# Great work Feminists, you killed Sex



## COguy

California Enacts 'Yes Means Yes' Law, Defining Sexual Consent : The Two-Way : NPR

My favorite: "Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

What does this look like?

"Can I kiss you now?" "Can I french kiss you now?" "Can I kiss your neck?" "Can I take off your shirt?" "Can I rub your clit?" "Can I stick my penis in?" "Can I flip you over?" "Can I go faster and harder?" "Can I come on your chest?"

If anything, it will make the situation worse, because no sane person will ever get affirmative ongoing consent, so we will all be rapists. To my knowledge, under this law, every sexual encounter I've been involved in was sexual assault. I've also been sexually assaulted thousands of times.

So what comes next? "Yes means no"? Everything is rape unless the trible decides otherwise.


----------



## treyvion

COguy said:


> California Enacts 'Yes Means Yes' Law, Defining Sexual Consent : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> My favorite: "Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."
> 
> What does this look like?
> 
> "Can I kiss you now?" "Can I french kiss you now?" "Can I kiss your neck?" "Can I take off your shirt?" "Can I rub your clit?" "Can I stick my penis in?" "Can I flip you over?" "Can I go faster and harder?" "Can I come on your chest?"
> 
> If anything, it will make the situation worse, because no sane person will ever get affirmative ongoing consent, so we will all be rapists. To my knowledge, under this law, every sexual encounter I've been involved in was sexual assault. I've also been sexually assaulted thousands of times.
> 
> So what comes next? "Yes means no"? Everything is rape unless the trible decides otherwise.


Pretty much they'll make it illegal to have sex with women.


----------



## COguy

treyvion said:


> Pretty much they'll make it illegal to have sex with women.


It goes a lot further than that. Their goal is to make it illegal to be a man.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-new-campus-sex-puritans/article20842849/ 

They want to consider cat-calling, peer pressure, and 'withholding sex and affection' as sexual *violence*.


----------



## Jetranger

No means yes and yes means anal. 

On a serious note, and one made in the comments, is that there's a difference between 'ongoing' and 'recurring'. You don't have to be told over and over again, this is just that one of the participants can change their mind halfway through. It doesn't have to be verbal either.


----------



## naiveonedave

I am just glad I am not a teenager and I pray to God that my boys make it to their 20s with no bs date rape allegations.


----------



## Amplexor

I don't see a problem for Mrs. Amp and me. She is generally consenting along the way.

"Yes,Yes,Yes,*Yes,**YYYYEEEESSSSS!!!*

Sometimes she throws in a "F*ck Yes!"


----------



## Married but Happy

It now becomes necessary to wear body cameras or Google Glass during every date and sexual encounter to avoid false accusations, and even before asking for consent for sex, you'll have to ask for consent to record!


----------



## BaxJanson

You claim to have been sexually assaulted thousands of times, but you forget yourself - you're a man. Men don't get sexually assaulted, remember? Only women - by every man they encounter, ever. EVER. 

Y'know, some day (probably soon) society's going to need to tap that indomitable drive for victory again, and it's gonna be so atrophied from enforced disuse it'll be worthless. The drive to create is already drying up.


----------



## naiveonedave

Good ponit Bax, Western Europe and the US are already 'underwater', meaning that the average male produces less than 2 off spirng. This type of stuff surely won't help.


----------



## Jetranger

Married but Happy said:


> It now becomes necessary to wear body cameras or Google Glass during every date and sexual encounter to avoid false accusations, and even before asking for consent for sex, you'll have to ask for consent to record!


And for how you use it. There is currently a campaign here showing someone sharing an intimate photo of their girlfriend and it getting passed around... and the boyfriend ends up in jail. They might not consent to you showing your lawyer because it'll harm their bogus case against you! :scratchhead:


----------



## Ripper

Is anyone surprised? This is just California being California. Also, the way it reads, it only affects colleges and universities. You know, those places where all the liberal professors go to hide from reality.

These type of laws always have "unintended" consequences. Just wait for the lawsuits and rape allegations from men when they wake up from being blackout drunk next to a "fatty".


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


----------



## COguy

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


Times I've legitimately raped someone: 0

Times I've ever gotten affirmative consent to have sexual intercourse: 0

Times I would never have had mutually pleasurable, consensual sex If I asked for affirmative consent before proceeding: 1,976


----------



## Ripper

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


Oh look, a feminist shaming tactic. How original!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I really don't think the law changes anything. 

Loving couples are going to ignore it. I simply do not believe that people enjoying passionate lovemaking will actually stop to ask. Each will assume that the actions of the other directly imply consent (as they do).

Rapists will ignore it. Since if they are caught they already lie about consent, they will simply lie about "affirmative consent". Its still one person's word against the other.

I think the goal of reducing assaults is great, but I don't see how this law will actually help. I don't object to the law, it just seems useless.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


We never could anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife

COguy said:


> Times I've legitimately raped someone: 0
> 
> Times I've ever gotten affirmative consent to have sexual intercourse: 0
> 
> Times I would never have had mutually pleasurable, consensual sex *If I asked for affirmative consent* before proceeding: 1,976


If you honestly believe this? Then, ew. Are you saying NONE of the sex you ever had was consensual?

Because if it was, actually asking for consent first would yield a "yes".

It is funny that this new law is being balked at when, honestly, have any of you ever even TRIED to ask for consent?

If you haven't, you may be surprised that you WOULD GET A YES when she actually wants to have sex with you and would say it out loud with an enthusiastic YES.

Until people have a chance to really put this law into play, how about not assuming it won't work (for some inexplicable reason)?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ripper said:


> Oh look, a feminist shaming tactic. How original!


Oh look! Someone assuming I'm a feminist just because I'm female! And further, assuming I have shameful attitudes about sex, just because I'm female! How original, that's only like the 1000th time that has happened to me here at TAM!

Even though I have a sex blog about what a Sex God my husband is (and many other sex positive topics) and I'm not a feminist...but go on and assume whatever you like.


----------



## treyvion

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> I really don't think the law changes anything.
> 
> Loving couples are going to ignore it. I simply do not believe that people enjoying passionate lovemaking will actually stop to ask. Each will assume that the actions of the other directly imply consent (as they do).
> 
> Rapists will ignore it. Since if they are caught they already lie about consent, they will simply lie about "affirmative consent". Its still one person's word against the other.
> 
> I think the goal of reducing assaults is great, but I don't see how this law will actually help. I don't object to the law, it just seems useless.


Kinda. It helps them maintain control even if they do have sex. So even if they give it, having the man to have to request all those permissions puts all control on her so he's just a sex toy.


----------



## COguy

Faithful Wife said:


> If you honestly believe this? Then, ew. Are you saying NONE of the sex you ever had was consensual?
> 
> Because if it was, actually asking for consent first would yield a "yes".
> 
> It is funny that this new law is being balked at when, honestly, have any of you ever even TRIED to ask for consent?
> 
> If you haven't, you may be surprised that you WOULD GET A YES when she actually wants to have sex with you and would say it out loud with an enthusiastic YES.
> 
> Until people have a chance to really put this law into play, how about not assuming it won't work (for some inexplicable reason)?


Consent != AFFIRMED consent

I have never asked a woman permission to have sex with her, no. We start making out, I escalate, a few seconds/minute later, we are having sex. According to what I see on Reddit, this is rape.

And I have seen plenty of instances where men ask for a kiss and get shot down, "ewww way to ruin the moment! how unromantic!" So I can only imagine sex is a 1000 times worse.

I'd be willing to put my sex life on the line if you want. I start asking every girl that I get intimate with if she consents to having sex with me (after making out has occurred and she's in my bedroom). If I get rejected >50% of the time, you have to renounce your feminism.


----------



## Faithful Wife

COguy said:


> Consent != AFFIRMED consent
> 
> I have never asked a woman permission to have sex with her, no. We start making out, I escalate, a few seconds/minute later, we are having sex. According to what I see on Reddit, this is rape.
> 
> And I have seen plenty of instances where men ask for a kiss and get shot down, "ewww way to ruin the moment! how unromantic!" So I can only imagine sex is a 1000 times worse.
> 
> I'd be willing to put my sex life on the line if you want. I start asking every girl that I get intimate with if she consents to having sex with me (after making out has occurred and she's in my bedroom). If I get rejected >50% of the time, you have to renounce your feminism.


Ok but it needs to be completely on the scientific method, so you have to hire some Dilbert to be in your bedroom and witness everything and take all the stats and recordings.


----------



## Faithful Wife

How about a compromise?

You bring up the topic "what do you think about the yes means yes law" before you even TRY to kiss her and see what her answer is, just for discussion purposes.

If she says "I think it is stupid" you say "yeah me too". If she says "I think it is awesome" you say "please sign this enthusiastic consent form so that I may kiss you, that is, if you do enthusiastically agree".

The only real problem here is that people don't understand HOW SEXY enthusiastic consent can really be.


----------



## U.E. McGill

Which nanny state does California want? Stay out of the bedroom if it's about LGBT rights. But get consent if a sorority girl is putting up the anti-**** defense.


----------



## IIJokerII

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


To counter you shot across the male Bow but I am sure most men and women who engage in the pre-sex ritual are more than aware of each others expectations. I am also sure that men are unable to express our frustration at the Governments apparent need to regulate favorable laws towards woman for the simple aspect that her body is the one being penetrated without being accused of being a brute or misogynist monster. Proper communication is also the key, if she makes it clear her intentions then the man cannot employ ignorance and owes the woman his full respect on the matter.


----------



## COguy

Faithful Wife said:


> The only real problem here is that people don't understand HOW SEXY enthusiastic consent can really be.


Right on up there with "hold on while I put on this condom." And "OMG did one of the kids just knock on the door?"


----------



## always_alone

COguy said:


> Consent != AFFIRMED consent
> I have never asked a woman permission to have sex with her, no. We start making out, I escalate, a few seconds/minute later, we are having sex.


Okay, but why do you assume that if you actually had asked, she would've said no? It's not just men who enjoy sex, you know.

Indeed, you should be thanking feminists upside down and over again for the sexual liberation! Feminists especially love sex and lots of it!


----------



## Ripper

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh look! Someone assuming I'm a feminist just because I'm female!


Oh you poor poor lady...I assumed you were a rabid feminist based off your post. So sad.

This type of "feel good" legislation is a minefield for both genders. 

You had one drink, are you capable of consent? I had two drinks, can I consent? During intercourse, your partner withdrawals consent. You stop. Are you now a rapist? Can you prove you aren't under the current legislation?

Once big daddy government has its foot in the door, there is no pushing it back out. Look forward to filing your new Federal Form 069 with the Bureau of Sexual Compliance. Bring $200 and allow 6 weeks for processing.


----------



## Jetranger

COguy said:


> I have never asked a woman permission to have sex with her, no. We start making out, I escalate, a few seconds/minute later, we are having sex. According to what I see on Reddit, this is rape.


The fact she's kissing you back during the make out session (and I would imagine she doesn't just lie there limply letting you remove her clothes and proceed to sex) seems to me to fit with affirmative consent. 



> And I have seen plenty of instances where men ask for a kiss and get shot down, "ewww way to ruin the moment! how unromantic!" So I can only imagine sex is a 1000 times worse.


Damn right. Unless you're both abnormally matter-of-fact people, asking is a real buzz kill.

There was a whole Duckman episode about this sort of thing 20 (!!!) years ago, here it is stopped at the sexual harassment test: link


----------



## always_alone

COguy said:


> It goes a lot further than that. Their goal is to make it illegal to be a man.
> 
> The new campus sex puritans - The Globe and Mail
> 
> They want to consider cat-calling, peer pressure, and 'withholding sex and affection' as sexual *violence*.


Well, cat-calling and peer pressure are typically a man thing, but withholding is typically considered a woman thing.

You'd think all those men here upset about withholding would be more than happy to see it defined as a form of sexual violence. How vindicating is that?


----------



## always_alone

Seriously folks, why are we assuming that only men need permission?

I would think it obvious that both men and women would be required to provide enthusiastic consent.


----------



## staarz21

AND anyone who considers cat-calling, peer pressure, and sexual withholding sexual VIOLENCE has obviously never experienced any type of violence in their life. 

That is an over exaggeration to say the least.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> Seriously folks, why are we assuming that only men need permission?
> 
> I would think it obvious that both men and women would be required to provide enthusiastic consent.


Especially since this will apply to gay people, too.


----------



## always_alone

staarz21 said:


> If my H had stopped me in the middle of us making out the first time we had sex, to ASK me if it was ok to proceed to sex, I would have been like, Really? You're asking me and my hand is halfway down your pants? Come on now.


The real question here is whether *you* had his enthusiastic consent when sticking your hand down his pants.

Yes, it's true that people have made false accusations in the past, but his doesn't mean that all accusations are false, or that false accusations are remotely common.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Threads like this help me pick new people to put on ignore, so they are helpful.


----------



## U.E. McGill

I once had a girl in college tell me, "I'm not sleeping with you". Grabs my junk. "Well I'm not having intercourse", takes off her underwear "just the tip, but no pushing". 

You get the point. In the end she said "I can't believe I did that, I'm not like this". 

Thank god it wasn't in CA. I NEVER once heard her say "no"


----------



## always_alone

staarz21 said:


> AND anyone who considers cat-calling, peer pressure, and sexual withholding sexual VIOLENCE has obviously never experienced any type of violence in their life.
> 
> That is an over exaggeration to say the least.


Trust me, I do know the difference between cat-calling and violence. And while I agree with you that sometimes the language can get a bit overblown, the fact is that cat-calling is a form of harassment.

And I've seen more than on man here on TAM refer to withholding as quite literally a form of violence.


----------



## staarz21

Faithful Wife said:


> Threads like this help me pick new people to put on ignore, so they are helpful.


Because people have a different opinion than you? That's harsh.


----------



## staarz21

always_alone said:


> Trust me, I do know the difference between cat-calling and violence. And while I agree with you that sometimes the language can get a bit overblown, the fact is that cat-calling is a form of harassment.
> 
> And I've seen more than on man here on TAM refer to withholding as quite literally a form of violence.


I agree. Those men who say that withholding is violence are just as ridiculous as the cat-calling and peer pressure. Some people over react to things like that. They are angry in the moment, which is understandable...but to put it into LAW saying it's so - it's silly for both genders.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Well I'm passive aggressive so I would demand her permission and then turn her down. Unless there's some kind of law against that.


----------



## FalconKing

I'm curious about this. Is there any way we can empower women without men feeling like it is an attack on them? I think all of these issues arise in casual sex relationships. So if you want to hook up with random people there was always some type of risk. But I honestly think these types of laws are meant to discourage those type of encounters. Maybe it will just make people more willing to communicate. I think things like non-verbal cues will be subjective. And that is dangerous. Also, people who like rough sex with strangers will have a lot of issues and frustations though. But maybe these things have always been issues?

I have 3 sisters. I am very happy with laws that can protect them in certain situations. Because I know very well how aggressive some men can be when pursuing sex. I want laws that can punish a guy if he grabs my sister's butt. Imagine being a woman and walking by a group of guys at night and they start cat calling and make suggestive comments to you? And then you are a b!tch because you are too terrified to acknowledge and walk a little faster. I want laws that will make those guys think twice about that. Even if they don't wish her physical harm, at least lets get to a point where the average man doesn't do it. Because I think now the average man doesn't see it as a big deal. These are all just my opinions on this.


----------



## WandaJ

I am ambivalent about this too. It still comes to she said, he said, but makes the whole encounter akward. The sad part is that there are so many young men that had no idea they need a consent of the girl, and that spicing her drink is not the right thing to do. That's why the law.

What bothers me also is that it puts all the fault at the guy. She is drunk, so her consent is not valid. But he was drunk too! So her intoxication is an excuse for her, but he still need to be alert and aware while drinking. There is too much imbalance here, and too much room for overplaying this. 

The rape is a serious issue, but there must be better ways to handle it. Have mandatory awareness classes at the campus if you have to, start the campaign, but this kind of law just seems ridiculus, and what gives liberals the bad name. (and I am a liberal)


----------



## Wolf1974

staarz21 said:


> AND anyone who considers cat-calling, peer pressure, and sexual withholding sexual VIOLENCE has obviously never experienced any type of violence in their life.
> 
> That is an over exaggeration to say the least.


You have easily arrived at the heart of the matter. :yay:


----------



## always_alone

staarz21 said:


> I will NEVER in my life understand people like you. That's ok I guess.
> 
> Yes. He was enthusiastic about it...trust me. No, we didn't need to verbally express what was going to happen next - nor did we need some signed consent saying it was okay. It was NATURAL. It happened like it was supposed to.


Oh, I trust you. And clearly you both had a good time. 

So what do you think the odds are that either one of you would *ever* press charges for lack of signed consent? Like zero?

And this is my point. People who are enthusiastically consenting don't press charges, and don't find themselves in these mesess.

Unless, of course, they are also vindictive and manipulative. But they aren't most people, and when they are, it hardly matters what the law says.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Falcon King, you're my new favorite poster.


----------



## Wolf1974

FalconKing said:


> I'm curious about this. Is there any way we can empower women without men feeling like it is an attack on them? I think all of these issues arise in casual sex relationships. So if you want to hook up with random people there was always some type of risk. But I honestly think these types of laws are meant to discourage those type of encounters. Maybe it will just make people more willing to communicate. I think things like non-verbal cues will be subjective. And that is dangerous. Also, people who like rough sex with strangers will have a lot of issues and frustations though. But maybe these things have always been issues?
> 
> I have 3 sisters. I am very happy with laws that can protect them in certain situations. Because I know very well how aggressive some men can be when pursuing sex. I want laws that can punish a guy if he grabs my sister's butt. Imagine being a woman and walking by a group of guys at night and they start cat calling and make suggestive comments to you? And then you are a b!tch because you are too terrified to acknowledge and walk a little faster. I want laws that will make those guys think twice about that. Even if they don't wish her physical harm, at least lets get to a point where the average man doesn't do it. Because I think now the average man doesn't see it as a big deal. These are all just my opinions on this.


Thing is Falcon their are already laws on the books for these situations. Problems with things like consent laws is where is that line drawn. I wouldn't look at this law as a victory. It's not protecting women just making it easier to make false allegations as I see it. I have two daughter and also want them protected but the laws have to make sense as well


----------



## Faithful Wife

staarz21 said:


> Because people have a different opinion than you? That's harsh.


No, I'm talking about the ones who were straight up jerks to me for no reason other than that I disagree with THEM.


----------



## staarz21

always_alone said:


> Oh, I trust you. And clearly you both had a good time.
> 
> So what do you think the odds are that either one of you would *ever* press charges for lack of signed consent? Like zero?
> 
> And this is my point. People who are enthusiastically consenting don't press charges, and don't find themselves in these mesess.
> 
> *Unless, of course, they are also vindictive and manipulative. But they aren't most people, and when they are, it hardly matters what the law says*.


I think this is the bigger thing I am afraid of here for my sons. People are just downright crazy sometimes and usually, you can't tell. 

Some...people act one way and then all of a sudden *poof!* they are a totally different animal. 

I just don't agree with the way this is played out. I have had to deal with my share of idiot men cat-calling and whatever, but that never bothered me. If they hated me because I wouldn't put out...oh well. I went on my merry little way. I didn't need a law to help me out with that. 

Not everyone is like that and it punishes everyone. I think it punishes the majority of people who wouldn't even consider thinking about harming someone. In the end, more laws will be pushed like this and I can see it upsetting the natural balance of things. 

I don't know. I worry about my sons. That's all. I know I can raise them to be good men. I can't help that they may say something stupid once or twice in their life because that is part of growing up, but this just makes me worry that I have to really drill into them to stay away....just stay away.


----------



## staarz21

Faithful Wife said:


> No, I'm talking about the ones who were straight up jerks to me for no reason other than that I disagree with THEM.


Ah I see. Sorry.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


Seems like a pretty inflammatory statement here. Not sure I would say people didn't have comments for no reason


----------



## Faithful Wife

Except my post was sarcasm and was not pointed at any individual.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ok I have no problem with sarcasm at all. But I didn't read it as such either. Just saying


----------



## Faithful Wife

I love men, wolf. Just for the record. 

LOVE MEN.

Love them.

Want to have sex with them.

Have never been raped.

Don't have any baggage on this issue at all.


----------



## LongWalk

Enthusiastic consent, what is that? A verbal statement after a question? I haven't read the law but I remember young women being conflicted. Some want to make out and enjoy having having greedy fingers in their panties, but they don't want to have intercourse. Sometimes it's because they want to have sex with the guy but they want to wait until the next date so that they don't seem to easy.

Sometimes the no to intercourse is because they were raped or coerced and pushiness is a trigger.

Sometimes during intercourse a woman will change her mind. Both people are drunk and its not good sex. She wants him to pull out, stop and leave.

When a woman says no verbally or physically, guys generally know it's over.

I haven't read the CA law but I suppose it makes non-verbal seduction illegal.

Once I went on a date with a Heidi and when the evening ended she did not invite me back to her place. Maybe I got a peck on the cheek before she got on her commuter train. The next time we talked she said that she had felt lonely when we parted, i.e., she regretted not consummating our date.

Years later I when I was more experienced, I wondered what would have happened it I had just hopped on the train with her. It is possible she would have found me very aggressive and scary. It is also possible that if I had a sense of humor about it we would have had another goodbye a station later or at the door of her apartment. Maybe she would have invited me to stay the night but without allowing sex. And maybe I would have gotten into her bed and she would have been all for it. You just don't know.

When horny young people lack experience they have to feel their way forward. Explicitly asking for sex is often an absurd move. A lot of times women want to be kissed without any awkward speeches.


----------



## FalconKing

Wolf1974 said:


> Thing is Falcon their are already laws on the books for these situations. Problems with things like consent laws is where is that line drawn. I wouldn't look at this law as a victory. It's not protecting women just making it easier to make false allegations as I see it. I have two daughter and also want them protected but the laws have to make sense as well


I understand your point Wolf. But I think people will always use and abuse laws meant to help people in need. In divorce settlements, some women(and men) use and abuse child support and alimony. We all know examples of this. But I think the law's intention was to help people who took on a domestic role and then were left with nothing if the marriage went south. 

Even if the execution is sloppy, I guess I can appreciate the intentions. 

I just realized that you lived through that and so I apologize for saying something that's common knowledge and could be seen as condescending to you. But I just hope someone could understand where I am coming from with that example.


----------



## Wolf1974

FalconKing said:


> I understand your point Wolf. But I think people will always use and abuse laws meant to help people in need. In divorce settlements, some women(and men) use and abuse child support and alimony. We all know examples of this. But I think the law's intention was to help people who took on a domestic role and then were left with nothing if the marriage went south.
> 
> Even if the execution is sloppy, I guess I can appreciate the intentions.
> 
> I just realized that you lived through that and so I apologize for saying something that's common knowledge and could be seen as condescending to you. But I just hope someone could understand where I am coming from with that example.


I don't find it condesending at all. I understand it's intent just think the execution will be way more difficult. 

Guess I look at the law through a narrow view because of my role with it. I just can't see much good coming from a consent law because I see it from an enforcemt side and how will that work. I would rather see money and effort going to better education of young men and women on dating and relationships. When we teach classes on that very subject I generally speak to a full house of parents and students so I know their is a need out there is all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't find it condesending at all. I understand it's intent just think the execution will be way more difficult.
> 
> Guess I look at the law through a narrow view because of my role with it. I just can't see much good coming from a consent law because I see it from an enforcemt side and how will that work. I would rather see money and effort going to better education of young men and women on dating and relationships. When we teach classes on that very subject I generally speak to a full house of parents and students so I know their is a need out there is all.


But since no one is allowed to talk about stuff like this in sex education (not even the students), we can't really educate our kids en masse. We have to do it individually as parents, based on only our own values and OUR education level. And some of us parents just aren't that educated. Some parents can't even navigate their own adult married sex lives, let alone discuss the very critical moments that young people go through between their first sexual urges and then actually having sex with someone.

I'd love to see more direct discussion and sex education, but it should be about having SEX, not reproduction.

This was just a mini-rant, it really doesn't affect this law at all, the law is now on the books so too late to try to educate people.

I'm all for holding women's feet to the fire, too, just sayin'. If a woman isn't clear in her intent then she should straight up say "no". But there is such a thing as saying "yes" and then changing your mind...so I can see why they had to make this law.

I do wish we didn't need laws like this. I don't think most men have or want non-consensual sex (or are rapists). 

But the thing is, instead of being against this law, if people would just embrace it (the spirit of it at least) and GET CONSENT then soon people could see that it CAN be very sexy.

The only real reason I have heard anyone give for why this law shouldn't be on the books is that it is a "boner killer". Can someone come up with a better reason than that?

Ok yes it costs money to enforce, but so does rape. To me that is not a reason not to put this law on the books, it is just an argument against it and the money part is very complicated.

But "ugh how awkward" is not a good reason not to stop and get verbal consent. Once it is just common to do this, people will stop stigmatizing it.

I get that people want to experience that totally dreamy sensation of being seduced and swept away with lust and not even having to say a word about it, it just happens like the natural animals we are. I totally get that.

But why couldn't you take one quick moment taken out of that reverie to say "just to make sure, this is a yes, right?" with a wink in the middle of a breathy gasp...with an answer of "actually it is a *F*CK YES!*" and ripping of clothes ensues.

Why wouldn't you WANT to protect yourself AND the person you are about to have sex with from false allegations or unwanted sex? What is the big deal about having a little decorum about this, especially since YOU may be the one who is protected by doing it?

If you are old like me (ahem) then you can remember when just wearing a condom was considered "ugh forget it, it doesn't feel good so why do it?" and people commonly had unprotected sex. Then when aids started killing millions, suddenly everyone had to be educated that, hey guess what? We're talking about a PUBLIC HEALTH issue here, not your pleasure.

Interrupt your pleasure to save your life and prevent unwanted lives by putting on a condom? People used to balk and spit about it, just like they are now doing about verbal consent. But now it is finally the norm to expect people to use condoms (who aren't in an exclusive relationship) and people may groan about the pleasure issue, but they UNDERSTAND why it is important and even if they don't like it, it is what you should do to protect yourself and your sex partners if you are non-exclusive.

One day, verbal consent will be seen as no biggie and people will expect it. Changes in our attitudes about it have to happen first.

As a kinky person, I know just how f*cking sexy consent can be. It goes way beyond the rape issue. 

Take the stigma of "oh, what a boner killer" away from the idea, and you'll see there's really no other opposition to it.


----------



## richie33

Was this really the work of feminists or politicians?


----------



## Anon Pink

What's wrong with verbally expressing enthusiastic consent for what's about to happen? 

Maybe this will help parents teach their kids BETTER about sex? "Suzy sweetie, if you're making out and he tries to put his hand up your blouse, if you're not okay with it, you must not give consent and that means saying no and he must back off immediately." Johnny Golden boy now has to have a conversation with Suzy sweetie about sex BEFORE they have sex... Can any parent ask for more informed decision making process for their teen? 

Maybe it will make women less coy about their sexuality if they actually have to OWN their sexual desires? Yes, the woman you've dated a few times doesn't get to pretend she is too drunk on booze or love to know what's happening, she now has to give consent and OWN her desires! This is a GOOD THING!

Maybe it will make men a little more confident as they go forward knowing that the woman their slowly undressing keeps saying yes? This is a good thing!

My goodness people, own your sh!t! Stop playing coy! If you want it say it, own it be it love it! If you don't, be taken at your word which means your word now has to mean the same thing as your intent.

This is a good thing!


----------



## always_alone

U.E. McGill said:


> I once had a girl in college tell me, "I'm not sleeping with you". Grabs my junk. "Well I'm not having intercourse", takes off her underwear "just the tip, but no pushing".
> 
> You get the point. In the end she said "I can't believe I did that, I'm not like this".


Personally, if I had heard any of those words from a sexual partner, I'd be extra sure to check in with them. 

I just wouldn't want to be someone else's regret.


----------



## Anon Pink

always_alone said:


> Personally, if I had heard any of those words from a sexual partner, I'd be extra sure to check in with them.
> 
> I just wouldn't want to be someone else's regret.


And therein lies the chasm between sex and conquest. 

Do you want to have sex or do you want a conquest? If you want the conquest, how shallow will you admit to being?


----------



## LongWalk

Faithful Wife,

With all respect I think you are so solidly adult that you do not remember how young people are very conflicted by sex. They are at once very sensitive and completely out of touch all at the same time.

There are men who are disordered, who use force and coercion to bully women into sex. They are rapists and the law may help some women to remember that they have the right end it with a "no". That may save some women from sex against their will.

There may also be disordered women who use the law to lash out. Maybe they have other issues but will seek to get some guy. And some when they are credible and egged on by cynical advisors will send innocent men to jail. More than in the past? Time will tell.

The most notorious case of redefining rape is the Julian Assange case. He had permission to have intercourse with a condom, but he may have penetrated one woman with an unsheathed morning erection. The other reported him rupturing the condom during intercourse.

Is that rape? Yes, and no. Also, how do you prove it when there were no witnesses?


----------



## Anon Pink

LongWalk said:


> There may also be disordered women who use the law to lash out. Maybe they have other issues but will seek to get some guy. And some when they are credible and egged on by cynical advisors will send innocent men to jail. More than in the past? Time will tell.
> 
> The most notorious case of redefining rape is the Julian Assange case. He had permission to have intercourse with a condom, but he may have penetrated one woman with an unsheathed morning erection. The other reported him rupturing the condom during intercourse.
> 
> Is that rape? Yes, and no. Also, how do you prove it when there were no witnesses?


LW, if this fictional disordered woman had to give consent through out the sexual encounter, how can she then claim rape?

The case you mentioned can't be that notorious I've never heard of it.


----------



## FalconKing

always_alone said:


> Personally, if I had heard any of those words from a sexual partner, I'd be extra sure to check in with them.
> 
> 
> 
> I just wouldn't want to be someone else's regret.



I would be out the door. When it comes to sex I need people's actions and words to match. Not taking any chances. If you want, say you want it. If you don't, say you don't. Apprehension or being coy does not turn me on.


----------



## that_girl

Rapists will be rapists.

If you're with a woman, and she suddenly says NO, then that's it.

If a woman is shady and going to frame someone as a rapist, it would happen either way.

He said/she said is so arbitrary. I just teach my kids to really know the person they are having sex with so hopefully this won't be an issue.

I also teach my daughter NOT to be a tease. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don't sleep with a dude, then feel bad, then say he raped you. No. That's disgraceful. 

But this law...yea...it sets up for a lot of trouble. But I don't think it was feminists? I am a feminist in the fact that I want to be treated like a human with a voice. I surely don't want to ruin sex.


----------



## that_girl

LOL Was that a joke? not really.


----------



## that_girl

I mean, I've been in bed with a couple of people whom I thought, "Well, that was stupid and I feel horrible about myself." Never thought to say he raped me. I just made sure to be more picky. Which I was. But this came from my gramma who said to "be a woman of character in all areas of life. Whatever you do in life, mean it. Live with consequences." And I did.

I have also been in a situation where the dude wasn't listening to my yells of STOP IT. He kept pushing and touching and finally I kneed him in the balls and got out of there. 

Just because a woman kisses you and makes out a bit doesn't mean she is saying she wants to have a penis inside of her.


----------



## Anon Pink

staarz21 said:


> I can't remember the last time a law stopped a rape anyway...people are going to do it anyway if that is what they set out to do. This law just expands what can be considered a crime up to and including peer pressure, cat-calling, and withholding.
> 
> I am concerned with the law for my boys (should this law expand) and what I need to do to protect them. Of course I am going to teach them to never have sex with someone who seems on the fence about it.
> 
> But how do I protect them from a law like this if the girl decides after the fact that it was a mistake? She may have enthusiastically agreed in the moment, but then later felt bad about it, or her parents find out she's having sex, or her parents simply don't like my kid...and the girl...to save her own butt turns around and says...I didn't really want to. What do I do then?


Ready?
1. Teach you sons to have earnest and open conversations with their GF about sex. Teach them to own their desires and teach them to expect their GF to also own hers. Teach them to walk away when the GF is too immature to own her desires and instead plays coy. Teach them to use words and not actions when considering moving forward with physical intimacy. 

It can be sexy to hear, "you have beautiful breasts and I really want to see them and touch them. If I lean over right now and start unbuttoning your shirt, are you okay with that?"

2. Teach your sons to talk about sex with you, with your husband and with their GF and teach them that their desires are normal and there is nothing wrong with wanting to lift a girls blouse to get to her breasts, so long as she verbally agrees.

This ain't rocket science, it's just out of most people's comfort zone.




> It happens in the military all the time. It costs money to fight these cases and so many of them are found to be false. Most of them get caught cheating and so to save themselves, they say something stupid like that. The men don't get a say. They are taken off duty immediately and reprimanded just as quickly to set an example. Then, after it's found to be false, that information is still left in the folder in case of future incidences. His reputation is tarnished for good.


What? What military are you speaking of? Can't be the one in my country where service women routinely fail to report because they don't want to jeopardize their own careers, let alone go through the chain of command. You can't possibly be taking about US military?



> I'm afraid of that. And it feels like this law is expanding on what is considered violent. The acts aren't violent. I've been raped. I know what violence is. peer pressure???? grow up and deal with it....Cat-calling???? IGNORE THEM, they are the morons anyway....withholding???? If that's the case then half of the women /men in long term relationships should be arrested right now.
> 
> Those are NOT violent acts and it's severely insulting to consider them so.
> 
> Gah. I triggered. Sorry. I hope it didn't come off rude. It's just that most of these laws these days are ridiculous and don't really do anything to help anyone. A law isn't going to stop a rapist. It just won't.


Not the violent rapes, not the stranger rapes and maybe even not many of the date rapes, but it will stop the dubious consent rapes. It will stop the multitudes of college drunk rapes, it will stop the stupid signals crossed rapes. Why? Because these boys, and girls will now have parents like you and me who will teach them exactly what informed consent looks like, sounds like and feels like AND you parents of sons will teach them to walk away from the coy girl who won't own her desires!


----------



## Anon Pink

I reported your post NotLikeYou! Disgusting! Offensive and vile!


----------



## that_girl

Yes. I tell my 15 year old "If you can't talk about sex, you shouldn't be having it."

How asinine to think it's ok to have sex when you feel uncomfortable talking about it? Seriously. Grow the hell up and talk about it BEFORE it happens.


----------



## Openminded

Anon Pink said:


> LW, if this fictional disordered woman had to give consent through out the sexual encounter, how can she then claim rape?
> 
> The case you mentioned can't be that notorious I've never heard of it.


Julian Assange (the Wikileaks guy who is living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because we still want to get our hands in him) denies the incidents which occurred in Sweden.


----------



## COguy

always_alone said:


> Indeed, you should be thanking feminists upside down and over again for the sexual liberation! Feminists especially love sex and lots of it!


Thanks but no thanks. Feminists are encouraging young women to feel a part of the victim culture, propagating heinous lies like 20% of women on college campuses are sexually assaulted (which anyone with common sense would see as false). Today I read a story where a woman who was dating a man for several months, was spooning with her boyfriend. They were kissing, he put his hand down her pants, and they proceeded to have sex. She never said no or asked him to stop or put out any defensive body language. They continued to date and have sex (and this was not their first sexual encounter). Queue the bevy of women calling it rape, convincing her that she was sexually abused because she never gave consent. That's why this law was created. Because this woman would like to have labeled that encounter as rape, she never gave AFFIRMATIVE consent.

Those saying this law works both ways definitely have their head in the sand. Watch a couple youtube videos on physical and sexual abuse claims from men against women. I just watched one where a woman was pounding on a guy in public and everyone started laughing, one guy even joined in. How equal...

I'd be happy to improve the law and spend additional resources going hard against real rapists. But in order for me to feel good about it, I'd want to see actual legitimate penalties against women that falsely accuse. It is incredibly difficult, almost impossible to win a libel case against these accusations, and we all know that women never do any jail time from falsely accusing, even in very famous cases (ie Duke Rape, Tawana Brawley). Giving someone retroactive consent (yes means maybe), and the power to ruin someone's life with a preponderance of evidence, with no repercussions is too much power for a college aged girl to have.


----------



## FalconKing

It's really sad that being a feminist has negative connotations. I don't think being a feminist means you want the downfall of men. But I actually use to think like that. Sadly. Then I realized all those women who hate man who claimed to be feminist are broken people using that platform to justify their anger. A just cause attracts the righteous as well as the ruined, I suppose. 

I wonder in a first world country if we could ever get to a point where somebody says they are feminist and people don't cringe.


----------



## COguy

FalconKing said:


> It's really sad that being a feminist has negative connotations. I don't think being a feminist means you want the downfall of men. But I actually use to think like that. Sadly. Then I realized all those women who hate man who claimed to be feminist are broken people using that platform to justify their anger. A just cause attracts the righteous as well as the ruined, I suppose.
> 
> I wonder in a first world country if we could ever get to a point where somebody says they are feminist and people don't cringe.


About as likely as someone saying they are a White Supremacist and not cringing. "But I'm the kind of White Supremacist that is for equal rights for all." That just makes you a normal human being...

Normal human beings are against rape and for treating human beings with dignity and respect, and against discrimination.


----------



## Anon Pink

Openminded said:


> Julian Assange (the Wikileaks guy who is living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London because we still want to get our hands in him) denies the incidents which occurred in Sweden.


Thank you! I was thinking who is SHE?


----------



## FalconKing

COguy said:


> About as likely as someone saying they are a White Supremacist and not cringing. "But I'm the kind of White Supremacist that is for equal rights for all." That just makes you a normal human being...
> 
> 
> 
> Normal human beings are against rape and for treating human beings with dignity and respect, and against discrimination.




I completely disagree. Feminism is not about superiority. It's about equality. Historically and factually, women did not have the same rights as men until recent history. So wanting more rights and justice for women is feminism. And even in other countries religion and laws are still used to oppress women. So why is it wrong to use that word as a what you are in defense for women?



Now I know alot of people say women have equal rights and that might be true to some capacity. But they do not have equal respect. Simply because a woman dresses a certain way does not mean she is asking to get raped. Also, at any point in intercourse a woman can refuse sex and the man shouldn't just keep going because he is horny. Because a lot of people have these fundamentals,(and other views), the battle still has to be fought. 



Look, throughout history certain races and religious groups have been treated terribly. Wanting them to be treated just is good as anybody else and giving them privileges and programs is the quickest way to do that. Of course some people are going to feel entitled and abuse those things and after a time some well even forget the significance of why they have those programs in the first place. I'm sure many disagree, but I still think it's justified.


----------



## Anon Pink

COguy said:


> Thanks but no thanks. Feminists are encouraging young women to feel a part of the victim culture, propagating heinous lies like 20% of women on college campuses are sexually assaulted (which anyone with common sense would see as false). Today I read a story where a woman who was dating a man for several months, was spooning with her boyfriend. They were kissing, he put his hand down her pants, and they proceeded to have sex. She never said no or asked him to stop or put out any defensive body language. They continued to date and have sex (and this was not their first sexual encounter). Queue the bevy of women calling it rape, convincing her that she was sexually abused because she never gave consent. That's why this law was created. Because this woman would like to have labeled that encounter as rape, she never gave AFFIRMATIVE consent.
> 
> Those saying this law works both ways definitely have their head in the sand. Watch a couple youtube videos on physical and sexual abuse claims from men against women. I just watched one where a woman was pounding on a guy in public and everyone started laughing, one guy even joined in. How equal...
> 
> I'd be happy to improve the law and spend additional resources going hard against real rapists. But in order for me to feel good about it, I'd want to see actual legitimate penalties against women that falsely accuse. It is incredibly difficult, almost impossible to win a libel case against these accusations, and we all know that women never do any jail time from falsely accusing, even in very famous cases (ie Duke Rape, Tawana Brawley). Giving someone retroactive consent (yes means maybe), and the power to ruin someone's life with a preponderance of evidence, with no repercussions is too much power for a college aged girl to have.



I'm sorry you're so angry, it seems like you have personally been stampeded by a false accusation. 

False accusation. See, in no other other crime does the victim have to prove they didn't give consent. I don't have to prove I didn't invite you to take my stuff, nor to take my car, enter my home, or use my ID. Only in sexual assault does the victim have to prove they did not give consent.

When we remember exactly how bad is was, going to the bible where a woman raped inside the city limits was not raped but outside the city limits she was raped, no matter how many bruises or witnesses. Proceeding to the turn of the century where a woman again had to prove that she belonged where ever it was that she was and the man didn't belong there, again no matter how many bruises, a victim having to PROVE that she is indeed a victim of a crime is ITSELF a FVCKING CRIME!

If you don't like it, and if you feel stymied by it, I suggest you get comfortable with your right hand.

History shows that men and many women, would rather blame a victim then face their own questionable actions.

So hold up that mirror and start learning to ask for consent!


----------



## tom67

COguy said:


> About as likely as someone saying they are a White Supremacist and not cringing. "But I'm the kind of White Supremacist that is for equal rights for all." That just makes you a normal human being...
> 
> Normal human beings are against rape and for treating human beings with dignity and respect, and against discrimination.


There should be no "hate" crimes a crime is a crime.
What now the law can read your mind?

By the "law" this should have been their supposed hate crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom


----------



## Anon Pink

When a group of young people beat the snot out of a guy who was just walking down the street, because he is gay, assault and battery isn't enough. Society in acted Hate Crimes because hating ******* is wrong! So wrong in fact that when you get juiced and decide to let go on the nearest queer, we, society are going to throw some extra penalties at you.


----------



## CuddleBug

To me its simple.

If the man initiates sex and the woman is into it, no problem and vise versa.

If the woman says no, then no it is and vise versa. No big deal.

I can see the need for feminism back in the day, but today, its completely unnecessary.

Ladies today can go to University, Trade School, start their own business, decide to be a stay at home mom and work part time, or don't work at all while raising the kids.

Ladies can do whatever they want today, just like us guys and I think its great.

Ladies today are just as aggressive as the men sexually and when they want sex. About time.

When the feminists start running out of things to ***** about, they will find something else and make it a major deal because they realize that they aren't needed anymore.

Feminism today is dead and why not focus on other important things? Economy? Better government? Getting the debt paid down? Terrorism solutions? Building industry for the country?
Developing greener technologies to lead the world?


----------



## Wolf1974

Like all things some take it to extreme and want to use it to hold down others. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone past the age of 40 hasn't experienced some sort of discrimination or sexual biases. I have experienced both as a white hetrosexual male. It's not right any any form but it does happen. Feminism started as an idea of wanting equal rights. Some took it to extremes but that's not everyone. And women should have equal rights and pay and I'm glad to see that is improving a great deal in this country at least.

I don't see a lot of feminism in that law. I see it more as politicians trying to incorporate laws for constituents that , as usual, just was poorly thought out. In the end this may help in some jury trials but won't make much difference at the time of arrest. You will just get the person arrested saying he/she either got consent or lying about having it. Maybe this will finally be another use for the VAR that is so popular in the CWI section


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> Except my post was sarcasm


It was mocking. There is a difference between sarcasm and mocking.



Faithful Wife said:


> and was not pointed at any individual.


It was pointed at the OP and those that agreed with them. At the point you replied that would be a grand total of two people.


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> What's wrong with verbally expressing enthusiastic consent for what's about to happen?


What's wrong? So many women aren't comfortable with giving 'enthusiastic consent' if it needs to be verbalized.

I would love to hear more verbalizing of desire from my wife. We've talked about it at great length. She maintains that she's not comfortable in asking for it and would rather I just take the initiative.

I'm sure much of this comes from slvt shaming / the 'good girl' complex. For my wife it came from her mother. Until sexually repressed females become a thing of the past, this will continue.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh gee Larry, sue me. 

CoGuy...I was actually going to keep trying to have a real discussion on your thread here (not that you wanted me to but)...but comparing feminism to white supremacy? Just...lol.


----------



## tom67

CuddleBug said:


> To me its simple.
> 
> If the man initiates sex and the woman is into it, no problem and vise versa.
> 
> If the woman says no, then no it is and vise versa. No big deal.
> 
> I can see the need for feminism back in the day, but today, its completely unnecessary.
> 
> Ladies today can go to University, Trade School, start their own business, decide to be a stay at home mom and work part time, or don't work at all while raising the kids.
> 
> Ladies can do whatever they want today, just like us guys and I think its great.
> 
> Ladies today are just as aggressive as the men sexually and when they want sex. About time.
> 
> When the feminists start running out of things to ***** about, they will find something else and make it a major deal because they realize that they aren't needed anymore.
> 
> Feminism today is dead and why not focus on other important things? Economy? Better government? Getting the debt paid down? Terrorism solutions? Building industry for the country?
> Developing greener technologies to lead the world?



Yes the bigger picture.
I kind of threadjacked.
But it is part of a bigger agenda.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> So hold up that mirror and start learning to ask for consent!


Wouldn't active participation -- coupled w/ a distinct lack of "No!" (whether expressed verbally or via body language) -- basically constitute consent?


----------



## larry.gray

Anon Pink said:


> When a group of young people beat the snot out of a guy who was just walking down the street, because he is gay, assault and battery isn't enough. Society in acted Hate Crimes because hating ******* is wrong! So wrong in fact that when you get juiced and decide to let go on the nearest queer, we, society are going to throw some extra penalties at you.


I detest the whole hate crimes concept. Unless it is self defense, assault & battery should lock you away for a very long time. Why you beat somebody shouldn't matter.

A perfect example of this is the dragging death of that poor black man in Texas. Texas was vilified because they didn't have 'hate crime' laws. In the meantime Texas got one to plead guilty and accept life in prison in exchange for testimony. The other two are dead already at the hand of the state. No 'hate crime' laws needed.


----------



## CuddleBug

I have simple rules that work great and are common sense.


(01) treat the ladies the way you would like to be treated
(02) always help the ladies but never baby and pamper them
(03) never lead on and initiate sex and then half way, change your mind. Major no no.
(04) never deny each other intimacy and sex
(05) take care of each others main needs as your own


Men are women have different strengths and weaknesses. We are different and compliment each other. Like a hand in a glove. Ladies offer us men things we struggle with and can't do well and us men offer the ladies things they struggle with and can't do well.

Men will never be like women and women will never be like men. Be the best woman you can be and be the best man you can be.

Simple.


----------



## GusPolinski

larry.gray said:


> What's wrong? So many women aren't comfortable with giving 'enthusiastic consent' if it needs to be verbalized.
> 
> I would love to hear more verbalizing of desire from my wife. We've talked about it at great length. She maintains that she's not comfortable in asking for it and would rather I just take the initiative.
> 
> I'm sure much of this comes from slvt shaming / the 'good girl' complex. For my wife it came from her mother. Until sexually repressed females become a thing of the past, this will continue.


"Baby, would you mind stopping for just a second to sign this consent form?"


----------



## Wolfman1968

Anon Pink said:


> False accusation. See, in no other other crime does the victim have to prove they didn't give consent. I don't have to prove I didn't invite you to take my stuff, nor to take my car, enter my home, or use my ID. Only in sexual assault does the victim have to prove they did not give consent.


I am not going to jump in on either side of the main discussion, but this comparison is bizarre. This doesn't even make sense. (It's also not true, by the way.)

People DO want to have sexual intercourse; people consent all the time to sexual activity. Nobody consents to being robbed, carjacked, burglarized, victimized by identity theft, etc. (In the setting of acquaintance interactions, do you think that the police are going to arrest my brother, for example, merely on my claim that he was in my home last week without my permission, while he maintains he was invited over? You would indeed have to PROVE trespassing.)

To put it another way, you are comparing situations (burglary, robbery, etc.) in which the encounters are virtually ALWAYS illegal/without permission to the situation of sexual intercourse, where the VAST majority of encounters in a person's life occur WITH consent (with spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, one-night-stand partner, etc.). You don't think that there is a difference here? You really think it is unjust to assume that a stranger driving your car is non-consensual while a sexual encounter may not necessarily be non-consenual?

I don't understand why you think this is a legitimate comparison or how it furthers your position.


----------



## BaxJanson

"If that is the law, sir, then the law is an ass, an idiot. If that is the law, then the law is a bachelor, and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience. By experience, sir!"

No burden of proof, expanding lists of what may be considered a possible violation, life-destroying consequences for conviction, no negative consequences for false accusation, and statistically insignificant chance of a court doing little but laughing if a man attempted to complain about a violation of the law. All with no impact on actual rapes. The intent of the law may be pure, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

They've just handed every California coed a loaded gun and said "now, we trust that you won't use this poorly, right?"


----------



## LongWalk

Anon Pink said:


> LW, if this fictional disordered woman had to give consent through out the sexual encounter, how can she then claim rape?
> 
> *People make false accusations.*
> 
> The case you mentioned can't be that notorious I've never heard of it.


Julian Assange was the driving force behind WikiLeaks. 

Here is a link to Wikipedia's entry. It does not cover what happened, although the press has written about it.


----------



## LongWalk

This legislation goes about this issue the wrong way. What about all the women who are not University of California students? Shouldn't they have equal rights to confront non-consensual sex?

Why not provide this instruction to all institutions, public and private?

Furthermore, the criminal code should define illegal sexual activity, not a law about funding. Universities should not be free to define behavior that is illegal in a way that is not 100 percent consistent with criminal law.

Is failure to give consent tantamount to rape? 

The law states:


> Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity


What does that mean? Does that mean throughout the act of intercourse?



> Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, *unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious*, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.


What does this mean?


----------



## Runs like Dog

I like the idea that the woman can withdraw consent retroactively. Like the next day or next week. Because lord knows no ones' ever been known to be a revenge obsessed psycho attention *****. In fact sleep with the guy, marry him, THEN accuse him of rape years later. Cash in.


----------



## alexm

staarz21 said:


> Some women WILL lead a man on - even have sex with him - wake up the next morning and say...omg...wait. I was kidding. RAPE!!!!!!! It's total bullsh*t and there is nothing that protects the guy because it's his word against hers.


Right, but there is no way to prevent that no matter what the laws are. That sort of thing will always happen.

That is a question of character, and nothing more.

There are laws in civilized societies in order to protect women - who are historically the victims of sex-related crimes. In countries where there are few, if any, laws to protect women in this regard, women are generally looked upon as lesser beings anyway. So basically, we can all live in a country where men can do as they please with women, or we can be thankful we live in countries that, although sometimes misguided, make an effort to protect them.

Sexual crimes against women have been going on since the dawn of time, they are just evolving the laws and some of them may be misguided. But the ultimate aim is to curb this type of behavior against women, which definitely exists.

Again, no matter what laws are in place, there will ALWAYS be some women who will do this, even if they were the aggressor. There will also always be some men who feel they can do as they please. That's the human animal for you.

Blame faulty character and morals, not the law.


----------



## Almostrecovered

my biggest issue with the law is logistics and how the burden of proof will be determined

sadly, it's tough enough to prove rape (in a date rape context) as it is if there is no tearing or physical trauma to document (or drugs or alcohol in the system). DNA proves nothing if the alleged rapist claims the sex was consensual

so it will all come to down to he said she said and to convict or to not convict becomes a rather tenuous proposition and having juries pick who they believe most won't result in very accurate convictions


----------



## alexm

staarz21 said:


> If my H had stopped me in the middle of us making out the first time we had sex, to ASK me if it was ok to proceed to sex, I would have been like, Really? You're asking me and my hand is halfway down your pants? Come on now.


If your hand is down his pants, and he did not physically put it there, then that is consent.

I don't know about most of you, but to me, sex is a mutual thing. If one person is doing all the "work" and the other is just allowing it to happen, then in that case, one should probably inquire as to if this is okay. Most of us, men AND women, but especially women, have a hard time with this, but it's not really all that difficult. What we see most often, is the male making the assumption that the woman is okay with it simply because they aren't saying no, or otherwise allowing it to happen, but they also aren't exactly participating. This is very very common with younger girls - they simply aren't sure what to do, or even how to say no. And that isn't necessarily their fault.

I will tell you an anecdote (and it proves nothing, but it is relevant nonetheless). The first time I ever became intimate with my ex wife (I was 18, she 16), I stopped it before anything major happened. Basically we were making out, one thing led to another, I had gently pulled her pants down and was halfway down to the promised land when I stopped. Something just didn't feel right about it. We had both been making out heavily, she allowed me to touch her and otherwise feel her up, she didn't resist me, per se, taking her pants off. But I just got a feeling that she wasn't into it.

So I asked her, point blank, and she said she'd rather not. So we stopped, nobody was upset, and I never asked her what her reasoning was.

Do I think I could have gone all the way? Sure. Do I think she would have cried rape the next day? Absolutely not. But I certainly didn't want our first time together to be one-sided.

That is the kind of thinking these laws are designed to create, and the kind of thinking far more people should consider.

Women (and men): in your lifetimes of experience, there HAS to have been at least one occasion in which you were sexually intimate with somebody yet you really didn't want to, and/or you regretted it (in the moment, not necessarily afterwards) and just didn't know how to stop it. Particularly when you were younger. It doesn't have to have been violent or even very pressured. But I think everyone here has had at least one of those times when a boyfriend (or girlfriend), a spouse, somebody you met at a bar, or even a friend has placed expectations on you and you acquiesced. Perhaps you felt pressure, either from that person, or yourself.

Human beings have a difficult time saying no when there are expectations (real or imagined), and it doesn't just pertain to sex. Add to that things like peer pressure, and we all end up doing things we don't necessarily want to be doing.

I believe laws like this are designed to make people THINK, and that is all. The idea that all men have to have signed documents in order to have sex is ridiculous. The purpose is to have people be more sensitive and thoughtful about what they are doing. Go with your gut, in other words. If something doesn't feel right, it probably isn't.

In regards to false accusations, that will never go away. Some people just have low morals and you can't stop that.


----------



## always_alone

FalconKing said:


> I would be out the door. When it comes to sex I need people's actions and words to match. Not taking any chances. If you want, say you want it. If you don't, say you don't. Apprehension or being coy does not turn me on.


Yes. But more than that. When it comes to sex, I want him to be all in. If he has doubts or reservations (or if I do), it can wait until we're both totally into it.

Anything less would just make me feel gross.


----------



## LongWalk

> Women (and men): in your lifetimes of experience, there HAS to have been at least one occasion in which you were sexually intimate with somebody yet you really didn't want to, and/or you regretted it. Particularly when you were younger. It doesn't have to have been violent or even very pressured. But I think everyone here has had at least one of those times when a boyfriend (or girlfriend), a spouse, somebody you met at a bar, or even a friend has placed expectations on you and you acquiesced. Perhaps you felt pressure, either from that person, or yourself.


:iagree:

Very true. I had sex with a very Catholic nice girl who was conflicted and up tight about sex. She wanted love, sex and romance but she did not lubricate and she said nothing about the discomfort. I(t) was a nightmare, but never did she complain. In retrospect, a lot of foreplay and whispering might have made it great. If a doctor had examined her, I'll bet her vagina showed signs of trauma. My penis was sore... no raw is the truth. I'll bet a doctor's testimony would have been bad for me had she accused me of rape.

In fact, the next night she still wanted to try. We actually corresponded afterwards (she was Canadian). She wanted love and sex. I think given time and thoughtfulness she could have been a great lover, girlfriend, wife. 

I've known women who were mixed up. Have women ever falsely told guys that they thought they were pregnant?

That is why AR's post is spot on.

Another poster mentioned education. I agree that sex education should include more about relationships.

One sneaky method of rape in college is to join a frat and get girls drunk so that they can be led off to another room and assaulted. Some men are evil and they even manage to institutionalize their modus operandi. 



> “What do you think is going to happen when you have 70 19- and 20-year-old boys in a giant mansion and they have all this money and they’re allowed to operate totally in secret?” Lohse says, describing his experience at Dartmouth. “I don’t think that they’re going to be debating Socrates, and I don’t think they’re going to become really thoughtful, romantic, respectful young men. That’s just not how it works.”


Link


----------



## always_alone

Wolfman1968 said:


> I am not going to jump in on either side of the main discussion, but this comparison is bizarre. This doesn't even make sense. (It's also not true, by the way.)
> 
> People DO want to have sexual intercourse; people consent all the time to sexual activity. Nobody consents to being robbed, carjacked, burglarized, victimized by identity theft, etc. (In the setting of acquaintance interactions, do you think that the police are going to arrest my brother, for example, merely on my claim that he was in my home last week without my permission, while he maintains he was invited over? You would indeed have to PROVE trespassing.)


People also willingly give things away, loan them out, or invite them into their homes. 

Indeed, I have given away jewelery, for example, as a gift, but when I was broken into and had a bunch stolen, the police never asked "so, are you absolutely sure that you didn't give this stuff away?"

No, they believed me right from the starting gate. Different story when I pressed charges for rape. Indeed all those conversations were about vindictive psycho women and false accusations

These things are always more cut and dried when there's a gun (or other weapon) involved. But sexual assault and rape are the only crimes where the kneejerk reaction is to assume the victims are to blame. This is true for both men and women victims of sexual crimes


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon Treyvion
doesn't it work both ways. The woman has to ask for consent before she does anything either.





treyvion said:


> Kinda. It helps them maintain control even if they do have sex. So even if they give it, having the man to have to request all those permissions puts all control on her so he's just a sex toy.


----------



## GTdad

LongWalk said:


> This legislation goes about this issue the wrong way. What about all the women who are not University of California students? Shouldn't they have equal rights to confront non-consensual sex?
> 
> Why not provide this instruction to all institutions, public and private?
> 
> Furthermore, the criminal code should define illegal sexual activity, not a law about funding. Universities should not be free to define behavior that is illegal in a way that is not 100 percent consistent with criminal law.
> 
> Is failure to give consent tantamount to rape?
> 
> The law states:
> 
> 
> What does that mean? Does that mean throughout the act of intercourse?
> 
> 
> 
> What does this mean?


That's my main concern. As a guy who represents universities, I'd be at a loss to advise my clients how to implement this law beyond the requirement that we amend our student policies in accordance with the law.

So much of this stuff is so kneejerk and sloppily written that universities are saying "just what the f*ck are we supposed to be doing to stay out of hot water?" That's true with evolving Title IX-based regulations, too.


----------



## Mr. Nail

So I read the law and I'm pretty sure that most of what we are talking about here does not apply. I don't see how the law really changes anything. It doesn't change how rape accusations will be handled legally, It just mandates certain standards in how the university will handle response and punishments.

It seems mostly to be a test bed. It will be interesting to see how this works out. 

My stuck up opinion is that continuous affirmative consent will catch on more slowly than sex shame is dying. I don't see this a popular or empowering for either gender.

MN


----------



## IIJokerII

Faithful Wife said:


> But since no one is allowed to talk about stuff like this in sex education (not even the students), we can't really educate our kids en masse. We have to do it individually as parents, based on only our own values and OUR education level. And some of us parents just aren't that educated. Some parents can't even navigate their own adult married sex lives, let alone discuss the very critical moments that young people go through between their first sexual urges and then actually having sex with someone.
> 
> *" Although Sex ed lacks the emotional aspects of human bonding the end result is still the same, people have sex to procreate, which is why things such as puberty and old age dictate the human desire for this activity. People do not look at each other prior to sex and evaluate all the non-sexual attribute's one may provide for ones self interests outside the realm of physical attraction. The attraction exists because of the proven instinctual need for procreation, not for the possibility of love or long term interest"*
> 
> I'd love to see more direct discussion and sex education, but it should be about having SEX, not reproduction.
> 
> *" Considering reproduction is the primary end result of sex your statement is skewed. I agree that over time constant physical intimacy with a mate does evolve into love, but do not dismiss the other factors of love people confuse as being attributed to sex as constant bonding on non-sexual matters and experiences exhibit sharing of each others time together. And truth be told, pleasure from sex is mother natures way of ensuring the job gets done"*
> 
> This was just a mini-rant, it really doesn't affect this law at all, the law is now on the books so too late to try to educate people.
> 
> *" This will effect a lot more lives than you'll care to admit"*
> 
> I'm all for holding women's feet to the fire, too, just sayin'. If a woman isn't clear in her intent then she should straight up say "no". But there is such a thing as saying "yes" and then changing your mind...so I can see why they had to make this law.
> 
> *" There was already a law in place for this and it is called raped. To dilute this with cascading scenarios is/was not required. I blame lawyers for this as I am sure that some men, and maybe even woman too, got off of sexual assault charges due to the existing rape laws being contorted to suit their clients needs"*
> 
> I do wish we didn't need laws like this. I don't think most men have or want non-consensual sex (or are rapists).
> 
> *" Of course not, men are, like women, rationalizing animals but most of sane mind and self aware of consequences are fully aware of what lies ahead if he forcefully insists after being told no by his date, wife, mate etc."*
> 
> But the thing is, instead of being against this law, if people would just embrace it (the spirit of it at least) and GET CONSENT then soon people could see that it CAN be very sexy.
> 
> *" This is akin to a man wearing a condom prior to the first date onward in the event that he may one day have sex. If this is too extreme then consider the interruption ad nausea this statement would hold " Please hold on while I install a protective device to prevent pregnancy and Std's, okay, still ready for intercourse?". And to ask, what level of informality do you think this would invite? When do you ask for this consent? On the first date, prior to, in the morning?"*
> 
> The only real reason I have heard anyone give for why this law shouldn't be on the books is that it is a "boner killer". Can someone come up with a better reason than that?
> 
> *" I am sure women are going to adore being asked the impersonal question about her ability or intent in regards to bonding with a man she had obvious attraction to, and considering that you have not provided the actual best timing to ask said question reinforces the irrationality of even having a need to ask"*
> 
> Ok yes it costs money to enforce, but so does rape. To me that is not a reason not to put this law on the books, it is just an argument against it and the money part is very complicated.
> 
> *" Yes, money that may very well be spent chasing ghosts or following up on encounters that were at one point consented, but not anymore. I worry more about women who get caught cheating as they would now have an alibi to their claim of nonconsensual sex and being forced into it vs telling the truth and facing divorce"*
> 
> But "ugh how awkward" is not a good reason not to stop and get verbal consent. Once it is just common to do this, people will stop stigmatizing it.
> 
> *" You husband asking you this is normal, 2 new people trying to find their way around each other adhering to this law will inarguably make the moment damn near a business interaction, and not that romantic or sensual moment you suggested earlier. I'd also like to gamble that you may have on occasion had sex with your husband without being fully in the mood, A.K.A. not totally willing. By this standard your husband has broken the law"*
> 
> I get that people want to experience that totally dreamy sensation of being seduced and swept away with lust and not even having to say a word about it, it just happens like the natural animals we are. I totally get that.
> 
> *" So why do you agree with the apparent legislation of human courtship where body language is more unmistakable than spoken words?"*
> 
> But why couldn't you take one quick moment taken out of that reverie to say "just to make sure, this is a yes, right?" with a wink in the middle of a breathy gasp...with an answer of "actually it is a *F*CK YES!*" and ripping of clothes ensues.
> 
> *" I don't think I have ever encountered a woman who said she kissed a guy and suddenly he was biting the back of her neck and humping uncontrollably until climax!! From kissing to coitus the boundaries fall but only after they are tested. I feel no need to ask a girl who is holding my pork sword with unmistakable intention what she wants to do, nor should she feel compelled to ask me as well"*
> 
> Why wouldn't you WANT to protect yourself AND the person you are about to have sex with from false allegations or unwanted sex? What is the big deal about having a little decorum about this, especially since YOU may be the one who is protected by doing it?
> 
> *" Until paperwork is involved from the moment this starts until infinity has the ability to change her mind afterword. This law changes nothing about that fact"*
> 
> If you are old like me (ahem) then you can remember when just wearing a condom was considered "ugh forget it, it doesn't feel good so why do it?" and people commonly had unprotected sex. Then when aids started killing millions, suddenly everyone had to be educated that, hey guess what? We're talking about a PUBLIC HEALTH issue here, not your pleasure.
> 
> *" agreed"*
> 
> Interrupt your pleasure to save your life and prevent unwanted lives by putting on a condom? People used to balk and spit about it, just like they are now doing about verbal consent. But now it is finally the norm to expect people to use condoms (who aren't in an exclusive relationship) and people may groan about the pleasure issue, but they UNDERSTAND why it is important and even if they don't like it, it is what you should do to protect yourself and your sex partners if you are non-exclusive.
> 
> *" The difference between a condom and a consent submission is the physical remnants left behind and incurred by unprotected sex. And STD and/or pregnancy is lasting if not forever with sub sequential reactions thereafter. A consent for this activity can be given prior and during and essentially revoked post encounter. Unless a binding document is introduced this law leaves many a men vulnerable to change of heart or the supposed misunderstanding, women can even state they were pressured into giving consent or in time as you seem to suggest may be the future even signing consent."*
> 
> One day, verbal consent will be seen as no biggie and people will expect it. Changes in our attitudes about it have to happen first.
> 
> *" Perhaps, and on one brighter note I suppose the flip side could be that bogus employee/employer office romances that blow up into HR problems citing pressure or influence can be shuddered?"*
> 
> As a kinky person, I know just how f*cking sexy consent can be. It goes way beyond the rape issue.
> 
> *" True, but the spontaneity of human bonding will now be deterred and the highly erotic and romantic of spontaneous bonding will no longer be done without fear, especially from men" *
> 
> Take the stigma of "oh, what a boner killer" away from the idea, and you'll see there's really no other opposition to it.


*" This is not a feminist issue but a law and judicial one. Introducing a law that dictates the progressive steps of acceptance and thereafter as law rather than a yes vs no standard will inevitably invite more legislation than not, especially if the encounter does not have an expiration date of when a claim can be entered. I can agree that woman do need laws to protect them as common sense, respect and morals did not protect them from past abuse and mistreatment, especially in the work places as I have never seen a vending machine force a quarter into itself, but a time must come where accountability for men's behavior towards women is held to the standards of the laws already enacted"*


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon all. 
I think there is a lot of arguing at cross purposes here. 

I think pretty much everyone agrees with the following:

1) Having sex with someone without their consent at that time is rape. 

2) No one can withdraw consent retroactively, (eg regret), but they do have a right to withdraw consent at any point during sexual activities. (there are some edge cases here).

3) In general an unconscious / sleeping person cannot consent, but there are cases where prior consent has been given: If my wife were to wake me with a BJ it would not be rape 

4) Drugging, or giving alcohol by deception to someone is assault. 

5) Rape that happens without witnesses can often still come down to he said / she said. I don't see any way to fix this. 

Then there are the blurry lines:

1) How drunk is too drunk to consent. 

2). What sort of pressure / coercion is legal (as opposed to polite): I'll beat you if you don't have sex is clearly rape. I'll break up with you if you don't have sex clearly is not. There is lots of grey area in between.

3). The acceptability of cat calls etc is very situation dependent. Telling someone at a party that they have a "nice ass", is not criminal (but possibly rude). Telling that to an employee is probably harassment.

4) The issue of "prior consent" is complex. What sexual things can you do without asking because your partner has made it clear in the past that they consent to these activities.

Human sexual activity is complex with lots of subtle signals. I don't think there is a practical way to quantify consent that is not very disruptive to the process. The extreme of requiring a specific verbal consent for each action seems unnecessary:

"May I kiss you". "can I use my tongue", "Can I kiss your neck", "Can I kiss between your breasts"... etc really is silly and awkward.

I think that reasonable non-verbal consent is OK. If you are kissing someone on the lips, moving to kiss their neck is fine if they are indicating by sounds or motions that they approve. Its tricky though - going from kissing someone to penetrating them with a finger is not OK - unless from prior experience you know that this IS something they want. 

I think people who are not consenting have a responsibility to make that lack of consent clear in case their partner has mis-read signals. 


In general, other than cases of extreme intoxication, I expect very few rapes are due to unclear consent. I expect (hope) that at some point in a date-rape situation a woman will have made it clear to her assailant that she does not consent, and that in the great majority of cases the assailant knows that she does not consent. 

Needless to say I think men need to do their best to be sure that the woman is actively consenting, and not simply frozen in shock / fear. I ALSO think that women need to avoid giving mixed signals: unless some prior arrangement has been made giving mixed signals about sexual activity is not acceptable. (saying "no, no, don't", while encouraging with your hands is right out).


----------



## murphy5

I'll post this again, from the most prophetic sci fy movie of all time, Cherry 2000:

Cherry 2000 Dating - YouTube


:rofl:


----------



## DoF

This country is completely FUBAR, from ALL perspectives.


----------



## murphy5

DoF said:


> This country is completely FUBAR, from ALL perspectives.


Not at all! You can behead someone spouting off Allah Akbar, and NOT be called a terrorist! What a tolerant society!


----------



## Anon Pink

larry.gray said:


> What's wrong? So many women aren't comfortable with giving 'enthusiastic consent' if it needs to be verbalized.
> 
> I would love to hear more verbalizing of desire from my wife. We've talked about it at great length. She maintains that she's not comfortable in asking for it and would rather I just take the initiative.
> 
> I'm sure much of this comes from slvt shaming / the 'good girl' complex. For my wife it came from her mother. *Until sexually repressed females become a thing of the past, this will continue.*


Agree Larry. But what would happen if we could roll back time and you were taught, (just using this one line of thought as an example) that if your girl friend didn't or couldn't give verbal consent you were to back off immediately? And you did this, each and every time. Your girlfriend would be faced with a dilemma wouldn't she? She'd either have to learn to own her sexual desires or go without. And contrary to what a lot of men might think, I believe in time she would get over the slvt shaming and learn to voice what she wants.

This is going to be a transition. Things will be tense between the sexes for a while. Women won't be able to play coy, unless there discussed how coyness turns one another on, and they will have to ask for what they want.

I read a LOT of erotica and the male appears VERY ALPHA in the story when he turns his woman on yet won't deliver the goods until she begs for it. It's freaking HOT!





Wolfman1968 said:


> I am not going to jump in on either side of the main discussion, but this comparison is bizarre. This doesn't even make sense. (It's also not true, by the way.)


It's totally true and the comparison is apt. If someone stole your car would you ever have to prove you didn't lend it to him? No, the thief would have to prove you did!



> People DO want to have sexual intercourse; people consent all the time to sexual activity. Nobody consents to being robbed, carjacked, burglarized, victimized by identity theft, etc. (In the setting of acquaintance interactions, do you think that the police are going to arrest my brother, for example, merely on my claim that he was in my home last week without my permission, while he maintains he was invited over? You would indeed have to PROVE trespassing.)


No, you wouldn't have to prove trespassing. Your word alone would be good enough. Even if he is your brother, all you'd have to do is say we got into a fight and I revoked consent but he didn't leave.

Because people DO engage in willing consenting sex all the time, yet women are over powered and raped all the time, though less frequently. 



> To put it another way, you are comparing situations (burglary, robbery, etc.) in which the encounters are virtually ALWAYS illegal/without permission to the situation of sexual intercourse, where the VAST majority of encounters in a person's life occur WITH consent (with spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, one-night-stand partner, etc.). You don't think that there is a difference here? You really think it is unjust to assume that a stranger driving your car is non-consensual while a sexual encounter may not necessarily be non-consenual?
> 
> I don't understand why you think this is a legitimate comparison or how it furthers your position.


And people lend things out and sometimes never get them back. But the loss is generally too small and insignificant to seek legal redress. However the loss of dignity, agency, safety, and self respect in an acquaintance rape is great, so it is reported much more often than a missing router bit.


----------



## Anon Pink

In terms of how sexy and hot getting continual consent can be, I will compile a list of erotic romance title in which this exact scenario is played out at least once and post it here, if it's okay. 

Gaining continual consent if the "new challenge of erotic authors" and they do a great job of making it sexy and hot!


----------



## Anon Pink

Mr. Nail said:


> So I read the law and I'm pretty sure that most of what we are talking about here does not apply. I don't see how the law really changes anything. It doesn't change how rape accusations will be handled legally, It just mandates certain standards in how the university will handle response and punishments.
> 
> It seems mostly to be a test bed. It will be interesting to see how this works out.
> 
> My stuck up opinion is that continuous affirmative consent will catch on more slowly than sex shame is dying. I don't see this a popular or empowering for either gender.
> 
> MN


Good post but I disagree about its effects. I think it will force both genders to own their behavior and I think that is empowering.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> In terms of how sexy and hot getting continual consent can be, I will compile a list of erotic romance title in which this exact scenario is played out at least once and post it here, if it's okay.
> 
> Gaining continual consent if the "new challenge of erotic authors" and they do a great job of making it sexy and hot!


----------



## staarz21

Anon Pink said:


> ...
> 
> 
> This ain't rocket science, it's just out of most people's comfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> What? What military are you speaking of? Can't be the one in my country where service women routinely fail to report because they don't want to jeopardize their own careers, let alone go through the chain of command. You can't possibly be taking about US military?
> 
> 
> 
> Not the violent rapes, not the stranger rapes and maybe even not many of the date rapes, but it will stop the dubious consent rapes. It will stop the multitudes of college drunk rapes, it will stop the stupid signals crossed rapes. Why? Because these boys, and girls will now have parents like you and me who will teach them exactly what informed consent looks like, sounds like and feels like AND you parents of sons will teach them to walk away from the coy girl who won't own her desires!



Sex isn't some taboo thing in my house. I have no problems talking to my kids or anyone for that matter about sex. I realize it's not rocket science. That was a little insulting, though I am thinking you didn't mean it directly toward me. I understand that this issue is personal for everyone.


You can talk and talk until you're blue in the face, that's not going to stop someone from maybe later on deciding that it was a mistake. 

Yes. This military. The U.S. military. There are 2 men in my H's shop here - stateside that have already had to deal with it. There were 3 on his last deployment. All 3 of the men on last deployment were sent home immediately. They were all turned in by the same woman. No one questioned her. All 3 of the men were immediately told they could not reenlist and until their ETS date, they could no longer deploy, gain rank, etc...Only to find out once the woman got home from the deployment and went to court about it...the allegations were in fact false. She was sleeping with an Officer. The other 3 men found out about it and threatened to tell the Commander because she was getting special treatment from the dude she was sleeping with. So, she turned those 3 men in for sexual harassment to have them sent home and essentially shut them up. It DOES happen...and often. 

This deployment, the women complained that Tosh.0 (a comedy central show) was too sexist and they wanted it gone. So, the Captain took it away. There are 4 women that work in that shop with about...I don't know...65 men or so. The men can no longer look in the general direction of women. I'm not even joking. I wish I was. My H has to go to an educational briefing on sexual assault every quarter. If you so much as say anything wrong within the vicinity of a woman and she over hears it and gets offended...that's it. You're done. 

It's completely sideways and that's why I have the opinion I do. I'm trying to protect my boys. I can talk to them until the cows come home, but that isn't going to stop a woman with a vengeance or one that is mentally unstable. You can't always tell. They can seem like most normal person ever...until you p*ss them off accidentally.


Anyway, I will bow out. My opinion isn't going to matter in the long run anyway. I respect your opinion and what you say is true, but with everything - there are two sides. There always will be. I guess that's what makes us all great.


----------



## Almostrecovered

what happens if two deaf and blind people have sex with each other?

WELL?!! WHAT THEN FEMINAZIS?!?!


----------



## Miss Taken

I do think rape laws and better definitions are necessary although I am not sure that this hits the mark. I am also curious as to how this is to be applied practically. 

Boys and girls should be taught from a young age about consent. Moreover to be responsible for themselves and to each other. As an aside, girls should be taught more about sex... I think we are slowly getting there - beyond a puritan and prudish standard- this I think is a good thing. I recall one poster share about her sex-ed. She was never taught about the pleasurable side of sex, social aspects, nuances. In all the diagrams about the urethra, the ovaries, vaginal canal and uterus and talks of menstruation and fertilization - the clitoris and g-spot were never mentioned.

I know that growing up I always heard, "no means no". There was never mention that the lack of "no" sometimes still means "no" or that "no" can be communicated through body language. Or that consent is often communicated through body language and by willingly participating in sexual acts despite never being asked or outwardly expressing consent... those are things you learn from experience and reading your partner. 

I think these are things that are important to discuss with our kids when discussing consensual sex. As far as the idea behind the law, I do agree with the premise. I think young adults should be encouraged to ask for consent and encouraged to check in with their partner - that what they're doing is okay. Especially if it's a new relationship or they're new to sex or it's a new act they haven't experienced together (anal for instance is a good one to be damned sure your partner is okay with before you attempt it). But beyond that, I don't know if making this law is a good thing. 

Rape legislation is tricky to me. On one hand, I think legally requiring affirmative consent is a bit much. On the other I see the people it's trying to protect but I don't think things are all cut and dry.

In my mind, this law is more relevant for the kids/situations it was inspired by. Such as those college kids in campuses or even people new to dating or just new in a relationship. That's definitely when you need to be sure that consent is given in one way or another. 

However in marriage/most long-term relationships I don't think it's practical. Once you've consummated that relationship, consent is generally implied unless there is a clear no. Such as, "Not tonight honey" for sex in general or just no to certain acts, like or "don't touch my nipples, they are sore from nursing" or "get your finger out of my bum." lol 

In my own relationship, I have never said, "I give you my consent" but I have told my partner "no" to certain sex acts and then he stops. It really isn't that difficult. Otherwise all sex acts are assumed to be a go. (Of course I realize this is different from situations where you are forced, threatened, coerced or drugged). This is a very sexual relationship of over 11 years. For us, I don't feel affirmative consent is necessary and won't change the way we do things.

Another thing I find troubling with this legislation is because on one hand, the lack of "no" does not mean consent is given. This is important because there are times women are drugged, forced, threatened and frozen in fear, or have their mouths forcibly held shut to prevent her from screaming or even saying no or stop. If it were law that a woman must have said no at some point, lest her rape not have been rape, that would be an injustice.

On the other hand, this law isn't realistic for long-term marriages or relationships in my opinion for reasons given above. Usually in marriages/LTRs the lack of verbal consent does not mean that rape is occurring because consent is implied and it's generally understood by the couple when sex is a go or not. 

Having said all of that, I am struggling to accept a law that broaches this with a very broad stroke. While we do need certain laws in effect, I also think rape cases need to be considered and tried on an individual basis and when not considered individually marginalization and injustices will happen.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Anon Pink
Unfortunately there are a lot of women who enjoy sex sometimes, but really would do without rather than ask. (my wife is one of them - there are things she enjoys but will never ever ask me to do).


I do think rape is different from other crimes, despite a few grey cases. Its true that if a friend visited my house, stole my car keys and used the car for a while I would have a difficult time proving that I didn't give him the keys - but that is a very rare situation.

For theft the assumption of guilt when someone is found with my property depends on the type of property. If the accused is a stranger, it is unlikely that I loaned them property and then decided to charge them with theft. If it is very personal property like my wallet and credit cards, it is unlikely that I loaned them to someone. OTOH if it is a friend and they are found driving my car, it is more likely that I loaned it to them because that is a common action.

Since it is common for people, even strangers to have consensual sex, I do not think it is sufficient to prove that sex occurred in order to validate a claim of rape. I think there needs to be some evidence of a lack of consent. 

Also theft is one-directional, sex is bi-directional - both parties benefit from consensual sex. So if a woman accuses a man of raping her when she was drunk, what if he accuses her of raping him because he was also drunk? While female on male rape is MUCH rarer than male on female rape, it does exist. In same-sex relations the problem is even worse - who raped who?

To be clear, I believe that if we *know* what happened it is usually clear whether or not it was rape, but that in many cases we simply can't tell. 

As an example lets say that a woman claimed that I raped her while we were on a business trip. Forensic evidence shows that we had sex, but there was no significant injury. There were no witnesses. I claim it was consensual and that she is making the rape claim because I refused to promote her. How can a jury possibly know who is telling the truth? (the can tell that I'm a cheating bastard, but that isn't illegal). 




