What is the penalty?

What if you are having sex with your roommate?

I want to know the same thing wsuenglish wants to know. Presumably at least one of you must leave the room...a situation that could give new meaning to not crossing the threshold, not to mention windows of opportunity.

How are they going to proof that there was a sex act going on with the roommate in the room. Scene: My roommate had sex when I was in the room. No, I did not. Yes you did. Did not, etc... This is an unenforceable rule, thus a waste of time and paper.

It establishes a norm, saying that the roommate has the right to say, "go somewhere else to do that" instead of making the roommate feel obliged to slink away and hide.

"How are they going to proo(ve) that there was a sex act going on with the roommate in the room."

Ever heard of cellphone cameras? Every student has at least one these days ...

Seems a bit restrictive to me. Perhaps the rule should be modified to limit only noisy activities? You know, no bullhorns, amplifiers, whips, chains, animal noises (not to mention animals), screams (how many dbs is average moan?) and so on. Obviously a committee should be impaneled to study the matter further.

It seems like good intention has once again resulted in an unenforceable regulation that is embarrassing to a very good institution.

I support this policy, and think it will set a different tenor in dorms. It doesn't try to deny that sex happens; it shifts responsibility to the couple to go elsewhere or negotiate private time in a shared room, rather than expect the roommate to roll over and cover his/her ears. Obviously these aggreived auditors have trouble confronting the sexytimers-- this mild policy gives them some institutional support.

This makes sense, but not everyone likes to have sex with a tenor.

This is the kind of stupid policy decision you get when mentally dull administrators conclude that they must do something to give the outward appearance that they have responded to the considerable complaints they are receiving. Consider the dilemma that led to this policy result. There were obviously at least four readily available responses. 1. Do nothing. (Risk: Being accused of ignoring the problem thereby becoming complicit with the behavior. 2. Issue a written statement to dorm students advising them to respect the privacy of their roommates in the conduct of any and all personal matters they might carry out in their living quarters. (Risk: Complainant criticism that the administration did not go far enough in meeting the action expections of the objecting students/parents. 3. Make a policy decision to "ban any sex act in a dorm room while one's roommate is present". (Risk: a. Adopting an absolutely unenforceable policy. b. Opening the Office of Residential Life to at least 1 Million silly questions of the "What if" nature, thereby utilizing/wasting staff time to respond. c. Admitting openly and publically (and even in writing) that Tufts willingly aids and abets promiscuous sexual activity on its campus as long as one's roommate is enticed, urged, nudged, coerced, bribed, threatened or forced to become absent for the next hour or so. Actually, these are very good values Tufts will be teaching its students. This will really get them ready for the ugly life away from the protective environment of Tufts. So now, administrators must proceed to immediately put in place another policy. One dealing with tha avalanche of protests the institution will now receive from right wing conservative groups and the Christian Coalition orgnization. Lots of luck Tufts. 4. Set aside an entire wing of a Tufts dorm. Move all objecting students to that wing and let them live happily hereafter in peace, contentment and absolutely dull evenings.

When I was housemaster of an educational college house---long ago---this was the second most common cause of extreme roommate tensions (after issues of who had eaten whose food from the fridge). The divide is not "right-wing" intolerance of eroticism or "politically correct" notions of sex as most often exploitative (the two often seem indistinguishable in practice), but thoughtfulness or its absence toward the people with whom one shares space. I (whimsically) like the idea of a wing of a dorm, but it's not clear which group should be given the option of living there.

Next thing you know, you won't be able to pass gas or scratch your privates if your roommate is present.

I support this

I went to Tufts and had many a night listening to my roommate and her boyfriend go at it. Some people may enjoy that, which is fine, but others may not. If someone doesn't enjoy listening to or watching others have sex, this policy may act as a deterent.

Rather than subjecting oneself and one's room-mate to some long drawn out after-the-fact judicial process, perhaps an immediate deterrent would be more effective. The time-honored process of gerbil-dumping (not to be confused with gerbiling!) might fit the bill! Upon being aroused by a roommate in the throes of passion, the offended party has the right to dump a cage of gerbils into the mix (in the rack, on the floor or wherever). The combination of wood flakes and the scrambling of one or two panicked rodents should be more than enough to bring an immediate halt to the offending activity regardless of the state of inebriation of the participants. The cost of cage, food, bedding etc. would be added to each persons room and board bill as an "indiscreet sex-deterrent fee" (gerbils sold separately, hamsters would do in a pinch). The average Tufts student shouldn't find this to be a financial burden, and as long as the exercise wheel is greased, the gerbils shouldn't keep anyone up nights (although it might be a good idea to clear this with PETA beforehand?) Simpler alternatives like a fire hose would work too, but it leaves a big mess, then there's the need to dry it, flatten it, and re-hang it; a real pain.

