Mark's thoughts: Jane Doe and the Cornell 7 - A window into our sexual culture and how we got here

 

In recent days the news has been filled with accounts about the incident that occurred at a Cornell University fraternity in October 2024. A woman currently identified as Jane Doe engaged in sex with multiple men as all were under the influence of alcohol and illegal drugs. Almost three weeks later she told the police that she had experienced sexual assault. The ensuing investigation did not reveal that a crime had been committed, and so no charges were brought against the men. Then in September 2026 she filed a civil lawsuit against the seven men, Cornell University, the fraternity where it occurred, her own fraternity, and a local bar.

 

The sordid details of the woman having sex with five men in repeated sexual threesomes, and drugs being consumed off of naked bodies, leave no doubt that all involved acted in a reprehensible fashion. However, a reading of Jane Doe’s own account leaves no doubt that rape did not occur. Under New York state law sexual assault occurs when there is a lack of consent due to: 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim.

 

The District Attorney notes there was no “forcible compulsion” present because “The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.” There was no “mental incapacitation” because “The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent.” There was no “physical helplessness” because “there is no evidence in the statement that Jane Doe was unconsciousness or unable to communicate.” It was found that, “Finally, there is no evidence in Jane Doe’s statement indicating that she clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act. According to the statement, each time Jane Doe asked to stop the sexual conduct, the sexual conduct stopped. Thus, with no evidence of a ‘lack of consent,’ criminal charges simply could not be sustained.”

 

Jane Doe herself said that there was no rape. On the day after the incident, one of the individuals texted her to apologize about how events had occurred. She replied, “At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt” [sic]. In the days that followed as news about the incident spread among students on campus, the man encouraged her by saying it would all pass over. Jane Doe replied, “you’re right it’ll get better and u think everyone’s j jealous of us.. but also like everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and sh*t is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common,, i’m also really open minded tho. i luv u king” [sic].

 

The incident occurred on October 20/21. As a Halloween party at the fraternity approached one of the men assured Jane Doe that she was still welcome at the fraternity and their upcoming Halloween party. Jane expressed that she was pleased to hear this and would be there. It is very difficult to understand why Jane Doe wished to return to the fraternity for another party if she had just been gang raped there. In the end, the fraternity president contacted Jane Doe to say she was not invited to come to the party. This action seems to have been the catalyst for Jane Doe’s reevaluation of what had happened and subsequent filing of a police report on November 8.

 

The Cornell incident provides a window into two important questions about the culture in which we live. First, how have we arrived at the point that men and women are willing to act in these ways sexually? Second, why would a woman change her evaluation of what happened when all the evidence indicates that the sexual encounters were consensual?

 

To understand how we got here, we need to understand from where we have come. As Kyle Harper describes in his masterful work, From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, in the Greco-Roman world a married man could only commit adultery by having sex with a free born woman who was the legal wife of a Roman man. A married man was permitted to have sex with slaves or prostitutes, and it was assumed that he would do so (for a summary of Harper’s research, see The early Church challenges a world of fornication). The wife on the other hand could only have sex with her husband.

 

Christianity said instead that sexual intercourse could only occur between husband and wife in marriage.  Sex with anyone else was sin against God.  This was a radical change in the way men were expected to behave. It was a change in culture that did not happen overnight.  It took more than two hundred years from the time Christianity became legal and began to be favored by the Roman government until prostitution was officially outlawed.  The Church challenged a fornicating world for five hundred years before society officially adopted a Christian view of sexual conduct.

 

Around 51 AD Paul wrote to Corinth with this instruction about how Christians were to deal with sex:

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. (1 Corinthians 7:2-9).

Paul recognizes that not all have the gift to be single (7:7). Instead, he says that because of the threat of sexual immorality, man and woman are to be married. Their sexual needs are to be met by one another (7:3-4). In a letter that contains very strong statements about the headship of man based on the ordering of creation (1 Corinthians 11:3, 7-9), this language of mutuality in marriage is striking and has important implications.

 

Paul’s statement is Christian, but it reflects the truth that man has recognized throughout history. Men and women are different. Men have a greater sex drive and want to have regular sex. Sexual intercourse entails far greater risks for women than for men. The man has his orgasm and can walk away. The woman can be left pregnant with a child she will have to raise.  A society cannot exist in which men have sex as they please and women are left with no support. Such an arrangement would be the destruction of the family upon which society is built.