Anon Pink said:


> Agree Larry. But what would happen if we could roll back time and you were taught, (just using this one line of thought as an example) that if your girl friend didn't or couldn't give verbal consent you were to back off immediately? And you did this, each and every time. Your girlfriend would be faced with a dilemma wouldn't she? She'd either have to learn to own her sexual desires or go without. And contrary to what a lot of men might think, I believe in time she would get over the slvt shaming and learn to voice what she wants.
> 
> This is going to be a transition. Things will be tense between the sexes for a while. Women won't be able to play coy, unless there discussed how coyness turns one another on, and they will have to ask for what they want.
> 
> I read a LOT of erotica and the male appears VERY ALPHA in the story when he turns his woman on yet won't deliver the goods until she begs for it. It's freaking HOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's totally true and the comparison is apt. If someone stole your car would you ever have to prove you didn't lend it to him? No, the thief would have to prove you did!
> 
> 
> 
> No, you wouldn't have to prove trespassing. Your word alone would be good enough. Even if he is your brother, all you'd have to do is say we got into a fight and I revoked consent but he didn't leave.
> 
> Because people DO engage in willing consenting sex all the time, yet women are over powered and raped all the time, though less frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> And people lend things out and sometimes never get them back. But the loss is generally too small and insignificant to seek legal redress. However the loss of dignity, agency, safety, and self respect in an acquaintance rape is great, so it is reported much more often than a missing router bit.


----------



## LongWalk

I think for a lot of the idea of rape is a turn off. If a woman is not aroused what fun could it be? And at the same time men wish they could have more women. Some how a significant minority of men cross a boundary and begin to get off on rape and non-consensual sex. This must be an indication of individual psychopathology. Alternatively, it is a cultural norm. Egyptian men will attack vulnerable women. Women's sexuality in that culture gives permission to attack.

Women do not rape men, at least violently. Pathological behavior on the part of women is to be very angry about an unsuccessful sexual relationship. Some women will trash a man's property or lie about him if rejected. Hence the term psycho slvt. Will the law in CA empower some crazy accusations about non-consensual sex?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening staarz21
The problem is that as you say, there ARE false rape claims and ridiculously sensitive people AND there are women are ARE raped, harassed and abused.

Both happen, and its very difficult to tell how often because usually the only witnesses are the ones involved in the activity.

No good answers.


----------



## Thundarr

There is a solution. This anti-rape device

https://www.facebook.com/kccnfm100/....156935.35259636751/10152347003821752/?type=1


----------



## Miss Taken

Thundarr said:


> There is a solution. This anti-rape device
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/kccnfm100/....156935.35259636751/10152347003821752/?type=1


I know this is a joke, I get it but on a serious note...

To me the device is akin to saying a woman shouldn't wear short skirts lest she be raped. Women could wear such a device every day or better yet, the few sick men out there who like to rape women could just... I don't know, not rape women? :scratchhead:

I say sick and I say few because good, healthy minded men aren't the ones women have to worry about. As with this legislation, healthy minded men aren't the ones this law while not perfect is trying to dissuade.


----------



## FalconKing

staarz21 said:


> Anyway, I will bow out. My opinion isn't going to matter in the long run anyway. I respect your opinion and what you say is true, but with everything - there are two sides. There always will be. I guess that's what makes us all great.



I am finding your post in this thread insightful and interesting. Even if you are tired of posting here, just wanted you to know I am hearing you. I think it's really cool as a woman that you can understand some of the things men face pertaining to this subject matter. I am just a guy trying to understand the women.


----------



## Almostrecovered

that's not a joke, that's a real item sold for Africans where rape is a much more widespread problem


----------



## naiveonedave

If you look at this law objectively, what is it really trying do? IMO, all it is really trying to do is make it easier for a woman to get a man convicted of date rape. Pure and simple. It is trying to take away the he said/she said arguments that make date rape hard to prosecute. What is the unintended consequences of this law?

Think Duke Lacross x 100 for frequency
All the goofiness with the legalities of it. 

It probably isn't even constitutional.

I am on the fence of is date rape really happening that often or is it mostly retro active regret? Granted I am a guy.


----------



## Regret214

LongWalk said:


> I think for a lot of the idea of rape is a turn off. If a woman is not aroused what fun could it be?
> 
> *Rape is about power, control and anger. It has nothing to do with the woman being aroused. It has to do with a pathetic human being forcing their will upon another. It's not about fun.*
> 
> Women do not rape men, at least violently.


If Dig were here, he'd beg to differ with you given his experience.


By the way, don't forget to thank that Feminist, Christie Hefner. She gave you guys a bunch of spank bank images from 1988 until 2009 as the CEO of Playboy. She sure killed sex.


----------



## DoF

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening staarz21
> The problem is that as you say, there ARE false rape claims and ridiculously sensitive people AND there are women are ARE raped, harassed and abused.
> 
> Both happen, and its very difficult to tell how often because usually the only witnesses are the ones involved in the activity.
> 
> No good answers.


It's similar with kids discipline, isn't it. That 1% or less that really abuse the kids have disabled parents from disciplining their kids COMPLETELY.

Now we have bunch of spoiled/self entitled kids running around thinking the world revolves around them.

I can't even imagine what this country is going to be like in 20-30 years when this generation ends up in our government.....


----------



## Runs like Dog

Well all I can say is that the next time some woman asks if why I don't trust her, I'll point to this. It's not about trust, baby, it's about culpability.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Wolf1974 said:


> You have easily arrived at the heart of the matter. :yay:


Well no. They are always free to think of anything as anything. That's THEIR standard. The challenge for them is to live in a world where THEIR standard isn't the same standard adopted by the criminal justice system. It's a bit like setting up express lanes just for women drivers. Much as they would think that's 'equality' the rest of us, not so much.


----------



## vellocet

COguy said:


> California Enacts 'Yes Means Yes' Law, Defining Sexual Consent : The Two-Way : NPR
> 
> My favorite: "Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."
> 
> What does this look like?
> 
> "Can I kiss you now?" "Can I french kiss you now?" "Can I kiss your neck?" "Can I take off your shirt?" "Can I rub your clit?" "Can I stick my penis in?" "Can I flip you over?" "Can I go faster and harder?" "Can I come on your chest?"
> 
> If anything, it will make the situation worse, because no sane person will ever get affirmative ongoing consent, so we will all be rapists. To my knowledge, under this law, every sexual encounter I've been involved in was sexual assault. I've also been sexually assaulted thousands of times.
> 
> So what comes next? "Yes means no"? Everything is rape unless the trible decides otherwise.



Chappelle has the right idea: LoveContract - YouTube

No man should leave home without it.....and a pen.


----------



## Jetranger

Almostrecovered said:


> what happens if two deaf and blind people have sex with each other?
> 
> WELL?!! WHAT THEN FEMINAZIS?!?!


Tactile sign language.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Jetranger said:


> Tactile sign language.


but then they're touching without consent!!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Miss Taken
I think this gets to the heart of the matter. All reasonable people (male and female) agree that men shouldn't rape. The blame is completely on those who do. 

But the question is how to get them to "not rape women". 

There is a sense that asking potential victims to change their behavior is wrong - and it is. The problem that while we all agree that rapists are bad - we don't know how to make them stop. 

If there were never false rape reports, it would be fairly easy - lock up anyone accused of rape. The problem is that there are enough false reports (it doesn't take many) that as a society we don't want to risk destroying the life a an innocent man by not providing him with due process.


Some people suggest that men should pressure other men not to rape. That is good - but it is already happening. I have no friends or acquaintances who have expressed any form of misogynistic feelings - that is because my friends and I drove such people away long ago. 




Miss Taken said:


> SNIP.... better yet, the few sick men out there who like to rape women could just... I don't know, not rape women? :scratchhead:
> SNIP


----------



## vellocet

U.E. McGill said:


> I once had a girl in college tell me, "I'm not sleeping with you". Grabs my junk. "Well I'm not having intercourse", takes off her underwear "just the tip, but no pushing".
> 
> You get the point. In the end she said "I can't believe I did that, I'm not like this".
> 
> Thank god it wasn't in CA. I NEVER once heard her say "no"


I had a similar situation. If a woman I am with said she was sorry and she can't go through with it, I'd honor her wishes and even offer to just do something like watch a movie and pop some popcorn.

But I was with someone, also in college, we were hot and heavy into it, yes, her grabbing my junk too, then all of a sudden pushes me away, rather harshly in a striking fashion and said, "no, I'm not doing this".

I told her that is fine if she can't, but not to ever put her hands on me like that again. State your wishes and I'll respect it. But don't treat me as if I'm some sort of jackass who wouldn't stop if she simply said so. No means no and I'm not a rapist. You don't want to have sex, we don't have to have sex.

So afterwards I simply told this physical abuser to get out.


----------



## Anon Pink

staarz21 said:


> Sex isn't some taboo thing in my house. I have no problems talking to my kids or anyone for that matter about sex. I realize it's not rocket science. That was a little insulting, though I am thinking you didn't mean it directly toward me. I understand that this issue is personal for everyone.
> 
> 
> You can talk and talk until you're blue in the face, that's not going to stop someone from maybe later on deciding that it was a mistake.
> 
> Yes. This military. The U.S. military. There are 2 men in my H's shop here - stateside that have already had to deal with it. There were 3 on his last deployment. All 3 of the men on last deployment were sent home immediately. They were all turned in by the same woman. No one questioned her. All 3 of the men were immediately told they could not reenlist and until their ETS date, they could no longer deploy, gain rank, etc...Only to find out once the woman got home from the deployment and went to court about it...the allegations were in fact false. She was sleeping with an Officer. The other 3 men found out about it and threatened to tell the Commander because she was getting special treatment from the dude she was sleeping with. So, she turned those 3 men in for sexual harassment to have them sent home and essentially shut them up. It DOES happen...and often.
> 
> This deployment, the women complained that Tosh.0 (a comedy central show) was too sexist and they wanted it gone. So, the Captain took it away. There are 4 women that work in that shop with about...I don't know...65 men or so. The men can no longer look in the general direction of women. I'm not even joking. I wish I was. My H has to go to an educational briefing on sexual assault every quarter. If you so much as say anything wrong within the vicinity of a woman and she over hears it and gets offended...that's it. You're done.
> 
> It's completely sideways and that's why I have the opinion I do. I'm trying to protect my boys. I can talk to them until the cows come home, but that isn't going to stop a woman with a vengeance or one that is mentally unstable. You can't always tell. They can seem like most normal person ever...until you p*ss them off accidentally.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I will bow out. My opinion isn't going to matter in the long run anyway. I respect your opinion and what you say is true, but with everything - there are two sides. There always will be. I guess that's what makes us all great.


While the specific instance about which you have personal knowledge is egregious, it is IN FACT much much less common than than the opposite circumstance of being revictimized, retraumatized and ultimately disgraced and humiliated because NOTHING Was done to prosecute let alone protect.

I know of a girl who willingly had sex with a boy, but did not know he was filiming it, and did not know he circulated it, nor have knowledge that he had parties during which all of his friends and team mates would view it. The girl herself didn't know until one of the boys at the party kindly informed her.

We have seen countless stories of service women testifying that their rape charge against a fellow service member not only went ignored but they suffered penalties for "false charges." We have seen this over and over and over until the military finally got it's sh!t together and started taking charges more seriously.

Are you really suggesting that because some unstable woman leveled false charges that now every woman leveling a charge be automatically disbelieved? Perhaps if/when the tide turns and rapists suffer the consequences of their actions, those unstable women who think about making a charge will KNOW that serious and permenent harm will be done? IDK, how to balance this thorny issue but making it easier and less traumatic for a victim to come forth is LONG overdue, IMO.

And if you are worried about your sons then continue to teach them, as you say you do and they should be fine. A man who knows to back off when things aren't right is a man who has honor and that very honor will be his cloak of defense should the unlikely event of a false accusation happen to him.


----------



## Anon Pink

Good Afternoon Richard,



richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Anon Pink
> Unfortunately there are a lot of women who enjoy sex sometimes, but really would do without rather than ask. (my wife is one of them - there are things she enjoys but will never ever ask me to do).
> 
> 
> I do think rape is different from other crimes, despite a few grey cases. Its true that if a friend visited my house, stole my car keys and used the car for a while I would have a difficult time proving that I didn't give him the keys - but that is a very rare situation.
> 
> For theft the assumption of guilt when someone is found with my property depends on the type of property. If the accused is a stranger, it is unlikely that I loaned them property and then decided to charge them with theft. If it is very personal property like my wallet and credit cards, it is unlikely that I loaned them to someone. OTOH if it is a friend and they are found driving my car, it is more likely that I loaned it to them because that is a common action.


But if your friend took your car you do not have to prove it was done without your consent. You simply state, he did not have my consent and the burden is on him to prove he in fact did have your consent. Because the property belongs to you, for anyone else to claim temporary ownership, such as borrowing, they have to prove a temporary ownership agreement. You do not have to prove the LACK of existence of the temporary ownership agreement.



> As an example lets say that a woman claimed that I raped her while we were on a business trip. Forensic evidence shows that we had sex, but there was no significant injury. There were no witnesses. I claim it was consensual and that she is making the rape claim because I refused to promote her. How can a jury possibly know who is telling the truth? (the can tell that I'm a cheating bastard, but that isn't illegal).


This is why we have sexual harassment laws and why businesses enact policies that ultimately would prevent such a scenario. At this point in time, you'd be one stupid SOB to have sex with a direct report on a business trip. So stupid in fact it is almost more likely that you were coercing her, in some way, and didn't even realize it.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> I am on the fence of is date rape really happening that often or is it mostly retro active regret? Granted I am a guy.


And this is precisely the problem. Anyone who charges date rape or acquaintance rape is immediately suspected of making a false allegation, and of simply "regretting" their behaviour. 

And then we spend all sorts of time and energy finding excuses for those who are not at all interested in obtaining consent: Oh it would kill the mood; I'd lose the opportunity; it's common for xyz's to be shy, or to be reluctant to express consent; they want to be pressured into it, that's how they like it; of course consent was there, otherwise it wouldn't have happened, and so on.

It was a huge fight to get the law to recognize that date rape was even possible, so adamant we were that anyone who claims the sex wasn't consensual was lying about it.

It's precisely because we are so biased against victims of sexual assault that these laws around consent are useful. We have to stop reassuring ourselves that we are perfectly justified when taking advantage of a situation where someone is too intoxicated, conflicted, pressured, or otherwise compromised. 

And in the event that a false allegation does occur, we need to impose consequences and redress any injustices.


----------



## vellocet

Almostrecovered said:


> what happens if two deaf and blind people have sex with each other?
> 
> WELL?!! WHAT THEN FEMINAZIS?!?!


Easy, the male goes to jail


----------



## always_alone

Anon Pink said:


> Are you really suggesting that because some unstable woman leveled false charges that now every woman leveling a charge be automatically disbelieved? Perhaps if/when the tide turns and rapists suffer the consequences of their actions, those unstable women who think about making a charge will KNOW that serious and permenent harm will be done? IDK, how to balance this thorny issue but making it easier and less traumatic for a victim to come forth is LONG overdue, IMO.


Seems to me the solution is not all that difficult:. If a false accusations is discovered then charge the person responsible, and reinstate or arrange redress for the wrongly accused.


----------



## Anon Pink

always_alone said:


> Seems to me the solution is not all that difficult:. If a false accusations is discovered then charge the person responsible, and reinstate or arrange redress for the wrongly accused.


Otherwise known as Perjury and a Libel/slander civil suit.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Anon Pink said:


> Good Afternoon Richard,
> 
> 
> 
> But if your friend took your car you do not have to prove it was done without your consent. You simply state, he did not have my consent and the burden is on him to prove he in fact did have your consent. Because the property belongs to you, for anyone else to claim temporary ownership, such as borrowing, they have to prove a temporary ownership agreement. You do not have to prove the LACK of existence of the temporary ownership agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we have sexual harassment laws and why businesses enact policies that ultimately would prevent such a scenario. At this point in time, you'd be one stupid SOB to have sex with a direct report on a business trip. So stupid in fact it is almost more likely that you were coercing her, in some way, and didn't even realize it.


If my friend takes my car, while I'm standing there with him, and I never object....never say not to take it, is there not implied consent? This is how the rape law currently works all over the country. Each person has the opportunity to say no, because each person is present (unlike an ACTUAL car theft where the owner is likely not present except in the case of a car jacking).


----------



## Almostrecovered

Anon Pink said:


> But if your friend took your car you do not have to prove it was done without your consent. You simply state, he did not have my consent and the burden is on him to prove he in fact did have your consent. Because the property belongs to you, for anyone else to claim temporary ownership, such as borrowing, they have to prove a temporary ownership agreement. You do not have to prove the LACK of existence of the temporary ownership agreement.



but it's easy enough to prove that the car was taken (car was in friend's possession when he was pulled over for example)
thereby proving the crime unless the accused can produce proof he had permission

not so easy with a woman's body unless there is physical trauma of some sort that can be documented


it's the very foundation of the judicial system in this country- innocent until proven guilty and I will fight tooth and nail for that

don't get me wrong, I truly wish there was a more efficient way of proving rape. I had a friend in college who was date raped while at a frat party. I got her to go to the hospital and she submitted a rape test kit (she called me 15 minutes after), unfortunately there was nothing concrete that led to an arrest. She didn't fight her rapist, she simple froze in fear. There was no sign of forced sex. (which doesn't mean she wasn't raped) It burns my butt to this day what happened and how powerless she was to fight it and how there was nothing that could be done to get justice but I do recognize the whys. 

Part of the price of freedom from government oppression is sometimes having to let the guilty go free when there isn't enough proof, or having to watch and hear racists march in parades, or being less secure that a bus gets blown up by a terrorist, etc etc

I am vehemently opposed to the Patriot act, but in no way do I support terrorists. I simply believe that having the right to be free from the government intruding on my life by spying on me is worth the risk of being killed by a suicide bomber.


----------



## vellocet

Ok, here is a scenario.

guy and girl go out

guy and girl get drunk off their arses

guy and girl has sex, but neither say they can remember how it led up to sex.

neither guy or girl said yes to sex, or no, and because of this they feel they have been violated.

Which one gets to claim date rape?


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> Agree Larry. But what would happen if we could roll back time and you were taught, (just using this one line of thought as an example) that if your girl friend didn't or couldn't give verbal consent you were to back off immediately? And you did this, each and every time. Your girlfriend would be faced with a dilemma wouldn't she? She'd either have to learn to own her sexual desires or go without. And contrary to what a lot of men might think, I believe in time she would get over the slvt shaming and learn to voice what she wants.
> 
> This is going to be a transition. Things will be tense between the sexes for a while. Women won't be able to play coy, unless there discussed how coyness turns one another on, and they will have to ask for what they want.
> 
> I read a LOT of erotica and the male appears VERY ALPHA in the story when he turns his woman on yet won't deliver the goods until she begs for it. It's freaking HOT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It's totally true and the comparison is apt. If someone stole your car would you ever have to prove you didn't lend it to him? No, the thief would have to prove you did*!
> 
> 
> 
> No, you wouldn't have to prove trespassing. Your word alone would be good enough. Even if he is your brother, all you'd have to do is say we got into a fight and I revoked consent but he didn't leave.
> 
> Because people DO engage in willing consenting sex all the time, yet women are over powered and raped all the time, though less frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> And people lend things out and sometimes never get them back. But the loss is generally too small and insignificant to seek legal redress. However the loss of dignity, agency, safety, and self respect in an acquaintance rape is great, so it is reported much more often than a missing router bit.



If it's an unknown suspect then true but if a known person, friend or ex lover , then you bet questions will be raised on did you give permission to loan that car or not.

Same with trespass. If a stranger then it's more open and shut. If it's someone you invited in, your brother in your example, and then you revoke his permission and he refuses to leave then yes you could call us and we would come and tell him to leave but press charges for trespass? Not a chance that is happening.

So in the situation of rape it comes to the same conclusion. When a stranger forcible rape occurs it's more of an open and shut investigation. When it's a question of was consent given or not then both side have to prove the case. Same as domestic violence cases.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Anon Pink
I don't know the law on the car case. Normally the burden of proof is on the prosecution. 

Normally other people would be asked if you frequently loan your car out - but (for very good reasons) we can't ask the same questions about casual sex. 


There are harassment laws and someone who has sex with an underling might well be fired, but it is also very common, and (quite reasonably) and as long as it is consensual, I don't think it is even a crime.




Anon Pink said:


> Good Afternoon Richard,
> 
> 
> 
> But if your friend took your car you do not have to prove it was done without your consent. You simply state, he did not have my consent and the burden is on him to prove he in fact did have your consent. Because the property belongs to you, for anyone else to claim temporary ownership, such as borrowing, they have to prove a temporary ownership agreement. You do not have to prove the LACK of existence of the temporary ownership agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we have sexual harassment laws and why businesses enact policies that ultimately would prevent such a scenario. At this point in time, you'd be one stupid SOB to have sex with a direct report on a business trip. So stupid in fact it is almost more likely that you were coercing her, in some way, and didn't even realize it.


----------



## Almostrecovered

vellocet said:


> Easy, the male goes to jail


in my scenario they are both Helen Keller clones


----------



## vellocet

Almostrecovered said:


> in my scenario they are both Helen Keller clones


In that case they both file charges and the cases are thrown out of court.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Seems to me the solution is not all that difficult:. If a false accusations is discovered then charge the person responsible, and reinstate or arrange redress for the wrongly accused.


This would be a great solution However most DA's won't file false reporting to authories on the cases of sex assault and domestic violence. Some of that is political pressure and some of it is special interest group pressure. How it's always been explained to our academy rookies is we don't want to give the impression of charging victims of domestic violence or sexual assault


And yes every class does raise their hand and ask but how can they be victims if they are lying. Never have heard a satisfactory answer to that one.


----------



## Wolf1974

vellocet said:


> Ok, here is a scenario.
> 
> guy and girl go out
> 
> guy and girl get drunk off their arses
> 
> guy and girl has sex, but neither say they can remember how it led up to sex.
> 
> neither guy or girl said yes to sex, or no, and because of this they feel they have been violated.
> 
> Which one gets to claim date rape?


If they go the next step like they did with domestic violence laws and mandatory arrest both would go to jail.

No not kidding both


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> This would be a great solution However most DA's won't file false reporting to authories on the cases of sex assault and domestic violence. Some of that is political pressure and some of it is special interest group pressure. How it's always been explained to our academy rookies is we don't want to give the impression of charging victims of domestic violence or sexual assault


There's quite a bit of research out there that shows that investigating police tend to err on the side of disbelief, assuming that the allegations of sexual assault or rape are false. And it would be *very* embarrassing to charge someone for lying, when in fact they were a victim.

Obviously, of course, if they are lying, they aren't really a victim. But stats also show that the actual rates of false allegation are somewhere between 2% and 10%.


----------



## staarz21

Anon Pink said:


> While the specific instance about which you have personal knowledge is egregious, it is IN FACT much much less common than than the opposite circumstance of being revictimized, retraumatized and ultimately disgraced and humiliated because NOTHING Was done to prosecute let alone protect.
> 
> 
> *Are you really suggesting that because some unstable woman leveled false charges that now every woman leveling a charge be automatically disbelieved?* Perhaps if/when the tide turns and rapists suffer the consequences of their actions, those unstable women who think about making a charge will KNOW that serious and permenent harm will be done? IDK, how to balance this thorny issue but making it easier and less traumatic for a victim to come forth is LONG overdue, IMO.


I'm sorry but by the logic of "It's much much less common than the opposite circumstance", wouldn't that just mean that because it's much less, it doesn't matter? Because Rape happens much less than consensual sex, domestic abuse happens much less, false accusations happen much less...they all fit into the same category but it seems that the rules really only apply SOMETIMES.

For example, woman hits man - man hits woman back - man goes to jail. 

Man says something about a nice pair of breasts he saw on the Internet - woman over hears and turns man in for sexual harassment/inappropriateness in the workplace - man is reprimanded

Woman says something about how hot Brad Pitt looks without his shirt on - man over hears it and turns woman in for sexual harassment /inappropriateness in the workplace - man is laughed at. 

Woman accuses man of sexual assault - man is reprimanded immediately - woman gets sympathy - accusations are false -woman is embarrassed - man's rep is tarnished for good and it stays in his record for future reference

Man accuses woman of sexual assault - man is laughed at - should anyone listen to him further out of obligation - woman is investigated before reprimand - accusation false - man is reprimanded - woman has been victimized. 

False reports outpace sex assaults in the military - Washington Times




> From 2009 to 2012, the number of sexual abuse reports rose from 3,244 to 3,374 — a 4 percent increase.
> 
> During the same period, the number of what the Pentagon calls “unfounded allegations” based on completed investigations of those reports rose from 331 to 444 — a 35 percent increase.
> 
> In 2012, there were 2,661 completed investigations, meaning that the 444 false complaints accounted for about 17 percent of all closed cases last year. False reports accounted for about 13 percent of closed cases in 2009





> Robert Maginnis, a retired Army officer and analyst at the Family Research Council, is writing a book for Regnery Publishing Inc. about the Pentagon’s push to put women in direct ground combat in the infantry, armor and special operations.
> 
> “In the course of conducting interviews with commanders, I heard time and again complaints about female service members making sex-related allegations which proved unfounded,” Mr. Maginnis said. “Not only do some women abuse the truth, but it also robs their commanders from more important, mission-related tasks.



It is increasing. And No. I never said everyone should be singled out as a liar at first. However, the way the punishment is dished out is way wrong. Men can be victimized too. They can't come forward and complain about sexual harassment. Who would believe them?




It seems like I upset you with my posts. If I did, I am sorry. It seems all or nothing in these situations for people like you and me. I see your side of it...I really do. I think if it's done in the right way, this law could be great. Unfortunately, like many of the laws that are supposed to help the minority of people involved, it usually ends up hurting the good people.


----------



## ifweonly

Faithful Wife said:


> If you honestly believe this? Then, ew. Are you saying NONE of the sex you ever had was consensual?
> 
> Because if it was, actually asking for consent first would yield a "yes".
> 
> It is funny that this new law is being balked at when, honestly, have any of you ever even TRIED to ask for consent?
> 
> If you haven't, you may be surprised that you WOULD GET A YES when she actually wants to have sex with you and would say it out loud with an enthusiastic YES.
> 
> Until people have a chance to really put this law into play, how about not assuming it won't work (for some inexplicable reason)?


If men and women actually talked to each other and really cared about each others feelings, then agreeing to have sex or not should be just common decency. If she said "Not tonight" then its "Not tonight". What is so difficult about that? Do we really need a law? On second thought, until some men realize that we are not living in a "caveman mentality" any more maybe -----! 

I will probably get beat up saying that but it is what works for us and has for a very long time. Okay --- have at it.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> There's quite a bit of research out there that shows that investigating police tend to err on the side of disbelief, assuming that the allegations of sexual assault or rape are false. And it would be *very* embarrassing to charge someone for lying, when in fact they were a victim.
> 
> Obviously, of course, if they are lying, they aren't really a victim. But stats also show that the actual rates of false allegation are somewhere between 2% and 10%.


Actually I find the complete opposite to be true. When it doubt you send it to the DAs office to file and review. They are the ultimate decision. You either have probable cause or you don't. So long as I do then that person will have their day in court. Determining innocence or guilt is not my job. Not even my part of the criminal justice system.

And I wasn't talking about that anyway. I have flat out caught a woman who lied about being kidnapped and raped. Truth is she ran away with her boyfriend because her parents didn't like him. They get in a fight and he dumps her. She makes up the whole story about being kidnapped and raped cause guess what now she is pregnant. 

Whole thing stunk and we invested 100 man hours in finding this woman And the investigation just to have her admit she lied about the whole thing. DA refused to file false reporting. While this was an extreme case we get lied to a lot. But in these cases of domestic violence and rape false allegations you can make up a story and get away with it. Happens all the time


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> And this is precisely the problem. Anyone who charges date rape or acquaintance rape is immediately suspected of making a false allegation, and of simply "regretting" their behaviour.
> 
> And then we spend all sorts of time and energy finding excuses for those who are not at all interested in obtaining consent: Oh it would kill the mood; I'd lose the opportunity; it's common for xyz's to be shy, or to be reluctant to express consent; they want to be pressured into it, that's how they like it; of course consent was there, otherwise it wouldn't have happened, and so on.
> 
> It was a huge fight to get the law to recognize that date rape was even possible, so adamant we were that anyone who claims the sex wasn't consensual was lying about it.
> 
> It's precisely because we are so biased against victims of sexual assault that these laws around consent are useful. We have to stop reassuring ourselves that we are perfectly justified when taking advantage of a situation where someone is too intoxicated, conflicted, pressured, or otherwise compromised.
> 
> And in the event that a false allegation does occur, we need to impose consequences and redress any injustices.


the problem is that the US is based on innocent until proven guilty and proving rape, especially date rape, is practically impossible. I think this sucks, because there isn't going to be a good answer and unfortunately you see men's lives ruined by this and we know that some fraction are false charges. My argument here is the same argument used against the death penalty. If you are wrongly found guilty, the penalty is so severe that you question the methods. This really galls me around statutory rape of bf/gf relationships, where consent was given but parents so CPS got involved.

All that stated, rape is disgusting and wrong.


----------



## Anon Pink

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening staarz21
> The problem is that as you say, there ARE false rape claims and ridiculously sensitive people AND there are women are ARE raped, harassed and abused.
> 
> *Both happen, *and its very difficult to tell how often because usually the only witnesses are the ones involved in the activity.
> 
> No good answers.




Yes, both happen. But considering 60% of rapes in the US go *unreported* and only 3% of *rape charges* end up in conviction and jail time, we are up in arms about something highly unlikely to ever happen to anyone's sons.


View attachment 29306






staarz21 said:


> Man says something about a nice pair of breasts he saw on the Internet - woman over hears and turns man in for sexual harassment/inappropriateness in the workplace - man is reprimanded
> 
> Woman says something about how hot Brad Pitt looks without his shirt on - man over hears it and turns woman in for sexual harassment /inappropriateness in the workplace - man is laughed at.


Oh please? You don't see the difference between saying someone is hot and someone has nice tits? 

Stars, you are misinformed about sexual assault in the military.

Sen. Gillibrand: Military rape, sexual assault survivors see 'horrible rates' of reporting and conviction – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

""I have the evidence of most of the victims who have actually filled out a (Department of Defense) survey about why they didn't report," said Gillibrand. "The number one reason given was they didn't think the the chain of command would do anything. *And the second reason given was they either feared, or they had witnessed retaliation."*

Of the one out of 10 victims that did report, *62% were retaliated against, says the senator.*

"If you listen to the survivors of these sexual traumas and sexual assaults, they will tell you what needs to be done is the decision-making has to be taken out of the chain of command in order to create transparency, and accountability, and have that decision-maker be objective," said Gillibrand."

Do you think the retaliation had anything to do with recanting?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ifweonly said:


> If men and women actually talked to each other and really cared about each others feelings, then agreeing to have sex or not should be just common decency. If she said "Not tonight" then its "Not tonight". What is so difficult about that? Do we really need a law? On second thought, until some men realize that we are not living in a "caveman mentality" any more maybe -----!
> 
> I will probably get beat up saying that but it is what works for us and has for a very long time. Okay --- have at it.


I agree with you.. but this is not speaking about those who have an emotional connection , love and commitment.. these are casual sex encounters ...many taking place at Frat parties/ college hook ups....it's a whole different ballgame when everyone is drinking... then someone changes their mind the next day...

Husband's friend drives Bus for a college, he's had to stop some of them from having sex on the damn bus.. he's had a woman beg him to have sex with her.. I mean.. the mindset of these people when drunk!!! God help anyone figure out who is the blame with some of these stories... 

I don't think strangers should be fvcking at all - but ya know.. I'm a puritan.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> This would be a great solution However most DA's won't file false reporting to authories on the cases of sex assault and domestic violence. Some of that is political pressure and some of it is special interest group pressure. How it's always been explained to our academy rookies is we don't want to give the impression of charging victims of domestic violence or sexual assault
> 
> 
> And yes every class does raise their hand and ask but how can they be victims if they are lying. Never have heard a satisfactory answer to that one.


Because of those who recant, many (sorry I don't have numbers) recanted as a result of actual retaliation or threatened retaliation which would indeed be revictimzing the victim!


----------



## naiveonedave

Researchers: More than 2,000 false convictions in past 23 years - U.S. News

so the real question - which is worse, under incarceration or over false conviction. Our constitution tries to minimize false conviction


----------



## Anon Pink

GusPolinski said:


>


:lol:


I get it. I get your frustration. Sex is soooo complicated when you have to also think and be prepared for conversations. It was so much easier when you could simply whip it out and declare that it was on. Now you have shower, and be an alpha but not too d!ckish, and find a way to make verbal consent hot. Lotta work.


----------



## Anon Pink

naiveonedave said:


> Researchers: More than 2,000 false convictions in past 23 years - U.S. News
> 
> so the real question - which is worse, under incarceration or over false conviction. Our constitution tries to minimize false conviction


True, but the blame for false conviction goes to the police first, the DA second, the judge third, and the legal system last. Often times false conviction came as a result of bungled investigations, improper behavior of the prosecutor or improper application of trial law by the judge. IOW, it is rarely the witnesses fault some person was wrongfully convicted.


----------



## that_girl

Just know who you're having sex with. Simple. Know them enough to know they aren't going to pull this crap. I dunno. Seems simple to me. 

Of course there are shady people but that's the gamble in life.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> While this was an extreme case we get lied to a lot. But in these cases of domestic violence and rape false allegations you can make up a story and get away with it. Happens all the time


No doubt, police have a very difficult job sorting through all the lies they are told: guilty people claiming innocence and pointing fingers in every direction but themselves.

And while clearly it isn't police's job to determine guilt or innocence, it is their job to conduct investigations -- and how this is done is influenced by their read of a situation. And typically in sex assault and rape cases, the read is that the accuser is making a false claim.

Cambridge Journals Online - The Cambridge Law Journal - Abstract - FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE




> ...police continue to misapply the no-crime or unfounding criteria and in so doing it would appear that some officers have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimization. The qualitative research also suggests that some officers tend to exhibit an unjustified suspicion of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as "proof" of a false allegation. Such findings suggest that there are inadequacies in police awareness of the dynamics and impact of sexual victimization and this further reinforces the importance of training and education.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Great work Feminists, you killed Sex*



Anon Pink said:


> I read a LOT of erotica and the male appears VERY ALPHA in the story when he turns his woman on yet won't deliver the goods until she begs for it. It's freaking HOT!


Which also explains why it's fiction ... written by a woman.


----------



## Mr. Nail

OK, I have been following this thread so much that it is affecting my life. This morning during my work out, I wondered if I should ask the persons swimming on either side of me if it was OK if I looked in their direction. The bulk of my workout is freestyle so I actually breathe on both sides. BTW which is creepier clear goggles, shaded or mirrored?

MN:scratchhead:


----------



## Blonde

Ripper said:


> Oh look, a feminist shaming tactic. How original!


Here is the feminist shaming tactic: "Great work Feminists, you killed Sex"

I was going to "like" your post for such an insight but then I saw that you quoted someone... tsk tsk...

Curious to shame the feminists in *the Men's club house*... :scratchhead:

I have college age daughters and I sure don't want them drugged, date raped, or disappearing as I hear in the news now and then...

If you want sex, date, win her heart, and make vows. The consent is in them.


----------



## Ikaika

Blonde said:


> Here is the feminist shaming tactic: "Great work Feminists, you killed Sex"
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to "like" your post for such an insight but then I saw that you quoted someone... tsk tsk...
> 
> 
> 
> Curious to shame the feminists in *the Men's club house*... :scratchhead:
> 
> 
> 
> I have college age daughters and I sure don't want them drugged, date raped, or disappearing as I hear in the news now and then...
> 
> 
> 
> If you want sex, date, win her heart, and make vows. The consent is in them.



The law was sponsored by senator Kevin De Leon, that crazy feminist. . Ok, ducking away. I want to steer very clear of this argument, especially given my career.


----------



## GusPolinski

Anon Pink said:


> :lol:
> 
> 
> I get it. I get your frustration. Sex is soooo complicated when you have to also think and be prepared for conversations. It was so much easier when you could simply whip it out and declare that it was on. Now you have shower, and be an alpha but not too d!ckish, and find a way to make verbal consent hot. Lotta work.


Actually, you don't "get it" at all. Thanks for making that abundantly clear.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Researchers: More than 2,000 false convictions in past 23 years - U.S. News
> 
> so the real question - which is worse, under incarceration or over false conviction. Our constitution tries to minimize false conviction


Considering that this false conviction rate amounts to less than 90 people per year, and includes all sorts of violent crimes, drug offenses and so on, and then comparing that against the huge number of rapes and sexual assaults that go completely unreported..

I'd venture that for rape and sexual crimes at least, under-incarceration is the greater threat.

This is doubly true for male victims, who almost never report.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Some women here it appears don't want to date, they want a girlfriend who can open pickle jars. I guess that's where LUGs come from.


----------



## naiveonedave

Anon Pink said:


> True, but the blame for false conviction goes to the police first, the DA second, the judge third, and the legal system last. Often times false conviction came as a result of bungled investigations, improper behavior of the prosecutor or improper application of trial law by the judge. IOW, it is rarely the witnesses fault some person was wrongfully convicted.


the FBI data does not back up your contention that only 3 in 100 rapist get punished. ~50% of rape crimes get convictions, based on the bulk data I looked at from the FBI. ~90K rapes reported and ~40K rapes got convictions (annual US numbers).

And the false convictions are pretty much her word over his, becuase there is usually little or no other evidence.


----------



## LongWalk

Anon Pink said:


> True, but the blame for false conviction goes to the police first, the DA second, the judge third, and the legal system last. Often times false conviction came as a result of bungled investigations, improper behavior of the prosecutor or improper application of trial law by the judge. IOW, it is rarely the witnesses fault some person was wrongfully convicted.


According to the article a major reason for false conviction was liars:



> *Fabricated crimes. False convictions in child sex abuse cases were usually due to fabricated crimes; sometimes a divorced parent told a child to make up lies about an ex-spouse abusing them, or police or a therapist convinced a child to say something that wasn't true.*
> 
> *Eyewitness mistakes.* In adult rape cases, for example, false convictions were typically based on eyewitness mistakes, "more often than not, mistakes by white victims falsely identifying black defendants," the report said.
> 
> *Misconduct by authorities.* For homicides, misconduct by authorities was the second-biggest cause of false convictions, just behind false eyewitness accounts.


In Sweden, there was a wave of convictions of parental child molesters whose cases depended on repressed memories that were liberated by therapists who specialized in the technique of uncovering the past.

I am sure that there are repressed memories but in the frenzy to discover these elusive fragments of the past the rules of evidence did not always mean much.

Human beings have a tendency to tar and feather. It goes both ways women who are raped sometimes are slandered as loose because they are exposing respectable people, e.g., pastors and priests. Other times innocent men are trashed because they are not handsome, charming and whatever else will get you off the hook.


----------



## Wolf1974

Anon Pink said:


> Because of those who recant, many (sorry I don't have numbers) recanted as a result of actual retaliation or threatened retaliation which would indeed be revictimzing the victim!


And also doesn't hold accountable those that lie. Two sides to every coin. But deterrence works so having a precedent that if you are the victim we will do whatever we can to listen and help but if you lie you will be charged would hopefully deter at least some false allegations. 

Course you have to exclude those who have mental health issues as deterance doesn't work on them but you can see what I'm saying


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Considering that this false conviction rate amounts to less than 90 people per year, and includes all sorts of violent crimes, drug offenses and so on, and then comparing that against the huge number of rapes and sexual assaults that go completely unreported..
> 
> I'd venture that for rape and sexual crimes at least, under-incarceration is the greater threat.
> 
> This is doubly true for male victims, who almost never report.


Unless, of course, one of those falsely convicted is you. Other data suggests 20K/year of false convictions, btw. I just linked the 1st study I found, then there is below, 10K/year minimum.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...8QFjAG&usg=AFQjCNHN6Y6WXPAyq8deaSmKAHj5ci_ypA


----------



## Anon Pink

Deejo said:


> Which also explains why it's fiction ... written by a woman.


From fiction we can get a lot of fun ideas, don't knock it till you've tried it. I'm aware of the less than stellar literary credentials of 99% or erotic writers! That's a given. However, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

The point I was making was in reply to this from the original post



COguy said:


> "Can I kiss you now?" "Can I french kiss you now?" "Can I kiss your neck?" "Can I take off your shirt?" "Can I rub your clit?" "Can I stick my penis in?" "Can I flip you over?" "Can I go faster and harder?" "Can I come on your chest?"


With a little imagination you, meaning men and women, can make consent work and work well.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> the FBI data does not back up your contention that only 3 in 100 rapist get punished. ~50% of rape crimes get convictions, based on the bulk data I looked at from the FBI. ~90K rapes reported and ~40K rapes got convictions (annual US numbers).


Note that your data only includes reported rapes. Anon Pink's includes unreported.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Great work Feminists, you killed Sex*



Wolf1974 said:


> Actually I find the complete opposite to be true. When it doubt you send it to the DAs office to file and review. They are the ultimate decision. You either have probable cause or you don't. So long as I do then that person will have their day in court. Determining innocence or guilt is not my job. Not even my part of the criminal justice system.
> 
> And I wasn't talking about that anyway. I have flat out caught a woman who lied about being kidnapped and raped. Truth is she ran away with her boyfriend because her parents didn't like him. They get in a fight and he dumps her. She makes up the whole story about being kidnapped and raped cause guess what now she is pregnant.
> 
> Whole thing stunk and we invested 100 man hours in finding this woman And the investigation just to have her admit she lied about the whole thing. DA refused to file false reporting. While this was an extreme case we get lied to a lot. But in these cases of domestic violence and rape false allegations you can make up a story and get away with it. Happens all the time


Brother is LEO. Just recently had a case where a husband reported his wife missing, she then showed up at home and reported being abducted and raped. She failed to follow up on the initial report. Brother kept after her. She confided to him she didn't want her affair discovered. 

We can keep playing this tennis match of who is a valid victim versus a false accuser.

Doesn't get us anywhere. 

I want to keep young women safe.

I'm not sure this legislation is the best means to that end.


----------



## always_alone

Runs like Dog said:


> Some women here it appears don't want to date, they want a girlfriend who can open pickle jars. I guess that's where LUGs come from.


:scratchhead: WTF?

Some women thinking consent is important.means they don't want to date? Because why?

Surely you're not suggesting that consent is a "woman" thing?


----------



## LongWalk

Young people should read TAM.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Note that your data only includes reported rapes. Anon Pink's includes unreported.


I agree, if you assume only 40% got reported (her data) to be true, then ~15-25% of rapes led to a conviction. Much higher than 3%. This is probably reasonably close to most crimes, though I won't look for the data. If the % of crimes that are false convictions are ture, then out of ~20 that get convicted and ~1 is a false conviction.

Going back to the OP, I think this is going to significantly up the false conviction percentage.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> No doubt, police have a very difficult job sorting through all the lies they are told: guilty people claiming innocence and pointing fingers in every direction but themselves.
> 
> And while clearly it isn't police's job to determine guilt or innocence, it is their job to conduct investigations -- and how this is done is influenced by their read of a situation. And typically in sex assault and rape cases, the read is that the accuser is making a false claim.
> 
> Cambridge Journals Online - The Cambridge Law Journal - Abstract - FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE


lol if you want to believe that we sit and think "typically" that all sex assault victims are lying then you have never spent a day in our shoes clerly. Interviewing a sex assault victim is one of the hardest things we have to do. I already know that the vast majority aren't lying so nice try. But that fact is that some do. And because some do you have to ask hard questions even to the ones you don't suspect are lying. 

Most all agencies have a victims unit like we do that are staffed with trained sex assault victim advocate that's sit in on interviews with us. Most of thier pre conceived notions of what we do and how we do it was thrown out the widow once they saw the real thing. I personally embrace them being there for two reasons. They understand and can explain better why we have to ask hard questions. And two they are invaulable in working with the victims long after my part of the investigation is done. Don't know if they have something like that where you live but if they do I would recommend highly you shadow them. I guess a third would be that they go back out into the community and when dealing with those who believe nonsense like this they can say...that's not true I have been in those interviews and the cops don't automatically think the victim is lying.

And laws like this aren't the answer and don't make sense. Typical law is written by politicians and special interest groups without ever talking to or consulting those it really effects. 

You want to make education and laws the work then have those that are affected, the students, those that administrate, the universities, and those who have to enforce, law enforcement, sit down and come up with something that works. It will be much better than consent throughout laws.


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> From fiction we can get a lot of fun ideas, don't knock it till you've tried it. I'm aware of the less than stellar literary credentials of 99% or erotic writers! That's a given. However, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
> 
> The point I was making was in reply to this from the original post
> 
> 
> 
> *With a little imagination you, meaning men and women, can make consent work and work well.*


Is it truly consent if it is sought in such a way as to encourage the affirmative? Asking for consent in a seductive, playful, hot, steamy, sexy, passionate way could easily be seen as coercion...I thought he really liked me with all those things he was saying...so why didn't the asshat call me?


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> Young people should read TAM.



Or, they should spend more time studying rather than figuring out which dorm rooms have the best parties. This is after all the mid-term season.

ETA: some of us barely yawn when we give out Fs. And, no this is not a euphemism or code for anything.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Unless, of course, one of those falsely convicted is you. Other data suggests 20K/year of false convictions, btw. I just linked the 1st study I found, then there is below, 10K/year minimum.
> 
> http://www.google.com/url?url=http:...8QFjAG&usg=AFQjCNHN6Y6WXPAyq8deaSmKAHj5ci_ypA


0.5 % of convictions for serious crimes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discount the problem, but let's keep it in perspective.

0.5 % of convictions are false, and not all of these are about false allegation.

Meanwhile, virtually all of date rape or acquaintance rape charges are immediately dismissed as someone "just changing their mind" or "making stuff up".


----------



## Wolf1974

Deejo said:


> Brother is LEO. Just recently had a case where a husband reported his wife missing, she then showed up at home and reported being abducted and raped. She failed to follow up on the initial report. Brother kept after her. She confided to him she didn't want her affair discovered.
> 
> We can keep playing this tennis match of who is a valid victim versus a false accuser.
> 
> Doesn't get us anywhere.
> 
> I want to keep young women safe.
> 
> I'm not sure this legislation is the best means to that end.


Of course. And so do I. But the problem is this. You have to be a good investigator while being gentle and empathetic. All realize that sex assault is traumatic. On the other side we get lied to and people make stuff up. As is this case you describe. 

I bet if you asked your brother what pisses him off most about that it wouldn't be that she lied or that she wasted his time and the time of the other officers. What likely pisses him off is the same thing the pisses me of in that it spits in the face of all the women who really are kidnapped and raped. It undermines those who really did suffer. It's for that reason I wish the DA would file in these cases.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> lol if you want to believe that we sit and think "typically" that all sex assault victims are lying then you have never spent a day in our shoes clerly.


I am quoting from a systematic review on the subject of false allegation in rape cases. A fairly careful review that challenges the methodologies of both studies that find very low false allegation rates, as well as those that find high ones.

And apparently systematic review shows that police do indeed tend to dismiss victims who don't exhibit expected behaviours or have clear evidence of their victimhood.

This isn't just my half-baked opinion, but one of the better and more careful analysis of the subject.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> 0.5 % of convictions for serious crimes.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to discount the problem, but let's keep it in perspective.
> 
> 0.5 % of convictions are false, and not all of these are about false allegation.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually all of date rape or acquaintance rape charges are immediately dismissed as someone "just changing their mind" or "making stuff up".


Most of the studies suggest 1% to 5% of serious crime convictions have been false convictions. If this law becomes nation wide and permanent, IMO, the use of the law under false preteneses will at a minimum increase false convictions. Think about it, if it is you, your son or your husband who is falsely convicted.

And i won't even address your last paragraph, as the Duke Lacross scandal clearly shows that is not the case. Flimsy evidence at best = CNN = disaster.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> I am quoting from a systematic review on the subject of false allegation in rape cases. A fairly careful review that challenges the methodologies of both studies that find very low false allegation rates, as well as those that find high ones.
> 
> And apparently systematic review shows that police do indeed tend to dismiss victims who don't exhibit expected behaviours or have clear evidence of their victimhood.
> 
> This isn't just my half-baked opinion, but one of the better and more careful analysis of the subject.


From a singular study done what about 10 years ago? If that what's you what to believe knock yourself out. I have been a cop for longer than that study has been out and been to classes specifically for the interviews of sex assault victims. I have also interviewed 50 or so sex assist victims both stranger, which are rare, and aquatince, which is much more common. I can only remember a very few cases, like 4 , where I caught the person totally lying to me about what happened. But it does happen

So you want to believe we are all doing that have at it. Just not true. I handle every case from burglary to rape the same and that's that the person is telling me the true account, from thier perspective, of what occurred. And I believe them until they prove to me otherwise.


----------



## Nostromo

What I find fascinating about this kind of topic is the fact that the same people (feminists) who claim that they want complete equality between the sexes, also believe that only a man can be held accountable if sex occurs after both a man and a woman have been drinking. If they're both inebriated and they end up sleeping together, if the woman later regrets having sex with him, nowadays they would label that as rape on the part of the man, but how are they being treating equally if the male is viewed as the sole responsible party when both of them decided to have sex? Why is the male seen as the only one between the two of them who is capable of controlling himself when they're in the same exact position and making the same decisions?

The message feminists are actually sending women is that females unlike males are simply too foolish and irresponsible to make a decision or be held accountable for their actions while drinking, whereas men in the same scenario really ought to know better than women and therefore must be held to a higher standard. Can women honestly not see how condescending this is? When you hold one group of people (women) to a lower standard than another group (men) you are in actuality saying that the lower standard group is inferior to the higher standard group. People don't expect less of you because they think highly of you, they expect less because they view you as something akin to a toddler that needs to have an adult hold their hand in order to walk across the street. I'm not sure what that is, but it's definitely not equality.


----------



## Racer

“Do you want to have sex with me?” will become the male equivalent of “Where is this relationship going?” Just one of those questions where the answer will define the continuing future of that relationship from that point on.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Actually Nostromo, it wasn't the drunk / high clause that bothered me that way. (it bothered me in a different way) It was the reckless clause. The non reckless person is responsible to identify that the reckless person is acting recklessly and stop them from doing something they are clearly consenting to. Will campuses have recklessness breathalyzers?

(actually That Girl has already answered this)

MN


----------



## Ikaika

So I have a colleague at UCSD, and the backdrop to this story goes this way:

A NIH study came out five years ago that lambasted your average university for alcohol related, injuries, crimes and deaths (much higher rates than in larger society). Most universities have long ago given up on trying to control drinking whether it be causal or binge drinking on campus. It is hard when even parents of these students are the ones raising the biggest "stink" about creating dry campuses. However, most schools are attempting to clean up aspects of this supposed "ritual". So, rather than trying to deal with the issue of drinking they, the universities, are going after the activities associated with drinking and thus is born a law such as this one and more to come across the country as federal law will expect some level of compliance or risk losing huge grants and accreditation. 

I am completely on the fence as to the effectiveness, but I'm sure if given the time I could argue both sides. When you send your son or daughter to us, please teach them well, especially in the area of being wise and responsible. We are not suggesting you have to become a monk or a nun, but grow up and do it quickly. A simple plea. And, yes I am one of those freakin' liberal professors. 

ETA: so it was not feminist it was university provosts, chancellors, presidents and BOR/trustees. Thank them, because it is all about the money.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio - we actually agree on somehting, LOL.


----------



## BaxJanson

How does one go about counting an unreported rape?

Up until 2012, the FBI defined rape as "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."

In 2012, it was changed to "any kind of penetration of another person, regardless of gender, without the victim's consent."

Good that it now includes men as possible rape victims, bad that it still only counts cases where a person is actually penetrated - discounting forced penetration.

With this kind of skewing going on at even the 'official' counts, unofficial estimates are near worthless, and "Everybody knows" and "All the time/Never/Virtually always" are, as usual marks of complete garbage numbers.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> drerio - we actually agree on somehting, LOL.



I'm a reasonable person who looks for the evidence and understanding behind every story.


----------



## GusPolinski

samyeagar said:


> Is it truly consent if it is sought in such a way as to encourage the affirmative? Asking for consent in a seductive, playful, hot, steamy, sexy, passionate way could easily be seen as coercion...I thought he really liked me with all those things he was saying...so why didn't the asshat call me?


So... I guess that what we should all embrace -- and teach our children -- is that any sex that falls short of the expectations set by said literature w/ regard to "affirmative, ongoing consent" essentially amounts to rape...?!?

Again... :doublefacepalm:


----------



## GusPolinski

BaxJanson said:


> *How does one go about counting an unreported rape?*
> 
> Up until 2012, the FBI defined rape as "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
> 
> In 2012, it was changed to "any kind of penetration of another person, regardless of gender, without the victim's consent."
> 
> Good that it now includes men as possible rape victims, bad that it still only counts cases where a person is actually penetrated - discounting forced penetration.
> 
> With this kind of skewing going on at even the 'official' counts, unofficial estimates are near worthless, and "Everybody knows" and "All the time/Never/Virtually always" are, as usual marks of complete garbage numbers.


I've often wondered that myself.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Well sex falls short of porn all the time too


----------



## Almostrecovered

After all when I delivered pizza I was never invited to an orgy


----------



## Ripper

Need consent? We now have an app for that.

Good2Go Is An App For Consenting To Sex


----------



## GusPolinski

Almostrecovered said:


> Well sex falls short of porn all the time too


That's kind of my point. We shouldn't be teaching our children to adopt such unrealistic expectations w/ regard to sex.

"Well, the sex wasn't _quite_ hot and steamy enough, so it must've been rape. If only there'd been a been more of that 'hot and steamy', I might have felt compelled to give 'ongoing, affirmative consent'. But, since I didn't..."


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> From a singular study done what about 10 years ago? If that what's you what to believe knock yourself out. I have been a cop for longer than that study has been out and been to classes specifically for the interviews of sex assault victims.


It is a literature review, a systematic analysis of a whole slew of studies on the topic. Which you would know if you'd bothered to even glance at it.

But if you want to believe your anecdotes outweigh all research into the subject, nothing I can say can change that.


----------



## Ikaika

GusPolinski said:


> That's kind of my point. We shouldn't be teaching our children to adopt such unrealistic expectations w/ regard to sex.
> 
> 
> 
> "Well, the sex wasn't _quite_ hot and steamy enough, so it must've been rape. If only there'd been a been more of that 'hot and steamy', I might have felt compelled to give 'ongoing, affirmative consent'. But, since I didn't..."



I think if you look at articles (a) 2A, 4A, B & C your assumption is not part of the deal. It has to do with activities related to the state of mind of the alleged victim and whether he/she could rightfully consent. 

But, as I have said, I could argue both sides. And, one needs to understand that if parents don't want their sons "wrongfully" accused or their daughters put into harmful situations, demand universities be completely dry. Problem solved.


----------



## ocotillo

I apologize if I've overlooked it, but does anyone have a link to the actual verbiage of the law?

My first inclination is to say, "So what?" but maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## Ikaika

ocotillo said:


> I apologize if I've overlooked it, but does anyone have a link to the actual verbiage of the law?
> 
> 
> 
> My first inclination is to say, "So what?" but maybe I'm missing something.



https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967


----------



## GusPolinski

drerio said:


> I think if you look at articles (a) 2A, 4A, B & C your assumption is not part of the deal. It has to do with activities related to the state of mind of the alleged victim and whether he/she could rightfully consent.
> 
> But, as I have said, I could argue both sides. And, one needs to understand that if parents don't want their sons "wrongfully" accused or their daughters put into harmful situations, demand universities be completely dry. Problem solved.


My last 2-3 posts have been aimed at AP's assertions that the literotica that she's been mentioning should be used as some sort of baseline or litmus test to properly gauge the requirements for having given -- and received -- consent w/ respect to initiating / continuing / escalating sexual activity.


----------



## LongWalk

One of the primary reasons young people drink so much is to break down the social barriers that discourage sexual intimacy.

Playboys top party schools 2014. Link

University of Hawaii lost ground because of aggressive grading policies pioneered by the pre-med biology program.


----------



## Ikaika

GusPolinski said:


> My last 2-3 posts have been aimed at AP's assertions that the literotica that she's been mentioning should be used as some sort of baseline or litmus test to properly gauge the requirements for having given -- and received -- consent w/ respect to initiating / continuing / escalating sexual activity.



Well, that is far beyond the interpretation of this law and section (b) 9 should help to put any other interpretations to rest. 

So the original premise that this law "kills" sex is a bit far from what it actually says.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> One of the primary reasons young people drink so much is to break down the social barriers that discourage sexual intimacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Playboys top party schools 2014. Link
> 
> 
> 
> University of Hawaii lost ground because of aggressive grading policies pioneered by the pre-med biology program.



I guess that would make UH a better school than UPenn, academically speaking.


----------



## Miss Taken

*Re: Re: Great work Feminists, you killed Sex*



Almostrecovered said:


> that's not a joke, that's a real item sold for Africans where rape is a much more widespread problem


I know sadly, but felt it was post here to be funny.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Ripper said:


> Need consent? We now have an app for that.
> 
> Good2Go Is An App For Consenting To Sex












I must admit I get an wicked sense of amusement out of the casual sex crowd from women who have no freaking idea who fathered their child.. (but so sorry for these kids) .... to this app.. 










From the article...


> When asked why the app informs a "Pretty Wasted" user that she/he can't consent (even though they're sober enough to be using Good2Go), Allman told The Huffington Post in an email: "If someone answers 'I'm Pretty Wasted' the app will not allow an affirmative consent answer even though they probably aren't at the legal threshold of incapacitation. We have set a higher bar concerning sobriety than the law defines."
> 
> Allman also made it very clear that the purpose of the app is to teach young people "the language of affirmative consent." "If the app becomes a tool that is adopted across campuses, we believe that it will reduce sexual assaults, unwanted or regretted encounters," she said.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a singular study done what about 10 years ago? If that what's you what to believe knock yourself out. I have been a cop for longer than that study has been out and been to classes specifically for the interviews of sex assault victims.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a literature review, a systematic analysis of a whole slew of studies on the topic. Which you would know if you'd bothered to even glance at it.
> 
> But if you want to believe your anecdotes outweigh all research into the subject, nothing I can say can change that.
Click to expand...

I did read it just don't agree and not my experience. You want to believe that knock yourself out like I said. I invited you to seek out the truth with your own eyes at a local police agency but if you would rather go off what a study by academics say vs people who live it then its really no suprise . Anyone can scour the Internet and find studies to support thier cause. Here is one on the role of campus police much more recent than a 10 year old study. It
Showes the growing trend of responsibility of police to investigate and take seriously sex assault cases

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-campus-police-officers-role-sex.html

So you can pick and choose what you want to believe. You can also go and find out first hand if you like.


----------



## Wolf1974

Ripper said:


> Need consent? We now have an app for that.
> 
> Good2Go Is An App For Consenting To Sex


Just wow


I don't know if I should laugh or just feel bad for society. That app and that link to cherry 2000 dating scene while once was a joke is sadly the real deal now. Just wow


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Just wow
> 
> 
> I don't know if I should laugh or just feel bad for society. That app and that link to cherry 2000 dating scene while once was a joke is sadly the real deal now. Just wow



It needs to come with a breathalyzer adaptor to confirm state of mind for consent. Some smart student not getting laid can make a lot of money for him or herself.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Wolf1974
One problem is that it is difficult to differentiate between false claims and unsubstantiated claims. 






Wolf1974 said:


> This would be a great solution However most DA's won't file false reporting to authories on the cases of sex assault and domestic violence. Some of that is political pressure and some of it is special interest group pressure. How it's always been explained to our academy rookies is we don't want to give the impression of charging victims of domestic violence or sexual assault
> 
> 
> And yes every class does raise their hand and ask but how can they be victims if they are lying. Never have heard a satisfactory answer to that one.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Wolf1974 said:


> Just wow
> 
> 
> I don't know if I should laugh or just feel bad for society. That app and that link to cherry 2000 dating scene while once was a joke is sadly the real deal now. Just wow


Just shows how utterly cheapened sex has become.. very very very sad !!!


----------



## GusPolinski

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just shows how utterly cheapened sex has become.. very very very sad !!!


I'd definitely agree w/ that!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Anon Pink
I don't think those numbers indicate the number of false rape claims. I have no idea what the rate of false claims is - it would be extremely difficult to know because you can't know what percentage of accused rapists who were acquitted were in fact innocent and what percentage were guilty, but there was insufficient evidence.

There have been convicted rapists cleared by DNA evidence, but the statistics are distorted: the Innocence Project and similar groups of course target the weakest cases for review.

I've always liked the idea that "its better than 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man is convicted". I consider it possible that at least 1% of rape accusations are false.

If the standards of proof for rape are reduced, then it is possible that there will be more false claims. I don't know. 

There are really several categories to consider, and unfortunately no way to distinguish them:

1 Woman is raped, makes accusation, rapist is convicted

2 Woman is raped, makes accusation, rapist is acquitted for lack of evidence

3 Woman is not raped, makes false accusation , rapist is convicted.

4 Woman is not raped, makes false accusation, rapists is not convicted.

5 Woman is raped, chooses not to make accusation because she knows there is not enough evidence


I don't know how to distinguish #1 and #3 or #2 and #4. So I don't know how to estimate the percentage of false claims to see if it is above my 1% threshold.






Anon Pink said:


> Yes, both happen. But considering 60% of rapes in the US go *unreported* and only 3% of *rape charges* end up in conviction and jail time, we are up in arms about something highly unlikely to ever happen to anyone's sons.
> 
> 
> View attachment 29306


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening blonde
but consent is not assumed in marriage (nor should it be). 



Blonde said:


> Here is the feminist shaming tactic: "Great work Feminists, you killed Sex"
> 
> I was going to "like" your post for such an insight but then I saw that you quoted someone... tsk tsk...
> 
> Curious to shame the feminists in *the Men's club house*... :scratchhead:
> 
> I have college age daughters and I sure don't want them drugged, date raped, or disappearing as I hear in the news now and then...
> 
> If you want sex, date, win her heart, and make vows. The consent is in them.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening 
I had a male friend who did pizza delivery who was (really!). 



Almostrecovered said:


> After all when I delivered pizza I was never invited to an orgy


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening GusPolinski
I haven't seen anyone suggest that bad sex, or regret constitute rape. I see general agreement that sex without consent IS rape, and the issue is defining what constitutes consent, and how other people can determine if consent was given.




GusPolinski said:


> That's kind of my point. We shouldn't be teaching our children to adopt such unrealistic expectations w/ regard to sex.
> 
> "Well, the sex wasn't _quite_ hot and steamy enough, so it must've been rape. If only there'd been a been more of that 'hot and steamy', I might have felt compelled to give 'ongoing, affirmative consent'. But, since I didn't..."


----------



## always_alone

I have to say, I find it exceedingly depressing just how hostile people are to the simple concept of "consent".

Consent is not just for women, but also men.

Consent laws were not introduced by feminists, but conservative university administrators afraid of litigation because of the sheer number of sexual assaults that happen on campus.

And most important of all:
The point is not that women aren't responsible and men are. The point is that in the vast majority of cases, the person claiming the sex was non-consensual is telling the truth. And current law hasn't done much to protect them, either men or women.


----------



## GusPolinski

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening GusPolinski
> I haven't seen anyone suggest that bad sex, or regret constitute rape. I see general agreement that sex without consent IS rape, and the issue is defining what constitutes consent, and how other people can determine if consent was given.


OK, so I've let loose w/ a little hyperbole.

But not much...



Anon Pink said:


> In terms of how sexy and hot getting continual consent can be, I will compile a list of erotic romance title in which this exact scenario is played out at least once and post it here, if it's okay.
> 
> Gaining continual consent if the "new challenge of erotic authors" and they do a great job of making it sexy and hot!


----------



## Anon Pink

staarz21 said:


> Probably it did, yes. The same goes for men. What about false allegation claims? I'm not denying that some don't come forward. I've never argued that. I was talking solely about false claims.
> 
> No. I don't see a difference between a nice pair of tits to look at sexually and a bare man chest to look at sexually. If we are talking equality then a bare chest is a bare chest...am I right? So, if a woman is offended by a man saying he saw a nice pair of tits, then a man has the same right to be upset about a woman saying she saw a naked chest of a man. Equality is equality. Seems silly now doesn't it? That's because of the inequality of our genders.


The difference is that a man's bare chest, while inappropriate in the work place will not get him arrested for indecent exposure, while a woman's bare chest WILL.





> Look, I can't account for everyone in the military. All I know is what I see in front of me. In my H's work - it's mostly men. Not one woman here at his shop (there are now 3 I think, but one works in a front office) has been sexually assaulted. Not one. But 2 men have been reported.
> 
> On deployment in his squadron, 3 men were reported and sent home. Not one woman was assaulted.
> 
> They have changed the rules so much in the last 4 years. I am not joking when I say that if you look at someone wrong - you WILL be reprimanded - usually by losing rank, but since they are making so many cuts - it COULD end your career right now. It's serious. They've never taken it to this level before. A little too late? Maybe. But so are divorce laws and child support and alimony laws...etc etc.


Staarz, this one admittedly egregious case of false accusation does NOT indicate a wide spread practice of unstable women making false claims and ruining lives all a cross the country. 

The military is fighting a bill that would remove them from the chain of command for sexual assault charges and in trying to appear as if they've got everything under control, they are stampeding over people's reputations. And that is JUST as wrong. But don't blame the victims for that, don't even blame the proposed bill for that. BLAME the stupid asshats who sat on their thumbs and did nothing while service women were raped with impunity and suffered consequences when they actually DID report.


----------



## LongWalk

People are not hostile to consent. Just explain how it fits in with the definition of rape.

If someone has sex with a person who is drunk, who knows what they said. Do they remember in the morning? Perhaps a woman is laughing one minute, kissing the next and throwing up soon afterwards. Determining what happened is very difficult. Should a woman's selective memory of such a situation be enough to convict someone of a crime with a long prison sentence?

Ironically, some rapists actually film their exploits on smart phones and this is their undoing. That is evidence.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Always_alone
I completely agree. I am surprised and saddened that some posters seem to object to the idea of consent. I hope I am just misinterpreting their posts.

To be clear, I absolutely believe that consent is required. I think there is some grey area around what counts as consent, and what constitutes a demonstration of consent to another person. 

I think the really difficult part is when we switch from talking about how people should behave to when we are talking about legal standards for conviction. 

In the legal system there is a tension between trying to protect the victim and trying to protect the accused. I think that this is unusually difficult in rape cases due the nature of the crime. Although I have read your statement that it is much like other crimes, I have to disagree. I think that since sex is often a mutually beneficial interaction between two people, but can in the case of rape be a violent crime, it is fundamentally different from almost any other crime. 





always_alone said:


> I have to say, I find it exceedingly depressing just how hostile people are to the simple concept of "consent".
> 
> Consent is not just for women, but also men.
> 
> Consent laws were not introduced by feminists, but conservative university administrators afraid of litigation because of the sheer number of sexual assaults that happen on campus.
> 
> And most important of all:
> The point is not that women aren't responsible and men are. The point is that in the vast majority of cases, the person claiming the sex was non-consensual is telling the truth. And current law hasn't done much to protect them, either men or women.


----------



## Blonde

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening blonde
> but consent is not assumed in marriage (nor should it be).


Consent is in the vows, "to have and to hold". That does not translate to "sex on demand". Sex is an entitlement of marriage but marital rape is also possible. 

Sex should be in the context of the commitment of marriage, consensual, and provide mutual pleasure IMO.

My third daughter married her college sweetheart this past weekend and they weren't of the "get em drunk and get a piece" crowd. Those who are so defensive of that crowd... don't come near my daughters, please.


----------



## Anon Pink

She is beautiful Blonde! Congratulations!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Blonde
Its complicated. I believe that marriage changes assumed consent: I doubt anyone would fault me for grabbing my wife from behind and kissing her on the neck without warning, unless she has specifically told me not to do so in the past. Doing this to a random person would probably be considered assault.

Exactly where that "assumed consent" ends is very unclear. 

In *good* marriages, this issue will never come up - each will be sensitive to what the other wants and doesn't want.




Blonde said:


> Consent is in the vows, "to have and to hold". That does not translate to "sex on demand". Sex is an entitlement of marriage but marital rape is also possible.
> 
> Sex should be in the context of the commitment of marriage, consensual, and provide mutual pleasure IMO.
> 
> My third daughter married her college sweetheart this past weekend and they weren't of the "get em drunk and get a piece" crowd. Those who are so defensive of that crowd... don't come near my daughters, please.


----------



## staarz21

Anon Pink said:


> The difference is that a man's bare chest, while inappropriate in the work place will not get him arrested for indecent exposure, while a woman's bare chest WILL.
> 
> 
> *Staarz, this one admittedly egregious case of false accusation does NOT indicate a wide spread practice of unstable women making false claims and ruining lives all a cross the country.*
> 
> The military is fighting a bill that would remove them from the chain of command for sexual assault charges and in trying to appear as if they've got everything under control, they are stampeding over people's reputations. And that is JUST as wrong. But don't blame the victims for that, don't even blame the proposed bill for that. BLAME the stupid asshats who sat on their thumbs and did nothing while service women were raped with impunity and suffered consequences when they actually DID report.


That is why I said I cannot account for everyone in the military. 

We are never going to see eye to eye, so I will end the arguing here. I am not opposed to your view at all. I've said that all along. But there seems to be a lack of looking from the other side here. 

Bottom line:

Consent - Yes. definitely have it. 

Punish the ones guilty...but make sure they are guilty.


----------



## GusPolinski

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Always_alone
> I completely agree. I am surprised and saddened that some posters seem to object to the idea of consent. *I hope I am just misinterpreting their posts.*


You are.



richardsharpe said:


> To be clear, I absolutely believe that consent is required.


Well yeah. Duh. 



richardsharpe said:


> I think there is some grey area around what counts as consent, and what constitutes a demonstration of consent to another person.


Exactly correct, and it's these clumsy, bumbling, knee-jerk attempts to iteratively define what it means to give and receive consent that has so many of us so frustrated.



richardsharpe said:


> I think the really difficult part is when we switch from talking about how people should behave to when we are talking about legal standards for conviction.


Yep.



richardsharpe said:


> In the legal system there is a tension between trying to protect the victim and trying to protect the accused. I think that this is unusually difficult in rape cases due the nature of the crime. Although I have read your statement that it is much like other crimes, I have to disagree. I think that since sex is often a mutually beneficial interaction between two people, but can in the case of rape be a violent crime, it is fundamentally different from almost any other crime.


Well, I'm not sure just how often it's _mutually_ beneficial... LOL.

Seriously, though, _any_ crime can be perpetrated in a brutally violent manner. Rape, however, stands apart from the rest of them due to the very nature of the crime... because _it is a fundamental violation and distortion of something that should be *exactly the opposite* of either brutal of violent._

From Detective Elliot Stabler (Character) - Quotes ...

Elliot Stabler: [after being asked why he joined SVU] I think sex should be one of the best experiences in life, not one of the worst.


----------



## Thundarr

Why do we think a bunch of innocent guys are going to be falsely accused by this? There's just too many conspiracies in this thread. The law is written vague enough that verbal consent is not required. Just coherent participation. It's not what the law is intended for and judges feel like screwing over lives just for the hell of it. Now it's just clear that a falling down drunk girl at a party is risky so make sure she's into you and people can tell you're not dragging her off.

There's still he said / she said which means people have to coraborate that she was wasted or incoherent.


----------



## that_girl

Wow. Those of you that think marriage means sexual availability at all times need to move to Iran. It's law there.

Rape happens in marriage and it's just as damaging. Being forced to have sex is not good sex. Men don't get it because it's pretty hard to FORCE a man to be penetrated. Just because people are married doesn't mean the woman forfeits her body over to the dude.


----------



## Wolf1974

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Wolf1974
> One problem is that it is difficult to differentiate between false claims and unsubstantiated claims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This would be a great solution However most DA's won't file false reporting to authories on the cases of sex assault and domestic violence. Some of that is political pressure and some of it is special interest group pressure. How it's always been explained to our academy rookies is we don't want to give the impression of charging victims of domestic violence or sexual assault
> 
> 
> And yes every class does raise their hand and ask but how can they be victims if they are lying. Never have heard a satisfactory answer to that one.
Click to expand...

Not really unsubstantiated means you can't prove it. Which is where most those "studies" have it wrong. Just because a case isn't winable or can't be proven in court doesn't mean it didn't happen. On the contrary it would never see a courtroom
If the police and DA didn't believe it happend. Some cases you just can't win

False claims are lies and while you can't prove them all you can many times catch a person in a lie.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> Here is one on the role of campus police much more recent than a 10 year old study. It
> Showes the growing trend of responsibility of police to investigate and take seriously sex assault cases
> 
> http://m.phys.org/news/2014-01-campu...-role-sex.html
> 
> So you can pick and choose what you want to believe. You can also go and find out first hand if you like.


Thanks for the link, Wolf! In fact it rather reinforces exactly the problems I've been speaking about:



> Less than half of officers surveyed believe that Texas colleges and universities have effective responses to sexual assault, and only one-third of the officers believed their campus administrators took a proactive approach to the problem. Less than half of the law enforcement officers surveyed said their departments were involved in efforts to improve response to sexual assault cases.


Turns out not much has changed in the last 10 years. At least not in Texas.


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just shows how utterly cheapened sex has become.. very very very sad !!!


It's been this way for 40-50 years. At least I think it has. The thing that changed is that now we have social media and hence social media hookups. But those looking for casual sex have been able to find it for a while.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Thanks for the link, Wolf! In fact it rather reinforces exactly the problems I've been speaking about:
> 
> 
> 
> Turns out not much has changed in the last 10 years. At least not in Texas.


If that's actually true, and not sure I'm taking the bait on this one, then that's what I have been saying all along. That laws like this don't make sense so let's make laws that do and are enforceable.


----------



## BaxJanson

It's important to bear in mind that many of these changes are due to Title IX funding, which is a disaster and a travesty of justice. If a school wants to continue receiving Federal funds, they must set up their own disciplinary board and process, alongside the criminal cases. Even if a person (man) is exonerated by the justice system, often by the time that comes around, the school's already expelled the 'troublemaker.' Can't be seen looking soft on rapists, after all.

Actually, I think the worst thing that comes from all of this kind of a muddled mess is precisely this: when the law is this convoluted and impossible to decipher, then the trend is for people to lose respect for the law - all law. Oh, they might still follow it as best they can - covering their asses as best they can, but they will be cautious, and break it when they can.


----------



## Thundarr

always_alone said:


> I have to say, I find it exceedingly depressing just how hostile people are to the simple concept of "consent".
> 
> Consent is not just for women, but also men.
> 
> Consent laws were not introduced by feminists, but conservative university administrators afraid of litigation because of the sheer number of sexual assaults that happen on campus.
> 
> And most important of all:
> The point is not that women aren't responsible and men are. The point is that in the vast majority of cases, the person claiming the sex was non-consensual is telling the truth. And current law hasn't done much to protect them, either men or women.


:iagree:
Consent was apparently too ambiguous. Too many interpreted it as 'not saying no'. This legislation makes the distinction that coherent is part of the equation.


----------



## Thundarr

Again I think we're crying wolf too quickly without merit. We've always had laws about the age of sexual consent yet somehow the justice system has done a descent job of not convicting guys who were not intentionally cradle robbing. In other words, when a 15 year old girl looks 20 and pretends to be so, it's very difficult to convict a guy because he didn't have criminal intent.

I'm not sure about everyone else but remembering back to my party days, it was pretty easy to spot girls who had too much to drink.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Blonde said:


> Consent is in the vows, "to have and to hold". That does not translate to "sex on demand". Sex is an entitlement of marriage but marital rape is also possible.
> 
> Sex should be in the context of the commitment of marriage, consensual, and provide mutual pleasure IMO.
> 
> *My third daughter married her college sweetheart this past weekend and they weren't of the "get em drunk and get a piece" crowd. Those who are so defensive of that crowd... don't come near my daughters, please.*


I love love love hearing stories like THIS.. she looks so much like you Blonde [email protected]#... I'd cry at a Wedding like that.. 

Our oldest son's B-day is today, he is still hoping to find a woman like your Daughter...he never wanted anything to do with the hook up scene, he got through 4 yrs of college & never touched that.. he had his 1st beer on his 21st B-day when we took him to a Brewery to celebrate, not your average young man is he.. and some would mock him for those things .. he wouldn't really care - which is good. 

I have just as much lost hope he is going to find what he is looking for...there just isn't too many women like that around anymore.. everyone seems to drink and party these days...like it's a right of passage...


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening that_girl
I agree with all that, except it is of course possible to rape men - it happens horrifyingly frequently in prison.

Women raping men is MUCH rarer, but it also does happen. 



that_girl said:


> Wow. Those of you that think marriage means sexual availability at all times need to move to Iran. It's law there.
> 
> Rape happens in marriage and it's just as damaging. Being forced to have sex is not good sex. Men don't get it because it's pretty hard to FORCE a man to be penetrated. Just because people are married doesn't mean the woman forfeits her body over to the dude.


----------



## Thundarr

SimplyAmorous said:


> I have just as much lost hope he is going to find what he is looking for...there just isn't too many women like that around anymore.. everyone seems to drink and party these days...like it's a right of passage...


It seems that way on the surface but it's deceptive IMO. A lot of girls (and guys) hang out with friends drinking and partying but they're not hooking up like their friends. And let's not forget that some very good people make mistakes. Maybe your son is the type of man who can see a girl for who she is and not judge her for every mistake.


----------



## Wolf1974

SimplyAmorous said:


> I love love love hearing stories like THIS.. she looks so much like you Blonde [email protected]#... I'd cry at a Wedding like that..
> 
> Our oldest son's B-day is today, he is still hoping to find a woman like your Daughter...he never wanted anything to do with the hook up scene, he got through 4 yrs of college & never touched that.. he had his 1st beer on his 21st B-day when we took him to a Brewery to celebrate, not your average young man is he.. and some would mock him for those things .. he wouldn't really care - which is good.
> 
> I have just as much lost hope he is going to find what he is looking for...there just isn't too many women like that around anymore.. everyone seems to drink and party these days...like it's a right of passage...


Sounds like the kinda guy I will hope for my daughters. Sounds like you did a great job raising him


----------



## GusPolinski

Thundarr said:


> It seems that way on the surface but it's deceptive IMO. A lot of girls (and guys) hang out with friends drinking and partying but they're not hooking up like their friends. And let's not forget that some very good people make mistakes. Maybe your son is the type of man who can see a girl for who she is and not judge her for every mistake.


I don't mean to come across as being "preachy", per se, but it sort of depends on the mistakes. Or, rather, whether or not lessons have been taken from them. After all, a mistake from which no lesson has been taken isn't really a "past" mistake.


----------



## LongWalk

Thundarr said:


> Why do we think a bunch of innocent guys are going to be falsely accused by this? There's just too many conspiracies in this thread. The law is written vague enough that verbal consent is not required. Just coherent participation. It's not what the law is intended for and judges feel like screwing over lives just for the hell of it. Now it's just clear that a falling down drunk girl at a party is risky so make sure she's into you and people can tell you're not dragging her off.
> 
> There's still he said / she said which means people have to coraborate that she was wasted or incoherent.


Have you read the law?

Perhaps I have misunderstood but my impression is that the law mandates the cut of funding to California schools of higher education that do not have a policy of supporting women who are victims in episodes of non-consensual sex and seek redress.

It is unclear how supporting them differs from supporting victims of rape. Are universities going to hold proceedings against accused individuals in some civil process?

I don't see the mechanism. Are universities supposed to aid women transform non-consensual sex into rape cases?


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> Have you read the law?
> 
> Perhaps I have misunderstood but my impression is that the law mandates the cut of funding to California schools of higher education that do not have a policy of supporting women who are victims in episodes of non-consensual sex and seek redress.
> 
> It is unclear how supporting them differs from supporting victims of rape. Are universities going to hold proceedings against accused individuals in some civil process?
> 
> I don't see the mechanism. Are universities supposed to aid women transform non-consensual sex into rape cases?


Yes I read it LongWalk but I'll certainly read it again since these things are written in lawyer language. I agree it seems that there must be a policy in place to keep funding. That's fine by me since policies are merely the methodology of investigation steps that require due dilligence of the university to explore the allegations. In the end though, there still has to be compelling indicators that someone was taken advantage of. That seems like the logical requirement to me anyway.


