|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 50 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Politics: College Sex |
Posted by
tallidaho on Tuesday, August 05, 2003 - 04:14 AM PST
Attending Catholic school when one is not A) Catholic or B) Christian is always a bit of an experience. Not that it is an experience I didn't set myself up for, in agreeing to attend Carroll College, but I am daily amazed at the lengths some of the administration, and students, will go through to basically screw themselves over. By no means is this unique to a religious school, but that overtone certainly seems to add to the "logical confusion" that permeates the entire campus.
Up until the beginning of classes this next year, if you lived on campus, there was an "intervisitation policy"- if there was a guy in a girl's room, or a girl in a guy's room after 1am, or 2am on weekends, there was a rather hefty fine and, after 3-5 infractions, possible suspension. Then at the end of last year, they decided that this would be changing- mostly because they were also changing the configuration of the dorms on campus. Previously, there had been an all-female dorm, an all-male dorm, and a co-ed dorm. It worked well, everyone got to live in the kind of environment they wanted, and there were no huge complaints. They were also building a new building, to open this fall, of apartment-style rooms- a co-ed dorm that had more of an "adult" feel (Juniors and Seniors only). All right, understandable. But instead of leaving the homeostasis of campus at one male dorm, one female dorm, and two co-ed dorms, they decided some things needed to be changed. So, this next year, there is going to be one dorm for all the freshman (co-ed by wing), one all-male dorm (where, I might add, all the priests live... no comment.), the "new dorm" with Jrs. and Srs, co-ed, and one "catch all" coed dorm. Among the reason for all of these changes is to supposedly build "community." How sequestering the entire freshman class is supposed to do this, I'm not sure. Beyond these physical changes, however, they are also changing the "intervisitation rule" to a "visitation rule"-- in essence, a campus-wide curfew. When I questioned the head of student life about this, here was his explanation: "First, the "intervisitation rule" reeks of a sex policy- which we, as a school, are not justified in having. It is not our place, nor our responsibility, to regulate our student's activities and morality. Second, the previous rules assumed that all couples are heterosexual- and we don't want to discriminate on the basis of anything." It was at this moment I felt a sudden urge to pull out my hair. The hypocrisy in just those two sentences are amazing to me. And what's more, the school is now complaining that they will have to be hiring more rent-a-cops to "keep students safe" come fall. What a crock. All those rent-a-cops really do is walk around the hallways after curfew and try to bust those that are breaking it, not that they do a very good job. Yes, there are those that have been busted. But speaking from the perspective of someone who has had their fair share of half-naked, half-drunken all night orgies in their dorm room and still managed to be on the good side of the administration, there is going to be no way in hell that these rules will be enforceable, much less a help in any way shape or form. Especially when putting the entire freshman class in the same dorm. As if date rape, drinking, drugs, and all other do-it-in-college things weren't enough of an "invisible problem", they're going to be dangling a huge carrot in front of a bunch of 18-year-olds, most of whom have never been without parentals or the need for self-restraint. This just does not make sense to me- but perhaps it is because I am capable of thought that is not fed to me from the pulpit. Of course it's not a sex policy.
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 4.0
Total ratings : 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
College Sex | Login/Create an account | 21 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: College Sex
by Cashmere on Aug 05, 2003 - 05:53 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
When a school changes policies to make students "safer," all they are doing is making themselves not liable for whatever happens. Parents cannot blame a school that seems attentive. By enforcing a schoolwide curfew, the administrators were doing their job and the parents cannot blame them if their daughter comes home pregnant. With largely coed dorms they eliminate the risk of a Catholic or Christian families blaming their policies for fostering homosexuality in their children.
Students, as a whole, mean statistics and lawsuits to those not teaching them. The people who make the policies there are worried about things like liability if a freshman is pressured into sex with an older student to achieve popularity. Then the school can be charged for inattentiveness and therefore pay for any emotional damage suffered by the younger student. The extra police are there to make it seem the students' fault if they do become harassed by an older student of either gender. If people are getting caught then parents shift the blame.