 

So the acknowledged ordering has been that women set a very high bar of commitment in order for men to have sexual access. The man will have exclusive sexual involvement with the woman, and she will be the one who meets his sexual needs. In return, the man commits to the permanent bond in which he supports the woman and the children they produce. The “transactional” nature of this arrangement is simply a reflection of how God has ordered his creation in such a way that the woman is the helper corresponding to the man – the one without whom life is not good (Genesis 2:18).

 

For nearly 1500 years the West lived on basis of the sexual morality set forth by the New Testament. The cultural expectation was that sex took place in marriage, and marriage produced family. And then in a little more than fifty years, it was almost completely undone. There have been two factors in this. The first and most important, is the “sexual revolution” that began in the 1960’s as oral contraception (“the pill”) allowed people for the first time in history to separate sex from procreation easily and reliably. If contraception failed, the Roe v. Wade decision meant that from 1970’s the widespread practice of abortion guaranteed that sex did not have to result in a child.

 

This same period saw the emergence of pornography as a growing cultural force. Pornographic movies made the transition from theater settings to videocassettes with distribution to private residences. The internet age has brought the most graphic content to the phone in a person’s hand. Youth today grow up exposed to pornography in ways never seen before.

 

The result is that today our culture does not believe that moral judgment can be directed at any sexual activity (more on this in a moment). “Hook ups” are normal, and sexual intercourse is simply part of dating. Cohabitation is widely accepted,  and  the chaste couple that chooses to marry sooner rather than later is considered unusual.

 

The second factor which has produced this situation is feminism. An ideology that declared women are equal to men has taught women that they should act in the same way as men – and that includes sex. Women have been indoctrinated to believe that being sexually active outside of marriage is “empowerment.” As the sexual revolution led people to believe that there can be no moral judgments about sex, feminism taught woman that they should use sex freely just like a man.

 

So how do you get men in a Cornell fraternity who engage in this kind of sexual activity? They have been raised in a culture which says that there are no moral limits on sex of any kind. The culture has turned men loose to do whatever they want sexually. And because men are men they want to have sex. They are having sex in ways that are informed by the pornography they have been watching.

 

How do you get a woman in a Cornell fraternity who engages in this kind of sexual activity?  She too has been raised in a culture which says that there are no moral limits on sex of any kind. She also has been formed by feminism to be believe that being a true woman means acting like a man.  She should freely use her body for sexual pleasure, for she is an autonomous individual who is not limited by the constraints of patriarchy.

 

The culture has rejected all moral limits in the use of sex. But it recognizes that there still must be some kind of controlling factor and so it has based everything on consent. Two adults can do whatever they want sexually, as long as both consent.

 

This emphasis on consent brings us to the second question we are considering: Why would a woman change her evaluation of what happened when all the evidence indicates that the sexual encounters were consensual? The sexual revolution has declared that there are no moral limits on sex. Feminism has told women that they should freely engage in these sexual activities because they are equal to men and therefore they can do the same things as men.

 

But in the last fifty years the culture has forgotten what everyone else in the history of the world has understood: men and women are different. They are different in sex drive, and different in the biochemical responses generated by sex. Certainly, casual sex is harmful for both men and women. But it is exceedingly harmful for the woman who was created to be bonded to the man who is the father of her child produced by sex.  The repeated sexual unions with different partners in casual sex is emotionally and psychologically corrosive for women.

 

Women aren’t men. When they engage in sexual activity that leaves them feeling uncomfortable or bad, there is no moral category by which they can explain this. They have been shaped to believe that all sex acts between consenting adults are completely acceptable. The only category left to explain what they are feeling is consent. The event must then be reimagined in a way so that what they experienced was not really consensual. A term has been coined to describe this phenomenon: regret rape.

 

Feminism has taught women to act like men when it comes to sex. But this is a losing proposition for them. When women act like men in sex, men gladly take sex without having to give commitment. Ultimately all suffer as this is detrimental for marriage and family.

 

It is helpful to recognize the factors that have produced the sexual culture in which we live.  We are thereby better equipped to see why it is so important to teach the truth of God’s Word about his gifts of marriage, sex, and family. God’s way is always the best way, even if it means opposing the world around us.