----------



## Thundarr

GusPolinski said:


> I don't mean to come across as being "preachy", per se, but it sort of depends on the mistakes. Or, rather, whether or not lessons have been taken from them. After all, a mistake from which no lesson has been taken isn't really a "past" mistake.


Gus, your comment is far from preachy. History matters if we're thinking logically and it's one of our only early indicators of probable future behavior. But eventually we know a person and time tells if they have learned from past mistakes or not IMO. I can certainly say that I'm a better husband to my wife than I was to my first wife. She's also proven over the past 20 years that she learned from past mistakes otherwise we'd never have made it this far.


----------



## Wolfman1968

always_alone said:


> People also willingly give things away, loan them out, or invite them into their homes.
> 
> Indeed, I have given away jewelery, for example, as a gift, but when I was broken into and had a bunch stolen, the police never asked "so, are you absolutely sure that you didn't give this stuff away?"
> 
> No, they believed me right from the starting gate. Different story when I pressed charges for rape. Indeed all those conversations were about vindictive psycho women and false accusations
> 
> These things are always more cut and dried when there's a gun (or other weapon) involved. But sexual assault and rape are the only crimes where the kneejerk reaction is to assume the victims are to blame. This is true for both men and women victims of sexual crimes


I already addressed this. In fact, it is in the quote you pasted,

Breaking in means some stranger (or at the very least) uninvited person came to steal from you. There is virtually NO instance when this is voluntary.

Giving away jewelry to someone you know is a completely different situation. If the person maintained that you gave it, and there is at all any reason to think it would be true (e.g., it was your sister who received it) you can BET that they would not automatically take your word for it, and you would indeed be questioned. In fact, it may well end up in civil court, not criminal court at all, and the police/district attorney may well take a pass at it altogether.

Your break-in would be more analogous to a rape victim found bleeding, unconscious, stabbed in some alleyway. As with a break-in, there is no conceivable way that the police would ask if this is consensual.

Again, I do not see the point of even bringing this silly comparison of property crimes to this discussion. What is the underlying point? The implications about some disparate treatment between property crimes and sexual accusations aren't even true, as I have shown. I don't see how this whole line of discussion about property crimes has anything to do with affirmative consent campus policies.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Anon Pink said:


> A
> It's totally true and the comparison is apt. If someone stole your car would you ever have to prove you didn't lend it to him? No, the thief would have to prove you did!
> 
> 
> 
> No, you wouldn't have to prove trespassing. Your word alone would be good enough. Even if he is your brother, all you'd have to do is say we got into a fight and I revoked consent but he didn't leave.
> 
> .


Wolf, who actually works in law enforcement, has refuted this in a subsequent posting in this thread (quoting the above, in fact),

As his description of his actual, professional daily experience in this shows that your contention is simply not true, I will let his refutation serve as my response as well.


----------



## PreRaphaelite

I really don't have many words of wisdom to add here, just a few comments.

- This push behind this seems to come mostly from college administrators who are trying to show they're doing something about date rape among students. They use feminist rhetoric and try to gain the backing of feminist groups to make them look good.

- Consent is sometimes a pretty clear thing, but sometimes it isn't, and creating a law about "affirmative consent" isn't going to make it any easier to resolve date rape situations if no one else is around, and it could easily be misused. 

- Sex is ambiguous. It's a very strong drive in most of us and we want it, but there can also be lots of contradictory emotions involved. Not just whether you like the partner you're with, but about yourself. Sex has a big unknown to it that comes from something deep inside that we often don't understand, and in the middle of it, or after it, emotions can change and can change very quickly. That sea of emotions is not something you can simply put into a "Yes" or a "No", but that's what the law demands.

- I remember a Spike Lee movie called "She's gotta have it." There was one scene where the young woman, who had brushed off the guy earlier (played by Denzel Washington), tries to lure him back. They have intercourse and the guy (Denzel) gets a bit rough because she's really put him down in the past. She starts to not like it and tells him to stop and pull out. He keeps going to the end and that's that. Spike Lee was trying to show exactly the ambiguity of such situations, and that there are many, many emotions involved including desire, aggression, manipulation, humiliation, and love. Now according to this law, Mr. Washington's character would get thrown in the slammer. Is that the right thing?


----------



## naiveonedave

To Thundarr - IMO this law, by nature, is designed to basically put more men in jail. I see the intentions as being good, no rapist should go unpunished. HOWEVER, in our society, it is up to the prosecutor to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused rapist is a rapist. The law makes it easier, as you now basically need to have a form filled out, however, not having that form filled out does not make you a rapist.

There is no way this law does not put a higher number of innocent men in jail.


----------



## always_alone

Wolfman1968 said:


> Again, I do not see the point of even bringing this silly comparison of property crimes to this discussion. What is the underlying point?


The point is simply that sexual assault is the only crime where the first reaction is blame and deride the victim. Take this thread for example, where requiring consent is likened to placing a gun in women's hands for them to go all vigilante on men for no good reason, as of course the men are innocent.

Even if she said she didn't want to sleep with him
Or tried to push him off.

I mean, really? 

All the excuses in the world for the poor sod who cares not about consent, and lots of fingers pointed at women for lacking responsibility, making false accusations, being a vindictive psycho *****.

The accused is innocent until proved guilty, but the accuser is guilty from the get go.


----------



## IIJokerII

PreRaphaelite said:


> - I remember a Spike Lee movie called "She's gotta have it." There was one scene where the young woman, who had brushed off the guy earlier (played by Denzel Washington), tries to lure him back. They have intercourse and the guy (Denzel) gets a bit rough because she's really put him down in the past. She starts to not like it and tells him to stop and pull out. He keeps going to the end and that's that. Spike Lee was trying to show exactly the ambiguity of such situations, and that there are many, many emotions involved including desire, aggression, manipulation, humiliation, and love. Now according to this law, Mr. Washington's character would get thrown in the slammer. Is that the right thing?


Yes, however the ambiguity of the rejection will eventually come into question as to her stating no vs the reaction time of him stopping. Any woman, or man for that matter, has the explicit right to suspend or stop sex at any time. But lets say she says stop and her partner proceeds to continue on, but for only a few more moments as if he was slowing down from running a race and then disengages from her. In effect since he did not stop instantaneously he broke the law and faces the repercussions from this law.


----------



## treyvion

GusPolinski said:


> I don't mean to come across as being "preachy", per se, but it sort of depends on the mistakes. Or, rather, whether or not lessons have been taken from them. After all, a mistake from which no lesson has been taken isn't really a "past" mistake.


I mean up to a week ago if this person has stolen, used people, set people up over the last 7 years, should you really be overlooking all that sheistiness?

They are the sum results of their actions and I do judge someone based on their overall character.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> The point is simply that sexual assault is the only crime where the first reaction is blame and deride the victim. Take this thread for example, where requiring consent is likened to placing a gun in women's hands for them to go all vigilante on men for no good reason, as of course the men are innocent.
> 
> Even if she said she didn't want to sleep with him
> Or tried to push him off.
> 
> I mean, really?
> 
> All the excuses in the world for the poor sod who cares not about consent, and lots of fingers pointed at women for lacking responsibility, making false accusations, being a vindictive psycho *****.
> 
> The accused is innocent until proved guilty, but the accuser is guilty from the get go.


You confuse blaming with questioning. You dont blame the victim ever. But you do have to establish that a crime did in fact occur. I have no idea how you can't see that.....I think perhaps it's that you just don't want to.

Asking a victim...did you consent to having sex, did you push him away, did you ever say no, stop, get off, isn't blaming or dismissing anything that happened and certainly doesn't blame the victim. What it does is establish that a crime has in fact been committed and that you have probable cause to make an arrest.

And this is NOT the only crime where you ask these types of questions. From assault to property crime when you have a victim present you ask the questions needed to establish that a crime did in fact occur. This is almost always true when the suspect is known to the victim. Just the way it works but questioning is not blaming.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> You confuse blaming with questioning. You dont blame the victim ever. But you do have to establish that a crime did in fact occur. I have no idea how you can't see that.....I think perhaps it's that you just don't want to.


Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in due process. Of course charges must be investigated, and of course the circumstances around the charges have to be clarified. I am not objecting to questioning, but to the treatment of the accused vs the accuser.

As the research that both you and I posted shows, the fact of the matter is that with sex crimes, the tendency is to say that a crime did *not* happen, to not believe the victim, and to believe the accused.

This, plus all of the humiliation a victim must face as everyone rakes them over the coals and calls them names, telling them they deserved it, or asked for it, or whatever, is exactly why the report rates are so low.

This is doubly, maybe even triply true for male victims. Women do in fact rape men in alarming numbers, but mostly the men are ridiculed and told they should be grateful for getting some. So they almost never report.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in due process. Of course charges must be investigated, and of course the circumstances around getting charges have to be clarified.
> 
> But, as the research that both you and I posted shows, the fact of the matter is that with sex crimes, the tendency is to say that a crime did *not* happen, to not believe the victim, and to believe the accused.
> 
> This, plus all of the humiliation a victim must face as everyone rakes them over the coals and calls them names, telling them they deserved it, or asked for it, or whatever, is exactly why the report rates are so low.
> 
> This is doubly, maybe even triply true for male victims. Women do in fact rape men in alarming numbers, but mostly the men are ridiculed and told they should be grateful for getting some. So they almost never report.


And if they get a baby or VD out of it then what?


----------



## GTdad

PreRaphaelite said:


> - This push behind this seems to come mostly from college administrators who are trying to show they're doing something about date rape among students. They use feminist rhetoric and try to gain the backing of feminist groups to make them look good.


Is this true? Because I find it difficult to imagine. Certainly they're going to appear to "support" it, because they could hardly be seen to do otherwise, but I have a difficult time believing that they're the proponents of the new law.

Colleges and universities are subject to over 200 federal regulations (honestly, no one seems to know for sure) which require some kind of affirmative action on the part of universities and which are tied to federal funding. I know this is a state law, but why would they volunteer to be subject to yet more regulation tied to funding?

The doctrine of in loco parentis, where the university acts in the place of the parents as if we're talking about minors, was shoved out the door in a big way in the late 60s and early 70s. Over the past decade or more we've been steadily marching back in that direction. I'm unconvinced that it's a good thing.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in due process. Of course charges must be investigated, and of course the circumstances around getting charges have to be clarified.
> 
> But, as the research that both you and I posted shows, the fact of the matter is that with sex crimes, the tendency is to say that a crime did *not* happen, to not believe the victim, and to believe the accused.
> 
> This, plus all of the humiliation a victim must face as everyone rakes them over the coals and calls them names, telling them they deserved it, or asked for it, or whatever, is exactly why the report rates are so low.
> 
> This is doubly, maybe even triply true for male victims. Women do in fact rape men in alarming numbers, but mostly the men are ridiculed and told they should be grateful for getting some. So they almost never report.


Well with that last paragraph I do agree. The most under reported crime is adult male sexual assault. I have only ever investigated one in 15 years and that victim absolutely refused to cooperate. And I don't blame him at all. He was a married guy but clearly bi sexual or gay and didn't want any public record of anything. 

As for the rest we will just agree to disagree. I have never seen anything of what you describe other than lifetime movies my x wife forced me to watch on occasion. Now that is the professional world. If you speak of ther friends and family I can't say that does or doesn't happen. Would be sad if they were not believed by them.

Laws are on a pendulum. They swing back and forth between victim and defendant rights because in the system we have they both have them and should. A time your speaking of did occur and I can't deny that and won't. That was around 80's and 90's. But we have been in the upswing of victim rights for a long time now. Never is this more prevenelant than domestic violence law which now doesnt even require a victim to say a word to any law enforcement officer, never show up for court, never say anything to a prosecutor or judge and STILL her abuser can go to jail. 

If you take a look at media.....can't believe I actually typed that... You would see that more and more cases of sexual assault cases at universities are in fact coming forward. Less tolerance in the military is also coming forward. Even the cases that used to get a high 5 when a teen boy would sleep with his hot teacher is no longer tolerated. Society as a whole won't tolerate that stuff anymore and probably never should. 

this consent law is born from that no more mentality. Which is fine it should be no more. But the law has to make sense and has to be enforceable. Since you come at the end to two people who one says she said yes and then her saying I said yes but later said no then what are you suppose to do with that?

It's in times like those that honestly if someone had that silly consent app it may just save thier ass at least from arrest.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in due process. Of course charges must be investigated, and of course the circumstances around the charges have to be clarified. I am not objecting to questioning, but to the treatment of the accused vs the accuser.
> 
> *As the research that both you and I posted shows, the fact of the matter is that with sex crimes, the tendency is to say that a crime did *not* happen, to not believe the victim, and to believe the accused.*
> 
> This, plus all of the humiliation a victim must face as everyone rakes them over the coals and calls them names, telling them they deserved it, or asked for it, or whatever, is exactly why the report rates are so low.
> 
> This is doubly, maybe even triply true for male victims. Women do in fact rape men in alarming numbers, but mostly the men are ridiculed and told they should be grateful for getting some. So they almost never report.


The problem is, and what I think the legislation is clumsily attempting to correct, is the fact that with non consensual sexual encounters, there is often no physical evidence that a crime occurred. Evidence of intercourse, sure, but it often does boils down to he said/she said and even more so the victims state of mind...is it true that if she later feels raped, then she was indeed raped?


----------



## IIJokerII

Ya know, it just occurred to me the one thing I overlooked regarding this law, which is indeed squarely aimed towards woman's rights and regard, something everyone seems to be mostly agreeable on right? Now this is based on the all too predominant missionary position or otherwise male controlled position, I assume anyway. 

So lets assume for a moment a man engages with a woman, who is albeit aggressive in her interests but careless or indifferent to protection whereas the man notes his wanting to wear a condom. Sometimes this is spoken and sometimes not and they proceed accordingly regardless. Well lets assume after the initial consent and unprotected initiation the man, yes the man, feels that moment approach and wishes to either stop and put on the contraceptive or pull out to prevent from getting her pregnant. This is also predicated that she is on top, to which she ignores his requests and proceeds to finish him off. 

Now I've had this happen and at the time did not care since most cases was me just wanting to reposition or prolong the experience for more time in plateau. But in a random encounter or initial relationship, and according to this awesome new law that does not have vernacular descriptions towards either gender mind you, the man has just been raped. And if she gets pregnant it is officially by judicial definition a child of rape.

I'd bet aliens land on earth before any sympathy or support would go toward this man since I am sure most, if not all woman, would dismiss this as he wanted it anyway so what's the big deal, all men want to orgasm so what's the problem???

If a guy even suggested the same thing to a woman with minimal clothing he'd be publically castrated.


----------



## samyeagar

IIJokerII said:


> Ya know, it just occurred to me the one thing I overlooked regarding this law, which is indeed squarely aimed towards woman's rights and regard, something everyone seems to be mostly agreeable on right? Now this is based on the all too predominant missionary position or otherwise male controlled position, I assume anyway.
> 
> So lets assume for a moment a man engages with a woman, who is albeit aggressive in her interests but careless or indifferent to protection whereas the man notes his wanting to wear a condom. Sometimes this is spoken and sometimes not and they proceed accordingly regardless. Well lets assume after the initial consent and unprotected initiation the man, yes the man, feels that moment approach and wishes to either stop and put on the contraceptive or pull out to prevent from getting her pregnant. This is also predicated that she is on top, to which she ignores his requests and proceeds to finish him off.
> 
> Now I've had this happen and at the time did not care since most cases was me just wanting to reposition or prolong the experience for more time in plateau. But in a random encounter or initial relationship, and according to this awesome new law that does not have vernacular descriptions towards either gender mind you, the man has just been raped. *And if she gets pregnant it is officially by judicial definition a child of rape*.
> 
> I'd bet aliens land on earth before any sympathy or support would go toward this man since I am sure most, if not all woman, would dismiss this as he wanted it anyway so what's the big deal, all men want to orgasm so what's the problem???
> 
> If a guy even suggested the same thing to a woman with minimal clothing he'd be publically castrated.


The good news is, he'd still have to pay child support


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon always alone

this is a really important point so I think its worth tying to be clear.

Unlike most other crimes there if often no physical evidence to distinguish the common activity of consensual sex from the crime of rape. Too often all you can prove is that the people had intercourse, but it is one word against the other on whether or not it was rape. Since you can't use the victim's history, and there are a lot of restrictions on using the accused's history (both for good reasons), what is a jury to do.

It isn't a case of blaming the victim, but there simply not being proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

How would you suggest changing things in the common situation where there are no witnesses and no physical evidence beyond that intercourse occurred? What can reasonably be done differently?






always_alone said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm a firm believer in due process. Of course charges must be investigated, and of course the circumstances around the charges have to be clarified. I am not objecting to questioning, but to the treatment of the accused vs the accuser.
> 
> As the research that both you and I posted shows, the fact of the matter is that with sex crimes, the tendency is to say that a crime did *not* happen, to not believe the victim, and to believe the accused.
> 
> This, plus all of the humiliation a victim must face as everyone rakes them over the coals and calls them names, telling them they deserved it, or asked for it, or whatever, is exactly why the report rates are so low.
> 
> This is doubly, maybe even triply true for male victims. Women do in fact rape men in alarming numbers, but mostly the men are ridiculed and told they should be grateful for getting some. So they almost never report.


----------



## norajane

richardsharpe said:


> Good afternoon always alone
> 
> this is a really important point so I think its worth tying to be clear.
> 
> Unlike most other crimes there if often no physical evidence to distinguish the common activity of consensual sex from the crime of rape. Too often all you can prove is that the people had intercourse, but it is one word against the other on whether or not it was rape. Since you can't use the victim's history, and there are a lot of restrictions on using the accused's history (both for good reasons), what is a jury to do.
> 
> It isn't a case of blaming the victim, but there simply not being proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> How would you suggest changing things in the common situation where there are no witnesses and no physical evidence beyond that intercourse occurred? *What can reasonably be done differently?*


Stop trying to have casual sex with random strangers when both people have been drinking? That's reasonable and would cut down on a lot of issues, though not all.


----------



## LongWalk

There is no ideal solution.

Why is the justice system so poor in the US?

Read this New Yorker story to get an idea.

Eric Holder is gone. What did he do?


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> The problem is, and what I think the legislation is clumsily attempting to correct, is the fact that with non consensual sexual encounters, there is often no physical evidence that a crime occurred. Evidence of intercourse, sure, but it often does boils down to he said/she said and even more so the victims state of mind...*is it true that if she later feels raped, then she was indeed raped?*


Agreed that the lack of physical evidence is why it is very difficult to wade through the he said/she said to get at the truth.

But note the slippage in the bolded. Why do we always frame this as she (or he) decided *later* that she (or he) was raped?

Mostly people are well aware of what is going on in the actual moment it's happening. Yes, the crime was reported after the fact, but this should not be taken as any indication of the state of mind of when it was committed. Indeed, with many, many other crimes, police are not involved until after the fact. And the humiliation factor in sex crimes means it can take even longer for victims to work up the courage to pick up the phone.

And yet, all too often, the timing of the reporting is counted as evidence that the victim was consenting at the time, and only later changed his (or her) mind.

Indeed, this recurring refrain of "changed her mind" shows that essentially the victims are assumed to have gone along with everything, and that the sex was in fact consensual, until it was later regretted. Which is not, typically, how these things actually happen, but it sure does give the impression that for the most part, the accused is but a hapless and innocent bystander, and that there is something wrong with the accuser.


----------



## Deejo

I don't think any of the men participating in this discussion have an issue with the concept of having or receiving consent from an intimate partner.

Frequently on a date, there will be that pause ... I'm looking at her, she's looking at me, and I will ask, "May I kiss you?"

I know damn well what the answer is going to be, otherwise I wouldn't ask.

About 50% of the time, their response is, "You have to ask?"

Women who are with a man to whom they are attracted, want them to take. This used to be an utterly confounding mystery to me.

This discussion has spun off into theory craft.

We have the input of law enforcement who deals with the challenges of sexual assault. 

And we have the input of those who have been sexually assaulted ... and have had to deal with the horror of that event, and then being dismissed, minimized or seen as complicit when reported.

I think we can all agree that we don't want anyone to come to harm, in an emotional transaction that is supposed to bring out the best of us, not the worst.

The unfortunate reality is that young people do stupid, stupid things. And they aren't thinking about a consent law when they are doing funnels at a keg party.


----------



## tom67

Deejo said:


> I don't think any of the men participating in this discussion have an issue with the concept of having or receiving consent from an intimate partner.
> 
> Frequently on a date, there will be that pause ... I'm looking at her, she's looking at me, and I will ask, "May I kiss you?"
> 
> I know damn well what the answer is going to be, otherwise I wouldn't ask.
> 
> About 50% of the time, their response is, "You have to ask?"
> 
> Women who are with a man to whom they are attracted, want them to take. This used to be an utterly confounding mystery to me.
> 
> This discussion has spun off into theory craft.
> 
> We have the input of law enforcement who deals with the challenges of sexual assault.
> 
> And we have the input of those who have been sexually assaulted ... and have had to deal with the horror of that event, and then being dismissed, minimized or seen as complicit when reported.
> 
> I think we can all agree that we don't want anyone to come to harm, in an emotional transaction that is supposed to bring out the best of us, not the worst.
> 
> The unfortunate reality is that young people do stupid, stupid things. And they aren't thinking about a consent law when they are doing funnels at a keg party.


:iagree::iagree:
BINGO!


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening norajane
*I* don't have casual sex with random strangers, but I fully support the right of others to do so if they want. I would like to find a way for them to do so without risking assault and rape.



norajane said:


> Stop trying to have casual sex with random strangers when both people have been drinking? That's reasonable and would cut down on a lot of issues, though not all.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> About 50% of the time, their response is, "You have to ask?"
> 
> Women who are with a man to whom they are attracted, want them to take. This used to be an utterly confounding mystery to me.


Unfortunately, this is the standard line of every accused: "she (or he) wanted it."

But, it turns out, people can be grossly mistaken about this --or outright lying.

So instead of constantly finding excuses for why it's okay that so many are having non-consensual sex, people are suggesting that instead they *ask* the person, check in with what they really want instead of assuming.

Reduces error, is not difficult, and can help us all live with clear consciences.

But yet still, we are happier to find excuses for people who are more concerned about getting some than about the person we are getting it from


----------



## norajane

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening norajane
> *I* don't have casual sex with random strangers, but I fully support the right of others to do so if they want. I would like to find a way for them to do so without risking assault and rape.


Of course, but I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching young people to be responsible for their own bodies and welfare. Stop getting trashed every weekend and having sex while you're trashed - what is wrong with teaching THAT? 

We've been teaching condoms for safer sex, let's teach personal responsibility, too.

I think these laws are trying to force people to accept some personal responsibility for their welfare. If you don't ask and don't get consent, don't do it. If you don't want to ask, don't do it. If someone has spent the night drinking, don't do it. If someone can barely stand, don't do it. If they're passed out, don't do it. 

Yes, it seems stupid to have to spell it out in laws like that, but maybe that will force people to THINK before they do anything.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
There are of course multiple discussions and points of view here. 

To be clear: I do NOT suspect rape victims of "regret". I believe it happens but I think that is a minority of cases.

I believe that the majority of rape claims represent actual rapes. My concern though is that while that is a "majority", I am not convinced it is >99% and therefor meets my personal definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for a conviction.

The possibly > 1% of false claims I am concerned about are a combination of mis-identification, confusion due to intoxication, regret, and malice -I have no idea in what percentages. I'm willing to believe that this number is in fact much less than 1%, but I don't know how to evaluate that. 

I actually very uncomfortable with a 1% false conviction rate - that is thousands of innocent lives destroyed. (your life never really recovers from a felony conviction) I'd be much happier with a 0.01% false conviction rate, but I don't know how to get there.


So I am stuck with the problem that to avoid sending a small number of innocent men to prison, I need to let a lot of factually guilty men go free. Is there another option?





always_alone said:


> Agreed that the lack of physical evidence is why it is very difficult to wade through the he said/she said to get at the truth.
> 
> But note the slippage in the bolded. Why do we always frame this as she (or he) decided *later* that she (or he) was raped?
> 
> Mostly people are well aware of what is going on in the actual moment it's happening. Yes, the crime was reported after the fact, but this should not be taken as any indication of the state of mind of when it was committed. Indeed, with many, many other crimes, police are not involved until after the fact. And the humiliation factor in sex crimes means it can take even longer for victims to work up the courage to pick up the phone.
> 
> And yet, all too often, the timing of the reporting is counted as evidence that the victim was consenting at the time, and only later changed his (or her) mind.
> 
> Indeed, this recurring refrain of "changed her mind" shows that essentially the victims are assumed to have gone along with everything, and that the sex was in fact consensual, until it was later regretted. Which is not, typically, how these things actually happen, but it sure does give the impression that for the most part, the accused is but a hapless and innocent bystander, and that there is something wrong with the accuser.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening norajane
> *I* don't have casual sex with random strangers, but I fully support the right of others to do so if they want. I would like to find a way for them to do so without risking assault and rape.


And this is exactly where concepts like "enthusiastic consent" come from.

Admittedly, it's not perfect, but it really does drive home the point that both partners should be fully on board, and conscientious of the feelings and needs of the other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Women who are with a man to whom they are attracted, want them to take. This used to be an utterly confounding mystery to me.



This is true for me definitely but in NO WAY would I be hurt, shocked, insulted or turned off if a man asked for my consent to touch or kiss me. There are ways he could do it that would make it even MORE fun for me.

My husband and I talked a lot about sex and sexual issues and theories before we ever had sex...which is just an example showing that although I wanted him to take me, I wasn't going to freak out when he didn't and wanted to get to know me first.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But I was saying it as in talking about when I met him, when we were dating, and our first encounters. I meant that my husband could have said "do I have your consent to bend you over the kitchen counters" the first time he had me over to his house and it would not have turned me off at all. It would have, in fact, turned me on. I may or may not have said yes that night, but would have very shortly afterwards.

(apparently sam deleted the post this was in response to?)


----------



## norajane

Faithful Wife said:


> But I was saying it as in talking about when I met him, when we were dating, and our first encounters. I meant that my husband could have said "do I have your consent to bend you over the kitchen counters" the first time he had me over to his house and it would not have turned me off at all. It would have, in fact, turned me on. I may or may not have said yes that night, but would have very shortly afterwards.


:iagree:

The only people who would be turned off by being asked, "Do you want me to...?" are the ones who DON'T WANT TO because they didn't want to in the first place. And those are exactly the people who should say no and their-would-be partners are exactly the people who should ask first.

If someone gets turned off by the question, they aren't that into you, are they? And you shouldn't be having sex with people who aren't that into you no matter how drunk you both are, and _especially _if you're both drunk.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> But I was saying it as in talking about when I met him, when we were dating, and our first encounters. I meant that my husband could have said "do I have your consent to bend you over the kitchen counters" the first time he had me over to his house and it would not have turned me off at all. It would have, in fact, turned me on. I may or may not have said yes that night, but would have very shortly afterwards.
> 
> (apparently sam deleted the post this was in response to?)


I pulled it because I was rethinking my wording  However, your response was inline with what I was thinking.

My wife and I do play this little game, and lets not kid ourselves...at the heart of it, it is a game...the asker wants what is being asked, and is hoping for the green light, and is going to do it in a way they feel most likely to elicit the response they want...but at what point can it be seen as coercion? That can be a very fine line, depending on whether you are the asker of the askee.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, like you had pointed out, it really is different between a committed couple and new sex partners. The coercion angle is also different when talking about couples or new sex partners.

This law and more sex positive education will help everyone work out those very questions.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> Of course, but I don't think there's anything wrong with teaching young people to be responsible for their own bodies and welfare. Stop getting trashed every weekend and having sex while you're trashed - what is wrong with teaching THAT?
> 
> We've been teaching condoms for safer sex, let's teach personal responsibility, too.
> 
> I think these laws are trying to force people to accept some personal responsibility for their welfare. If you don't ask and don't get consent, don't do it. If you don't want to ask, don't do it. If someone has spent the night drinking, don't do it. If someone can barely stand, don't do it. If they're passed out, don't do it.
> 
> Yes, it seems stupid to have to spell it out in laws like that, but maybe that will force people to *THINK* before they do anything.


Think. Think you say?

Hormones + young adults + plus alcohol = no thinking least not with the upstairs brain :rofl:


----------



## Almostrecovered

"Reports of my death are greatly exaggerated"

- Sex


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Think. Think you say?
> 
> Hormones + young adults + plus alcohol = no thinking least not with the upstairs brain :rofl:


Exactly. That's WHY we need to tell our young people to STOP and get consent.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Agreed that the lack of physical evidence is why it is very difficult to wade through the he said/she said to get at the truth.
> 
> But note the slippage in the bolded. Why do we always frame this as she (or he) decided *later* that she (or he) was raped?
> 
> Mostly people are well aware of what is going on in the actual moment it's happening. Yes, the crime was reported after the fact, but this should not be taken as any indication of the state of mind of when it was committed. Indeed, with many, many other crimes, police are not involved until after the fact. And the humiliation factor in sex crimes means it can take even longer for victims to work up the courage to pick up the phone.
> 
> And yet, all too often, the *timing of the reporting is counted as evidence that the victim *was consenting at the time, and only later changed his (or her) mind.
> 
> Indeed, this recurring refrain of "changed her mind" shows that essentially the victims are assumed to have gone along with everything, and that the sex was in fact consensual, until it was later regretted. Which is not, typically, how these things actually happen, but it sure does give the impression that for the most part, the accused is but a hapless and innocent bystander, and that there is something wrong with the accuser.


This is true For evidence. Semen only stays around for so long and sane examines can only be done in certiain periods of time. That's not to punish anyone but just the reality of being able to extract evidence.

Also one of the reasons that when I teach classes on dating safety and personal safety we talk about evidence and I explain that reporting has to be done as soon as possible to gather the evidence . I always tell the class participants that even if you are unsure if you want to prosecute have the test done because once that evidence is gone you can't get it back. Again education is key. And thier isn't a lot of common knowledge on that subject at all


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> Think. Think you say?
> 
> Hormones + young adults + plus alcohol = no thinking least not with the upstairs brain :rofl:


Yes, indeed! I think we should expect people to think! I think we should expect people to be responsible for themselves! If we don't, they might not realize it's important or that the necessity of thinking and being responsible for themselves doesn't apply to them.

I was a college student once, too, and you are absolutely correct. Still, I managed not to have drunk sex with strangers, so it is possible to teach young people to respect themselves, and have some boundaries and maintain them.


----------



## samyeagar

I also think that the waters become muddied because in the absence of clear physical evidence to the contrary, it comes down to a persons internal feelings. Three different people could experience the exact same circumstances, and one might enjoy it, another might feel they made a stupid mistake, and the third could feel as if they had been raped.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

To me personally, I find this law throwing more mud into a murky pool.

I hope I can teach my sons (and daughter) to follow in my footsteps, which is to be sexually active in relationships, only. Don't get me wrong, casual sex is fine. Adults have every freedom they want when it comes to that, but there are way too many risks to a ONS now a days.

Between STD's, pregnancy, rape/sexual assault/false rape charges, etc. etc. you really need to have trust in the person you're having sex with.

The basic idea of yes means yes...it pretty common sense to me. But that's because I'm looking at it out of my personal perceptions. Every relationship I've been in, there was always consent and I would NEVER have to worry about a rape charge (except for my ex-wife...it wouldn't have surprised me if she brought false claims against because of how much power that would wield).

That said, any law that removes "innocent until proven guilty" and "burdens of proof", I'll always be suspect with. It's too easy to wield this law as a weapon. A common question is "how many women would claim rape and it be false?" The commonly thought of statistic is 2-8%, but those are only the 2-8% that they determine immediately are definitively false. It doesn't take into account the number of "grey accusations" where, at the start of the process, it's not known. Please don't think I'm saying that even 50% of accusations are false, I don't believe that for a second. I think the number is on the lower side, but to make a law that empowers that..it gets scary.

This is why the "beyond a shadow of a doubt" is critical is a murder case. 

I applaud this law for the fact that legislators are taking the issue of violence against women seriously. I just think it's the wrong solution to the problem.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> This is true For evidence. Semen only stays around for so long and sane examines can only be done in certiain periods of time. That's not to punish anyone but just the reality of being able to extract evidence.


Yes, absolutely, evidence can be very time-sensitive, and yes, absolutely, people should not waste time before reporting.

But my point was a bit different than this, in that the time itself is often counted as evidence that no crime happened. So, for example, a person who goes through a non-consensual experience, but doesn't report immediately after the fact or doesn't display the typical victim behaviours, runs get risk of having that wait time count against the credibility of their story. 

And no matter how many bruises, because, as we all know, lots of people "like it rough" or "just want to be taken".


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> Yes, indeed! I think we should expect people to think! I think we should expect people to be responsible for themselves! If we don't, they might not realize it's important or that the necessity of thinking and being responsible for themselves doesn't apply to them.
> 
> I was a college student once, too, and you are absolutely correct. Still, I managed not to have drunk sex with strangers, so it is possible to teach young people to respect themselves, and have some boundaries and maintain them.


My answer was sarcasm. I didn't drink and party in college either. Was too busy working and getting my degree but many do party. but you and I probably wouldn't need a concert law anyway and not really who it's designed for...hence the joke part.

Young people + alcohol can be a dangerous combination. Mostly due to inexperience. Now in my state, Reffercolorado they smoke pot and drink at the same time. I am so glad I am not a campus police officer.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Yes, absolutely, evidence can be very time-sensitive, and yes, absolutely, people should not waste time before reporting.
> 
> But my point was a bit different than this, in that the time itself is often counted as evidence that no crime happened. So, for example, a person who goes through a non-consensual experience, but doesn't report immediately after the fact or doesn't display the typical victim behaviours, runs get risk of having that wait time count against the credibility of their story.
> 
> And no matter how many bruises, because, as we all know, lots of people "like it rough" or "just want to be taken".


Just out of curiosity what is "typical victim behaviors"? I don't think I could define that at all. I have seen giggling to crying to outrage to inability to speak. Some all in same interview.

And time in reporting doesn't matter for us so long as it's in the statute of limitations. But you're right it matters a lot to District Attorney's because that's the defense lawyers favorite tactic...... "Well if this happend and you were so upset by it then why did you not report immediately". Some juries fall for that and others don't. The really high priced defense attorneys are like actors and can put on a grand spectacular show in court. It's sickening to watch.


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> My answer was sarcasm. I didn't drink and party in college either. Was too busy working and getting my degree but many do party. but you and I probably wouldn't need a concert law anyway and not really who it's designed for...hence the joke part.
> 
> Young people + alcohol can be a dangerous combination. Mostly due to inexperience. Now in my state, Reffercolorado they smoke pot and drink at the same time. I am so glad I am not a campus police officer.


I know you were joking, and I was laughing with you. No worries.

Maybe the university policies will force people to think while they aren't drunk so they don't put themselves into risky sexual situations when they are drunk in the first place. Maybe acceptance of consent policies will make it easier for young people to say no. Maybe it will become second nature to ask first if we teach that it's important to ask first.

There is no harm in talking about sex before you do it. And an environment where that is more than encouraged but expected might be more helpful than what it's like now where this isn't happening.


----------



## Blonde

Wolf1974 said:


> Sounds like the kinda guy I will hope for my daughters. Sounds like you did a great job raising him


DITTO, SA!

Don't give up hope. There is a good match out there with the same good values.


----------



## Wolf1974

Faithful Wife said:


> Exactly. That's WHY we need to tell our young people to STOP and get consent.



I agree but do you really think this law is going to suddenly make people start getting consent throughout? Stop sexual assault? Stop drunken college sex? I don't at all. I think what it does do is put another shade of grey into an otherwise grey zone of did he/she give consent? Victim says no suspect says yes. That is really no different than how it was the day before this was signed.

So I am still for education and prevention on the matter not another legal law that doesn't help victims.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> I know you were joking, and I was laughing with you. No worries.
> 
> Maybe the university policies will force people to think while they aren't drunk so they don't put themselves into risky sexual situations when they are drunk in the first place. Maybe acceptance of consent policies will make it easier for young people to say no. Maybe it will become second nature to ask first if we teach that it's important to ask first.
> 
> There is no harm in talking about sex before you do it. And an environment where that is more than encouraged but expected might be more helpful than what it's like now where this isn't happening.



And let's not forget it's not just about asking in the beginning but asking in the middle and at the end as well. It's consent throughout. 

I'm with you. I just have a bit more cynical view of our young people today. Those that would observe the law like those that would come to my version of education and prevention class are generally not going to be the people who would be affected by this because they already tend to be responsible. And that's if you can get the school to buy off on the education to begin with. I wanted to teach a similar class on a private college in my city. However because a component of it addressed the Megan Law they said no. Reason is they didn't want to give the impression they had a problem on thier campus. I'm not generally rendered speechless but yep that one a got me 😜


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> Just out of curiosity what is "typical victim behaviors"? I don't think I could define that at all. I have seen giggling to crying to outrage to inability to speak. Some all in same interview.


Giggling would be an example of an atypical response -- the sort of thing that might make a lesser cop than yourself doubt the veracity of the claim.

Why cops don’t believe rape victims and how brain science can solve the problem.

In my case, I was told I was "too good" of a witness. Apparently presence of mind is a sign that you're not really a victim.


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> And let's not forget it's not just about asking in the beginning but asking in the middle and at the end as well. It's consent throughout.
> 
> I'm with you. I just have a bit more cynical view of our young people today. Those that would observe the law like those that would come to my version of education and prevention class are generally not going to be the people who would be affected by this because they already tend to be responsible. And that's if you can get the school to buy off on the education to begin with. * I wanted to teach a similar class on a private college in my city. However because a component of it addressed the Megan Law they said no. Reason is they didn't want to give the impression they had a problem on thier campus. I'm not generally rendered speechless but yep that one a got me 😜*


Bingo. Schools tend to want to bury this kind of stuff instead of discussing it openly and addressing it openly to try to minimize the risks through education and awareness. I think that is what these laws forcing specific school policies are trying to address.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Giggling would be an example of an atypical response -- the sort of thing that might make a lesser cop than yourself doubt the veracity of the claim.
> 
> Why cops don’t believe rape victims and how brain science can solve the problem.
> 
> In my case, I was told I was "too good" of a witness. Apparently presence of mind is a sign that you're not really a victim.


Well here's the thing where we disagree. I will be the first to admit that some cops are small minded neadrathals that don't care or blame the victim. I am lucky to work for a major metropolitan police agency that has funding and training but even with that some will be, and are an embarrassment to all of us. So while we agree on that where don't agree on how common it is. You seem to believe that is the typical mentality and I have seen that it isn't. Asshats are in every profession and we try to get the best professionals we can. Every now and again it falls short and you get some clown. But it's the rarity not the standard anymore.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> Bingo. Schools tend to want to bury this kind of stuff instead of discussing it openly and addressing it openly to try to minimize the risks through education and awareness. I think that is what these laws forcing specific school policies are trying to address.


I would have no problem if the bill only addressed schools role and responsibility. If the bill said that you will spend x amount of money per year on sex assault prevention education and literature and in addition have a full time victim advocate on staff for campuses larger than xxxxx then great. My problem is with the consent throughout part that is really just unenforceable The rest of it I agree that campuses should do more to help and educate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> I agree but do you really think this law is going to suddenly make people start getting consent throughout? Stop sexual assault? Stop drunken college sex? I don't at all. I think what it does do is put another shade of grey into an otherwise grey zone of did he/she give consent? Victim says no suspect says yes. That is really no different than how it was the day before this was signed.
> 
> So I am still for education and prevention on the matter not another legal law that doesn't help victims.


Yes, ultimately I think this law is one part of a large wave of change that is happening and will continue to grow into a whole new way young people view sex and consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Wolf1974 said:


> Well here's the thing where we disagree. I will be the first to admit that some cops are small minded neadrathals that don't care or blame the victim. I am lucky to work for a major metropolitan police agency that has funding and training but even with that some will be, and are an embarrassment to all of us. So while we agree on that where don't agree on how common it is. You seem to believe that is the typical mentality and I have seen that it isn't. Asshats are in every profession and we try to get the best professionals we can. Every now and again it falls short and you get some clown. But it's the rarity not the standard *anymore*.


Hence, the problems we have to correct now.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> So while we agree on that where don't agree on how common it is. You seem to believe that is the typical mentality and I have seen that it isn't. Asshats are in every profession and we try to get the best professionals we can. Every now and again it falls short and you get some clown. But it's the rarity not the standard anymore.


I'm not trying to discount the advances that have been made, and in the end of all, am very glad to hear that these attitudes are no longer the standard. 

At the same time, my conclusions aren't just drawn from my own experience, which admittedly was a long, long time ago now. They are observations of other law enforcement professionals and academic research in the field, including the links we've both posted. No doubt there's been progress, but it isn't just me suggesting that there might be more work to be done.


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> To Thundarr - *IMO this law, by nature, is designed to basically put more men in jail.* I see the intentions as being good, no rapist should go unpunished. HOWEVER, in our society, it is up to the prosecutor to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused rapist is a rapist. The law makes it easier, as you now basically need to have a form filled out, however, not having that form filled out does not make you a rapist.
> 
> There is no way this law does not put a higher number of innocent men in jail.


No this law is by nature designed to prevent rape on college campuses because it's a huge problem. It impacts guys who screw reluctant drunk girls or passed out girls at frat parties. This is aimed at that minority guys who are predators and know they can get away with forcing themselves on girls because they see their buddys get away with it. And a lot of the time the girl is harrassed gets a bad rep and leaves school. If rape wasn't a problem on college campuses then this law wouldn't be needed. But it is a problem so this is a deterent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr, you are my new favorite poster.

(Falcon King, you are now in the Hall of Fame).


----------



## Almostrecovered

Pouts


----------



## Faithful Wife

You didn't even ask for my consent before you made that pouty face. Extra demerits.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Thundarr, you are my new favorite poster.
> 
> (Falcon King, you are now in the Hall of Fame).


Well that puts me in good company. At least for a little while :smthumbup:


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> No this law is by nature designed to prevent rape on college campuses because it's a huge problem. It impacts guys who screw reluctant drunk girls or passed out girls at frat parties. This is aimed at that minority guys who are predators and know they can get away with forcing themselves on girls because they see their buddys get away with it. And a lot of the time the girl is harrassed gets a bad rep and leaves school. If rape wasn't a problem on college campuses then this law wouldn't be needed. But it is a problem so this is a deterent.


I disagree. It is designed to make it easier to put men in jail. Some (many, most?) that get arrested by this law should be there. It will not lower or prevent rape, imo.

I also think that it is violating the rights of those not guilty of the crime. The idea behind the law is good intentions, but I don't think it will work and it will put innocent men in jail.


----------



## norajane

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree. It is designed to make it easier to put men in jail. Some (many, most?) that get arrested by this law should be there. It will not lower or prevent rape, imo.
> 
> I also think that it is violating the rights of those not guilty of the crime. The idea behind the law is good intentions, but I don't think it will work and it will put innocent men in jail.


No one is getting arrested from this law. This law makes state funding of universities and colleges contingent upon them having policies in place to address the issue of affirmative consent, and to clarify what affirmative consent is, just like they have policies in place to address hazing at fraternities and sororities, and policies to address hundreds of other issues that come up on university campuses. It's intended to force universities to not turn a blind-eye and pretend it's not happening.


----------



## samyeagar

A parallel step needs to be educating people on how to not become incapable of giving or denying consent.


----------



## naiveonedave

so the redress is kicking kids out of school? Less damaging, but not irrelevent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> A parallel step needs to be educating people on how to not become incapable of giving or denying consent.


I agree, sam. Lots of education needs to be put into place. And let's go ahead and make stiff laws against false charges, and laws that protect men better, and any other law that is ultimately meant to protect human rights. Enough of the "gender war" angle on this. No gender is better than the other and all humans have rights. I've got no more use for a man-hating woman who wants to hurt someone by making false charges against than I have for a man OR woman who did rape someone. Any type of human-against-human crime is bad, no matter what the gender of the criminal.


----------



## GTdad

norajane said:


> and to clarify what affirmative consent is,


My concern is that the law is too vague as to what "consent" is, the way they have it framed. Unless they're going to leave it to the universities to further refine. That should go well.


----------



## COguy

norajane said:


> No one is getting arrested from this law. This law makes state funding of universities and colleges contingent upon them having policies in place to address the issue of affirmative consent, and to clarify what affirmative consent is, just like they have policies in place to address hazing at fraternities and sororities, and policies to address hundreds of other issues that come up on university campuses. It's intended to force universities to not turn a blind-eye and pretend it's not happening.


What's worse than getting arrested? Being cleared of all charges but never being able to go on a date, have friends, or get a job because the court of public opinion has labeled you a sexual predator.

This law is written so that those accused, under preponderance of evidence from a kangaroo court(not reasonable doubt from an official trial), can be evicted from school without ever being charged of a crime.

Universities were never meant to perform legal trials. It's not the proper role for a school, and it's a disservice to both the accused and the accuser. This should be left to the US court system.


----------



## samyeagar

One of the things that makes this so difficult though are the cases where the victim honestly feels raped, yet nothing untoward happened. There was no intent to harm, and the perpetrator honestly didn't know the victim was feeling that way. It is really easy, especially amongst youg people who have very limited experience with the opposite sex to be able to read these things. Not knowing that your partner is actually supposed to be doing something other than laying there. You can't discount the victims feelings in this because they are completely valid, but at the same time, how can you in good conscience convict and hang the life long sex offender label on someone too.

And then whose to define enthusiastic in the enthusiastic consent. What exactly is enthusiastic? Wild monkey ripping clothes off, or just coming out of the bathroom naked?


----------



## treyvion

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree. It is designed to make it easier to put men in jail. Some (many, most?) that get arrested by this law should be there. It will not lower or prevent rape, imo.
> 
> I also think that it is violating the rights of those not guilty of the crime. The idea behind the law is good intentions, but I don't think it will work and it will put innocent men in jail.


In california it is surely to be used as a weapon.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

COguy said:


> What's worse than getting arrested? Being cleared of all charges but never being able to go on a date, have friends, or get a job because the court of public opinion has labeled you a sexual predator.
> 
> This law is written so that those accused, under preponderance of evidence from a kangaroo court(not reasonable doubt from an official trial), can be evicted from school without ever being charged of a crime.
> 
> Universities were never meant to perform legal trials. It's not the proper role for a school, and it's a disservice to both the accused and the accuser. This should be left to the US court system.


Well, this law's not starting anything new in that regard. The student disciplinary process has long been in the business of addressing violations of the student code, including sexual assault and other violations that are crimes in other contexts.


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree. It is designed to make it easier to put men in jail. Some (many, most?) that get arrested by this law should be there. It will not lower or prevent rape, imo.
> 
> I also think that it is violating the rights of those not guilty of the crime. The idea behind the law is good intentions, but I don't think it will work and it will put innocent men in jail.


Consequences deter behavior which I'm sure we agree on. In this case there is now risk where there wasn't risk before. More importantly there is risk for the college and that's where change will happen.

First off the criminal justice system has not changed. Reasonable doubt is required in a court of law. This law is specifically telling universities to put the burden of proof on the accused when they are investigating. Universities don't (can't) send people to jail though. They may kick someone out of school or they may shut down a fraternity but they can not prosecute. It's just not what so many on this thread think it is IMO.


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> so the redress is kicking kids out of school? Less damaging, but not irrelevent.


Agreed it's not irrelevent but it's a far lessor of the evil. Plus I think most accusations are legit (you may disagree). I also am pretty sure universities will not kick out 100% of the accused (you may disagree).


----------



## samyeagar

Thundarr said:


> Consequences deter behavior which I'm sure we agree on. In this case there is now risk where there wasn't risk before. More importantly there is risk for the college and that's where change will happen.
> 
> First off the criminal justice system has not changed. Reasonable doubt is required in a court of law. *This law is specifically telling universities to put the burden of proof on the accused when they are investigating*. Universities don't (can't) send people to jail though. They may kick someone out of school or they may shut down a fraternity but they can not prosecute. It's just not what so many on this thread think it is IMO.


That sounds an awful lot like a presumption of guilt, and the accused has the burden to prove their innocence. In a he said/she said situation, absent any witnesses or physical evidence, how would one prove they are innocent?


----------



## Tall Average Guy

Thundarr said:


> This law is specifically telling universities to put the burden of proof on the accused when they are investigating.


I don't think that is correct. I don't see a burden shifting. What I do see is a change in the requirements to show consent. The burden appears to remain the same, but what elements that burden applies to have changed.


----------



## Thundarr

samyeagar said:


> That sounds an awful lot like a presumption of guilt, and the accused has the burden to prove their innocence. In a he said/she said situation, absent any witnesses or physical evidence, how would one prove they are innocent?


Yes it does sound that way. It's because my quote was not accurate. It's not what the actual law says but is some rhetoric that I read and mixed in there. Apologies. 




Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't think that is correct. I don't see a burden shifting. What I do see is a change in the requirements to show consent. The burden appears to remain the same, but what elements that burden applies to have changed.


You are correct.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
Being kicked out of school is very serious. Its not as bad as jail time, but it is something that will change your life in ways that are difficult to recover. 

If I had been kicked out of school I would have found myself with significant student debt but not yet the required degrees in my field to actually work and be paid. My life would have gone completely differently, and much worse, from that point on. ( am in a competitive field, where being kicked out of school for cause would make it unlikely I could ever get back into my field).

It is certainly reasonable and in fact too light a punishment for a rapist, but is it a terrible thing to do to an innocent person. Not nearly so bad as prison of course.

I think that is part of the problem. Rape is terrible, but the punishments for rape are ALSO terrible. 





Thundarr said:


> Agreed it's not irrelevent but it's a far lessor of the evil. Plus I think most accusations are legit (you may disagree). I also am pretty sure universities will not kick out 100% of the accused (you may disagree).


----------



## that_girl

richardsharpe said:


> Rape is terrible, but the punishments for rape are ALSO terrible.


Spoken like someone never raped. Wtf? Soooo a slap on the wrist and a "bad boy" is enough?

If a dude (or woman...hey it happens) is raping women on a college campus, the dude (or woman) needs to go. Period.


----------



## Thundarr

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> Being kicked out of school is very serious. Its not as bad as jail time, but it is something that will change your life in ways that are difficult to recover.


It's true that being kicked out of school is a big deal but it's not logical to assume it's a one to one swap of rapes for expulsions. University faculty does not want to f*ck over students without just cause and they're not as dense as people act like they are. There will be many rapes prevented and very few cases of someone being expelled that is innocent. What will happen most of the time is a guy who raped a girl still gets off too easy because even though he was expelled, he was not criminally charged. But the student body will be safer. And that's the purpose of this law. So sending our kids to get an education is safer.


----------



## Wolf1974

Tall Average Guy said:


> I don't think that is correct. I don't see a burden shifting. What I do see is a change in the requirements to show consent. The burden appears to remain the same, but what elements that burden applies to have changed.


Correct. The day before the law was written it was a sexual assault to have sex with a man or woman against their will. Contrary to the belief of some you always had a case for revoking consent during a sexual act. That's has always been the standard. Whatt this did is muddy what consent is and when you give it. Can u still give consent after one beer, two. Are two drunk people hooking up essentially raping one another. According this it would seem so. Does th law define how much alcohol is to much before you can't give consent? Does anybody know?


----------



## that_girl

If a girl passes out, and she's with you, is sex ok?

No. Buuut....someone sure thought it was ok.


----------



## Thundarr

Wolf1974 said:


> Correct. The day before the law was written it was a sexual assault to have sex with a man or woman against their will. Contrary to the belief of some you always had a case for revoking consent during a sexual act. That's has always been the standard. Whatt this did is muddy what consent is and when you give it. Can u still give consent after one beer, two. Are two drunk people hooking up essentially raping one another. According this it would seem so. Does th law define how much alcohol is to much before you can't give consent? Does anybody know?


Maybe this law says people should go to college to get a degree and be careful of extracurricular activities else they may have to go elsewhere. There are certainly campus gods (atheletes, elite fraternities, etc) who have needed to know this for a while.


----------



## Kenobi

Thundarr said:


> Plus I think most accusations are legit (you may disagree).


I am hesitant to weigh in on this issue, but here it goes. I have been a state LEO for over ten years. It is my experience that false accusations aren't the epidemic that some people believe, but they are also far from non-existent like some others like to think. The reality, I believe, is somewhere in the middle. (Not picking on Thundarr personally, I have seen similar comments on this thread.)

The legislation itself isn't the issue. After all, its hard to argue against some of it. Excerpt from article:
_"requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol."_ They just need to make sure they clearly define "incapacitated". 

My main issue is why are universities running point on sexual offenses anyway? That should be handled by the proper authorities. I also have issue with the expulsion of someone based off of accusations alone. I know that might ruffle some feathers and universities have more latitude then society, but the lack of due process and this presumption of guilt that some posters are lobbying for is contrary to the foundation of our republic.


----------



## Thundarr

Kenobi said:


> I am hesitant to weigh in on this issue, but here it goes. I have been a state LEO for over ten years. It is my experience that false accusations aren't the epidemic that some people believe, but they are also far from non-existent like some others like to think. The reality, I believe, is somewhere in the middle. (Not picking on Thundarr personally, I have seen similar comments on this thread.)
> 
> The legislation itself isn't the issue. After all, its hard to argue against some of it. Excerpt from article:
> _"requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol."_ They just need to make sure they clearly define "incapacitated".
> 
> My main issue is why are universities running point on sexual offenses anyway? That should be handled by the proper authorities. I also have issue with the expulsion of someone based off of accusations alone. I know that might ruffle some feathers and universities have more latitude then society, but the lack of due process and this presumption of guilt that some posters are lobbying for is contrary to the foundation of our republic.


Classy post Kenobi so I don't feel picked on at all. My thoughts are that universities are required to do their best to keep their student body safe and that's all. To me this is similar to civil lawsuits where belief of guilt is what a universities should require to take action. Not proof.

People who excel IMO are the ones who know the rules and then following them. In this case the rules are there for students to see. Sharing them should be part of the orientation process. So every student should know there is risk when they participate in certain activities. It's not like schools will keep quite about fraternization policies and potential conscenquences.


----------



## Wolf1974

Thundarr said:


> Maybe this law says people should go to college to get a degree and be careful of extracurricular activities else they may have to go elsewhere. There are certainly campus gods (atheletes, elite fraternities, etc) who have needed to know this for a while.


Not sure what they has to do with my post...I was asking a question about what the drink limit is according to consent for this new law.


----------



## Wolf1974

that_girl said:


> If a girl passes out, and she's with you, is sex ok?
> 
> No. Buuut....someone sure thought it was ok.


So is that how it's defined then. That they are not impaired but rather completely passed out?


----------



## norajane

Wolf1974 said:


> So is that how it's defined then. That they are not impaired but rather completely passed out?


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

There's the actual law.

Some things are very specific, but some things are still vague. I was happy to see there was a lot of language about outreach and awareness.


----------



## Thundarr

Wolf1974 said:


> Correct. The day before the law was written it was a sexual assault to have sex with a man or woman against their will. Contrary to the belief of some you always had a case for revoking consent during a sexual act. That's has always been the standard. Whatt this did is muddy what consent is and when you give it. Can u still give consent after one beer, two. Are two drunk people hooking up essentially raping one another. According this it would seem so. Does th law define how much alcohol is to much before you can't give consent? Does anybody know?
> 
> 
> 
> Thundarr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe this law says people should go to college to get a degree and be careful of extracurricular activities else they may have to go elsewhere. There are certainly campus gods (atheletes, elite fraternities, etc) who have needed to know this for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what they has to do with my post...I was asking a question about what the drink limit is according to consent for this new law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The answer to your original question was No. Nobody knows how much alcohol is too much to still give consent? We'll never know that though since it's subjective. The law is new. Students need to know this the first day of class so it should be part of orientation. My reply to it was simply saying that the purpose of college is getting an education and to be safe while getting it. Universities should have been taking harsher steps to make this the case before now but they've failed to protect some of their students.


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
> 
> There's the actual law.
> 
> Some things are very specific, but some things are still vague. I was happy to see there was a lot of language about outreach and awareness.


Thank you Nora. I just read through this. This seems to be a law governing what school institutions must do not what law enforcemt must do. I looked up the California criminal code for rape and it's defined just about the same as Colorado. I thought this was a criminal law but isn't. That is defined as it always has been. The article talking about this, in the OPs post was a little misleading, this is basically legislature dictating to educational instituions new guidelines. 


What is Rape in California?

Over the years, California has expanded the definition of rape such that a female can rape a male. Additionally, the following circumstances are qualifying elements of rape:

1). When the person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the perpetrator;
2). When it is accomplished by means of force, duress or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another;
3). Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused;
4). Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused;
5). Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the ct is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
6). Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat; or
7). Where the act is accomplished against he victim's will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest or deport the victim or another , and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official.


----------



## Wolf1974

Thundarr said:


> The answer to your original question was No. Nobody knows how much alcohol is to much before you can't give consent? We'll never know that though since it's subjective. The law is new. That's the whole point though is that college students need to realize that college is for getting education and that engaging in risky behaviors is risky (sounds simple now that I've said it). Students need to know this the first day of class so it should be part of orientation. My reply to it was simply saying that the purpose of college is getting an education and to be safe while getting it. Universities should have been taken steps to make this the case but they've failed to protect some of their students.


That's fine. I misunderstood that this was a California criminal law. It isn't. This is just mandating what educations institutions must do. 

And I agree and have said from the beginning that punishment with no balance of education isn't nearly as productive. So we agree


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> 5). Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the ct is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.


I have to say: gotta wonder what the back story is on this one. I mean, how often could this happen?


----------



## Wolfman1968

always_alone said:


> The point is simply that sexual assault is the only crime where the first reaction is blame and deride the victim.
> .


As I have noted two responses above your post I am quoting, Wolf1974, who actually works in law enforcement, has refuted your claim quoted above.

Again, as this is his daily profession, he knows better than any other poster how various crimes are treated. I will defer to him and echo his post as my response.


----------



## always_alone

Kenobi said:


> My main issue is why are universities running point on sexual offenses anyway? That should be handled by the proper authorities. I also have issue with the expulsion of someone based off of accusations alone. I know that might ruffle some feathers and universities have more latitude then society, but the lack of due process and this presumption of guilt that some posters are lobbying for is contrary to the foundation of our republic.


They are trying to protect their students. And avoid costly litigation for failing to protect their students. 

And they are trying to do it in a way that, for better or worse, attempts to acknowledge and address the many contexts and ambiguities around non-consensual sex. A community-based policing that can help educate and prevent, not just prosecute and punish.


----------



## LongWalk

Always Alone,

You are correct. This is a type of information campaign to heighten awareness.

The problem with it is that creates a demand for a standard of behavior, the requirement of active consent, implying that without active consent sex is rape. But is this true?

If young men and women at universities, the persons to whom this legislation are directed, behave more sensibly that is good. A woman who is about to have intercourse but doesn't really want to may feel empowered to speak up and say "no". That is good. A young man who hears "no" may stop in his tracks. Also, good.

A young woman who does not say no but after the fact decides that she did not mean yes, can claim that she was raped. Unfortunately, her idea of rape may now be defined by the active consent idea. What do you think is the relationship between the criminal code on rape and this new guideline?

If a man penetrates as woman's vagina without seeking and receiving explicit verbal permission, is that rape?


----------



## Regret214

Thundarr said:


> No this law is by nature designed to prevent rape on college campuses because it's a huge problem. It impacts guys who screw reluctant drunk girls or passed out girls at frat parties. This is aimed at that minority guys who are predators and know they can get away with forcing themselves on girls because they see their buddys get away with it. And a lot of the time the girl is harrassed gets a bad rep and leaves school. If rape wasn't a problem on college campuses then this law wouldn't be needed. But it is a problem so this is a deterent.


The me from 24 years ago thanks you for getting it.

I was taken advantage of while being drunk by a group of these predators. I cannot express the level of pain I lived with for so long. I only told one person, Dig, a while after Dday. To this day even my parents don't know.

For anyone who thinks this might hurt an innocent person, I would say the truth will more than likely come out and exonerate them. For the offenders, well, I hope they get what is coming to them tenfold.


----------



## 2ntnuf

> If a man penetrates as woman's vagina without seeking and receiving explicit verbal permission, is that rape?


Ongoing, I might add.

Another thing that bothers me is, don't universities and colleges have an obligation to provide reasonably safe environments? I thought that was already in place? What is the lawful definition of reasonable? I thought there were security guards all over campuses? 

If this is happening off campus for the most part, what reasonable responsibility is the educational institution required to have in place? Wouldn't responsibility then lie with the students who are of legal age? I am assuming legal age is eighteen.

Also, while I did read something that said this was going to be helpful, I don't really think it is proactive help. I think the burden belongs with parents and students to learn proper ways of interacting and responding to persistent potential suitors before ever going out on their own to live away from adult supervision.

I'm thinking that an educational course for male and female students, with ongoing updates would be more practical. If you noticed, much of the cost of this will be paid by taxpayers. Would the money be better spent on educational programs for all, than for a more all encompassing law that basically makes sex illegal? I mean, if there has to be ongoing consent, then it seems like this is really a celibacy law. 

Don't want your kids having sex? Want them to study instead of partying? Send them to a different institution of higher education. Teach them at home, before they get there, what they might expect to find. Help them learn how to deal with bad situations. Send them to the safest school possible, and only let them live in dorms which are considered less vulnerable to partying and attacks. 

What am I missing here? Seems like parenting is being left to the state. Am I reading this wrong?


----------



## whitehawk

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh you poor poor guys...you won't be able to have sex unless the woman actually WANTS to. So sad.


I've been thinking that's all they do want, after a year or two of reading Tam and dabbling into the singles world :rofl:


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> Agreed it's not irrelevent but it's a far lessor of the evil. Plus I think most accusations are legit (you may disagree). I also am pretty sure universities will not kick out 100% of the accused (you may disagree).


I think most are legit, however this new law will, IMO, create many more false allegations and will make things more confusing, not less. Mainly, because few will abide by the rules because they are not practical. 

As FW and others have pointed out, the problem is cultural. Hook up sex mentallity. To fix that, you have to teach and abide by a more strict morality than is currently found in the US.


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> Consequences deter behavior which I'm sure we agree on. In this case there is now risk where there wasn't risk before. More importantly there is risk for the college and that's where change will happen.
> 
> First off the criminal justice system has not changed. Reasonable doubt is required in a court of law. This law is specifically telling universities to put the burden of proof on the accused when they are investigating. Universities don't (can't) send people to jail though. They may kick someone out of school or they may shut down a fraternity but they can not prosecute. It's just not what so many on this thread think it is IMO.


I am not sure that this will be as much of a deterrent as you do, but we can agree to disagree. 

What really concerns me, after thinking about this more, is the slippery slope argument. Now that this is campus law, how long until it becomes the 'real' law? This is a typical way for change, make a small, seemingly important, but not large change. Test the waters and then broaden. (Gun control and the EPA come to mind of where this has already happened).


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> Not sure what they has to do with my post...I was asking a question about what the drink limit is according to consent for this new law.



If they are under 21 and couldn't give consent because they were too drunk, the victim should be prosecuted for underage consumption...send the message that maybe they should be a bit more careful in the future. That is of course in addition to the offender being prosecuted for consumption as well if they were under 21 and drinking...along with having sex without consent.


----------



## alexm

This will get lost in the many (many) pages of replies here, but to me, there's a simple(ish) solution:

Stop with the casual sex.

Now, I promise you, I am not a prude, I don't have sexual hangups, I'm non-religious, and I know that people have sex for a variety of reasons.

But to me, it's simple - it's casual sex that leads to many of these issues, including allegations of rape/assault. Of course, these things happen within the confines of a relationship, too, but one can eliminate a huge percentage of these issues by, essentially, keeping it within ones pants.

I have 2 step-kids. One is 14. We won't be able to stop him from engaging in casual sex, but we can impress upon him the dangers of doing so and he can decide for himself whether the consequences are worth it. The likelihood that he thinks with his brain between now and say, 19, are slim, but by the time he reaches a certain maturity, perhaps it will click and he will be more selective and make smarter choices about the who and when and where aspects of it all.

We have talked to him about consent and respect. How to treat girls, what not to say to them, what words not to use, etc. We have talked to him about stds and pregnancy and safe sex.

And we have also talked to him about optics (how things look to others), peer pressure, expectations, and myriad other things that are relevant.

I, as an experienced male, have also spoken to him about casual sexual relationships and the inherent dangers involved. I have not forbidden him from doing anything, but I have strongly advised him that he consider the negative consequences prior to engaging in anything, including with girls he is dating and exclusive with.

My parents never had this talk with me. Different era, I guess. But from a young age, I recognized that having such a casual attitude towards sex could end up with drastic consequences. I saw 15 and 16 year old girls get pregnant, and I saw more than one person contract things like herpes. My own step son was an "accident" when my wife was barely 21, and his father took off. This had a great impact on his upbringing, as he knew from an early age that his own father didn't want anything to do with him.

Since the sexual revolution, unwanted pregnancies and std's have shot through the roof. People had sex prior to the 1960's, yes, but it wasn't as easy nor as common as it is now. Hell, these days you can put up a free ad on craigslist and be having sex in an hour. 20 years ago, I don't know? Newspaper ad? Hang around in bars? It was almost more trouble than it was worth.

The thing is, people like sex, and people have always liked sex, but nowadays it seems as though it means much less than it used to. When it's readily available at any time of the day or night, it loses it's meaning. It doesn't matter how many partners you've had in your lifetime, what matters is the context of these partners. If my step son has had 20 girlfriends by the time he's 19, so be it. If they were actually girlfriends, people he liked, then he will still be able to attach an importance to sex. If he's had 2 girlfriends and 18 hookups, then the likelihood that he views sex as important and serious is slim to none.

My wife would agree with this. She had a lot of experience with casual sex when she was younger, and she fully admits that she didn't view sex as anything but sex, as a result, which is unfortunate. She had the same issue with her ex before me (an LTR) as she did with me - both he and I attached more of an importance on sex within the relationship than she did. For them, it was enough of an issue to break up over. When she got together with me, she had an "Ooooohhhh" moment, seeing that another guy (me) also held a certain importance about sex within a relationship. Prior to that, she hadn't evidentally encountered this with other men. Sex was sex and held little to no emotional value. Her ex and I have that in common - we are both more old-school, I guess, in terms of sexual relationships and the importance they hold.

What does this have to do with the subject? That if we teach our children to attach more of a value to sex and sexuality, they will do just that. This can go a long way to eliminating the issue at hand here. I firmly believe that it is the attitudes towards sex of this generation (and perhaps the last 1 or 2 as well) that needs to be modified. Sex, now, is so much more available than it ever has been, and it is no longer as taboo as it was once. It wasn't that long ago that teenage pregnancy meant that the girl would disappear for 9 months and all of a sudden, she had a newborn little cousin or sibling. Now it's so common that it's almost accepted.

Casual sex leads to rape culture and also allows false accusations to occur. When it's something that "everybody" is doing, then it's almost expected, especially by men. There's pressure like never before - both for the man to "score" and for the woman to acquiesce. This breeds nothing but bad situations.

We have to teach our kids that it's okay to not have as much experience as their peers. We have to teach our kids that's it's absolutely okay to say no. I don't think too many people do this anymore, let alone even talk to their kids about sex. They let the schools and the internet do that for them.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> I have to say: gotta wonder what the back story is on this one. I mean, how often could this happen?


You know what..... I don't know lol. This reads similar to Colorado CRS and I wondered the same thing. Like most laws and policy's though it had to happen to someone to have become a law or policy. Makes you wonder the story lol


----------



## Almostrecovered

alexm said:


> Stop with the casual sex.


good luck with that


----------



## always_alone

2ntnuf said:


> If you noticed, much of the cost of this will be paid by taxpayers. Would the money be better spent on educational programs for all, than for a more all encompassing law that basically makes sex illegal? I mean, if there has to be ongoing consent, then it seems like this is really a celibacy law.


?? How on earth is "ongoing consent" the same as making sex illegal or a celibacy law??


----------



## Wolf1974

samyeagar said:


> If they are under 21 and couldn't give consent because they were too drunk, the victim should be prosecuted for underage consumption...send the message that maybe they should be a bit more careful in the future. That is of course in addition to the offender being prosecuted for consumption as well if they were under 21 and drinking...along with having sex without consent.


I see what you are getting at there Sam. And yes a time and place for sending a message and writing tickets for making bad decisions as a preventative measure. Such as underage consumption.

But in the instance of sexual assault that would just be furthering the mistrust of the police, and from this thread you can already see the skewed views on what we do and how we do it. Nothing would be served from giving a ticket to an actual victim of sex assault. I mean imagine if you had a daughter, she confides in you what happend, you work her up the courage to go in and report and she gets a ticket for her trouble. Or if it's a violent sexual assault she is in the hospital getting a sane exam while your outside writing a ticket. Discretion is one of the last best things we have as officers to serve the public while also upholding the law. In one area it has already been completely taken from us and their are movements out there to take all discretion away. When that happens it will be my last day at work I can promise you that. 

We can't have victims of felonies afraid to come forward. Like I said you can already see the wild notions some have. If you set an actual precedent no one would come forward and we want/need them to know we won't prosecute them and won't be dismissive.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> The problem with it is that creates a demand for a standard of behavior, the requirement of active consent, implying that without active consent sex is rape. But is this true?


Yes! If you do not have the ongoing and active consent of your sex partner then you are committing sexual assault.

Does this consent always have to be verbal? Not necessarily, IMHO, but it helps.

Given how little some people seem to care about their sexual partners, and how willing they are to have sex even though their partner is conflicted, uncomfortable, reluctant, overly intoxicated, and how willing we as a culture are to excuse and justify this poor behaviour, I think creating these standards is a good thing.

The fact is that most of the more ambiguous sexual assaults never get reported at all. And the victims simply suffer in silence while the perpetrators are never, ever, called on it.

And that's no standard at all.


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> I think most are legit, however this new law will, IMO, create many more false allegations and will make things more confusing, not less. Mainly, because few will abide by the rules because they are not practical.
> 
> As FW and others have pointed out, the problem is cultural. Hook up sex mentallity. To fix that, you have to teach and abide by a more strict morality than is currently found in the US.


It seems like you're saying consequences and penalties don't work on college kids. Again this law takes aim at the guys who push the limit of what they can get away with and now they can't get away with as much. I garauntee when some guy gets kicked out of school, his fraternity brothers will rethink their 'cultural hook up sex mentality' very quickly.


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> I am not sure that this will be as much of a deterrent as you do, but we can agree to disagree.
> 
> What really concerns me, after thinking about this more, is the slippery slope argument. Now that this is campus law, how long until it becomes the 'real' law? This is a typical way for change, make a small, seemingly important, but not large change. Test the waters and then broaden. (Gun control and the EPA come to mind of where this has already happened).


I'm surprised slippery slope hasn't come up more Dave. I get the slippery slope concern but I also think slippery slope paralyzes us. Topics where there could be a middle ground becomes fixed with people posturing on either side but no one looking for solutions.


----------



## Thundarr

alexm said:


> This will get lost in the many (many) pages of replies here, but to me, there's a simple(ish) solution:
> 
> Stop with the casual sex.
> 
> Now, I promise you, I am not a prude, I don't have sexual hangups, I'm non-religious, and I know that people have sex for a variety of reasons.
> 
> But to me, it's simple - it's casual sex that leads to many of these issues, including allegations of rape/assault. Of course, these things happen within the confines of a relationship, too, but one can eliminate a huge percentage of these issues by, essentially, keeping it within ones pants.
> 
> I have 2 step-kids. One is 14. We won't be able to stop him from engaging in casual sex, *but we can impress upon him the dangers of doing so and he can decide for himself whether the consequences are worth it*. The likelihood that he thinks with his brain between now and say, 19, are slim, but by the time he reaches a certain maturity, perhaps it will click and he will be more selective and make smarter choices about the who and when and where aspects of it all.
> 
> ...


I think the lawmakers would agree with your thoughts alexm. This law just makes casual sex a little more risky on campus.


----------



## samyeagar

Wolf1974 said:


> I see what you are getting at there Sam. And yes a time and place for sending a message and writing tickets for making bad decisions as a preventative measure. Such as underage consumption.
> 
> But in the instance of sexual assault that would just be furthering the mistrust of the police, and from this thread you can already see the skewed views on what we do and how we do it. Nothing would be served from giving a ticket to an actual victim of sex assault. I mean imagine if you had a daughter, she confides in you what happend, you work her up the courage to go in and report and she gets a ticket for her trouble. Or if it's a violent sexual assault she is in the hospital getting a sane exam while your outside writing a ticket. Discretion is one of the last best things we have as officers to serve the public while also upholding the law. In one area it has already been completely taken from us and their are movements out there to take all discretion away. When that happens it will be my last day at work I can promise you that.
> 
> We can't have victims of felonies afraid to come forward. Like I said you can already see the wild notions some have. If you set an actual precedent no one would come forward and we want/need them to know we won't prosecute them and won't be dismissive.



In the grey area cases, where there is actual question of whether or not the victim was capable of consent, I think many, if not most of those situations, poor judgement is shown all the way around. At what point does personal responsibility come into play here? There has been enough education and publicity that pretty much any kid entering college is well aware of the situational dangers associated with drinking, and yet they still do it, in part because there is often no accountability.

At the risk of sounding like blaming the victim, the typical frat house party situation is not a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The goings on in that environment are stuff of legend...everybody knows what can and does happen, yet perpetrators and victims alike still flock to them and are shocked when something bad happens.


----------



## 2ntnuf

always_alone said:


> ?? How on earth is "ongoing consent" the same as making sex illegal or a celibacy law??


I must have confused you. I'm sorry. Sometimes I don't write as clearly as I'd like. What was it that confused you?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon that_girl

Please read what I wrote:
"I think that is part of the problem. Rape is terrible, but the punishments for rape are ALSO terrible" 

Are you disagreeing with that? It seems that you agree that rape is terrible? Do you not agree that being imprisoned for several years - usually including multiple beatings and rapes is also terrible? Once you are released from prison it is very difficult to return to a normal life. 

I did not suggest a "slap on the wrist". Prison is fine for someone who is actually guilty of rape. What I am pointing out are the terrible consequences of a FALSE conviction. The destruction of a life. 

This is why we need to have such a careful balance. Why I believe we need to follow the "better to let 100 guilty go free, than condemn an innocent man". 



that_girl said:


> Spoken like someone never raped. Wtf? Soooo a slap on the wrist and a "bad boy" is enough?
> 
> If a dude (or woman...hey it happens) is raping women on a college campus, the dude (or woman) needs to go. Period.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon Thundarr
My concern is that Universities are capable of providing substantial punishment with significant detrimental effects on someone's life. 

The problem is that universities do not have all of the legal protections that are provided by the justice system. Some students are the children of wealthy donors or valuable faculty - I think it is naive to think that they will be treated equally with other students (either as victim or accused). 

Even with all of its protections, the justice system still has a huge amount of bias. A university will be even worse.

Rape is a felony - like murder it should be handled by the justice system. No other organization has the competency to deal with it.



Thundarr said:


> It's true that being kicked out of school is a big deal but it's not logical to assume it's a one to one swap of rapes for expulsions. University faculty does not want to f*ck over students without just cause and they're not as dense as people act like they are. There will be many rapes prevented and very few cases of someone being expelled that is innocent. What will happen most of the time is a guy who raped a girl still gets off too easy because even though he was expelled, he was not criminally charged. But the student body will be safer. And that's the purpose of this law. So sending our kids to get an education is safer.


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> It seems like you're saying consequences and penalties don't work on college kids. Again this law takes aim at the guys who push the limit of what they can get away with and now they can't get away with as much. I garauntee when some guy gets kicked out of school, his fraternity brothers will rethink their 'cultural hook up sex mentality' very quickly.


I don't think they work on society very well at all or there would not be theft or murder or what not.

My main concern is that fundamentally this is pushing 'guilty until proven innocent' way too hard for me. I don't like rapists getting away with it, but I don't like seeing the innocent punished either. Our laws are built on innocent till proven guilty.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon that_girl
I thought that even before this law, sex with an unconscious person was illegal in most jurisdictions. If not, it should have been and the law is an improvement.





that_girl said:


> If a girl passes out, and she's with you, is sex ok?
> 
> No. Buuut....someone sure thought it was ok.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good afternoon Regret214
I am very sorry you were raped, and I wish your attackers could have been brought to justice

At the same time there was a case in our area where a man spent 10 years in prison because his teenage step-daughter accused him of rape. Based entirely on her word he was imprisoned. She recently recanted saying that she had been angry about her mother's remarriage. Nothing can give him his life back. 

There have been quite a few cases where the Innocence Project has done DNA testing and found that convicted rapists were factually innocent and had them released. 

It is extremely difficult to know how many rape claims are true. I'm convinced that *most* of them are, but most isn't enough. 

I simply don't know a way to ensure that the majority of the guilty are punished without sometimes punishing the innocent.



Regret214 said:


> The me from 24 years ago thanks you for getting it.
> 
> I was taken advantage of while being drunk by a group of these predators. I cannot express the level of pain I lived with for so long. I only told one person, Dig, a while after Dday. To this day even my parents don't know.
> 
> For anyone who thinks this might hurt an innocent person, I would say the truth will more than likely come out and exonerate them. For the offenders, well, I hope they get what is coming to them tenfold.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Teach kids not to have casual sex as the answer is just a really sad POV because WE are the ones who created a world where porn is the only sex education they will ever get and then we handed them access to it 24/7. But now we want to blame the kids for their rampant promiscuity and pretend THEY are the ones who are oh so immoral? Hey, at least they have the guts to actually try to HAVE sex instead of just watch it on a tiny screen and wish they weren't too stifled sexually to actually do it. At least they respect sex workers, unlike our generation who want to get off while looking at them but pretend they are not human beings with rights.

These kids need education that has to do with their current reality, which we created by our own ridiculous double standards. Trying to shame them back into fearing having casual sex like most of us felt is just silly.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Faithful Wife said:


> Teach kids not to have casual sex as the answer is just a really sad POV because WE are the ones who created a world where porn is the only sex education they will ever get and then we handed them access to it 24/7. But now we want to blame the kids for their rampant promiscuity and pretend THEY are the ones who are oh so immoral? Hey, at least they have the guts to actually try to HAVE sex instead of just watch it on a tiny screen and wish they weren't too stifled sexually to actually do it. At least they respect sex workers, unlike our generation who want to get off while looking at them but pretend they are not human beings with rights.
> 
> These kids need education that has to do with their current reality, which we created. Trying to shame them back into fearing having casual sex like most of us felt is just silly.


This law actually changes the thoughts about casual sex between "children". If children can decide to have sex, which can change a life due to pregnancy, disease, or even rape, why can't they be taught how to handle themselves and not go to places or be involved in things that will put them at the highest risk? Why can't they be taught to stay away from these drinking, drug and sex parties between "children"?


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Teach kids not to have casual sex as the answer is just a really sad POV because WE are the ones who created a world where porn is the only sex education they will ever get and then we handed them access to it 24/7. But now we want to blame the kids for their rampant promiscuity and pretend THEY are the ones who are oh so immoral? Hey, at least they have the guts to actually try to HAVE sex instead of just watch it on a tiny screen and wish they weren't too stifled sexually to actually do it.
> 
> These kids need education that has to do with their current reality, which we created. Trying to shame them back into fearing having casual sex like most of us felt is just silly.


Again, I am focusing on the he said/she said situations, and think that the problem is not the casual sex. It's one of responsibility, and accountability. Sex is just one of the ways the lack of responsibility is shown. I don't think that the over abundance of porn is really the root either. It is the fact that young people, and older people too are in a society that is all about making things as easy as possible, and finding excuses as to why something wasn't actually their fault. This is a side affect of the everybody wins helicopter parent mindset.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Please, will some members post what they understand ongoing approval during sex to look like? I think it would be a great help in understanding, even if this is about kids in college.