The separation of the older classes from the younger eliminates the very real risk of a younger student being pressured into sex by an upper classman. It is very easy to take advantage of a sexually repressed eighteen year old who has just left their parent's house. They know the way around and are usually in their twenties, full adults. The colege is held responsible if they are in the same dormitory and the younger student is beaten or raped.
It costs money to change things, especially ones as drastic as you describe. It would not have been done merely to change something that "reeks of a sex rule." That is the way they put it to the students in order to assuage any criticism of the new rules.
|
Re: College Sex by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Aug 05, 2003 - 08:50 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Actually, the concept that a university acts in loco parentis (i.e. in place of parents) doesn't hold a lot of water in the legal sense (for a good article, check out http://www.dist.maricopa.edu/legal/dp/inbrief/parentalrole.htm). The few cases where a family has successfully sued a university for not "taking care" of their child involve some kind of injury or death and real negligence on the part of the university (see the recent case at MIT). For the most part, though, the law sees college students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and has absolved universities of liability accordingly. Even so, I have never heard of a university being sued over a pregnancy (at least not successfully) or any other matter regarding sex except for sexual harrassment, which is a whole other issue.
The real issue with your school changing is sex policy is... surprise!... they don't want students having sex. You go to a religious school that gets its money from religious parents who don't want little Dick fucking little Jane unless they are happily married. Therefore, the school has both dogamtic and financial reasons for supporting a sex free campus.
That said, I applaud you for the all night orgies and encourage you to keep up the good work. Although why you would want to go to a catholic school is beyond me. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: College Sex by Cashmere on Aug 06, 2003 - 06:05 AM (User info | Send a Message) | That law mostly applies to public universities, of which most Catholic schools are not. Also, the success of the lawsuit in any case has nothing to do on how parents of prospective students are going to view the school. If a parent of another student complains to the administration over their child getting pregnant, the other parents will know.They are trying to make it evident that the administrators are not responsible for fostering an environment in which students can have sex. The last paragraph just supported my argument.
Also, I do not know where you got the idea that this was *my* school. Did you not notice the name on the article? I have nothing to do with this person, and I do not go to a religious school. You are assuming things many things. If I was having all night orgies, I would not have the energy to reply to inaccurate ad hominem from someone who does not even know me. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: College Sex by Anonymous-Coward on Aug 06, 2003 - 07:35 AM | My point was simply that this rule change (and in loco parentis policies in general) have more to do with marketing and ideology than with any kind of actual liability. I agree with you that: "the success of the lawsuit in any case has nothing to do on how parents of prospective students are going to view the school" and "if a parent... complains over their child getting pregnant, the other parents will know," and my post does support these arguments, but these are not the points you were making in your first post.
Also, I didn't mean to imply that this was your school (or... god forbid... that you have all night orgies). I assumed that when I started speaking in the second person, readers would assume I was speaking to the author of the original post. On looking back, that wasn't so clear in my reply. Mea culpa.
That said, if you keep throwing around terms like "inaccurate ad hominem" willy nilly, someone is going to get their feelings hurt. Not me, but maybe someone.
And lastly, what law is it that you think applies to primarily to publice universities? The only law I discussed at length (and really it's more of a legal concept than a law) was in loco parentis liability of universities (or lack thereof) which I assure you applies to public and private universities equally. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: College Sex by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Aug 06, 2003 - 07:38 AM (User info | Send a Message) | The site bumped me, but in case you couldn't tell, the above post was written by me. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Legalities by tallidaho (jadetater@yahoo.com) on Aug 06, 2003 - 07:57 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.tinytall.com | Having debated this, if I remember correctly, in loco parentis was, in effect, shot down by the supreme court years ago- thus the reason for all those annoying permission slips we had to forge our parent's signatures on in highschool. I suppose a protection lawsuit of some sort could be brought against a school, but that would be in the rare case a student is under legal age and something happens to them- or perhaps if there is gross negligance- but I can't see how this would, in any way, apply to a student's sexual activity. If anything, the only time a school should even get involved in that is if there is date rape on campus, or someone who is purposely infecting others with an STD-- but then again, that should be an issue for society at large, not just a campus. Incidentally, I'm thinking of starting a betting pool about the amount on-campus date rape will go up with all the freshman in one dorm- not that it wasn't high anyway, because the administration refuses to believe it exists and barely reacts when it is reported (which, if I remember correctly, is one in every 4) So, in the end, if the school wanted to protect itself from liability lawsuits, why not just put "not responsible for anything" on the contracts we have to sign to live on campus? (which, btw, is required for two years)
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalities by Cashmere on Aug 06, 2003 - 09:09 AM (User info | Send a Message) | The problem is that if parents are paying for a student's tuition, said student is still a legal dependent. It shouldn't apply to a studen't sexual activity, but unfortunately that is a concern for some parents. Those kind of people (like most of my relatives who tried to force me to go to catholic school) hold the school responsible if their legal dependents are engaging in unacceptable behaviour at school.
