St Mary's Frosh Sex Chant Sparks Review

[roamingguy 300292]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/09/05/ns-saint-marys-video-apology.html

[EmilyRushton 253369]

What I don't understand is this chant, as part of frosh week has been going on for years and only now they take offence? Everyone acting like they never heard it or knew of it...yet they all know the words. To the best of my knowledge this is not the only university that has chants like this during frosh week so why focus on SMU?

[Guest **zz**x]

There is tons of ridiculous stuff like this happening all over campuses so I agree that it makes no sense to single out St.Marys. Regardless, it is this sort of thing that makes me hate frats and all this student cheering and lets be part of one big group dynamic. Basically, there is a dynamic generated in these sorts of situations that brings out the worst in people...

[canuckhooker 19203]

Thank goodness they never were at my University Rugby team after match, beer ups. We would all still be in jail.

[bcguy42 38594]

To the best of my knowledge this is not the only university that has chants like this during frosh week so why focus on SMU?

 

I suspect the focus is on SMU because they are the first school to be featured in an Instagram video doing this.

 

Having listened to the student body president and SMU president, my feeling is that unless they were in a coma during frosh week and just now woke up and are disturbed by what they did while in said coma, what they are really upset about is getting "caught". Had there been no social media video banging across the countryside, life would have gone on and the cycle repeated next year.

[roamingguy 300292]

Why the focus now???...my guess, only because they got caught now. Got to wonder about a mindset which amongst other things chants about underage sex and no consent. What has been in the mindset all these years to allow this chant, and not just the student's mindset, but the faculty's too.

I'm sure this university isn't the only university in Canada (and the United States) where this sort of thing takes place. But this university, well it didn't get caught so much as it's chant recorded and seen on media

How many parents are telling their daughters now that they can go to university but not St Mary's University

When this chant first started years ago, this should have been nipped in the bud then by faculty, as inappropriate.

My morning rambling

RG

[Guest R**3*9]

I was extremely disturbed by this. The words of the chant are gross to say the least. The fact that student leaders were encouraging it makes me sick to my stomach. They obviously saw nothing wrong with preaching underage non-consensual sex.

 

It speaks sadly of the cultural environment we're in.

 

It breaks my heart to think that there are people out there who's early experience(s) with the absolutely fabulous thing that is sex, has been under these circumstances.

 

I think it's time to break the overriding puritanical social attitudes surrounding sex and encourage young people to talk about it. They should know the rights and wrongs of intimate encounters and understand that respect is #1 after that, explore and enjoy.

 

 

Why the focus now???...my guess, only because they got caught now. Got to wonder about a mindset which amongst other things chants about underage sex and no consent. What has been in the mindset all these years to allow this chant, and not just the student's mindset, but the faculty's too.

I'm sure this university isn't the only university in Canada (and the United States) where this sort of thing takes place. But this university, well it didn't get caught so much as it's chant recorded and seen on media

How many parents are telling their daughters now that they can go to university but not St Mary's University

When this chant first started years ago, this should have been nipped in the bud then by faculty, as inappropriate.

My morning rambling

RG

[Guest N***he**Ont**y]

The President of The Student Administration has resigned.

[Frank7 3939]

It's a sad thing that people seems to be focusing more on the underaged part then the no consent part.

 

There's nothing wrong about underaged sex if it's consentual. Teenagers have always been having sex (or interested by it at least). And a lot of couples have 1-2 years difference, it's just natural that one turn 18 before the other.

 

No consent however, that is never acceptable. To see them cheering like that about rape, it's utterly disgusting. It's very sad that nothing was said about it before now.

[bcguy42 38594]

The President of The Student Administration has resigned.

 

Carrigan Desjardins also resigned from the position of vice-president for student life at the student association. She was responsible for the frosh week program.

[roamingguy 300292]

It's a sad thing that people seems to be focusing more on the underaged part then the no consent part.

 

There's nothing wrong about underaged sex if it's consentual. Teenagers have always been having sex (or interested by it at least). And a lot of couples have 1-2 years difference, it's just natural that one turn 18 before the other.

 

No consent however, that is never acceptable. To see them cheering like that about rape, it's utterly disgusting. It's very sad that nothing was said about it before now.

 

Personally I find both not acceptable. I'm sure the underage sex they chant about is about an adult male having sex with someone underage, which isn't consensual. They aren't chanting (or even thinking) about two teenagers having sex

And I agree with you about non consensual sex (nice way to phrase sexual assault) non acceptable

Chanting about underaged sex and non consensual sex inappropriate (a nice way to put it) Wonders what the mindset was that this chant was ever conceived of in the first place, and that the university allowed it to carry on all these years. And it would have carried on except they got exposed. They aren't sorry about the chant, just sorry they got caught

RG

[Kathryn Bardot 99339]

It's a sad thing that people seems to be focusing more on the underaged part then the no consent part.