----------



## Faithful Wife

WE are the ones who made that "too easy" society sam, not the kids who came into it. A side effect of the helicopter mom mindset? Sigh...yeah. Sure.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Teach kids not to have casual sex as the answer is just a really sad POV because WE are the ones who created a world where porn is the only sex education they will ever get and then we handed them access to it 24/7. But now we want to blame the kids for their rampant promiscuity and pretend THEY are the ones who are oh so immoral? Hey, at least they have the guts to actually try to HAVE sex instead of just watch it on a tiny screen and wish they weren't too stifled sexually to actually do it. At least they respect sex workers, unlike our generation who want to get off while looking at them but pretend they are not human beings with rights.
> 
> These kids need education that has to do with their current reality, which we created by our own ridiculous double standards. Trying to shame them back into fearing having casual sex like most of us felt is just silly.


:iagree:
A lot of people's actions don't tally up with their words.
When many adults are watching/downloading porn but talk about porn stars like they are inferior humans and frown on casual sex while pumping money into industry that is built on casual sex, there's so many conflicting messages being told to kids.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> WE are the ones who made that "too easy" society sam, not the kids who came into it. A side effect of the helicopter mom mindset? Sigh...yeah. Sure.


Yeah...helicopter parenting...notice I said parenting...you specifically said mom 

Part of that mindset is making sure that the kids have everything they want when they want it, making sure no harm ever comes to them by not letting them learn things for themselves, coddling them if you will. Parents sheltering kids from normal life consequences. The competition between parents using their kids as pawns and another method of keeping up with the Jones'...my little Johnny is the perfect little angel...there is no way he could EVER do that, and I'll go in and argue with the principal that the 37 witnesses who saw him do it are just wrong...that kind of crap. Lack of responsibility, accountability, and consequences.


----------



## 2ntnuf

If parents made that society too easy, who is responsible for fixing it, the state? They can't fix anything. They can only force people to comply. It doesn't change anything.

That's part of the problem of a law like this. Laws are only good after a crime has been committed. They don't work so well in deterrence. Unless, the punishment is so severe, the average person won't have sex any more.


----------



## Thundarr

richardsharpe said:


> The problem is that universities do not have all of the legal protections that are provided by the justice system. Some students are the children of wealthy donors or valuable faculty - I think it is naive to think that they will be treated equally with other students (either as victim or accused).


You just made a point for why the state needed to step in and hold Universities to accountable and known standards. You're correct that it's been naive to believe the administrations would follow up on acusations in cases where it was kids of influence; star athletes; etc. Now school funding is on the line if these are not processed with the same dilligence as any other.


----------



## norajane

2ntnuf said:


> Please, will some members post what they understand ongoing approval during sex to look like? I think it would be a great help in understanding, even if this is about kids in college.


What they are trying to address are situations where someone continues to have sex with a person who has passed out or wants to stop after getting started. 

What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a couple who are enthusiastic about having sex, those questions can be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yes, there! Faster!


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> I don't think they work on society very well at all or there would not be theft or murder or what not.
> 
> My main concern is that fundamentally this is pushing 'guilty until proven innocent' way too hard for me. I don't like rapists getting away with it, but I don't like seeing the innocent punished either. Our laws are built on innocent till proven guilty.


Where is 'guilty until proven innocent' suggested. I thought the premise was there as well because I believed some of the arguments but I don't see it in the law at all. Again this isn't criminal prosecution. It's just a more defined definition that makes it clear to universities and students that coherent consent is the standard.


----------



## 2ntnuf

So, it's the entitled that are causing most of the problems and getting away with it? The state can't discriminate and anything other than an all encompassing law would cause some to think there is discrimination against the wealthy and athletes, so they have no choice? Makes sense now. The state finds it difficult to prosecute these types, so they have to rely on funding to do the work they can't. I guess I was looking at this all wrong. 

And you know all the girls will go for these guys, if they even seem slightly interested. The guys will take advantage of them because they have been trained they are better than anyone else and deserve these "innocent victims". This has been going on forever. 

If this is the crux of the matter, send the parents to jail for letting their children grow up to be entitled arrogant a$$es, and the children for doing the crimes.

Seems like a few good movies like they show about drinking and driving would help these children, and some discussion on respecting others and having some humility. 



No one posted anything on what ongoing consent while having sex looks like?


----------



## norajane

2ntnuf said:


> No one posted anything on what ongoing consent while having sex looks like?


I did!



norajane said:


> What they are trying to address are situations where someone continues to have sex with a person who has passed out or wants to stop after getting started.
> 
> What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a couple who are enthusiastic about having sex, those questions can be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yes, there! Faster!


----------



## jaharthur

As a lawyer, I know that verbal agreements are worth the paper they aren't written on.

So to be safe, all college students should carry business card size contract forms that say something like:

I hereby consent to have sex with [FILL IN BLANK]
Dated: ____________________
Signed: ____________________

It would be better if notarized, but that might be awkward.


----------



## 2ntnuf

norajane said:


> What they are trying to address are situations where someone continues to have sex with a person who has passed out or wants to stop after getting started.
> 
> What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a couple who are enthusiastic about having sex, those questions can be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yes, there! Faster!


Well then, that changes my last post. Thanks.


ETA: Sorry Nora. You posted while I was still typing.


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> Where is 'guilty until proven innocent' suggested. I thought the premise was there as well because I believed some of the arguments but I don't see it in the law at all. Again this isn't criminal prosecution. It's just a more defined definition that makes it clear to universities and students that coherent consent is the standard.


so a boy gets 'expelled' from UofCali, because he didn't have his ONS fill out the correct paperwork? That is bs and not due process. I expect more from a major Uni than that.

I get the don't have sex with the girl who is passed out or says no. Clearly rape, clearly wrong. But the law, as stated, forces the Uni to do something to the boy (probably always the boy) with no due process. Or am I totally missing something, because if there is no one found guilty, with no negative consequences, this thread should have stopped at post 1.


----------



## 2ntnuf

norajane said:


> What they are trying to address are situations where someone continues to have sex with a person who has passed out or wants to stop after getting started.
> 
> What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a couple who are enthusiastic about having sex, those questions can be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yes, there! Faster!





jaharthur said:


> As a lawyer, I know that verbal agreements are worth the paper they aren't written on.
> 
> So to be safe, all college students should carry business card size contract forms that say something like:
> 
> I hereby consent to have sex with [FILL IN BLANK]
> Dated: ____________________
> Signed: ____________________
> 
> It would be better if notarized, but that might be awkward.


Do you see why I called it a celibacy law? Yeah, a little sarcastic, but not that far-fetched now. Is it?


----------



## Thundarr

2ntnuf said:


> No one posted anything on what ongoing consent while having sex looks like?


I personally think the intent of putting 'ongoing consent' in there is to highlight that initial consent can be taken back. Some guys think once it's started if the girl says to stop then it's too late for her to change her mind. Ongoing consent says 'not so fast, it's not too late to stop'.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Just thought of something. 

What happens when the young woman is married and goes to one of these parties and has sex with another man? Later, her husband finds out. Do you think she will claim rape if she just wanted to have a little fun without getting caught? I mean, it's not like some WS' ever justified anything, right?

Any BS' ever hear anything from some 'friend', or acquaintance outside of the marriage and after the divorce or during the separation that just wasn't true? I think there's a whole thread or two on this stuff. Hey, we all have our opinions of what happened that caused the divorce, or the infidelity...if no matter what your WS says is true by default, how are you going to prove that it wasn't? You ain't(aren't), unless you weren't there and have proof of where you were. 

These are just some of the ramifications of an ambiguous law like this.


----------



## samyeagar

I do practice what I preach with my kids, and the best I can with my step kids.

I got a call around midnight a while back. It was the police saying they had my oldest son and some of his friends in custody. They had responded to a call in the neighborhood we used to live in five years ago. Someone had seen them inside our old house, long story, but the house is still in mine and my ex wifes name, and they called the police. Meth labs are a huge issue around here, and so it was quite the law enforcement response...SWAT and DEA. The police were calling to verify that I did indeed own the property and that the kids weren't trespassing. Mind you, I am living two hours away from there...Anyway, I told the officer that I did own the property, but to hold them until I was was contacted by the courts for a proper arraignment the next day. I was not about to bail them out. They knew they shouldn't have been there like that. It was horrible judgement on their parts, and there are consequences. I knew they were safe, and hadn't done anything too bad, but they were legal adults...time to accept the responsibility of being one.

My step daughter was at a party where there was drinking. Now, she is a model student, straight A's, National Honor Society, Student Council President, steady job for a few years. Great kid. Well, she was at that party, posed for a pic holding a hard lemonade, and it ended up on Instagram for a few minutes before it got pulled down. During those few minutes, someone got a screen shot and sent it to the school. She was suspended from the national Student Council Convention, and was not allowed to go on the Spanish Club trip to Spain. My wife, then girlfriend at the time, was all ready to get on the phone with the school and plead for her daughter to be allowed to go on the trips and stuff. My wife and I talked about it first, and the point I made that made her not call was this...My step daughter is damned lucky losing the trips were her only consequences for showing such horrible judgement.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Thundarr said:


> I personally think the intent of putting 'ongoing consent' in there is to highlight that initial consent can be taken back. Most guys think once it's started if the girl says to stop then it's too late for her to change her mind. Ongoing consent says 'not so fast, it's not too late to stop'.


Nope, I don't buy it. I do/did not think that way. I was too damn scared to just take what I wanted. I didn't want to blow the chances I got. Maybe tomorrow she'd feel differently? Get me? I don't have to force it. 

So most men are rapists? Do you see where a law won't change that kind of thinking? I mean the kind that doesn't understand and respect the wishes of the woman he wants to be intimate with? :scratchhead:


----------



## Thundarr

2ntnuf said:


> Nope, I don't buy it. I do/did not think that way. I was too damn scared to just take what I wanted. I didn't want to blow the chances I got. Maybe tomorrow she'd feel differently? Get me? I don't have to force it.
> 
> So most men are rapists? Do you see where a law won't change that kind of thinking? I mean the kind that doesn't understand and respect the wishes of the woman he wants to be intimate with? :scratchhead:


Opps. Most was the wrong word. I should have used Some instead.


----------



## samyeagar

2ntnuf said:


> Nope, I don't buy it. I do/did not think that way. I was too damn scared to just take what I wanted. I didn't want to blow the chances I got. Maybe tomorrow she'd feel differently? Get me? I don't have to force it.
> 
> So most men are rapists? Do you see where a law won't change that kind of thinking? I mean the kind that doesn't understand and respect the wishes of the woman he wants to be intimate with? :scratchhead:


Most people aren't murderers or thieves either, but we still have laws regarding that. Fear of punishment in some case is enough to deter the crime, which is a good thing. I think in most cases though, the people who commit the crime would do it anyway, regardless of threat of punishment, because when in the situation, it's pretty obvious that they aren't thinking about the possible consequences. That is where punishment becomes a consequence and is no longer a deterrent, recidivism is staggeringly high.


----------



## 2ntnuf

samyeagar said:


> Most people aren't murderers or thieves either, but we still have laws regarding that. Fear of punishment in some case is enough to deter the crime, which is a good thing. I think in most cases though, the people who commit the crime would do it anyway, regardless of threat of punishment, because when in the situation, it's pretty obvious that they aren't thinking about the possible consequences. That is where punishment becomes a consequence and is no longer a deterrent, recidivism is staggeringly high.


I agree, but don't think it fits with what I was conveying.


----------



## Faithful Wife

If we were responsibly parenting our teens we would know that they have been raised on porn and we'd know how to handle that. Since most parents have no clue how to handle that or even their OWN sex lives, our teens have done the best they can with what they learned. To continue to harp on how they have loose morals is just a sad projection of our issues onto them. I fully believe that the teens now who are going to take on all this burden we've laid on them, will end up being much more sexually aware in the long run, and yes this type of consent law will be part of that awareness. 

People like Laci Green are out there to help them lead the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_Green


----------



## Nostromo

I'd like to imagine the best method of keeping a young man from engaging in casual sex would be to show him a thread like this one. Hopefully when he sees the amount of people in this world that have such a nonchalant attitude about innocent men being falsely imprisoned and having their lives irreversibly wrecked due to fraudulent rape accusations he'll decide to spend his free time pursuing more wholesome activities rather than becoming 'collateral damage' in the war on rape.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Isn't respecting another human, part and parcel to the deterrence of rape? 

What does this thread topic have to do with pornography? I thought it was about consensual sex and what constitutes that under a new law?


----------



## Mr. Nail

What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a typical couple those questions will likely be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yawn I'm going to sleep now.


----------



## samyeagar

2ntnuf said:


> *Isn't respecting another human, part and parcel to the deterrence of rape? *
> 
> What does this thread topic have to do with pornography? I thought it was about consensual sex and what constitutes that under a new law?


You'd think, but unfortunately, showing respect for other human beings seems to be a dying art.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Mr. Nail said:


> What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a typical couple those questions will likely be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yawn I'm going to sleep now.


Must have gotten bored. You fell asleep.


----------



## Thundarr

Nostromo said:


> I'd like to imagine the best method of keeping a young man from engaging in casual sex would be to show him a thread like this one. Hopefully when he sees the amount of people in this world that have such a nonchalant attitude about innocent men being falsely imprisoned and having their lives irreversibly wrecked due to fraudulent rape accusations he'll decide to spend his free time pursuing more wholesome activities rather than becoming 'collateral damage' in the war on rape.


You've misunderstood the law. It's a guideline for how colleges pursue assault charges within their student body. Universities are not part of the judicial system so they do not imprison people.


----------



## Nostromo

Thundarr said:


> You've misunderstood the law. It's a guideline for how colleges pursue assault charges within their student body. Universities are not part of the judicial system so they do not imprison people.


Respectfully, you've misunderstood my point. I was referring to the general attitude of many people, both on here and in 'real life' with regards to false rape allegations and the weight of importance or lack thereof that society grants to the victims of such allegations, not specifically this new set of guidelines for colleges to follow. I suppose you could say that I'm slightly off topic but I believe this problem is more substantial than that.


Faithful Wife said:


> People like Laci Green are out there to help them lead the way.
> 
> Laci Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I went to the link you provided but I stopped reading after this part.

*"She has hosted online sex education content on behalf of Planned Parenthood"*

I'm not certain why I felt the desire to inform you of that. I think it's the fact that you just got done saying you were NOT a feminist a few pages back and now here you are linking to a planned parenthood mouthpiece as somebody we should all be looking up to that's a great example for teens to follow. I'm genuinely perplexed by this dichotomy.:scratchhead:


----------



## COguy

Thundarr said:


> You've misunderstood the law. It's a guideline for how colleges pursue assault charges within their student body. Universities are not part of the judicial system so they do not imprison people.


Replace falsely imprisoned with falsely expelled and having their life ruined. There are far too many ALLEGED rape cases that have made the headlines for people to be ignorant of this. I can remember a half a dozen from the top of my head and I am not that old.

Woman accuses man of rape, school expels them, court of public opinion completely demonizes the accused, accused spends thousands if not millions defending their reputation, accuser recants story and proceeds to live their life, accused spends the rest of their life with a smeared name.

In an alleged felony sexual offender charge, prison is not the ultimate punishment. Being ostracized from society is. Who cares if you are free from jail if you can't get an education, get a job, or make friends?

Ultimately I'm just tired of this double standard. I truly feel for all the victims of violence in the world. I feel like we could all be joined in the fight against it if we didn't look to protect an entire subset of the population by default. I would be 100% all gung-ho for this legislation if it just added one line at the end: "False accusations of sexual violence will be charged with Felony Libel." And just like that, I would become a feminist.


----------



## samyeagar

And then we come full circle...in the less clear cut cases, the grey areas, one person may feel raped, and another might not in the exact same circumstances, so in the victims mind, the allegations are not false...begs the question...did a crime occur simply because a person feels like it did?


----------



## Thundarr

So knowing that there's a problem on college campuses with rape, what's the answer? Doing nothing isn't it. Telling Joe student to be nice and don't take advantage isn't the answer because he already knows that. Criminal charges without some evidence isn't the answer so that's why this law doesn't change requirements for criminal prosecution. Telling kids to not have consentual sex isn't the answer. That would be like telling water to run uphill. Telling parents to man up isn't the answer unless we're looking for change in about 20 years. Plus it wouldn't happen anyway.

The best answer I've seen is to hold universities accountable for how they investigate and discipline a known problem area. Giving the university a definition of what's expected is a good idea. The universities passing this along to their student body is a good idea. So universities and students knowing 'better safe than sorry' is the standard makes sense.


----------



## JCD

FalconKing said:


> I understand your point Wolf. But I think people will always use and abuse laws meant to help people in need. In divorce settlements, some women(and men) use and abuse child support and alimony. We all know examples of this. But I think the law's intention was to help people who took on a domestic role and then were left with nothing if the marriage went south.
> 
> Even if the execution is sloppy, I guess I can appreciate the intentions.
> 
> I just realized that you lived through that and so I apologize for saying something that's common knowledge and could be seen as condescending to you. But I just hope someone could understand where I am coming from with that example.


I am sure your good intentions will keep my son warm if he is spending time in jail or expelled because of your sloppy law.

That is the problem with sloppy law and good intentions: someone always suffers so you can feel good about 'doing something' instead of 'doing something right.'. And I have daughters too. And I have a son!

Here is one of the major complaints I have about this: everyone can have a bad sexual experience. Everyone can meet someone overly aggressive. A forced kiss. A not quite welcome grope. A request for sex when you are still at the 'let's shake hand' phase of And you have the right to say 'no'. BUT...because of societal fears, because of peer pressure, because...well...maybe she might change her mind, sometimes women do NOT say no when they really feel that way.

Now, *most* women, if they missed the 'no' window, suck it up, pull up their big girl panties and say 'Hell! I'm sorry I let that go so far. I'll remember next time." They behave like ADULTS. They realize that they have a responsibility to say 'NO!" (And I am sorry ladies, but you don't get to do the passive aggressive 'I am not sure this is a good idea' thing. You need to be firm if you mean it. This standard is HARDLY Sharia law!)

So, most women are great. Where are women not great? A place where they are NOT mature, where they do NOT know their personal responsibilities, where they do not understand their sexuality, where boys are still drunk and stupid, and where they have idiot friends who talk them into truly vile acts.

I, of course, mean college. You have otherwise great girls who met Johnny Fingers, never said 'no' and walked away feeling crappy. But it was a halfway self imposed 'crappy'. She understands this wasn't rape, but it wasn't good.

Until her Women's Studies friends get to her....

Then another guy, who never got a good signal from the woman, has his life ruined because someone talked her into not taking her own personal responsibility. 

Our standard of justice is 'better that ten men go free than one innocent man is jailed'.

Is that same standard being met with this law?


----------



## JCD

Anon Pink said:


> What's wrong with verbally expressing enthusiastic consent for what's about to happen?
> 
> Maybe this will help parents teach their kids BETTER about sex? "Suzy sweetie, if you're making out and he tries to put his hand up your blouse, if you're not okay with it, you must not give consent and that means saying no and he must back off immediately." Johnny Golden boy now has to have a conversation with Suzy sweetie about sex BEFORE they have sex... Can any parent ask for more informed decision making process for their teen?
> 
> Maybe it will make women less coy about their sexuality if they actually have to OWN their sexual desires? Yes, the woman you've dated a few times doesn't get to pretend she is too drunk on booze or love to know what's happening, she now has to give consent and OWN her desires! This is a GOOD THING!
> 
> Maybe it will make men a little more confident as they go forward knowing that the woman their slowly undressing keeps saying yes? This is a good thing!
> 
> My goodness people, own your sh!t! Stop playing coy! If you want it say it, own it be it love it! If you don't, be taken at your word which means your word now has to mean the same thing as your intent.
> 
> This is a good thing!



I agree with this IF it is used this way. However, the more likely use will be the presumption of guilt for men if they don't get a yes while the women can hang men out to dry by getting way with not saying no.


----------



## sinnister

You guys went on for 27 pages on this?

The law is not necessary. All you need is for both parties to carry a VAR on them. We can get Weightlifter to give training sessions.


----------



## Thundarr

COguy said:


> Ultimately I'm just tired of this double standard. I truly feel for all the victims of violence in the world. I feel like we could all be joined in the fight against it if we didn't look to protect an entire subset of the population by default. I would be 100% all gung-ho for this legislation if it just added one line at the end: *"False accusations of sexual violence will be charged with Felony Libel."* And just like that, I would become a feminist.


I definitely agree with that. False accusations should be a criminal offense and not just in this scenario. I suppose it is if a slander suit is filed but it should be filed by the state IMO.


----------



## JCD

FalconKing said:


> It's really sad that being a feminist has negative connotations. I don't think being a feminist means you want the downfall of men. But I actually use to think like that. Sadly. Then I realized all those women who hate man who claimed to be feminist are broken people using that platform to justify their anger. A just cause attracts the righteous as well as the ruined, I suppose.
> 
> I wonder in a first world country if we could ever get to a point where somebody says they are feminist and people don't cringe.


You know what? You get judged by the company you keep. There are millions of gun owners who are blameless. And yet the occasional yahoo goes off the deep end and kills a bunch of kids.

Suddenly that brush is very very broad.

If Feminists don't want to have to own the reputation earned by their bat-sh*t crazy fellows spouting nonsense, they need to decry the nonsense or separate from them, even if they 'really care!'

For supposedly sensitive and emotionally aware beings as women like to portray themselves, some of the things they propose and justify to themselves is pretty frigging insensitive and stupid.

So the sympathy meter is not so high on this one.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I have no problem with the concept of no meaning no. But what bothers me about attitudes like this is that it holds men to higher standards than women which is the very anti-thesis of equality. A drunk woman can't be expected to have good judgment and thus consent; ok fair enough, but why should a drunk guy have better judgement? So even though his judgement is also impaired he should still have the wits to realize she's drunk and can't consent? If you drug someone on purpose you should be accountable but many times there's alcohol all around and nobody's got good judgement, yet a guy can be held accountable for his actions even when drunk but a woman isn't. Huge double standard.


----------



## Buddy400

Thundarr said:


> Most guys think once it's started if the girl says to stop then it's too late for her to change her mind.


No. Most guys DON'T think that. If she said no after it had started, most guys would stop.


----------



## Thundarr

When rules change, people adapt. We're pretty good about that. Universities aren't going to keep their policies secret just so they can catch some guy breaking a rule he didn't know about. Na this will be part of orientation. Guys know to be more cautious and girls who really want it know they have to show a little more interest.

And the smart guy will know to not to brag about the girl who got freaky with him. Kiss and tell is a quick way to get a girl of lessor character to start throwing false acusations.


----------



## norajane

lifeistooshort said:


> I have no problem with the concept of no meaning no. But what bothers me about attitudes like this is that it holds men to higher standards than women which is the very anti-thesis of equality. A drunk woman can't be expected to have good judgment and thus consent; ok fair enough, but why should a drunk guy have better judgement? So even though his judgement is also impaired he should still have the wits to realize she's drunk and can't consent? If you drug someone on purpose you should be accountable but many times there's alcohol all around and nobody's got good judgement, yet a guy can be held accountable for his actions even when drunk but a woman isn't. Huge double standard.


The easy answer is neither of them should have sex if they've been drinking. Why not wait until the next day to do it when they aren't drunk? If there's alcohol around and nobody has good judgment, maybe they shouldn't be trying to have sex right then. Why must they have sex right then and there when they've been drinking and might be impaired?

That does not seem like an impossible standard to me. The only ones who struggle against that standard are the ones who want drunk ONS sex, right? Why is it so important that they have sex that night unless it's precisely because drinking impairs judgment and causes these situations where there is gray area? 

If a guy is concerned that there is a double standard, he does not have to get caught up in it. He can avoid having drunk sex with drunk girls. Same for the girls.


----------



## naiveonedave

To follow up on JCD. When a man is expeclled becuase he was wrongly accused of date rape under this statute, he will be out ~$25K/year he was at the school. He will have to 'explain' why he was expelled to any school he wishes to transfer to, probably end up with a period of no school time, which he would have to explain to future employers. He would also likely end up getting charged by the cops, or is the Uni exempt from taking their findings to the police?

This is very anti-US civil rights. Purely lack of due process and squarely aimed at men.


----------



## samyeagar

Party gets busted and there is underage drinking...everyone in attendance over and under age...immediate dismissal from the university.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> What they are trying to address are situations where someone continues to have sex with a person who has passed out or wants to stop after getting started.
> 
> What it looks like is, "do you like this?" "should I keep going?" "how does this feel?" "should I try that?" With a couple who are enthusiastic about having sex, those questions can be answered with Yes! Yes! Yes! A little to the right! Yes, there! Faster!


How many situations have there been where the woman acknowledged that they said yes but then changed their mind later and the man didn't stop? Has this really been reported? If so, how many times has a man been accused of behaving this way?

If that was alleged to have happened, why couldn't the man just say "she continued to give positive consent until the end". Then what? We're right back to where we started; he said / she said.

Are we trying to solve a real problem here? If so, how would this solution solve it? Or are we just trying to pat ourselves on the back for being well intentioned and damn the real outcomes to actual people. 

If you want to influence behavior for the better then, by all means, start an advocacy group. 

Trying to influence behavior by passing a law is absurd. If most people aren't already behaving the way you think is correct (which would seem to be the case in you're want to change things) then this just makes most people criminals until the PR campaign succeeds.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> Opps. Most was the wrong word. I should have used Some instead.





Buddy400 said:


> No. Most guys DON'T think that. If she said no after it had started, most guys would stop.


Yep. 2ntnuf already caught that and I prompty agreed "some" is the better word. I think I'll go back and change that comment though else I may get a third requote. We men deserve more credit than that.


----------



## Nostromo

COguy said:


> Replace falsely imprisoned with falsely expelled and having their life ruined. There are far too many ALLEGED rape cases that have made the headlines for people to be ignorant of this. I can remember a half a dozen from the top of my head and I am not that old.


Remember the Duke lacrosse story from a few years back? Two strippers at a frat party, one later claimed rape the other denied that a rape occurred and yet all it took was one district attorney trying to make a name for himself to nearly destroy a bunch of innocent young men's lives. Eighty eight college professors (Group of 88) with the help of our 'unbiased' media publicly ripped these men to shreds, placing a black mark on their names that can never be fully erased. Neither the college administrators nor the media cared if the accusations were suspicious. 

Nope, not a single f**k was given, they wanted blood and they were gonna get it, truth be damned. This is the mindset of these zealots, they don't care about what actually happened nor the consequences that others will suffer due to their lies. The only thing that matters is their long term goal, this is the 'progressive' movement of which feminism is merely a branch of. They live by the old Malcolm X mantra "By any means necessary." or as it was said long before him "The ends justify the means." They intend to put a stop to 'rape culture' and if some innocent men happen to get caught in their crosshairs, oh well you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.


----------



## samyeagar

norajane said:


> The easy answer is neither of them should have sex if they've been drinking. Why not wait until the next day to do it when they aren't drunk? If there's alcohol around and nobody has good judgment, maybe they shouldn't be trying to have sex right then. *Why must they have sex right then and there when they've been drinking and might be impaired?*
> 
> That does not seem like an impossible standard to me. The only ones who struggle against that standard are the ones who want drunk ONS sex, right? Why is it so important that they have sex that night unless it's precisely because drinking impairs judgment and causes these situations where there is gray area?
> 
> If a guy is concerned that there is a double standard, he does not have to get caught up in it. He can avoid having drunk sex with drunk girls. Same for the girls.


Because in a lot of cases, neither one of them would have considered having sex with the other had they been sober. 

That's part of why I have a difficult time with this from either the victims OR the perpetrators point of view. Alcohol lowers those inhibition. Alcohol enables poor judgement. Everyone knows this. It is not a shock or surprise to people. Both parties in the grey area cases were presumably of sound mind when they made the choice to willingly partake in alcohol, and neither should be able to use it as an excuse.


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> The easy answer is neither of them should have sex if they've been drinking. Why not wait until the next day to do it when they aren't drunk? If there's alcohol around and nobody has good judgment, maybe they shouldn't be trying to have sex right then. Why must they have sex right then and there when they've been drinking and might be impaired?
> 
> That does not seem like an impossible standard to me. The only ones who struggle against that standard are the ones who want drunk ONS sex, right? Why is it so important that they have sex that night unless it's precisely because drinking impairs judgment and causes these situations where there is gray area?
> 
> If a guy is concerned that there is a double standard, he does not have to get caught up in it. He can avoid having drunk sex with drunk girls. Same for the girls.


Expel women who have sex with drunk men and I'm on board.


----------



## norajane

Buddy400 said:


> How many situations have there been where the woman acknowledged that they said yes but then changed their mind later and the man didn't stop? Has this really been reported? If so, how many times has a man been accused of behaving this way?
> 
> If that was alleged to have happened, why couldn't the man just say "she continued to give positive consent until the end". Then what? We're right back to where we started; he said / she said.
> 
> Are we trying to solve a real problem here? If so, how would this solution solve it? Or are we just trying to pat ourselves on the back for being well intentioned and damn the real outcomes to actual people.
> 
> If you want to influence behavior for the better then, by all means, start an advocacy group.
> 
> Trying to influence behavior by passing a law is absurd. If most people aren't already behaving the way you think is correct (which would seem to be the case in you're want to change things) then this just makes most people criminals until the PR campaign succeeds.


This law forces universities to put these policies in place, and has some specific language. The other big piece of the law requires the schools to have outreach programs in place, as well as education and awareness programs.

By educating these young people, it makes them all smarter on what their rights and responsibilities are when making decisions to have sex. It's asking them to think and choose rather than sliding into bed drunk. With enough education and awareness on what safer sex is - as spelled out in the policies - the idea is fewer people will fall into that gray area of he-said, she-said.

We taught condom use for safer sex (which was resisted by many people!), we can teach consent, too, and create an environment on campus where people talk to each other before having sex. First because they have to because of the policies, and then because they see it's the best way to do it.

If young people can learn, "do you have a condom?" they can learn, "do you want to have sex?"


----------



## naiveonedave

NJ - the problem is drunk 19 yos want sex. You can't unlearn your biology. 19 yos want sex is biology. Their inhibitions are the morals and education that they have minus the impact of drugs and alcohol.

Want the sex to stop - eliminate drugs and alcohol. Good luck with that.


----------



## norajane

samyeagar said:


> Because in a lot of cases, neither one of them would have considered having sex with the other had they been sober.
> 
> That's part of why I have a difficult time with this from either the victims OR the perpetrators point of view. Alcohol lowers those inhibition. Alcohol enables poor judgement. Everyone knows this. It is not a shock or surprise to people. Both parties in the grey area cases were presumably of sound mind when they made the choice to willingly partake in alcohol, and neither should be able to use it as an excuse.


That's the thing, though. These policies promote the message that drunk sex is not necessarily ok and very risky, so cut it out because it's not acceptable on campus anymore. Have sex when you're sober.


----------



## norajane

naiveonedave said:


> NJ - the problem is drunk 19 yos want sex. You can't unlearn your biology. 19 yos want sex is biology. Their inhibitions are the morals and education that they have minus the impact of drugs and alcohol.
> 
> Want the sex to stop - eliminate drugs and alcohol. Good luck with that.


You have to start somewhere. I think in an environment where drunk sex becomes less of a norm, fewer people will have drunk sex.


----------



## JCD

Deejo said:


> Which also explains why it's fiction ... written by a woman.


Yeah, it's great when it's Ramon, the new pool boy with long hair and abs, who knows how to do everything exactly perfectly by some sexual telepathy.

When it's Frank, the husband whose skid marks you've had to deal with and has trouble finding the hole (i.e. real life), begging seems to be right off the table...


----------



## Faithful Wife

No age group is ever going to stop having drunk sex. But the youngest age group is going to learn that you make specific decisions about when and where and who you have sex with and what the consequences are. They will end up far better off than our generation as a result.


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> Are we trying to solve a real problem here? If so, how would this solution solve it? Or are we just trying to pat ourselves on the back for being well intentioned and damn the real outcomes to actual people.


It's a real problem but I think you're actually asking 'are we really trying to solve the problem with this law'. My opinion is yes. The law is telling universities and students than consent requires coherentness.

And this isn't a hidden policy for ambushing the evil male population. It's right out there for everyone to see and talk about and will be part of the school's set of policies and guidelines.


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> It's a real problem but I think you're actually asking 'are we really trying to solve the problem with this law'. My opinion is yes. The law is telling universities and students than consent requires coherentness.
> 
> And this isn't a hidden policy for ambushing the evil male population. It's right out there for everyone to see and talk about and will be part of the school's set of policies and guidelines.


That is the intended consequence. What is the unintended consequence? The unintended consequence is what makes this a farce, imo. 

The road to you no where is paved with good intentions.


----------



## JCD

Racer said:


> “Do you want to have sex with me?” will become the male equivalent of “Where is this relationship going?” Just one of those questions where the answer will define the continuing future of that relationship from that point on.


I would expect it to come far earlier than many women would particularly like as men decide how much they want to invest in the relationship.

This will change the male female dynamic...and not necessarily for the better.

Because while I agree with a lot that Anon Pink says, I believe most women LIKE the ability to play coy.


----------



## lifeistooshort

norajane said:


> The easy answer is neither of them should have sex if they've been drinking. Why not wait until the next day to do it when they aren't drunk? If there's alcohol around and nobody has good judgment, maybe they shouldn't be trying to have sex right then. Why must they have sex right then and there when they've been drinking and might be impaired?
> 
> That does not seem like an impossible standard to me. The only ones who struggle against that standard are the ones who want drunk ONS sex, right? Why is it so important that they have sex that night unless it's precisely because drinking impairs judgment and causes these situations where there is gray area?
> 
> If a guy is concerned that there is a double standard, he does not have to get caught up in it. He can avoid having drunk sex with drunk girls. Same for the girls.


But there is the double standard. He is expected to avoid sex with drunk girls, but if she has drunk sex and feels bad about that the next day it's not her fault and she can claim rape. Once you start with alcohol they don't have the judgement to think about waiting until they're sober. Herein lies the gray area. Perhaps if you don't want drunk sex watch out who you get drunk with.


----------



## Buddy400

Thundarr said:


> It's a real problem but I think you're actually asking 'are we really trying to solve the problem with this law'. My opinion is yes. The law is telling universities and students than consent requires coherentness.
> 
> And this isn't a hidden policy for ambushing the evil male population. It's right out there for everyone to see and talk about and will be part of the school's set of policies and guidelines.


Just to be clear, the "real problem we're trying to solve" I was referring to was women changing their minds half way through and the man not stopping. I know this must happen, but how many cases have been reported where exactly this was alleged? Is exactly this scenario what we're trying to address? Otherwise, the old "no means no" seemed to do the trick and was much less likely to misunderstood.


----------



## alexm

Faithful Wife said:


> Teach kids not to have casual sex as the answer is just a really sad POV because WE are the ones who created a world where porn is the only sex education they will ever get and then we handed them access to it 24/7. But now we want to blame the kids for their rampant promiscuity and pretend THEY are the ones who are oh so immoral? Hey, at least they have the guts to actually try to HAVE sex instead of just watch it on a tiny screen and wish they weren't too stifled sexually to actually do it. At least they respect sex workers, unlike our generation who want to get off while looking at them but pretend they are not human beings with rights.
> 
> These kids need education that has to do with their current reality, which we created by our own ridiculous double standards. Trying to shame them back into fearing having casual sex like most of us felt is just silly.


I don't think there's an element of shame involved, at least not in how we're talking to our 14 year old. It's not even fear we're trying to instill. It's a tricky conversation to have, because the gut instinct for most parents is to use scare tactics ("you could get pregnant!" "you could get an std!")

What we're trying to do is instill the fear of potential consequences if he doesn't _use his brain_. As in "think it through very carefully first". These are values that we are trying to each that apply to just about anything, not just sex.

These are also consequences that are relevant to any age group, not just teenagers, so we are also making it clear to him that these are life-long values, not just for when the hormones are raging. Among them are how to properly view (and treat) women/girls. We make it very clear that we thoroughly expect him to be sexually active when he's ready - not to "wait til marriage or the right girl", after all, experimentation is natural and normal. He also knows that it is quite common for people to wait til the right person, if he so chooses, and to not feel pressured to engage in something he's not ready for, from his peers, society, or a girlfriend.

So I respectfully disagree, FW. At least in our case, our son/step-son knows what the consequences are, he knows that sex and sexuality is important and not something to be taken lightly, but he also knows that experimentation is natural. We can't keep him from being active, but we can attempt to ensure that he attaches an importance to the general subject.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> No age group is ever going to stop having drunk sex. But the youngest age group is going to learn that you make specific decisions about when and where and who you have sex with and what the consequences are. They will end up far better off than our generation as a result.


Really about every campus already has a written code of conduct. These are all commonly there with details of what they mean and consequences and such. So now students have a modified version of what constitutes sexual assault. They understand there is a code of conduct to be at the school. I don't think it's a rights violation since it's a mutual agreement between the student and the college. Follow these rules, pay tuition, come to classes, pass classes, etc. Oh and if she's too drunk to communicate then don't do her. Seems reasonable.

- alcohol regulations
- drugs and illegal substances
- weapons
- harassment
- physical harassment and assault
- sexual assault
- hazing
- respect for property
- etc
- disciplinary sanctions
- contestation of disciplinary sanction


----------



## Buddy400

norajane said:


> We taught condom use for safer sex (which was resisted by many people!), we can teach consent, too, and create an environment on campus where people talk to each other before having sex. First because they have to because of the policies, and then because they see it's the best way to do it.
> 
> If young people can learn, "do you have a condom?" they can learn, "do you want to have sex?"


But we didn't pass laws making condom use mandatory. We can "teach consent" without a law making it mandatory. 

That way we can still pursue a worthwhile goal without risking the lives of innocent people.

I think some are confusing "something that is good" with "having a law that enforces the good thing". You can believe something is good without believing that passing a new law is the best course of action.


----------



## samyeagar

lifeistooshort said:


> But there is the double standard. He is expected to avoid sex with drunk girls, but if she has drunk sex and feels bad about that the next day it's not her fault and she can claim rape. Once you start with alcohol they don't have the judgement to think about waiting until they're sober. Herein lies the gray area. *Perhaps if you don't want drunk sex watch out who you get drunk with*.


That's the thing...it's not like we're talking about the middle of a grocery store here where there is a reasonable assumption of safety. We are talking about situations that are well known to be unsafe, with activities that are well known to be unsafe, in locations that are well known to be unsafe. These are risks that everyone who partakes in it are willingly and often times eagerly assuming...

Perhaps a different form instead...one that both parties sign before the date, before the party, at the doors of the frat house...one that says they acknowledge the risks and agree to hold no one liable for potential problems that arise.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> But the youngest age group is going to learn that you make specific decisions about when and where and who you have sex with and what the consequences are. They will end up far better off than our generation as a result.


At the cost of significant collateral damage.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> When rules change, people adapt. We're pretty good about that. Universities aren't going to keep their policies secret just so they can catch some guy breaking a rule he didn't know about. Na this will be part of orientation. Guys know to be more cautious and girls who really want it know they have to show a little more interest.
> 
> And the smart guy will know to not to brag about the girl who got freaky with him. Kiss and tell is a quick way to get a girl of lessor character to start throwing false acusations.


The demographics for girls in college are already dismal. Something like 60% girls to guys. I don't think the guys will find it all that onerous to find willing females. Women who don't resent being in this situation? Not so sure.

This reminds of the brunette joke: What does the brunette say to her frankly uninterested boyfriend?

"What part of 'yes' don't you understand?"

(I prefer brunettes in general. Sorry for the thread jack)


----------



## Buddy400

alexm said:


> What we're trying to do is instill the fear of potential consequences if he doesn't _use his brain_. As in "think it through very carefully first".


And yet, if we tell a young woman to "think it through very carefully" before going into a frat party and getting wasted, we're "blaming the victim".


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> Just to be clear, the "real problem we're trying to solve" I was referring to was women changing their minds half way through and the man not stopping. I know this must happen, but how many cases have been reported where exactly this was alleged? Is exactly this scenario what we're trying to address? Otherwise, the old "no means no" seemed to do the trick and was much less likely to misunderstood.


Oh. I don't think that's the problem this addresses. It seems like a fringe case and I'd be surprised if it's ever reported. I think this law is specifically aimmed at having sex with someone unconscious or close to it.

It's probably also aimmed at cases where a girl is hooking up with some guy and his frat buddies pull a train that she never intended. Sure she concented to sex but not gangbang sex.


----------



## JCD

norajane said:


> The easy answer is neither of them should have sex if they've been drinking. Why not wait until the next day to do it when they aren't drunk? If there's alcohol around and nobody has good judgment, maybe they shouldn't be trying to have sex right then. Why must they have sex right then and there when they've been drinking and might be impaired?
> 
> That does not seem like an impossible standard to me. The only ones who struggle against that standard are the ones who want drunk ONS sex, right? Why is it so important that they have sex that night unless it's precisely because drinking impairs judgment and causes these situations where there is gray area?
> 
> If a guy is concerned that there is a double standard, he does not have to get caught up in it. He can avoid having drunk sex with drunk girls. Same for the girls.


"Why Courtney! I believe the two of us are far too inebriated to engage in carnal activities. I propose we defer _coitus_ until both of us are capable of non-ethanol impaired _mens rea_."

"Gerald. I concur most heartedly!"

Strangely norajane, people who are already drinking already have their judgment impaired. The Judgment Horse is already out of the barn.

And frankly, this standard ignores something that you may find personally offensive: Some women (now, follow me on this) are HAPPY to go out to get drunk and get laid in that order. Those airplanes full of coeds going down to Daytona Beach weren't lead there at gunpoint.


----------



## Ikaika

Just a question: 

Scenario: a woman is inebriated to the point of impaired judgment or she is in a syncopated state. This could be due to self ingestion or uninformed consumption of an intoxicating agent. Thus her state of mind would not allow her object to sex as would be consider under the assumed law of no means no. Does it require in that state she affirm that she wants sex? Could she make a statement of affirmation in this state of mind? 

How would one then define a case in which a person had sex with this individual? Is it consensual? Is it rape? Or is it some gray area not well defined? So, just suppose for a moment this law does not exist, how would folks here define this scenario. I really don't have a clear answer myself, because one could change how they assume responsibility or what they assume as consensual sex. 

So stats and everything aside, that is what this law is borne out of, scenarios of this nature as I have been informed by those actually close to the impetus of the law. 

This is not a law to kill sex or incarcerate young men, it is borne out of the the culture we see in universities throughout the country, the party school environment. Universities can't and have no answer for this culture so they go after the related activities of the culture.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> Just a question:
> 
> Scenario: a woman is inebriated to the point of impaired judgment or she is in a syncopated state. This could be due to self ingestion or uninformed consumption of an intoxicating agent. Thus her state of mind would not allow her object to sex as would be consider under the assumed law of no means no. Does it require in that state she affirm that she wants sex? Could she make a statement of affirmation in this state of mind?
> 
> How would one then define a case in which a person had sex with this individual? Is it consensual? Is it rape? Or is it some gray area not well defined? So, just suppose for a moment this law does not exist, how would folks here define this scenario. I really don't have a clear answer myself, because one could change how they assume responsibility or what they assume as consensual sex.
> 
> So stats and everything aside, that is what this law is borne out of, scenarios of this nature as I have been informed by those actually close to the impetus of the law.
> 
> This is not a law to kill sex or incarcerate young men, it is borne out of the the culture we see in universities throughout the country, the party school environment. Universities can't and have no answer for this culture so they go after the related activities of the culture.


Their 'non answer', however well intentioned, is a legal cudgel. And the hand which goes grasping at this cudgel intend to swing it.

Do you imagine it is young men wishing to swing this legal cudgel?

The results of this law are perfectly foreseeable. Earnest young women will make a great deal of noise and swing away. Because they will not see the gray. "Better ten innocent guys get tarred than a single rapist go free" seems to be their watchword.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Their 'non answer', however well intentioned, is a legal cudgel. And the hand which goes grasping at this cudgel intend to swing it.
> 
> Do you imagine it is young men wishing to swing this legal cudgel?
> 
> The results of this law are perfectly foreseeable. Earnest young women will make a great deal of noise and swing away. Because they will not see the gray. "Better ten innocent guys get tarred than a single rapist go free" seems to be their watchword.


If you read all the articles of the law, the gray area will be argued courts ad nauseam, simply based on the state of mind of both individuals. There is no doubt that this is someone trying to find a solution for a problem that is hard to define. 

I don't assume that any case that one attempts to prosecute based on the statutes of this law will ever be that clean or cut and dry. No slam dunks. Does it protect women? I would hope that it does protect victims of what I think everyone would agree is a heinous crime. But, I don't know that this law will do as it is intended. Will it unjustly convict someone? I don't know, I still see that articles of the law laying down the pattern of the investigative process we still see with or without this law, one of he said and she said. Only now we include intoxicating substances into the mix. Does that alone alter a person's state of mind? This is not as clear and cut as many would like to assume and not as protective as others would like to think. It does provide job security to prosecution and defense lawyers. Sorry last comment was the cynic in me.

If non-answer from a person in a syncopated state is unattainable, could there be an implied objection in another circumstance? Or a person who cannot even formulate a chain of thought due to their state of intoxication, would the same apply? These are not easy answers and hardly a weapon of choice to go after some selected group.


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> Yes! If you do not have the ongoing and active consent of your sex partner then you are committing sexual assault.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this consent always have to be verbal? Not necessarily, IMHO, but it helps.
> 
> 
> 
> Given how little some people seem to care about their sexual partners, and how willing they are to have sex even though their partner is conflicted, uncomfortable, reluctant, overly intoxicated, and how willing we as a culture are to excuse and justify this poor behaviour, I think creating these standards is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that most of the more ambiguous sexual assaults never get reported at all. And the victims simply suffer in silence while the perpetrators are never, ever, called on it.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's no standard at all.



If it doesn't have to be verbal, who is to judge what was meant?

If a woman is unconscious or intoxicated beyond a certain point, she incapable of consent. Intercourse or even groping is rape or assault.

But if a woman is sober and has sex without protest when no threat of violence comes into play, how can it be rape?


----------



## Faithful Wife

lifeistooshort said:


> But there is the double standard. He is expected to avoid sex with drunk girls, but if she has drunk sex and feels bad about that the next day it's not her fault and she can claim rape. Once you start with alcohol they don't have the judgement to think about waiting until they're sober. Herein lies the gray area. Perhaps if you don't want drunk sex watch out who you get drunk with.


I don't see why this is so hard to get...if a MAN felt raped the next day due to drunk sex, HE MAY ALSO FILE A COMPLAINT.

And I'm assuming this WILL happen, because it does happen to men, straight and gay men both.

There is NO double standard.


----------



## Faithful Wife

alexm said:


> I don't think there's an element of shame involved, at least not in how we're talking to our 14 year old. It's not even fear we're trying to instill. It's a tricky conversation to have, because the gut instinct for most parents is to use scare tactics ("you could get pregnant!" "you could get an std!")
> 
> What we're trying to do is instill the fear of potential consequences if he doesn't _use his brain_. As in "think it through very carefully first". These are values that we are trying to each that apply to just about anything, not just sex.
> 
> These are also consequences that are relevant to any age group, not just teenagers, so we are also making it clear to him that these are life-long values, not just for when the hormones are raging. Among them are how to properly view (and treat) women/girls. We make it very clear that we thoroughly expect him to be sexually active when he's ready - not to "wait til marriage or the right girl", after all, experimentation is natural and normal. He also knows that it is quite common for people to wait til the right person, if he so chooses, and to not feel pressured to engage in something he's not ready for, from his peers, society, or a girlfriend.
> 
> So I respectfully disagree, FW. At least in our case, our son/step-son knows what the consequences are, he knows that sex and sexuality is important and not something to be taken lightly, but he also knows that experimentation is natural. We can't keep him from being active, but we can attempt to ensure that he attaches an importance to the general subject.


You may not personally shame your child but the fact is that most parents do, because most parents carry their own shame load and try to dump it on their kids in a misguided attempt to "protect" them.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> If it doesn't have to be verbal, who is to judge what was meant?
> 
> If a woman is unconscious or intoxicated beyond a certain point, she incapable of consent. Intercourse or even groping is rape or assault.
> 
> *But if a woman is sober and has sex without protest when no threat of violence comes into play, how can it be rape?*


Just to be clear, this law does not specify this scenario. Read all the articles spelled out in the law, it specifies the state of mind due to consumption of intoxicating substances.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> And then we come full circle...in the less clear cut cases, the grey areas, one person may feel raped, and another might not in the exact same circumstances, so in the victims mind, the allegations are not false...begs the question...did a crime occur simply because a person feels like it did?


Consent is an act, not a feeling.

And either you did or you didn't (or aren't capable of it).


----------



## always_alone

Nostromo said:


> *"She has hosted online sex education content on behalf of Planned Parenthood"*
> 
> I'm not certain why I felt the desire to inform you of that. I think it's the fact that you just got done saying you were NOT a feminist a few pages back and now here you are linking to a planned parenthood mouthpiece as somebody we should all be looking up to that's a great example for teens to follow. I'm genuinely perplexed by this dichotomy.:scratchhead:


Planned Parenthood is Feminist??

:banghead:


----------



## always_alone

COguy said:


> I would be 100% all gung-ho for this legislation if it just added one line at the end: "False accusations of sexual violence will be charged with Felony Libel." And just like that, I would become a feminist.


So guess what? Everyone agrees that false accusations should be prosecuted. Even the feminists.


----------



## Buddy400

Thundarr said:


> Oh. I don't think that's the problem this addresses. It seems like a fringe case and I'd be surprised if it's ever reported. I think this law is specifically aimmed at having sex with someone unconscious or close to it.
> 
> It's probably also aimmed at cases where a girl is hooking up with some guy and his frat buddies pull a train that she never intended. Sure she concented to sex but not gangbang sex.


I've got NO problem with prosecuting anyone having sex with an unconscious (or nearly) woman or the frat situation (heck, I'll beat the crap out of the a$$hole myself).

I'm pretty sure that you are mistaken about that being the intent of this law. 

I'm SURE that this was already defined as rape. It couldn't be that they'd pursued cases they have and thought "gosh, I'd loved to go after this guy that had sex with an unconscious woman but I just don't have any laws to prosecute them with".

If you're SURE that this is a law meant only to handle these situations, let me know and I'll spend the time digging into the details.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Consent is an act, not a feeling.
> 
> And either you did or you didn't (or aren't capable of it).


I agree.

One of the more common things with date rape that makes it very difficult to prosecute are the feeling though. Going along with it, not saying no, sometimes even saying yes even though the victim was actually internally uncomfortable with it and didn't want to.

I know...active and enthusiastic consent. I know what that looks like to me, and have never had sex without it...but what about others standards? What about differing standards? They should have seen that I wasn't really into it...


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> So guess what? Everyone agrees that false accusations should be prosecuted. Even the feminists.


But, they aren't


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> If you read all the articles of the law, the gray area will be argued courts ad nauseam, simply based on the state of mind of both individuals. There is no doubt that this is someone trying to find a solution for a problem that is hard to define.
> 
> I don't assume that any case that one attempts to prosecute based on the statutes of this law will ever be that clean or cut and dry. No slam dunks. Does it protect women? I would hope that it does protect victims of what I think everyone would agree is a heinous crime. But, I don't know that this law will do as it is intended. Will it unjustly convict someone? I don't know, I still see that articles of the law laying down the pattern of the investigative process we still see with or without this law, one of he said and she said. Only now we include intoxicating substances into the mix. Does that alone alter a person's state of mind? This is not as clear and cut as many would like to assume and not as protective as others would like to think. It does provide job security to prosecution and defense lawyers. Sorry last comment was the cynic in me.
> 
> If non-answer from a person in a syncopated state is unattainable, could there be an implied objection in another circumstance? Or a person who cannot even formulate a chain of thought due to their state of intoxication, would the same apply? These are not easy answers and hardly a weapon of choice to go after some selected group.


Bad law isn't an answer to any problem. And if you are having a hard time wrestling this to the ground in even a theoretical environment, when it comes to practicalities, it will be even worse. 'An' answer is not always necessary. A bad answer is even worse. That these universities are not smart enough to realize the limits of their power is troubling.

Because here is how the law breaks down: "We will punish you for overindulging in alcohol if certain things occur". Except they are not equally weighted. This puritanical aspect swings only in the XY direction. You revealed it in your very words



> I would hope that it does protect victims


This assumption that a female who is drunk is automatically 'the victim' casts a saintly mantle over her which is very likely not appropriate. Certainly it will hurt SOME male malefactors but only does so at the cost of branding all drunken persons of a specific gender as the consistent wrong doers.

I have had a woman suck on me while I was asleep and I never woke up. I have had drink and fallen asleep at an engaging party.

So I can easily see a girl engaged in the act, yea even willingly...fall asleep. That boy is now a criminal. Yes, I know the intent. Those intentions are nice paving stones to a specific destination.

So excuse me if I point out the inconvenient truth: these laws only smack around men for drinking or hanging around drunken women. There is a very presumed presumption of guilt. You are also an intelligent person. That you do 'not know' if this law will be misused or harm innocents is disingenuous to say the least.

This doesn't affect me, but I have a boy going to college soon. I will needless to say be having a lot of long talks with him, but I recall long talks from my father...not what he actually SAID of course. Just the fact he talked at me. This is to absolve ME of responsibility.

That and I'll be dipped in piss before I send any of my children to California for schooling.


----------



## COguy

Thundarr said:


> When rules change, people adapt. We're pretty good about that. Universities aren't going to keep their policies secret just so they can catch some guy breaking a rule he didn't know about. Na this will be part of orientation. Guys know to be more cautious and girls who really want it know they have to show a little more interest.
> 
> *And the smart guy will know to not to brag about the girl who got freaky with him. Kiss and tell is a quick way to get a girl of lessor character to start throwing false acusations.*


Now you're victim blaming. To throw around a popular feminist tagline. "Shouldn't we be teaching women not to falsely accuse, instead of telling men not to kiss and tell?"


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> So guess what? Everyone agrees that false accusations should be prosecuted. Even the feminists.


Huh. And I thought false prosecution was always illegal. Not just false rape accusations. I thought there were these things like due process. 

To be fair, the social aspects of this can get fussy. A guy's reputation can get pretty f'ed up by an accusation. But I am not sure what false accusations have to do with feminism or the right of all people not to be raped. Laws are present to keep people from being victimized in all forms. They don't always work, so it is incumbent on us to fix them.


----------



## COguy

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't see why this is so hard to get...if a MAN felt raped the next day due to drunk sex, HE MAY ALSO FILE A COMPLAINT.
> 
> And I'm assuming this WILL happen, because it does happen to men, straight and gay men both.
> 
> There is NO double standard.


Please don't tell me you are naive enough to believe that. The results of what happens to women who rape or assault against men has been well documented. You don't have to look further than yesterday's headlines.


----------



## Buddy400

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't see why this is so hard to get...if a MAN felt raped the next day due to drunk sex, HE MAY ALSO FILE A COMPLAINT.
> 
> And I'm assuming this WILL happen, because it does happen to men, straight and gay men both.
> 
> There is NO double standard.


A man and a woman are both drunk and have sex. The next day, they both feel bad about what happened. The woman regrets her behavior but owns it and doesn't blame someone else. The man feels that he has been taken advantage of, blames the other party and files a rape complaint. 

So the woman is guilty of rape and the man isn't? 

So, we're rewarding people that feel that they are a victim and punishing those that take responsibility for their own actions.

Are those the incentives we really want to put in place?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Thundarr
If the state needs to monitor the activity of universities so closely that it can prevent bias in investigations, it might as well do the investigations itself. Remember that the bias will be being done by by intelligent people who are doing their best to hide their actions. 



Thundarr said:


> You just made a point for why the state needed to step in and hold Universities to accountable and known standards. You're correct that it's been naive to believe the administrations would follow up on acusations in cases where it was kids of influence; star athletes; etc. Now school funding is on the line if these are not processed with the same dilligence as any other.


----------



## COguy

always_alone said:


> So guess what? Everyone agrees that false accusations should be prosecuted. Even the feminists.


Really? Why do they immediately defend the accuser than? Why did they not go after any of the recanting "victims?" Or ever ask that they be prosecuted? Why do they sit on tumblr and Reddit all day convincing young girls who were clearly not raped that they should press charges?

Why do DAs never prosecute for libel, slander, defamation of character, or filing false reports?

Data does not back up your assertion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

COguy said:


> Really? Why do they immediately defend the accuser than? Why did they not go after any of the recanting "victims?" Or ever ask that they be prosecuted? Why do they sit on tumblr and Reddit all day convincing young girls who were clearly not raped that they should press charges?
> 
> Why do DAs never prosecute for libel, slander, defamation of character, or filing false reports?
> 
> Data does not back up your assertion.


Perception is really interesting. The VAST majority of cases that I have heard of, in the news, my life and community, rug sweeping has been way more common. I have been personally party to it. I have friends who have had it happen to them. have been in a community where a case occurred. Real evidence vs smoke and mirrors to shift blame against the rapist. 

I have heard exactly one case in my entire life of falsely accused man's life ruined forget about imprisoned without evidence.

Strange that.


----------



## samyeagar

COguy said:


> Really? Why do they immediately defend the accuser than? Why did they not go after any of the recanting "victims?" Or ever ask that they be prosecuted? Why do they sit on tumblr and Reddit all day convincing young girls who were clearly not raped that they should press charges?
> 
> Why do DAs never prosecute for libel, slander, defamation of character, or filing false reports?
> 
> Data does not back up your assertion.


The reasoning, which has been touched on already in this thread, is that it could intimidate true victims into not coming forward. They would be afraid that if they were not believed, they would be prosecuted. Same reasoning for not prosecuting the 19 year old girl who was drunk for underage drinking.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> The reasoning, which has been touched on already in this thread, is that it could intimidate true victims into not coming forward. They would be afraid that if they were not believed, they would be prosecuted. Same reasoning for not prosecuting the 19 year old girl who was drunk for underage drinking.


You know what prosecutors need to prosecute? Evidence. It is considerably easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that consent did not occur than that it did.

**** due process. Shoot them all. Until it is my turn.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Believing that future generations will do what WE DID is the real naievity here. These kids know better than to follow our stupid example.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Believing that future generations will do what WE DID is the real naievity here. These kids know better than to follow our stupid example.


Doing what we did...sure. But showing the same poor judgement? That's not a generational thing...that's an age thing.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> I know...active and enthusiastic consent. I know what that looks like to me, and have never had sex without it...but what about others standards? What about differing standards? They should have seen that I wasn't really into it...


And that's precisely the point of all other this: to get to better standards. If he or she isn't making their enthusiasm clear, then just don't do it.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Doing what we did...sure. But showing the same poor judgement? That's not a generational thing...that's an age thing.


They will ultimately show better judgement after this swing of the pendulum. And they will laugh at our archaic views of sex, while they usher in a new era of consent.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> They will ultimately show better judgement after this swing of the pendulum. And they will laugh at our archaic views of sex, while they usher in a new era of consent.


There is a great open letter on the internet somewhere, I wish I could find it again, from a mother to her son about consent. Not that it bars, restrains or constrains him any way. But that it is ****ING AWESOME. The difference between combative, score keeping, using sexuality, and terrific mutually enjoyable mature sexuality was the gist. I thought it was awesome. But it will take our culture to get over its sexual history and loose the female gatekeeper, Madonna/***** crap that you see even here. Or maybe particularly here.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> They will ultimately show better judgement after this swing of the pendulum. And they will laugh at our archaic views of sex, while they usher in a new era of consent.


I'm not so confident that they will show better judgement.

Condom use is often pointed to as an example of how education works, yet STD rates are increasing, especially among young people...


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> I've got NO problem with prosecuting anyone having sex with an unconscious (or nearly) woman or the frat situation (heck, I'll beat the crap out of the a$$hole myself).
> 
> I'm pretty sure that you are mistaken about that being the intent of this law.
> 
> I'm SURE that this was already defined as rape. It couldn't be that they'd pursued cases they have and thought "gosh, I'd loved to go after this guy that had sex with an unconscious woman but I just don't have any laws to prosecute them with".
> 
> If you're SURE that this is a law meant only to handle these situations, let me know and I'll spend the time digging into the details.


Guys getting away with on college campuses all of the time and that's the problem. That's why this law is specific to colleges because it's where the problem is rampant. Often the school believes an assault occurred but they do nothing about it because it's a lot of work and there's no physical evidence. Basically they've been afraid to kick someone out of school thinking there would be lawsuits. This law says a preponderance of evidence is to be used and if the school indeed has that and thinks a guy has committed assault then they're supposed to take action to protect the rest of the student body.


----------



## NobodySpecial

samyeagar said:


> I'm not so confident that they will show better judgement.
> 
> Condom use is often pointed to as an example of how education works, yet STD rates are increasing, especially among young people...


I think STI (they are not diseases until symptomatic) pop (mis) information is similar to drug pop misinformation. Just say no is a load of crap. As is STIs are the worst thing ever. I swear, the best thing for the population would be for everyone to get herpes. Then no one would have to worry about it. It is practically completely benign. Lots of people have it who don't even know. And how much information do most people get about how much protection condoms offer against that? Gonorrhea? It's bacterial. BFD.

OK HIV? Despite recent advancements, still would not sign up.

STI's are not all created equal.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> Guys getting away with on college campuses all of the time and that's the problem. That's why this law is specific to colleges because it's where the problem is rampant. Often the school believes an assault occurred but they do nothing about it because it's a lot of work and there's no physical evidence. Basically they've been afraid to kick someone out of school thinking there would be lawsuits. This law says a preponderance of evidence is to be used and if the school indeed has that and thinks a guy has committed assault then they're supposed to take action to protect the rest of the student body.


What I don't understand is why the schools don't crack down on under aged drinking on campus. That would sort a fair number of these issues right out before they even became a problem.


----------



## 2ntnuf

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Bad law isn't an answer to any problem. And if you are having a hard time wrestling this to the ground in even a theoretical environment, when it comes to practicalities, it will be even worse. 'An' answer is not always necessary. A bad answer is even worse. That these universities are not smart enough to realize the limits of their power is troubling.


What would you have Universities do in cases that involved what is suggested as a problem. Again, I don't have a clear answer nor have I suggested the clear problem. But, one thing is part of the equation, universities have issues of drinking on campus and drinking off campus by their student body in excess of any other sector of US society. Associated with this excess in drinking are related issues of injury, crime and death. So, if a university can enforce a dry policy, great, but few do and few are willing to do even attempt such a policy. So they go after the "alleged activities associated with alcohol consumption. My question again, what you have Universities doing to reduce injury, crime or death associated with the activity of drinking? 



JCD said:


> Because here is how the law breaks down: "We will punish you for overindulging in alcohol if certain things occur". Except they are not equally weighted. This puritanical aspect swings only in the XY direction. You revealed it in your very words


Actually the wording of the law does not specify gender, it may be implied but does not actually say it as such. No sense putting more into than is already there. 





JCD said:


> This assumption that a female who is drunk is automatically 'the victim' casts a saintly mantle over her which is very likely not appropriate. Certainly it will hurt SOME male malefactors but only does so at the cost of branding all drunken persons of a specific gender as the consistent wrong doers.


The way I read it, it does not automatically assume blame or victimization, it only adds alcohol as an additional factor in investigating what could be a crime. It does suggest that alcohol changes the assumption as to whether consent can be given for an activity for sex. I am not suggesting that this is clearly defined. I could probably spend hours fighting for both sides of this argument. But, I would never mistake this for some plot to name victims or perpetrators based on their chromosomal make up. 



JCD said:


> I have had a woman suck on me while I was asleep and I never woke up. I have had drink and fallen asleep at an engaging party.
> 
> So I can easily see a girl engaged in the act, yea even willingly...fall asleep. That boy is now a criminal. Yes, I know the intent. Those intentions are nice paving stones to a specific destination.


And, if you were not passed out and would not have objected then I don't see the problem. But if she is not given the chance to object based on her state of mind, is that not a problem? You can call it regret sex if you would not have objected under a sober state of mind? So, it goes to the state of mind. You obviously did not file criminal charges but then you would not have objected possibly. I don't know, only you can make that statement. It is still a he said and she said. 



JCD said:


> So excuse me if I point out the inconvenient truth: these laws only smack around men for drinking or hanging around drunken women. There is a very presumed presumption of guilt. You are also an intelligent person. That you do 'not know' if this law will be misused or harm innocents is disingenuous to say the least.


It only smacks around men if the law stated it as such, but it does not mention gender as a specification to the offense or the victim. You have assumed a truth that does not exists. 



JCD said:


> This doesn't affect me, but I have a boy going to college soon. I will needless to say be having a lot of long talks with him, but I recall long talks from my father...not what he actually SAID of course. Just the fact he talked at me. This is to absolve ME of responsibility.


My suggestion for you son, regardless of where he goes to school, be responsible for his actions and spend less time partying and more time studying. After all these are supposed to be halls of learning. 



JCD said:


> That and I'll be dipped in piss before I send any of my children to California for schooling.


This of course is based on accreditation and federal funding issues, so this is coming to a school near you whether you like it or not. And, that you can trust me on.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> Guys getting away with on college campuses all of the time .


And seemingly on high school football teams. Sad, really. They don't even know that they are the losers too.


----------



## always_alone

COguy said:


> Why do DAs never prosecute for libel, slander, defamation of character, or filing false reports?
> 
> Data does not back up your assertion.


At least I have data. What's yours? A couple of anecdotes where you don't really know the details?

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/false_rape_allegations_serious_but_rare-29200



> The CPS reviewed 121 cases of a purportedly false allegation of rape and other sexual assaults between January 2011 and May 2012. Of those, 35 resulted in a prosecution of either wasting police time or perverting the course of justice. This 35 figure compares with a total of 5,651 total prosecutions for rape over the same period.
> 
> So over the review period 0.6% of all prosecutions involving allegations of rape were for false allegations. Crucially, this doesn’t include allegations of rape that don’t reach court and it doesn’t apply to convictions for rape.


----------



## 2ntnuf

The trouble I have with that is the proof of consent. What is accepted as proof of consent? Ongoing verbal approval accompanying physical activity? I think that's it. The trouble is, I think we all better get a camera and var when we have sex. That's what I see. Yeah, there will be a review by some and even third parties can give their opinion of whether someone gave consent. Even groups like women's and men's groups can and will have the right to give their opinions. These are vastly more important laws than what is being portrayed here. 

This is serious stuff folks. It's not the happy guy and gal having sex because they love each other. You know. The couple who is sitting there relaxing on the couch and touching, kissing, hugging and squeezing. The happy couple who just knows each other well enough that they just turn each other on and continue to sexual intercourse. Technically, with this law, you better ask your wife for approval throughout. This is not only a law for the universities. This is a test to see how it works. If it works well, we will all be under it's new definitions. 

It would be as easy as a complaint and support from a men's or women's group to cause serious harm to anyone who is caught in the middle of this law. 

This is a real law that pretty much replaces and expands existing laws. It's important that all sides understand the meaning. This is one more tool that puts men at even more risk of becoming a victim of the law. I do believe this is a seminal law in the country. It will spread all over and it will change how husband and wife have sex, act toward each other and comply with demands.

Read it folks. Think about it for a while. Consider what this means to all involved. I don't want women raped. This won't stop that. It just makes it easier to prosecute with less actual evidence. You can easily be run through the ringer just defending yourself of accusations. Careful here folks. It's a scary law in it's present form. 

The only educational programs I saw were ones taught the administration at the institutions of higher learning. Check me on that. I don't think I missed it. I don't think that will teach any kids a thing about how to avoid or protect themselves. Seems like this is solely about getting convictions at all cost to send a message. 

I think I read all of that law correctly. Forgive me and correct me where I am mistaken. Thanks.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> It will spread all over and it will change how husband and wife have sex, act toward each other and comply with demands.


I stay out of a lot of threads because of stuff like this. Why, in any healthy relationship, are there demands? And why is there ANY demand compliance? That is twisted. And if that is ANY part of your (ones) mental vocabulary, and you are having marital problems, you might want to check the mirror.

Laws are never going to fix f'ed up mentality. And honestly, I don't think parents are either if the people on the sex in marriage sub forum and the folks talking about sex equity (EQUITY?? REALLY??) are the ones raising the next generation. Face it. Sex is a battle ground for the most of you. And it is really sad.


----------



## Nostromo

always_alone said:


> Planned Parenthood is Feminist??
> 
> :banghead:


Are you arguing that Planned Parenthood is not a bastion of modern feminism? That they're somehow opposed to or indifferent to the feminist movement? If so would you explain to me why feminists are such vehement supporters of them and frequently work hand in hand with them to both block and pass legislation? This is an unheard of stance on my part, like arguing that Focus on the Family is not a conservative christian organization.:scratchhead:


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> And the smart guy will know to not to brag about the girl who got freaky with him. Kiss and tell is a quick way to get a girl of lessor character to start throwing false acusations.
> 
> 
> 
> COguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're victim blaming. To throw around a popular feminist tagline. "Shouldn't we be teaching women not to falsely accuse, instead of telling men not to kiss and tell?"
Click to expand...

People will read it that way because we're not good at separating issues. It's never the victim's fault when he's been falsely accused. Just saying he should be smart. But I'm consistent. It's never the victim's fault when she's been assaulted. But it's not smart to get trashed around a bunch of horny guys with little support either.


----------



## Ikaika

2ntnuf said:


> (1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.



So if this is where the law starts and ends, the law has zero meaning. The articles under sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) define the meaning to the preamble. It is the way lawyers write. To give definition then suggest the context of the definition. To read any further into the law or assume that it is written as war between the sexes is not accurate.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Nostromo said:


> Are you arguing that Planned Parenthood is not a bastion of modern feminism? That they're somehow opposed to or indifferent to the feminist movement? If so would you explain to me why feminists are such vehement supporters of them and frequently work hand in hand with them to both block and pass legislation? This is an unheard of stance on my part, like arguing that Focus on the Family is not a conservative christian organization.:scratchhead:


Because they do important work. Work that could and should be important to everyone. Like offer birth control to people who cannot afford it. Offer abortions to people who cannot get them otherwise. Provide gynecological health care to the young whose parents are two scared of things like sexuality to even admit that their teenaged daughters have girl parts. Give those same health services to those who cannot afford them. This is a women's issue because women are attuned to the need. Men would be smart to be attuned to the need.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> I stay out of a lot of threads because of stuff like this. Why, in any healthy relationship, are there demands? And why is there ANY demand compliance? That is twisted. And if that is ANY part of your (ones) mental vocabulary, and you are having marital problems, you might want to check the mirror.
> 
> Laws are never going to fix f'ed up mentality. And honestly, I don't think parents are either if the people on the sex in marriage sub forum and the folks talking about sex equity (EQUITY?? REALLY??) are the ones raising the next generation. Face it. Sex is a battle ground for the most of you. And it is really sad.


I agree.


----------



## 2ntnuf

drerio said:


> So if this is where the law starts and ends, the law has zero meaning. The articles under sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) define the meaning to the preamble. It is the way lawyers write. To give definition then suggest the context of the definition. To read any further into the law or assume that it is written as war between the sexes is not accurate.


It's not where it ends. There is much more. Read my longer post. I wrote asking all to read to the very bottom of the page. You can find that page here.


----------



## Thundarr

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Thundarr
> If the state needs to monitor the activity of universities so closely that it can prevent bias in investigations, it might as well do the investigations itself. Remember that the bias will be being done by by intelligent people who are doing their best to hide their actions.


Then they risk losing their job because there's now a requirement for due dilligence. Of course this doesn't even apply to schools not recieving state funds. But let's face it, money talks. And it gives the state influence to set requirements contingent on receiving it.


----------



## Ikaika

2ntnuf said:


> It's not where it ends. There is much more. Read my longer post. I wrote asking all to read to the very bottom of the page. You can find that page here.


Trust me I read it several times and it does not read as an OR set of articles but one of AND

_*A policy* that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:


(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the *intoxication* or *recklessness of the accused*.

(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.

(3) *A policy* that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

(4) *A policy that*, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant *was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:*

(A) *The complainant was asleep or unconscious*.

(B) *The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity*.

(C) *The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.*_

It goes on for more, but again, I think many here are trying to apply more into this law than the law suggest. Are there problems with this law? Sure, but it is not one that can go beyond what is being addressed. To go beyond it is just not looking at this law for what it is and it is not some gender war based assumption. One sees what they want to see.


----------



## 2ntnuf

drerio,

I truly do not understand what the word either means. I guess. This law will change how sex is handled on a national scale, and not just at institutions of higher learning. This is my belief. Give it time to work. All they need is a number of convictions. I hope they get it right. I'm sorry for all those who will be victimized by this law. I understand how important funding is for these institutions.


----------



## Ikaika

2ntnuf said:


> drerio,
> 
> I truly do not understand what the word either means. I guess. *This law will change how sex is handled on a national scale, and not just at institutions of higher learning*. This is my belief. Give it time to work. All they need is a number of convictions. I hope they get it right. I'm sorry for all those who will be victimized by this law. I understand how important funding is for these institutions.


Meaning what? So, sex with someone who is so intoxicated that they cannot give consensual confirmation is change that we don't want? I don't understand how this is an issue? 

Do I have problems with the law? I do but it has more to do with how one will eventually interprets the state of mind of either the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim. So I still don't get the understanding of how one sees this as earth shaking to assume it is a war against men. I just don't see it. I do see it as a war against someone who I think most of us would have already consider on the fringe, possibly perpetrating on someone unconscious (even though I know it goes slightly beyond that point, state of mind). But, I just don't see the huge swing in assumption others are reading into it. 

In the next section of the law, it goes on in how the investigation proceeds and again, it is not an either or of each article it is based on the "and" set of articles.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> What I don't understand is why the schools don't crack down on under aged drinking on campus. That would sort a fair number of these issues right out before they even became a problem.


It would be nice if effort was made. But no one is reporting it until there's a victim of some sort. Plus a lot of college students can legally drink anyway.


----------



## Ikaika

I simply think this crazy notion that schools of higher ed are advertised more for being a party school more than they are for their academic rigor is the major issue as to why such laws are pushed in the first place. 

I'm not assuming some puritan society. So, if students want to see this activity as a right of passage than as a society we have a choice to assume their bad actions associated with the partying can be written off as youthful indiscretions or we need to hold them accountable. And, that is really at the heart of the issue, so to extend it beyond that is simply reading more into than is necessary.


----------



## 2ntnuf

drerio said:


> Meaning what? * So, sex with someone who is so intoxicated that they cannot give consensual confirmation is change that we don't want? * I don't understand how this is an issue?
> 
> Do I have problems with the law? I do but it has more to do with how one will eventually interprets the state of mind of either the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim. So I still don't get the understanding of how one sees this as earth shaking to assume it is a war against men. I just don't see it. I do see it as a war against someone who I think most of us would have already consider on the fringe, possibly perpetrating on someone unconscious (even though I know it goes slightly beyond that point, state of mind). But, I just don't see the huge swing in assumption others are reading into it.
> 
> In the next section of the law, it goes on in how the investigation proceeds and again, it is not an either or of each article it is based on the "and" set of articles.


No. I agree with what you are stating about sex between two intoxicated or otherwise impaired individuals. I just think it will eventually be used in cases where no one is intoxicated, or otherwise mentally or physically impaired. I think the law will be abused as others have before, once it expands to include everyone, who is not impaired.


----------



## Ikaika

2ntnuf said:


> No. I agree with what you are stating about sex between two intoxicated or otherwise impaired individuals. *I just think it will eventually be used in cases where no one is intoxicated, or otherwise mentally or physically impaired*. I think the law will be abused as others have before, once it expands to include everyone, who is not impaired.


Explain please. If it is not written into the law itself, I simply don't understand the bold statement. How can a DA use something not in the law as a case for prosecution? Please explain. What would be the circumstances applied and to which article in the law would he/she apply it to?

I don't know that the law will be abused as much as I think there will be times when interpretation as to the state of mind will come into question. And, without witnesses it will come down to he said against she said.


----------



## Nostromo

NobodySpecial said:


> Because they do important work. Work that could and should be important to everyone. Like offer birth control to people who cannot afford it. Offer abortions to people who cannot get them otherwise. Provide gynecological health care to the young whose parents are two scared of things like sexuality to even admit that their teenaged daughters have girl parts. Give those same health services to those who cannot afford them. This is a women's issue because women are attuned to the need. Men would be smart to be attuned to the need.


That's not what I asked her. Are they a feminist organization or not? If the answer is no as her previous post with it's head banging against a wall inferred, then there is no logical reason why they would receive such an overwhelming amount of support from feminists groups. So the answer according to you without just coming out and saying it plainly is yes they are in fact a feminist organization. BTW They don't technically provide anything in a literal sense, the American tax payers fund the organization and thus foot the bill for everything you've just listed.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origins of Planned Parenthood date to October 16, 1916 when Margaret Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York.[10] All three women were immediately arrested and jailed for violating provisions of the Comstock Act- for distributing "obscene materials" at the clinic. The "Brownsville trials" brought national attention and support to their cause, and although Sanger and her co-defendants were convicted, their convictions were eventually overturned. Their campaign led to major changes in the laws governing birth control and sex education in the United States.[11]

In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, which became part of the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s, but the title was found too offensive and "against families" so the League began discussions for a new name.[12] By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients.[13] By 1942 the League had become part of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[12]

By 1960, the Federation's grassroots volunteers had provided family planning counseling in hundreds of communities across the country.[13] Planned Parenthood was one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation when it was launched at a conference in Bombay, India in 1952.[13][14]

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare. Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."[43]


----------



## 2ntnuf

drerio said:


> Explain please. If it is not written into the law itself, I simply don't understand the bold statement. How can a DA use something not in the law as a case for prosecution? Please explain. What would be the circumstances applied and to which article in the law would he/she apply it to?
> 
> I don't know that the law will be abused as much as I think there will be times when interpretation as to the state of mind will come into question. And, without witnesses it will come down to he said against she said.


I can't explain it. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Unfounded thoughts? Maybe, but I believe time will prove me right.


----------



## Ikaika

2ntnuf said:


> I can't explain it. We'll have to wait and see how it plays out. Unfounded thoughts? *Maybe, but I believe time will prove me right*.


And if it doesn't... oh never mind. I don't think any DA would dare try to prosecute someone based on something that is *not* in the law. The only thing that may be of issue is how to interpret one state of mind while inebriated. Anything else would be thrown out in a heartbeat by either the presiding judge or overturned in the appellate courts. 

I believe you are looking for more than what is being written into this law. I just think the premise of this being a law written by feminist (sponsored by a male Senator in CA) to attack males is something I cannot agree with at all. I don't see it. 

So you can look for and wait for you opportunity to make that interpretation but I believe based on how I see most laws applied you will wait a loooooong time. I would suggest you don't hold your breath on this one.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I disagree.


----------



## Nostromo

Faithful Wife said:


> Planned Parenthood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The origins of Planned Parenthood date to October 16, 1916 when Margaret Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York.[10] All three women were immediately arrested and jailed for violating provisions of the Comstock Act- for distributing "obscene materials" at the clinic. The "Brownsville trials" brought national attention and support to their cause, and although Sanger and her co-defendants were convicted, their convictions were eventually overturned. Their campaign led to major changes in the laws governing birth control and sex education in the United States.[11]
> 
> In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, which became part of the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s, but the title was found too offensive and "against families" so the League began discussions for a new name.[12] By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients.[13] By 1942 the League had become part of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[12]
> 
> By 1960, the Federation's grassroots volunteers had provided family planning counseling in hundreds of communities across the country.[13] Planned Parenthood was one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation when it was launched at a conference in Bombay, India in 1952.[13][14]
> 
> Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families' control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare. Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition."[43]


Is this directed at my post? If so, I'm already familiar with the origins of Planned Parenthood as well as it's founders support for eugenics.


----------



## Ikaika

2ntnuf said:


> I disagree.


That is fine, you don't have to agree with me, and I am not looking for agreement. However I don't live in a world that assumes every turn of events of this nature are about a gender war. It is all in the interpretation of those who see things through a different lens.


----------



## Faithful Wife

You asked are they a feminist organization or not. No, they are not.

I don't even know what you are trying to get at, and you are now on my ignore list.