Are the date rape cases mostly between freshmen? In the catholics schools near me it is mostly between freshmen and upper classmen. I go to a fine arts college, and the amount of rape betwen students is almost nonexistent. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: College Sex by Cashmere on Aug 06, 2003 - 08:49 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Those were the points I was making in the first argument; evidently I was not clear enough. Liability: a. Something for which one is liable; an obligation, responsibility, or debt. (Mirriam Webster's Dictionary). Liability does not automatically imply lawsuits, and the reeference to them was, while a concern to administrators, not my focal point.
By posting underneath my reply you are also referring to what I said, not the content of the article. By that you negated any speech in the secpnd person and implied direct reference to me. I did not "throw arouund" those terms: by negating the secone person and replying to me, you made those remarks about me. I am not offended by the idea that I have all night orgies, but by placing a remark about it in an unclear area placed the debasing of me as a part of your argument, thus the ad hominem reference.
Public Universities receive their funding from different sources than private schools. Private universities receive much of their funding through donations and cater to the concerns of their patrons. The actual legal standing of any claims or lawsuits does not matter if they lost the funding of their patrons. In Loco Parentis is a legal term although I was hasty in calling it a law since I could not think of another term quickly enough. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Furthermore by Cashmere on Aug 06, 2003 - 10:10 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I was hasty in referring to ad hominem, and I can see the second person point of view now after you identified it as such. I agree with much of what you are saying. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Furthermore by Britva (britva1066@yahoo.com) on Aug 06, 2003 - 01:53 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Thank you. I mostly agree with you too, but thanks for arguing with me anyway. It's been a while since I was in a debate that had any heat to it.
I feel a little bad, though, that the most exciting thing I could talk about in an article titled "College Sex" was in loco parentis rights. I may be getting old. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Furthermore by Cashmere on Aug 07, 2003 - 04:50 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Don't feel bad, because at least it was exciting. Notice how nobody else even mentioned it. Thank you as well, this was fun. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: College Sex by tallidaho (jadetater@yahoo.com) on Aug 06, 2003 - 07:29 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.tinytall.com | Actually, the most amusing thing is that I go to a Catholic school for one reason- and that is to be a part of the largely un-catholic clique known as the debate team- it's the best in the region, and high up there nationally, supported by the school, and only 3 of the 23 members are actually catholic. Go figure :)
As far as the in loco parentis, I know legally it holds no water, but I have to wonder if this school is trying to act even more "parentis" than one's own parents. I tell my parents about stuff like the all-night orgies, and they laugh. Sure, because they don't belive me, but still... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: College Sex
by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com)
on Aug 05, 2003 - 07:06 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.hotelshade.com
|
I so love the vagaries of religious schools. Fourteen years ago my parents sent me to a private Xian school because I drank myself to death in sixth grade (I recovered from all three). While I was there I found out that if I was caught kissing girl in public anywhere in the world by one of their faculty I would be given ten strokes (with a paddle you sickos) and a few days suspension. Needless to say the fact that I didn't get suspended speaks highly of the fact that I lived over an hours fast drive from campus. The reality of that school was that there was more sex going on there than I ran into on any other campus. I still think it was because of the regulation of the students sexuality.
I terms of de-re-regulating the student housing situation, I can only think that the entire effort is intended to confuse everyone so much that they can't decide whether they are being ruled against for their sexuality or not.