I noticed that, as well, and it makes me so sad. Young people are engaging in sexual practices at earlier and earlier ages, and it seems that people are too focused on what an "appropriate age" is instead of giving these kids information about consent and safer sex practices.

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

Well.. "non-consensual" is just a nice easy-to-swallow term for rape, so it is of my opinion that it doesn't really matter where it started, why, who else is doing it, or how long it's been going on, as long as it stops. And if it took a bunch of media attention to make that many people realize chanting about rape was was wrong, so be it. With technology, others doing the same kind of thing only have so long before attention is brought to them too.

[Frank7 3939]

Personally I find both not acceptable. I'm sure the underage sex they chant about is about an adult male having sex with someone underage, which isn't consensual. They aren't chanting (or even thinking) about two teenagers having sex

 

RG

 

I have to disagree with you on this. Even underaged, someone can consent. Depending on the age, personnal state and maturity, there might be ethical problems though.

 

Underaged is just something theorical. Even if you stay in the countries that doesn't treat women like slaves, the age of consent is different from place to place. In one country, a 15-16 years old could happily be married with someone older (let's say 30) and they could even have child. But if they move here, suddently, one of them is a criminal.

 

If you swap gender in your exemple, you can hardly say it's not consentual. A lot of teenage boys have fantasy about one of there hot young teacher. If you remove the position of power ( the year after for exemple), it would be a dream come true for most of them if the women hitted on them.

 

I understand that the laws are there to prevent abuse. And that in lot of cases, the older person is taken advantage of the younger. Sadly, it's also true in a lot of the same-age relationship with one taking advantage of the other.

 

 

I think there would be a lot less problems if the gouvernment actually gave severe punishments for rape. At the present, weither it's and adult or a child, the sentance is ridiculous. If the consequence was proportionate and we managed to educate everyone, we wouldn't need arbitrary age of consent.

[Sweet Emily J 172062]

...........

[MightyPen 67414]

I'm stunned, now that I've seen reference to specific phrases in the chant, that a) anyone could sing this without dropping dead of shame, and b) women in particular could actually sing along.

 

Before I found the words involved (literally "underage" and "no consent"), I though the song might be, I dunno, "cheeky" or something vague. But it's so obviously horrible. There's something powerful at work here having to do with the burning desire to conform, be accepted, not rock the boat, and just go along to "succeed" within the prevailing social dynamic, whatever that may be.

 

So my question is: how does a chant like this get made up, propagated, accepted, and sung aloud for years? How can anyone sing this without revulsion? I think there are valuable things about society to be learned here, and especially lessons on the entrenched obstacles to really confronting the kind of misogyny that remains pervasive and unremarked upon, even here in supposedly progressive and enlightened Canadian society.

 

Additional Comments:

I have to disagree with you on this. Even underaged, someone can consent. Depending on the age, personnal state and maturity, there might be ethical problems though.

No, I disagree. It's certainly possible for someone who's 12 to utter the phrase "yes". It's even possible for them to really mean it, in order to please the person making the request. What it's not really possible for them to do is fully grasp the weight of the thing they're agreeing to.

 

The law says that people who are underage are considered incapable of the kind of will, judgement, self-awareness, and required agency to give meaningful consent to what's about to happen. Maybe a shorter way of putting it is, when you wrote "there might be ethical problems," THOSE are exactly the problems the laws are there to address.

 

Granted, people vary, and some are ready for sex a little sooner than others. But I'd rather commit the sin of being arbitrary and picking a number we all must follow, than putting ourselves in a position where we'll have to evaluate the participants separately for each case of underage sex, after the fact, to determine what they're cognitively capable of.

 

I can't control where other societies choose to put that line, but here in Canada the age of consent is encoded in law and must be obeyed: 16, 18 if there's involvement by an authority figure, and some special rules for close-in-age partners.

 

And, much as young boys might fantasize about their teachers (I did!), they're equally unready for the powerful emotional consequences of the relationship, and can be badly damaged by it and its ensuing collapse. And, let's face it, if it's conducted by a significantly older woman at that age... is fundamentally fucked up on her part to begin with, so things aren't going to go well. For an extreme example of that dynamic at work, see Pamela Smart and her victim Billy Flynn.

