Radical feminist dating
They will foster a new, randomly applied moral order that will often be intensely repressive and sex-negative.
Harvard University’s policy, for instance, classifies sexual conduct as sexual harassment if a complainant did not request or invite it and “regarded” it as “undesirable or offensive.”  As part of the rollout of Harvard’s new policy in the summer of 2014, Mia Karvonides, the university’s first Title IX officer and a member of the otherwise undisclosed committee that drafted the policy, told the how she intended to apply it: “The standard we’ve adopted is that of unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature….
The Supreme Court has said that, to be sexual harassment, the sexual conduct must be not only (1) unwanted but also (2) sufficiently severe or pervasive (3) to have a detrimental impact on the complainant’s work or educational experience – and it must (4) be all these things in the eyes not simply of the complainant herself but of a reasonable person. Over the last several years, however, under dominance-feminist influence coming from the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and from a dominance-feminist-inspired Title IX activist movement, many new campus sexual harassment policies have loosened up these requirements, shedding “severity or pervasiveness,” making unwantedness sufficient to show detrimental impact, and dropping the detrimental-impact and reasonable-person requirements.
The trend of these incremental rule changes is to invite complaints based on subjective unwantedness alone.
Rather, she and others accepting her arguments argue that the real vision of emancipation is a world in which women have sex only when they On their long march through the institutions, dominance feminists have made incremental progress toward this goal.
A key achievement was securing a definition of a new civil-rights violation, sexual harassment, in which the wrongful act is sexual conduct.
They will function as protective legislation that encourages weakness among those they protect.