As an undergraduate at Cornell University, I was a proud member of a sorority, navigating the complex social ecosystems that define elite American higher education. Today, my relationship with these institutions has evolved from the inside out; I serve as a human sexuality professor at the University of Washington, where I teach The Diversity of Human Sexuality, a course that engages nearly 4,000 students every academic year. In my lecture halls and through my research, I examine the intersection of human behavior, societal expectations, and interpersonal relationships. Yet, despite my decades of academic inquiry, I remain profoundly horrified by the civil lawsuit recently filed against Cornell University and the Chi Phi fraternity.
The lawsuit centers on allegations brought forward by a former Cornell student, identified in court documents as "Jane Doe," who claims she was gang-raped at the Chi Phi fraternity house in 2024. According to the legal filing, the horrific nature of the assault was compounded by digital communication among fraternity members. On the evening of the attack, fraternity brothers allegedly circulated Snapchat messages inviting one another to the house to enjoy "free p—sy," with one participant casually asking the chilling question, "Is the shop is still open?"
While these harrowing details are undeniably shocking to the general public, they represent a deeper, systemic failure that demands rigorous academic and cultural scrutiny. As a sex educator and researcher, I worry that the underlying group dynamics and psychological mechanisms that made such an event possible are not receiving nearly enough attention. While accountability for the perpetrators is an absolute necessity, focusing our collective rage solely on the punishment of a small group of men will not prevent the next sexual assault. Right now, public discourse is overwhelmingly focused on the "who" in this specific case. However, if we ever hope to dismantle the toxic settings that make unimaginable assaults like these a recurring tragedy on college campuses, we must look past individual culpability and seek to understand the underlying psychology of "how" and "why."
What Makes a Man Commit Sexual Assault? The Confluence Model
To understand how individual actions metastasize into catastrophic violence, researchers must rely on empirically validated theoretical frameworks. One of the most thoroughly researched models explaining why certain men commit sexual assault stems from the foundational work of psychologist Neil Malamuth. Drawing on extensive national data, Malamuth and his colleagues documented that sexual aggression typically erupts when two distinct psychological and behavioral dimensions converge.
The first ingredient in this framework is what Malamuth termed "hostile masculinity." This dimension is characterized by a pervasive distrust, suspicion, and deep-seated resentment toward women in general. Men who score high on the spectrum of hostile masculinity tend to approach sex through an adversarial lens. Rather than viewing intimacy as a shared, cooperative human experience, they view sex as a competitive conquest—an accomplishment you "win" or "score" after successfully manipulating a sexual opponent, whom they happen to view as a woman. For these individuals, sexual gratification is derived not from mutual pleasure, but from a profound sense of successfully controlling, dominating, and subjugating a female partner.
The second ingredient involves impersonal sex. Men who exhibit high scores on this dimension approach sexual interactions entirely as a game, a sport, or a conquest. The very idea of sex as an erotically collaborative and emotionally connective dialogue is met with cynicism or derision. Instead, intimacy and emotional connection are systematically detached from the physical experience and stripped away from the sexual partner.
Malamuth’s extensive body of research demonstrates that when hostile masculinity and impersonal, utilitarian attitudes toward sex converge within an individual, a psychological "perfect storm" is set in motion. This convergence makes sexual coercion, pressure, and overt aggression vastly more likely, providing the foundational individual risk factors that precede broader social crimes.
How Group Norms Matter
The hazardous attitudes identified by Malamuth do not exist in a vacuum; rather, they are dramatically amplified, legitimized, and weaponized when specific group dynamics are introduced. For decades, sociologists Walter DeKeseredy and Martin Schwartz have researched male peer support theory. Their work helps explain a consistent and disturbing finding in criminological research: when men are surrounded by peers and friends who actively encourage the denigration, objectification, and subjugation of women, they are statistically far more likely to act on that denigration themselves. When a social circle supplies a pervasive sexual script that reduces women to inanimate objects and actively rewards sexual conquest with peer admiration and social status, sexual aggression ceases to feel deviant. Instead, it begins to feel normal, expected, and culturally reinforced within that micro-culture.