----------



## 2ntnuf

drerio said:


> That is fine, you don't have to agree with me, and I am not looking for agreement. However I don't live in a world that assumes every turn of events of this nature are about a gender war. It is all in the interpretation of those who see things through a different lens.


I know.


----------



## Thundarr

drerio said:


> That is fine, you don't have to agree with me, and I am not looking for agreement. *However I don't live in a world that assumes every turn of events of this nature are about a gender war.* It is all in the interpretation of those who see things through a different lens.


I agree. Fear of the slippery slope in combination with confirmation bias ensures that all changes are bad and proof is around the corner to confirm every change is bad.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's a good sex positive article about this topic:

http://www.charlieglickman.com/2014/09/09/what-affirmative-consent-looks-like/


----------



## Catherine602

Pay equality, parity in leadership, and an end to violence against women seem to be viewed with hostility by some elements of our culture. I don't see how these goals can be attained if women lose control over their lives. 

The claim that a woman's reproductive control is a feminist movement is partly correct. The influence of women on government policy, corporate leadership and social issues, is a direct consequence of their control over the amount of time freed up from domestic duties. 

There are consequences to increasing the population of children and taking women out of the work force. The economy will shrink with less women in the workforce and greater need for resource expenditure on larger families. Higher taxes, and a tremendous increase male economic burden. If women are to be slaves to their reproduction then men will be their beast of burden.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think this has been an interesting discussion, but it feels to me that this thread is starting to become unfocused and drift so I'm going to bow out.

I do think a lot of good points have been made.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Another good article by the same guy, Charlie Glickman:

http://www.charlieglickman.com/2014...twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> What would you have Universities do in cases that involved what is suggested as a problem.



I would have them do nothing. If they are too cowardly and too greedy to take the necessary steps to break their 'party atmosphere' because they are afraid Becky and Chad aren't going to come to Hypocrite U and spend their hard earned money, then they should shut up and let the chips fall where they may.



> Actually the wording of the law does not specify gender, it may be implied but does not actually say it as such. No sense putting more into than is already there.


Nice dodge but that dog don't hunt. And again, I return to YOUR words about 'victim'. It showed your inner self. The girls are being defended from being victimized.

So, in a male/female pairing, if you and society has already outlined the female as the victim, what role does that leave the male? Add an 'er' to victim and we have a winner. That the school is does not make this clear means they have good lawyers and that's it.

As a culture, our sexual dynamics and assumptions mean that there is not going to be a 'Duke Bachlorette Party' case where a drunken male stripper was attacked by women. It just isn't going to happen. No one, I mean NO ONE is going to arrest a woman for rape because she didn't get consent.

Because as an example of this unevenness, male teachers who have sex with students are destroyed and branded forever. Female teachers are generally not. LeFave walked (absent her teaching license, granted); men get to spend intimate time with Bubba.

So you can hide behind the wording, but this is peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.




> The way I read it, it does not automatically assume blame or victimization, it only adds alcohol as an additional factor in investigating what could be a crime. It does suggest that alcohol changes the assumption as to whether consent can be given for an activity for sex. I am not suggesting that this is clearly defined. I could probably spend hours fighting for both sides of this argument. But, I would never mistake this for some plot to name victims or perpetrators based on their chromosomal make up.


Translation: if we determine that sex happened with a woman who was drinking, boys, we will be investigating your ass. What will happen to the women, with their shrill Women's Studies departments raising holy hell if anything happens to them? Probation? Expulsion? It is to laugh!




> And, if you were not passed out and would not have objected then I don't see the problem. But if she is not given the chance to object based on her state of mind, is that not a problem? You can call it regret sex if you would not have objected under a sober state of mind? So, it goes to the state of mind. You obviously did not file criminal charges but then you would not have objected possibly. I don't know, only you can make that statement. It is still a he said and she said.


According to how this reads, she can have one Baccardi Breezer, be wet as November and screaming 'Take me to bed or lose me forever!' and she is not able to give consent. Because alcohol is involved.




> It only smacks around men if the law stated it as such, but it does not mention gender as a specification to the offense or the victim. You have assumed a truth that does not exists.


*Everyone else* looking at this law is coming to the same conclusions.

Here is The New Republic (Hardly a bastion of Men's Rights):



> But there is a larger problem at stake in Bill 967. It is an argument of definition: A failure to procure “affirmative agreement” means that sexual assault has taken place. If that is the case, absent such affirmative signifiers, how exactly do you know whom to arrest? Let’s say the woman brings a complaint; hasn’t she also technically raped her male partner, according to the new bill? Of course not, critics will argue. His consent was visible; sex couldn’t have happened without his consent, they will say. But here lies the crux: *while male desire is deemed equivalent to “affirmative consent," female desire is not. A double standard is actually ratified into law whereby the phallus represents true, unmediated desire, while female desire must be interpolated through words.* While the law must protect women from the inequality of force men have at their disposal, what is the utility of demanding that women require an extra level of mediation to signal desire, under conditions where no imbalance exists?


So go semantic. Everyone knows how this law will be applied.

And from the women's side, the 'game' of courtship will be a hell of a lot less interesting from their perspective. Most women are not as direct as Anon Pink.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> It goes on for more, but again, I think many here are trying to apply more into this law than the law suggest. Are there problems with this law? Sure, but it is not one that can go beyond what is being addressed. To go beyond it is just not looking at this law for what it is and it is not some gender war based assumption. One sees what they want to see.


A gun is a gun whether it is being used to shoot clay ducks or used in a war, gender or otherwise.

Who exactly do you thing 'the accused' is going to be in the vast preponderance of cases?


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> I agree. Fear of the slippery slope in combination with confirmation bias ensures that all changes are bad and proof is around the corner to confirm every change is bad.


Most campuses have a single gender who is seriously politicized and very vocal. Who use nasty tactics when they can't get their way through the legal means. Who have huge rallies all but accusing the other gender of being monsters who should be watched constantly. There are respected Chairs, who right serious, asinine papers about how marriage is slavery, sex is rape, and giving a girl a pink dress is mentally coding her into submission. They are not scorned as people spouting nonsense but lauded as 'controversial thinkers'.

And this isn't a men's group!

So do I think this legal cudgel will be grasped by this group and swung with abandon and a stunning lack of accuracy? 

Yes...because they have done so before!

And the administration caves to them all the time. Look at Duke.

So please do not pretend these are ethereal and unfounded concerns.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> A gun is a gun whether it is being used to shoot clay ducks or used in a war, gender or otherwise.
> 
> Who exactly do you thing 'the accused' is going to be in the vast preponderance of cases?


Word salad, I don't know what this means.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Most campuses have a single gender who is seriously politicized and very vocal. Who use nasty tactics when they can't get their way through the legal means. Who have huge rallies all but accusing the other gender of being monsters who should be watched constantly. There are respected Chairs, who right serious, asinine papers about how marriage is slavery, sex is rape, and giving a girl a pink dress is mentally coding her into submission. They are not scorned as people spouting nonsense but lauded as 'controversial thinkers'.
> 
> And this isn't a men's group!
> 
> So do I think this legal cudgel will be grasped by this group and swung with abandon and a stunning lack of accuracy?
> 
> Yes...because they have done so before!
> 
> And the administration caves to them all the time. Look at Duke.
> 
> So please do not pretend these are ethereal and unfounded concerns.


I know right, we should keep any alleged or actually sexual assaults quiet. No need to address them in public.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> *I would have them do nothing*. If they are too cowardly and too greedy to take the necessary steps to break their 'party atmosphere' because they are afraid Becky and Chad aren't going to come to Hypocrite U and spend their hard earned money, *then they should shut up and let the chips fall where they may*.




Ok, that is one way to do it. So I would assume attending a University should come with a warning label. You have your opinion. 





JCD said:


> Nice dodge but that dog don't hunt. And again, I return to YOUR words about 'victim'. It showed your inner self. The girls are being defended from being victimized.
> 
> 
> 
> So, in a male/female pairing, if you and society has already outlined the female as the victim, what role does that leave the male? Add an 'er' to victim and we have a winner. That the school is does not make this clear means they have good lawyers and that's it.




I used the word victim, however I should have used the word in the law which is complainant, my bad. And, though I used the word incorrectly, I did not assign gender to it and neither does the law. So I don't know what I dodged other than I simply did not use the words spelled out in the law. 





JCD said:


> As a culture, our sexual dynamics and assumptions mean that there is not going to be a 'Duke Bachlorette Party' case where a drunken male stripper was attacked by women. It just isn't going to happen. No one, I mean NO ONE is going to arrest a woman for rape because she didn't get consent.




Well, if that is the culture of the Duke women's lacrosse team (if one exist), then under this law, sure things may have to change. Although, I am not sure I would assign this particular scenario across the board as culture we all share, male or female. But, at the same time I look at this law and do question as to how a DA determines state of mind if the stripper, especially if he is not in an unconscious state and without objection (i.e., complainant?)





JCD said:


> Because as an example of this unevenness, male teachers who have sex with students are destroyed and branded forever. Female teachers are generally not. LeFave walked (absent her teaching license, granted); men get to spend intimate time with Bubba.




you lost me here, what does this have to do with SB-967?





JCD said:


> So you can hide behind the wording, but this is peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining.




So, I can't use the words written in the law? hmmm :scratchhead:











JCD said:


> Translation: if we determine that sex happened with a woman who was drinking, boys, we will be investigating your ass. What will happen to the women, with their shrill Women's Studies departments raising holy hell if anything happens to them? Probation? Expulsion? It is to laugh!




I have never said this will ever be a clean and cut law. If she was drinking with the boys and she passed out. And while lying there in an unconscious state the boys decided to have sex with her and she later objects because she was unable to object at the time of the sexual encounter(s) (i.e., say no) due to her condition, then yea, Houston the boys have a problem. If on the other hand she was just drunk and had sex with one or even more, but never in an unconscious state, this is going to be a problem for any DA. But, to assume that the DA cares what the Women's Studies Department has to say is not admissible unless they had information leading directly in evidence to the case. 











JCD said:


> According to how this reads, she can have one Baccardi Breezer, be wet as November and screaming 'Take me to bed or lose me forever!' and she is not able to give consent. Because alcohol is involved.




The way the law reads is that alcohol will be used in investigation when the complainant comes forward with his/her allegation. I am not so sure it automatically assumes any guilt the way I have read it, and I fully admitted more than once (which you have decided not to read) that this will always be a problem











JCD said:


> *Everyone else* looking at this law is coming to the same conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is The New Republic (Hardly a bastion of Men's Rights):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So go semantic. Everyone knows how this law will be applied.
> 
> 
> 
> And from the women's side, the 'game' of courtship will be a hell of a lot less interesting from their perspective. Most women are not as direct as Anon Pink.




I think the assumption that the law will be applied outside the scope of its intent is far less likely to happen. However, I would say that the interpretation of of how we determine state of mind during intoxication may turn out to be tricky. 



But, I still don't read this as an assault on males or some gender war based on some feminist agenda. If you could find that in the actually text of the law, please show me.


----------



## always_alone

The. "slippery slope" that has some people upset has brought us from a place where virtually zero rapes were reported, let alone prosecuted, to a place where many are reported and some are prosecuted.

I don't get where this whole "war on innocent men" fear is coming from. Do we really want to completely ignore the problem of sexual assault, just on the off chance an innocent party is hurt by it? Shall we remove murder laws too? After all, innocent people are often convicted and have their lives destroyed by it. 

I can't help but think part of the motive is to simply discount sexual assault altogether, and pretend it doesn't exist, or isn't really a problem.

And anyone who thinks that Women's Studies departments have a stranglehold on the University administration (or anything, for that matter) clearly hasn't been inside a university in at least 25 years.


----------



## Lon

Sex is not dead, oh believe me, definitely will go on.


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> So do I think this legal cudgel will be grasped by this group and swung with abandon and a stunning lack of accuracy?


heh. That's some melodramatic prose but it doesn't seem based in reality. This man hating organization (The Woman) hasn't affected me or my brothers or my sons or anyone I know. I know guys who might try to blame shift though and say 'The Woman' is holding them down. But they don't have to because they already say 'The Man' is doing it.

This law isn't a fantastical conspiracy to rule the world with Vagina power. No it's a concept of mutual coherent consent and is intended to reduce the number of rapes on campus. 

It's a social speed limit. The limit used to be 'consent=doesn't say no'. Now the posted social speed limit is 'consent=coherent participation'.


----------



## LongWalk

Planned Parenthood is a politically partisan organization. They provide healthcare and that is a good public service. Sad that it is not provided by a national health insurance scheme. This guarantees that the Democrats have a core of supporters who fear their clinics will close.

Are their leaders feminists? Probably. 

Do you of CA students receive healthcare through the universities?

I don't have any problem with Planned Parenthood or university healthcare clinics advising women to make police complaints if they believe they have been raped.

The active consent law is too vague. If an erection is consent by males, is a wet vagina consent by a woman?

If universities wanted to stop drunken sex and rapes they would make certain the drinking age was 21. And the police would bust bars and frats for serving minors.


----------



## Thundarr

Lon said:


> Sex is not dead, oh believe me, definitely will go on.


Lon, I agree casual sex isn't going to stop and we all shouldn't fool ourselves about that. I know you dislike this law and I like the law but we certainly agree on this part.


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> Planned Parenthood is a politically partisan organization. They provide healthcare and that is a good public service. Sad that it is not provided by a national health insurance scheme. This guarantees that the Democrats have a core of supporters who fear their clinics will close.
> 
> Are their leaders feminists? Probably.
> 
> Do you of CA students receive healthcare through the universities?
> 
> I don't have any problem with Planned Parenthood or university healthcare clinics advising women to make police complaints if they believe they have been raped.
> 
> The active consent law is too vague. If an erection is consent by males, is a wet vagina consent by a woman?
> 
> If universities wanted to stop drunken sex and rapes they would make certain the drinking age was 21. And the police would bust bars and frats for serving minors.


An erection is definitely not consent. Boys and girls who've been sexually abused have a lot of guilt and trama because their bodies reacted even though they did not want it to.

I do agree with you take on everything else though.


----------



## Buddy400

drerio said:


> But, I still don't read this as an assault on males or some gender war based on some feminist agenda. If you could find that in the actually text of the law, please show me.


If, by some chance, this WAS an assault on males or some feminist gender war based on some feminist agenda, Do you think that they would say that IN THE BILL?

No, they'd disguise it under a bunch of gender neutral legalese.

So, while this isn't proof that it actually IS a part of a feminist agenda, you can't possibly be naïve enough to believe that it's proof that it isn't.


----------



## LongWalk

Young people often feel conflicted over sex. Horny minds are not rational. Surely some women who have been resisting intercourse are suddenly pleased when it starts.

Others may be enthusiastic at the start but begin having regrets when intercourse does not bring pleasure or connection.

Whether or not it was a negative experience also depends on the breakfast conversation.


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> If, by some chance, this WAS an assault on males or some feminist gender war based on some feminist agenda, Do you think that they would say that IN THE BILL?
> 
> 
> 
> No, they'd disguise it under a bunch of gender neutral legalese.
> 
> 
> 
> So, while this isn't proof that it actually IS a part of a feminist agenda, you can't possibly be naïve enough to believe that it's proof that it isn't.



I guess if you are willing to read and see things through a filtered lens you could assume anything about any law passed. I just don't read it that way, so no I don't live in fear of the anti-man conspiracy.


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> I don't get where this whole "war on innocent men" fear is coming from. Do we really want to completely ignore the problem of sexual assault, just on the off chance an innocent party is hurt by it? Shall we remove murder laws too? After all, innocent people are often convicted and have their lives destroyed by it.


In an attempt to prevent the conviction of innocent people for murder, our legal system bends over backwards to ensure due process. I'd like the same attention to due process in this case. I'm not willing to just "kill them all and let God sort them out".



always_alone said:


> I can't help but think part of the motive is to simply discount sexual assault altogether, and pretend it doesn't exist, or isn't really a problem.


The main problem here is the actual definition of "sexual assault". I've seen USA Today substitute "rape" in place of "sexual assault" when reporting on the old "1 in 5 college women victim of sexual assault" story. I've seen "unwanted advances" described as sexual assault. 

The problem is one side thinking that their opponents are in favor of raping drunk women at frat parties and the other side thinks that their opponents want to criminalize men who fail to get permission to touch their girlfriend's left breast.


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> The main problem here is the actual definition of "sexual assault". I've seen USA Today substitute "rape" in place of "sexual assault" when reporting on the old "1 in 5 college women victim of sexual assault" story. I've seen "unwanted advances" described as sexual assault.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is one side thinking that their opponents are in favor of raping drunk women at frat parties and the other side thinks that their opponents want to criminalize men who fail to get permission to touch their girlfriend's left breast.



Sexual assault is based on statutory laws (districts). If read most of these, you will see the definition of unwanted advances have pretty well defined set of circumstances. So to automatically write this off as assuming that these are minor infractions may not necessarily be what you assume. 

Heavy drinking is a problem on a lot of campuses and off-site university sponsored locations. However, I'm not sure one is looking to criminalize sex between two people of consenting age, but when one party is unable to consent because of his/her state of mind (unconscious or too inebriated to provide a clear decision) what then?


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> If, by some chance, this WAS an assault on males or some feminist gender war based on some feminist agenda, Do you think that they would say that IN THE BILL?
> 
> No, they'd disguise it under a bunch of gender neutral legalese.
> 
> So, while this isn't proof that it actually IS a part of a feminist agenda, you can't possibly be naïve enough to believe that it's proof that it isn't.


I think a fundamental disagreement that you and I would have Buddy400 is that I don't think extremist have much power or enfluence. Actually I think they are used by politicians as smoke screens more often than anything. It's easy for politicians to let people posture and bicker while they use slight of hand to pass laws.

Sure a hard core self proclaimed feminist would like this law but I separate that from my opinion of it. It doesn't matter to me if someone else thinks they've won a battle.


----------



## Thundarr

Buddy400 said:


> The problem is one side thinking that their opponents are in favor of raping drunk women at frat parties and the other side thinks that their opponents want to criminalize men who fail to get permission to touch their girlfriend's left breast.


:iagree:
That is a problem. We've not spun out of control yet though. No mods have threatened to close the thread yet .


----------



## Wolfman1968

Regret214 said:


> For anyone who thinks this might hurt an innocent person, I would say the truth will more than likely come out and exonerate them.


There's good evidence to show that will not be true whatsoever.

There are a number of lawsuits against universities for just this issue. Male student expelled, accuser show to be lying (or, that the evidence strongly suggests it), accuser is not prosecuted for lying (for the usual "don't want to discourage people from coming forward"), student remains expelled, with a mark on his records. That will mar his future forever. You don't think litigation-shy employers or even shools will shy away from someone who was accused? His name may also forever linked with the accusation on Google, etc.

The usual safeguards of "beyond reasonable doubt" for the accused with be even further destroyed under this "predominance of evidence" standard that the universities will apply. The state is trying to get around the usual standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" by making the universities their De Facto agents.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I was going to drop out, but had one more thought on why there is so much disagreement on this.

People tend to judge issues based on their own experience.

Many women have been raped, and many more have felt that they were at risk of rape. They fear not being believed if it happens.They are also certain that they would never make a false claim, so it seems reasonable to them to push laws towards favoring the prosecution.

Most men have not committed rape or any other sex crimes. So while that possibility seems remote to them, they may well have interacted with an evil or vindictive woman. To them the possibility of giving such a woman more power, giving them the ability to destroy the man's life at will seems frightening. 


Everyone here wants to stop rape, AND everyone wants to protect the innocent. They just have different ideas of where to put the balance point, since we can't do both perfectly.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> heh. That's some melodramatic prose but it doesn't seem based in reality. This man hating organization (The Woman) hasn't affected me or my brothers or my sons or anyone I know. I know guys who might try to blame shift though and say 'The Woman' is holding them down. But they don't have to because they already say 'The Man' is doing it.
> 
> This law isn't a fantastical conspiracy to rule the world with Vagina power. No it's a concept of mutual coherent consent and is intended to reduce the number of rapes on campus.
> 
> It's a social speed limit. The limit used to be 'consent=doesn't say no'. Now the posted social speed limit is 'consent=coherent participation'.



This is also aimed at Drerio, so you can both chime in.

This is not an anti woman screed. Like I said, in the real world, in a world where women need to 'get things done' themselves, where they are surrounded by a welter of voices, they generally behave ethically, and with some judgment. They use moral calculus and only have as many bad actors as, ahem, men have.

College is not real life. You have a ton of young, rather vapid girls trying to become women, desperately seeking an identity. And like vegetarianisms, quite a few of them have a 'man hating feminist' phase, often right about the time they leave their HS boyfriend and get surrounded by other women with a serious political agenda that extends beyond 'equal pay for equal work'. 

They are egged on by professors who keep trying to be 'relevant' by writing more and more controversial articles because that is the litmus test for survival in academia. And if they are going to write it, they will likely teach it. Got to gin up those text book royalties somehow. And it will go down the 'telephone game' and viola, we have (some) young ladies believing every uninvited kiss is rape and that a leer is as good as a sexual assault.

So IN COLLEGE, there isn't a conspiracy. There is a hypersensitive gaggle of girls in twit (sic) seeking an identity, 'wanting to make a difference' just looking to explode upon any hapless male they find. Not every girl. Certainly not a majority. But certainly in a higher ratio than in the outside world, where one no longer has a willing cohort of supporters ready to have a rally at a drop of a hate (sic) to PROVE their anti rape caring bone fides.

So in the cases which aren't particularly 'clear cut', i.e. don't involve someone unconscious being raped or held down by a bunch of fratties etc., it will play out something like this:

Bob and Sidney go to a party, get drunk and have sex. Sidney, discussing the session with a few girl friends, says something like this: "...and I was SO wasted, I fell asleep on him...AND HE DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!" Giggling ensues, even as the vast majority of girls knows technically TECHNICALLY, he committed rape on her according to this doctrine of affirmation. They aren't going to say a word. After all, these two are a cute couple! Real life is complicated and Sidney clearly didn't mind what happened except that her idiot boyfriend didn't notice she passed out.

Except we have Alice in the group. Alice does not have a zero tolerance policy for males and 'rape'; her policy is minus one (he is already guilty of something). So Alice goes to the provost (or whomever) with her 'tale of rape'.

Since Alice is absolutely humorless and strident, she isn't going away. There are PRINCIPLES to be upheld! There are MESSAGES to be sent! There are (and this warms her at night) EXAMPLES to be made! Plus she never really liked Sidney anyway. And the authorities do NOT know anything about this encounter. So they really have to investigate. Their hands are tied.

Now Sidney is a warm, not too clever girl from 'fly over country' who is honest as the day is long. So when the question: 'did you tell him you wanted to have sex specifically' she answers 'I don't remember.'

BANG! That is the destruction of a male. And if this law is not good at the 'gray cases' but is still arbitrary, there will be a lot of (male) lives ruined as a result.

The lopsided nature of this law isn't that 'both genders' won't be investigated. Of course they will. The PUNISHMENT aspect will only hit one gender however. What is the college going to do; expel or jail a girl for not saying yes to her boyfriend? That is a great PR statement...and just the sort of idiocy that 'real' application of this law would require...but this won't be applied equally, however 'gender neutral' it is on paper.

This rule is arbitrary and inflexible and MAKES criminals. Bad law does that. Cause Bob and Sidney didn't do anything wrong, but they now did something 'illegal'.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> This is also aimed at Drerio, so you can both chime in.
> 
> This is not an anti woman screed. Like I said, in the real world, in a world where women need to 'get things done' themselves, where they are surrounded by a welter of voices, they generally behave ethically, and with some judgment. They use moral calculus and only have as many bad actors as, ahem, men have.
> 
> College is not real life. You have a ton of young, rather vapid girls trying to become women, desperately seeking an identity. And like vegetarianisms, quite a few of them have a 'man hating feminist' phase, often right about the time they leave their HS boyfriend and get surrounded by other women with a serious political agenda that extends beyond 'equal pay for equal work'.
> 
> They are egged on by professors who keep trying to be 'relevant' by writing more and more controversial articles because that is the litmus test for survival in academia. And if they are going to write it, they will likely teach it. Got to gin up those text book royalties somehow. And it will go down the 'telephone game' and viola, we have (some) young ladies believing every uninvited kiss is rape and that a leer is as good as a sexual assault.
> 
> So IN COLLEGE, there isn't a conspiracy. There is a hypersensitive gaggle of girls in twit (sic) seeking an identity, 'wanting to make a difference' just looking to explode upon any hapless male they find. Not every girl. Certainly not a majority. But certainly in a higher ratio than in the outside world, where one no longer has a willing cohort of supporters ready to have a rally at a drop of a hate (sic) to PROVE their anti rape caring bone fides.
> 
> So in the cases which aren't particularly 'clear cut', i.e. don't involve someone unconscious being raped or held down by a bunch of fratties etc., it will play out something like this:
> 
> Bob and Sidney go to a party, get drunk and have sex. Sidney, discussing the session with a few girl friends, says something like this: "...and I was SO wasted, I fell asleep on him...AND HE DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE!" Giggling ensues, even as the vast majority of girls knows technically TECHNICALLY, he committed rape on her according to this doctrine of affirmation. They aren't going to say a word. After all, these two are a cute couple! Real life is complicated and Sidney clearly didn't mind what happened except that her idiot boyfriend didn't notice she passed out.
> 
> Except we have Alice in the group. Alice does not have a zero tolerance policy for males and 'rape'; her policy is minus one (he is already guilty of something). So Alice goes to the provost (or whomever) with her 'tale of rape'.
> 
> Since Alice is absolutely humorless and strident, she isn't going away. There are PRINCIPLES to be upheld! There are MESSAGES to be sent! There are (and this warms her at night) EXAMPLES to be made! Plus she never really liked Sidney anyway. And the authorities do NOT know anything about this encounter. So they really have to investigate. Their hands are tied.
> 
> Now Sidney is a warm, not too clever girl from 'fly over country' who is honest as the day is long. So when the question: 'did you tell him you wanted to have sex specifically' she answers 'I don't remember.'
> 
> BANG! That is the destruction of a male. And if this law is not good at the 'gray cases' but is still arbitrary, there will be a lot of (male) lives ruined as a result.
> 
> The lopsided nature of this law isn't that 'both genders' won't be investigated. Of course they will. The PUNISHMENT aspect will only hit one gender however. What is the college going to do; expel or jail a girl for not saying yes to her boyfriend? That is a great PR statement...and just the sort of idiocy that 'real' application of this law would require...but this won't be applied equally, however 'gender neutral' it is on paper.
> 
> This rule is arbitrary and inflexible and MAKES criminals. Bad law does that. Cause Bob and Sidney didn't do anything wrong, but they now did something 'illegal'.


Wonderful made for TV story. A lot of misdirected judgements, but you are free to express whatever opinion you wish. I just can't agree with the context of your assumptions (all of them) nor can I see that your story has much credence in the real life legal system.


----------



## Ikaika

Myth: There are a lot of false rape reports.
Fact: The false report rate for rape is similar to other false felony reports. The FBI estimates that about 2% of reported rapes are false.

Myth: Most people report rape or sexual assault to the police. 
Fact: The truth is that rape and sexual assault are two of the most underreported crimes in our society. Estimates show that between 50–90% of rapes go unreported. Factoring unreported rapes together with the odds of an arrest being made and the chances of getting a felony conviction, only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. In other words: 15 of 16 rapists walk free.

From a study conducted at West Virginia school of law.

I don't know, I'm not going to spend the time to verify the under reported statistical data (given the large swing, to me it spells of variability due to collection methodology). The FBI data turns out to be correct on false complaints of felonies including rape, nationwide. Feel free to look it up yourself. A whopping 2% of false reports. I'm sure most men would claim that number will go up. I don't know if it will given the most common reasons for both falsifying evidence as well as those that never report the the complaint. I think a lot of men overestimate your average college female. But feel free to pontificate with more over the top made for TV scripts.


----------



## that_girl

Women go though a man hating phase? I didn't know that. I'm sure it can't be because they were burned by men..../sarcasm.

Women are just women. Men tend to think women are here JUSt for their entertainment, enjoyment, sexual satisfaction. Leers, comments, expectations, etc. It's rampant. 

I teach my teen daughter to pay for her half of the dates when she starts dating. Then take turns paying if they continue dating. This is practical for many reasons, but the best reason is that she isn't expected to spread her legs just because some guy bought her a meal.


----------



## jaharthur

Wow. Lots of misunderstanding on this thread of this law, of how the law in general works, of sexual assault, of women, and yes, of men, too.


----------



## JCD

that_girl said:


> Women go though a man hating phase? I didn't know that. I'm sure it can't be because they were burned by men..../sarcasm.
> 
> Women are just women. Men tend to think women are here JUSt for their entertainment, enjoyment, sexual satisfaction. Leers, comments, expectations, etc. It's rampant.
> 
> I teach my teen daughter to pay for her half of the dates when she starts dating. Then take turns paying if they continue dating. This is practical for many reasons, but the best reason is that she isn't expected to spread her legs just because some guy bought her a meal.


Hmm. You've never been 'down on men'? Perhaps not. Have you ever had a friend who questions why men were ever created or why any 'right minded woman' had anything to do with them?

They are not 'playthings.' Considering how some men act, I don't blame women for being down on men occasionally (and some women are much more than occasionally). Just like there are men who reject women out of hand totally. It happens.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> Wonderful made for TV story. A lot of misdirected judgements, but you are free to express whatever opinion you wish. I just can't agree with the context of your assumptions (all of them) nor can I see that your story has much credence in the real life legal system.


I can think of 88 reasons why you are incorrect. Excuse me. If we add Nifong and Gloria Steinem, we are up to a round 90.

Just to break this down for other readers:

1) I said that the politics of a university can and would try to influence judgments, particularly against men.

2) I stated that Rushes to Judgment were quite common.

3) I stated that ruined reputations and all kinds of 'extracurricular' punishment was frequently meted out by university types on the basis of accusation alone.

and let me throw in this new one: Rape prosecutions have become easier, not harder, since it doesn't need to be proven the girl said no. She just didn't need to say yes for them to be guilty. She can't flutter her eyelashes. She can't grab a man and kiss him. She can't open her blouse and flash him, rubbing his face on her breasts. No, she needs to explicitly SAY she wants sex in plain English.

I absolutely agree that all men should be very thoughtful and clear on the fact that a girl 'wants' to have sex. I do not feel he is automatically guilty of rape if he (hyperbole alert on) doesn't have a signed affidavit. 

This is, as said before, lowering the bar on this crime quite measurably to what? Send a message? Make examples? Criminalize more men?

Those are all three results of this.


----------



## COguy

drerio said:


> Myth: There are a lot of false rape reports.
> Fact: The false report rate for rape is similar to other false felony reports. The FBI estimates that about 2% of reported rapes are false.
> 
> Myth: Most people report rape or sexual assault to the police.
> Fact: The truth is that rape and sexual assault are two of the most underreported crimes in our society. Estimates show that between 50–90% of rapes go unreported. Factoring unreported rapes together with the odds of an arrest being made and the chances of getting a felony conviction, only 6% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail. In other words: 15 of 16 rapists walk free.
> 
> From a study conducted at West Virginia school of law.
> 
> I don't know, I'm not going to spend the time to verify the under reported statistical data (given the large swing, to me it spells of variability due to collection methodology). The FBI data turns out to be correct on false complaints of felonies including rape, nationwide. Feel free to look it up yourself. A whopping 2% of false reports. I'm sure most men would claim that number will go up. I don't know if it will given the most common reasons for both falsifying evidence as well as those that never report the the complaint. I think a lot of men overestimate your average college female. But feel free to pontificate with more over the top made for TV scripts.


Here's the problem with finding out the exact percentage of claims are false rape. First off, we get BS data on how many cases of "rape" or "sexual violence" are occurring in the real world. For example, you hear that 20% of women in college will be a victim of sexual violence in 4 years. So right away people go, "Wow 20% of people are forcibly raped! That's a lot!" Except in the statistic is misleading and not done correctly. That was a self-reported study (if you weren't a victim I'm sure you'd be less likely to answer the question right?), and wasn't asking about forcible rapes, it went as far as to ask about any physical contact (an unrequested kiss or butt slap was listed on the same scale as a guy jumping out of the bushes and forcing himself on a jogger).

So we have in our minds that a large number of women are being raped. Then we ask the FBI a question like, "How many RAPES are false?" And the FBI goes into their database and looks at forcible rapes (not the definition based off a womens' studies university program) and finds out that only a small percentage of the forcible rapes that happen are false (1-8% depending on who you ask and what time of day it is). So before we've even done any analysis on why the answer would naturally be low, we've already set ourselves up that out of the HUGE pool of "sexual violence" that occurs regularly, only a small portion are false claims.

Disregarding the fact that the FBI isn't investigating rape cases where a boyfriend and girlfriend got drunk and she wasn't really saying yes but wasn't really saying no either. Disregard the fact that in almost every single instance, it's a he said/she said argument and that the only way to KNOW that the case was false or malicious is that the accuser MUST recant their story, or there has to be video evidence. You would also have to ignore personal testimony of many investigators at the university, local, and federal level who will say that the data on false allegations isn't realistic because many times they don't press charges. A quick glance at the informal numbers shows a range from around 20% all the way up to 90% of rape accusations being considered invalid.

But even when we take the actual admitted cases, 2-8% is a huge number. And even self-admittedly only a portion of those, WHERE THE GOSH DANG PERSON WHO ACCUSED SOMEONE OF A FELONY AND THEN ADMITTED THEY LIED, are ever held accountable for that.

The truth is, sexual violence on college campuses, when we talk about legitimate violence, is not common at all. And false rape allegations, while also not common, ARE out there. We are unbalanced in that we make one of the problems out to be very large and act as if the other doesn't exist. And when we find evidence of the latter, we act as if it really didn't happen.

We will not find equality when we try to solve one problem but not the other. It's kind of silly we're actually taking a subject like the forcible penetration of a woman by a man and turning it into a political issue. No normal man thinks that rape is OK, period. But we've gone about it in such a ridiculous way that it splits us on the issue.

And for the most part, I think I speak for most of the men here, just a simple acknowledgement that we're going to shoot for truth and justice and not blindly f*ck over 50% of the population is all we really need. Just a, "Hey, if someone tries to screw over your entire life because they have a personality disorder, we'll make sure we give you a fair chance to defend yourself and hold them accountable if necessary." Is that really too much to ask?


----------



## Ikaika

COguy said:


> Here's the problem with finding out the exact percentage of claims are false rape. First off, we get BS data on how many cases of "rape" or "sexual violence" are occurring in the real world. For example, you hear that 20% of women in college will be a victim of sexual violence in 4 years. So right away people go, "Wow 20% of people are forcibly raped! That's a lot!" Except in the statistic is misleading and not done correctly. That was a self-reported study (if you weren't a victim I'm sure you'd be less likely to answer the question right?), and wasn't asking about forcible rapes, it went as far as to ask about any physical contact (an unrequested kiss or butt slap was listed on the same scale as a guy jumping out of the bushes and forcing himself on a jogger).
> 
> So we have in our minds that a large number of women are being raped. Then we ask the FBI a question like, "How many RAPES are false?" And the FBI goes into their database and looks at forcible rapes (not the definition based off a womens' studies university program) and finds out that only a small percentage of the forcible rapes that happen are false (1-8% depending on who you ask and what time of day it is). So before we've even done any analysis on why the answer would naturally be low, we've already set ourselves up that out of the HUGE pool of "sexual violence" that occurs regularly, only a small portion are false claims.
> 
> Disregarding the fact that the FBI isn't investigating rape cases where a boyfriend and girlfriend got drunk and she wasn't really saying yes but wasn't really saying no either. Disregard the fact that in almost every single instance, it's a he said/she said argument and that the only way to KNOW that the case was false or malicious is that the accuser MUST recant their story, or there has to be video evidence. You would also have to ignore personal testimony of many investigators at the university, local, and federal level who will say that the data on false allegations isn't realistic because many times they don't press charges. A quick glance at the informal numbers shows a range from around 20% all the way up to 90% of rape accusations being considered invalid.
> 
> But even when we take the actual admitted cases, 2-8% is a huge number. And even self-admittedly only a portion of those, WHERE THE GOSH DANG PERSON WHO ACCUSED SOMEONE OF A FELONY AND THEN ADMITTED THEY LIED, are ever held accountable for that.
> 
> The truth is, sexual violence on college campuses, when we talk about legitimate violence, is not common at all. And false rape allegations, while also not common, ARE out there. We are unbalanced in that we make one of the problems out to be very large and act as if the other doesn't exist. And when we find evidence of the latter, we act as if it really didn't happen.
> 
> We will not find equality when we try to solve one problem but not the other. It's kind of silly we're actually taking a subject like the forcible penetration of a woman by a man and turning it into a political issue. No normal man thinks that rape is OK, period. But we've gone about it in such a ridiculous way that it splits us on the issue.
> 
> And for the most part, I think I speak for most of the men here, just a simple acknowledgement that we're going to shoot for truth and *justice and not blindly f*ck over 50% of the population is all we really need*. Just a, "Hey, if someone tries to screw over your entire life because they have a personality disorder, we'll make sure we give you a fair chance to defend yourself and hold them accountable if necessary." Is that really too much to ask?



I'm going to assume you have citations to back up everything claim, otherwise it sounds like bias speculations. The wvu study actually suggested only about 1% of all sexual assaults and rapes on campus are forcible. So, I think you can see the impetus for this new law the way it is written. The bold statement sounds like the same victim hood assumption I figured so many folks on these threads deplore. I don't think you speak for most men, you speak only for yourself. It is your opinion. I don't speak for anyone but myself as well.


----------



## LongWalk

Police don't bother to investigate DNA rape cases. CBS story


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> I can think of 88 reasons why you are incorrect. Excuse me. If we add Nifong and Gloria Steinem, we are up to a round 90.


Wikipedia, the wonderful bastion of internet knowledge. All this based on one school and 88 professors. Wonder how many professors work there? Oh, and I am guessing you actually read the letter, I did. It was not about the case it was about the culture of activities on campus not about the case itself. But, those silly facts are not necessary to worry about because Wikipedia made some uneasy parallel statement. 



JCD said:


> Just to break this down for other readers:
> 
> 1) I said that the politics of a university can and would try to influence judgments, particularly against men.


I think you are overestimating the amount of power and influence universities have over students (male or female). I think you are also overestimating the notion that student pay more attention to their professors than they do to social media.  



JCD said:


> 2) I stated that Rushes to Judgment were quite common.


Is this just a bias gut assumption or do you have actual documentation for this statement. 



JCD said:


> 3) I stated that ruined reputations and all kinds of 'extracurricular' punishment was *frequently* meted out by university types on the basis of accusation alone.


Frequently? Is that somewhere between zero and a lot. Again I assume you have a citation other than some wikipedia page. 



JCD said:


> and let me throw in this new one: Rape prosecutions *have become easier, not harder*, since it doesn't need to be proven the girl said no. She just didn't need to say yes for them to be guilty. She can't flutter her eyelashes. She can't grab a man and kiss him. She can't open her blouse and flash him, rubbing his face on her breasts. No, she needs to explicitly SAY she wants sex in plain English.


I am assuming that the many women who have been raped this statement would come with relief. The notion that a crime can be prosecuted, what a shock. 



JCD said:


> *I absolutely agree that all men should be very thoughtful and clear on the fact that a girl 'wants' to have sex. * I do not feel he is automatically guilty of rape if he (hyperbole alert on) doesn't have a signed affidavit.


you made the bold statement and yet have angst with this new law. Help me out with that one. :scratchhead: This is what the law is at the heart of, so I think if your son is like you, no problem. False accusations are rare and even rarer are that some professors are ginning up the crowd to create more false accusations. 



JCD said:


> This is, as said before, lowering the bar on this crime quite measurably to what? Send a message? Make examples? *Criminalize more men?*
> 
> Those are all three results of this.


I know right, they are out to get us?  No my oldest son will never have a problem, he is mentally disabled. My youngest son has learned to respect others and treat others with respect. He knows that when he is on the field he plays hard nose football. He also know to leave it all on the field and to not bring the same aggression I want him to play on the field, off the field. He knows it and understands it. 

This is not a law that is built on entrapment, it is really built around ensuring we have respect for each other and that is how I read it.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Everyone here wants to stop rape, AND everyone wants to protect the innocent. They just have different ideas of where to put the balance point, since we can't do both perfectly.


Yes, I think this is part of what's going on, but the stats are abundantly clear that unreported and unprosecuted sexual assaults are a much, much, much greater problem. The paranoid fantasies of strident feminists running around reporting random guys for assaulting other women are just that: paranoid fantasies.

I think another part of what is going on here is that some people are offended by he definition of "sexual assault" itself. They see these behaviours as perfectly normal, harmless, and rightly excused. The only time rape is bad is when the victim is left a bleeding and beaten pulp. The rest is just "partying" or "youth" or "harmless" and victims should "just get over it".


----------



## LongWalk

This law attempts to change behavior, using a vague definition of consent. It is not part of the criminal code defining sex crimes.

The intent may be good but the impact may be to undermine the law. How are the police supposed to discuss the issue of consent when a woman files a rape complaint?


----------



## JCD

I am out on this one.

The language and tone severely changes the presumption of innocence. The only defense is a constant affirmation.

We as a society decided to bend over backwards for victims of DV and CA. As such, we changed the presumptions in those laws, and as a result, have seen a leap of frivolous accusations of domestic violence and child abuse in divorce cases for legal purposes.

This change in the presumption of rape from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'preponderance of evidence' seems to be just as rife for abuse.

Now, I can see how good hearted people would not use this law this way. God help the man if a bad hearted person gets his hands on this law. A jilted lover, a grandstanding professor, Nifong...yeah...this will work out JUST GRAND.

We've already seen these abuses. I'm shocked more people can't see the downsides or pooh pooh the concerns.


----------



## Thundarr

This thread is telling of human nature. The big risk that doesn't affect us gets lip service but the perceived risk that does affect us is vehemently defended. Gravity of risk and logic are tossed aside.

There's another TAM topic where this happens except the genders are reversed. Bear with me regarding the topic because I think it's relevant to the rationalization people spin in this thread. Ladies and gentlemen in this thread, do you take the same stance on justifiable risk regarding solutions for a man unknowingly raising someone else's child. It's another topic where small steps to deter a big injustice are met with vehement out lash and the 'what if hamster' spins away from logic. The difference is which gender is minimizing the current problem.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> I am out on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> The *language and tone *severely changes the presumption of innocence. The only defense is a constant affirmation.


The tone and language is gender neutral. The assumption of innocence is still evident, only that the circumstances of alcohol and an assumed state of mind due to alcohol consumption will be considered. This is hardly a huge game changer. 





JCD said:


> We as a society decided to bend over backwards for victims of DV and CA. As such, we changed the presumptions in those laws, and as a result, have seen a leap of frivolous accusations of domestic violence and child abuse in divorce cases for legal purposes.


Pure speculation on how one could interpret the application of this and any law. We still have protections of due process, this law does not change that one bit. 





JCD said:


> This change in the presumption of rape from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'preponderance of evidence' seems to be just as rife for abuse.


Where did you get the information that this change prosecutorial procedures? It simply factored in alcohol and the mitigating circumstance that it may not allow for an individual, male or female, to protest against unwanted sex. 





JCD said:


> Now, I can see how good hearted people would not use this law this way. God help the man if a bad hearted person gets his hands on this law. A jilted lover, a grandstanding professor, Nifong...yeah...this will work out JUST GRAND.
> 
> 
> 
> We've already seen these abuses. I'm shocked more people can't see the downsides or pooh pooh the concerns.



Concerning this law, I have not seen anyone clearly demonstrate how it will somehow lead to any abuses. I guess we will have to wait and see.


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> This law attempts to change behavior, using a vague definition of consent. It is not part of the criminal code defining sex crimes.
> 
> The intent may be good but the impact may be to undermine the law. How are the police supposed to discuss the issue of consent when a woman files a rape complaint?


The definition is no more vague than it was. A slew of men and women haven't been convicted due to role play or S&M and they are similar 'what if' scenarios to many presented here. But common sense prevails.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

JCD said:


> This change in the presumption of rape from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to 'preponderance of evidence' seems to be just as rife for abuse.
> 
> *Now, I can see how good hearted people would not use this law this way. God help the man if a bad hearted person gets his hands on this law. A jilted lover,* a grandstanding professor, Nifong...yeah...this will work out JUST GRAND.


 IF this new law , whatever it is, (not really following all these replies) will get men to be MORE discerning to WHOM they stick their di** into..I'm gonna say that's one plus! 

I can see the potential for abuse here , just saying.


----------



## Nostromo

COguy said:


> And for the most part, I think I speak for most of the men here, just a simple acknowledgement that we're going to shoot for truth and justice and not blindly f*ck over 50% of the population is all we really need. *Just a, "Hey, if someone tries to screw over your entire life because they have a personality disorder, we'll make sure we give you a fair chance to defend yourself and hold them accountable if necessary." * Is that really too much to ask?


You've brought this up a few times and unless I've missed it, It looks as if none of the posters holding an opposing view have even acknowledged this part of the equation let alone offered any kind of solution. Hmm...I wonder why that would be.:scratchhead:


----------



## LongWalk

Pardon me if I have misunderstood. Do I have this right: the law mandates that universities inform students that sex requires continual consent (whatever that means). Lacking an office or program to carry out this task, the California – which is very short of money in any case – will cut of state funding.

This requirement that people having sex seek and receive consent is that part of a civil or criminal code?

If the criminal code already defines sex with an unconscious person as rape, okay. But if this law differs from existing legislation, then it is very strange.

The US already has a very strange situation with murder. A person who is acquitted of homicide can be gotten on deprivation of the civil to right life. In essence it is another form of prosecution for the same act. In some legal systems a person can be tried again for the same crime if new evidence emerges.

Should there be an alternative civil redress for non-consensual sex. Acquitted for rape and then found liable for non-consensual sex in a civil suit?


----------



## Ikaika

Nostromo said:


> You've brought this up a few times and unless I've missed it, It looks as if none of the posters holding an opposing view have even acknowledged this part of the equation let alone offered any kind of solution. Hmm...I wonder why that would be.:scratchhead:



Section 1 (a) 

4C (C) _The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition._

I don't know if this clearly answers any aspect of what is being addresses. I guess this why congressional bills are often 2000+ pages long


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> Pardon me if I have misunderstood. Do I have this right: the law mandates that universities inform students that sex requires continual consent (whatever that means). Lacking an office or program to carry out this task, the California – which is very short of money in any case – will cut of state funding.
> 
> This requirement that people having sex seek and receive consent is that part of a civil or criminal code?
> 
> If the criminal code already defines sex with an unconscious person as rape, okay. But if this law differs from existing legislation, then it is very strange.
> 
> The US already has a very strange situation with murder. A person who is acquitted of homicide can be gotten on deprivation of the civil to right life. In essence it is another form of prosecution for the same act. In some legal systems a person can be tried again for the same crime if new evidence emerges.
> 
> Should there be an alternative civil redress for non-consensual sex. Acquitted for rape and then found liable for non-consensual sex in a civil suit?



Not sure what you are asking, as always best to,read it for yourself rather than allow one to interpret it for you. 

_ (1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
(b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:
(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.
(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.
(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.
(6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.
(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.
(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.
(9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.
(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.
(11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
(12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.
(13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties._


----------



## Wolfman1968

drerio said:


> Myth: There are a lot of false rape reports.
> Fact: The false report rate for rape is similar to other false felony reports. The FBI estimates that about 2% of reported rapes are false.


I reviewed this topic to some degree in the past, and the 2% that is bandied about is a misrepresentation.

The 2% figure, as I understand, is the MINIMUM that have more or less been PROVEN to be false.

There are many studies in this area, and they are all hindered by the fact that there is no absolute way to tell what is true and what is false. Therefore, they all have various criteria that they use to declare an accusation as "false" or "true" for their study. A very large percentage of the accusations can never be proven unequivocally as true or false, although the probability is that the great majority are true.

There are a number of studies where the range varies quite a bit; there was even one study of college reports where something like half the accusations were said to be false. Of course, that study has been subject to a lot of criticism, but so have the 2% studies.

Looking at the various studies as a whole, it seems to me that the most reliable number is in about the 8% range for false accusations. Studies range from the aforementioned 2% to the 50%. People who cherry pick the 2% or 50% extremes are, in my opinion, either unaware of the controversy in this area, or are taking their information from an activist/selective/biased source, or are intentionally misrepresenting the whole field of study in this area.

That still means that the VAST majority of accusations (over 90%) are true. It also does not negate the fact that many rapes are not even reported. However, that means that there will be some false accusations against innocent people.

The power of the state (including through its de facto intermediaries) is great, and that includes great responsibility. Modern U.S. and British criminal law is centered around the Blackstone Formulation: "It is better that 10 guilty persons go free rather than 1 innocent suffer." (The ratio is arbitrary, but the concept is that the innocent must be protected from unjust prosecution.)

The protection of the innocent from unjust prosectution is paramount. In effect, it should NEVER happen. We cannot stop all the wrongs committed by individuals (or maybe even most), but the state should NEVER add to that injustice by harming the innocent.

In my own opinion, those that try to quote some cherry-picked arbitrary percentage in order to claim that "it is not going to affect that many innocent men" are, intentionally or not, justifying the erosion of our basic concepts due process and the responsibility to protect the innocent who are accused. There have been a lot of dismissal of the Duke Lacrosse players and other falsely accused as "isolated incidents". Well, really, they are not so few in a situation that should NEVER happen. Never! (In fact, the case of the Duke Lacrosse players was so ridiculous, it never should have gotten out of the starting blocks.)

I think it is shameful for those who bring up these legitimate issues of due process and protection of the innocent to be accused of being "rape apologists". And that happens all the time; personally, I think it is a tactic to bully those with legitimate concerns into silence.

In my view, it is irrelevant whether the false accusation rate is 8% or 2% or 50%. The critical issue is to protect the innocent REGARDLESS of the percentage. And changing the criteria to one of "predominance of the evidence" in a situation where, by its very nature, is unlikely to have any evidence at all, one way or the other, is a violation of the basic principles of jurisprudence and justice.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolfman1968 said:


> I reviewed this topic to some degree in the past, and the 2% that is bandied about is a misrepresentation.
> 
> The 2% figure, as I understand, is the MINIMUM that have more or less been PROVEN to be false.
> 
> There are many studies in this area, and they are all hindered by the fact that there is no absolute way to tell what is true and what is false. Therefore, they all have various criteria that they use to declare an accusation as "false" or "true" for their study. A very large percentage of the accusations can never be proven unequivocally as true or false, although the probability is that the great majority are true.
> 
> There are a number of studies where the range varies quite a bit; there was even one study of college reports where something like half the accusations were said to be false. Of course, that study has been subject to a lot of criticism, but so have the 2% studies.
> 
> Looking at the various studies as a whole, it seems to me that the most reliable number is in about the 8% range for false accusations. Studies range from the aforementioned 2% to the 50%. People who cherry pick the 2% or 50% extremes are, in my opinion, either unaware of the controversy in this area, or are taking their information from an activist/selective/biased source, or are intentionally misrepresenting the whole field of study in this area.
> 
> That still means that the VAST majority of accusations (over 90%) are true. It also does not negate the fact that many rapes are not even reported. However, that means that there will be some false accusations against innocent people.
> 
> The power of the state (including through its de facto intermediaries) is great, and that includes great responsibility. Modern U.S. and British criminal law is centered around the Blackstone Formulation: "It is better that 10 guilty persons go free rather than 1 innocent suffer." (The ratio is arbitrary, but the concept is that the innocent must be protected from unjust prosecution.)
> 
> The protection of the innocent from unjust prosectution is paramount. In effect, it should NEVER happen. We cannot stop all the wrongs committed by individuals (or maybe even most), but the state should NEVER add to that injustice by harming the innocent.
> 
> In my own opinion, those that try to quote some cherry-picked arbitrary percentage in order to claim that "it is not going to affect that many innocent men" are, intentionally or not, justifying the erosion of our basic concepts due process and the responsibility to protect the innocent who are accused. There have been a lot of dismissal of the Duke Lacrosse players and other falsely accused as "isolated incidents". Well, really, they are not so few in a situation that should NEVER happen. Never! (In fact, the case of the Duke Lacrosse players was so ridiculous, it never should have gotten out of the starting blocks.)
> 
> I think it is shameful for those who bring up these legitimate issues of due process and protection of the innocent to be accused of being "rape apologists". And that happens all the time; personally, I think it is a tactic to bully those with legitimate concerns into silence.
> 
> In my view, it is irrelevant whether the false accusation rate is 8% or 2% or 50%. The critical issue is to protect the innocent REGARDLESS of the percentage. And changing the criteria to one of "predominance of the evidence" in a situation where, by its very nature, is unlikely to have any evidence at all, one way or the other, is a violation of the basic principles of jurisprudence and justice.



I got the information from both DoJ and FBI reports, I hardly assume those as activist entities. So if there is an assumption of less than 10% of false accusations which were based on not only non convictions but evidence that counter the initial complaint, I believe that still pales in comparison to the suggested percentage of rape cases never reported and falls short of the non-convictions.

This law whether in place or not will hardly change this as I read it. This law still requires a preponderance of evidence to convict (as it is actually written verbatim in the law).


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> This requirement that people having sex seek and receive consent is that part of a civil or criminal code?
> 
> If the criminal code already defines sex with an unconscious person as rape, okay. But if this law differs from existing legislation, then it is very strange.


It's not Criminal or Civil law. It's a regulatory law. A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct.


----------



## Ikaika

The best thing a person could do in this or any other criminal case, whether truly guilty or innocent is to exercise their Miranda rights and seek legal counsel right away.

This law nor any others I have seen takes away one's Miranda rights and as such it forces law enforcement to do their job. As such it becomes less activist driven and more about apply evidence to the law.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Speaking of Rape cases never reported.. My Mother was raped 3 times in her life. she never reported any of them ..at least not that I know of.. I need to ask her next time I see her.. curious now..


----------



## Wolfman1968

always_alone said:


> Yes, I think this is part of what's going on, but the stats are abundantly clear that unreported and unprosecuted sexual assaults are a much, much, much greater problem. The paranoid fantasies of strident feminists running around reporting random guys for assaulting other women are just that: paranoid fantasies.
> 
> I think another part of what is going on here is that some people are offended by he definition of "sexual assault" itself. They see these behaviours as perfectly normal, harmless, and rightly excused. The only time rape is bad is when the victim is left a bleeding and beaten pulp. The rest is just "partying" or "youth" or "harmless" and victims should "just get over it".



I disagree with your perception of what other people think.

I am going to challenge you to respond to a "thought experiment" directly.

According to a quick Google check I just did, there were a little over 200,000 rapes/sexual assaults reported in 2006 in the U.S. (under Rape Statistics in Wikipedia). Let's say that lowering the burden of proof drops that number by 25% (arbitrary number, just for this discussion). Let's also say that the false accusation rate is 2% (to my reading, the body of literature says it is higher, but use that for the sake of argument). 

OK, so that is:

200,000 x 25% = 50,000 less rapes
200,000 x 2% = 4,000 falsely accused

So, in your "rapes are the much greater problem" stance that you state in your first paragraph, how many of those 4,000 lives ruined is a good trade off-for the decreased number of rapes? (The falsely accused need not even be convicted to have their lives destroyed.) 

All 4000?
2000?
1000?
500?
100?
10?
1?
0?

I really want an answer to this from you.

I think THIS type of question is the REAL reason behind the objections to this kind of law.


----------



## LongWalk

I have read it before. But thank you for posting the text.



drerio said:


> Not sure what you are asking, as always best to,read it for yourself rather than allow one to interpret it for you.
> 
> _ (1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
> (2) A policy that, in *the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process*, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
> (A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.
> (B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
> (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.
> (4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:
> (A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
> (B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
> (C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
> (b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary *institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards.* At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:
> (1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.
> Does this include protection of the accused? Will the defendant has the right to know who has witnessed against him? Will he have the right to have a legal representative challenge witness accounts?
> 
> (2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
> Is the university supposed to collect and preserve evidence?
> (3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
> (4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.
> Police like powers
> (5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.
> *Sounds like police work again*
> (6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.
> Law enforcement
> (7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and* coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.*
> (8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.
> (9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.
> (10) *Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.*
> 
> If the incident in question happened at party, where illegal things were happening, the university is now empowered to collect evidence but not report crimes to the police.
> (11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
> (12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in *investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.*
> (13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties._





> *... the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process...*


So universities are to have some sort of court-like office to investigate sexual misbehavior. Disciplinary presumably means that they can suspend or expel an offender.



> (3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.


 Who is to gather the evidence? The campus police? The town police? University lawyers especially assigned to investigate?

Who defends the accused in this process?

I see some similarity to investigation of plagiarism. A school can investigate academic dishonesty and discipline students without the involvement of law enforcement.

Can it do the same in sex/relation conflicts? 

This sort of office would presumably be able to go after professors who pressure female grad students into sexual relations, something which definitely happens a lot.

One clear problem with this office is that if it carries out investigations, the accused ought to be read Miranda rights and be informed that the university is carrying out an investigation that could be turned over to the police and prosecutors. Will evidence be tainted by this?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolfman1968 said:


> I disagree with your perception of what other people think.
> 
> I am going to challenge you to respond to a "thought experiment" directly.
> 
> According to a quick Google check I just did, there were a little over 200,000 rapes/sexual assaults reported in 2006 in the U.S. (under Rape Statistics in Wikipedia). Let's say that lowering the burden of proof drops that number by 25% (arbitrary number, just for this discussion). Let's also say that the false accusation rate is 2% (to my reading, the body of literature says it is higher, but use that for the sake of argument).
> 
> OK, so that is:
> 
> 200,000 x 25% = 50,000 less rapes
> 200,000 x 2% = 4,000 falsely accused
> 
> So, in your "rapes are the much greater problem" stance that you state in your first paragraph, how many of those 4,000 lives ruined is a good trade off-for the decreased number of rapes? (The falsely accused need not even be convicted to have their lives destroyed.)
> 
> All 4000?
> 2000?
> 1000?
> 500?
> 100?
> 10?
> 1?
> 0?
> 
> I really want an answer to this from you.
> 
> I think THIS type of question is the REAL reason behind the objections to this kind of law.


So, in reading the actual text of this law, not any other or even trying to read into the minds of a DA or the investigative team, how do these numbers change based on "this law"? Please provide the text quote (with an accurate definition as to what the text says, not just cherry picking parts) that would suggest a major shift in these numbers? That really is the argument from the beginning. So 2% vs 8%, is meaningless unless this law suddenly changes those statistics from say 8% to 50%. That would truly change not just my mind but likely the mind of lawmakers who proposed and passed it. If nothing else, SCOTUS would have issue with the laws application. 

Since I don't have crystal ball, I will assume that these numbers are not likely to change, especially the one's based on false accusations from what I have read drives those types of complaints.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> I have read it before. But thank you for posting the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So universities are to have some sort of court-like office to investigate sexual misbehavior. Disciplinary presumably means that they can suspend or expel an offender.


Universities like other entities have a code of conduct. And the disciplinary behavior most often applied is one of expelling one from the institution. That is hardly a criminal application. This type of thing has been going on long before this law was enacted. 



LongWalk said:


> Who is to gather the evidence? The campus police? The town police? University lawyers especially assigned to investigate?


I did not put up that section of the law, but it is clear that any investigation happens with the typical law enforcement and judicial system. 



LongWalk said:


> Who defends the accused in this process?


One exercising their Miranda rights will get legal counsel and that is who defends it. 



LongWalk said:


> I see some similarity to investigation of plagiarism. A school can investigate academic dishonesty and discipline students without the involvement of law enforcement.
> 
> Can it do the same in sex/relation conflicts?
> 
> This sort of office would presumably be able to go after professors who pressure female grad students into sexual relations, something which definitely happens a lot.


A university can and does investigate plagiarism, but these so called legal proceedings have limited power, expelling a student and or receiving a failing grade. As with sexual related crimes, any legal investigation that goes to level criminal indictment is not investigated by schools only to the level of expulsion. And, every case of expulsion has a repel process for reinstatement.

You need to remember a degree and the transcripts are a legally binding contract. So yes, things that affect that contract are subject to non-criminal actions, expulsion.


----------



## LongWalk

It's complicated. Whether or not this law succeeds will depend in part upon resources. At a large university with 30,000 students, this investigative and support function will require staff.


----------



## Wolfman1968

drerio said:


> I got the information from both DoJ and FBI reports, I hardly assume those as activist entities. So if there is an assumption of less than 10% of false accusations which were based on not only non convictions but evidence that counter the initial complaint, I believe that still pales in comparison to the suggested percentage of rape cases never reported and falls short of the non-convictions.
> 
> This law whether in place or not will hardly change this as I read it. This law still requires a preponderance of evidence to convict (as it is actually written verbatim in the law).


The first part of this response makes no sense, in view of my post you quoted.

I have already stated, in my post that you quote, that the FBI definition is very narrow (and FWIW, the FBI is part of the DOJ, so they are essentially the same set of statistics), with a high bar to declare an accusation is false. In other words, the corrolary assumption, that 98% are true reports, is not necessarily true. The 98% consists of true reports and reports that cannot be determined. (Furthermore, true reports of a rape with a mis-identification of the perpetrator is not considered a false report, although the accused is falsely accused). I never said that the FBI was activist (although the DOJ is, in this area, see below), I said that activists CHERRY PICK which studies to promote rather than looking at the academic literature as a whole.

The law clearly does change things. (If it didn't, why even have it, or any law, for that matter? You only pass laws to effect change.) The law in effect makes the universities the proxy for the state in prosecuting sexual assault, upon pain of financial penalty to the university; the predominance of evidence is a 51% likelihood standard used in civil cases. That is a far cry from the "beyond all reasonable doubt" that is required of a criminal case. In essence, especially coupled with the DOJ requirements on university to become more aggressive with sexual assault allegations and to use a "predominance of the evidence threshold" or face prosecution under the banner of Title IX and Title IV violations, this DOES change the threshold for convicting. (See, the DOJ IS activist in this area.) This is done under guise that this is "civil" rather than "criminal" and that they won't have a "criminal" record; although being kicked out of a university with that reason/accusation on the transcript WILL ruin their lives in a way that no typical civil lawsuit would. Furthermore, the process does not even follow the normal safeguards of civil court procedure, and the persons deciding the case are not even part of the legal system, but rather part of the university system. The faculty of the university are, as a whole, left-leaning. Look at the Duke University Faculty "Group of 88" that took out the ad condemning the "sexism" in the university. (They tried to claim, after the lacrosse players were exonerated, that it was not against the players per se. The timing and overall environment makes that not a credible claim.) These are the type of people who would be deciding the case. I have been full-time university faculty in the past (and still have a non-paid appointment at a different university), so I am fully aware of the crass nature of the faculty and the administration. The university administration is not as left-leaning as the faculty, but their driving force is one of craven self-preservation. So I have no doubt whatsoever that they would throw innocent accused students under the bus in order to save their funding or to avoid DOJ harrassent on the Title IX or Title IV charges.

So, yes, it changes a lot.


----------



## Wolfman1968

drerio said:


> So, in reading the actual text of this law, not any other or even trying to read into the minds of a DA or the investigative team, how do these numbers change based on "this law"? Please provide the text quote (with an accurate definition as to what the text says, not just cherry picking parts) that would suggest a major shift in these numbers? That really is the argument from the beginning. So 2% vs 8%, is meaningless unless this law suddenly changes those statistics from say 8% to 50%. That would truly change not just my mind but likely the mind of lawmakers who proposed and passed it. If nothing else, SCOTUS would have issue with the laws application.
> 
> Since I don't have crystal ball, I will assume that these numbers are not likely to change, especially the one's based on false accusations from what I have read drives those types of complaints.


This is essentially answered in my response above (written while you were writing this, apparently). The bottom line is that this is coupled with the DOJ directive regarding actions to avoid Title IX and Title IV violations which DOES change things.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Pale in comparison doesn't really matter. The rights of the innocent still trump the rights of victims. One innocent in jail is too many.


----------



## Ikaika

WorkingOnMe said:


> Pale in comparison doesn't really matter. The rights of the innocent still trump the rights of victims. One innocent in jail is too many.



This law does not change the assumption of innocence.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolfman1968 said:


> The first part of this response makes no sense, in view of my post you quoted.
> 
> I have already stated, in my post that you quote, that the FBI definition is very narrow (and FWIW, the FBI is part of the DOJ, so they are essentially the same set of statistics), with a high bar to declare an accusation is false. In other words, the corrolary assumption, that 98% are true reports, is not necessarily true. The 98% consists of true reports and reports that cannot be determined. (Furthermore, true reports of a rape with a mis-identification of the perpetrator is not considered a false report, although the accused is falsely accused). I never said that the FBI was activist (although the DOJ is, in this area, see below), I said that activists CHERRY PICK which studies to promote rather than looking at the academic literature as a whole.
> 
> The law clearly does change things. (If it didn't, why even have it, or any law, for that matter? You only pass laws to effect change.) The law in effect makes the universities the proxy for the state in prosecuting sexual assault, upon pain of financial penalty to the university; the predominance of evidence is a 51% likelihood standard used in civil cases. That is a far cry from the "beyond all reasonable doubt" that is required of a criminal case. In essence, especially coupled with the DOJ requirements on university to become more aggressive with sexual assault allegations and to use a "predominance of the evidence threshold" or face prosecution under the banner of Title IX and Title IV violations, this DOES change the threshold for convicting. (See, the DOJ IS activist in this area.) This is done under guise that this is "civil" rather than "criminal" and that they won't have a "criminal" record; although being kicked out of a university with that reason/accusation on the transcript WILL ruin their lives in a way that no typical civil lawsuit would. Furthermore, the process does not even follow the normal safeguards of civil court procedure, and the persons deciding the case are not even part of the legal system, but rather part of the university system. The faculty of the university are, as a whole, left-leaning. Look at the Duke University Faculty "Group of 88" that took out the ad condemning the "sexism" in the university. (They tried to claim, after the lacrosse players were exonerated, that it was not against the players per se. The timing and overall environment makes that not a credible claim.) These are the type of people who would be deciding the case. I have been full-time university faculty in the past (and still have a non-paid appointment at a different university), so I am fully aware of the crass nature of the faculty and the administration. The university administration is not as left-leaning as the faculty, but their driving force is one of craven self-preservation. So I have no doubt whatsoever that they would throw innocent accused students under the bus in order to save their funding or to avoid DOJ harrassent on the Title IX or Title IV charges.
> 
> So, yes, it changes a lot.



Top part is a lot of word salad. I don't know how a university becomes becomes a proxy. Where is that stated in the law


----------



## Anon Pink

I can't believe this thread is still going!

Bottom line:
No answer means no consent. 
Maybe means no consent.
Yes means consent.

So find a damn way to ask and wait until you get a yes!

Teach this to both sons and daughters and we won't have a problem!


----------



## samyeagar

Anon Pink said:


> I can't believe this thread is still going!
> 
> Bottom line:
> No answer means no consent.
> Maybe means no consent.
> Yes means consent.
> 
> *So find a damn way to ask and wait until you get a yes!*
> 
> Teach this to both sons and daughters and we won't have a problem!


Without it being considered coercive...


----------



## Deejo

I kind of dig Vagina Power. 

Would one constitute using my back as a scratching post and yelling "F**k me harder!" as enthusiastic consent?

A college age girl shouldn't have any more concern about what happens when she passes out than her male counterparts should.

Unless the worst that happens is someone shaves her eyebrow. 

I have no idea what will happen with this law.

I have dated 3 women who were date raped in their late teens. They most certainly did not give consent. None reported the events. One was raped twice. Once immediately when she broke up with her boyfriend, and another by her friends boyfriend at a party.

As the father of a young girl, I can state that were I to know of such events, I wouldn't be asking for consent for what I would do to those boys ... and it's also a felony.


----------



## LongWalk

drerio said:


> Top part is a lot of word salad. I don't know how a university becomes becomes a proxy. Where is that stated in the law


The university becomes the proxy because they are supposed to secure and collect evidence. They also play a coordinating role with law enforcement. Who exactly is going to work in this office at the university to handle these cases?

Will the university suspend students and demand that they cooperate with an inquiry, thus using the fear of expulsion to compel self incrimination? Will this university investigation record interrogations? 

If Duke had had such an office, would it have jumped on the band wagon to prosecute the Lacrosse team members who hired the stripper?

In Sweden, where I live, there was a big controversy in 2005 when a woman journalist from public service television (the equivalent of PBS but with much greater audience and prestige) did a documentary about the aggressive ideological man hating women who steered the primary women's shelter NGO. That NGO received most of it financing from the state.

The documentary demonstrated how the shelters influenced women to take drastic measures, such as kidnap their children and go into hiding from their fathers, resisting the normal custody process.

The NGO was cozy with a professor who was writing nonsense and about men being involved in Satanism. The head of NGO, thinking that she was being interviewed by a sympathetic woman reporter, said that men "were animals, roaming dildos." She spat this out with such venomous hatred that most of the country was horrified. Remember Sweden is very feministic and egalitarian, so this was beyond the pale.

The shelters with their misandry helped women in need of protection but it was clear to anyone watching that they would destroy families for that ideology.


----------



## Wolfman1968

drerio said:


> This law does not change the assumption of innocence.


Coupled with the DOJ directive about pursuing Title IX and Title IV violations, it changes the de facto threshold for determining guilt, by changing the venue from a criminal one to a civil one, and changing it from a courtroom to a politically charged university-staffed administrative hearing. 

No disrespect, but I can't see how anyone, including you, can hide behind the specific wordings without taking into account the entire context of the legal landscape. The DOJ directive with threats to prosecute universities for supposed Title IX and Title IV violations, the State of California threatening to withhold funding, the politically charged landscape of the university and their (overall) left-leaning faculty and still believe that due process will be observed scrupulously?


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> The university becomes the proxy because they are supposed to secure and collect evidence. They also play a coordinating role with law enforcement. Who exactly is going to work in this office at the university to handle these cases?
> 
> Will the university suspend students and demand that they cooperate with an inquiry, thus using the fear of expulsion to compel self incrimination? Will this university investigation record interrogations?
> 
> If Duke had had such an office, would it have jumped on the band wagon to prosecute the Lacrosse team members who hired the stripper?
> 
> In Sweden, where I live, there was a big controversy in 2005 when a woman journalist from public service television (the equivalent of PBS but with much greater audience and prestige) did a documentary about the aggressive ideological man hating women who steered the primary women's shelter NGO. That NGO received most of it financing from the state.
> 
> The documentary demonstrated how the shelters influenced women to take drastic measures, such as kidnap their children and go into hiding from their fathers, resisting the normal custody process.
> 
> The NGO was cozy with a professor who was writing nonsense and about men being involved in Satanism. The head of NGO, thinking that she was being interviewed by a sympathetic woman reporter, said that men "were animals, roaming dildos." She spat this out with such venomous hatred that most of the country was horrified. Remember Sweden is very feministic and egalitarian, so this was beyond the pale.
> 
> The shelters with their misandry helped women in need of protection but it was clear to anyone watching that they would destroy families for that ideology.


Universities have always been responsible for investigating incidents and notifying law enforcement if they believed criminal activity had occurred. So nothing has changed in that regard. What did change is that consent needs to be coherent. The universities have been investigating these cases all along though.

Also the Duke Lacrosse thing keeps coming up because it's the one most people are aware of because it's very rare. Having to use the same case over and over should be a red flag to those thinking it happens all of the time.

EDIT: I mentioned above that universities have been investigating these cases all along. On second thought, that wasn't an accurate statement. Some universities have been and others have not. It's my guess that schools rug sweeping and being lazy is one of the biggest factors as to why the state decided to create standards and accountability.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
Where do you think we are now? What percentage of rapists in prison do you think are actually innocent? 10%, 1%. 0.1%, .01%? Where do you think it should be?

How many rapists do you think go free? 50%? 90%? 99%?

What is a reasonable balance?

I think that there is now way to avoid increasing the number of innocent men in prison if we make it easier to get convictions.

I don't know how to tell where we are now. Almost by definition we can't tell how many innocent men were convicted.

Personally I like the 100:1 rule. 100 guilty rapists go free for every innocent man put in prison is as far as I can possibly agree to. 1000:1 or higher would make me much happier. Do you think we are there now?


I agree that unprosecute assaults are more common than false convictions. I just don't know any way to estimate the ratio. 




always_alone said:


> Yes, I think this is part of what's going on, but the stats are abundantly clear that unreported and unprosecuted sexual assaults are a much, much, much greater problem. The paranoid fantasies of strident feminists running around reporting random guys for assaulting other women are just that: paranoid fantasies.
> 
> I think another part of what is going on here is that some people are offended by he definition of "sexual assault" itself. They see these behaviours as perfectly normal, harmless, and rightly excused. The only time rape is bad is when the victim is left a bleeding and beaten pulp. The rest is just "partying" or "youth" or "harmless" and victims should "just get over it".


----------



## Thundarr

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> Where do you think we are now? What percentage of rapists in prison do you think are actually innocent? 10%, 1%. 0.1%, .01%? Where do you think it should be?
> 
> How many rapists do you think go free? 50%? 90%? 99%?
> 
> What is a reasonable balance?
> 
> I think that there is now way to avoid increasing the number of innocent men in prison if we make it easier to get convictions.
> 
> I don't know how to tell where we are now. Almost by definition we can't tell how many innocent men were convicted.
> 
> Personally I like the 100:1 rule. 100 guilty rapists go free for every innocent man put in prison is as far as I can possibly agree to. 1000:1 or higher would make me much happier. Do you think we are there now?
> 
> 
> I agree that unprosecute assaults are more common than false convictions. I just don't know any way to estimate the ratio.


Universities still don't criminally charge anyone. The requirements for conviction have not changed. What changed is possibly admission at the university. But beyond that, your wording is gender biased and not very empathetic IMO. What 100 free rapist actually means is 100+ raped women without justice. This is our mothers, sister, daughters, and friends that we're talking about. Most of us know someone who was raped but we tend not to think about it often enough.

In other words, how many women will we allow to be raped.


----------



## LongWalk

Here is a University of Iowa website to help victims of sexual violence. It is staffed by volunteers who go to hospitals or the police to act as advocates of victims. It doesn't give much insight into what mechanisms the university investigates when victims only want to go to the school while declining to go to the police.

This office has been in operation since the 70s. 

If this is all that California is missing, I don't see why they aren't like Iowa.


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> Here is a University of Iowa website to help victims of sexual violence. It is staffed by volunteers who go to hospitals or the police to act as advocates of victims. It doesn't give much insight into what mechanisms the university investigates when victims only want to go to the school while declining to go to the police.
> 
> This office has been in operation since the 70s.
> 
> If this is all that California is missing, I don't see why they aren't like Iowa.


I'm guessing most schools have paper tiger policies with volunteers. It's a nice warm fuzzy thing for grad students to form a committee and type up a policy for. Eventually though, it's just a pretty pdf to make people feel safe. The state of California maybe determined that the pretty pdf documents weren't actually deterring rape so they came up with some regulations that have teeth behind them ie:funding.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Thundarr
I'm happy to word it differently:
What ratio of women forced to stay in college with their rapists, relative to innocent men denied the future they wanted is fair?

Where would you put that number?

I feel very strongly that injustice is bad - and that accepting more of one type to reduce another is a devil's bargain that I am not willing to make. 

The difference is that in one case a rapist has committed evil, In another it is done by an organization like the state or a university. 




Thundarr said:


> Universities still don't criminally charge anyone. The requirements for conviction have not changed. What changed is possibly admission at the university. But beyond that, your wording is gender biased and not very empathetic IMO. What 100 free rapist actually means is 100+ raped women without justice. This is our mothers, sister, daughters, and friends that we're talking about. Most of us know someone who was raped but we tend not to think about it often enough.
> 
> In other words, how many women will we allow to be raped.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolfman1968 said:


> Coupled with the DOJ directive about pursuing Title IX and Title IV violations, it changes the de facto threshold for determining guilt, by changing the venue from a criminal one to a civil one, and changing it from a courtroom to a politically charged university-staffed administrative hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> No disrespect, but I can't see how anyone, including you, can hide behind the specific wordings without taking into account the entire context of the legal landscape. The DOJ directive with threats to prosecute universities for supposed Title IX and Title IV violations, the State of California threatening to withhold funding, the politically charged landscape of the university and their (overall) left-leaning faculty and still believe that due process will be observed scrupulously?



I have no idea what you are talking about, I really don't. What do you mean coupled with DoJ directive about pursuing title IX and Title IV? Explain, otherwise it is just word salad.

ETA: if this part of the law is controversial, then I'm speechless. I simply don't see the problem. I'm not sure anyone should have issue with this:

_In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused._


_ In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, empowerment programming for victim prevention, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy._


----------



## Starstarfish

> Pale in comparison doesn't really matter. The rights of the innocent still trump the rights of victims. One innocent in jail is too many.


Wow, just wow. 

Coupled with the argument that cat-calling and verbally sexually harass women isn't that bad and taking away the right to do so ruins being a man, I'm not sure how else to interpret that run of thoughts.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> The university becomes the proxy because they are supposed to secure and collect evidence. They also play a coordinating role with law enforcement. Who exactly is going to work in this office at the university to handle these cases?
> 
> Will the university suspend students and demand that they cooperate with an inquiry, thus using the fear of expulsion to compel self incrimination? Will this university investigation record interrogations?
> 
> If Duke had had such an office, would it have jumped on the band wagon to prosecute the Lacrosse team members who hired the stripper?
> 
> In Sweden, where I live, there was a big controversy in 2005 when a woman journalist from public service television (the equivalent of PBS but with much greater audience and prestige) did a documentary about the aggressive ideological man hating women who steered the primary women's shelter NGO. That NGO received most of it financing from the state.
> 
> The documentary demonstrated how the shelters influenced women to take drastic measures, such as kidnap their children and go into hiding from their fathers, resisting the normal custody process.
> 
> The NGO was cozy with a professor who was writing nonsense and about men being involved in Satanism. The head of NGO, thinking that she was being interviewed by a sympathetic woman reporter, said that men "were animals, roaming dildos." She spat this out with such venomous hatred that most of the country was horrified. Remember Sweden is very feministic and egalitarian, so this was beyond the pale.
> 
> The shelters with their misandry helped women in need of protection but it was clear to anyone watching that they would destroy families for that ideology.



You have read way more into this law than I could possibly address. 

I just think everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. I read it as simply:

A person who is unable to protest sexual advances because of their state of mind, primarily as a result of the consumption of an intoxicating agent, should be able to confirm their affirmation of the advances. If not, then they can file a complaint. And, thus an investigation can be pursued with the persons altered state of mind as a reason in the complaint. I just can't understand how this has any negative impact? Please explain how this can be so voraciously held in objection. I just don't get it. 

It may be just me but I see this as human decency and treating others with respect. Have I missed something?


----------



## WorkingOnMe

Starstarfish said:


> Wow, just wow.
> 
> 
> 
> Coupled with the argument that cat-calling and verbally sexually harass women isn't that bad and taking away the right to do so ruins being a man, I'm not sure how else to interpret that run of thoughts.



I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> Here is a University of Iowa website to help victims of sexual violence. It is staffed by volunteers who go to hospitals or the police to act as advocates of victims. It doesn't give much insight into what mechanisms the university investigates when victims only want to go to the school while declining to go to the police.
> 
> 
> 
> This office has been in operation since the 70s.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is all that California is missing, I don't see why they aren't like Iowa.



I think most universities have advocacy groups. Seems like great thing to me. I have no issue and certainly don't see this as anti-male.

I guess I'm a different breed. I have marched often to our state capital in solidarity against domestic violence. My son played a hard fought football game today wearing a few articles of pink in awareness of breast cancer month. I just don't see where any of this on the positive or laws of protection do anything to go against me as a male in any way. Again, I just am not seeing it.


----------



## Thundarr

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening Thundarr
> I'm happy to word it differently:
> What ratio of women forced to stay in college with their rapists, relative to innocent men denied the future they wanted is fair?
> 
> Where would you put that number?
> 
> I feel very strongly that injustice is bad - and that accepting more of one type to reduce another is a devil's bargain that I am not willing to make.
> 
> The difference is that in one case a rapist has committed evil, In another it is done by an organization like the state or a university.


