When consent is implied

lewleadbeater.com

notes from the edge

Home

Email Me

				THE
Column Archive				VIRGINIA GAZETTE
				WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA
When consent is implied				February 11, 2006

A couple of weeks ago, there appeared on the news wires a story about a very angry bull. Right in the middle of a bullfight the bull decided to quit the field and head for the barricade separating the arena from the stands of onlookers. Leaping over the barricade, the bull proceeded to run amuck amongst the fans, trampling some and goring others.

For those of us who think that bullfighting is more scourge than sport, this presents a tricky moral dilemma. My inclination is to root for the bulls and let those who think it’s macho to poke an animal to death with stinging, pointy objects be damned. On the other hand, you have to feel sorry for someone who finds himself on the butting end of a bull’s horn.

I mention this because moral dilemmas almost always involve conflicting emotions and at least two points of view whose equal weight of validity advances the dilemma. Such is the case with date rape.

In the last year the College of William & Mary has had more than its share of headlines dealing with the issue of date rape. Much to its credit, the administration has begun seriously to revolutionize how it deals with the question of rape through additional counseling services and by hiring health professionals who go well beyond the former moribundity in the office of the vice president for student affairs..

Much of the college’s difficulty in this area stems from the case of Katie Koestner, who in 1991 claimed that she had been raped by her friend Peter. In a speech delivered to a group at the University of Tulsa in 1993, Koestner stated that she invited Peter, whom she described as a “GQ model,” to her dorm room after a dinner date. She did not intend to have sex with him, though she admits they danced to a tape in her room and then became involved in heavy kissing.

“I assumed that he would understand that I did like him, but I just didn’t want to have sex,” said Koestner.

Evidently Peter spent the night in Koestner’s room, though Koestner maintains that she stayed awake most of the night. It wasn’t until she dozed off in the early morning that she was raped.

That the college bungled the case badly is now common knowledge. At the time, Koestner and others charged that Sam Sadler, vice president for student affairs, simply did not want to confront the controversy. Peter, who later admitted that Koestner had said “no” to sex, was not tossed out of school, but rather was told to confine himself to his own dorm.

Having served on at least one college committee that dealt with Koestner’s case, I can say that what now appears to be a cut and dried instance of rape was not so crystal clear at the time. Herein lies an issue that not only William & Mary, but all colleges and universities should consider as they fashion new procedures for dealing with date rape.

Simply put, they must clarify the now-constricted implications of mutual consent. The fact that Koestner assumed that her date knew this or that simply won’t wash anymore. She invited the young man to her dorm room, she agreed to dance, and she agreed to whatever petting followed. In the end, she did not agree to sex, but by then the initial semiotics of the situation had gained control.

Indicative of the notion that rape is purely the purview of the male is the advice given by the Counseling Center for Human Development, a rape counseling service. Its website notes that “It is important for women to communicate their sexual expectations openly.” And so it is. But they go on to say, “If you are a victim of date rape, remember that it is not your fault.”

One has to assume, therefore, that date rape is solely the fault of the male. But is this really the case? Are we to believe that a young woman who invites a man to her room and willingly engages in petting and other positive-attraction signs is totally without blame?

The fact is that there are any number of cases beyond that of Koestner where doubt as to consensual agreement has become a serious issue. One such case is now headed to the courts as a result of two William & Mary students who attended a rather bizarre party in Charles City. Now accused of rape, the young man involved has been suspended from the college. He still maintains, however, that the consent for sex was mutual and that his character has been defamed by a rape charge to the contrary. This case bears watching.

The ancillary causes of date rape are manifold. Alcohol, the college’s ever-present bugaboo, is frequently a factor. In addition, much stricter enforcement of rules involving fraternity and sorority parties must occur if date rape is to be checked. It certainly is of little credit to the college when one of its fraternities, Theta Delta Chi, distributes fliers for its “EskiHOs Party,” advising attendees that “It’s snow pants or no pants.”

It should be made clear to every student that blame may well be assessed on a mutual basis. As with drug abuse, just saying “no” is not a policy. Codifying for both men and women what enticements are or are not acceptable prior to sexual activity is.

In the end, there may be some sympathy for the bull who jumps the barricades after being tweaked once too often.