[Frank7 3939]

Pamela Smart is more a cased of fucking up murder then underaged sex. Didn't know about her before, but seems she didn't get charged with anything in relation to having sex with the 15 years old. (according to wiki)

 

Also, you jump to the extreme with 12 years old, withouth acknowledging that 15-16 are considered underaged too. And if they aren't ready for the powerfull emotionnal consequences of the relationship.... why are they allowed to date and have sex between themselves? That's like saying: Well, 12 years old is too young to learn how to shot a rifle from someone with his permit....however, if it's another 12 years old that teach him, it's okay, they are both inexperienced.

 

There was a story not that long ago of a shy music teacher, that probably never had much bf/gf, according to everyone she's sweet, good hearted and her dream was being a teacher. Then a 16 years old girl kept hitting on her until she finally fell for her. Then it was out, she's lost her job and had to move out cause everyone in town knew about it.

 

Here a story that ended well. There's a bunch like those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Kay_Letourneau

[MightyPen 67414]

Pamela Smart is more a cased of fucking up murder then underaged sex. Didn't know about her before, but seems she didn't get charged with anything in relation to having sex with the 15 years old. (according to wiki)

 

Also, you jump to the extreme with 12 years old, withouth acknowledging that 15-16 are considered underaged too. And if they aren't ready for the powerfull emotionnal consequences of the relationship.... why are they allowed to date and have sex between themselves?

I will engage with you one more time, and only one more time, on this subject. Beyond that I'm not interested in conversing with anyone who defends having sex with minors.

 

Pamela Smart is an excellent example of the dynamic at work in underage relationships, specifically the power imbalance. Note in the wiki article that she was accused of "seducing 15-year-old William "Billy" Flynn and threatening to stop having sex with him unless he killed her husband," which was supported by Flynn's own testimony. Smart had sex with Flynn specifically to make him emotionally dependent and groom him for murder. Of course very few relationships include murder as the endgame; but it does demonstrate the unhealthy power imbalance inherent to such relationships, where the younger partner is completely unready for its emotional impact.

 

I started with a 12-year-old example because that's the earliest age at which sex might not be a crime in Canada (specifically, when it happens between two people of that same age), and since you're proposing that age limits should be relative and negotiable, you need to deal with that case in your own arguments. Our laws allow same-age juveniles to have sex with each other without going to jail not because them having sex is a good idea, or because they're remotely ready for what they're doing, but because in such cases both parties have messed up equally and shown the same poor judgement. We let them off the hook precisely because we recognize their ability to judge and understand their decisions hasn't developed yet. Simply being young and stupid isn't a criminal offense; instead it requires parental intervention. However, when there's sex between a minor and an adult it's not only much more stupid, but the older party has a legal responsibility to know better. Failing to display any such judgement, and so endangering a child the adult should instead be caring for, justly earns serious punishment.

 

I don't consider the case you link to -- of sex between an abused, 35-year-old teacher suffering from manic depression and her 12-year-old male student producing two children -- to have "ended well". I can at best describe it as the "least disastrous outcome." We'd need to know these two people personally to fully understand their situation; as it stands, we can't know who else the 12-year-old boy might have become under different circumstances. We only know that much later he decided to continue the relationship with the woman, the mother of his two children, once she was released from prison. How can the man in that case really judge his relationship and situation against another had his life unfolded normally? And the exaggerated, childlike terms the woman continues to use to describe their ongoing relationship -- "eternal and endless" etc. -- suggest she has a badly under-developed understanding of real adult relationships, the nature of their current situation, and the gravity of her role in initiating a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old.

 

Still, there may be an oddball case somewhere of a young person who was particularly well developed emotionally and intellectually, conducted a relationship with someone significantly his/her senior, and some happy relationship did ensue. But I think it's impossible to tell ahead of time which children this might apply to, and this remote possibility is no reason to lessen the fixed protections we have in place for the vast majority of still-developing minors who are not remotely ready for such things and will be irreparably harmed should they occur.

 

As I said in my first reply: better to set an arbitrary bar that may inconvenience the, say, 1% of minors who could survive such a relationship but better protects the 99% who cannot, than to treat the cutoffs we have in law just as loose guidelines, impose on ourselves the burden of examining and proving each child's mental state in detail for every offense, and offer handy new arguments for use in a pedophile's defense.

[bcguy42 38594]

Very well spoken and well reasoned. Of course, I may be biased, Mightypen, in as much as I completely agree with you.

 

 

I will engage with you one more time, and only one more time, on this subject. Beyond that I'm not interested in conversing with anyone who defends having sex with minors.