Thanks Richard. This is the first legitimate question for me after 38 pages. I'll think on it and I will answer soon. I don't want consequences to be imposed on anyone innocent either. I also don't want women to be victimized.


----------



## always_alone

Wolfman1968 said:


> OK, so that is:
> 
> 200,000 x 25% = 50,000 less rapes
> 200,000 x 2% = 4,000 falsely accused
> 
> So, in your "rapes are the much greater problem" stance that you state in your first paragraph, how many of those 4,000 lives ruined is a good trade off-for the decreased number of rapes? (The falsely accused need not even be convicted to have their lives destroyed.)



I think your assumptions here are flawed.

There is no evidence that the law will change the rate of false accusations.

Just because someone is falsely accused does not mean that the person's life is destroyed, or that they are prosecuted or punished in any way. Yes, it can happen, but it doesn't always.

The Duke lacrosse players moved on to different universities, and are still playing:
http://m.espn.go.com/extra/ncaa/story?storyId=4980370&src=desktop&rand=ref~{"ref":"http://www.google.ca/search?q=Duke+lacrosse+players+where+are+they+now%3F&btnG=Search"}

They received financial compensation
Were the Duke lacrosse players wrongly accused of rape paid $20MILLION each in secret settlement? | Daily Mail Online

One of them wrote a book about it all.

Don't get me wrong, I have zero interest in punishing innocent people, and what the Duke lads had to go through was terrible.
But they aren't in prison, their careers were not destroyed. They were exonerated. And this was a particularly egregious case. Most false accusations go nowhere at all. 

To answer your question more directly, I think as long as the false accusations rates are similar to those for other crimes (and please, let us not forget that this is an issue for ALL crimes), then we are about where we should expect to be.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> Universities still don't criminally charge anyone. The requirements for conviction have not changed. What changed is possibly admission at the university. But beyond that, your wording is gender biased and not very empathetic IMO. What 100 free rapist actually means is 100+ raped women without justice. This is our mothers, sister, daughters, and friends that we're talking about. Most of us know someone who was raped but we tend not to think about it often enough.
> 
> In other words, how many women will we allow to be raped.


This lacks empathy too. And it looks pretty darned bad!

The post you are responding to has the writer wanting innocent people to have justice and NOT have the threshold of proof lowered so that MORE INNOCENT people are criminalized.

This, you characterize as 'him wanting more raped women denied justice.'

Really?

And while universities are not able to try a person, they are certainly able to PUNISH a student, whether they are found guilty by a jury of their peers or not...and from the writing of this law, all they need is a preponderance of evidence to do so.

Lastly, we have thousands of murders walk. Everyone 'knows' they did it but they cannot meet the burden of proof. So...we let MURDERERS walk.

Why is it that we still hold to that ratio of 'better to let a hundred murderers go free then jail one innocent man' and yet you seem to suggest that 'eh...maybe we don't let RAPISTS walk so easily and take the collateral damage'?

What makes rape victims more harmed then murder victims and the families of murder victims?


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> This lacks empathy too. And it looks pretty darned bad!
> 
> 
> 
> The post you are responding to has the writer wanting innocent people to have justice and NOT have the threshold of proof lowered so that MORE INNOCENT people are criminalized.
> 
> 
> 
> This, you characterize as 'him wanting more raped women denied justice.'
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> And while universities are not able to try a person, they are certainly able to PUNISH a student, whether they are found guilty by a jury of their peers or not...and from the writing of this law, all they need is a preponderance of evidence to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly, we have thousands of murders walk. Everyone 'knows' they did it but they cannot meet the burden of proof. So...we let MURDERERS walk.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that we still hold to that ratio of 'better to let a hundred murderers go free then jail one innocent man' and yet you seem to suggest that 'eh...maybe we don't let RAPISTS walk so easily and take the collateral damage'?
> 
> 
> 
> What makes rape victims more harmed then murder victims and the families of murder victims?



It is not just universities that can punish a person who has not been criminally convicted, most employers have that same option. You may want to inquire about the code of conduct at your work place. This is nothing new and certainly not a game changer. This law does nothing to change what has been in place for decades.


----------



## samyeagar

So is this a case of the state saying that these activities do not rise to the level of criminality that we can prosecute, but we still want to anyway, so universities now have to have a policy where students can be punished without entering the justice system, otherwise, why wouldn't these cases just be handed over to the state for prosecution?

What if the alleged perpetrator was someone who just happened to be at the college party, but wasn't a student? Or if they were a student from say University of Michigan visiting friends there in California?

If they don't feel they could get a criminal prosecution, and have to rely on the policy, then is it a case of "We're sorry victim, next time have the assailant be from a California university so we can do something about it."?


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> This lacks empathy too. And it looks pretty darned bad!
> 
> The post you are responding to has the writer wanting innocent people to have justice and NOT have the threshold of proof lowered so that MORE INNOCENT people are criminalized.
> 
> This, you characterize as 'him wanting more raped women denied justice.'
> 
> Really?
> 
> And while universities are not able to try a person, they are certainly able to PUNISH a student, whether they are found guilty by a jury of their peers or not...and from the writing of this law, all they need is a preponderance of evidence to do so.
> 
> Lastly, we have thousands of murders walk. Everyone 'knows' they did it but they cannot meet the burden of proof. So...we let MURDERERS walk.
> 
> Why is it that we still hold to that ratio of 'better to let a hundred murderers go free then jail one innocent man' and yet you seem to suggest that 'eh...maybe we don't let RAPISTS walk so easily and take the collateral damage'?
> 
> What makes rape victims more harmed then murder victims and the families of murder victims?


If we're going to talk about hypothetical trade offs and only mention the male victims but not the female victims then it's gender baised and that is simple. Richard reworded it.

If pointing out that many of our loved ones have been raped or are at risk is offensive then we're in an offensive thread because that's the reality of it. Many of them didn't tell anyone about it because they think they'll be judged for it (and they are judged by many).

And yet again you're saying the justice system no longer requires the burden of proof for rape charges. That's false. You won't find it written because it's still fiction just like it was the last time it was mentioned.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> So is this a case of the state saying that these activities do not rise to the level of criminality that we can prosecute, but we still want to anyway, so universities now have to have a policy where students can be punished without entering the justice system, otherwise, why wouldn't these cases just be handed over to the state for prosecution?
> 
> What if the alleged perpetrator was someone who just happened to be at the college party, but wasn't a student? Or if they were a student from say University of Michigan visiting friends there in California?
> 
> If they don't feel they could get a criminal prosecution, and have to rely on the policy, then is it a case of "We're sorry victim, next time have the assailant be from a California university so we can do something about it."?



They would still be criminally prosecuted, but the code of conduct only covers the student body at that school. However, as I have seen, CA universities may have been the first to pass this law but it will eventually cover all state funded schools across the country and eventual all private schools wishing to maintain accreditation and receive federal grant money. So the student from the other school would eventually violate his/her school code of conduct. The non student would be criminally convicted and likely barred from ever entering campus grounds. The latter I have seen take place many times in the past.


----------



## naiveonedave

Thundarr said:


> If we're going to talk about hypothetical trade offs and only mention the male victims but not the female victims then it's gender baised and that is simple. Richard reworded it.
> 
> If pointing out that many of our loved ones have been raped or are at risk is offensive then we're in an offensive thread because that's the reality of it. Many of them didn't tell anyone about it because they think they'll be judged for it (and they are judged by many).
> 
> And yet again you're saying the justice system no longer requires the burden of proof for rape charges. That's false. You won't find it written because it's still fiction just like it was the last time it was mentioned.


the problem is the Uni isn't going to follow legal due process. they don't have to.

Our constitution is based on 100 go free to prevent one innocent being jailed. That is america, if you don't like that, change the constitution or move.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is the Uni isn't going to follow legal due process. they don't have to.
> 
> 
> 
> Our constitution is based on 100 go free to prevent one innocent being jailed. That is america, if you don't like that, change the constitution or move.



Your employer can do the same as the university, that is expel/fire a person for not adhering to the code of conduct. There is nothing constitutional that says you have a right to employment or higher education degree.


----------



## naiveonedave

the problem is that the Uni is a government organization.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is that the Uni is a government organization.



They receive state and federal funding, but they still are not required constitutionally to grant anyone a higher education degree. As well other federal and state agencies have a code of conduct and can terminate one if they violate it. So what is the difference?


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> The best thing a person could do in this or any other criminal case, whether truly guilty or innocent is to exercise their Miranda rights and seek legal counsel right away.
> 
> This law nor any others I have seen takes away one's Miranda rights and as such it forces law enforcement to do their job. As such it becomes less activist driven and more about apply evidence to the law.


Excuse me, but while this is great advice LEGALLY, in a regulatory fashion, it does nothing. There is no 'Miranda right' in a university interview. The kid can refuse to discuss the matter and the university, if it has a preponderance of evidence and to fulfill the media and governmental pressure, can expel him.

He can appeal, but those HUGE pages of very small type are enough loopholes for them to expel him, particularly bolstered by this law.

"We offered him a chance to tell us, he didn't, we had to make our decisions sans his input."

Defensible position for the school...and no legal rights were even engaged at this point.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Excuse me, but while this is great advice LEGALLY, in a regulatory fashion, it does nothing. There is no 'Miranda right' in a university interview. The kid can refuse to discuss the matter and the university, if it has a preponderance of evidence and to fulfill the media and governmental pressure, can expel him.
> 
> 
> 
> He can appeal, but those HUGE pages of very small type are enough loopholes for them to expel him, particularly bolstered by this law.
> 
> 
> 
> "We offered him a chance to tell us, he didn't, we had to make our decisions sans his input."
> 
> 
> 
> Defensible position for the school...and no legal rights were even engaged at this point.



Universities don't criminally prosecute. However they are no different than employers that can fire a person who is not criminally prosecuted but is presumed to violate the code of conduct. So what would be the difference?


----------



## Ikaika

Let's not forget the university system under this new law provides:

_...and including resources for the accused._

I know that they don't specify what they are but I would think counseling and education would be the best option.


----------



## samyeagar

drerio said:


> They would still be criminally prosecuted, but the code of conduct only covers the student body at that school. However, as I have seen, CA universities may have been the first to pass this law but it will eventually cover all state funded schools across the country and eventual all private schools wishing to maintain accreditation and receive federal grant money. So the student from the other school would eventually violate his/her school code of conduct. The non student would be criminally convicted and likely barred from ever entering campus grounds. The latter I have seen take place many times in the past.


So this is being seen as a case where the perpetrator allegedly commits the crime, is dismissed from the university, and is then legally prosecuted and convicted. In the event that the accused is not convicted, should they be allowed back into the university, no harm, no foul?

What this is stating is not dependent on criminal prosecution at all. Code of conduct violations do not necessarily involve activity that rises to any level of prosecutable criminality.


----------



## samyeagar

drerio said:


> Universities don't criminally prosecute. However they are no different than employers that can fire a person who is not criminally prosecuted but is presumed to violate the code of conduct. So what would be the difference?


The fired party in an employer/employee case does have legal recourse for improper termination, and can seek legal redress against the former employer, and also has the opportunity for unemployment benefits.


----------



## naiveonedave

So drerio - you see no issues that men will get expelled with no legal due process for crimes (and yes it is either a crime or it is not) they didn't commit? This is very simiilar to double jeopardy, another thing our constitution forbids. Yes, I know they don't have to follow the legal constitution, except that they are actually investigating a legal matter in leiu of the police.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Lastly, we have thousands of murders walk. Everyone 'knows' they did it but they cannot meet the burden of proof. So...we let MURDERERS walk.
> 
> Why is it that we still hold to that ratio of 'better to let a hundred murderers go free then jail one innocent man'


There are an estimated 4.1 % of wrongfully convicted people on death row. Many Prisoners on Death Row are Wrongfully Convicted - Scientific American

Not just falsely accused, mind you, but wrongfully convicted.

So yes, we do fail to convict some criminals, and we do mistakenly convict innocent people. But the former does not necessarily help us prevent the latter.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> So this is being seen as a case where the perpetrator allegedly commits the crime, is dismissed from the university, and is then legally prosecuted and convicted. In the event that the accused is not convicted, should they be allowed back into the university, no harm, no foul?
> 
> 
> 
> What this is stating is not dependent on criminal prosecution at all. Code of conduct violations do not necessarily involve activity that rises to any level of prosecutable criminality.



Correct, just like with any employer code of conduct can be totally separate from any legal prosecution. The difference, with an employer it is typically a single person, the boss, that can make termination decisions. Every higher learning institution I have been apart of, this is usually a board of individuals made of at least one to two administrators, one to two faculty members and one to two students, any combination to have an odd member board. 

And, to answer your other inquiry, yes there is an appeal process, made up of a board separate from the other board. At least that has always been my experience.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> The fired party in an employer/employee case does have legal recourse for improper termination, and can seek legal redress against the former employer, and also has the opportunity for unemployment benefits.



Same holds true for a university, and I have seen such cases take place. So, nothing in this law changes that aspect in our judicial system.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> The fired party in an employer/employee case does have legal recourse for improper termination, and can seek legal redress against the former employer, and also has the opportunity for unemployment benefits.


Universities also have appeals processes, and Duke paid handsomely to the accused lacrosse team.

They really aren't marauding bands of feminists with pitchforks, you know, despite the picture that some here wish to paint.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> There are an estimated 4.1 % of wrongfully convicted people on death row. Many Prisoners on Death Row are Wrongfully Convicted - Scientific American
> 
> Not just falsely accused, mind you, but wrongfully convicted.
> 
> So yes, we do fail to convict some criminals, and we do mistakenly convict innocent people. But the former does not necessarily help us prevent the latter.


well how where they not wrongly accused? Someone thought they were gulity or they would not have been charged.
I disagree with your last statement. The burden of proof is high, so that you try to minimize the number of wrongly convicted. This makes it hard to convict those who are guilty but there is not much evidence against.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> So drerio - you see no issues that men will get expelled with no legal due process for crimes (and yes it is either a crime or it is not) they didn't commit? This is very simiilar to double jeopardy, another thing our constitution forbids. Yes, I know they don't have to follow the legal constitution, except that they are actually investigating a legal matter in leiu of the police.



Just like I don't see a problem with any female getting expelled for violating any code of conduct rules. I have actually seen this as a case. I have no issue with a boss firing an employee stealing from the company then seeking prosecution. Would that be double jeopardy? Double jeopardy only applies to constructionally criminal situations.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Universities also have appeals processes, and Duke paid handsomely to the accused lacrosse team.
> 
> They really aren't marauding bands of feminists with pitchforks, you know, despite the picture that some here wish to paint.


I agree with your last statement. Though i think the pitchforks drove someone to create this new law (insert sarcasm)

However, in a more 'common' cases of: was it date rape or not date rape, a falsely accused person will not get paid handsomely and will suffer quite a bit more than you think.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> well how where they not wrongly accused? Someone thought they were gulity or they would not have been charged.
> 
> I disagree with your last statement. The burden of proof is high, so that you try to minimize the number of wrongly convicted. This makes it hard to convict those who are guilty but there is not much evidence against.



And as such, this law does nothing to change the burden of proof for a conviction. It simply states that if a person is unable to consent to consensual sex due to their altered state of mind it needs to be consider the absence of consent is not consent. So you would suggest this is terrible? I still don't get it.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> So is this a case of the state saying that these activities do not rise to the level of criminality that we can prosecute, but we still want to anyway, so universities now have to have a policy where students can be punished without entering the justice system, otherwise, why wouldn't these cases just be handed over to the state for prosecution?


More to the point, these crimes often occur on campus, or are first discovered through campus services (health and wellness, counselling, student support, campus police, and so on).

So the real question is, should universities be able to rugsweep all of this, and pretend it doesn't happen so they can keep their brand image? Or should they be forced to deal with it properly?

I vote the latter!


----------



## samyeagar

So getting back to the original scenarios, I do think a good parallel addition to the universities codes of conduct would be expulsion for underage drinking, especially since there is no grey area with the criminality of that act.


----------



## Ikaika

always_alone said:


> More to the point, these crimes often occur on campus, or are first discovered through campus services (health and wellness, counselling, student support, campus police, and so on).
> 
> 
> 
> So the real question is, should universities be able to rugsweep all of this, and pretend it doesn't happen so they can keep their brand image? Or should they be forced to deal with it properly?
> 
> 
> 
> I vote the latter!



I would say far too many institutions have done rug sweeping to protect their good name.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> And as such, this law does nothing to change the burden of proof for a conviction. It simply states that if a person is unable to consent to consensual sex due to their altered state of mind it needs to be consider the absence of consent is not consent. So you would suggest this is terrible? I still don't get it.


However, _expulsion is a conviction in and of itself_.

And the way the rules will be interpreted is that you need, basically in writing, she said yes each step of the way, if you don't have that, you will be expelled.

So the guy won't go to jail, because there won't be proof, so we will just expel him, in case he actually might be a rapist. Do you see how this will work and how wrong it it?

I agree, if you are passed out, or if someone uses a date rape drug on you. However, just because two drunk college kids have sex =/= a rape occurred.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> So getting back to the original scenarios, I do think a good parallel addition to the universities codes of conduct would be expulsion for underage drinking, especially since there is no grey area with the criminality of that act.



I would not only agree with you, and I've heard this proposed. Then came the objections, from of all places parent organizations.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> More to the point, these crimes often occur on campus, or are first discovered through campus services (health and wellness, counselling, student support, campus police, and so on).
> 
> So the real question is, should universities be able to rugsweep all of this, and pretend it doesn't happen so they can keep their brand image? Or should they be forced to deal with it properly?
> 
> I vote the latter!


Absolutely they should not be allowed to rug sweep. They should be compelled to have the cases criminally prosecuted, and provide the resources for the victims to achieve that.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> However, _expulsion is a conviction in and of itself_.
> 
> 
> 
> And the way the rules will be interpreted is that you need, basically in writing, she said yes each step of the way, if you don't have that, you will be expelled.
> 
> 
> 
> So the guy won't go to jail, because there won't be proof, so we will just expel him, in case he actually might be a rapist. Do you see how this will work and how wrong it it?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, if you are passed out, or if someone uses a date rape drug on you. However, just because two drunk college kids have sex =/= a rape occurred.



No, expulsion is just like someone being fired. A conviction means incarceration and or a monetary fine so, no they are not the same. 

As I have stated as a normal practice, there will be a board hearing prior to expulsion to determine if any code of conduct rules were broken. Universities, unlike what you may assume, don't just make up rules as they go from one crisis to the next.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> Absolutely they should not be allowed to rug sweep. They should be compelled to have the cases criminally prosecuted, and provide the resources for the victims to achieve that.



Bravo, that is what this law allows; read the final part of this new law, it does just what you suggest.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> well how where they not wrongly accused? Someone thought they were gulity or they would not have been charged.


My point was that there is a huge difference between wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted.

Yes, all of those who were wrongfully convicted were at one point wrongfully accused. But *not* all of those wrongfully accused are convicted. In fact most are not.

With the rape stats, we are talking about false *allegation*, not false *prosecution*, or false *conviction*. And most of those allegations go absolutely nowhere at all. 

Even in the famed case that people are citing as proof positive that false accusations are the worst crimes in the world, to be avoided at all costs (no matter how many rapists go free), guaranteed to destroy lives, *none* of them ended up being prosecuted, they received settlements, they are getting their university education, and are building careers.


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> Excuse me, but while this is great advice LEGALLY, in a regulatory fashion, it does nothing. There is no 'Miranda right' in a university interview. The kid can refuse to discuss the matter and the university, if it has a preponderance of evidence and to fulfill the media and governmental pressure, can expel him.
> 
> He can appeal, but those HUGE pages of very small type are enough loopholes for them to expel him, particularly bolstered by this law.
> 
> "We offered him a chance to tell us, he didn't, we had to make our decisions sans his input."
> 
> Defensible position for the school...and no legal rights were even engaged at this point.


The use of 'preponderance' in the verbiage indicates that it is intended to work like civil law. I'm guessing we agree on this assessment but maybe not. So universities are in a tough spot. They're accountable for maintaining a safe environment yet they'll have to show proof of compelling evidence for disciplinary action. Otherwise these innocent guys will have a lot of money in their pockets from a counter suit.


Legal Dictionary | Law.com


----------



## Thundarr

drerio said:


> Universities don't criminally prosecute. However they are no different than employers that can fire a person who is not criminally prosecuted but is presumed to violate the code of conduct. So what would be the difference?


And just as there are avenues for someone who feels they were wrongly terminated, there are the same avenues for someone feeling they were wrongly disciplined by a university.


----------



## samyeagar

drerio said:


> Bravo, that is what this law allows; read the final part of this new law, it does just what you suggest.


So the law does compel the university to formally hand the case over to law enforcement and the criminal justice system for prosecution before expulsion? What if the local DA decides not to prosecute? Can the school still expel the offender?

Again, tying this to underage drinking, should the school be allowed to expel a student based on the facebook selfie of them and a friend posing while holding a beer at a frat party? Should the over 21 frat member in the background get expelled for providing? Should they get expelled regardless of the local DA prosecuting? I vote yes.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> Correct, just like with any employer code of conduct can be totally separate from any legal prosecution. The difference, with an employer it is typically a single person, the boss, that can make termination decisions. Every higher learning institution I have been apart of, this is usually a board of individuals made of at least one to two administrators, one to two faculty members and one to two students, any combination to have an odd member board.
> 
> And, to answer your other inquiry, yes there is an appeal process, made up of a board separate from the other board. At least that has always been my experience.


You know, a few posts ago, I stated that the hothouse and activist atmosphere of a university will put a great deal of pressure on pushing 'guilty' verdicts.

You dismissed this. It cannot happen, you said.

And now, the university, bolstered by this law, can do exactly that. They also, by plain text, do not need to go beyond a reasonable doubt. They just need a preponderance of the evidence.

This reminds me of the O.J. trial. The prosecutors couldn't prove a thing. But he still got sued for murder...and lost. The burden of proof in the two courts was way different. He also, while judged innocent, totally lost his reputation.

Same here.

Now, I am sure you know a lot of sober professors and administrators on campus whom you trust to give out an honest verdict. Now, while you put Dr. McCreedy, mother of 5 boys and two daughters, teacher of trial law, as sober a woman as you've ever seen on the board...let's also throw on that wing nut on campus. You know her. The embarrassment to Feminism, whom you inwardly wince occasionally when you hear her.

Throw her on the board as well. See, she really CARES. 

Now add a leaked gossip and slander to the press to put a little PR pressure on the administration and tell me how you envision the university board judging things?


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> So the law does compel the university to formally hand the case over to law enforcement and the criminal justice system for prosecution before expulsion? What if the local DA decides not to prosecute? Can the school still expel the offender?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tying this to underage drinking, should the school be allowed to expel a student based on the facebook selfie of them and a friend posing while holding a beer at a frat party? Should the over 21 frat member in the background get expelled for providing? Should they get expelled regardless of the local DA prosecuting? I vote yes.



School has the option to expel if the student violated the code of conduct rules regardless of any prosecution. I would agree that under age drinking should be subject to expelling the student along with the student of age who provided the alcohol.


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> So drerio - you see no issues that men will get expelled with no legal due process for crimes (and yes it is either a crime or it is not) they didn't commit?


Your premise isn't correct. Regarding civil law versus criminal law just look at the infamous OJ trial (it's one of many civil suits).

In 1995, OJ was acquitted of the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. In 1997, a civil court awarded a judgment against Simpson for their wrongful deaths for 33.5 million.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> You know, a few posts ago, I stated that the hothouse and activist atmosphere of a university will put a great deal of pressure on pushing 'guilty' verdicts.
> 
> 
> 
> You dismissed this. It cannot happen, you said.
> 
> 
> 
> And now, the university, bolstered by this law, can do exactly that. They also, by plain text, do not need to go beyond a reasonable doubt. They just need a preponderance of the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> This reminds me of the O.J. trial. The prosecutors couldn't prove a thing. But he still got sued for murder...and lost. The burden of proof in the two courts was way different. He also, while judged innocent, totally lost his reputation.
> 
> 
> 
> Same here.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I am sure you know a lot of sober professors and administrators on campus whom you trust to give out an honest verdict. Now, while you put Dr. McCreedy, mother of 5 boys and two daughters, teacher of trial law, as sober a woman as you've ever seen on the board...let's also throw on that wing nut on campus. You know her. The embarrassment to Feminism, whom you inwardly wince occasionally when you hear her.
> 
> 
> 
> Throw her on the board as well. See, she really CARES.
> 
> 
> 
> Now add a leaked gossip and slander to the press to put a little PR pressure on the administration and tell me how you envision the university board judging things?



So a lot of mischaracterization of judgement, but let's get to just one of the articles you posted. 

_The graffiti comes after 23 Columbia and Barnard College students filed a complaint late last month with the U.S. Department of Education over the school's handling of alleged sexual assaults_

Sounds like the university was trying to sweep it all under the rug till they could not.

Quote from Providence newspaper, 

_Daniel Kopin also maintained that his relationship with Lena Sclove was “consensual,’’ but said that he accepted the outcome of the university’s disciplinary penalties and had been “fully prepared to return to school, and to abide by any conditions placed on him by the university.”_

What is wrong, he was given his due process before a university board, was not expelled, and put on probation. Since neither you or I have transcripts of what went on in the board hearing it is hard to draw much of of conclusion or judgment on this case.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> No, expulsion is just like someone being fired. A conviction means incarceration and or a monetary fine so, no they are not the same.
> 
> As I have stated as a normal practice, there will be a board hearing prior to expulsion to determine if any code of conduct rules were broken. Universities, unlike what you may assume, don't just make up rules as they go from one crisis to the next.


I disagree. It is more like the OJ trial, no evidence to convict, so we sue for damages. That is how this will end up getting used.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree. It is more like the OJ trial, no evidence to convict, so we sue for damages. That is how this will end up getting used.



Mr. Simpson was given what the law affords. Criminal code of Justice is separate from civil liabilities and that is even constitutional.


----------



## Thundarr

samyeagar said:


> So getting back to the original scenarios, I do think a good parallel addition to the universities codes of conduct would be expulsion for underage drinking, especially since there is no grey area with the criminality of that act.


I agree. Not only is it more measurable and easier to get right, it's also a big contributor to the topic in this thread. I think schools will be crazy if they don't start hitting under age drinking harder.


----------



## samyeagar

Sexual assault is a very serious crime, that in many cases, the lack of maturity and responsibility of the victim contributes to...ie...knowingly entering an environment that is notorious for this crime occurring...often times an environment that is in and of itself illegal. In no way do I think sexual assault will be eliminated by removing the drinking parties, yes, it will still happen. I think after a few examples of the sexual assault perpetrators being expelled, people will be more cautious and aware of the behavior, and add to that examples of underage drinkers getting expelled, the environment where many of these crimes happen will begin to dry up as well.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> School has the option to expel if the student violated the code of conduct rules regardless of any prosecution. I would agree that under age drinking should be subject to expelling the student along with the student of age who provided the alcohol.


I agree with this.

Now, if I could, let us consider a 'rape free campus'. A few things which could blatantly increase student safety and would not cost a penny. IF you (generic) was serious about stopping rapes.

1) Expel under aged drinkers. In fact, do not put any alcohol outlets on campus except for faculty and post grads. Also adds a little 'clubbiness' to the facility.

2) Single gender dorms. Girls sleep with girls, and boys sleep with boys. No more 'drunken guy bursts into your room singing love songs' which always ends badly whether rape happens or not. Assaulted by song is not much better.

3) If we are going to get all formal here and suck all the romance and game out of sex, why not go all the way! Let's bring out 'The Love Shack': this is the ONLY facility that on-campus sex will be allowed. The guy and the girl both CHECK IN TOGETHER. Can't get more consensual than that. Put a panic button in every 'cubicle'.

3a) or...just outlaw sex on campus altogether. If you boogie, you might very well get your butt booted out. "Listen kid! I got 23 students who want your slot. Tell me again how this is unfair?" This is the rule in the military: sex is only allowed to people who are not recruits (i.e. students) The students can get their own hotel room off campus. So now 90% of all rapes are redirected to becoming 'not the administration's problem'.

4) I am fully on board with informing boys of the rules. "Don't sleep with her if she's rinsed her mouth with Scope!" "if you get the wave off, punch out!". I would also like to see a little skin in the game for the women. Cause for the life of me, I can't see any downside for the girls if they make a false accusation. I would certainly make sure that the girls know that 'outing' a person accused of a campus investigation publically will get the administrations FULL attention....and the girls are responsible for what is written on the walls of their own dorms. 

5) heck, give the boys a 'nookie consent' pad of forms on entry into college...and notify the girls they need to sign them!

But...colleges don't want to do this. They want to be seen as fun (profitable) places. 

Do they want to end rape or not? If it means amending the rules, let's AMEND THE RULES for EVERYONE.


----------



## samyeagar

Thundarr said:


> I agree. Not only is it more measurable and easier to get right, it's also a big contributor to the topic in this thread. I think schools will be crazy if they don't start hitting under age drinking harder.


And hammering the known environments that contribute to the crime is the only way I could remotely take them as seriously going after sexual assault, and not just paying lip service to it. If they are going to get tough on it, GET TOUGH ON IT!


----------



## Thundarr

samyeagar said:


> Sexual assault is a very serious crime, that in many cases, the lack of maturity and responsibility of the victim contributes to...ie...knowingly entering an environment that is notorious for this crime occurring...often times an environment that is in and of itself illegal. In no way do I think sexual assault will be eliminated by removing the drinking parties, yes, it will still happen. I think after a few examples of the sexual assault perpetrators being expelled, people will be more cautious and aware of the behavior, and add to that examples of underage drinkers getting expelled, the environment where many of these crimes happen will begin to dry up as well.


I hope you're correct. It sure seems like the low hanging fruit from a prevention standpoint. I think the administration members who will have to determine what is or what is not perponderance, are going to be really conflicted and they're going to try to figure out how to keep the problems from happening to begin with. I think the extremist that JCD was elluding to on a panel will scare the crap out of the other board members and will get booted because the rest of the panel would like to sleep at night too.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> So a lot of mischaracterization of judgement, but let's get to just one of the articles you posted.
> 
> _The graffiti comes after 23 Columbia and Barnard College students filed a complaint late last month with the U.S. Department of Education over the school's handling of alleged sexual assaults_
> 
> Sounds like the university was trying to sweep it all under the rug till they could not.
> 
> Quote from Providence newspaper,
> 
> _Daniel Kopin also maintained that his relationship with Lena Sclove was “consensual,’’ but said that he accepted the outcome of the university’s disciplinary penalties and had been “fully prepared to return to school, and to abide by any conditions placed on him by the university.”_
> 
> What is wrong, he was given his due process before a university board, was not expelled, and put on probation. Since neither you or I have transcripts of what went on in the board hearing it is hard to draw much of of conclusion or judgment on this case.


The first quote, the key word is ALLEGED rapists. Not proven. Yet their reputations have taken a huge hit. What if the girls were wrong? What if one added a name of some boyfriend she didn't like? This is a very dangerous game.

In the second case, the administration checked things out, gave him what they considered a suitable punishment...and what happened? The girl wasn't satisfied. So she rounded up a bunch of friends and activists and decided to engage in her own version of 'justice'. They outed him as a horrible rapist who 'got away with it', blackening his name irreparably enough that he had to leave the college.

I would LOVE to know what happened to her. I am guessing nothing.

In both of these cases, due process was circumvented by campus activists. Revenge became the watchword, not justice. Because activists can't dole out 'justice'. They just tend to grab a metaphorical rope and look around for a tree by the Ox Bow...


----------



## Ikaika

Most universities, even private ones, are non profit and most are less than profitable. The two entities that had the most closures in the last five years, small churches and small private non-profit colleges. 

Not much profit in these places and in most states it is a huge item in their budget to keep the doors open and lights on. 

These are supposed to be places of learning, enlightenment, research extension and the like. The reputation of party school not administrative and faculty driven but societal at large. 

Again, not looking for universities to be puritanical in the sense you outline, just one where one is held responsible for his or her actions and above all respect for each other. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> I hope you're correct. It sure seems like the low hanging fruit from a prevention standpoint. I think the administration members who will have to determine what is or what is not perponderance, are going to be really conflicted and they're going to try to figure out how to keep the problems from happening to begin with. I think the extremist that JCD was elluding to on a panel will scare the crap out of the other board members and will get booted because the rest of the panel would like to sleep at night too.


Remember, rape on campus is a 'thing' now. There is a lot of media and political pressure on campuses to prove they are 'getting tough'. And that means to a certain extent scalps. 

While they may want to boot off Ms. Winge, they also don't want her going to the press saying 'this is a travesty where the board is packed with...whatever'.

Because the murder rate is highest for black males. Yet one little cute white girl goes missing in Aruba and the nation goes CRAZY! The administration does not want to see a lot of cute white girls crying on their steps demanding justice...even if the administration GAVE them justice according to reasonable lights (see Brown case)


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> The first quote, the key word is ALLEGED rapists. Not proven. Yet their reputations have taken a huge hit. What if the girls were wrong? What if one added a name of some boyfriend she didn't like? This is a very dangerous game.
> 
> 
> 
> In the second case, the administration checked things out, gave him what they considered a suitable punishment...and what happened? The girl wasn't satisfied. So she rounded up a bunch of friends and activists and decided to engage in her own version of 'justice'. They outed him as a horrible rapist who 'got away with it', blackening his name irreparably enough that he had to leave the college.
> 
> 
> 
> I would LOVE to know what happened to her. I am guessing nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> In both of these cases, due process was circumvented by campus activists. Revenge became the watchword, not justice. Because activists can't dole out 'justice'. They just tend to grab a metaphorical rope and look around for a tree by the Ox Bow...



So if wrongly accused we have a judicial system to deal with it. If wrongly accused and they felt like their reputation was ruined they can take advantage of the civil proceeding afford under the constitution as recourse. 

We don't know what happen in either of these cases so your speculation is simply an opinion. I withhold any judgement.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> Most universities, even private ones, are non profit and most are less than profitable. The two entities that had the most closures in the last five years, small churches and small private non-profit colleges.
> 
> Not much profit in these places and in most states it is a huge item in their budget to keep the doors open and lights on.
> 
> These are supposed to be places of learning, enlightenment, research extension and the like. The reputation of party school not administrative and faculty driven but societal at large.
> 
> Again, not looking for universities to be puritanical in the sense you outline, just one where one is held responsible for his or her actions and above all respect for each other. Is that too much to ask?


if they want to get serious, single gender dorms seem a minimum. Make it a rule men can't come in after 9 p.m. How is this not 'personal responsibility'?

Seems moving a few beds around campus is a lot easier than setting up multiple levels of investigatory agencies, counselors, legal representation, PR flaks to deal with the incidents and aggressive campus security.


----------



## Buddy400

It looks like links aren’t allowed here and I don’t want to quote huge chunks of stuff. So, replace the “xxx” with the usual “www” and a period. I don’t want to play “link wars” since we could both find all the studies we want supporting our point of view. I’m just hoping that you’ll check out the below and consider that you might, just might, not be as fully informed as you think you are.



drerio said:


> I got the information from both DoJ and FBI reports, I hardly assume those as activist entities. So if there is an assumption of less than 10% of false accusations which were based on not only non convictions but evidence that counter the initial complaint, I believe that still pales in comparison to the suggested percentage of rape cases never reported and falls short of the non-convictions.


As to the “Only 2% of rape accusations are false myth”
xxxbloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false



drerio said:


> Sexual assault is based on statutory laws (districts). If read most of these, you will see the definition of unwanted advances have pretty well defined set of circumstances. So to automatically write this off as assuming that these are minor infractions may not necessarily be what you assume.


The “1 in 5 college women are victims of sexual assault” is NOT based on statutory laws. Far from it.
xxxwashingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Remember, rape on campus is a 'thing' now. There is a lot of media and political pressure on campuses to prove they are 'getting tough'. And that means to a certain extent scalps.
> 
> 
> 
> While they may want to boot off Ms. Winge, they also don't want her going to the press saying 'this is a travesty where the board is packed with...whatever'.
> 
> 
> 
> Because the murder rate is highest for black males. Yet one little cute white girl goes missing in Aruba and the nation goes CRAZY! The administration does not want to see a lot of cute white girls crying on their steps demanding justice...even if the administration GAVE them justice according to reasonable lights (see Brown case)



You are correct in assuming our justice system has not always applied as much attention to crimes across all demographics of our population. As a male of mixed ancestry I'm reminded all too often that disparity. 

But, I'm not sure, I would characterize, rape on campus as the thing now. I would say we are addressing it and taking it more seriously than we have before. And, yes the same should be applied to all other crimes in other sectors of society.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> if they want to get serious, single gender dorms seem a minimum. Make it a rule men can't come in after 9 p.m. How is this not 'personal responsibility'?
> 
> 
> 
> Seems moving a few beds around campus is a lot easier than setting up multiple levels of investigatory agencies, counselors, legal representation, PR flaks to deal with the incidents and aggressive campus security.



Some do this as a rule, but it is not universal.


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> It looks like links aren’t allowed here and I don’t want to quote huge chunks of stuff. So, replace the “xxx” with the usual “www” and a period. I don’t want to play “link wars” since we could both find all the studies we want supporting our point of view. I’m just hoping that you’ll check out the below and consider that you might, just might, not be as fully informed as you think you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As to the “Only 2% of rape accusations are false myth”
> 
> xxxbloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The “1 in 5 college women are victims of sexual assault” is NOT based on statutory laws. Far from it.
> 
> xxxwashingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html



Because of course Bloomberg news trumps the FBI database


----------



## samyeagar

drerio said:


> Most universities, even private ones, are non profit and most are less than profitable. The two entities that had the most closures in the last five years, small churches and small private non-profit colleges.
> 
> Not much profit in these places and in most states it is a huge item in their budget to keep the doors open and lights on.
> 
> These are supposed to be places of learning, enlightenment, research extension and the like. The reputation of party school not administrative and faculty driven but societal at large.
> 
> Again, *not looking for universities to be puritanical in the sense you outline*, just one where one is held responsible for his or her actions and above all respect for each other. Is that too much to ask?


I am not asking universities to be puritanical at all, just not to condone illegal activity through inaction...sending a message that illegal activity will not be tolerated, and will be aggressively targeted, that there is an expectation that their students will behave in accordance with the law.


----------



## Buddy400

drerio said:


> Because of course Bloomberg news trumps the FBI database


That was an incredibly bogus and ignorant reply to a serious attempt to communicate. You didn't even bother to read the posts and consider that others MAY have a valid point of view.

You are no longer worthy of me (or anyone else) bothering to pay attention to you. Sam, you're wasting your time.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> You are correct in assuming our justice system has not always applied as much attention to crimes across all demographics of our population. As a male of mixed ancestry I'm reminded all too often that disparity.
> 
> But, I'm not sure, I would characterize, rape on campus as the thing now. I would say we are addressing it and taking it more seriously than we have before. And, yes the same should be applied to all other crimes in other sectors of society.


If it is important, than any step which would stop something like 80% of the rape case should be considered. A curfew on male visits? A place where girls are safe at night, when most rapes happen? For arranging a few beds.

Now, these girls are free to NOT be in the dorms. They can go off campus. They can wander out alone to a Frat house. They can have sex. So there is no puritanism here.

It's like...oh...exercise. I will believe you are serious about exercise when I see you sweating every day. If you just want to talk about someone else exercising, I don't take you (generic) particularly seriously. For what it's worth, always and norjane ACT like they take the prospect of rape seriously. A girl who asserts the right to walk naked, drunk and with a bag of blow anywhere on campus...not so much. If you want something done, be willing to pay a price for it.

That it is unpopular with the girls doesn't mean it wouldn't make them a lot safer.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> I am not asking universities to be puritanical at all, just not to condone illegal activity through inaction...sending a message that illegal activity will not be tolerated, and will be aggressively targeted, that there is an expectation that their students will behave in accordance with the law.



I have no issue with this statement.


----------



## samyeagar

JCD said:


> If it is important, than any step which would stop something like 80% of the rape case should be considered. A curfew? A place where girls are safe at night, when most rapes happen?
> 
> Now, these girls are free to NOT be in the dorms. They can go off campus. They can wander out alone to a Frat house. So there is no puritanism here.
> 
> It's like...oh...exercise. I will believe you are serious about exercise when I see you sweating every day. If you just want to talk about someone else exercising, I don't take you (generic) particularly seriously. For what it's worth, *always and norjane ACT like they take the prospect of rape seriously*. A girl who asserts the right to walk naked, drunk and with a bag of blow anywhere on campus...not so much.
> 
> That it is unpopular with the girls doesn't mean it wouldn't make them a lot safer.


I believe they do take it seriously, as do most of us on this thread.

I am not sure things like a mandatory curfew is needed. No need to restrict legal activity to that extent. The vast majority of sexual assaults we are talking about here are not the stranger grabbing the sober single coed walking alone across a dark campus at night.


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> That was an incredibly bogus and ignorant reply to a serious attempt to communicate. You didn't even bother to read the posts and consider that others MAY have a valid point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> You are no longer worthy of me (or anyone else) bothering to pay attention to you. Sam, you're wasting your time.



Just so you know this article or one similar to it was quoted already in this thread and had been addressed pages ago. We all agreed that 2% was the low end and 8% high end. So, sure I may have been short with my answer, I apologize if I sounded as if i were simply dismissing your comment.


----------



## samyeagar

Hell, even in the frat house, off campus party environment, a person greatly reduces their risk of anything bad happening by simply not getting drunk. I think that most of the men who would take the girl upstairs and have his way with her likely wouldn't do it if he was sober, nor would she allow herself to be led up there if she was sober.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> If it is important, than any step which would stop something like 80% of the rape case should be considered. A curfew on male visits? A place where girls are safe at night, when most rapes happen? For arranging a few beds.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, these girls are free to NOT be in the dorms. They can go off campus. They can wander out alone to a Frat house. They can have sex. So there is no puritanism here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like...oh...exercise. I will believe you are serious about exercise when I see you sweating every day. If you just want to talk about someone else exercising, I don't take you (generic) particularly seriously. For what it's worth, always and norjane ACT like they take the prospect of rape seriously. A girl who asserts the right to walk naked, drunk and with a bag of blow anywhere on campus...not so much. If you want something done, be willing to pay a price for it.
> 
> 
> 
> That it is unpopular with the girls doesn't mean it wouldn't make them a lot safer.



Most campuses provide escort services for females or males traveling on campus at night. There are all sorts of educational pamphlets, services and alerts sent out all the time related to safety issues. Last year, I received over 20 text on my Rave alert system about suspicious activity of sorts. 

As to curfews, like I said some have instituted these types of policies but the rest assume students be responsible for their actions but note that responsibility comes with possible consequences when not adhered to under the student code of conduct.


----------



## Thundarr

I'm sure you guys noticed that we did find some common ground in cracking down harder on alcohol and especially under age drinking and on campus drinking. No matter, it just seemed refreshing.


----------



## LongWalk

I posted this link earlier, "Three Years on Riker's without Trial". How can an innocent black teen from the Bronx be locked up without trial for three years, for allegedly stealing a backpack, no less?

Some people's civil rights are worth less that others'. Are the rights of men and women treated equally? The answer is no because our laws and institutions are not perfect.

The police ignore valid and real rape complaints, routinely in some places. Innocent people are in prison. Given the failures of the justice system, it is not surprizing that parents who pay huge tuition fees want more service from universities. They want their daughters to be safer.

Will those accused of sexual misconduct receive a fair disciplinary hearing in the university system that is separate from the criminal justice system?


----------



## Ikaika

drerio said:


> So I have a colleague at UCSD, and the backdrop to this story goes this way:
> 
> A NIH study came out five years ago that lambasted your average university for alcohol related, injuries, crimes and deaths (much higher rates than in larger society). Most universities have long ago given up on trying to control drinking whether it be causal or binge drinking on campus. It is hard when even parents of these students are the ones raising the biggest "stink" about creating dry campuses. However, most schools are attempting to clean up aspects of this supposed "ritual". So, rather than trying to deal with the issue of drinking they, the universities, are going after the activities associated with drinking and thus is born a law such as this one and more to come across the country as federal law will expect some level of compliance or risk losing huge grants and accreditation.
> 
> I am completely on the fence as to the effectiveness, but I'm sure if given the time I could argue both sides. When you send your son or daughter to us, please teach them well, especially in the area of being wise and responsible. We are not suggesting you have to become a monk or a nun, but grow up and do it quickly. A simple plea. And, yes I am one of those freakin' liberal professors.
> 
> ETA: so it was not feminist it was university provosts, chancellors, presidents and BOR/trustees. Thank them, because it is all about the money.






Thundarr said:


> I'm sure you guys noticed that we did find some common ground in cracking down harder on alcohol and especially under age drinking and on campus drinking. No matter, it just seemed refreshing.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> the problem is the Uni isn't going to follow legal due process. they don't have to.
> 
> Our constitution is based on 100 go free to prevent one innocent being jailed. That is america, if you don't like that, change the constitution or move.


The university can imprison people?!!


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> The university can imprison people?!!


for the 100th time in this thread, the school is going to expel the kid. That is essentially imprison. Not as harsh a penalty, but a pretty harsh penalty.

Expulsion for the potential to be a rapist is bs.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Anyone who's ever been charged with a sex crime, even if those charges were not pursued or dropped then their whole future has been destroyed. This is America and this is what happens. This is the world of the $20 background check. So have fun getting job or lease or bank loan. In most places in NC you can't get a lease if you have a bogus pot bust on your record. And you're talking a charge of rape? You may as well emigrate.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> for the 100th time in this thread, the school is going to expel the kid. That is essentially imprison. Not as harsh a penalty, but a pretty harsh penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> Expulsion for the potential to be a rapist is bs.



And you can be fired from your job for violating employee code of conduct. Would that be considered imprisonment?


----------



## Ikaika

Runs like Dog said:


> Anyone who's ever been charged with a sex crime, even if those charges were not pursued or dropped then their whole future has been destroyed. This is America and this is what happens. This is the world of the $20 background check. So have fun getting job or lease or bank loan. In most places in NC you can't get a lease if you have a bogus pot bust on your record. And you're talking a charge of rape? You may as well emigrate.



And those individuals, if they feel wronged are free to pursue civil recourse. We are after all a litigious society. If wrongly accused but never wrongly convicted nothing will show up in a background check.


----------



## LongWalk

Civil recourse belongs to the wealthy.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> Civil recourse belongs to the wealthy.


Not really, civil recourse belongs to anyone who can dial a lawyer on their cell phone. If you understood how they received payment, it is easy to see why there are so many of them in this line of practice. 

But, whether this law is in place or not, there is no change to the civil litigations that are free to be heard in our court system.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio, this is where you are blatantly wrong. Once it is on your record, it is on your record. Getting it expunged is not 100% sure and is expensive. Talk to someone who has had their credit stolen and that is relatively easier to fix.

Also, we need to get to less lawyers, not more.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> drerio, this is where you are blatantly wrong. Once it is on your record, it is on your record. Getting it expunged is not 100% sure and is expensive.
> 
> Also, we need to get to less lawyers, not more.


Only if you were actually convicted will it show up in records accessible to potential employers. I know this because I have done these checks on potential lab staff in years past. I have asked the question and I was told the answer by HR what was accessible and what was not. We worked with some sensitive material that required our registering with Homeland Security along with biannual inspections. I needed to know who was working in my lab. 

If you have been charged, never convicted or you were investigated but never convicted it will show up in background checks done by law enforcement agencies. It also does not necessarily mean that the evidence could be used against you in any new case that it not related or with a good defense attorney even in related situations. 

The only time you need spend the money to have these removed is if you were convicted and you served time or did community services and waited ten years. And, only for some but not all levels of crimes.

So blatantly wrong? No. Marginally wrong? Yes


----------



## Thundarr

naiveonedave said:


> for the 100th time in this thread, the school is going to expel the kid. That is essentially imprison. Not as harsh a penalty, but a pretty harsh penalty.
> 
> Expulsion for the potential to be a rapist is bs.





drerio said:


> And you can be fired from your job for violating employee code of conduct. Would that be considered imprisonment?


My oldest son was accused of saying something inappropriate to a girl one time. He was 18 and it was a temp job. I remember his mom asking me if I thought he said it or not. She was trying to figure out who to be angry at and she wanted to swoop in and fix it. My guess is they were both flirting and he took it too far and lost his job for it. The thing is, that was merely a speed bump and a lesson learned. He later joined the Marines, donated bone marrow to a woman with hodgkins he didn't know, is married to a good woman, has kids, has a good education, and a high paying job. 

It just wasn't the life altering injustice that's portrayed here. He was a normal kid who either got shafted or made a mistake. I suppose he could have wallowed in the unfairness but I would have been disappointed in him and myself if he had.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> Only if you were actually convicted will it show up in records accessible to potential employers. I know this because I have done these checks on potential lab staff in years past. I have asked the question and I was told the answer by HR what was accessible and what was not. We worked with some sensitive material that required our registering with Homeland Security along with biannual inspections. I needed to know who was working in my lab.
> 
> If you have been charged, never convicted or you were investigated but never convicted it will show up in background checks done by law enforcement agencies. It also does not necessarily mean that the evidence could be used against you in any new case that it not related or with a good defense attorney even in related situations.
> 
> The only time you need spend the money to have these removed is if you were convicted and you served time or did community services and waited ten years. And, only for some but not all levels of crimes.
> 
> So blatantly wrong? No. Marginally wrong? Yes


your 1st paragraph is wrong. Google it, you will find out you are wrong. It is on your record and employers will see it.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> your 1st paragraph is wrong. Google it, you will find out you are wrong. It is on your record and employers will see it.


I know right, everything on google is so smart.  I was an employer, so I know what employers can and can't see.


----------



## Ikaika

But again under the way this law is written, would this somehow change the notion of sudden spike in false claims? Unless you have a legal crystal ball and understand the motivation to these false claims it has no bearing on the law itself. 

I still don't get what is wrong:

Someone who is under an altered state of mind and unable to communicate their objection or affirm their desire for sexual advances should this not also be considered in circumstances that would imply non-consent? Who actually would have objection to this situation?


----------



## samyeagar

drerio said:


> But again under the way this law is written, would this somehow change the notion of sudden spike in false claims? Unless you have a legal crystal ball and understand the motivation to these false claims it has no bearing on the law itself.
> 
> I still don't get what is wrong:
> 
> Someone who is under an altered state of mind and unable to communicate their objection or affirm their desire for sexual advances should this not also be considered in circumstances that would imply non-consent? Who actually would have objection to this situation?


Especially if they are too impaired to realize at the time that they are saying YES! YES! YES! and enthusiastic consent only counts if they are of sound enough mind to give it...so even if they are giving enthusiastic affirmative consent all the way through...it might not really count.


----------



## NobodySpecial

NobodySpecial said:


> The university can imprison people?!!


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## badcompany

I thought this was going to be more of a poll, "great work feminists, you killed _________". 
Then we could come in here and post pages of examples. Here on the left coast it's rampant and it makes me sick.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> for the 100th time in this thread, the school is going to expel the kid. *That is essentially imprison*. Not as harsh a penalty, but a pretty harsh penalty.
> 
> Expulsion for the potential to be a rapist is bs.


That is INSANE. To equate being expelled from an institution that has the right to accept or decline anyone they chose so long as they are not violating discrimination laws to being imprisoned is straight up wild. 

Holy entitlement society, batman.


----------



## Ikaika

samyeagar said:


> Especially if they are too impaired to realize at the time that they are saying YES! YES! YES! and enthusiastic consent only counts if they are of sound enough mind to give it...so even if they are giving enthusiastic affirmative consent all the way through...it might not really count.



I'm so glad you brought this up, because from the beginning I have stated I could argue both sides unless in the case on unconsciousness. Yes, there are problems with this law when it comes to interpreting ones state of mind during consent or non consent. This little wrinkle may simply come back to the he said she said allegations of old. Nothing new in other words.

ETA: we could employ the same tactics to DUI, that is blood alcohol levels. This would mean, carry around your breathalyzer adaptor to your smart phone.


----------



## NobodySpecial

drerio said:


> But again under the way this law is written, would this somehow change the notion of sudden spike in false claims? Unless you have a legal crystal ball and understand the motivation to these false claims it has no bearing on the law itself.
> 
> I still don't get what is wrong:
> 
> Someone who is under an altered state of mind and unable to communicate their objection or affirm their desire for sexual advances should this not also be considered in circumstances that would imply non-consent? Who actually would have objection to this situation?


It is mind boggling.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> That is INSANE. To equate being expelled from an institution that has the right to accept or decline anyone they chose so long as they are not violating discrimination laws to being imprisoned is straight up wild.
> 
> Holy entitlement society, batman.


maybe you should read the whole thread. The 1st half of the thread had peoiple going to jail, then it became somewhat clear that this was only school policy, which would lead to expulsion. Many posts, mine and seeral others were mixing the two consequences. Sorry for the cofusion. But I stand by my logic and my assertion that geting tossed out of school, if truly innocent, is a gross miscarriage of justice, whether in court or some university tribunal.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> I know right, everything on google is so smart.  I was an employer, so I know what employers can and can't see.


I have seen people not get hired becaue they had an arrest in their record, and no it was not a police job or prison guard. Whatever, you are so convinced you are right and the rest of us are wrong, you won't even bother to look:rofl:


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> I have seen people not get hired becaue they had an arrest in their record, and no it was not a police job or prison guard. Whatever, you are so convinced you are right and the rest of us are wrong, you won't even bother to look:rofl:


They were arrested and what happen in that case? As I know most DAs have multiple counts on each case, hoping one will stick. If one stuck, then there you go. And if no conviction happened well it is also likely this had nothing to do with the non hire. Even if they told you that is why they were not hired, more than likely the employer would tell you there were other reasons and they did not consider this as a factor (even if they could have gained this information from other sources). I can tell you as an employer what one can access and use in consideration. You can laugh all you like, but I know what I know. 

I can also tell you from an employer point of view all the things you cannot consider in potential hire process. That alone is a possible liability.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> maybe you should read the whole thread. The 1st half of the thread had peoiple going to jail, then it became somewhat clear that this was only school policy, which would lead to expulsion. Many posts, mine and seeral others were mixing the two consequences. Sorry for the cofusion. But I stand by my logic and my assertion that geting tossed out of school, *if truly innocent, is a gross miscarriage of justice, whether in court or some university tribunal*.


If truly innocent, very likely nothing will come of it. But do wrong decisions happen? You bet they do, but then even at the University level there is always an appeal process. And even this law allows the accused to access school services (not necessarily spelled out) that likely include counseling on student conduct, etc. 

But, somehow the double standard that all these females are liars and that all the males are innocent victims (victim hood syndrome) are easily lost on this thread.


----------



## naiveonedave

Nope, zero convictions. The most likely problem, from what I can gather, is that the databases being used have errors (most likely of omission) in that there never was exoneration entered to the database. So there is a record of an arrest, but nothing else. The hiring people assume the worst and why wouldn't they, with so many applicants to choose from.

Mine is an employer point of view and people that I know point of view.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> Nope, zero convictions. The most likely problem, *from what I can gather, is that the databases being used have errors (most likely of omission) in that there never was exoneration entered to the database*. So there is a record of an arrest, but nothing else. The hiring people assume the worst and why wouldn't they, with so many applicants to choose from.
> 
> Mine is an employer point of view and people that I know point of view.


Ok, but that is very different than what you were trying to convince me of in my being wrong. 

And you know absolutely and 100% that the reason these individuals were not hired were due to some arrest record? There is a lot of liability in admitting non hiring for any other reason than the applicant did not fit the job. I have written many of these letters and had to give them to the HR lawyer for a read over.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> If
> But, somehow the double standard that all these females are liars and that all the males are innocent victims (victim hood syndrome) are easily lost on this thread.


How many times do people with the opposing view to you have to say that they want rapist punished, but not at the expense of innocents. Depending on where you get data on this, it could be as much as 5+% of those convicted and then add to that those acquitted who where drug throug the mud. It clearly is much greater than zero.

So, while I get the tragedy of rape, this is not some small segment of people that should be ignored or have their rights trampled on.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> How many times do people with the opposing view to you have to say that they want rapist punished, but not at the expense of innocents. Depending on where you get data on this, it could be as much as 5+% of those convicted and then add to that those acquitted who where drug throug the mud. It clearly is much greater than zero.
> 
> So, while I get the tragedy of rape, this is not some small segment of people that should be ignored or have their rights trampled on.


What you are asking for is perfection in the law. The law is blind but it is not perfect. What I am reading and I quote from someone on here is for the Universities to do nothing. Go ahead and peruse through the thread you will read that very line in here and not from me. So, we should allow it all to just go on without any boundaries, in the case of buyer beware attitude. 

I don't know if any law meets the criteria of perfection. So why have any laws in place?


----------



## LongWalk

Not only are laws imperfect, the institutions that enforce them are of questionable quality. Prosecutors and police regularly conspire to convict innocent people to solve crimes.

Will universities do a better job of investigating rape than the police?

Will the combination of police and university staff be better? That is the hope.

One thing that has come forth is that burden of proof in administrative cases of non consensual sex is lower than in a criminal trial.

In CA there is no penalty for lying. Just the opposite witnesses are offered protection and immunity.

A person who supplies drugs and alcohol may have an interest in seeing attention focused on someone else.

My old hometown has a huge university. Walking by the fraternities one can see the wreckage of excessive drinking.

It must common that they don't know what happened the night before.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Especially if they are too impaired to realize at the time that they are saying YES! YES! YES! and enthusiastic consent only counts if they are of sound enough mind to give it...so even if they are giving enthusiastic affirmative consent all the way through...it might not really count.


The ones screaming YES! YES! YES! are not the ones filing the complaints. And a complaint has to be filed before anyone's state of mind is ever questioned.

This is the point of affirmative ongoing consent.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> I believe they do take it seriously, as do most of us on this thread.
> 
> I am not sure things like a mandatory curfew is needed. No need to restrict legal activity to that extent. The vast majority of sexual assaults we are talking about here are not the stranger grabbing the sober single coed walking alone across a dark campus at night.


Just to be clear so always doesn't jump up and discuss how I am the first step on the slippery slope of Sharia law:

I would suggest single gender dorms for the women. Women already line up to go to 'single gender' fitness clubs like Curves.

Additionally, the curfew is not to lock any women in. It is to exclude MEN fro the living area of the women after certain hours...you know...when they tend to be drunken idiots. 

Trust me, I am doing these men no disservice. The demographics pretty much reveal any guy who wants a girlfriend of any kind (or several at the same time) can pretty much get one without working very hard at it on our current campuses.

The women are free to come and go as they please and if they go to parties to get drunk, well, have at it. That is also an assertion of consent. "I want to go to a place which may be dangerous and engage in behavior which messes with my judgment." 

But somehow I am wrong to point this out.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> But again under the way this law is written, would this somehow change the notion of sudden spike in false claims? Unless you have a legal crystal ball and understand the motivation to these false claims it has no bearing on the law itself.
> 
> I still don't get what is wrong:
> 
> Someone who is under an altered state of mind and unable to communicate their objection or affirm their desire for sexual advances should this not also be considered in circumstances that would imply non-consent? Who actually would have objection to this situation?


It does not create a sudden spike in false claims. It makes false claims EASIER, certainly. "I didn't say yes" is all a girl now has to say to her jilted lover to have him bang to rights as being treated and investigated as a rapist.

It also changes what is and is not considered rape.

And I am sorry to say but if you willfully refuse to consider any scenario which you find unpalatable 'unrealistic' it says more about your imagination than it does about the potential abuses. You have a cop telling you what happens in prosecutor offices. I've shown a few instances of extracurricular payback and a large swath of faculty at a college jumping the gun and trying to politicize the legal and administration systems. I can also say the name 'Larry Summers' and the dismissal of anyone who uses the word 'niggardly' to outline other examples of activists 'pushing an agenda' by dint of indignation. 

But you state it cannot happen, will not happen and nothing has changed except for good things. This after you spent about 4 posts saying this is a difficult to apply rule and it could be argued either way. Well if it can be argued either way, it can be misapplied very easily just as well.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> *Universities also have appeals processes, and Duke paid handsomely to the accused lacrosse team.*
> 
> They really aren't marauding bands of feminists with pitchforks, you know, despite the picture that some here wish to paint.


And a civil matter. So if you are wrongfully accused and the universtity throws you out with no cause get a lawyer and go after them. The fallout could be interesting.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> It does not create a sudden spike in false claims. *It makes false claims EASIER*, certainly. "I didn't say yes" is all a girl now has to say to her jilted lover to have him bang to rights as being treated and investigated as a rapist.


That is only if there is some conspiracy in place to make convictions easier. To what end? I don't know, maybe some men hating females I guess.  But I will leave that one alone as I guess I don't see an agenda to that end. 



JCD said:


> It also changes what is and is not considered rape.


So, then what is rape? What definition would constitute rape? 



JCD said:


> And I am sorry to say but if you willfully refuse to consider any scenario which you find unpalatable 'unrealistic' it says more about your imagination than it does about the potential abuses. You have a cop telling you what happens in prosecutor offices. I've shown a few instances of extracurricular payback and a large swath of faculty at a college jumping the gun and trying to politicize the legal and administration systems. I can also say the name 'Larry Summers' and the dismissal of anyone who uses the word 'niggardly' to outline other examples of activists 'pushing an agenda' by dint of indignation.
> 
> *But you state it cannot happen, will not happen and nothing has changed except for good things*. This after you spent about 4 posts saying this is a difficult to apply rule and it could be argued either way. Well if it can be argued either way, it can be misapplied very easily just as well.


I have never stated things cannot happen, I just read scenarios along with a bunch of judgmental innuendos and cannot conceive their consideration. In my limited experience in life, sometimes the truth is at one end or the other, but some times it is somewhere in the middle, it is just a matter of how we deal with that middle. After all this law allows for accusers to gain services (a point that keeps getting ignored). So to make assumptions that some poor helpless male will be raked across the coals because some feminists have a penchant to destroy males and sex as we know it, just seems too far fetched for me to consider. 

But, you can go on and on and on. I unfortunately have some deadlines I have to meet and this is just not one of them. I will grant another read of your response, but I just cannot respond back with the same mundane "chewing of the cud" over and over.

I will say one final thing, I apologize to anyone (and I mean anyone whether you agree with me or not on my opinion) if I offended you with any of my remarks. It was not intended and yes sometimes these discussions can get heated. I hold no grudges or any other angst toward anyone else here. 

Malama pono


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> Just to be clear so always doesn't jump up and discuss how I am the first step on the slippery slope of Sharia law:
> 
> I would suggest single gender dorms for the women. Women already line up to go to 'single gender' fitness clubs like Curves.
> 
> Additionally, the curfew is not to lock any women in. It is to exclude MEN fro the living area of the women after certain hours...you know...when they tend to be drunken idiots.
> 
> Trust me, I am doing these men no disservice. The demographics pretty much reveal any guy who wants a girlfriend of any kind (or several at the same time) can pretty much get one without working very hard at it on our current campuses.
> 
> The women are free to come and go as they please and if they go to parties to get drunk, well, have at it. *That is also an assertion of consent*. "I want to go to a place which may be dangerous and engage in behavior which messes with my judgment."
> 
> But somehow I am wrong to point this out.


I was following up until you say 'drinking at a party = consent' at which point I take a 180 (unless I grossly misread). Remember these are not all strangers at some creepy frat house. These are classmates many times a girl will know one or more of from class. We expect more of men even drunk ones than to be uncontrolled and unaccountable. But the first part you mentioned about segregation of housing makes sense. I would have guessed it was already that way though. Maybe not always.


----------



## LongWalk

Drerio,



> After all this law allows for accusers to gain services (a point that keeps getting ignored.


 Counsel to confront the accusations?

Does the student have the option of declining to be interviewed by the university investigating committee?

If he declines, does that constitute an admission of guilt in the same fashion that refusal to blow into a breathalyser results in a conviction?

Are persons interviewed read their miranda rights?

I will grant you that there is a need to better protect women from rape, not just university students but all women.

As to false accusations, we can see these right here on TAM. Dadof2's wife go an RO on him because her toxic girlfriends said it was easy to do. The lies about abuse are never investigated. There is a big black mark on his name.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> The women are free to come and go as they please and if they go to parties to get drunk, well, have at it. That is also an assertion of consent. "I want to go to a place which may be dangerous and engage in behavior which messes with my judgment."
> 
> But somehow I am wrong to point this out.


Going to a party is consenting to sex? You're seriously proposing this?

Here is why you are wrong:
1) Sexual assault crimes do not only happen at parties, and so your "solution" would only account for some of the incidents. What about the date rapes? The stalkings? 

2) Most people are actually quite capable of partying without sexual assaulting someone, or committing any other crime for that matter, and so it doesn't seem quite right to label parties as "dangerous" or deciding that whatever criminal activity that happens there is to be expected and ignored.

As you point out, colleges are filled to the brim with people who are enthusiastic about having sex. Why is it so terrible to have a policy that makes this the standard when choosing your sexual partner. Shouldn't it be?


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> Nope, zero convictions. The most likely problem, from what I can gather, is that the databases being used have errors (most likely of omission) in that there never was exoneration entered to the database. So there is a record of an arrest, but nothing else. The hiring people assume the worst and why wouldn't they, with so many applicants to choose from.
> 
> Mine is an employer point of view and people that I know point of view.


I will admit one correction here... since I don't know what state you live in, I looked it up in our state laws. For Hawai'i, a person arrested and not convicted through the typical court proceedings can ask the arrest record be expunged immediately. The process here takes all of 30 days and a $50 court administrative fee. 

I looked up another state, where it was a bit of a longer process. So sure, if one were not convicted and he/she requested the arrest record be expunged then they probably should hold off on any applications for housing or employment until the time period required for this to take place. After the records are officially expunged, the person does not have to release that information and the employer or landlord cannot request it even if they have some 3rd party knowledge. 

So, I am sure there are circumstances that a wrongful arrest could hurt an individual. But, as I have already suggested, we only have a blind system not a perfect one. 

And, for officers to arrest requires the arrest warrant signed by a judge. So, it really is the call of a judge to determine whether probable cause of arrest is warranted.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> Drerio,
> 
> Counsel to confront the accusations?
> 
> Does the student have the option of declining to be interviewed by the university investigating committee?
> 
> If he declines, does that constitute an admission of guilt in the same fashion that refusal to blow into a breathalyser results in a conviction?
> 
> Are persons interviewed read their miranda rights?
> 
> I will grant you that there is a need to better protect women from rape, not just university students but all women.
> 
> As to false accusations, we can see these right here on TAM. Dadof2's wife go an RO on him because her toxic girlfriends said it was easy to do. The lies about abuse are never investigated. There is a big black mark on his name.


I don't know what those services entail because they are not clearly elucidated in the statute of the law written. I cannot answer your questions.


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> Does the student have the option of declining to be interviewed by the university investigating committee?
> 
> If he declines, does that constitute an admission of guilt in the same fashion that refusal to blow into a breathalyser results in a conviction?
> 
> Are persons interviewed read their miranda rights?


It's normal to ask both parties questions when there's a conflict. That's why parents do it all of the time with their kids. It's common for people to want their side of the story to be known as well. Most kids figure this out by the time they're 4-5. Employees accused do as well. So these questions are grasping to make what's normal across the board somehow an injustice in this case only. The answers are, no he doesn't have to. Yes it does hurt his side of the story, and no there are not miranda rights read.




LongWalk said:


> I will grant you that there is a need to better protect women from rape, not just university students but all women.
> 
> As to false accusations, we can see these right here on TAM. Dadof2's wife go an RO on him because her toxic girlfriends said it was easy to do. The lies about abuse are never investigated. There is a big black mark on his name.


Couples splitting is the extreme for this and not on par with non-domestic cases. False allegations are tip of the iceberg with resentment and motive. Custody, assets, betrayal, you name it. There are plenty in jail for murder of a splitting spouse so there again, you're grasping for data that isn't relevant.


----------



## Runs like Dog

drerio said:


> And those individuals, if they feel wronged are free to pursue civil recourse. We are after all a litigious society. If wrongly accused but never wrongly convicted nothing will show up in a background check.


Then your HOA undercuts you and tries to kick you out of your home because they have police powers and are accountable unto no one. But hey in the meantime you're out of work, can't live within 1500 yards of a school.


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> Why is it so terrible to have a policy that makes this the standard when choosing your sexual partner. Shouldn't it be?


Continuous expression of consent during intercourse is impossible. A woman should say no when she wants it to stop. A sober woman can do this, as long as she is not incapacitated or threatened.

Men who have sex with women who are too drunk to consent are often but not always raping them. A woman could be able to say yes but some minutes later become more inebriated as alcohol entered her blood stream. Her partner could be too drunk to notice her reduced capacity. When she comes to she may feel that she must have been raped because she does not remember consenting. Alternatively, she remembers wanting to stop having sex but being unable to communicate this.

The consent law would make it possible to expel the male student in such an instance.


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> Continuous expression of consent during intercourse is impossible. A woman should say no when she wants it to stop. A sober woman can do this, as long as she is not incapacitated or threatened.
> 
> Men who have sex with women who are too drunk to consent are often but not always raping them. A woman could be able to say yes but some minutes later become more inebriated as alcohol entered her blood stream. Her partner could be too drunk to notice her reduced capacity. *When she comes to she may feel that she must have been raped because she does not remember consenting. Alternatively, she remembers wanting to stop having sex but being unable to communicate this.*
> 
> The consent law would make it possible to expel the male student in such an instance.


The highlighted section is indeed the one worry I see. Regret accusations. College men really need to understand this and I hope the shocked and puzzled look on an accused guys face is telling to anyone questioning him.


----------



## LongWalk

Play promotes dialogue about sexual assault

PRINT | E-MAIL | LETTER TO THE EDITOR
By NEALA BERKOWSKI, Daily Staff Reporter
Published October 2, 2014

The University is trying to renew the conversation about sexual assault on campus by taking it to the stage.

MORE LIKE THIS

Play to raise awareness of sexual assault
SAPAC Director discusses new policy with regents
Three sexual assaults investigated over Labor Day weekend
President announces task force to fight sexual assault
As part of the University’s new sexual assault awareness campaign, the School of Music, Theatre & Dance debuted Naomi Iizuka’s play, “Good Kids” Thursday evening in the Arthur Miller Theatre on North Campus.

“Good Kids” is the first production from the Big Ten Theatre Consortium’s New Play Initiative. Produced with support from the University’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Awareness Center, the play is part of the University's Expect Respect: Flip the Script campaign to prevent sexual assault.

“I think that theatre as a whole is incredibly powerful because it transforms an audience into a story,” SAPAC director Holly Rider-Milkovich said. “It asks them to imaginatively contemplate this happening in their own lives or the lives of someone else. And that is a different kind of learning than in a workshop or in training.”

Set in a Midwestern high school, the play is loosely based on events that occurred in Steubenville, Ohio in 2012 when the rape of a female high school student by two football players was documented and posted on social media, gaining national media attention.

Sexual misconduct has also been a prominent topic on campus in the last year. The University’s response to allegations of sexual misconduct is currently under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Last year, the University ranked second nationally among colleges and universities in the number of reported sexual assaults, though officials have attributed the increase to higher reporting rates.

In recent weeks, the University announced plans to hire a sexual misconduct program manager and to release a full report on sexual misconduct on campus, separate from the Office of Student Conflict Resolution’s annual report.

“We know that sexual assault happens at the University of Michigan,” Rider-Milkovich said. “We know that alcohol-facilitated sexual assault happens and we know that students are victimized by social media. All those things happen on our campus happen too, so it’s very relevant.”

In the play, Chloe, played by Music, Theatre & Dance junior Daisy Bishop, becomes intoxicated at a high school party and can’t remember the events that proceed. After live tweets and YouTube videos begin to unravel the mystery, the media arrives and everyone begins pointing fingers.

Christopher Kilmartin, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of Mary Washington who attended the performance, said blaming the survivor was a common occurrence in the play.

“This is a very common reaction in this case where people are asking, ‘Why did she drink so much? Why did she dress that way?’ Victim-blaming is a security operation. It’s a way for people to feel safer. I’m going to find something that the victim did and attribute her victimization to that then because then if I don’t do that, I’m going to be safe.”

Music, Theatre & Dance senior Jocelyn Weberg, who attended the performance Thursday, said the play was successful in exploring themes surrounding sexual assault.

“The script is new and it’s really relevant,” Weberg said. “I really think it brought up a lot of issues that people don’t really talk about. A lot of people aren’t really educated in what’s right and what isn’t in these kinds of situations.”

After the show, Rider-Milkovich and Kilmartin moderated a discussion where audience members had a chance to ask questions and share their comments with actors and others involved in the production.

Music, Theatre & Dance sophomore Tara Stallion, who plays the character of *******, said some characters in the play have a hard time speaking up for themselves and the victim.

*“When you’re around your friends a lot of times it’s harder to speak your mind and say, ‘Hey, that’s wrong,’” she said. “When you have a bunch of girls together, it becomes a lot harder to stand out as an individual and to point out things that are messed up or that you don’t agree with so you kind of just go with the flow.”*

“Good Kids” runs Oct. 3, 4, 10 and 11 at 8 p.m. and Oct. 5 and 12 at 2 p.m.


----------



## LongWalk

I think this article from the student paper of alma mater explains things quite well. I am sure that after an incident students are conflict over how to interpret what happened.

It is possible that a girl who is drunk in led away/supported/half carried to another room, where she has non-consensual sex while people at the party approve, although some see and realize it is not right. This is rape. The persons who wish to report it may fear that their peers will not approve of starting an investigation that will lead to prison for their dorm mate who is not perceived as a criminal.

Thus, the CA law allows these witnesses to approach the university office for sexual assault to tell what they saw anonymously. The accused is then approached. At this point, the university is indeed a proxy for law enforcement. Is this Constitutionally troublesome? Open question to my mind.

If this aid to students helps to create the possibility of justice perhaps it is a very good initiative. However, why are these offices made available to all women if it is the right method?

It is also clear that if young women are unable to stand up for themselves and the victims because of group pressure, that same group dynamic may also be perverted to wrongly accuse a man because of perceptions which are false.

Interestingly the article notes that post debauchery videos or photos wake people to the notion that some criminal or untoward occurred.

If someone finds their drunken kissing posted on YouTube from a smart phone film clip, it may not be rape. The subject could nonetheless consider it a violation of their privacy and integrity. Do they have a right to see redress through the university? This would only work if the perpetrator were a student, too.


----------



## Wolf1974

LongWalk said:


> Continuous expression of consent during intercourse is impossible. A woman should say no when she wants it to stop. A sober woman can do this, as long as she is not incapacitated or threatened.
> 
> Men who have sex with women who are too drunk to consent are often but not always raping them. A woman could be able to say yes but some minutes later become more inebriated as alcohol entered her blood stream. Her partner could be too drunk to notice her reduced capacity. *When she comes to she may feel that she must have been raped because she does not remember consenting*. Alternatively, she remembers wanting to stop having sex but being unable to communicate this.
> 
> The consent law would make it possible to expel the male student in such an instance.


I'm not saying that this couldn't happen cause it could. Can only share from my experience and from what I have seen when false allegations of sexual assault comes out its not over confusion but rather to cover up another lie.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> I was following up until you say 'drinking at a party = consent' at which point I take a 180 (unless I grossly misread). Remember these are not all strangers at some creepy frat house. These are classmates many times a girl will know one or more of from class. We expect more of men even drunk ones than to be uncontrolled and unaccountable. But the first part you mentioned about segregation of housing makes sense. I would have guessed it was already that way though. Maybe not always.


That was poorly worded. My apologies.

What I was saying is that my sympathy is muted when a guy going bungie jumping, has a line go bad and falls to his death. He knew what he was potentially facing from the get go. He WANTED to do something dangerous.

I was in no way suggesting that a girl who gets drunk and wears a tight dress deserves to be raped. But I'll be damned if I don't note that this is not exactly the smartest thing in the world to do.

Personal responsibility. Most girls engage in it. Some willfully don't and get burned.

It is the difference between "I am against rape and will take steps to make sure it never happens to me."

and 

"I am against rape and I will do NOTHING to make sure it never happens to me."

Cause I don't want to get into fights. Guess what? I don't hit on taken girls and I rarely go into bars. Those are two areas which are hotbeds of inciting violence.

And I haven't been in a fight yet. Walking the walk. If I violate these principles and get my face pushed in...I don't have much of a kick. I knew what I was risking when I went into the place.

Just saying.


----------



## naiveonedave

Runs like Dog said:


> Then your HOA undercuts you and tries to kick you out of your home because they have police powers and are accountable unto no one. But hey in the meantime you're out of work, can't live within 1500 yards of a school.


Of course to Derrio, that is not a penalty at all. that is the problem with having a sex crime on your record. 

And what college student has $50 to toss away? (should be free with no lawyers involved, actually should be the prosecuters office job to do this, to be fair).


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> The ones screaming YES! YES! YES! are not the ones filing the complaints. And a complaint has to be filed before anyone's state of mind is ever questioned.
> 
> This is the point of affirmative ongoing consent.


Not necessarily. Being impaired can lead people to say and do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, and not even remember doing, including have sex.

All I'm saying, is that just because your partner is screaming YES YES YES doesn't mean they are of sound mind to give consent, or that they will even remember giving consent when they wake up naked the next morning...and therin lies the rub...


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> What I was saying is that my sympathy is muted when a guy going bungie jumping, has a line go bad and falls to his death. He knew what he was potentially facing from the get go. He WANTED to do something dangerous.
> 
> I was in no way suggesting that a girl who gets drunk and wears a tight dress deserves to be raped. But I'll be damned if I don't note that this is not exactly the smartest thing in the world to do.
> 
> Personal responsibility. Most girls engage in it. Some willfully don't and get burned.


Just out of curiosity, how muted is your sympathy for drunken frat boys that hire strippers and then find themselves getting burned by one?

Not at all, you say? Why is that?

Personal responsibility is a two-way street, after all. Most boys engage in it, but some do not and get burned.

I am in no way suggesting that drunken frat boys engaged in all sorts of idiotic shenanigans deserve to be falsely accused of rape. But at the same time, you have to admit that it's not smart.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Not necessarily. Being impaired can lead people to say and do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, and not even remember doing, including have sex.
> 
> All I'm saying, is that just because your partner is screaming YES YES YES doesn't mean they are of sound mind to give consent, or that they will even remember giving consent when they wake up naked the next morning...and therin lies the rub...


Please be totally honest...HOW OFTEN do you think it occurs that someone, male or female, is screaming YES YES YES at night for enthusiastic sex and wakes up the next morning saying "I meant no"? Seriously? Does this happen OFTEN, or even enough to be counted by anyone? Has it ever happened to you? Why would we still be stretching and reaching for the most remote possibilities here?

By bringing this up in this discussion, it just sounds like you are being a devil's advocate, not presenting an actual thing that might happen.

It is 1000x more likely that this person would wake up and say YES YES YES let's do it again! Which actually HAS happened to MANY people.

Who are all these women that men seem to think suddenly change their minds about enthusiastic consent due to regret? Give specific examples in quantities, please. Or else just state that you are speculating based on no real idea of how often this may occur and that you made up the scenario you stated.

Contrary to what some are implying on this thread, most women actually DO own their sexuality and actually DO know when they really mean YES YES YES and actually do NOT wake up the next day regretting it.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Not necessarily. Being impaired can lead people to say and do things they wouldn't ordinarily do, and not even remember doing, including have sex.
> 
> All I'm saying, is that just because your partner is screaming YES YES YES doesn't mean they are of sound mind to give consent, or that they will even remember giving consent when they wake up naked the next morning...and therin lies the rub...


But as Wolf pointed out earlier, this is *not* where the false accusations come from.

Blackout drinking can lead someone to do all kinds of stupid things they can't remember very well, but there is a big difference between regret and making a false allegation.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> Please be totally honest...HOW OFTEN do you think it occurs that someone, male or female, is screaming YES YES YES at night for enthusiastic sex and wakes up the next morning saying *"I meant no"?* Seriously? Does this happen OFTEN, or even enough to be counted by anyone? Has it ever happened to you? Why would we still be stretching and reaching for the most remote possibilities here?


