American University believes women can revoke consent after sex

Can a woman revoke consent after having sex?  American University says, in some circumstances, yes.

College Fix:

If a man and a woman are both drunk and they have sex, the man is the rapist if the woman decides he is at some point, regardless of how she felt in the moment.

This is what American University is teaching students in a required sexual consent module, according to Red Alert Politics.

The module "asks students personal behavioral questions like how many sexual partners they've had and how often they drink," according to Red Alert, which says the program is called "Campus Clarity: Think About It."

The onLy "clarity" in this situation is that school administrators are insane.  This is taking "the woman is always telling the truth" to new heights of idiocy and puts any man on campus who has sex with any woman in danger of being charged as a rapist.

That appears to refer to CampusClarity (since acquired by training provider EverFi), whose invasive questions were pulled from mandatory student training by Clemson University in 2014 after they drew outside scrutiny.

This is the way it always is.  School administrators initiate a program that's, on its face, beyond stupid and quickly back down when people call them out for their idiocy.  If these programs and policies are so beneficial and good, why abandon them the moment they come under scrutiny?

Former AU student Sydney Jacobs said she was threatened with academic probation if she didn't complete the training a year ago, and when she did, the module called her a "N00B" (gamer slang for "newbie") because her answers were wrong:

"I was shocked," said Jacobs. "The program explicitly says they're both too drunk to give consent but then says the man coerced the woman into a dangerous situation.  The hypothetical specifically says neither gave consent but then says the woman can take certain steps towards legal options.  It concludes the man likely committed sexual assault." ...

"Ultimately my problem with the whole thing is it's creating a culture on campus that it's okay to re-write history and rescind your consent when you're not happy with the outcome.  People are scared to hook up without facing repercussions that aren't warranted."

Jacobs is further incensed because the same training is used at public universities including the University of Florida and Kansas State University, meaning taxpayers are funding the message that "it is okay to rescind consent and then [the] man is always at fault."

The issue of teaching about drunken sexual encounters is not without merit.  Even in the 1970s, real men knew not to engage in sex with a woman who was falling-down drunk.  Teaching college kids not to become insensible when drinking when the odds of making a horribly poor decision, such as getting behind the wheel of a car or having sex, has real value. 

If that were where the lesson ended, most of us would support it.  But administrators at American University are ignoring reality.  The facts are simple: if two people who are drunk engage in sex, it is both partners' fault, and consent by either party is impossible.  Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

In fact, school administrators understand perfectly.  Their assumption is that men are beasts and slaves to their enormous sexual appetites.  The poor, nearly virginal women are preyed upon when they're most vulnerable.

The central thesis of this program is that women are incapable of looking out for themselves and need an ex post facto reason to stick it to their sexual partners.  "You'd better ask me out again, or else..." might become regular dialog on campus.

An exaggeration?  Ten years ago, I would have thought so.  Now I'm not so sure.  Women, especially, have changed.  They are being taught that being a victim is their lot in life, and they might as well make the best of it.  And that includes ruining the life of a man who may have jilted them.

I am wondering if there will ever be significant pushback on campus against this madness.  Are college men jellyfish?  Have they been so cowed by feminists and school administrators that they will meekly accept this outrage? 

Time will tell, but I am not confident of a push for change.

Can a woman revoke consent after having sex?  American University says, in some circumstances, yes.

College Fix:

If a man and a woman are both drunk and they have sex, the man is the rapist if the woman decides he is at some point, regardless of how she felt in the moment.

This is what American University is teaching students in a required sexual consent module, according to Red Alert Politics.

The module "asks students personal behavioral questions like how many sexual partners they've had and how often they drink," according to Red Alert, which says the program is called "Campus Clarity: Think About It."

The onLy "clarity" in this situation is that school administrators are insane.  This is taking "the woman is always telling the truth" to new heights of idiocy and puts any man on campus who has sex with any woman in danger of being charged as a rapist.

That appears to refer to CampusClarity (since acquired by training provider EverFi), whose invasive questions were pulled from mandatory student training by Clemson University in 2014 after they drew outside scrutiny.

This is the way it always is.  School administrators initiate a program that's, on its face, beyond stupid and quickly back down when people call them out for their idiocy.  If these programs and policies are so beneficial and good, why abandon them the moment they come under scrutiny?

Former AU student Sydney Jacobs said she was threatened with academic probation if she didn't complete the training a year ago, and when she did, the module called her a "N00B" (gamer slang for "newbie") because her answers were wrong:

"I was shocked," said Jacobs. "The program explicitly says they're both too drunk to give consent but then says the man coerced the woman into a dangerous situation.  The hypothetical specifically says neither gave consent but then says the woman can take certain steps towards legal options.  It concludes the man likely committed sexual assault." ...

"Ultimately my problem with the whole thing is it's creating a culture on campus that it's okay to re-write history and rescind your consent when you're not happy with the outcome.  People are scared to hook up without facing repercussions that aren't warranted."

Jacobs is further incensed because the same training is used at public universities including the University of Florida and Kansas State University, meaning taxpayers are funding the message that "it is okay to rescind consent and then [the] man is always at fault."

The issue of teaching about drunken sexual encounters is not without merit.  Even in the 1970s, real men knew not to engage in sex with a woman who was falling-down drunk.  Teaching college kids not to become insensible when drinking when the odds of making a horribly poor decision, such as getting behind the wheel of a car or having sex, has real value. 

If that were where the lesson ended, most of us would support it.  But administrators at American University are ignoring reality.  The facts are simple: if two people who are drunk engage in sex, it is both partners' fault, and consent by either party is impossible.  Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

In fact, school administrators understand perfectly.  Their assumption is that men are beasts and slaves to their enormous sexual appetites.  The poor, nearly virginal women are preyed upon when they're most vulnerable.

The central thesis of this program is that women are incapable of looking out for themselves and need an ex post facto reason to stick it to their sexual partners.  "You'd better ask me out again, or else..." might become regular dialog on campus.

An exaggeration?  Ten years ago, I would have thought so.  Now I'm not so sure.  Women, especially, have changed.  They are being taught that being a victim is their lot in life, and they might as well make the best of it.  And that includes ruining the life of a man who may have jilted them.

I am wondering if there will ever be significant pushback on campus against this madness.  Are college men jellyfish?  Have they been so cowed by feminists and school administrators that they will meekly accept this outrage? 

Time will tell, but I am not confident of a push for change.