So pretty much, no dating at the University of Missouri according to certain officials, who believe that a smaller woman (i.e. the vast majority of women) being asked on a date is a Title IX violation if you’re a larger male (i.e. the vast majority of men) because it makes the smaller woman uncomfortable.
According to the College Fix, a dance student asked out his student instructor, and as a result, made her feel at risk of sexual harassment or assault strictly due to the fact that the male student who did the asking fit the biological pattern of larger size as males typically are to females:
In a motion for summary judgment filed on Christmas Eve, Jeremy Rowles shared excerpts of depositions with Mizzou officials from his federal lawsuit against the public university.
They suggest that male students should avoid asking out female students at all, particularly when the male is physically larger than the female.
A bit of background: Judge Brian Wimes greenlit the doctoral student’s lawsuit this summer, saying there was no evidence that Rowles had done anything more than make his dance fitness instructor, student Annalise Breaux, “uncomfortable” by asking her out in spring 2016.
Breaux did not give Rowles a firm “no” the first time, however. She only told him to “stop making romantic advances” after subsequent requests, but encouraged him to keep taking classes at the recreation center. When he kept taking her class, Mizzou accused Rowles of sexually harassing other female rec center employees.
Asked how Rowles used his “power or authority” to sexually harass Breaux – a phrase widely understood to mean instructors asking out students, or superiors asking out subordinates – Scroggs said he used his “physical size.”
Asked to clarify that “person of authority” doesn’t necessary mean a “teacher or boss,” Scroggs replied: “Well, I suppose it could; but in this case, no, I didn’t interpret it that way.”
To cut to the chase, what they’re trying to say here is that Rowles, being male, is in a position of authority over Breaux because he is a male. This plays well into the narrative that women are at the mercy of men at all times, and that even the most innocent of moments between men and women — such as being asked out on a date — is another example of patriarchal control.
Forget the fact that Rowles was in no way in an institutional position of power over her in the form of being a professor or instructor of any kind. In fact, he was the student. It was the fact that his male physique made him an oppressor, pairing him with his role as the societal oppressor, making any move he made enforcement of his power.
If that sounds confusing, it’s because it’s meant to be, but the bottom line is this: Men are bad, and everything they do is bad. Thus women should be able to dictate everything that happens on college campuses, if not the country.
Dig a little deeper and you’ll find that it’s not just women who should control the country, it’s certain feminist groups who should be able to decide right and wrong.
This may sound somewhat conspiratorial, but rest assured the social justice adherent feminists that are coming up with these rules aren’t shy about their intentions, and have been executing similar asinine rulings for years now, with the most popular instances of feminist doom and gloom being the case made famous by the Rolling Stone on the UVA false rape allegation.
Create a victim, and you have a villain. If men, even in their most innocent moments, are villains, then you can convince a lot of people of a lot of things if your narrative thrives.