Please show me where I stated this, or even alluded to it?

The point I was making is that when impairment is involved, even apparent affirmative consent is questionable. Just because one person is screaming YES YES YES does not mean they are of sound mind to be giving consent. Do you disagree?

To answer your question...I have had drunk sex where neither of us really remembered all the details of the night before. With my ex wife, there were at least two occasions that I remember where she woke in the middle of the night, woke me up, had sex with me, and didn't remember doing it in the morning...without any alcohol or drugs in the mix.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> Please be totally honest...HOW OFTEN do you think it occurs that someone, male or female, is screaming YES YES YES at night for enthusiastic sex and wakes up the next morning saying "I meant no"? Seriously? Does this happen OFTEN, or even enough to be counted by anyone? Has it ever happened to you? Why would we still be stretching and reaching for the most remote possibilities here?


Seriously! I do *not* get why so many guys are so vested in this idea that she is going to be screaming YES one minute and charging rape the next.

Most of the time it's readily apparent the signals are conflicted or that one party is just way too sloppy drunk to be making any decisions at all. We've already heard stories about how this is still all her fault for drinking, or for not being "clear enough" in her "no". 

Now it's basically turned into her running around campus naked screaming "do me", so that she can lay as many rape charges as possible. 

All seemingly so that boys do not have to face any accountability whatsoever for their actions. :scratchhead:


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Please show me where I stated this, or even alluded to it?
> 
> The point I was making is that when impairment is involved, even apparent affirmative consent is questionable. * Just because one person is screaming YES YES YES does not mean they are of sound mind to be giving consent. Do you disagree?*
> 
> To answer your question...I have had drunk sex where neither of us really remembered all the details of the night before. With my ex wife, there were at least two occasions that I remember where she woke in the middle of the night, woke me up, had sex with me, and didn't remember doing it in the morning...without any alcohol or drugs in the mix.


My point is that I don't see why you are trying to make this point. 

As for your particulars, did either of you claim false rape charges the next day? No? That's why I don't see why you are even trying to make this point.

Bringing up the possibility in order to (I guess?) argue against the new law is just silly. There are far MORE people NOT claiming rape charges and happily screaming YES YES YES to sex...so what was the point you were making?


----------



## Almostrecovered

imagine how many guys that wake up next to a fatty the morning after a bender and can claim rape?


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> Seriously! I do *not* get why so many guys are so vested in this idea that she is going to be screaming YES one minute and charging rape the next.
> 
> Most of the time it's readily apparent the signals are conflicted or that one party is just way too sloppy drunk to be making any decisions at all. We've already heard stories about how this is still all her fault for drinking, or for not being "clear enough" in her "no".
> 
> Now it's basically turned into her running around campus naked screaming "do me", so that she can lay as many rape charges as possible.
> 
> All seemingly so that boys do not have to face any accountability whatsoever for their actions. :scratchhead:


Because it happens and we creat departments at universities to try bring about more rape charges. I struggle with the fact that so many here don't think this law will harm a lot of innocent men.

Actually, the women are the ones not taking any accountability. Men are faced with 30 years in jail for what they think is consensual sex.


----------



## GTdad

Faithful Wife said:


> My point is that I don't see why you are trying to make this point.
> 
> As for your particulars, did either of you claim false rape charges the next day? No? That's why I don't see why you are even trying to make this point.
> 
> Bringing up the possibility in order to (I guess?) argue against the new law is just silly. There are far MORE people NOT claiming rape charges and happily screaming YES YES YES to sex...so what was the point you were making?


It's relevant because it's often a factor in the investigatory process universities go through (whether in California or not) after a sexual assault or sexual misconduct is filed, particularly in the absence of credible third-party witnesses which is the case 90% of the time, at least.).

Did she give consent?* If so, was she impaired in any way so as to make that apparent consent ineffective?* Was the male aware of that impairment? Was he himself impaired? What was his state of mind? What was hers? The answers to those questions may impact sanctions even if the final decision is that unwanted sexual contact occurred.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> My point is that I don't see why you are trying to make this point.
> 
> *As for your particulars, did either of you claim false rape charges the next day? No?* That's why I don't see why you are even trying to make this point.
> 
> Bringing up the possibility in order to (I guess?) argue against the new law is just silly. There are far MORE people NOT claiming rape charges and happily screaming YES YES YES to sex...so what was the point you were making?


In my examples, those would technically be examples of unreported sexual assaults, no? Or does a victims state of mind, a victim "feeling" assaulted play into it? Just because a crime isn't reported, or a criminal doesn't get caught does not negate the fact that a crime did still occur. If my examples had not been with established, long term partners with an ongoing sexual relationship, a deep level of trust, but rather had been with some random chick at a party, it's quite possible I would be in a whole lot of trouble.

Your assertion to get enthusiastic consent is one I agree with, but when drugs and alcohol are involved, especially when both partners are impaired it's not that simple. What we are talking about here is the grey area of sex with impairment as a factor, as happens very frequently in the college party environment, and my assertion is that when impairment is involved, it is not a safe assumption that just because it appears that consent is being given means that the person who is giving it is of sound mind to give it.


----------



## Catherine602

[


JCD said:


> That was poorly worded. My apologies.
> 
> What I was saying is that my sympathy is muted when a guy going bungie jumping, has a line go bad and falls to his death. He knew what he was potentially facing from the get go. He WANTED to do something dangerous.
> 
> I was in no way suggesting that a girl who gets drunk and wears a tight dress deserves to be raped. But I'll be damned if I don't note that this is not exactly the smartest thing in the world to do.
> 
> Personal responsibility. Most girls engage in it. Some willfully don't and get burned.
> 
> It is the difference between "I am against rape and will take steps to make sure it never happens to me."
> 
> and
> 
> "I am against rape and I will do NOTHING to make sure it never happens to me."
> 
> Cause I don't want to get into fights. Guess what? I don't hit on taken girls and I rarely go into bars. Those are two areas which are hotbeds of inciting violence.
> 
> And I haven't been in a fight yet. Walking the walk. If I violate these principles and get my face pushed in...I don't have much of a kick. I knew what I was risking when I went into the place.
> 
> Just saying.


Conversely, men take the risk of prosecution when they commit the crime of sex with a woman who clearly cannot and did not consent. Dealing harshly for criminal activity is a deterrent and punishment. If we advocate punishing crimes then why are sex crimes any different? They are not. 

Avoiding false accusation is simple. Don't have sex with a woman you don't know well enough to trust. Exposing one self to the risk of ruining ones life for an orgasm is foolish. A reasonable alternative is just don't do it.


----------



## chillymorn

Catherine602 said:


> [
> Conversely, men take the risk of prosecution when they commit the crime of sex with a woman who clearly cannot and did not consent. Dealing harshly for criminal activity is a deterrent and punishment. If we advocate punishing these crimes then why are sex crimes any different? They are not.
> 
> Avoiding false accusation is simple. Don't have sex with a woman you don't know well enough to trust. Expose one self to the risk of ruining ones life for an orgasm is foolish. A reasonable alternative is to avoid the risk and just don't do it.


which came first the chicken or the egg?


----------



## naiveonedave

Catherine602 said:


> [
> Conversely, men take the risk of prosecution when they commit the crime of sex with a woman who clearly cannot and did not consent. Dealing harshly for criminal activity is a deterrent and punishment. If we advocate punishing crimes then why is sex crimes any different? They are not.
> 
> Avoiding false accusation is simple. Don't have sex with a woman you don't know well enough to trust. Exposing one self to the risk of ruining ones life for an orgasm is foolish. A reasonable alternative is just don't do it.


Your basic answer to this is to not have sex, without directly stating it. Basically, this problem goes away for me, if there is punishment for falsely accusing, but that will never happen.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Because it happens and we creat departments at universities to try bring about more rape charges. I struggle with the fact that so many here don't think this law will harm a lot of innocent men.
> 
> Actually, the women are the ones not taking any accountability. Men are faced with 30 years in jail for what they think is consensual sex.


1) We do *not* create departments at universities in order to lay more rape charges. Unless of course, you mean the transition of most Women's Studies departments into Gender Studies, where many men's rights activists are concerned about sexual assault against men, and ensuring male victims have supports and structures to help them come forward.

2) A policy that says that sex should be consensual is hardly an attack on innocent men. Innocent men are, by definition, men who never have non-consensual sex. This idea that women are going to use this policy to take back their consent or deny it in order to railroad these innocent men into 30years of imprisonment is pure paranoid fantasy.

3) Women are totally being held accountable, not only to their own actions, but for men's. If she's drinking, well it's her fault. If her dress is too tight, it's her fault. If she would just stay away from all the drunk boys, this sort of thing wouldn't happen to her. Well, her "no" wasn't loud enough, she didn't knee him in the balls, that must mean she was screaming YES YES YES. 


4) Men, on the other hand, are portrayed as totally blameless. They "thought" the sex was consensual. Even when she says "I don't want to do this" , it's considered ambiguous because she didn't really say "no" clearly enough. Even though she's too drunk to stand up, she said something provocative, so it must be okay right? He's drunk too, so why shouldn't he have at it? After all, if she didn't want it, she wouldn't be there, right?

The boys have no responsibility for looking out for anyone but number 1, and we all know who that is.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> Your basic answer to this is to not have sex, without directly stating it. Basically, this problem goes away for me, if there is punishment for falsely accusing, but that will never happen.


I posted stats earlier in this bread that clearly showed that not only are many false accusers prosecuted, quite a few are convicted.

Yet you remain convinced that women run around falsely accusing innocent men with impunity.


----------



## Thundarr

Almostrecovered said:


> imagine how many guys that wake up next to a fatty the morning after a bender and can claim rape?


Bad turtle.


----------



## naiveonedave

always_alone said:


> 1) We do *not* create departments at universities in order to lay more rape charges. Unless of course, you mean the transition of most Women's Studies departments into Gender Studies, where many men's rights activists are concerned about sexual assault against men, and ensuring male victims have supports and structures to help them come forward.
> 
> 2) A policy that says that sex should be consensual is hardly an attack on innocent men. Innocent men are, by definition, men who never have non-consensual sex. This idea that women are going to use this policy to take back their consent or deny it in order to railroad these innocent men into 30years of imprisonment is pure paranoid fantasy.
> 
> 3) Women are totally being held accountable, not only to their own actions, but for men's. If she's drinking, well it's her fault. If her dress is too tight, it's her fault. If she would just stay away from all the drunk boys, this sort of thing wouldn't happen to her. Well, her "no" wasn't loud enough, she didn't knee him in the balls, that must mean she was screaming YES YES YES.
> 
> 
> 4) Men, on the other hand, are portrayed as totally blameless. They "thought" the sex was consensual. Even when she says "I don't want to do this" , it's considered ambiguous because she didn't really say "no" clearly enough. Even though she's too drunk to stand up, she said something provocative, so it must be okay right? He's drunk too, so why shouldn't he have at it? After all, if she didn't want it, she wouldn't be there, right?
> 
> The boys have no responsibility for looking out for anyone but number 1, and we all know who that is.


1) this law basically creates a dept for investigating potential rapes
2) he said she said
3) nah, disagree totally, especially at college
4) nah, disagree, men are believed to be sexual predators until proven otherwise. And if you beileve tv, stupid idiots as well.

Sorry, rape is horrible, but this law won't help and will probably make things much worse.


----------



## Catherine602

chillymorn said:


> which came first the chicken or the egg?





naiveonedave said:


> Your basic answer to this is to not have sex, without directly stating it. Basically, this problem goes away for me, if there is punishment for falsely accusing, but that will never happen.


:scratchhead:


----------



## Acorn

Forgive me if this was covered earlier in the thread...

What happens if two students have been drinking, and they have sex? Doesn't that by definition mean that neither party gave consent, and therefore both students are rapists?


----------



## naiveonedave

Acorn said:


> Forgive me if this was covered earlier in the thread...
> 
> What happens if two students have been drinking, and they have sex? Doesn't that by definition mean that neither party gave consent, and therefore both students are rapists?


right now, only the guy is presumed to be guilty. That is part of the problem.


----------



## GTdad

Acorn said:


> Forgive me if this was covered earlier in the thread...
> 
> What happens if two students have been drinking, and they have sex? Doesn't that by definition mean that neither party gave consent, and therefore both students are rapists?


It would be a factor that's typically considered as a university tries to make heads or tales of the consent factor.

Just for the record, this sort of thing is my gig. I can assure both sides of the aisle that a university's main concern is reaching a just and fair result, which is almost always the same thing as the result which leads to the least legal liability.

That doesn't mean it's easy. It's often a big mess to try to get a handle on.


----------



## samyeagar

Acorn said:


> Forgive me if this was covered earlier in the thread...
> 
> What happens if two students have been drinking, and they have sex? Doesn't that by definition mean that neither party gave consent, and therefore both students are rapists?


If they are both underage, expel both for being criminals and violating the underage drinking law, and the consent issue becomes moot.


----------



## LongWalk

If a woman consents to sex with a condom and subsequently discovers that her partner removed it or faked putting it on, can she file a rape complaint?

If a woman assures a guy she is on the pill, but is not, is it rape?

This will come up a Swedish court if the can arrest Julian Assange.


----------



## NobodySpecial

This thread makes it pretty clear that a lot of people don't know what rape is. This law is great toward making it clear. If it is unclear/confusing... find out. If you can't find out clearly, then you don't have consent. If you are too immature for finding out, you are too immature for sex.


----------



## LongWalk

The law is not restricted to rape. It creates an offense that is includes rape but is broader. 

A man found guilty of non consensual sex by a university disciplinary board can be expelled without the institution referring the matter to the police.


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> The law is not restricted to rape. It creates an offense that is includes rape but is broader.
> 
> A man found guilty of non consensual sex by a university disciplinary board can be expelled without the institution referring the matter to the police.


So what? Most universities have entire codes of conduct that a person can get expelled for. A uni education is not a constitutional right like liberty. There is no requirement of due process to eliminate the right to go to college.


----------



## always_alone

naiveonedave said:


> 1) this law basically creates a dept for investigating potential rapes
> 2) he said she said
> 3) nah, disagree totally, especially at college
> 4) nah, disagree, men are believed to be sexual predators until proven otherwise. And if you beileve tv, stupid idiots as well.


1) *this law basically creates a dept for investigating potential rapes*
Any campus already has to deal with reports of sexual assault. It happens all the time. Nothing new is being created here except a standard for consent, and an insistence that institutions stop rugsweeping these problems

2) *he said she said*
So no matter what the charge, the context, or the circumstances, you will decide in advance that her accusation is false, and he is innocent? 'Cuz men always, always, always tell the absolute truth about how eager and willing she is, and women are always lying?

3) *nah, disagree totally, especially at college*
Yet this thread is full of people blaming women for being assaulted.

4) *nah, disagree, men are believed to be sexual predators until proven otherwise. *

No one believes that men are sexual predators until proven otherwise. They believe that those men who are sexual predators should be held accountable for it, instead of having everyone excuse and rugsweep their behaviour as "just being men".

Indeed, I would say that it those most determined to excuse sexual assault who are really the only ones presenting men as essentially sexual predators. Everyone else can see that affirmative consent is not that hard to obtain.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> The law is not restricted to rape. It creates an offense that is includes rape but is broader.
> 
> A man found guilty of non consensual sex by a university disciplinary board can be expelled without the institution referring the matter to the police.


Non-consensual sex *is* rape.

Not all forms of sexual assault are rape, as some only involve harassment, inappropriate touching, threats, stalking, and so on.

But all non-consensual sex is rape.

ETA: and sexual assault *is* already criminal. No new crimes have been added to the books.


----------



## Acorn

always_alone said:


> So no matter what the charge, the context, or the circumstances, you will decide in advance that her accusation is false, and he is innocent? 'Cuz men always, always, always tell the absolute truth about how eager and willing she is, and women are always lying?


When I read this, my first thought was just the opposite... finally it was clear that intoxicated students could not give consent, and these women AND MEN who were supposedly so eager and willing to have sex could not possibly have consented.

Now, they both need to be expelled. Equality.


----------



## TiggyBlue

samyeagar said:


> If they are both underage, expel both for being criminals and violating the underage drinking law, and the consent issue becomes moot.


Because rapes won't occur or because rape victims simply won't come forward?


----------



## GTdad

NobodySpecial said:


> This law is great toward making it clear. If it is unclear/confusing... find out. If you can't find out clearly, then you don't have consent.


I'm not sure I agree. I'm still not real clear on what "ongoing consent" looks like. If it's simply a matter of recognizing that a "no" takes all prior consent off the table, no problem. But I'm not convinced that you couldn't interpret that to impose an obligation on the students, either on the part of the woman to periodically check in to say everything's still good, or on the part of the man to periodically ask if that's the case.

Then there's the issue of whether acts instead of words can negate prior consent. If she punches him in the face, that's pretty obvious, but anything too subtle and there may be issues, although honestly that's an issue now without this law.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening always_alone
First - I agree.

I think the tricky points are:

What consists of consent. In most cases it is obvious, but there are some (sleep, intoxication, assumed-consent) where it can be blurry.

Completely separate from the definitions of consent, are the standards for taking actions when there is an accusation of rape. Cases where the two parties disagree on the facts of what happened, not on whether or not a specific set of actions constitutes consent. 






always_alone said:


> Non-consensual sex *is* rape.


----------



## samyeagar

TiggyBlue said:


> Because rapes won't occur or because rape victims simply won't come forward?


Because there are consequences to illegal and dangerous behavior.

If a person knows they could get expelled for underage drinking at that frat party, maybe they will think twice about doing it in the first place.


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> The law is not restricted to rape. It creates an offense that is includes rape but is broader.
> 
> A man found guilty of *non consensual sex *by a university disciplinary board can be expelled without the institution referring the matter to the police.


I rest my case. There are plenty of people who don't know what rape is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> First - I agree.
> 
> I think the tricky points are:
> 
> What consists of consent. In most cases it is obvious, but there are some (sleep, intoxication, assumed-consent) where it can be blurry.


This is the WHOLE POINT. It is not no blurry. And this clears that right the heck up. If she is asleep, she did not consent. She has be to awake and aware to consent. There is or should be no assumed consent. That is the kind of BS mentality the law is trying to address.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> This is the WHOLE POINT. It is not no blurry. And this clears that right the heck up. If she is asleep, she did not consent. She has be to awake and aware to consent. There is or should be no assumed consent. That is the kind of BS mentality the law is trying to address.


here is the problem:
1) passed out, asleep, drugged = rape
2) she's drunk, he's not, maybe he raped her?
3) both drunk - how can one prove this over the other?
4) he's drunk, she isn't, - maybe she raped him?


This new law didn't change any of what I just wrote. And it didn't make anything more clear


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> here is the problem:
> 1) passed out, asleep, drugged = rape


So I am trying to understand this. What do you think a person should think about the other person's consent if the other person is in a state that prevents them from considering consent or not? Gee she can't so no, let's do it? I mean, who has sex with someone who is incapacitated or unaware? And who would think that that would constitute consent?





> 2) she's drunk, he's not, maybe he raped her?
> 3) both drunk - how can one prove this over the other?
> 4) he's drunk, she isn't, - maybe she raped him?
> 
> 
> This new law didn't change any of what I just wrote. And it didn't make anything more clear


This new law did not remove the need to actually attend to the facts of each case, as near as I can see.


----------



## naiveonedave

NobodySpecial said:


> So I am trying to understand this. What do you think a person should think about the other person's consent if the other person is in a state that prevents them from considering consent or not? Gee she can't so no, let's do it? I mean, who has sex with someone who is incapacitated or unaware? And who would think that that would constitute consent?
> .


I don't get the question. If she (or he) is passed out, asleep or drugged, it is rape (duh?). That has been the law pretty much everywhere for a long time. I think we are agreeig on my point 1).

I just don't see what this law does, other than make the university delve into what should be criminal matters,


----------



## GTdad

naiveonedave said:


> I just don't see what this law does, other than make the university delve into what should be criminal matters,


That's not an issue for me. We've been doing that for decades at least, often concurrently with a criminal investigation.

I just want to be real clear on the standard we need to enforce.


----------



## Buddy400

The lack of communication on this thread is staggering. Try actually reading the words.

So, naiveonedave says "1) passed out, asleep, drugged = rape"



NobodySpecial said:


> So I am trying to understand this. What do you think a person should think about the other person's consent if the other person is in a state that prevents them from considering consent or not? Gee she can't so no, let's do it? I mean, who has sex with someone who is incapacitated or unaware? And who would think that that would constitute consent?


And you are "trying to understand this"!

You ask "What do you think a person should think about the other person's consent if the other person is in a state that prevents them from considering consent or not? ". 

It's clear. He thinks it's rape


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> I don't get the question. * If she (or he) is passed out, asleep or drugged, it is rape (duh?). That has been the law pretty much everywhere for a long time*. I think we are agreeig on my point 1).
> 
> I just don't see what this law does, other than make the university delve into what should be criminal matters,


Legal definition up to the point of this law would suggest otherwise:

Rape
A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have *physically* resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. Additionally, a husband could have sex with his wife against her will without being charged with rape. Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures and courts expanded and redefined the crime of rape to reflect modern notions of equality and legal propriety. It also meant that we reassigned rape to include both genders and in the early 2000s, we also assigned against "one's will" to merely be a *verbal command* as in "no" meaning no that many have heard of in the news. 

However, up till now many states have had spotty record on defining non-consent as actually rape, and some do not have this as straightforward definition in their penal codes. They are dealt with on a case by case basis and often charges that are brought against the accused are peripheral to the crime since one cannot be charged with something not spelled out in the law. So as much as this may seem straightforward to many, the idea of charging someone with rape when they have sex with an individual who is passed our or unconscious and thus cannot provide resistance to sex "against their will" is not as obvious as we like to think. So this law just spells it out and yet we have a problem with what many feel is obvious. That is after all what the main point of this law really is, defining what so many may assume to be the obvious. So again, what is the problem with this law? :scratchhead:


----------



## naiveonedave

GTdad said:


> That's not an issue for me. We've been doing that for decades at least, often concurrently with a criminal investigation.
> 
> I just want to be real clear on the standard we need to enforce.


IMO - her being drunk is not an enforceable standard. Passed out/asleep/rapde date drug, sure. 

Realistically, I really question this and have from post 1. The criteria for rape really hasn't changed, but consent is defined essentailly only from the womans point of view. With no other information, other than her word she was drunk and they had sex, it appears that a guy could get expelled and the matter turned over the police. What I have read doesn't really give enough particulars.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Buddy400 said:


> The lack of communication on this thread is staggering. Try actually reading the words.
> 
> So, naiveonedave says "1) passed out, asleep, drugged = rape"


I should not post when I am busy. I saw a question mark. Where is the dope slap emoticon?


----------



## Ikaika

NobodySpecial said:


> I should not post when I am busy. I saw a question mark. Where is the dope slap emoticon?


This law does go beyond just the point that person is unconscious and define non-consent to mean someone who is unable to provide verbal communication, due to their "state of mind" (my words not theirs). Thus would imply that this is not necessarily a binary set of events as one would see at the logic set of assumptions. This may have some interesting wrangles to how we look at affirmation (which is the opposite of not non-consensual). 

I have said from the beginning that I could argue both sides, but only from the state of mind of the individual who is not unconscious. I still don't see this as some feminist agenda bent on destroying the lives of young men. So, as to the original post and much of what the title of this thread implies I simply don't agree with it.


----------



## LongWalk

The thread title is bad. Agreed.

Having sex without consent is rape but the definition of consent in the new law seems stricter than the criminal code.

It seems that a person charged with rape may be acquitted in a court but expelled nonetheless for failing to meet the more stringent requirement.

Sometimes a woman will say no but a man will persist. She may agree to kissing fondling but not penetration. Sometimes a man will keep pushing an unwilling partner, until she says "okay". 

Alcohol and fatigue may break her resistance and win a yes that she does not mean.

This definitely can happen when the woman did think of the man as a boyfriend, but suddenly she is in the process of reclassifying him as a selfish jerk.

These conflicts are common. 

Also, if a woman is drunk but consenting at the time discovers she has been filmed and humiliated, for example via file sharing, may feel that she has been raped. Morally this can true but swinish behavior, e.g., so-called slvt shaming may not be criminal. 

I don't see anything wrong with universities expelling men for such violations of decency.

There should be an advocate for the accused as well.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Nobodyspecial
I think it is blurry. 

There is passed out drunk (usually rape - though maybe someone could give prior consent?). 

There is so intoxicated that they cannot form coherent sentences, but are not unconscious. I would NEVER have sex with someone in such a state, but is it rape? Probably.

There is intoxicated so that they can form sentences, but not string them together very well. Unable to stand without leaning against someone or something. 

And worse - alcohol affects different people differently. Some loose motor coordination before judgement. 

Finally there are alcohol induced blackouts. Here the person drinking appears to be conscious, but the next day has no memory of what happened. I don't know if alcohol does this to everyone, but it does to some people. This can of course be difficult for the victim to distinguish from being drugged (which is clearly rape). 

Personally - I don't drink. I will not engage in intimacy with, or in fact associate with anyone who has drunk beyond the point of being very slightly tipsy. I have helped people home from parties who I thought were too drunk to be safe left there.






NobodySpecial said:


> This is the WHOLE POINT. It is not no blurry. And this clears that right the heck up. If she is asleep, she did not consent. She has be to awake and aware to consent. There is or should be no assumed consent. That is the kind of BS mentality the law is trying to address.


----------



## Deejo

This conversation rather reminds me of years ago, when the country, and even a good number in my home state were freaking out over, and about gay marriage. 

What impact did it have on the vast majority of people's day to day lives? 

None.

Zero.

I'm guessing this law will be similar.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Deejo said:


> This conversation rather reminds me of years ago, when the country, and even a good number in my home state were freaking out over, and about gay marriage.
> 
> What impact did it have on the vast majority of people's day to day lives?
> 
> None.
> 
> Zero.
> 
> I'm guessing this law will be similar.


I would say that the legalization of gay marriage has had a very positive affect on many people's day to day lives!


----------



## NobodySpecial

richard^^ The point that I am trying to make is that it shouldn't be blurry. If there is doubt, there is responsibility incumbent on the parties to protect themselves, including the man from the risk of accusation, not just the woman from risk of rape. For a very long time, the desire to get some has propagated an attitude that if she did not say no, that is the same as yes. It isn't. It shouldn't be. If you look up "consent", you will see agreement. There is no ambiguity there. If someone is hammered enough to not remember, then they are hammered enough not to be able to consent. She is at risk. If the guy is hammered enough not to be able to tell, then he is at risk. That seems pretty damned reasonable to me.


----------



## Ikaika

Deejo said:


> This conversation rather reminds me of years ago, when the country, and even a good number in my home state were freaking out over, and about gay marriage.
> 
> What impact did it have on the vast majority of people's day to day lives?
> 
> None.
> 
> Zero.
> 
> I'm guessing this law will be similar.



You nailed it.


----------



## LongWalk

There are big trends that have great impact on society. Gay marriage could not undermine marriage because the institution is already struggling. The 2012 figures from CDC:



> Number of live births to unmarried women: 1,609,619
> 
> Birth rate for unmarried women: 45.3 births per 1,000 unmarried women aged 15-44 years
> 
> Percent of all births to unmarried women: 40.7%


Some of these women have partners who are active parents, but still one can see that the quality that having a father brings is missing for many, many children.

I would bet that some percentage of rapists come from broken families and grew up without a healthy father or male figure in their lives.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening Nobodyspecial
I don't think we are disagreeing on much at all here. 

Maybe what I am arguing is a mathematical concept that I can best put as follows: If there is a continuous range of activities, then whenever you try to put a box around some of those activities, there will always be things near the edge of the box. 

Being drunk is continuous from unconscious to completely sober. Somewhere we need to draw a line. This legislation moves the line a bit (which is absolutely fine with me) but there is still a line and a grey area .

For myself, I am always so far from that line that it is never in question - but then I am in no way the target of this legislation.





NobodySpecial said:


> richard^^ The point that I am trying to make is that it shouldn't be blurry. If there is doubt, there is responsibility incumbent on the parties to protect themselves, including the man from the risk of accusation, not just the woman from risk of rape. For a very long time, the desire to get some has propagated an attitude that if she did not say no, that is the same as yes. It isn't. It shouldn't be. If you look up "consent", you will see agreement. There is no ambiguity there. If someone is hammered enough to not remember, then they are hammered enough not to be able to consent. She is at risk. If the guy is hammered enough not to be able to tell, then he is at risk. That seems pretty damned reasonable to me.


----------



## always_alone

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening always_alone
> First - I agree.
> 
> I think the tricky points are:
> 
> What consists of consent. In most cases it is obvious, but there are some (sleep, intoxication, assumed-consent) where it can be blurry.
> 
> Completely separate from the definitions of consent, are the standards for taking actions when there is an accusation of rape. Cases where the two parties disagree on the facts of what happened, not on whether or not a specific set of actions constitutes consent.


Consent has always been tricky, at least from the perspective of the outsider who is trying to base judgments on a preponderance of evidence. Maybe the new policy doesn't do a lot to alleviate that problem, but it doesn't really add to it either. Rape cases have always been he said/she said affairs, with the accuser arguing that the "no" was vigorous, or that he/she was incapacitated or otherwise prevented from communicating it, and the accused arguing that he/she did nothing wrong, the other person was begging for it. 

I'm not convinced that disagreement over the facts of the case is an entirely separate issue. I mean, yes, it's a different question. But ultimately the facts of the case are still all about consent (did sex take place, was there force, did the accuser say no; if so, how, if not, why not; did the accuser lead the accused on or give mixed messages; could the accused be reasonably expected to know the state of mind of the accuser, and so on).

When it comes to rape, consent is really *the* issue. 

What the new policy does, IMHO, is clarify that being mentally incompetent or comatose or reluctant or conflicted or under threat are to be taken as evidence of non-consent. It is truly sad that this needs to be spelled out, but it would seem that it does.
.


----------



## Buddy400

NobodySpecial said:


> I should not post when I am busy. I saw a question mark. Where is the dope slap emoticon?


Nobody,

I hate to seem to be picking on you when you were generous enough to admit a mistake, but here’s the thing; Saying that having sex with someone that is comatose, asleep or unconscious is NOT rape is such an aberrant thought that, if I thought I saw it, I’d back up and reread it a few times to make sure I read it correctly. 95 out of 100 men would instantly agree that such behavior constituted rape. The other 5 might consider the possibility that she’d consented and then passed out without the partner noticing or wonder if it applies to a committed couple where one was asleep but such actions were acceptable. Maybe 1 out of 1000 would say that there was nothing wrong with it.

And,yet, you misinterpret naiveonedave (who has given no prior indication of being an unfeeling jerk) as having said such a thing. That’s bizarre. 

Always,



always_alone said:


> What the new policy does, IMHO, is clarify that being mentally incompetent or comatose or reluctant or conflicted or under threat are to be taken as evidence of non-consent. It is truly sad that this needs to be spelled out, but it would seem that it does..


As noted above, this actually *doesn’t* need clarification. The only men that would do this aren’t doing it because they don’t know any better. They aren’t going to change their behavior because of this law. 

All this law is going to do is insult and demean all the good men that would never consider doing this in the first place.


----------



## Buddy400

Deejo said:


> This conversation rather reminds me of years ago, when the country, and even a good number in my home state were freaking out over, and about gay marriage.
> 
> What impact did it have on the vast majority of people's day to day lives?
> 
> None.
> 
> Zero.
> 
> I'm guessing this law will be similar.


If that's so (and it may well be), why pass it?

Why not play it safe and repeal it?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Great work Feminists, you killed Sex*



Buddy400 said:


> If that's so (and it may well be), why pass it?
> 
> Why not play it safe and repeal it?


Because like hundreds of other laws, a governing body or institution gets to say they did something, while the net impact of law is effectively nil.

All of this prognostication about young men being thrown out of school and tarred for life, while women are empowered to come forward and supported, is nothing but pure speculation at this juncture. 

I've seen the Duke case referenced several times. I'd wager nobody could name a single defendant in that case without googling it.

I personally know women that have been sexually assaulted. 

Odds are ... most people participating in this thread has a mother, sister, daughter, spouse, cousin or female friend who has been sexually assaulted. 
I'd further wager that less than a scant handful knows of, is friends with, or is related to a male that has been charged, rightly or wrongly, with sexual assault or rape.

I have a very visceral reaction to the concept of sexual assault against women.

Until this law starts having an impact on hundreds of young, innocent men being tossed out on their ass in light of false allegations ... this is all word play, nothing more. 

And only at that point, will it even be comparable to the consequences that young women face every day by putting on a skirt and choosing to attend a party where drinking is involved.

I remember when I attended a small state school, it came to light that 8 girls had been sexually assaulted ... and the school was trying to keep that fact quiet until it was apparent none of them were 'incidental'.

The student body was shocked. Parents were utterly horrified.

After the news spread and awareness was raised, lo and behold, the assaults stopped. Little doubt they were all perpetrated by the same, sick individual. 
They never charged anyone.


----------



## Thundarr

Deejo said:


> I've seen the Duke case referenced several times. I'd wager nobody could name a single defendant in that case without googling it.


But their lives are permanently ruined. They have a scarlet R. Whoever they are that is. They have an R. Everyone knows who they are who ever they are.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> I don't question the University's ability to administrate its own polices, Most companies and corporations can do that. What I question is how they will investigate this. If it's passed off to law enforcement then I guess they could wait for the outcome of the trial. But what if the victim comes forward to the university but refuses to prosecute criminally. That means it falls squarely on the university to investigate this. Since many univestities have state police on them you can't use them so then you have to use security or I guess you form a committee????
> 
> Again this is very broad and doesn't outline who the university is to get to the end result. They are going to have to get systems in place quickly for these types of things



I have sat on these committees (not for something like rape mind you). They are very legalistic feeling and typically start with hours of debate, following the establish Robert rules of order. The code of conduct statute is read and understood, or sometimes debated for clarity. Then this follows evidence and open mic of appeal by the student and other speaking on his/her behalf. An open discussion and questions takes place at the next phase. At the end, this committee simply makes a recommendation, not an actual ruling. The administration and university lawyers have final say in consideration of the committee rulings. I will assume that this procedure will not change and likely would happen before any legal case.

We are not a law enforcement agency, so investigations are for legal issues. We can only make the simple assumption, was the code of conduct violated or not and what recommendation is then made. 

All of these are wide open to appeal even before the administrative decision is handed down.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> So what are the statistics on crimes committed but never a conviction? Again we cannot expect perfection, just that lady Justice is blind, non-prejudicial. But, isn't that the whole slant of this argument? The argument that poor innocent young men are bring victimized by feminists and activist professors. I just don't see it, not in this law or in practice on the actual places we see laws as such applied.


Just stop already. Innocent until proven guilty is what our country is based on. And don't regurgitate the firing an employee vs. kicked out of school. We have been there and done that. I was replying to a poster who basically stated the LE is without error, well they are not and it is in both directions.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> Just stop already. Innocent until proven guilty is what our country is based on. And don't regurgitate the firing an employee vs. kicked out of school. We have been there and done that. I was replying to a poster who basically stated the LE is without error, well they are not and it is in both directions.



I agree it is innocent until proven guilty, where does this law change that basic assumption. Show me in the actual text of the law where we change it?

Humans are involved, errors will happen, but we hope errors are not based on prejudicial influences; that is all any law requires, not perfection


----------



## LongWalk

drerio said:


> You automatically assume a university committee is not qualified to hear a case and apply penalties based upon code of conduct rules. Ok, I would disagree. And, I know that most committee rulings don't just pull the trigger on expulsion as their first pick of penalties. And, all of these rulings come with an appeal process. And, this new law provides services to the accuser. A service not previously spelled out in past legislation.
> 
> It is not as as binary as you assume both because this takes time away from the university mission and liability is always something universities and committee members will take into account. Plus get two professors into a room and they will argue on whether the "carrot is truly orange".


If you were on such a committee, I would be confident that it would be fair. You routinely consider questions from all angles that you can see. The quality of the committee depends on the persons appointed. There are many examples of institutions that have the wrong people in charge. Look at Eric Holder. How did that guy become Attorney General? And what did he do with his authority.

Penn State and the child rape scandal demonstrates that universities are capable of coverups. Duke proves they are capable of witch hunts. I have read enough here to believe women need more protection. I accept that universities should do more.

I am not comfortable with university committees taking a lead role in investigating crimes. It is especially wrong to use the threat of expulsion to induce confessions that can later be turned over to the police. A young person who is told that refusal to meet the committee will automatically lead to suspension and probably expulsion is being coerced.

Now if a committee immediately contacts the police and lets the police drive an investigation, that seems sound.

One disturbing element is that when a group of students has witnessed and/or participated in a sexual assault, there is always a danger of false testimony. For example, a drunken party is taking place. A young woman has a cell phone camera on the action. A victim who is incapable of consent is digitally penetrated and the film is later spread via social media. All the film shows in the perpetrator's hand and arm.

Whose hand is it? Perhaps it is the hand of a man the woman wants to protect from prosecution: her boyfriend, the boyfriend of the queen bee in the sorority, whatever. If she says it is another guy, what then?

That guy, knowing he was in the other room at the time, might be willing to talk to the university investigators, not realizing he was being set up. Instead of just being expelled, he ends up in prison.

Can this sort of thing happen anyway without the law? Yes. 

By the way, I also think that the US privatization of prisons is wrong. People are trained to practice a profession. Police, defense attorney, judge, and in the US we see the game changed. In the robo signing scandal some states hired retired judges to rubber stamp foreclosure in special court sessions. Florida did it. Blackwater was used to security in Iraq, although the US has one the largest military forces in the world. The EPA is not allowed to monitor the oil and gas industry. There are many examples of ad hoc schemes to violate the Constitution and federal regulations.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> If you were on such a committee, I would be confident that it would be fair. You routinely consider questions from all angles that you can see. The quality of the committee depends on the persons appointed. There are many examples of institutions that have the wrong people in charge. Look at Eric Holder. How did that guy become Attorney General? And what did he do with his authority.
> 
> 
> 
> Penn State and the child rape scandal demonstrates that universities are capable of coverups. Duke proves they are capable of witch hunts. I have read enough here to believe women need more protection. I accept that universities should do more.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not comfortable with university committees taking a lead role in investigating crimes. It is especially wrong to use the threat of expulsion to induce confessions that can later be turned over to the police. A young person who is told that refusal to meet the committee will automatically lead to suspension and probably expulsion is being coerced.
> 
> 
> 
> Now if a committee immediately contacts the police and lets the police drive an investigation, that seems sound.
> 
> 
> 
> One disturbing element is that when a group of students has witnessed and/or participated in a sexual assault, there is always a danger of false testimony. For example, a drunken party is taking place. A young woman has a cell phone camera on the action. A woman who is incapable of consent is digitally penetrated and the film is later spread via social media.
> 
> 
> 
> Whose hand is it? Perhaps it is the hand of a man the woman wants to protect from prosecution: her boyfriend, the boyfriend of the queen bee in the sorority, whatever. If she says it is another guy, what then?
> 
> 
> 
> That guy, knowing he was in the other room at the time, might be willing to talk to the university investigators, not realizing he was being set up. Instead of just being expelled, he ends up in prison.
> 
> 
> 
> Can this sort of thing happen anyway without the law? Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I also think that the US privatization of prisons is wrong. People are trained to practice a profession. Police, defense attorney, judge, and in the US we see the game changed. In the robo signing scandal some states hired retired judges to rubber stamp foreclosure in special court sessions. Florida did it. Blackwater was used to security in Iraq, although the US has one the largest military forces in the world. The EPA is not allowed to monitor the oil and gas industry. There are many examples of ad hoc schemes to violate the Constitution and federal regulations.



University committees don't investigate crimes and they don't take a lead role in anything but making recommendations. They simply look at actions and decide whether the actions violated the code of conduct rules.

People here are placing more power where power never existed. And this law will not change that basic fact. Trust me on this one.


----------



## Buddy400

MNLawenforcement said:


> In my line of work (I am in non-police law enforcement), I have found that while lots of people arrested and charged with crimes claim "false accusation," it almost never happens in real life.
> 
> I won't say some people don't make up charges, that obviously happens, but it is so extremely rare (and usually detected pretty early in the investigation), that anyone claiming otherwise is probably lying about something.


Studies show that in most cases, 2% are falsely accused. As far as false rape charges, studies show between 2% and 47% (and the 2% wasn't even a study, just a statement by someone at a conference).


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> Studies show that in most cases, 2% are falsely accused. As far as false rape charges, *studies show between 2% and 47%* (and the 2% wasn't even a study, just a statement by someone at a conference).



can you please provide a citation for the primary study and not just a secondary or tertiary article?

ETA: I'll help you out, http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...573E13315.journals?fromPage=online&aid=430299

It does not actually claim what Wikipedia post.

_Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies. He argues, for instance, that in addition to their small sample size the studies by Maclean (1979) (one claiming 47%) and Stewart (1981) used questionable criteria to judge an allegation to be false. MacLean deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will"._


----------



## LongWalk

The text of the law talks about collecting preserving evidence or am I remembering it incorrectly?


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> The text of the law talks about collecting preserving evidence or am I remembering it incorrectly?



I don't know, maybe you can read some new ground breaking info

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967


----------



## Buddy400

drerio said:


> can you please provide a citation for the primary study and not just a secondary or tertiary article?
> 
> ETA: I'll help you out, Cambridge Journals Online - The Cambridge Law Journal - Abstract - FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE
> 
> It does not actually claim what Wikipedia post.


This link discusses and links to actual studies. The column is by a woman that is not associated in any way with the "men's rights" movement. She's actually an economics blogger.

You can read it or not, but hopefully you'll acknowledge that my opinions have some basis.

How Many Rape Reports Are False? - Bloomberg View


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> This link discusses and links to actual studies. The column is by a woman that is not associated in any way with the "men's rights" movement. She's actually an economics blogger.
> 
> 
> 
> You can read it or not, but hopefully you'll acknowledge that my opinions have some basis.
> 
> 
> 
> How Many Rape Reports Are False? - Bloomberg View



So if the Bloomberg article is a study, where is the methodology and data collected to draw a suggested conclusion?

I sent a link to a Cambridge law article that provided actual critique and evidence to supposed seminal research papers on the topic, I'm not getting that from the Bloomberg article that does not even provide citations.


----------



## MNLawenforcement

naiveonedave said:


> Just stop already. Innocent until proven guilty is what our country is based on. And don't regurgitate the firing an employee vs. kicked out of school. We have been there and done that. I was replying to a poster who basically stated the LE is without error, well they are not and it is in both directions.


I never said that law enforcement doesn't make errors. That would be pretty darn stupid to say considering how many people have been exonerated after a conviction.

What I said was that everybody claims they were falsely accused but in my experience, between the jury system, strong protections for criminal defendants and a "robust appeals process" (that's the term the lawyers always use anyway), the number of innocent people punished for crimes they did not commit is very low. In addition, the number of totally innocent people who just randomly get accused and convicted is extremely low. Usually the people falsely convicted have previous criminal activities that influence the jury. Please remember that rape convictions are hard to secure. I have seen way too many people who were probably guilty of rape walk free simply because there isn't enough hard evidence to secure a conviction.

The poster I was replying too basically said that false accusations happen all the time (including to him), I simply pointed out that my experience in law enforcement says otherwise.


----------



## Ikaika

http://sf-criminaldefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/KaninFalseRapeAllegations.pdf

This one is discussed in the the Cambridge Law article. The conclusion again drawn by the author:

Rumney's second conclusion is that it is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" due to the fact that many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies. He argues, for instance, that in addition to their small sample size the studies by Maclean (1979) (one claiming 47%) and Stewart (1981) used questionable criteria to judge an allegation to be false. MacLean deemed reports "false" if, for instance, the victim did not appear "dishevelled" and Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will".

45 rape cases, and major basis of false allegations - recanting their complaint. Three main reasons for initial complaint: serve as an alibi to another crime (majority), means of revenge and attention seeking in two separate cases cited in the study.


----------



## Ikaika

But, how would law change false allegations even if we wanted to consider the highest end number?


----------



## Buddy400

OK, I give up. I said "This link discusses and links to actual studies".

You reply with



drerio said:


> So if the Bloomberg article is a study, where is the methodology and data collected to draw a suggested conclusion?


I never said the Bloomberg article was a study. I said that it linked to actual studies. You didn't read the post, you didn't even glance at it. You have no willingness whatsoever give any consideration at all to the opposing argument.

I've already wasted far too much time trying to have a discussion with you. I'm done.


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> OK, I give up. I said "This link discusses and links to actual studies".
> 
> 
> 
> You reply with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the Bloomberg article was a study. I said that it linked to actual studies. You didn't read the post, you didn't even glance at it. You have no willingness whatsoever give any consideration at all to the opposing argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I've already wasted far too much time trying to have a discussion with you. I'm done.



I followed the Bloomberg links see above, post 773. I actually read it and the linked studies. I did.


----------



## Lionelhutz

Studies in this area are at best problematic. As weak as anecdotal evidence may be, I work in the legal field and off-hand I can think of many instances of false allegations. And what I describe as "false" means clear cut. Either the victim admitted to fabrication and or there was undeniable evidence such as a saved voice-mail by the "victim" threatening to make up the allegation. 

In hotly contested divorce and custody proceedings, there is strong incentive and little deterrent to making this kind of allegation. It also something easily rationalized in the heat and hatred of the moment. 

But of course clear cut evidence rarely exists and only the two involved know. Even then there have been instances in stranger rapes in which the victim was honestly mistaken about identification. 

In my view this law is ridiculous. It is extremely difficult to interpret in practice which opens it to abuse and injustice. 

I am definitely not saying that most allegations are false In fact, like almost everyone else assumes there is some truth to the allegation. But that doesn't mean the justice system should be inverted and it is up to the accused to prove innocence.


----------



## Ikaika

Lionelhutz said:


> Studies in this area are at best problematic. As weak as anecdotal evidence may be, I work in the legal field and off-hand I can think of many instances of false allegations. And what I describe as "false" means clear cut. Either the victim admitted to fabrication and or there was undeniable evidence such as a saved voice-mail by the "victim" threatening to make up the allegation.
> 
> 
> 
> In hotly contested divorce and custody proceedings, there is strong incentive and little deterrent to making this kind of allegation. It also something easily rationalized in the heat and hatred of the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> But of course clear cut evidence rarely exists and only the two involved know. Even then there have been instances in stranger rapes in which the victim was honestly mistaken about identification.
> 
> 
> 
> In my view this law is ridiculous. It is extremely difficult to interpret in practice which opens it to abuse and injustice.
> 
> 
> 
> I am definitely not saying that most allegations are false In fact, like almost everyone else assumes there is some truth to the allegation. But that doesn't mean the justice system should be inverted and it is up to the accused to prove innocence.



Show how this law inverts the assumption of innocence? It simply suggest that we moved the needle from a woman having had physically resisted of the complaint of rape to verbally saying "no", to now suggesting that if she is unable to say no because she is either unconscious or too intoxicated that she has to affirm sexual advancement. How does this change innocence before guilt?

Problematic as to state of mind, I would agree in some cases.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> I have sat on these committees (not for something like rape mind you). They are very legalistic feeling and typically start with hours of debate, following the establish Robert rules of order. The code of conduct statute is read and understood, or sometimes debated for clarity. Then this follows evidence and open mic of appeal by the student and other speaking on his/her behalf. An open discussion and questions takes place at the next phase. At the end, this committee simply makes a recommendation, not an actual ruling. The administration and university lawyers have final say in consideration of the committee rulings. I will assume that this procedure will not change and likely would happen before any legal case.
> 
> We are not a law enforcement agency, so investigations are for legal issues. We can only make the *simple assumption, *was the code of conduct violated or not and what recommendation is then made.
> 
> All of these are wide open to appeal even before the administrative decision is handed down.


Well then this is going to be an issue. Cause you will have only testimonial evidence this way. One person saying they had consent and one person saying they didn't. Kicking one of them out of School is a big decision based solely on that. 

What your pre law students will advise anyone accused of this to say is nope we never even had sex...they are totally lying. How are you going to prove otherwise. So while I still think this won't work I do think it's good that the universties are being forced to provide education on the matter. It's the enforcement that will be interesting


----------



## Blonde

Drerio, glad to hear you are a prof. May your tribe increase!

Bothers me that some of the men justifying this behavior have daughters who are in college. :slap:



> "It's quite well-known amongst college administrators that first-year students, freshman women, are particularly at risk for sexual assault," Lisak says. "The predators on campus know that women who are new to campus, they are younger, they're less experienced. They probably have less experience with alcohol, they want to be accepted. They will probably take more risks because they want to be accepted. So for all these reasons, the predators will look particularly for those women."
> 
> Still, Lisak says these men don't think of themselves as rapists. Usually they know the other student. And they don't use guns or knives.
> 
> "The basic weapon is alcohol," the psychologist says. Myths That Make It Hard To Stop Campus Rape : NPR


"Killing" this ^^ version of "sex" would be a very good thing IMO.


----------



## LongWalk

Blonde is right. Alcohol is clearly the weapon. And I would be that freshmen are the most vulnerable. The desire for acceptance enormous. Furthermore, some agree to sex for the wrong reasons. The most vulnerable women probably come from dysfunctional families.

We are speculating as to how the committees will function in practice. I can imagine a woman approach the contact point of the office at the university and telling a story about waking up without her underwear amidst a the chaotic wreckage of a party. A guy without pants could be lying next to her and she could ascertain that she had had intercourse.

She might remember patches of the evening before. She might remember saying no and struggling with intoxication. She might conclude that this guy raped her or had sex without consent. She gets up and goes to the shower washes herself and goes home two days later she goes to make a complaint to this office.

From the circumstantial description of events it might seem that a rape did take place, but who can be sure without a reasonable doubt.

Since the committee is not a court of law it is not required to determine guilt or innocence. If the police are then contacted and the woman makes an accusation of rape, it may take weeks before there is an determination of whether to bring charges. Will the university suspend the man from school? If no, charges are brought will he be expelled in any case?

It is conceivable that the man without pants passed out on the bed and that the unconscious woman was raped by someone else who left immediately afterwards.


----------



## LongWalk

Fast forward to 1min 32. Link

Another

Drunk or wasted = consent impossible ?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Well then this is going to be an issue. Cause you will have only testimonial evidence this way. One person saying they had consent and one person saying they didn't. Kicking one of them out of School is a big decision based solely on that.
> 
> 
> 
> What your pre law students will advise anyone accused of this to say is nope we never even had sex...they are totally lying. How are you going to prove otherwise. So while I still think this won't work I do think it's good that the universties are being forced to provide education on the matter. It's the enforcement that will be interesting



Isn't evidence always an issue, with or without this law? Again, it may not always be the recommendation (expulsion) assumed, I think that is jumping to the conclusion before a hearing. 

What I would say would be the smarter more ambiguous argument (devils advocate), "we had sex" (not a lie and not breaking any code of conduct rules). Question from inquiry board "did she say no or resist?" Reply from accuser "she did not". Next inquiry question "was she intoxicated as far as you could tell?" Reply "yes and so was I". Next injury question "was she conscious?" Reply "she was conscious but only as far as my limited capacity of state of mind could determined under my limited knowledge". Next inquiry "did she affirm she wanted sex, in other words did she communicate she wanted sex?" Reply "her continual body language communicated she wanted sex". In no instance did the accused have to lie, it was still based on each individual's perception of events, he said she said. 

Since communication is 70% non verbal this is vague and will end up changing very little as I read the law.

But to that end if we could get some students to think about proactive actions (responsibility for ones actions) of not putting themselves in these situations, that part seems a win.

ETA: I tried to steer does of any larger judgmental bias in my scenario and thus I just don't see this as a sweeping agenda by feminist and activist professors to kill sex and or imprison males unjustifiably. I understand the impetus of this law and yes the aspect of alcohol consumption and related activities of injury, crimes and death are large part of it.


----------



## Buddy400

drerio said:


> I followed the Bloomberg links see above, post 773. I actually read it and the linked studies. I did.


Yeah, I posted and 2 minutes later you replied. During those 2 minutes, you read the post and the linked studies. You're fast.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> I agree it is innocent until proven guilty, where does this law change that basic assumption. Show me in the actual text of the law where we change it?
> 
> Humans are involved, errors will happen, but we hope errors are not based on prejudicial influences; that is all any law requires, not perfection


because, basically this is what is going to happen. She said she was raped, guy gets expelled, end of story. Because the law basically states that is all the evidence that is needed. To think otherwise is foolish. Sure some of the unjustly accused will fight back, but that takes time and money.

I have seen how beauracracies work. The expected outcome happens virtually every time. So a higher percentage of actual rapists will probably face some penallty (expulsion) and some fraction (and the studies show between 2 and 40+% of rape allegations are false, based on studies linked in this thread, of accused rapists will be expelled by a university tribunal (or whatever you call it) based on she said evidence only.

Will this be some total travesty? Jury is out (sorry for the pun), because we don't know the actual % of false allegations and we don't know what to expect from the tribunal. My guess is worse than most here think. I also think that the law really doesn't do anything to put actual rapists away. It is a feel good measure, so some politicians can go home and tell their constituents that they are tough on campus rape.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Isn't evidence always an issue, with or without this law? Again, it may not always be the recommendation (expulsion) assumed, I think that is jumping to the conclusion before a hearing.
> 
> *Yes but with law enforcement we are going to, hopefully, collect physical evidence, we are going to interview witnesses, we are going to interview and interrogate...all of this in determination of probable cause. To determine did the crime occur, not that one person says a crime occurred.....are the universties going to do all this?*
> 
> What I would say would be the smarter more ambiguous argument (devils advocate), "we had sex" (not a lie and not breaking any code of conduct rules). Question from inquiry board "did she say no or resist?" Reply from accuser "she did not". Next inquiry question "was she intoxicated as far as you could tell?" Reply "yes and so was I". Next injury question "was she conscious?" Reply "she was conscious but only as far as my limited capacity of state of mind could determined under my limited knowledge". Next inquiry "did she affirm she wanted sex, in other words did she communicate she wanted sex?" Reply "her continual body language communicated she wanted sex". In no instance did the accused have to lie, it was still based on each individual's perception of events, he said she said.
> 
> Since communication is 70% non verbal this is vague and will end up changing very little as I read the law.
> 
> But to that end if we could get some students to think about proactive actions (responsibility for ones actions) of not putting themselves in these situations, that part seems a win.
> 
> ETA: I tried to steer does of any larger judgmental bias in my scenario and thus I just don't see this as a sweeping agenda by feminist and activist professors to kill sex and or imprison males unjustifiably. I understand the impetus of this law and yes the aspect of alcohol consumption and related activities of injury, crimes and death are large part of it.


*I agree with the above. I don't see this as a feminist driven agenda either. What I do see it as, and always have, is a not well thought out law. I agree the education and literature part. But all too often laws are passed and then no one thinks, well how are we actually going to see this objective is met. They have put a large burden on the academic system to do something it's really not in existence to do, investigate crimes. They have told them this is what you will do but really, in what I have read, not given them the tools to do it. It's like telling a person to build a bridge but not giving them any tools or equipment to get the job done. Just the objective. *


----------



## Ikaika

Buddy400 said:


> Yeah, I posted and 2 minutes later you replied. During those 2 minutes, you read the post and the linked studies. You're fast.



I do read fast yes. My job is about reading a lot.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> because, basically this is what is going to happen. She said she was raped, guy gets expelled, end of story. Because the law basically states that is all the evidence that is needed. To think otherwise is foolish. Sure some of the unjustly accused will fight back, but that takes time and money.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen how beauracracies work. The expected outcome happens virtually every time. So a higher percentage of actual rapists will probably face some penallty (expulsion) and some fraction (and the studies show between 2 and 40+% of rape allegations are false, based on studies linked in this thread, of accused rapists will be expelled by a university tribunal (or whatever you call it) based on she said evidence only.
> 
> 
> 
> Will this be some total travesty? Jury is out (sorry for the pun), because we don't know the actual % of false allegations and we don't know what to expect from the tribunal. My guess is worse than most here think. I also think that the law really doesn't do anything to put actual rapists away. It is a feel good measure, so some politicians can go home and tell their constituents that they are tough on campus rape.



So you assume he gets expelled automatically upon being accused. I will stop you right there. In my experience, not how it works. If a university took that draconian approach they would spend too much of their time in litigation.

If expected outcomes are what you assume is the problem then this a problem with law enforcement not with the law or university boards of inquiry. 

Also that 40% number, go back and read the paper it comes from and Cambridge Law review response. 

Well it is judges that allow for arrest warrants based on evidence collected by law enforcement and the DA to figure out if the case warrants a hearing or request it be dropped. It is then the jury that bases decision on evidence of a case. This law will change non of that and if you can quote the section where there is a major sea change, please quote it.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> *I agree with the above. I don't see this as a feminist driven agenda either. What I do see it as, and always have, is a not well thought out law. I agree the education and literature part. But all too often laws are passed and then no one thinks, well how are we actually going to see this objective is met. They have put a large burden on the academic system to do something it's really not in existence to do, investigate crimes. They have told them this is what you will do but really, in what I have read, not given them the tools to do it. It's like telling a person to build a bridge but not giving them any tools or equipment to get the job done. Just the objective. *



Read the law, universities will cooperate with the investigation, they will not do the investigation. They can however determine if a student violated code of conduct rules. But, this would be no different than what we see in employment termination. They do suggest that other services will provided to both parties.

_Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate._


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Read the law, universities will cooperate with the investigation, they will not do the investigation. They can however determine if a student violated code of conduct rules. But, this would be no different than what we see in employment termination. They do suggest that other services will provided to both parties.
> 
> _Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate._


I did read the law but you're not reading my posts. No one can force the victim to come forward and report a sexual assault to law enforcement. And even if they did they have a right to no prosecute unless it falls under the Domestic Violence umbrella. So you could have a very real circumstance where a victim would come forward to a university but not to law enforcement. So who is going to do the investigations in those cases? The universtity still needs to determine if the consent throughout policy was violated


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> I did read the law but you're not reading my posts. No one can force the victim to come forward and report a sexual assault to law enforcement. And even if they did they have a right to no prosecute unless it falls under the Domestic Violence umbrella. So you could have a very real circumstance where a victim would come forward to a university but not to law enforcement. So who is going to do the investigations in those cases? The universtity still needs to determine if the consent throughout policy was violated


I was responding more to you quote within my quote which does not show up. However to you inquiry, I again quote the same section of the law (excerpt from the text):

_
Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate._

Is this vague enough, sure, but I think beyond that if you read the rest of this law, it simply suggest that the University provides services and counseling. The way I read the portion of the law on the board, it would imply a university board that could render a recommendation based on the code of conduct of the University. Again, this is no different than a decision that would be rendered by an employer to an employee. It is not criminal. It also would not be any different than what is current. It simply states in this law that Universities have to do as such, but I bet most do already. 

In terms of investigation, again this would be no different than if an employer rendering limited disciplinary measures on an employee for violations of code of conduct. Since it is not criminal, the burden of proof and and bar is not as high. Inquiry and no investigation is necessary. But this law does not change what is already in place.


----------



## naiveonedave

drerio said:


> So you assume he gets expelled automatically upon being accused. I will stop you right there. In my experience, not how it works. If a university took that draconian approach they would spend too much of their time in litigation.
> 
> If expected outcomes are what you assume is the problem then this a problem with law enforcement not with the law or university boards of inquiry.
> 
> Also that 40% number, go back and read the paper it comes from and Cambridge Law review response.
> 
> Well it is judges that allow for arrest warrants based on evidence collected by law enforcement and the DA to figure out if the case warrants a hearing or request it be dropped. It is then the jury that bases decision on evidence of a case. This law will change non of that and if you can quote the section where there is a major sea change, please quote it.


I swear, if you didn't claim to be a prof, i would question your ability to read. I said between 2 and 40.

I know how beauracrats work. The police and judges are not beauracrats. There is no expected outcome at any stage of a criminal proceeding. It depends on data (presented as facts, but sometimes not). However, there will be an expected outcome of these tribunals and it will most likely be expulsion. the head of said tribunal will not want to rock the boat.

I also said, until we know how the tribunal works, we are just speculating, then I gave my opinon of what would happen. Now you claim I am totally wrong, well it is my opinion, and I stick to it. You are wrong by saying I can't form my own opinon. Argh.


----------



## Ikaika

naiveonedave said:


> I swear, if you didn't claim to be a prof, i would question your ability to read. I said between 2 and 40.
> 
> 
> 
> I know how beauracrats work. The police and judges are not beauracrats. There is no expected outcome at any stage of a criminal proceeding. It depends on data (presented as facts, but sometimes not). However, there will be an expected outcome of these tribunals and it will most likely be expulsion. the head of said tribunal will not want to rock the boat.
> 
> 
> 
> I also said, until we know how the tribunal works, we are just speculating, then I gave my opinon of what would happen. Now you claim I am totally wrong, well it is my opinion, and I stick to it. You are wrong by saying I can't form my own opinon. Argh.



So if I said 2% I would be rightfully challenge. If you include the spread up to 40% based on a study that has already been challenged I am somehow lacking in my abilities to conjure up meaning. Ok, I don't agree. And simply because you used a wide scale it can't be challenged? I wonder what the standard error for such would be on that very wide median graph.  

Actually the way academic bureaucrats work, they are relegated to making suggestions on an unbiased judgement. They themselves can't render a decision, police, judges and juries actually can and do render levels of judgment. 

I never claimed you were wrong other than I don't understand your preconceived notions such as using language like tribunal to assume there is a witch hunt afoot, I just don't see it.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> I was responding more to you quote within my quote which does not show up. However to you inquiry, I again quote the same section of the law (excerpt from the text):
> 
> _
> Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate._
> 
> Is this vague enough, sure, but I think beyond that if you read the rest of this law, it simply suggest that the University provides services and counseling. The way I read the portion of the law on the board, it would imply a university board that could render a recommendation based on the code of conduct of the University. Again, this is no different than a decision that would be rendered by an employer to an employee. It is not criminal. It also would not be any different than what is current. It simply states in this law that Universities have to do as such, but I bet most do already.
> 
> In terms of investigation, again this would be no different than if an employer rendering limited disciplinary measures on an employee for violations of code of conduct. Since it is not criminal, the burden of proof and and bar is not as high. Inquiry and no investigation is necessary. But this law does not change what is already in place.



This is what the actual law outlines that universties must do

(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.
(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
(4) *The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.*
(5) *Contacting and interviewing the accused.*
(6) *Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.*
(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.
(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.
(*9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.*
(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.
(11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
(12) *A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.*

This is an investigation. And they are expecting someone, non law enforcement, to conduct this because law enforcement may not be involved in this at all. The rest of the law I have no issues with because it's mandating education and services to victims of sexual assault. I agree we need more of that, it's this investigation aspect that I don't know who is going to do it and how. Too much a question mark for me.

And this is a lot more than a company doing a policy review on an employee who is showing up late to work 3 times a week or something like that. This is a civil entity conducting a criminal investigation


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> This is what the actual law outlines that universties must do
> 
> 
> 
> (1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.
> 
> (2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.
> 
> (3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.
> 
> (4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.
> 
> (5) *Contacting and interviewing the accused.*
> 
> (6) *Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.*
> 
> (7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.
> 
> (8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.
> 
> (*9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.*
> 
> (10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.
> 
> (11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.
> 
> (12) *A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.*
> 
> 
> 
> This is an investigation. And they are expecting someone, non law enforcement, to conduct this because law enforcement may not be involved in this at all. The rest of the law I have no issues with because it's mandating education and services to victims of sexual assault. I agree we need more of that, it's this investigation aspect that I don't know who is going to do it and how. Too much a question mark for me.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is a lot more than a company doing a policy review on an employee who is showing up late to work 3 times a week or something like that. This is a civil entity conducting a criminal investigation



I think #9 will always be problematic unless campus security can provide evidence. I don't see a university conducting criminal investigations other than inquiring whether alcohol was used during the incident. I just think there are issues with the language but it still has very little impact as to how this will turn into a witch hunt. As I have said there is enough vague language to poke a dozen holes into every incident (I did it above in my scenario).

#12 may be the key to it all. Does this require a new office on campus or a new hire from a qualified law enforcement background. I actually think this would be something outside the normal protocol of what may take place currently. But, not sure I would call this a tribunal office.

But #2 for the institution to report the incident. Unfortunately it does not say to who they report it. If they are meaning to law enforcement than the bold items would not be for university benefit but law enforcement.

#11 says a lot in light of #12. Read together this makes sense on the role of the institutional staff. But if the incident is reported to law enforcement then I believe #5, 6 & 9 makes sense. I may be reading wrong but that was my first take on this part of the law.

I got it #10 says it all. This is a criminal investigation reported (implicit to law enforcement). This makes sense, in that what is different if the accused participates willfully they will not be subject to disciplinary sanction with the exception to those on the last line of this item. Hmmm seems this is less about a witch hunt and more about changing the current environment. 

Thank you for the post. I just figured out what was different. Totally not a feminist witch hunt at all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

naiveonedave said:


> I swear, if you didn't claim to be a prof, i would question your ability to read. I said between 2 and 40.
> 
> I know how beauracrats work. The police and judges are not beauracrats. There is no expected outcome at any stage of a criminal proceeding. It depends on data (presented as facts, but sometimes not). However, there will be an expected outcome of these tribunals and it will most likely be expulsion. the head of said tribunal will not want to rock the boat.
> 
> I also said, until we know how the tribunal works, we are just speculating, then I gave my opinon of what would happen. Now you claim I am totally wrong, well it is my opinion, and I stick to it. You are wrong by saying I can't form my own opinon. Argh.


It is not so much that he is telling you can't have an opinion. He just gave you some decent objective reasoning why the opinion does not make sense. I don't think he challenged your right to have it, sensible or no.


----------



## Runs like Dog

So at what point do you declare a risk free world where no one's feelings ever get hurt, about anything?


----------



## Thundarr

Wolf1974 said:


> And this is a lot more than a company doing a policy review on an employee who is showing up late to work 3 times a week or something like that. This is a civil entity conducting a criminal investigation


Missing classes would be more related to missing work. This is more closely related to sexual harassment in the work place. Actually this law is very similar in that companies have legal obligation to protect their employees from sexual harassment and schools now have similar legal obligation.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> Missing classes would be more related to missing work. This is more closely related to sexual harassment in the work place. Actually this law is very similar in that companies have legal obligation to protect their employees from sexual harassment and schools now have similar legal obligation.


I think this is spot on. If a case of sexual harassment is brought forward, HR will interview the parties, seek witnesses etc., very much like described here. I would envision, in either case, referral to hospital or police for any forensic evidence gathering.


----------



## LongWalk

drerio said:


> Read the law,* universities will cooperate with the investigation, they will not do the investigation.* They can however determine if a student violated code of conduct rules. But, this would be no different than what we see in employment termination. They do suggest that other services will provided to both parties.
> 
> _Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate._


The text of the law reads:



> (2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.


 Good. Victims should have support from the university.



> (4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.


This is investigation of a criminal matter. What is essential here is that the persons conducting such interviews do not ask leading questions.



> (5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.


Again this is the first instance of investigation. I think this is problematic. If it were merely a matter or academic dishonesty, it would be not big deal. But this is a criminal matter. The university investigators are acting as a proxy for law enforcement. This is wrong.



> (6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.


This will aid the police enormously because the university data systems have all the contact information at hand.



> (7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.


Good.



> (8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.


Given the amount of tuition, the student deserves this service.



> (9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.


This should be the business of the police first.



> (10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking *will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident,* unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.


This good and bad. Student A procured the drugs or alcohol that was used to blitz Student B's brain. Student C raped B. Student A may have an interest in immunity from repercussions. This is rather vague and could be used to pressure A to witness against C.



> (12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.


Very good.



> (13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties.


This is contradictory and clearly unworkable. As soon as matter becomes a criminal prosecution, the university cannot maintain confidentiality. That would never stand up in court. How could lawmakers write something so illogical.


----------



## Thundarr

Runs like Dog said:


> So at what point do you declare a risk free world where no one's feelings ever get hurt, about anything?


When no one is assaulted and no one is accused of it. :smthumbup:


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> The text of the law reads:


That it should be reported. Not stating explicitly, I would assume implicitly to law enforcement, unless you have another insight. 








LongWalk said:


> This is investigation of a criminal matter. What is essential here is that the persons conducting such interviews do not ask leading questions.


I agree and if reported to law enforcement, such will take place. 





LongWalk said:


> Again this is the first instance of investigation. I think this is problematic. If it were merely a matter or academic dishonesty, it would be not big deal. But this is a criminal matter. The university investigators are acting as a proxy for law enforcement. This is wrong.


Read the entire thing in context and that along with possible danger to the student body is all that can be done at the university. Please go back and read it. 

_(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty_

I believe an employer would have the right to do the same. What would be the difference. 





LongWalk said:


> This will aid the police enormously because the university data systems have all the contact information at hand.


That is to imply that have been contacted in the item (2) in question. 










LongWalk said:


> This should be the business of the police first.


And, implied it is not? I don't read that in the law. 









LongWalk said:


> This is contradictory and clearly unworkable. As soon as matter becomes a criminal prosecution, the university cannot maintain confidentiality. That would never stand up in court. How could lawmakers write something so illogical.



Universities are required to maintain FERPA in the same way if a person being treated in a hospital were under criminal investigation they would have to maintain confidentiality under HIPPA.


----------



## BaxJanson

MNLawenforcement said:


> In my line of work (I am in non-police law enforcement), I have found that while lots of people arrested and charged with crimes claim "false accusation," it almost never happens in real life.
> 
> I won't say some people don't make up charges, that obviously happens, but it is so extremely rare (and usually detected pretty early in the investigation), that anyone claiming otherwise is probably lying about something.


Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Innocent until proven guilty."

With little to no knowledge of any part of the case, this person who works law enforcement to assure me that by claiming I was falsely accused of rape, I was already suspect of lying, and thus, guilty of the crime.

Many actual police have attitudes similar to this - I would dread having any of them investigating a case. We have seen that basic law enforcement can have this attitude. Why not trust a board of faculty, volunteers, and university administrators to come to fair and unbiased conclusions? Particularly when, as has been pointed out, any decision risking the appearance of 'softness' against an accused person has the potential to not only blow up on social media, but now calls the university's funding into question, as well - and knowing that the likely cost of any of that would be their own position at the university. Who would not hesitate to stand before such fair judges, knowing they have the power to end an established contract with the accused, leave them on the hook for all the loans they took to acquire said education, and a few years of time, and leave a black mark on a person's name for years? And if a criminal investigation is ongoing, would not a finding of guilty here be used in court by a savvy attorney?

Any would tremble at standing before that stacked court. Surely, justice could be done, and the truth may out. But I wouldn't take odds on it.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening MNLawenforcement
It is very difficult to find statistics on false convictions. Some organizations will look for the most likely cases and they have a pretty high rate of finding false convictions, but that is out of a pre-selected group.

I have only been involved in 3 criminal cases (none as the defendant). In two the defendant was guilty, but was convicted of a much more serious crime than the one they had actually committed. In the 3rd the defendant was innocent, and while I don't know the results of the trial, they had their children taken away for at least a year. 

I'm a middle-class white guy (as were the people I'm discussing). Its much much worse for some minority groups. 

You believe in law enforcement because that is what you do. Just as I believe in the inherent goodness of what I do. Its very difficult to step outside and see your work as others see it. 





MNLawenforcement said:


> I never said that law enforcement doesn't make errors. That would be pretty darn stupid to say considering how many people have been exonerated after a conviction.
> 
> What I said was that everybody claims they were falsely accused but in my experience, between the jury system, strong protections for criminal defendants and a "robust appeals process" (that's the term the lawyers always use anyway), the number of innocent people punished for crimes they did not commit is very low. In addition, the number of totally innocent people who just randomly get accused and convicted is extremely low. Usually the people falsely convicted have previous criminal activities that influence the jury. Please remember that rape convictions are hard to secure. I have seen way too many people who were probably guilty of rape walk free simply because there isn't enough hard evidence to secure a conviction.
> 
> The poster I was replying too basically said that false accusations happen all the time (including to him), I simply pointed out that my experience in law enforcement says otherwise.


----------



## Thundarr

drerio said:


> Universities are required to maintain FERPA in the same way if a person being treated in a hospital were under criminal investigation they would have to maintain confidentiality under HIPPA.


I'm not happy with what I read regarding FERPA rulings a while back on privacy. Unless my sources were slanted, names in cases are not always blotted out when case documents are obtained.


----------



## Thundarr

BaxJanson said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Innocent until proven guilty."
> 
> With little to no knowledge of any part of the case, this person who works law enforcement to assure me that by claiming I was falsely accused of rape, I was already suspect of lying, and thus, guilty of the crime.
> 
> Many actual police have attitudes similar to this - I would dread having any of them investigating a case. We have seen that basic law enforcement can have this attitude. Why not trust a board of faculty, volunteers, and university administrators to come to fair and unbiased conclusions? Particularly when, as has been pointed out, any decision risking the appearance of 'softness' against an accused person has the potential to not only blow up on social media, but now calls the university's funding into question, as well - and knowing that the likely cost of any of that would be their own position at the university. Who would not hesitate to stand before such fair judges, knowing they have the power to end an established contract with the accused, leave them on the hook for all the loans they took to acquire said education, and a few years of time, and leave a black mark on a person's name for years? And if a criminal investigation is ongoing, would not a finding of guilty here be used in court by a savvy attorney?
> 
> Any would tremble at standing before that stacked court. Surely, justice could be done, and the truth may out. But I wouldn't take odds on it.


You're assessment of bias is accurate Bax and we do see it a lot in law enforcement. There's a lot of pressure for them to solve a crime and they're motivated by that pressure. It's a problem IMO.

Honestly in this regard, I think universities will do better than law enforcement. Motive for universities is to reduce the number of assaults, graduate students, and look good doing it. The last thing they want is to have mud on their face for getting it wrong in either direction. That would affect their admissions and cost them money as well. I just don't think universities are rewarded for getting it wrong like law enforcement often is.


----------



## LongWalk

Earlier I posted the New Yorker story about the black teen from the Bronx who was incarcerated three years on Rikers without ever getting to go trial. The DA cancelled court over and over. Three years of his life was spend not only in jail but solitary. The alleged crime was the theft of a backpack. The alleged victim moved back to Mexico.

One of the facts that the reporter uncovered was that most defendants never see their cases go to trial because the state usually offers a deal. Plead guilty to a less serious charge and subtract served time so that defendants have a strong incentive to plead guilty because it shortens everything and makes risk predictable.

The people who get treated like this are probably mostly minorities, the poor who cannot afford a lawyer. The public defender who assigned this teen never met him in person. They conferences were via video. To have met in person would have been too expensive for the lawyer, who is paid $75/hour.

Upper middle class white students, even if accused of rape, would probably be able to get out on bail. There parents might ruined by legal costs but at least their son would be coached on what to say.

It is possible that university administrators might do a better job of carrying out a rape investigation than the police. Presumably the reason the state passed this legislation is because the police are not as successful as they should be. Having the universities investigate by collecting testimony puts a lot of pressure on the police to perform.

How this will all work in practice remains to be seen.

My reading of the law remains the same. The university is supposed to the initial leading role in investigation. The law also gives the university discretion to decide what should be confidential, including witness testimony.

Here are the rape statistics for Bloomington, Indiana, home to U of I. It seems clear that campus and campus housing a dangerous compared with the city, but of course the university is very dominant.


----------



## MNLawenforcement

BaxJanson said:


> Ladies and gentlemen, I give you "Innocent until proven guilty."
> 
> With little to no knowledge of any part of the case, this person who works law enforcement to assure me that by claiming I was falsely accused of rape, I was already suspect of lying, and thus, guilty of the crime.
> 
> Many actual police have attitudes similar to this - I would dread having any of them investigating a case. We have seen that basic law enforcement can have this attitude. Why not trust a board of faculty, volunteers, and university administrators to come to fair and unbiased conclusions? Particularly when, as has been pointed out, any decision risking the appearance of 'softness' against an accused person has the potential to not only blow up on social media, but now calls the university's funding into question, as well - and knowing that the likely cost of any of that would be their own position at the university. Who would not hesitate to stand before such fair judges, knowing they have the power to end an established contract with the accused, leave them on the hook for all the loans they took to acquire said education, and a few years of time, and leave a black mark on a person's name for years? And if a criminal investigation is ongoing, would not a finding of guilty here be used in court by a savvy attorney?
> 
> Any would tremble at standing before that stacked court. Surely, justice could be done, and the truth may out. But I wouldn't take odds on it.


How is that a slight against innocent until proven guilty?

I don't know your case, no. I don't know anything about you other than the little bit of information you have provided and I stand by my previous statement.

I did not say you were guilty of anything, I did not make any claims about your guilt, I simply pointed out that the common claim "I am completely innocent and am being falsely accused" is pure crap. I won't pry into your past, so we can't debate the facts of your file, but you're here posting, and you have a strong history, so I don't think you were convicted. 

Also, while we're on the subject. May I ask if you went to trial? Probably not. Did you serve jail time? Probably not. In fact, I'll go a step further and venture an educated guess that you probably weren't ever arrested or inconvenienced other than maybe a few calls from a patrol officer. Unless you were actually arrested, there is no record of this anywhere (except police databases) and the only time it will become an issue is if you are accused again at a later date, which if you are an innocent man, will never occur. 

As I said in a later comment, false accusations do happen, but the truly false are quickly weeded out via our system and any that go further usually have merit. Saying "Oh, women lie. People are falsely accused" as a tactic to prevent rape laws and better battles against sexual assault is counter-productive and pretty darn disgusting. 

Let me ask you this. If this were a law about theft, and the law simply changed the state of the law to require people to ask before they borrow property rather than assuming it's OK to take it unless somebody yelled no and physically resisted them, would you have the same objections about "false accusations?"


----------



## GTdad

Thundarr said:


> I'm not happy with what I read regarding FERPA rulings a while back on privacy. Unless my sources were slanted, names in cases are not always blotted out when case documents are obtained.


FERPA has no teeth. We do our best to observe it, but it doesn't create any private right of action and the only penalty is, you guessed it, withholding federal funding. To my knowledge no penalty has ever been assessed for a breach.


----------



## Ikaika

GTdad said:


> FERPA has no teeth. We do our best to observe it, but it doesn't create any private right of action and the only penalty is, you guessed it, withholding federal funding. To my knowledge no penalty has ever been assessed for a breach.



Let me put it this way we have to go through FERA in service training every year as an obligation of employment. I recognize the language.


----------



## MNLawenforcement

Thundarr said:


> You're assessment of bias is accurate Bax and we do see it a lot in law enforcement. There's a lot of pressure for them to solve a crime and they're motivated by that pressure. It's a problem IMO.
> 
> Honestly in this regard, I think universities will do better than law enforcement. Motive for universities is to reduce the number of assaults, graduate students, and look good doing it. The last thing they want is to have mud on their face for getting it wrong in either direction. That would affect their admissions and cost them money as well. I just don't think universities are rewarded for getting it wrong like law enforcement often is.


Bias is a real problem, it can cloud a lot of issues. For me, that isn't much of an issue. I am not an investigating officer, so I don't have any pressure to solve crimes.

I am simply stating that based on many years of experience, very few people are randomly accused of crimes they didn't commit and people who say so are usually lying about something.

The plain fact that a lot of people don't understand is that reporting a crime, especially a sexual crime, to law enforcement is terrifying. The idea that a bunch of women are going to suddenly start making up rape cases for spite or vindictiveness really is laughable.


----------



## Thundarr

MNLawenforcement said:


> Bias is a real problem, it can cloud a lot of issues. For me, that isn't much of an issue. I am not an investigating officer, so I don't have any pressure to solve crimes.
> 
> I am simply stating that based on many years of experience, very few people are randomly accused of crimes they didn't commit and people who say so are usually lying about something.
> 
> The plain fact that a lot of people don't understand is that reporting a crime, especially a sexual crime, to law enforcement is terrifying. The idea that a bunch of women are going to suddenly start making up rape cases for spite or vindictiveness really is laughable.


