Date Rape Report Is Biased

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The College's Date Rape Task Force report, released February 10, promotes prejudice by enforcing sexual double standards and bans certain types of consensual sex despite its stated aim of fighting rape and sexual assault.

Under the report's recommendations, a man and woman who jointly engage in non-forcible sexual relations while under the influence of alcohol are treated in a grossly different--and discriminatory--fashion. A man can be found guilty of rape for sexual activity initiated by his partner, while a woman can perform sexual acts on a profoundly intoxicated, incapacitated male without being charged even with sexual assault.

According to Task Force member Naomi Hamburg, those of the report's rape provisions that govern sexual intercourse, including such activities as vaginal sex and fellatio, apply penalties only to male offenders. The provisions permit the Administrative Board to sanction men for engaging in sex with a willing partner whom the Board later deems was incapable of "reasoned consent" because of alcohol intake. According to report coauthor Dean Janet Viggiani, mere alcohol influence, rather than full-fledged intoxication, can justify a rape conviction. A man can be convicted even if the sexual act was non-forcible and initiated by a woman less intoxicated than he.

By contrast, women's participation in sexual intercourse is governed by the report's sexual assault provisions, which ban only those unwanted sex acts that are accomplished through "physical force or threat of bodily injury." The sexual assault definition provides little protection for a physically incapacitated male.

All students, intoxicated or sober, deserve protection from sexual acts performed on them while they are physically incapacitated or unconscious. But many couples enjoy and frequently engage in sexual relations while mildly intoxicated, a choice threatened by the report's recommendations.

For a woman to accuse a man of rape for sexual acts she willingly engaged in, merely because she was of her own volition intoxicated at the time, is a gross abdication of personal responsibility. It makes as little sense as a man seeking to excuse himself from punishment for forcible rape by claiming that his intoxication made him unable to control his actions.

The report defines consensual sexual intercourse as rape by the male unless it occurs with "the expressed consent of the person" who is his partner. "Expressed consent" should not be confused with consent; it requires verbalizations or actions definable at the whim of the Ad Board. The expressed consent requirement restricts the freedom of choice for couples in long-term sexual relationships, who know the intimate preferences of their partners and are thus able to engage in sexual intercourse without discussing beforehand what types of acts they will perform. For example, the proposed rule would have branded a former hallmate of mine as a rapist since his girlfriend would frequently awaken him in the morning through oral stimulation, evincing her desire for intercourse, which usually ensued with no discussion between them.

By defining sex accompanied by implied consent as possible rape, the Task Force proposals provide a female partner with a weapon she can use against her ex-lover during the acrimony of breaking up. Rape charges motivated by spite, exceedingly rare under current rules, could proliferate if the proposed rape definition is adopted.

Since I attend the Law School and am a virgin, I would not be directly affected by the College proposals. But I abhor the attitude towards men that it inculcates. In applying discriminatory penalties and lesser protection to men, the recommendations of the Date Rape Task Force flout the spirit of due process and laws guarding against sexual discrimination. Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges should promote gender equality by rejecting the Task Force's proposed definitions of sexual misconduct. Hans Bader