 

Pamela Smart is an excellent example of the dynamic at work in underage relationships, specifically the power imbalance. Note in the wiki article that she was accused of "seducing 15-year-old William "Billy" Flynn and threatening to stop having sex with him unless he killed her husband," which was supported by Flynn's own testimony. Smart had sex with Flynn specifically to make him emotionally dependent and groom him for murder. Of course very few relationships include murder as the endgame; but it does demonstrate the unhealthy power imbalance inherent to such relationships, where the younger partner is completely unready for its emotional impact.

 

I started with a 12-year-old example because that's the earliest age at which sex might not be a crime in Canada (specifically, when it happens between two people of that same age), and since you're proposing that age limits should be relative and negotiable, you need to deal with that case in your own arguments. Our laws allow same-age juveniles to have sex with each other without going to jail not because them having sex is a good idea, or because they're remotely ready for what they're doing, but because in such cases both parties have messed up equally and shown the same poor judgement. We let them off the hook precisely because we recognize their ability to judge and understand their decisions hasn't developed yet. Simply being young and stupid isn't a criminal offense; instead it requires parental intervention. However, when there's sex between a minor and an adult it's not only much more stupid, but the older party has a legal responsibility to know better. Failing to display any such judgement, and so endangering a child the adult should instead be caring for, justly earns serious punishment.

 

I don't consider the case you link to -- of sex between an abused, 35-year-old teacher suffering from manic depression and her 12-year-old male student producing two children -- to have "ended well". I can at best describe it as the "least disastrous outcome." We'd need to know these two people personally to fully understand their situation; as it stands, we can't know who else the 12-year-old boy might have become under different circumstances. We only know that much later he decided to continue the relationship with the woman, the mother of his two children, once she was released from prison. How can the man in that case really judge his relationship and situation against another had his life unfolded normally? And the exaggerated, childlike terms the woman continues to use to describe their ongoing relationship -- "eternal and endless" etc. -- suggest she has a badly under-developed understanding of real adult relationships, the nature of their current situation, and the gravity of her role in initiating a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old.

 

Still, there may be an oddball case somewhere of a young person who was particularly well developed emotionally and intellectually, conducted a relationship with someone significantly his/her senior, and some happy relationship did ensue. But I think it's impossible to tell ahead of time which children this might apply to, and this remote possibility is no reason to lessen the fixed protections we have in place for the vast majority of still-developing minors who are not remotely ready for such things and will be irreparably harmed should they occur.

 

As I said in my first reply: better to set an arbitrary bar that may inconvenience the, say, 1% of minors who could survive such a relationship but better protects the 99% who cannot, than to treat the cutoffs we have in law just as loose guidelines, impose on ourselves the burden of examining and proving each child's mental state in detail for every offense, and offer handy new arguments for use in a pedophile's defense.

[Brad 49548]

With technology, others doing the same kind of thing only have so long before attention is brought to them too.

 

Well Emily, it didn't take too long for you to be proven correct...

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/09/07/bc-ubc-frosh-pro-rape-chant.html

 

Now I don't think this is just an issue of "kids today are so much worse", as I'm sure things like this have happened in many places for many years, but that certainly doesn't make it any less inappropriate or troubling.

 

I'm generally uncomfortable with the idea that there so often seem to be cameras everywhere and a lessening of privacy, but in this case if it helps bring this sort of "tradition" to light and help eliminate it, and educate the participants who don't see the problem with it, then I'll consider it a good thing.

[canuckhooker 19203]

I will have to say that these types of songs and chants have been around for a long time. The desire to shock seems to be something that people of that age revel in, maybe to be rebellious, maybe because they think it is an adult thing to do.

 

I will also say that the extremes of what shocks have ramped up quite a bit. If you see my earlier comment, when I played University rugby back when we used a polished stone for the ball, the beer-ups after were usually accompanied by the singing of "rugby" songs. Most of them had a lot of profanity, sexual references etc. But they were also witty, and had a sense of fun and humour. They may have been a bit shocking and not "ready for prime time" or family hour, but they weren't too bad because their goal was humour and a bit of macho posturing.

 

Fast forward about 15 years, and I go to a Carleton University rugby beer up, and hey have some new songs. These ones have little of the wit, and seem to be sung just to push the limits. They glorify, violence, particularly sexual violence, and seem to be a case of one-upmanship in who can say the most outrageous things.

 

It may be a sign of the times, that our attitudes towards sexuality and violence have changed. Compare a movie like the original Frankenstein, or even the more recent Black Christmas, with something like the Saw series or Hostel. The explicit violence and depravity is way beyond what was once acceptable. The same with sex. Years ago you would never see bare breasts on TV, now they are close to being seen on basic cable, definitely on most cable channels, and you can get 24 hour a day videos of explicit sexual activities with the push of a button.

 

Maybe it just takes more to shock these days?