjoying sex, and prone to changing their minds in the middle of the act as some peripheral status calculus distracts them from the urgent business at hand?
Now Mrs. Ygg was at something of a disadvantage here. Never having bedded other women, there is a great deal about women, and the wide range of female response, that Mrs. Ygg simply could not know.
But she instantly recognized that the assumptions underlying these guidelines were quite offensive to women. However, she assumed that every woman would immediately think these guidelines ridiculous and ignore them.
Then Ole Ygg asked how she imagined the young _men_ would react to these guidelines.
You see, back in Ole Ygg's day, men grew up with an elaborate and, on balance, helpful mythology about sex and women.
At its most basic level, the assumption was that young women refrained from sex because they were being "good." We believed they wanted it just as bad as we did, but they were less prone to sinful behavior than males.
A second "liberal" version of this same myth held that many people were sexually dysfunctional because they were "repressed" by traditional religions. Destroy these sexually repressive religions and humanity would burst forth from its chains in sexual liberation and orgasmic fulfillment.
Both versions of the myth concealed the wide variation in female libido and response.
These date rape guidelines didn't even give a passing nod to the old unifying myths of female virtue or sexual repression.
But if the old myths are gone, then how do young men in the 1990s explain their frustrations? What has taken its place?
Do 18 year old boys understand and accept the premise of these guidelines? Do they really believe that in the middle of a romantic physical encounter the average young woman is likely to become bored, confused, or manipulative and change her mind?
Do young men nowadays agree with Faye Resnick, Nicole Simpson's biographer, when she says "I am aware there are women who don't enjoy sex...."
Back in Yggdrasil's day, only a very few experienced young men knew this, and they, by definition, were not frustrated by their knowledge.
But for the father of three daughters, these date rape guidelines written by the University of California cause no end of anxiety. It is one thing to know that young men gaze on your daughters with lust. It has been that way for millennia.
But the idea that the average young man will now gaze on your daughters with both lust and institutionally implanted suspicions about their probable responsiveness is indeed new and disturbing.
Not only do these date rape guidelines tell you that young women must be presumed unresponsive, but if you happen to become entangled with one, you are at risk of her "changing her mind" midstream and lodging an ugly harassment or date rape charge. Young men are going to be wary indeed of this peculiar disease in women so graphically described in the guidelines.
What these date rape guidelines create is a presumption in the minds of young males that the average young lady is frigid and manipulative. Frigid women are not only frustrating but carry ugly little legal liabilities as well. Young women are going to have to overcome this presumption very quickly before any relationship can start. Socially agressive young ladies with slutty demeanors will have little trouble putting male anxieties to rest.
But, as outlined in Campus Follies 7, most college bound European-American girls are relatively inexperienced at age 18. The presumption is profoundly unfair. Most of them simply lack the skill to overcome this presumption while still communicating the ability to remain steadfast and devoted when necessary. Many who have the "native ability" simply are not going to understand what is going on. Or why young men react the way they do.
The presumption of the "date rape guidelines" is the last thing that most young ladies need at a time when they are forming lifelong attitudes about themselves and their own attractiveness.
But for those young women who are romantically unsuccessful, the male-hating ideologies surrounding the guidelines will form a useful excuse for sexual failure. In frustration, many will latch on to the idea that all sex is "rape" to be avoided. The ideology will form a convenient cover for a genetic shortcoming.
What the modern "liberators" of women have created is a cruelly Darwinian sexual landscape where conflict and frustration are maximized and in which all sorts of hurdles will be placed in the way of normal behavior for less gregarious young men and women. By the time they reach their mid-twenties, most will sort this all out and avoid any permanent harm. Some will not.
Curiously, nobody ever asks what sort of ideologies young men are absorbing as a result of the newly Darwinian social landscape in which they find themselves.
The liberal multi-culturalists are, of course, horrified at the potential that modern universities create for assortive mating for intelligence among European-Americans. The universities are doing a very effective job of selecting the most intelligent people from our society and then placing them in close social proximity. If those people intermarry and reproduce, the number of extremely intelligent people (those at the very tip of the bell curve) would increase very dramatically. To the liberal multi-culturalists, the prospect must be greeted with horror.
If one were a hater of Western Civilization, then nothing would be more important than preventing (or at least delaying for several years, on average) assortive mating for intelligence by European-Americans. Nothing could strengthen Western Civilization more than increasing by 10 times the number of European-Americans with IQs above 140.
But the liberal multi-culturalists need not worry. For it would be hard to design a more thorough set of culturally specific impediments to assortive mating by Euro-Americans than the odd multi-cultural stew of racial preferences, enforced male-hating, cynicism and sexual Darwinism that now exists on our campuses. That stew creates a potentially crippling set of disabilities for young European-American men and women to overcome.
But then it is dangerous to ascribe to design that which may more naturally and probably result from spontaneous and chaotic efforts of frustrated and angry people. As an investor betting the odds, the Ole Ygg has to discount the likelihood of a conspiracy to hold Euro-America in its "place". Better to think of it as an example of Sir Issac Newton's third law, but call it instead "campus follies".
© 1996-1998 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute texts freely.