George Will, national treasure, has spent a life championing America's diamond pastime. He wants to make sure that you appreciate our other cherished pastime: "the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones." Hang on to your Cracker Jack, gents.

According to Will's column today in the Post, the modern college experience's sexual power dynamic is much like baseball, in that it's a hidebound tradition that gives us rough-and-tumble Americans our identity, and its ambiguities ought not to be tampered with by the righteous "progressivism" of big government:

Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. "sexual assault." Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student "was in her room with a guy with whom she'd been hooking up for three months":

"They'd now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. 'I basically said, "No, I don't want to have sex with you." And then he said, "OK, that's fine" and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn't do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.'"

Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of "sexual assault" victims...

What could be worse than socialist interference in an American man's right to put "sexual assault" in scare quotes while discussing the sexual assault of a woman who repeatedly says no? According to Will, the tyranny doesn't end there; like a pack of heritage-free heathens who forced instant replay down umpires' throats, Obama's minions seek to redefine "sexual assault" itself, sans scare quotes, even:

Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape.

The idea that nonconsensually touching a drunk woman could be sexual assault? My goodness. May as well call a home run a foul.

[Photo via]