|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 36 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 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.
|
|
|