Does the policy include masturbation in the definition of "sex act"?

On behalf of cyber-faculty at virtual universities everywhere, I'd like to ask: what is a dormitory?

Lauren, It is a dirty, filthy bathroom.

Someone previously asked "What is the penalty." The penalty can be found on page 39 of the Tufts Residential Guidelines at http://ase.tufts.edu/reslife/documents/Habitats.pdf
Penalty is loss of guest priviledge for a time.

Having worked in residential life settings before, I can tell you that the most common "problem" sex act is masturbation, not a drunken fraternity date.
Personally, I would have chosen a different approach involving more work with individual students who seem unable to restrain themselves in the company of others as well as students who seem unable to confront a problem on their own when it rises. Both situations are an opportunity for student development, not an opportunity to avoid the real work of residential life by enacting an uneforceable policy.
On a side note if this is truly a "burning issue", shouldn't the health center be involved?

HIGH TIME!!!
I paid for a dorm room for my kids and ONE roommate, not a roommate and HER/HIS bedmate.

I am NOT a prude, but I truly objected to this when it was going on with my kids. Yes, I know maybe MY kids were doing it as well, but bottom line... if you pay for a room, you are entitled to some privacy and the right NOT to have a third party in the room at all times, doing all kinds of things. Use some common sense!

However, my kids would not allow me to complain to the administration so I said nothing and just burned inside.

Good GOING, Tufts, and more should follow. This is not a morality issue. It's a right to privacy and a right to what you or your parents are paying for!

This rule is well-meaning, but it will lead to the same result as always -- exile of the non-coupled student to the couch in the common room. Comity in shared housing arrangements is a rare commodity; it is only the most outraged of students who will report their roommates' activities and ask for sanctions. I was fortunate to live in single rooms during my last two years in college.

It is a good rule. It establishes that the roommate that is not going to have sex has priority to the shared room, and that people do not have an absolute right to have sex in their room at the expense of their roommate.

It is a sad state of affairs when people have to be reminded about something like this with an actual "rule." Common sense and common courtesy should prevail. Give me a break! If you have to have a rule against having sex while others are in the room, you may not belong in college.

The roommaates are just jealous!

I expect long, slow investigations as RAs and administrators field complaints, interview suspects, and examine evidence. Hmmm.

Regarding the matter of "proof," most of the time you don't need to have someone enter the room; you can usually hear plenty in the hallway, even when the door is closed...

That's retarded. You're supposed to make friends in the hallway, whilst your roommate gets his pipes cleaned. He'll take his turn in the hallway later. That's part of "residential life and learning", dealing with the fact that humans make boom-boom.

Where are the horny students supposed to go, anyway? Empty study rooms are what we used at my alma mater in the 80's. I'll bet there's alot of public sex going on at Tufts right now due to this brainiac policy. Hope the RA's slip on fall because of spent condoms in the hallways.

My solution to this was to make my roommate and her "friend" go to the common room... much more entertaining than if I were to leave. :)

How about another policy banning roommates from resolving "uncomfortable" issues themselves?

Today, and for as long as people have had roommates or siblings or spouses... the solution to the problem is to ask your roommate to stop doing that - whatever "that" is (at the time, or before, or later, per your best judgment). If that doesn't work, most residence life systems provide all sorts of back-up plans, such as a staff member to coach you how to do that, a mediator of some sort, and (yes) judicial action or room changes if necessary. But for goodness sake folks... these people are almost all legal adults. They're legally able to marry, enlist in the army, vote, enter contracts, drive, travel internationally, take on mortgages, have children, sue a neighbor, and serve on a jury to pass judgment on you and me. It's not too much to ask them to at least try to work it out with a roommate before resorting to policies and outside enforcement. It is a bit frightening that college students have not already learned these basic social negotiation skills from their parents or from living with siblings or working with peers in K-12. I'd like to think it's just Tufts students, but I doubt that. If it IS a generational delayed maturation phenomenon... how does it affect society if a whole generation does not become grown-ups until they are 30?

<Comment removed by moderator>