Over the weekend I caught the last minutes of an NPR Weekend America segment called Sexual Assault on Campus. First caveat: I only heard the last few minutes. Second caveat: You can listen to the whole segment here but you need to have the Real Networks audio player.

The whole segment is eye-opening, or was for me, but I’m primarily going to address what was said in the closing minutes of the segment between the reporter (host Barbara Bogaev?) and Indiana University sociology professor Elizabeth Armstrong.

Anyway, in response to a question Armstrong, who’s recently done ethnography research on the women’s floor of a college residence, outlined what she described as a typical campus situation where a group of young women decide to go out drinking heavily, encounter a similar group of of young men, and hook up as groups and continue drinking heavily. She said eventually one of the women and one of the men start making out, and then, ice broken, some number of others pair up… and then she skips forward to a conclusion wherein women “predictably and systematically” wind up victims of sexual assault due to the inherent ambiguity of mixer-party/hookup situations.

I have absolutely no bone to pick with Armstrong for skipping that bit, by the way. If you listen to the segment it’s clear that she has an understanding of the problem that’s as compassionate as it is nuanced, and in the context of the radio clip it wasn’t in her scope to get into details.

Nevertheless, based on my own first- and second-hand experiences with young people and alcohol in groups, and also a year-long intensive college-level program I took on the sociology and psychology of small-group behavior, I believe strongly that the part she skipped is critical to understanding what happens. It doesn’t help, at all, that less, um, nuanced authorities and pseduo-authorites such as Camille Paglia, Warren Farrell, or Mary Koss perform similar yada-yada/handwaving on the way to their agenda-driven conclusions about what does or doesn’t happen.

First of all, since, as Armstrong points out strongly, ambiguity is a big part of the problem let me filter out some of the distinctly unambiguous dimensions in the scenario she describes (and I’ve witnessed or been directly or indirectly party to.)

- The (often dominant) individuals from each group who break the ice by hooking up. There are exceptions to everything but generally these two know what they’re doing and are clear and comfortable about whatever the outcome is going to be. In the event that consent is violated neither party is ambiguous about the ramifications.

- The subset of individuals who pair up after the ice is broken. They also tend to know what’s going on, at least to the extent that they’re able to negotiate appropriate levels of consent. Here too the parties are generally clear about what to do if consent is not respected.

- The clear cut predatory situations where a more sober and/or more in control individual consciously peels off someone who they recognize is more incapacitated. Whether or not the more incapacitated party winds up regretting the outcome I think this is pretty unambiguously abusive.

- The subset of individuals who are unambiguously disinclined to couple up.

- And finally, the subset of individuals who don’t fit in any of the above categories. This is the (largely unexamined) subset I want to discuss in this post.

(Note: there are valid other ways to group sets of individuals. For purposes of this post I’m choosing this grouping.)

Ok. So. Situation from the perspective of any individual in either group: You make a collective decision to go out together, including a general plan for the evening, certain statements about possible outcomes, certain agreements to “wingman” each other, and expressions of concern or expectation with corresponding acknowledgments and/or dismissals thereof. As a group you enter a bar or party, and as a group you become intoxicated. Then your group encounters another group and, at the group level, you decide to party together, talking, dancing, and, of course, continuing to drink. At some point hierarchically or circumstantially (by reason of motivation) dominant individuals connect as individuals within the group. Some numbers of others follow suit. Still others check out or otherwise stand by their decisions not to connect. And the remainder find themselves in a situation where “the group” has decided to start connecting and they have to choose whether to join or break that mixed-group consensus. Meanwhile the structure of the original groups is breaking down — the more sober, the more intoxicated, and/or the more motivated individuals begin disregarding their original mutual agreements and start making their individual decisions. And I think when there’s trouble that’s where it really starts — where you recognize that the larger groups — the macro group and your original one — are collapsing into pairs while you’re still committed to them.

There’s lots of talk about ambiguity in “hookup” settings. I think that to the extent there really is ambiguity (I think I eliminated a lot of it in my list, above) it happens here where group structure is breaking down, the dominant and disinterested parties have made their respective choices, and the people in the middle are grappling with what they “should” do.

I think people in those circumstances can feel overwhelmed by conflicting pressures: conflicting loyalties (the large group, the group of peers you came with, the individuals you’re being prospective with and those who are being prospective with you, and of course to your personal integrity), conflicting desires (desire to fit in or not be left out, desire to meet personal expectations, natural physical desire, to “fit back in” again when your immediate group of peers reassembles back at the dorm or before the next outing, and possible desires to rise or at least not fall in status in the eyes of others) and, of course, the pressure to appear able to “hold your liquor.”

And that’s where “ambiguity” happens for both men and women: the point where pressure to conform overrides personal sexual preference. It’s the boys/girls-get-prettier-at-closing-time moment, the ride-with-the-big-kids or stick-with-the-training-wheels moment, the move-it-or-lose-it moment, the musical-chairs-and-the-music-is-about-to-stop moment. It’s pretty miserable for everyone in that situation and when choices about pairing up and/or having sex are made at that point they tend to be made for extrinsic rather than intrinsic reasons. And, in my personal opinion, choices made for extrinsic reasons are bad choices no matter what the outcome. Honest communication is extremely difficult. Alienation is high. There’s a sense that personal power is being lost, and sometimes convulsive attempts to regain it. The results are a lot of “go along to get along” sex, of “I guess so” sex, of “here’s my chance” sex, of “too late to change your mind” sex, of “this isn’t working” sex, of “oh, what the hell” sex, not to mention “what just happened” and “what was I thinking” sex. And finally, there’s also third and second degree criminally assaultive, ignoring-no-always-means-no sex. And no matter what you think or say afterwards to yourself, each other, or to others, any time you have sex for any reason other than both of you wanting to have sex because you’re both horny and you want to have sex, it’s one-way-or-another-one-or-both-of-you-lose sex.

You’ll notice I don’t have any answer to any of this. In fact I’m not sure I could even ask intelligent questions. Instead I’ve pointed to some areas where there’s probably very little ambiguity and one very large area where ambiguity is certain to be high. I have to use speculative words like “probably” and “certain” about the latter because as far as I know that area isn’t well studied and is frequently glossed over.

One other point from the radio segment that’s pretty critical: Armstrong says that most of the students she’s interviewed come out of school with a good, strong education about what sexual assault but that, in her opinion, it tends to be laid out in blunt men-bad/women-good terms that tend to complicate rather than resolve the middle ground.

I feel strongly that by better understanding that part and the social factors that facilitate assault we could a) reduce the number of times it happens, b) make it easier to recognize and avoid those circumstances, c) make it easier to determine what course to take before, during, and especially after, and finally, d) cut out a lot of opportunities for “yeah, but…” punditry.

[Note #1: According to her official university bio Professor Armstrong has done some pretty interesting research. Unfortunately it all appears to be awaiting publication and therefore not available online.

Note #2: Because the word “ambiguity” was used in the radio report I use it too. The word itself has multiple meanings that might be misconstrued to imply that sexual assault might or might not take place in some circumstances. I have tried instead to use it to refer to people’s uncertainty as to how to prepare or respond rather than to any uncertainty about what actually happens. —fl]