Although Cashmere's explanation is probably more accurate there.
|
Re: College Sex
by Merry_Widow on Aug 05, 2003 - 08:37 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I attend a Jesuit college, of my own volition. We also have rules about visiting and hours, and all that fun stuff. It isn't about controlling lives, it is about keeping people safe. I can't begin to list the complaints from students and parents alike when it comes to people having that special someone in their rooms, after acceptable hours. It's that ever loving word...Liability. We also have seperate dorms and apartments based on gender, and grade. There are complexes solely for upper classmen, and those for freshman. It isn't that the school is trying to sequester people, but how would you feel if you were in a place with three other people who were able to go out to bars and such and you had to stay behind. Or when it comes down to something more mundane, like talking about classes. How would you feel if you had people talking about their O chem classes, while you paddled along in your intro to biology? There are times you just want to be with your peers, simple as that.
|
Virgins for Academia
by Monolycus on Aug 06, 2003 - 02:20 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
The whole question is really odd to me. I spent two years living in campus housing at Shimer College and never once had a room mate who shared the same chromosomal arrangement as myself. They might have had some unregulated policy about it, but nobody ever checked. It's a fairly full time job there not checking things out.
The closest experience I have had to institutionalized biological suppression from an academic authority would be living near to Antioch College when they implemented their national-joke-of-a-date-rape-prevention policy. I don't know who remembers this (it can still be laughed at in syndicated comedy programmes), but in order for students to have any kind of physical contact while that was in effect, they needed what amounted to a preconjugal contract and a minimum of three witness, one of which must be a notary public (I exaggerate for effect, but not by much). The worst part for me was that, while I never attended that school, I am told that I bear a physical resemblance to the PC schmoe who wrote the policy which made walking or driving anywhere near the campus a palpably hostile experience.
Antioch has, as far as I know, caved in to the pressure of getting over themselves and no longer enforce this policy. All of this goes to show that even the most well-intentioned, sex-obsessed Puritan can still fuck things up for a majority. Until, that is, the majority point and laugh at said Puritan long and loud enough.
~M.
|
Re: Virgins for Academia by tallidaho (jadetater@yahoo.com) on Aug 07, 2003 - 06:43 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.tinytall.com | I don't know, having at least three other people in the room before engaging in sexual activity sounds kind of like the setup to a very interesting night to me :) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Virgins for Academia by Monolycus on Aug 07, 2003 - 01:56 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I'd agree with you if you could substitute the notary public for a guitar player who could play cheesy 1970's porno riffs.
~M. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Virgins for Macademias by Monolycus on Aug 07, 2003 - 01:57 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I get a lot of that. I think I just have one of those faces that remind people of some vague person they served time with.
~M. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Virgins for Academia by Tiresias on Aug 12, 2003 - 04:36 PM (User info | Send a Message) http:// | When was this? I dated a girl who went to Antioch a couple years ago and I remember her joking about it, but I got the impression it was almost an urban legend. Nothing of the sort coming from there would surprise me...that place was a big PC fishbowl. One time when I was down there I got yelled at because saying I disliked a band a girl liked was inappropriate. Not my kind of place at all. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Virgins for Arachnophobics by Monolycus on Aug 12, 2003 - 05:18 PM (User info | Send a Message) | No, it's not an urban legend. The policy was introduced in 1993 and nobody took it very seriously. Saturday Night Live and some other television shows openly mocked it (Man:"I would like to put my tongue in your mouth, Mary-Lou. Are you comfortable with that?" Woman: "I am sorry, Paul. I am no longer comfortable with you inserting your hand into my brassiere.") As I said, though, I am pretty sure they dropped this obviously unenforcable policy, but it is possible that it is still on the books somewhere. I can just see it showing up one hundred years from now in a compilation of "Stupid Laws".
Yellow Springs is an odd sort of town. I've mentioned enantiodromia often enough that I am sure everyone is sick of it by now, but Yellow Springs is so hung up on being "progressive" that they often end up looking like something out of the dark ages.
~M. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
|
|