Fraternities can frequently become fertile ground for the cultivation of these pernicious group norms. A comprehensive meta-analysis conducted by researchers Sarah Murnen and Marla Kohlman revealed a disturbing correlation, finding that fraternity membership was consistently linked to the adoption of more rape-supportive attitudes and elevated levels of self-reported sexual aggression among college men.
In my professional capacity, I have been invited by numerous fraternities at the University of Washington to speak on vital topics such as healthy sex, dating etiquette, and the nuances of consent. Through these engagements, I have met plenty of fraternity men who not only would never commit sexual assault, but who deeply value mutual pleasure, empathy, and open communication in their sexual relationships. Yet, the broader sociological and psychological research indicates that fraternity members are not always so intentional or caring. Too often, these organizations cultivate the exact types of hostile, conquest-driven attitudes that Malamuth’s Confluence Model identifies as dangerous precursors to violence.
When Multiple Men Are Involved
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that when sexual assault is perpetrated by multiple individuals rather than a single attacker, the nature of the crime tends to be vastly more severe and violent. Empirical studies demonstrate that multiple-perpetrator sexual assaults introduce complex interpersonal and psychological factors that make the event extraordinarily harmful to the victim.
One primary reason for this escalation is that when an assault involves multiple men, it frequently transforms into a twisted performance directed at the peer group. The assault becomes a mechanism for men to prove their masculinity, dominance, and loyalty to one another. In these horrific scenarios, the complete dehumanization and objectification of the female victim form the dark foundation for male bonding and group cohesion.
In a meta-analysis examining the mechanics of these crimes, researcher Jane Woodhams and her colleagues discovered that the most violent multiple-perpetrator sexual assaults typically begin with a male leader whose personal hostility acts as a catalyst, rallying and inflaming the hostility of the other men following his lead. This dynamic sets off a dangerous feedback loop: the leader incites his followers, and the followers feed the excitement of the collective aggression and gamesmanship right back to the leader. This psychological dynamic sheds light on why the group messages uncovered in the Cornell lawsuit feel so haunting—resembling less of a spontaneous crime and more of an invitation to participate in a shared, bonding ritual of degradation.
The Bystander Effect in Action
The men accused of directly participating in the gang rape of Jane Doe at Chi Phi are a cause for immense social alarm. However, equal alarm must be directed at the broader circle of men who received the group message and consciously chose to look the other way.
This phenomenon recalls the tragic case of Kitty Genovese, who in the 1960s was brutally attacked outside her New York City apartment while numerous neighbors within earshot failed to intervene or call for help. When individuals operate within a group, a well-documented psychological paradox occurs: personal responsibility is diffused across the collective, leading each individual to feel significantly less accountable for the outcome. Instead of prompting intervention, the presence of a crowd paralyzes action. Each person looks to the silence of others as a social cue that nothing is fundamentally wrong, effectively greenlighting inaction through collective apathy.
While this bystander effect may help explain how dozens of individuals could witness or ignore the unfolding trauma inflicted upon Jane Doe that evening, it does not excuse it. Every single person who viewed that digital invitation and chose to remain silent still made a profound moral and ethical choice—a choice that sustained a culture of cruelty.
What Needs to Change
If our society is genuinely committed to eradicating campus sexual assault, our educational and preventative frameworks must undergo a fundamental evolution. Programs designed to teach sexual consent can no longer operate in a vacuum; they must actively confront and deconstruct the toxic group norms and peer dynamics that create environments where sexual violence is tolerated, minimized, or rewarded.
It is wholly insufficient to simply instruct young people that sexual assault is wrong and consent is good. Young people must be given a comprehensive understanding of the complex individual, psychological, and interpersonal dynamics at play in social environments. Only by exposing these hidden forces can we systematically dismantle a culture that grants social status and admiration to men who participate in the degradation of others.
Furthermore, if our ultimate objective is to teach young people how to cultivate genuinely healthy sexual experiences, we cannot restrict our educational efforts solely to warnings about bad behavior. We must teach them how to recognize and practice the good as well. Fully comprehensive sex education must continue to address risks, power dynamics, and legal boundaries, but it must equally emphasize concepts like mutual pleasure, emotional communication, vulnerability, and self-acceptance. When our collective goal is to treat every human being as a valuable person worthy of inherent respect, we must begin to treat sexuality as a collaborative, respectful human endeavor designed to foster well-being, rather than merely a hazard to be navigated.
