Most political movements, especially of the radically-oriented variety, attract zealous followers. Yet too often, a movement’s zeal can morph into rigid rules that alienate more than welcome. The recent controversy over The Eagle’s sex column, “Sex-perimentation defines Welcome Week, Don’t let hook-ups be break ups” highlights the shortcoming in AU’s progressive response. In this case, the progressive movement’s gut-repulsion to rape obscured the column’s more striking affront to progressive ideals

There is much to criticize in the column, but the passage that has caused the most controversy is the opening line: “It’s three in the morning. You have it inside you right now. It kind of hurts … You thought you would never be that girl, but there you are, in your drunken haze.” After the startling introduction, the rest of the essay advises this hypothetical freshman female college student that she should resist the urge to date her drunken hook-up partner. She should instead pursue other men whose positive inner qualities are more discernible outside their horny drunken Welcome Week haze.

A firestorm erupted after the article was printed. Sarah Brown, the Director of Women’s Initiative, called out the article for normalizing rape. The Eagle fired back with a tactless editorial, saying that WI’s response represented a “knee-jerk reaction”– that they should know “better than to cry wolf” on an issue as critical as rape.

A second letter to the editor from a member of AU’s Sexual Assault Working Group explained that sexual assault is defined as “any conduct of a sexual nature . . . without consent.” The letter went on to argue that if a person is intoxicated they simply cannot give consent; in the scenario depicted by the column, sexual assault occurred. The second letter was authoritative in its definition of terms, but applying these terms to real-world situations is sometimes difficult.

Rape, Consent, and the Power of Words

The campus discussion of the “Sex-perimentation” column focused exclusively on rape. But looking at our hypothetical woman, it is almost certainly the case that she did not believe rape had occurred. Her position is not uncommon among women confronted with the technical definition of rape.

A seminal survey by University of Arizona Public Health Professor Mary Koss found that one in four college women have experienced rape or attempted rape. The most perplexing part of Koss’s survey is its finding that nearly 73 percent of the women who were raped did not believe what happened to them constituted rape or attempted rape at all. In another major study, the Department of Justice found that roughly 3.5 percent of college women experience sexual assault in a given year. This is dramatically higher than the rate of reported college sexual assaults — under 0.04 percent between 2005 and 2007. (AU’s numbers are congruent — about one reported sexual assault per 3000 female students.) These numbers suggest a non-report rate approaching 99 percent.

Why is the reported rate of rape so disconnected from the counts found in surveys?

First, there is a lack of awareness about what constitutes rape or a reportable sexual offense, as indicated by the controversy over the Eagle column. Also, many women likely hesitate to report acquaintances or friends who have committed crimes against them. Others fear that if they choose to press charges, they will be ensnared in a drawn out legal process which will publicly shame them. Finally, victims often internalize blame for the aggression committed against them. For example, many of the women surveyed who have experienced sexual assault cited ‘miscommunication’ as the cause.

But progressives must be conscious that despite all this, some of the non-report rate is due to real disagreement over what constitutes consent. Looking at subject of the sex column, it may be the case that the hypothetical victim both went into the night looking to have drunken sex and did not regret having it afterward. It’s not so clear, but that’s really the point.

“No means no,” of course, but that doesn’t mean that sexual violence has a simple definition. “The truth is that there is a gray area,” said Sarah Brown of Women’s Initiative. “Because sexual interactions are such personal experiences, each individual experiences sex in a different way. What may feel like a violation of one’s body to one man or woman may not feel that way to another.”

That’s why Women’s Initiative erred in applying the definition of rape strictly rather than using finesse in their advocacy.

The term “rape” is extremely powerful, conjuring a fairly specific association in the minds of most people: an unexpected attack by a frenzied male stranger who then violently penetrates a woman. This is the most prevalent image of rape, but it’s not the most common form that occurs. The statistics show that between 80-90 percent of rape victims knew their assailant beforehand. This type of rape is usually referred to as “date rape” or “acquaintance rape.”

The primary motivation behind most criticism of The Eagle‘s sex column was centered on educating students on campus that whether you called it a ‘drunken hook-up’ or ‘acquaintance rape,’ it is still rape nonetheless. The problem with this approach is that because of the charged nature of the word ‘rape,’ accusing a newspaper of legitimizing it is a very serious charge. Given this, it’s not surprising that the Eagle’s response was both unconstructive and defensive.

The concern here is a tactical one. How should progressive organizations use the word rape given its potency? The key is to use it when it can be constructive rather than accusatory. The point of our criticism should be to foster dialogue, not stifle it. To interrogate, not condemn.

A Progressive Response

The Nation recently called the surge in the popularity of sex columns a “radical progressive moment,” making it tricky for progressives to criticize them. We do not want to come off as opposing sex generally or alienate precisely the people sex columns are trying to educate.

According to Sara Bendoraitis, Director of the GLBTA Resource Center and Professor of Gender and Violence, the best response is to “emphasize factual inaccuracies and to present an alternative opinion.” The sex column in the Eagle certainly warrants a strong progressive response, but what would the best strategy look like?

The proper response to the sex column would be to frankly recognize the real ambiguities that exist over drunken hook-ups. Instead of making rape accusations, the progressive critique should object to the fact that the situation depicted in the Eagle column is normal.

This approach is best exemplified by Amanda Hess, who pens the Sexist column for Washington City Paper. She asks: “Why is it considered normal for women on campus to choose disappointing, painful, hazy sex?” Ironically, the answer to this question is also contained in the sex column itself.

It is not a coincidence, then, that the rest of the column encourages women to submit to men by laughing at their jokes and acting like the acquiescent, coy female caricature from Hollywood movies. It is not a coincidence that the article assumes that women who participate in drunken hook-ups are looking for a relationship. Finally, it is not a coincidence that these same women who are being told drunken hook-ups are normal are simultaneously told that they should develop their “mystique” by withholding sex.

Both the article’s drunken hook-up scenario and its relationship advice convey a disappointing statement on gender roles on college campuses today. Society holds gender as a dividing line, with each side replete with stereotypes and essential tropes. This artificial division between women and men is contradictory, damaging, and oppressive.

It is this state of affairs that we progressives have to criticize, and to which we should present our more equitable alternative. The first step, however, is abandoning our own rigid ideas and inflexible reactions in favor of nuance and constructive criticism. From there we can talk about how to break down the divisions created by sexist stereotypes and create a society where we recognize individuals not sexes.