There’s also the problem that this policy assumes that two men together make their honor and word unassailable and makes them above board somehow, which is an extremely faulty premise. Hmmm…hasn’t this been the problem all along for women? That they can’t speak out without being chided, dismissed and shunned for speaking up about inappropriate behavior. In fact studies show that the more witnesses there are to something the more likely it is that something bad could happen and no one does anything about it. A man could easily assault a woman with another man present or both men could assault the female and then collude and claim that nothing happened. How would the female be able to defend her claims against two apparently impregnable witnesses. This puts all the power in the hands of males. There is no balance of power in this scenario. It would put her into the untenable position of fighting two accounts against her — both of them being male. Hasn’t this kind of thing been the problem the entire time? The imbalance of power? The ability for males to flippantly dismiss the claims of females? This policy just creates a scenario that makes it nearly impossible for an assault victim to seek justice.

I have a different proposition — if he truly values accountability (but isn’t sexist) then the sex of the third party shouldn’t matter so it should be just as acceptable to have another female as the third party witness. Another female shouldn’t be any less credible than a male witness. Right? Unless of course he doesn’t actually trust women….