I think we agree. The point I was really making is that law enforcement has more motive to have a perp than universities do. Partly because law enforcement doesn't have much control until after the fact. But student enrollement and campus reputation (thus higher tuition) is what pays the bills for a university. That's why a lot of rug sweeping historically has occurred. Now that this law makes that costly for universities, the smart campuses will put effort into prevention. Things like separating housing, mandatory dorm housing for freshmen, crack down on under age drinking, etc. I'm not sure who wants to go to the 'not so smart' schools that don't take those steps.


----------



## LongWalk

Women probably don't come forward.

They wake up. Take a long shower. Cry. Call a girlfriend whom they hope will not judge them to be slvt. Meanwhile the chance of a conviction is falling rapidly.

Wikipedia has a interesting entry on "campus rape", including discussion of statistics.



> *Civil liberties concerns for the accused*[edit]
> The Obama administration’s approach toward sexual assault on campus has been widely criticized for not taking into account the issue of false allegations and wrongful convictions.[40][41][42][43][44][45] Critics claim that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is not appropriate for college and universities to base sanctions upon, and leads to students being wrongfully expelled.
> 
> Campus hearings have also been criticized for *failing to provide many of the due process protection* that the United States Constitution guarantees in criminal trials, such as the right to be *represented by an attorney and the right to cross-examine witnesses*. The American Association of University Professors and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education have publicly opposed the “Dear Colleague” letter.[46]
> 
> Anti-Rape advocates have also protested the Obama administration. In early 2014, RAINN, the nation’s largest non-profit dedicated to preventing rape, wrote an open letter to the White House calling for campus hearings to be de-emphasized due to their lack of accountability for survivors and victims of sexual violence. According to RAINN, “The crime of rape does not fit the capabilities of such boards. They often offer the worst of both worlds: they lack protections for the accused while often tormenting victims.”[47]
> 
> Since the issuance of the “Dear Colleague” letter, a number of lawsuits have been filed against colleges and universities across the country by male students alleging that the schools violated their rights under Title IX by expelling them for rapes they did not commit.[48][49][50][51] Xavier University entered into a settlement in one such lawsuit in April 2014.[52]


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> Women probably don't come forward.
> 
> They wake up. Take a long shower. Cry. Call a girlfriend whom they hope will not judge them to be slvt. Meanwhile the chance of a conviction is falling rapidly.
> 
> Wikipedia has a interesting entry on "campus rape", including discussion of statistics.


I agree. Plus the snippit you quoted inidcates that the definition of 'perponderance' has already come into question (I don't know where you quoted it from though). That's a good thing for both sides of this argument I think. The Xavier University settlement is case law that other universities will use when determining what constitutes 'perponderance' or in this case the lack of.


----------



## Ikaika

I'm done here - my opinion is one that does not see much of a game changer in this legislation other than a progression of moving the needle from a person having to physical resist to then verbalizing "no" to now having to communicate affirmation under mitigating circumstances. I certainly can't see it as some feminist or activist agenda. I do understand the impetus that drives it. 

I'm sure some on here would view this as a bias opinion. And, maybe there is some level of bias that I did not intend. I'm sure a level of bias could easily be applied across the board to all comments from either side. We do need to remain "blind" but not always assume perfection. We are all human regardless of our level of expertise and experiences. 

I do reserve the right to be fluid with my thoughts as time progresses on the implementation of this law. But for now, there really is no sense in trying to browbeat me any longer on the issue. And, thus I will return that kind favor. I have lots of work to catch up on and the most important work of being a dad to my sons. The only sad aspect to this discussion is I felt I may have offended 2ntnuf. I don't know if you are still reading this 2n, but I sincerely apologize. 

Malama pono


----------



## Wolf1974

Thundarr said:


> Missing classes would be more related to missing work. This is more closely related to sexual harassment in the work place. Actually this law is very similar in that companies have legal obligation to protect their employees from sexual harassment and schools now have similar legal obligation.


A legal obligation to assist victims and provide information on sex assault prevention yes. To investigate statutory crimes no way. That is not their job nor should it be.


----------



## Wolf1974

LongWalk said:


> Women probably don't come forward.
> 
> They wake up. Take a long shower. Cry. Call a girlfriend whom they hope will not judge them to be slvt. Meanwhile the chance of a conviction is falling rapidly.
> 
> Wikipedia has a interesting entry on "campus rape", including discussion of statistics.


I agree with RAINN. Lots of things that a campus should do to educate, assist, and prevent sexual assaults. Is am glad to see many parts of that law passed and would support much of it even in this state. 

But investigating a crime of that nature no way. If God forbid one my daughters were assaulted and I found out that the first person my daughter was interviewed by was anyone other than an fully trained victim advocate or a police officer than I would raise holy hell.


----------



## LongWalk

Drerio, thank you for taking part in the discussion. Please don't think your efforts or those of the other posters who like the law were wasted. This is a complicated situation but clearly more should be done.

The men who systematically plot to get young women drunk enough to rape are heinous predators. To ignore the harm they are doing is wrong. The CA legislature is not acting for no reason.

I also see how the law in practice might not usurp police powers if practiced judicially. I convinced me that an institution could have a reasonable policy in place.

Looking at the actual material on university websites it is clear that as you say, much of this actually exists. The difference is that it is mandated by law.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> Seriously I'm unsubscribing from this thread all the misinformation tires me out.
> 
> In other words the state of CA does not want a code of secrecy to exists (rug sweeping), but they are not law enforcement. However as it always has been they can enforce disciplinary actions just now with this new definition in the code of conduct. These are similar to any other organization, not penal.


That you lack imagination to envision how what even you admit is a vague and unstructured law could be misused or misapplied isn't a failing on our parts.


----------



## Lionelhutz

drerio said:


> It simply suggest that we moved the needle from a woman having had physically resisted of the complaint of rape to verbally saying "no", to now suggesting that if she is unable to say no because she is either unconscious or too intoxicated that she has to affirm sexual advancement. How does this change innocence before guilt?
> .


That is not what the law says. It does not say "no because she is either unconscious or too intoxicated"


----------



## Lionelhutz

Wolf1974 said:


> *I agree with the above. I don't see this as a feminist driven agenda either. What I do see it as, and always have, is a not well thought out law. I agree the education and literature part. But all too often laws are passed and then no one thinks, well how are we actually going to see this objective is met. They have put a large burden on the academic system to do something it's really not in existence to do, investigate crimes. They have told them this is what you will do but really, in what I have read, not given them the tools to do it. It's like telling a person to build a bridge but not giving them any tools or equipment to get the job done. Just the objective. *


I'm not sure if anyone else has yet brought out the old quote about how you should not see how laws and sausages are made, but that is so very true.


----------



## LongWalk

Here is an  account of campus rape by woman at Columbia. She is not a weakling. Although the university refused to expel the man she alleged assaulted her, she is getting him back. She consented to vaginal intercourse but said he did something she did not agree to. She had to describe it in graphic detail.

Her case demonstrates clearly that universities do engage in investigations that liken criminal trials. Emma's word against Paul's word resulted in no expulsion.

Firstly, I believe this woman's account. Secondly, many of the Columbia committee may have believed her, too. However, they may have felt they had not choice because words are inadequate proof.

Secondly, the Columbia process was separate from the police investigation.

Clearly there are two processes going on. Perhaps it has always been that way, so the California may not represent a change.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> But investigating a crime of that nature no way. If God forbid one my daughters were assaulted and I found out that the first person my daughter was interviewed by was anyone other than an fully trained victim advocate or a police officer than I would raise holy hell.


The problem is that when victims come forward, they often do not go to the police, but instead reveal in a trusted or safe environment --to Health and Wellness, a counselor, a mentor, a leader of an organization, and so on. 

These people *need* to have training on how to respond appropriately because they are the first to hear of it. And of course they will involve the police if a crime is being reported. But they also need a protocol for how the institution will react, to ensure that everyone is in compliance with the law, and to protect themselves from litigation.


----------



## LongWalk

A very good article



> NATIONAL
> *‘There Was No One For Me To Turn To’*
> 
> BYALINA MOGILYANSKAYA
> JUNE 12, 2014
> ISSUE #197
> Elliot Rodger’s attacks in California sparked a feminist outcry about sexism, misogyny and sexual violence. But that frustration has been building since long before the Isla Vista shootings, perhaps nowhere as acutely as on the nation’s college campuses. Universities have proven themselves ill-equipped to keep students safe, and failing that, to provide victims with a sense of justice after an assault. Many schools are now squirming in the limelight as a result.
> 
> A grassroots campaign for colleges to reform their policies, led mostly by female students and alumni, has been quietly but steadily building for more than a year. Women have increasingly been speaking out about their personal experiences with assault on campuses, connecting with one another and taking legal action under Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits sex discrimination at institutions that receive federal funds. Sixty-one colleges are now under investigation by the Education Department for possible Title IX violations related to sexual violence.
> 
> One of the women who have gone public with their stories is Emma Sulkowicz, a senior at Columbia University studying visual arts. In 2012, she was raped by a fellow student on campus. Eight months later, she decided to report it to the university, and a year after that, she went public. In disciplinary hearings, the Columbia administration found her attacker not guilty; as far as she knows, he will be returning to campus in the fall, after a semester abroad. But she and other women activists have gained the ear of the White House and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, and are working to force college administrators’ hands on the issue. “It’s been a building wave,” she said. “Now the wave is breaking.”
> 
> Alina Mogilyanskaya: You’re in a summer art residency right now. What kind of work are you doing there?
> 
> Emma Sulkowicz: After all of this, I don’t see myself in the same way anymore. Before my story was very private, and now it’s in the public eye. Now, people will come up to me and tell me either that what I’m doing is very brave or that I’m a **** and a liar. All of my interactions with people have changed and my relationship to the subject of rape has changed. A lot of my work here has been trying to figure out how to make artwork with this new identity. It’s a weird thing because I’m so tired of it. I’m tired of having to think about it yet it’s something that I can’t stop thinking about.
> 
> AM: What made you decide to speak out in the first place?
> 
> ES: I didn’t really want to deal with it at first. I didn’t want to talk about it. But then I met another woman who said that the same person who had raped me had engaged with intimate partner violence with her over an extended period of time. And we ended up meeting another woman who’d been raped by him. I realized that the longer I stayed silent, the longer he would be free to assault other people on campus. That’s when these women and I decided to come forward.
> 
> AM: What happened the night of the assault? And what has it been like to come to terms with it?
> 
> ES: My attacker was one of my closest friends at the time, and we’d had consensual sex twice in the past. There was a party and we left together. I invited him to my room because we’d had sex before, and we were having consensual vaginal intercourse. Soon though, he hit me across the face and started choking me and pinned my arms behind my head and pushed my legs up against my chest. He began to anally penetrate me. It was really painful and I was saying no, I was telling him to stop but he didn’t. Then finally he did, he got off and laid down next to me for a second. I was just frozen solid. I was petrified. And then he ran out.
> 
> I spent months in denial. I wasn’t really ready to believe that I’d been raped because realizing that you’ve been raped is realizing that people can take control of you and objectify you. In that moment, I wasn’t a human to him. I was just a thing. And that’s pretty ****ing scary. Once I finally did admit to myself that it had happened, I was really unhappy. And I think a lot of what I’ve been dealing with since then is trying to find ways to believe that I am human.
> 
> AM: How has it affected your outlook on sexuality?
> 
> ES: I identify as a straight woman. I have an amazing boyfriend who has been so essential in my recovery. But even now, there are some things that I have to set limits for. Like even if his hand is near my throat, I will freak out, even though I know he’s not going to hurt me. So I have to set boundaries. There are certain areas of my body that I don’t think will ever be able to be touched ever again.
> 
> AM: While they’re expected to comply with Title IX, colleges have the discretion to develop their own procedures for investigating sexual assault cases. What was it like dealing with the Columbia administration after you decided to report the rape?
> 
> ES: It was incredibly frustrating. I was interviewed by the Title IX investigator, and she took incomplete and inaccurate notes, where she excluded extremely important details and made mistakes about others. Then I went before a panel of administrators who were supposed to be trained on the issue, but they were not. One lady was asking me, “How is it possible that anal rape could happen if you didn’t have lubrication?” And I said, “Well, there was force involved and that’s the definition of rape.” But she didn’t seem to understand. She couldn’t wrap her mind around it.
> 
> There were other issues too. If I had a penny for every blatant attempt that the school made to try to keep me silent, I would be so rich. I got so many phone calls from the administration saying, “We need to talk about confidentiality.” I wasn’t allowed to talk to the other women who’d been assaulted by the same person, and they gave me rules about what I was allowed to say to my friends.
> 
> Before, I believed in the system. I believed that by coming out and reporting what had happened, it would somehow do something good for the world. I didn’t realize that the system wasn’t working. The moment I got the email saying that he was not guilty was earth-shattering, because I realized that there was no one for me to turn to that would help keep us safe.
> 
> AM: Columbia says that it’s taken steps to address the issue. For instance, administrators have added another Title IX investigator. They’ve eased the confidentiality process for victims who are reporting these cases. They are going to be increasing consent education. Is that enough?
> 
> ES: I believe that they’ve been taking the kinds of steps where they can say they’re doing something without doing much at all. At the end of the day, my rapist is still here and I think that all these steps are just going to be sort of asinine until they fix the real problem. I think they should give survivors that have rapists on campus the opportunity to reopen their cases.
> 
> There are two main activist groups at Columbia working on the issue, the Coalition Against Sexual Violence and the No Red Tape group, and I have been involved with both. We put together a list of policy demands — to better train the administrators involved in these decisions, to allow serial rape as evidence, and many others — but the administration has yet to take the suggestions into consideration.
> 
> AM: This issue has exploded on other campuses — Amherst, Tufts, Harvard, Brown, the list goes on and on. How does it feel to see this issue come to the fore in so many other places, and what’s the next step?
> 
> ES: I feel like it’s been a building wave and now the wave is breaking. It’s really exciting. I’m hoping that if we can get enough strength this time around, we’ll actually make some lasting change. We’ve been talking to each other across campuses and we’ve been asking each other for advice. One of our biggest next steps is to try to make this more of an inter-school conversation rather than just a Columbia one. Here, meanwhile, the administration promised that they would work on our policy suggestions over the summer. We’re going to see if they stay true to their word. If they don’t, we’re going to keep fighting.
> 
> AM: You mentioned lasting change. What would you like to see done on a national level?
> 
> ES: Rape happens off college campuses as well. One of the most egregious examples is the way the police handle rape: it’s atrocious. When I finally reported my rape to the police, an officer straight up told me that I wasn’t raped. He was not in a position to say that to me, yet he felt the need to. The last thing you need after you’ve been raped is to be re-traumatized by people who are telling you your experience didn’t happen before it’s even been investigated.
> 
> One thing I would love to come from this movement is a broader awareness about what sexual assault really means. And I want survivors who aren’t in the United States and who aren’t at colleges to start to see some validation of these experiences in their lives.
> 
> This conversation is excerpted from a longer interview with Emma Sulkowicz.
> 
> - See more at: â€˜There Was No One For Me To Turn Toâ€™ | The Indypendent


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> The problem is that when victims come forward, they often do not go to the police, but instead reveal in a trusted or safe environment --to Health and Wellness, a counselor, a mentor, a leader of an organization, and so on.
> 
> These people *need* to have training on how to respond appropriately because they are the first to hear of it. And of course they will involve the police if a crime is being reported. But they also need a protocol for how the institution will react, to ensure that everyone is in compliance with the law, and to protect themselves from litigation.


That's why I said before they should abandon the "investigator" portion of the law and instead be mandated to hire a full time victim advocate who is available on campus for these situations. That's what hospitals use and who we use so that the victim has NO sense of obligation that they have to prosectute at that time. The advocate can walk them through the process, tell them what is going to happen, and be there with them when it does. Our advocates stay with them from first call to trial as a support. That's not what this law says. It says that they will be interviewed.....and again my questions goes to by whom? Some English lit professor who volunteers to be on call for that weekend? 

And you say protect yourself from litigation. I see this opening themselves up to a lot more because they have the potential to royally screw up an investigation before it even begins. Not to mention a huge disservice to the victim who now may have to explain what happend 3 times before anyone is even arrested. Don't see that as any step in the right direction


----------



## Wolf1974

LongWalk said:


> A very good article


Yes that is a good article


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> That's why I said before they should abandon the "investigator" portion of the law and instead be mandated to hire a full time victim advocate who is available on campus for these situations.


I think you're misunderstanding the nature of these investigations. There is no way that the University would compromise a criminal investigation. Not only would it be a disaster, it would absolutely open the doors for both litigation AND criminal prosecution. 

Campus police work closely with municipal police. And campus organizations are very cautious in how they act. Anyone who does step out of line is acting as individuals at their own behest, and are also subject to reprimand --or worse -- if their conduct breaches university policy. This includes staff and students.


----------



## MNLawenforcement

always_alone said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the nature of these investigations. There is no way that the University would compromise a criminal investigation. Not only would it be a disaster, it would absolutely open the doors for both litigation AND criminal prosecution.
> 
> Campus police work closely with municipal police. And campus organizations are very cautious in how they act. Anyone who does step out of line is acting as individuals at their own behest, and are also subject to reprimand --or worse -- if their conduct breaches university policy. This includes staff and students.


Here in Minnesota, the campus police are often their own precinct, with full force of law and duly sworn officers. There is no distinction between campus police and municipal police, they just have a smaller area of full authority.


----------



## LongWalk

Aways Alone,

Did you read the articles interview Emma Sulkowicz?

Clearly she was not impressed by the amateur disciplinary board who were just academics and not law enforcement officers.

As long as a university's inquiry is first to the witnesses, it may compromise them.

Sulkowicz raises an interesting point. Should a man who is accused by a number of women of the same sort of criminal act be punished by the university even if the evidence for a rape conviction no longer exists?

Would you have voted to expel Paul, the alleged rapist, if you had been on the Columbia board?

Also, this incident reveals a great weakness in the CA legislation. Both parties are required to seek continuous consent. In Sulkowicz's case the man suddenly choked her and penetrated her anally. I believe the guy who did it in this case has some personality disorder. However, choking and anal sex are also within the range of normal sexual behavior.

When is a sexual act suddenly rape? This is a gray zone. If someone says "no" once, and the act ends, is it no longer rape?

If a woman and man are having intercourse with the woman in the superior position and the man has indicated that he does not want to ejaculate inside her, if she ignores him and accelerates so that he loses control, is that rape? He clearly did not consent to that act.


----------



## JCD

Shikha Dalmia



> *The obvious problem with the law — which many other states are considering as well — is that it assumes that sexual assault, already a crime under multiple laws, is the result of miscommunication.* The assumption is that somehow one partner (and let's be honest, it is overwhelmingly the one with a Y chromosome) didn't ask or realize that the other wasn't into it. *But the fact is: Most assaulters know exactly what they are doing. The vast majority of campus rapes are committed by a small minority of repeat offenders who give not a damn about what the woman wants. And if they can threaten violence, they can also lie about obtaining consent. So how will the law change anything*?
> ...
> Tara Culp-Ressler, a consent evangelist, insists that far from killing the mood, making sure your partner is as excited as you are about certain moves and positions will enhance the sexual experience.
> 
> Sometimes. Still, such claims are based on a rather simplistic understanding of human sexuality that is out of touch with the lived experience of most people.
> 
> The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited. At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying — but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that.


Megan McArdle




> What to make of California’s new “affirmative consent” legislation for college campuses? The proposed law has drawn much criticism, and for good reason. It suggests that the main cause of rape is confusion about whether consent has been given -- and, at that, doesn’t seem to offer a significant improvement over “no means no.” It sets a special standard for college women. It seems to criminalize most sexual encounters that most people have ever had, which (I hear) don’t usually involve multistep verbal contracts. It appears designed to be unequally applied to men and women or, alternatively, to create a lot of cases of “mutual rape.” *And it doesn’t fix the actual thing that makes rape hard to prosecute, or stop, which is that there are often only two witnesses who know whether or not the sex was consensual, one of whom was often intoxicated*.


Wendy Kaimner



> Affirmative-consent requirements and the conviction bias underlying the new approach to alleged campus assaults practically ensure that students accused of sexual assault will be found guilty of it. *Advocates for self-identified victims don’t regard this as an injustice because they believe false accusations of rape are extremely rare or simply theoretical, not actual, possibilities. They also tend to trivialise the consequences of guilty findings in campus cases: since campuses are not courts of law, advocates argue, students are ‘merely’ suspended or expelled, not convicted of crimes and subject to imprisonment. But they are labelled rapists and likely to be denied admission to other colleges and universities. Their educations and careers are derailed, at best. Innocent students wrongly accused of rape (and wrongful accusations are proffered) may be as traumatised as some rape victims.*
> This disregard for false accusations, based largely on the belief that they rarely if ever occur, reflects the assumption that accusers are women and accused rapists are men – an assumption implicit in Gloria Steinem’s equation of opposition to affirmative consent with opposition to ‘women’s equality’. But California’s affirmative-consent law is gender neutral, by necessity, as any affirmative-consent law must be. A law that required men to obtain explicit ongoing consent from women but did not require women to obtain explicit ongoing consent from men would be unconstitutional. Given cultural conditioning and stereotypes, it’s hard to imagine a man claiming that he was groped without consent by a woman, but it’s easy to imagine affirmative-consent issues arising in disputes between same-sex couples, male or female. In these cases, assumptions about male and female sexuality will not support presumptions of guilt.
> 
> Will feminists and other victims’ rights advocates reflexively ‘believe the victim’ when both victim and accuser are female or when both are male? I suspect not. Political correctness will be of little use in determining the truth or accuracy of accusations in cases involving same-sex couples, or transgendered people. Sexuality is fluid, gay and transgendered rights activists remind us, a perspective that could expose the injustices of an approach to sexual assault based partly on traditional sexual stereotypes.
> 
> But, in the meantime, activists focused on heterosexual relations who believe that affirmative-consent rules and minimal standards of proof are essential to the just disposition of rape claims will probably not content themselves with campus reforms. *Gloria Steinem and Michael Kimmel, for example, insist that an ongoing ‘explicit yes’ rule is ‘completely logical, and fully consistent with adjudicating other crimes’.* Why, then, should it only apply to colleges and universities? And if we’re supposed to ‘believe the victim’ on campus, why not believe her off campus, as well? *Civil libertarians should take note: assaults on the fundamental presumption of innocence and due process in rape cases that begin on campus are unlikely to end there.*


Michelle Goldberg



> *Now, most of us know what this kind of consent looks like in practice, but as a legal standard, it’s hard to imagine how it would be implemented. Do moans count as consent? How about a nod, or a smile, or meaningful eye contact? If a woman performs oral sex on a man without asking him first, and if he simply lies back and lets her, has she, by the law’s definition, assaulted him?*
> 
> The law might force couples into dialogue about their desires—obviously a good thing—but it’s hard to see how that alone will address rape ... Research at one campus by the scholars David Lisak and Paul M. Miller shows that most rapists are serial offenders who have committed other acts of violence as well. “This portrait is more consistent with the data on recidivism among sex offenders than with the still-prevalent image of a male college student who, under the influence of alcohol, mistakenly crosses the line between sexual pressure and rape,” they write. *Yet California’s law treats the campus rape crisis as a communication problem, even as it blurs the parameters of what sexual assault is.*
> 
> Some people have argued that it doesn’t really matter if those lines are blurry, because, contrary to what men’s rights activists claim, women have no incentive to abuse the system. (The law is gender neutral, of course, but it’s clearly women who are most likely to be sexually assaulted.) We know that women very rarely lie about rape, and so they’re unlikely to go to authorities if their partners deviate from the letter but not the spirit of the new rules. “If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later,” wrote Tara Culp-Ressler in ThinkProgress. “So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard—all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time.”
> 
> Maybe she’s right. *Most of the time, though, progressives are not comfortable with arguments that overly broad laws are OK because we can trust them to be applied judiciously as opposed to literally*. This is particularly true when we’re talking about laws legislating speech and sexual behavior. I’m sure we can rely on the vast majority of college students, and particularly college women, to interpret the new rules in good faith. *I’m less sure if that’s a good enough argument for a law so vague that, technically, it might turn most of them into rapists, victims or both.*


----------



## always_alone

MNLawenforcement said:


> Here in Minnesota, the campus police are often their own precinct, with full force of law and duly sworn officers. There is no distinction between campus police and municipal police, they just have a smaller area of full authority.


Interesting! Although it stands to reason that this would vary across jurisdictions.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> Aways Alone,
> 
> Did you read the articles interview Emma Sulkowicz?
> 
> Clearly she was not impressed by the amateur disciplinary board who were just academics and not law enforcement officers.


Clearly. But if you read further, she was not impressed by the police behaviour either, and her argument is that both have to improve their responses to rape.

Which this law is attempting to do, at least for the universities.

What you seem to be forgetting is that universities already do this sort of stuff. The difference is only in the standard of consent.

So let me turn your question back on you: are you happy to see a serial rapist go completely untouched because it took his victims some time to piece together what really had happened to them?


----------



## LongWalk

"Really happy to see a serial rapist go completely untouched"?

I feel for the young woman and consider her very brave. She has managed to win some justice by exposing him. Her account of what took place is very credible. I believe her. Why would she publically admit that she was subject to that violent attack whose purpose was not to heighten sexual pleasure but to degrade and violate her?

However, without any physical evidence and no witnesses, what court could have convicted him. It all comes down to her word and against his. The discovery of other women who also reported similar experiences at his hand strengthens the suspicion that he abused women according to a pattern. But still there appears no hard evidence.

This is an shortcoming in the innocent until proven guilty standard of justice.

This guy will now always be dogged by his Internet infamy. Unfortunately, many victims who do not get their day in court are not so creative, determined and brave. So, the rapists escape.

I have two teenage daughters myself, so I am worried that they face such danger.

It would help a great deal if women knew that were supposed to seek medical attention immediately after an attack so that they would have evidence. Universities should provide information about campus rape in the freshmen orientation package. 

It is ironic that alcohol is both the weapon of rapists and the social lubricant that breaks down modesty, shyness and caution (this applies to both men and women).

p.s. Drerio left this thread a bit depressed. I think he is an asset to TAM. If you agree, please let him know.


----------



## COguy

Wolf1974 said:


> Yes that is a good article


That article scares me sh*tless. She's mad because they couldn't prove that a man who'd done an act in private 8 months prior didn't get penalized? ALL proof that she would need to get a conviction would not be available after that amount of time.

If you're going to prove forced penetration you need to be seeing a doctor immediately after the act.

Second, she's mad that they didn't want her talking to other witnesses? That's insane. If I was that guy's lawyer I would be fighting to declare a mistrial and sue the school if they let the witnesses talk to eachother.

Defendants are owed due process and this is exactly the reason schools should stay out of it, there is no way they can pull this off correctly for the victim or the accused and by taking sides they place themselves in jeopardy to be sued.

If this woman's story is true I feel for her. I think if anything women should be advocating for getting help immediately. If you're raped, don't wait months to go get help. Go to the hospital and have an exam. Otherwise you're going to get into a he said/she said argument with no way of proving your case.

Anyone who says she's telling the truth or that she's lying has a biased agenda. There is absolutely no way after 8 months to prove who is lying about what happened. And by having the witnesses talk to eachother they are actually hurting, not helping their case. Their testimony would hold up a lot better if they all said similar things without ever having discussed it with eachother.


----------



## LongWalk

Here is a link to a long investigative piece on a scandal at Brown University.

It gives a very dismal picture of the quality of investigations carried out by university staff. The article is long but if you don't have time to read it all, the family of the girl who made the rape accusation settled out of court to the tune on $1.0m.

One interpretation of the what happened is that an awkward kid Wisonsin on an athleteic scholarship met a rich East Coast finance executive's daughter. The two had some intial friendship and the boy hoped he had found a girlfriend. The girl wanted him to stop courting her. He happened to be a 275 lbs heavy weight wrestler. When she told this fact to her family, they wanted him gone.

So, there are rapists and there are unjustly accused men. Drerio once noted that universities wouldn't mess up their handling of investigations for fear of lawsuits. Apparently the fear is well founded. The institutions look bad which ever way there is a case. All PR about rape, true or false is bad for the university's image.


----------



## Thundarr

COguy said:


> Anyone who says she's telling the truth or that she's lying has a biased agenda. There is absolutely no way after 8 months to prove who is lying about what happened. And by having the witnesses talk to eachother they are actually hurting, not helping their case. Their testimony would hold up a lot better if they all said similar things without ever having discussed it with eachother.


What are your thoughts on both taking a lie detector in a case like this. If both deceptive then nothing changes. If both are not deceptive then still do nothing changes. But if one is deceptive and the other is not then it tilts 'perponderance' in that direction. Obviously lie detectors are not admissible for any criminal trial still though.


----------



## 2ntnuf

drerio said:


> I'm done here - my opinion is one that does not see much of a game changer in this legislation other than a progression of moving the needle from a person having to physical resist to then verbalizing "no" to now having to communicate affirmation under mitigating circumstances. I certainly can't see it as some feminist or activist agenda. I do understand the impetus that drives it.
> 
> I'm sure some on here would view this as a bias opinion. And, maybe there is some level of bias that I did not intend. I'm sure a level of bias could easily be applied across the board to all comments from either side. We do need to remain "blind" but not always assume perfection. We are all human regardless of our level of expertise and experiences.
> 
> I do reserve the right to be fluid with my thoughts as time progresses on the implementation of this law. But for now, there really is no sense in trying to browbeat me any longer on the issue. And, thus I will return that kind favor. I have lots of work to catch up on and the most important work of being a dad to my sons. The only sad aspect to this discussion is I felt I may have offended 2ntnuf. I don't know if you are still reading this 2n, but I sincerely apologize.
> 
> Malama pono


No problem.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> What are your thoughts on both taking a lie detector in a case like this. If both deceptive then nothing changes. If both are not deceptive then still do nothing changes. But if one is deceptive and the other is not then it tilts 'perponderance' in that direction. Obviously lie detectors are not admissible for any criminal trial still though.


The big issue with this law is it weakens the burden of proof and essentially, according to all four of the columnists I cited, forces a 'guilty until proven innocent' presumption on the men.

Now you want to add witch doctor science to the mix? If we had absolute proof of the efficacy of lie detectors, we would use them. Obviously we do not have that. 

Absolutely not. But the way this law is structured, and since it is not a court of law, I can see some university somewhere give it a try. The default standard pushed by feminists is 'always believe the victim', who couple that with an inconclusive result and no man in his right mind would offer to take that kind of test.


----------



## Wolf1974

MNLawenforcement said:


> Here in Minnesota, the campus police are often their own precinct, with full force of law and duly sworn officers. There is no distinction between campus police and municipal police, they just have a smaller area of full authority.


Yep In Colorado they are state police


----------



## Wolf1974

COguy said:


> That article scares me sh*tless. She's mad because they couldn't prove that a man who'd done an act in private 8 months prior didn't get penalized? ALL proof that she would need to get a conviction would not be available after that amount of time.
> 
> If you're going to prove forced penetration you need to be seeing a doctor immediately after the act.
> 
> Second, she's mad that they didn't want her talking to other witnesses? That's insane. If I was that guy's lawyer I would be fighting to declare a mistrial and sue the school if they let the witnesses talk to eachother.
> 
> Defendants are owed due process and this is exactly the reason schools should stay out of it, there is no way they can pull this off correctly for the victim or the accused and by taking sides they place themselves in jeopardy to be sued.
> 
> If this woman's story is true I feel for her. I think if anything women should be advocating for getting help immediately. If you're raped, don't wait months to go get help. Go to the hospital and have an exam. Otherwise you're going to get into a he said/she said argument with no way of proving your case.
> 
> Anyone who says she's telling the truth or that she's lying has a biased agenda. There is absolutely no way after 8 months to prove who is lying about what happened. And by having the witnesses talk to eachother they are actually hurting, not helping their case. Their testimony would hold up a lot better if they all said similar things without ever having discussed it with eachother.


I liked only that it showed how college investigations wouldn't work. Not that this happened it her. Had she been in contact with a advocate they would have encouraged the sane exam and going to the police and not the college immediately not 8 months later.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> "Really happy to see a serial rapist go completely untouched"?
> 
> I feel for the young woman and consider her very brave. She has managed to win some justice by exposing him. Her account of what took place is very credible. I believe her. Why would she publically admit that she was subject to that violent attack whose purpose was not to heighten sexual pleasure but to degrade and violate her?
> 
> However, without any physical evidence and no witnesses, what court could have convicted him. It all comes down to her word and against his. The discovery of other women who also reported similar experiences at his hand strengthens the suspicion that he abused women according to a pattern. But still there appears no hard evidence.
> 
> This is an shortcoming in the innocent until proven guilty standard of justice.
> 
> This guy will now always be dogged by his Internet infamy. Unfortunately, many victims who do not get their day in court are not so creative, determined and brave. So, the rapists escape.


He said: I tried to spice up our relationship with some rough sex. Haven't you seen all the stats? Women have this HUGE rape fantasy and sometimes it takes them some time to 'get into it'. I tried but she never 'got there'.

She said: I was raped but it took me *8 months and long conversations with other people* to figure out I was.

So was he a rapist or a horrible boyfriend?

I happen to believe her. I hold to the standard 'no' means 'pull out and walk away' (A perfectly REASONABLE standard) I happen to believe all of them. But that doesn't matter a whit when it comes to the rule of law.

We've been talking about 'personal responsibility': about how it is absolutely critical for men to make sure of consent and intoxication in a sexual relationship to safeguard themselves.

Here is the other side of the coin: *These women were responsible not only for the lack of justice but for his continued ability to rape more women.*

Their reputation, their comfort zone, their social prospects, their fear of whatever...all meant more than their responsibility to put this man away. (And 2014 is not the same place as 1950's hillbilly America, um kay? Let's drop that argument that they are so staggered by social approbation and slvt shaming that they couldn't come forward)

*Women need to report the damn rapes!* Period! No more 'unreported rapes' to throw at people. If you choose to walk away without reporting it, you are a big part of the problem too! Because it seems if these women had done this a long time ago, they would have reduced the rape statistics at Columbia a great deal! Cause most men are reasonable and NOT rapists.

And this is what I meant by the moral murkiness of rape. *The actual victim herself* was not sure she was actually raped, instead of having had sex with a frigging jerk. How can we ask strangers to judge the exact same circumstances with a deep moral clarity? 

Obviously we have to. But we damn well certain need to demand EVIDENCE and even timeliness from the issue. It is like asking to try an accused murderer without any body. It can be done, but juries are correctly a lot more skeptical about the matter.

This is where the education thing comes in. Feminists should be a lot sharper tongued to their sisters about stepping forward and get this cleared up.

As a society, we started to incarcerate petty and drug offenders in greater numbers...and our crimes across the board started to drop like a rock because small criminal become big criminals. We can do the same thing with rape...IF the girls do their part.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> I think you're misunderstanding the nature of these investigations. There is no way that the University would compromise a criminal investigation. Not only would it be a disaster, it would absolutely open the doors for both litigation AND criminal prosecution.
> 
> Campus police work closely with municipal police. And campus organizations are very cautious in how they act. Anyone who does step out of line is acting as individuals at their own behest, and are also subject to reprimand --or worse -- if their conduct breaches university policy. This includes staff and students.



no I'm really not, you're misunderstanding what the college is now being required to do. If the campus police are sworn, which they are in many states, then they DO NOT work directly for the campus. In Colorado they are state police who have that as a station option. So once again if the victim does not want to go to the police, on campus or off, then the universtity still has to do all the things I previously outlined from the law. The police aren't going to do that investigation for them unless the victim comes forward with us. That has been my issue all along. The university has to interview the victim, suspect, witnesses and so on.


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> The big issue with this law is it weakens the burden of proof and essentially, according to all four of the columnists I cited, forces a 'guilty until proven innocent' presumption on the men.
> 
> Now you want to add witch doctor science to the mix? If we had absolute proof of the efficacy of lie detectors, we would use them. Obviously we do not have that.
> 
> Absolutely not. But the way this law is structured, and since it is not a court of law, I can see some university somewhere give it a try. The default standard pushed by feminists is 'always believe the victim', who couple that with an inconclusive result and no man in his right mind would offer to take that kind of test.


A few posters like wolf74 and Buddy400 and Drerio if you notice, have made some solid arguments against this law based on logic and experience. They understand that 'perponderance' in civil law is not the same as 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal law. I'm hoping to hear their take on lie detectors. Mind you it's less filled with witch doctors and feminist.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> A few posters like wolf74 and Buddy400 and even Drerio if you notice, have made some solid arguments against this law based on logic and experience. They understand that 'perponderance' in civil law is not the same as 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal law. I'm hoping to hear their take on lie detectors. Mind you it's less filled with witch doctors and feminist.


I apologize for offending your sensibilities. 


But then again, I am not the one proposing we use a technique which is considered rather questionable by the scientific community to determine whether we ruin someone's life or not.

You can WikiSneer at this, but it has quotes and citations.


----------



## alphaomega

I like boobs.


----------



## JCD

alphaomega said:


> I like boobs.


Just make sure you get permission first. Unsolicited kisses or fondling, passion _in the moment_, are now a thing of the past at least on California campuses.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> no I'm really not, you're misunderstanding what the college is now being required to do. If the campus police are sworn, which they are in many states, then they DO NOT work directly for the campus. In Colorado they are state police who have that as a station option. So once again if the victim does not want to go to the police, on campus or off, then the universtity still has to do all the things I previously outlined from the law. The police aren't going to do that investigation for them unless the victim comes forward with us. That has been my issue all along. The university has to interview the victim, suspect, witnesses and so on.


In my jurisdiction, campus police are special constabulary, an arm of community policing.

But in all jurisdictions, universities have already been involved in monitoring, investigating, reporting student (and staff, for that matter) behaviour, everything from sexual assault, to theft, to vandalism, you name it. Since the beginning, universities, like many other organizations, have developed policies and protocols to deal with these things.

This law changes absolutely nothing about that. So if it is just that they are involved in these investigations that bothers you, we'll then you always have had a problem with how universities conduct business.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> He said: I tried to spice up our relationship with some rough sex. Haven't you seen all the stats? Women have this HUGE rape fantasy and sometimes it takes them some time to 'get into it'. I tried but she never 'got there'.
> 
> She said: I was raped but it took me *8 months and long conversations with other people* to figure out I was.
> 
> So was he a rapist or a horrible boyfriend?


A person can be both, you know. And anyone who will continue to beat and strangle a partner during sex, despite repeated cries to stop, tears, struggling, and with no prior consent to do so, *is* a rapist pure and simple.

That you want to excuse this behaviour as "spicing up his sex life" because "women have rape fantasies" is offensive in the extreme, and exactly why we need affirmative consent laws, IMHO. 

Too many people are still of the conception that it's okay to push against no, do whatever the hell they want, secure in the knowledge that they'll never get called on it. And even if they do, so what, they can just deny anything bad happened, and everyone will cluck and nod and say, "poor you, and damn those false accusations"

I do agree with you that victims need to come forward with these things in a timely way. Unfortunately, however, even though it is 2014, coming forward is still a humiliating and frightening experience that doesn't always lead to any form of justice.

This is especially true for male victims, who can barely get anyone to even believe that it's possible for a woman to rape a man. And the insistence on this thread that this law is only for women, not to mention a feminist plot designed to kill sex and throw all men in jail shows that these victims aren't even a blip on the radar. 

Sad.


----------



## LongWalk

Who sits on a disciplinary committee, board, panel? Here is an example:



> On Feb. 21, a three-member disciplinary panel convened a six-hour hearing with McLeod and the freshman accuser. The panel consisted of *a female undergraduate student who researched gender violence* and two administrators: *a male academic adviser for the lacrosse team and a female sports nutritionist*.


Source

What qualifies this particular group of persons to evaluate evidence and render a judgment?


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> In my jurisdiction, campus police are special constabulary, an arm of community policing.
> 
> But in all jurisdictions, universities have already been involved in monitoring, investigating, reporting student (and staff, for that matter) behaviour, everything from sexual assault, to theft, to vandalism, you name it. Since the beginning, universities, like many other organizations, have developed policies and protocols to deal with these things.
> 
> This law changes absolutely nothing about that. So if it is just that they are involved in these investigations that bothers you, we'll then you always have had a problem with how universities conduct business.


This was Drerio's point, as well. It is valid in some respects. However, university when university adminstrators take the lead role in investigating crimes, don't they risk damaging the case against the defendent?

Also, universities and police have two different goals. For the police evidence that a prosecutor will accept is necessary for them to pursue and investigation. For the university the aim is to come up with a lower standard, the so-called preponderance of evidence.

The Columbia University case illustrates the frustration that a victim must feel. The woman at Columbia realized that both the police and university would not convict or expel the man.

One of the problems with the continuous consent law is that is not criminal offense to fail to secure it, only a civil issue. Some people like a tongue in the ear, some don't. Some like nipples treated roughly, some don't. A man may do what a previous partner liked on the assumption that all women like something. It's not true. But that doesn't make it rape.

A man should ask a woman before attempting anal intercourse, but maybe touching a woman there gently without penetration is a way of securing permission?

Here are two presentations from CA universities:

Stanford University video

UCLA

There is no discussion of what consent is in practice.


----------



## GTdad

LongWalk said:


> Who sits on a disciplinary committee, board, panel? Here is an example:
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> What qualifies this particular group of persons to evaluate evidence and render a judgment?


Same as any jury, except that generally they have at least some experience/training with the topic.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> That you want to excuse this behaviour as "spicing up his sex life" because "women have rape fantasies" is offensive in the extreme, and exactly why we need affirmative consent laws, IMHO.


JCD can certainly speak for himself, but he's not "wanting to excuse this behavior" but rather pointing out the conundrum in "he said, she said" situations.

Stop assuming the absolute worst about the posters here.


----------



## always_alone

GTdad said:


> JCD can certainly speak for himself, but he's not "wanting to excuse this behavior" but rather pointing out the conundrum in "he said, she said" situations.
> 
> Stop assuming the absolute worst about the posters here.


The whole point of the OP is to say that feminists are killing sex by having affirmative consent as a standard when making judgments around sexual assault.

JCD has repeatedly agreed, calling this law a war on innocent men, and the like, and posting link after link as to why it's just poor innocent guys who want a spicy sex life or who are completely justified because, you know, women need a little extra persuasion to get them to put out, and that most of it is just some miscommunication that amounts to nothing at all --or outright vindictiveness on the part of women.

IOW, most of what is called sexual assault isn't really, it's just feminists with a vendetta working women into a lather over nothing.

And none of it is new; indeed it's the age old story of rape, where accusers are mostly dismissed as vindictive liars with an agenda, and the behaviours justified as normal, harmless, expected, deserved, everyday, and nothing to worry about.

The real reason why so many do not come forward when they've been assaulted is that the game is rigged in favour of the accused. You can't prove a negative, and so you can't really prove that you didn't consent. 

Fortunately, times have changed and victims/accusers are taken more seriously, and sometimes rapists are actually prosecuted, but there are still grossly offensive presumptions, like the ones in the articles posted earlier, with even trained police saying things like "no way she was raped because no one could've pulled her underwear off her fat body without permission", or the person is "not disheveled enough".

And did you notice the automatic presumption that the accused was completely innocent simply because he said so in all of those links "proving" that women make false accusations, and universities will be unfairly ruining men's lives?


----------



## samyeagar

I said no ten times, but they kept asking, and finally I said yes even though I didn't want to just so they'd quit pressuring me.

At what point does it go from persistence to coercion?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening samyeagar
In my opinion it is rape if you have sex with someone who:

1) doesn't consent: This is rape by physical force, or threat of physical force - I doubt anyone would argue with this.

2) Is not able to consent. This is sex with an unconscious or incapacitated person. Here I think the only debate is what level of intoxication counts as "incapacitated". 

3) Is compelled by illegal means to consent. This includes threats of blackmail, illegal actions against family / friends, etc. 


I do not believe that repeated requests, begging etc, or threats of legal actions like breakup or divorce count as rape. They are obnoxious but not criminal. 

Touching someone without their consent can be sexual assault, but maybe not rape depending on the circumstances. This can be a bit vague since in an ongoing relationship some amount of touching is expected without specific consent in each instance. 





samyeagar said:


> I said no ten times, but they kept asking, and finally I said yes even though I didn't want to just so they'd quit pressuring me.
> 
> At what point does it go from persistence to coercion?


----------



## LongWalk

Always Alone,

You are right that things have been stacked against women. After all, women are even blamed for their sexuality. A woman who has been raped worries about being called a slvt. When women don't feel shame about their sexuality, then they can better stand up for themselves.

If boy gets beat up at school, he hesitates to complain to the principal because tattling is unmanly. Also, what boys and men really want is to win the fight. Instead of depending on others, we want to triumph over our adversaries. Furthermore, boys feel even more humiliated when they are picked on in front of girls and cannot stand up for themselves. We want to win the fight in front of the girls we want to impress.

So civilized norms are not always what we really want in our hearts. We want women to love us for who we are, whatever that means. Rape is the act of a man who utterly lacks self confidence or is a psycho or sociopath.

Here is a funny skit about the workings of the male mind.

What civilizes men?

There are also women who are not right in the head. Whenever feminists talk about the males problem and the cultural failure, without talking about what men and women really want, they the discourse is dishonest.

Why did Soviet troops rape women all the way to Berlin? I think it was because their own government treats them little cattle. So the moment they have an opportunity to dish it out to someone else, they do.


----------



## GTdad

always_alone said:


> And did you notice the automatic presumption that the accused was completely innocent simply because he said so in all of those links "proving" that women make false accusations, and universities will be unfairly ruining men's lives?


I probably didn't notice. I'm kind of hit and miss on this thread. As an Asst. D.A. for five years and a university attorney for 17 years, every time I'm on this thread I see a bunch of misconceptions on all sides that I'd drive me and everyone else crazy trying to correct.


----------



## JCD

GTdad said:


> JCD can certainly speak for himself, but he's not "wanting to excuse this behavior" but rather pointing out the conundrum in "he said, she said" situations.
> 
> Stop assuming the absolute worst about the posters here.


Actually, I cannot speak for myself. I have put AA on my ignore list and she knows this. I have absolutely no idea what she has been saying until you cited this. I also see no reason to change her status.

Ignoring the rudeness of the action, what she is doing is highlighting one of the reasons this law is likely an abject failure: it goes against human sexual customs and desires. (no, not rape!)

People (well, maybe not all people There are Always exceptions) like some of the uncertainty in romance and sex. "Will he kiss me?" "What is she going to do with her hand?" "Do I let him unbutton that next button? Oh my God, I did...do I let him do it again?" "Will she let me pull down her pants if I try?" The fact that sex makes one emotionally and physically vulnerable also makes it exciting and interesting.

This rule is a bald attempt to change this aspect of human interactions for...reasons. Besides a few feministst who seem to like to play 'Simon Sez' during sex, I am guessing the vast majority of people will, on trying it's execution, think this is a load of horse manure.

It is a singularly stupid thing to make laws a) without wanting to enforce them (as is used to bolster the legitimacy of this law by it's supporters. "Oh...we'll barely use it.") and b) that people don't want to obey or respect, like a law against jaywalking. It degrades the respect for law and makes you look like an idiot for doing this in the first place.


----------



## JCD

samyeagar said:


> I said no ten times, but they kept asking, and finally I said yes even though I didn't want to just so they'd quit pressuring me.
> 
> At what point does it go from persistence to coercion?


It's that the traditional way college guys 'get lucky'? 

I am reminded of that one quote (I need to paraphrase it) from Disclosure: "My husband was the traditional 'sexual harasser at work. He asked me five times for a date and the sixth, I finally said yes. We got married." Lots of good solid relationships made by persistence. 

I am sure there are some who would argue that begging, wheedling and constantly asking is some form sexual coercion that must be fought 'with our last breath'.

These are also the people who tend to sue because they stubbed their toe in a park. Life does not owe you 'stress free' social interactions. There are lines drawn at blackmail and force. Someone being rude or pathetic is not a crime.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> Actually, I cannot speak for myself. I have put AA on my ignore list and she knows this. I have absolutely no idea what she has been saying until you cited this. I also see no reason to change her status.
> 
> Ignoring the rudeness of the action, what she is doing is highlighting one of the reasons this law is likely an abject failure: it goes against human sexual customs and desires O (no, not rape!)
> 
> People (well, maybe not all people There are Always exceptions) like some of the uncertainty in romance and sex. "Will he kiss me?" "What is she going to do with her hand?" "Do I let him unbutton that next button? Oh my God, I did...do I let him do it again?" "Will she let me pull down her pants if I try?" The fact that sex makes one emotionally and physically vulnerable also makes it exciting and interesting.


I don't think that is anything like "most" people. I find your entire attitude about sex so abhorrent on this and other threads that you make me want to throw up. LET me if I try? What is she? Some kind of toy? Did I let him do that again? What is wrong with her? Is she a child?

Flirtation and desire sure as hell don't need to be a boxing match to be fun. 

Enter ignore list.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> In my jurisdiction, campus police are special constabulary, an arm of community policing.
> 
> But in all jurisdictions, universities have already been involved in monitoring, investigating, reporting student (and staff, for that matter) behaviour, everything from sexual assault, to theft, to vandalism, you name it. Since the beginning, universities, like many other organizations, have developed policies and protocols to deal with these things.
> 
> This law changes absolutely nothing about that. So if it is just that they are involved in these investigations that bothers you, we'll then you always have had a problem with how universities conduct business.


If they are conducting criminal investigations damn right I have problems with it. They had policies before and should but not to investigate crimes and interview suspects. That's what's new here and absolutely have a problem with


----------



## LongWalk

Wolf, 

The truth is universities have investigated because the incidents are perceived as a campus matter. Students are in conflict on campus or in the town that revolves around the students.

The police and universities have even been passive. And that has created pressure to create new institutions. The disciplinary board, for example.

The Brown University rape expulsion was handled entirely by the university and the accusers family. The judge in the lawsuit by the accused noted that it was wrong for the university to not report an alleged rape to the police.

The Associated Press report on the out of court settlement said the case was dismissed. Sure dismissed with a 1.0 million dollar payout to the expelled man.

Re: anger towards other posters
Why block others with whom you disagree? Stand up for your opinions, adjust them when you learn something new. Win over respect by being respectful.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't think that is anything like "most" people. I find your entire attitude about sex so abhorrent on this and other threads that you make me want to throw up. LET me if I try? What is she? Some kind of toy? Did I let him do that again? What is wrong with her? Is she a child?
> 
> Flirtation and desire sure as hell don't need to be a boxing match to be fun.
> 
> Enter ignore list.


I guess for you, uncertainty is NOT fun. Sex is about pushing boundaries, particularly when you are young and have a lot of boundaries.

I don't think that a girl is a child or a toy. Boys (and sometimes girls) just 'go for it'...and sometimes they get slapped down and sometimes they don't...

The difference between a rapist and everyone else is when she says 'no', it's respected in the later case. 

Stealing a kiss is abhorrent? Touching someone you think will be cool with it is horrid? What you characterize as a 'boxing match' is actually a mutual discovery of boundaries: both in your partner and in yourself. "What I can get away with?" can equally be seen as 'what does she/he want?' Because I don't know about you, but I generally don't let someone do something to me that I don't, at some level, want (even if it's only because I 'want to give someone else an experience they will treasure.') Do girls do things differently?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> If they are conducting criminal investigations damn right I have problems with it. They had policies before and should but not to investigate crimes and interview suspects. That's what's new here and absolutely have a problem with



I know I said I was done, but I think this particular thing may not be straight forward. Some campuses resemble small cities and actually have their own police units, no different than what you might see in a small town or small city. A law enforcement unit able to carry out investigations confined to crimes committed on campus. 

Universities I have recently worked at, only maintained a contracted security force. These were essentially rent-a-cops, and had no criminal investigative authority. They were given the ability to determine criminal activity but then called city and county law enforcement authorities. These law enforcement personnel were then given permission to enter campus grounds to do their work. The Jeanne Clery Act requires that anytime a crime was determined to have taken place, the university is to disclose it, thus report it as required by law. I believe this is the writing you see in this law. 

However in parallel, there is always the chance that a university level committee can convene a non criminal hearing to determine whether a student violated code of conduct. In my limited experience this does not always result in expulsion. I have even seen in one case where a student threatened a young female Assistant Professor (where I work). He was given a six-month probation (still able to attend class but was restricted from any university sanctioned social events held on campus). I will admit that unfortunately in high profile cases, "defendants" in these situations don't always get a fair shake. So the media can be more to blame than feminists in these particular cases. One would like to hope that popular opinion is not what drives Justice. I do think most cases are reasonable and fair and not associated with these circus settings.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> I know I said I was done, but I think this particular thing may not be straight forward. Some campuses resemble small cities and actually have their own police units, no different than what you might see in a small town or small city. A law enforcement unit able to carry out investigations confined to crimes committed on campus.
> 
> unless they are sworn then they can't conduct criminal investigations and have no arrest authority.
> Universities I have recently worked at, only maintained a contracted security force. These were essentially rent-a-cops, and had no criminal investigative authority.
> and exactly my point. If a victim comes forward to the university but does not want to go to the cops then who will do this investigation? These people?
> They were given the ability to determine criminal activity but then called city and county law enforcement authorities. These law enforcement personnel were then given permission to enter campus grounds to do their work. The Jeanne Clery Act requires that anytime a crime was determined to have taken place, the university is to disclose it, thus report it as required by law. I believe this is the writing you see in this law.
> 
> the Clery act is about reporting statistics. Even if the university, like a hospital, reported a sex assault on campus to us they can't,anymore than we can, compel the victim to cooperate
> 
> However in parallel, there is always the chance that a university level committee can convene a non criminalthats fine if they do that, its non criminal, but sex assault is criminal hearing to determine whether a student violated code of conduct. In my limited experience this does not always result in expulsion. I have even seen in one case where a student threatened a young female Assistant Professor (where I work). He was given a six-month probation (still able to attend class but was restricted from any university sanctioned social events held on campus). I will admit that unfortunately in high profile cases, "defendants" in these situations don't always get a fair shake. So the media can be more to blame than feminists in these particular cases. One would like to hope that popular opinion is not what drives Justice. I do think most cases are reasonable and fair and not associated with these circus settings.


----------



## Ikaika

I did some work at Rutgers, they had there own PD, not rent-a-cops. So yes they are sworn to serve and protect which means they can investigate crimes.

The Jeanne Clery Act requires reporting statistics but that also means maintaining a current database of criminal activity. So, under the FOIA, one can inquire about crimes and universities reveals as much as they can while protecting a person's right to privacy, accuser or complainant.

However sexual assault is a violation of student code of conduct and thus the university has the authority to place conditions no different than what an employer has the authority to do in a similar situation. So, while sexual misconduct, assault etc maybe crime and result in penal code penalties that does not restrict universities from placing a student on probation or expulsion. This law does not provide that authority, it has been in pace already, predates this law. So, I don't see that as a problem.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> I did some work at Rutgers, they had there own PD, not rent-a-cops. So yes they are sworn to serve and protect which means they can investigate crimes.
> 
> The Jeanne Clery Act requires reporting statistics but that also means maintaining a current database of criminal activity. So, under the FOIA, one can inquire about crimes and universities reveals as much as they can while protecting a person's right to privacy, accuser or complainant.
> 
> However sexual assault is a violation of student code of conduct and thus the university has the authority to place conditions no different than what an employer has the authority to do in a similar situation. So, while sexual misconduct, assault etc maybe crime and result in penal code penalties that does not restrict universities from placing a student on probation or expulsion. This law does not provide that authority, it has been in pace already, predates this law. So, I don't see that as a problem.


From the website
Rutgers University Police Officers are commissioned by the state of New Jersey, armed, and have attended New Jersey Police Training Commission (PTC) approved academies. This is the same training and certification received by municipal police officers in the state. Rutgers participates in the Police & Fire Retirement System. 


So these are sworn police, assigned to the college same as we have in Colorado. They do not belong to the college, in other words they can't be forced to conduct criminal investigations against the will of a victim. So AGAIN In the case of a victim coming forward who reports a sex assault to the campus, or a friend or the victim reports it to the campus but they do NOT want to prosecute or be involved with law enforcement who will do the investigation?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> From the website
> 
> Rutgers University Police Officers are commissioned by the state of New Jersey, armed, and have attended New Jersey Police Training Commission (PTC) approved academies. This is the same training and certification received by municipal police officers in the state. Rutgers participates in the Police & Fire Retirement System.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So these are sworn police, assigned to the college same as we have in Colorado. They do not belong to the college, in other words they can't be forced to conduct criminal investigations against the will of a victim. So AGAIN In the case of a victim coming forward who reports a sex assault to the campus, or a friend or the victim reports it to the campus but they do NOT want to prosecute or be involved with law enforcement who will do the investigation?


Of course everyone at Rutgers is a state employee, so you can split hairs on this all you want that changes little about the enactment of this law. 


True, no law enforcement are forced to investigate a crime, but this does not stop the university from convening a committee to review whether they think a student violated code of conduct rules. It would be no different than an employer firing an employee that threatened another employee or stole property from the company and did not press legal charges. And this law did not create that new rule, it has been in place for a long time. You can deem this an unauthorized investigation, but until the courts up to SCOTUS says otherwise, this practice will continue. This is nothing new. 

This law does require that the university report it. That is new. I'm assuming they mean to the proper authorities rather than keep in all in house (sweep it under the rug). At least that is the way I read it. So again, I don't see the problem.


----------



## Buddy400

Always Alone,

This is why you're on JCD's ignore list and you'd be on mine if I knew how to do it

JCD says:



JCD said:


> So was he a rapist or a horrible boyfriend?
> I happen to believe her. I hold to the standard 'no' means 'pull out and walk away' (A perfectly REASONABLE standard)


Clearly, he says that he believes her. That it was rape. That 'no' means 'pull out and walk away'

Somehow, no doubt through willful ignorance, you reply with accusing him of excusing this behavior. You also attribute to JCD a quote that he clearly attributed to someone else.



always_alone said:


> A person can be both, you know. And anyone who will continue to beat and strangle a partner during sex, despite repeated cries to stop, tears, struggling, and with no prior consent to do so, *is* a rapist pure and simple.
> That you want to excuse this behavior as "spicing up his sex life" because "women have rape fantasies" is offensive in the extreme, and exactly why we need affirmative consent laws, IMHO.


There is no way that any reasonable person can follow this exchange and think that they could have a discussion with you.

And driero, you not only fail to call her out, but you *like* the post! I'm not a college professor, but I have enough reading comprehension to follow a conversation.


----------



## Ikaika

The way I read it, a student cannot come into the university sanctioned office dealing in sexual assault counseling and expect that it only about counseling. It places a burden on that office to report it. Does this open up a can of worms about confidentiality? I don't know. It also means a university that is state funded cannot hinder the investigation of city and county law enforcement. Again, the language I read and situations I have seen in my experience.


----------



## Buddy400

LongWalk said:


> Re: anger towards other posters
> Why block others with whom you disagree? Stand up for your opinions, adjust them when you learn something new. Win over respect by being respectful.


LW, he voiced his opinion. AA just intentionally twists his words and misunderstands him.

See the above instance.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Of course everyone at Rutgers is a state employee, so you can split hairs on this all you want that changes little about the enactment of this law.
> 
> 
> True, no law enforcement are forced to investigate a crime, but this does not stop the university from convening a committee to review whether they think a student violated code of conduct rules. It would be no different than an employer firing an employee that threatened another employee or stole property from the company and did not press legal charges. And this law did not create that new rule, it has been in place for a long time. You can deem this an unauthorized investigation, but until the courts up to SCOTUS says otherwise, this practice will continue. This is nothing new.
> 
> *This law does require that the university report it. * That is new. I'm assuming they mean to the proper authorities rather than keep in all in house (sweep it under the rug). At least that is the way I read it. So again, I don't see the problem.



It doesn't say it has to report it says it has to interview and investigate. And yes rug sweeping or over kill could occur.

Im not splitting hairs its a valid question which you have no answer to. I have no answer to, and the law doesn't indicate. So this this is something they are going to have to figure out in a hurry.


----------



## LongWalk

University disciplinary committees or boards are not new. Presumably many have invested considerable time in drafting and reviewing the rules of the disciplinary process.

Here is the UCLA's Student Conduct Code. It's well written. Their studend conduct committee is large, including graduate and undergraduate students and faculty.

Two points:



> The Standard of proof which will be used in Hearings is that the University must prove that it is more likely than not that the student committed the misconduct of which he or she is
> accused.


 What does that mean in practice?

There is little discussion about what sexual behavior constitutes an offense. Students may not post intimate pictures without permission and the permission must be gotten twice. Once when filming and again when posting.


----------



## Wolf1974

LongWalk said:


> University disciplinary committees or boards are not new. Presumably many have invested considerable time in drafting and reviewing the rules of the disciplinary process.
> 
> Here is the UCLA's Student Conduct Code. It's well written. Their studend conduct committee is large, including graduate and undergraduate students and faculty.
> 
> Two points:
> 
> What does that mean in practice?
> 
> There is little discussion about what sexual behavior constitutes an offense. Students may not post intimate pictures without permission and the permission must be gotten twice. Once when filming and again when posting.


No discipline boards aren't new. I imagine that they have been around since univestities formed. But now that they have to interview victims, suspects, witnesses who will do that? Will this board? Will someone else?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> It doesn't say it has to report it says it has to interview and investigate. And yes rug sweeping or over kill could occur.
> 
> 
> 
> Im not splitting hairs its a valid question which you have no answer to. I have no answer to, and the law doesn't indicate. So this this is something they are going to have to figure out in a hurry.



_*Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, *including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses._

_...subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty._

Where is the offensive language?


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> _*Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, *including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses._


??

Why did you post this? You're making my argument for me...institution's personnel. Who is that?! It's not the police


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> No discipline boards aren't new. I imagine that they have been around since univestities formed. But now that they have to interview victims, suspects, witnesses who will do that? Will this board? Will someone else?



University boards have always conducted interviews. If I suspected a student was cheating, the student and others associated will be interviewed. How is this different?


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> _*Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, *including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses._
> 
> _...subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty._
> 
> Where is the offensive language?


Huh? What offensive language.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> ??
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you post this? You're making my argument for me...institution's personnel. Who is that?! It's not the police



I don't know, if you are at Rutgers I'm assuming that might mean the Rutgers PD. Unless you want to split hairs that one state employee unit cannot talk to another?


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> University boards have always conducted interviews. If I suspected a student was cheating, the student and others associated will be interviewed. How is this different?


Seriously? Ok I'm done with this. If you think no difference between a student board investigating a matter of cheating and interveiwing a victim and suspect of sexual assault that is seriously just too silly for words


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Huh? What offensive language.



The one where universities cannot and are in violation of conducting an investigation about a student who violates code of conduct rules. If they can't investigate or interview what would be the basis of university disciplinary rulings?


----------



## GTdad

Wolf1974 said:


> Seriously? Ok I'm done with this. If you think no difference between a student board investigating a matter of cheating and interveiwing a victim and suspect of sexual assault that is seriously just too silly for words


Our Title IX Coordinators generally conduct sexual assault investigations. They may well be better at it then the UPD at that campus.

Where's the problem, exactly?


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> I don't know, if you are at Rutgers I'm assuming that might mean the Rutgers PD. Unless you want to split hairs that one state employee unit cannot talk to another?[/QUOTE
> 
> First clear answer you have made,...youre assuming. The law isnt specific. And no they can talk but the college can't direct the PD to do anything same as the municipal government couldn't make us do anything like investigate something . Just because the pay checks come from the same place doesn't mean they all have the same boss. Doesn't work that way


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Seriously? Ok I'm done with this. If you think no difference between a student board investigating a matter of cheating and interveiwing a victim and suspect of sexual assault that is seriously just too silly for words



My syllabus is a legal document, so no there is no difference. And yes, schools having been hearing cases of sexual assault long before this law came along to hand down disciplinary actions. This is not penal and no different than an employer and employee relationship.


----------



## Wolf1974

GTdad said:


> Our Title IX Coordinators generally conduct sexual assault investigations. They may well be better at it then the UPD at that campus.
> 
> Where's the problem, exactly?


I identified the problem with the law not being specific about who or how they investigations are accomplished. Read my previous posts


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> drerio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, if you are at Rutgers I'm assuming that might mean the Rutgers PD. Unless you want to split hairs that one state employee unit cannot talk to another?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> First clear answer you have made,...youre assuming. The law isnt specific. And no they can talk but the college can't direct the PD to do anything same as the municipal government couldn't make us do anything like investigate something . Just because the pay checks come from the same place doesn't mean they all have the same boss. Doesn't work that way
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the law was specific. I wish they would be specific. I am not a lawyer, but to assume a school cannot conduct its own investigation for violations against the code of conduct is just not correct. They can and do and will do so with or without this law.
Click to expand...


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> My syllabus is a legal document, so no there is no difference. And yes, schools having been hearing cases of sexual assault long before this law came along to hand down disciplinary actions. This is not penal and no different than an employer and employee relationship.


Seriously. I'm confused do you really not know the difference between civil and criminal law? Do you think that someone goes to jail for not following a syllabus? You were a professor??

Investigations of a code of conduct violation and a criminal case the same ??


----------



## GTdad

Wolf1974 said:


> I identified the problem with the law not being specific about who or how they investigations are accomplished. Read my previous posts


I think I'll follow my instincts and bow out of this thread instead.

There are too many people arguing about sh*t they don't know about.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the law was specific. I wish they would be specific. I am not a lawyer, but to assume a school cannot conduct its own investigation for violations against the code of conduct is just not correct. They can and do and will do so with or without this law.
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's all I have been saying that this law was not specific and should have been. All too often laws are made without ever figuring out how or who are going to enforce those same laws. This was vague and left to interpretation. So some universties will get this right and others will get sued because they don't. A few years from now it will be amended and define these things. What I have been saying for the beginning
Click to expand...


----------



## Wolf1974

GTdad said:


> I think I'll follow my instincts and bow out of this thread instead.
> 
> There are too many people arguing about sh*t they don't know about.


Evidently


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Seriously. I'm confused do you really not know the difference between civil and criminal law? Do you think that someone goes to jail for not following a syllabus? You were a professor??
> 
> 
> 
> Investigations of a code of conduct violation and a criminal case the same ??



No one is going to jail if a university convenes a hearing based on code of conduct violations. They may be placed on probation or expelled from the school, but that is as far as I have ever suggested would happen. So I don't know where you are connecting the dots. It even states it in this law. 

So tell me how a university is to ever determine violations of the code of conduct?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> drerio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that's all I have been saying that this law was not specific and should have been. All too often laws are made without ever figuring out how or who are going to enforce those same laws. This was vague and left to interpretation. So some universties will get this right and others will get sued because they don't. A few years from now it will be amended and define these things. What I have been saying for the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you keep confusing penal codes of investigation with university code of conduct investigation. They can be separate and parallel. I said that many post ago.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ikaika

By the way I can be held legally liable in a court of law for certain violations in my syllabi. I have been through all the in service training with university lawyers. This is not the universities of old, they are run by lawyers nowadays.


----------



## Ikaika

So again, I apologize I am not a lawyer and don't completely understand the penal portions related to this law, the language regarding reporting of the incident. But, I do understand the sections built around the student code of conduct and how universities are able to handle these situations. This law is no different in that regard. It did add, a definition of sexual misconduct in the affirmation clause and the complainant's condition related to the ability to communicate it.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you keep confusing penal codes of investigation with university code of conduct investigation. They can be separate and parallel. I said that many post ago.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not confusing them. But they aren't the same either. What is the burden of proof needed to find someone guilty of a code of conduct violation? I'm asking cause I have no idea
> 
> In your other post you asked how will they investigate this to find out if it's a policy violations. Well my thought would be that they would talk to the victim and if the victim says what happened encourage them to report to police. If they do wait for the outcome of the investigation and trial and if suspect found quilty kick him out.
> 
> If the vicitm says no I don't know what they will do. This law says they have to talk to them, witness and suspects, Just don't know who they are if we aren't talking about police. Hence my hesitation and why it needed clarity
Click to expand...


----------



## LongWalk

GTdad said:


> Our Title IX Coordinators generally conduct sexual assault investigations. They may well be better at it then the UPD at that campus.
> 
> Where's the problem, exactly?


The problem is that when you interview a suspect in a criminal investigation, they have a right to legal counsel. If the result of the schools investigation is turned over to the police, the accused may have put himself in a very bad position.

The university has the power to coerce a student to participate in the invesitgation because his investment in attending the school is enormous.

Drerio has argued that universities are like private companies that have the right to enforce their own code of conduct. This is an interesting point because large corporation often discover that employees have embezzled or misappropriated company property or funds. Procurment departments routinely suspect kickbacks being paid to excutives who decide who supplies goods and services.

But companies often decline to go the police because it is bad PR for the firm. They often rug sweep huge losses because they don't want shareholders and analysts to know. By the same tokeh universities are interested in protecting their reputations. This is not always the same as seeking justice.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> By the way I can be held legally liable in a court of law for certain violations in my syllabi. I have been through all the in service training with university lawyers. This is not the universities of old, they are run by lawyers nowadays.


Liable in civil court I assume not criminal court


----------



## LongWalk

> *Ohio State University fired two assistant cheerleading coaches* in May for sexually harassing cheerleaders. One of the accusers now says the head coach kicked him off the squad in retaliation just before football season started.
> 
> After two anonymous tips to OSU’s ethics hot line, a university investigation determined that assistant cheerleading coaches Eddie Hollins and Dana Bumbrey had both violated the university’s policies, according to records.
> 
> Cheerleaders told investigators that Hollins made sexual jokes and sometimes slapped male students on the butt or tapped their testicles.
> 
> They also said Bumbrey made inappropriate remarks to the female cheerleaders, including using the nickname “Fornicate” for one of them. He regularly commented on the size of the women’s bottoms, they said, and made remarks such as “she always has her legs spread” when women were in compromising positions during routines.
> 
> Hollins told investigators that he took male cheerleaders to the gym at the Athletic Club in Downtown Columbus and showered in front of them on a few occasions. Investigators said Hollins had been investigated in 2006 because of similar allegations and should have known better.
> 
> The assistant coaches said they were just playing, adding that sexual joking among the coaches and team members was common.
> 
> Cody Ellis, 22, of Bucyrus, was removed from the team after he complained last school year that Hollins had sent him several sexually explicit text messages, said John Camillus, a Columbus lawyer representing Ellis. The messages started, Camillus said, after Ellis confided in Hollins that he is gay.
> 
> In one of the messages, Hollins wrote that he can’t wait to see Ellis’ “hot” rear end, according to records requested by The Dispatch. In another, he referred to taking over for Ellis’ boyfriend in a sex act.
> 
> “Ohio State University has no tolerance for this type of behavior,” said Gary Lewis Jr., an OSU spokesman. “The university conducted a complete and thorough investigation and found that the behaviors of Hollins and Bumbrey were inconsistent with university values and violated university policies.”
> 
> Based on those findings, Lewis said, both assistant coaches were fired on May 23.
> 
> Ohio State also ordered head cheerleading coach Lenee Buchman to attend sexual-harassment training after she failed to report Ellis’ initial complaints to OSU authorities, the records show. She has to come up with a detailed improvement plan as part of her discipline, Lewis said.
> 
> Buchman didn’t return phone calls from The Dispatch. Bumbrey and Hollins couldn’t be reached for comment.
> 
> Camillus said Ellis approached Buchman twice about his concerns before the university launched its investigation, and she told him that she would take care of it.
> 
> Ellis was permanently suspended from the team in August. Just two years ago, he won the coaches’ award for attitude and effort, Camillus said. Ellis had made the team during spring tryouts.
> 
> “This retaliation by the head coach is despicable, and the university’s unwillingness to protect students who come forward as victims of sexual misconduct is equally abhorrent,” Camillus said.
> 
> Lewis said Ellis’ removal from the team had nothing to do with his complaints against Hollins. He added that the university takes sexual-misconduct allegations very seriously.
> 
> Citing federal student-privacy law, Lewis said he couldn’t provide details explaining why Buchman kicked Ellis off the team unless Ellis gave written consent.
> 
> Camillus did not respond to requests for consent to allow the university to provide those details, and he would not allow The Dispatch to interview Ellis. He did provide an Oct. 31 letter to Ellis, in which OSU officials said they investigated his charge that Buchman had retaliated against him but found insufficient evidence.
> 
> The decision to dismiss Ellis was made in consultation with university athletic administrators, the letter said, and had no connection to his complaints against Hollins.
> 
> In July, Buchman suspended Ellis from the cheerleading squad after a sexual-misconduct complaint was made against him. Camillus said that after Ellis complained about Hollins, Hollins told OSU authorities that Ellis sexually assaulted Hollins’ friend when he went out with several of the cheerleaders after practice one night last spring.
> 
> The university investigated and cleared Ellis of any wrongdoing at the end of July, Camillus said, but Buchman still refused to allow him back on the team. Camillus said Ellis complained to several OSU officials before Buchman removed Ellis from the team on Aug. 12 for having a bad attitude.
> 
> Ellis had very little contact with Buchman over the summer during which he could have exhibited a negative attitude, his attorney said.
> 
> “Are we really to believe that it is just coincidence that he gets suspended for one thing and then, when it comes time to lift his suspension, he is instead kicked off the team for something else altogether?” Camillus asked.


Would any of this have been criminal?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> I'm not confusing them. But they aren't the same either. What is the burden of proof needed to find someone guilty of a code of conduct violation? I'm asking cause I have no idea


An investigation. But the penalties are far different. 



Wolf1974 said:


> In your other post you asked how will they investigate this to find out if it's a policy violations. Well my thought would be that they would talk to the victim and if the victim says what happened *encourage them to report to police*. If they do wait for the outcome of the investigation and trial and if suspect found quilty kick him out.


I am sure they do, but that does not stop them from investigating whether there was a violation of the student code of conduct. How this investigation is conducted, I have no idea. That goes beyond my level of expertise. 



Wolf1974 said:


> If the vicitm says no I don't know what they will do. This law says they have to talk to them, witness and suspects, Just don't know who they are if we aren't talking about police. Hence my hesitation and why it needed clarity


So, only a police officer can question witnesses, complaintants and the accused? How is a University able to determine violation of code of conduct?


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Liable in civil court I assume not criminal court


Yep, but then again it is the legal system. Makes no difference, I simply am not understanding why you have issue with a school handing down their own rulings based on violation of code of conduct? Please explain it, because I just don't understand. Again this is not a penal ruling, no one is going to jail.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> Well that's all I have been saying that this law was not specific and should have been. All too often laws are made without ever figuring out how or who are going to enforce those same laws. This was vague and left to interpretation. So some universties will get this right and others will get sued because they don't. A few years from now it will be amended and define these things. What I have been saying for the beginning


Remember now, even if this law were repealed, Universities could still conduct sexual misconduct *investigations* and hand out disciplinary actions, such as probation (which is defined differently than in the penal system) or expulsion. 

It does change in the way we want to define this sexual misconduct, such as the complainant's condition, unconscious, unable to communicate his/her refusal and as such requires some communicative affirmation. That part of the student/faculty and staff code of conduct will have to change.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> An investigation. But the penalties are far different.
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure they do, but that does not stop them from investigating whether there was a violation of the student code of conduct. How this investigation is conducted, I have no idea. That goes beyond my level of expertise.
> 
> 
> 
> So, only a police officer can question witnesses, complaintants and the accused? How is a University able to determine violation of code of conduct?


if you want a criminal case to succeed then yep. If you interview a victim and then tell them thanks for the info now you have to do it all again for the police that's not serving the victim that's re-victimizing them.

If they interview the accused thats all fine an dandy. Can't use that either cause we have to give them Miranda warnings so we have to re-interview them. So they have more time to either lawyer up or now that they know they are accused make up a BS story.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Yep, but then again it is the legal system. Makes no difference, I simply am not understanding why you have issue with a school handing down their own rulings based on violation of code of conduct? Please explain it, because I just don't understand. Again this is not a penal ruling, no one is going to jail.


I've tried to explain it but I can't make you understand Drerio. It's a huge difference between civil law and criminal law. I never said that universties shouldn't investigate code violations. What I said is they are not equipped to handle in dept investigations like this any more than we as law enforcement are designed to give college credit and hand out degrees. 

This is a simple process when you can wait for the pd, on campus or off, to do the investigation for you but if they can't than someone on campus has to do it according to the new law. They have to interview vicitms, suspects and witnesses.

We have a private college here in town that partners with us but has no assigned police to them. When they get a report of sexual assault, students have to live on campus first two years, they encourage them to report to the police immediately. If they do we keep them in the loop and they make the determination based on our investigations.

If the victim files a complain but won't go to the police the security makes the report, will collect names of possible witnesses, and document that the victim chose not to go to the police, and it ends there. The reason is because if that same victim decides later to go to the police they don't want to deter from the investigation. They do this with the thought of the victim first the school policy second. I don't know if you have daughters or not but I would want to know that the schools first priority is to my daughters safety and well being not a policy violation investigation that may have a huge impact on a criminal investigation.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> *if you want a criminal case to succeed then yep.* If you interview a victim and then tell them thanks for the info now you have to do it all again for the police that's not serving the victim that's re-victimizing them.


But if you just wanted to establish whether or not either or student violated code of conduct, then I don't know what choice one has but to allow each entity to conduct their own investigation. How is a university to determine the violation if they can't interview? 




Wolf1974 said:


> If they interview the accused that's all fine an dandy. Can't use that either cause we have to give them Miranda warnings so we have to re-interview them. So they have more time to either lawyer up or now that they know they are accused make up a BS story.


University is not required to give Miranda rights and it is separate from penal law. I still don't understand the problem. Tell me to me again.


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Remember now, even if this law were repealed, Universities could still conduct sexual misconduct *investigations* and hand out disciplinary actions, such as probation (which is defined differently than in the penal system) or expulsion.
> 
> It does change in the way we want to define this sexual misconduct, such as the complainant's condition, unconscious, unable to communicate his/her refusal and as such requires some communicative affirmation. That part of the student/faculty and staff code of conduct will have to change.


No way will this law get repealed and I hope it doesn't. Lots of good stuff In it. What needs to happen is to define better who and how the investigations will occur or they will take the investigation portion out and rewrite it as universties will cooperate with law enforcement investigations if one.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> No way will this law get repealed and I hope it doesn't. Lots of good stuff In it. What needs to happen is to define better who and how the investigations will occur or they will take the investigation portion out and rewrite it as universties will cooperate with law enforcement investigations if one.



Then what is the problem? I'm not a lawyer nor do I understand that system, but code of conduct rules already come with standards of investigation at that level, so tell me again how this law changes anything?


----------



## Wolf1974

drerio said:


> Then what is the problem? I'm not a lawyer nor do I understand that system, but code of conduct rules already come with standards of investigation at that level, so tell me again how this law changes anything?


I've tried over and over Drerio. I can only explain I can't understand it for you. You said earlier this is no different than a cheating violation. It's a huge difference and its mind blowing that you could compare sex assault to such a thing.

Sorry I'm on the side of the victim and not the universties on this.

Going to bounce on to other threads. This has become sorta sickening.

Thanks for keeping our convo civil. It's a refreshing change on here


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> I've tried to explain it but I can't make you understand Drerio. It's a huge difference between civil law and criminal law. *I never said that universties shouldn't investigate code violations. * What I said is they are not equipped to handle i*n dept investigations *like this any more than we as law enforcement are designed to give college credit and hand out degrees.
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand the legal difference between civil and criminal, but this is simply a matter of someone violating a code of conduct at a university. In this instance it could result in criminal and or civil penalties. But it is separate and that has been my point all along. So I still don't understand you issue. Your two bold statements appear to be in conflict. Please explain. I guess a police department cannot give a certificate of graduation from a police academy
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple process when you can wait for the pd, on campus or off, to do the investigation for you but if they can't than someone on campus has to do it according to the new law. They have to interview vicitms, suspects and witnesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Those are technicalities and pretty sure it is assumed that people are smart enough to understand how to function without having every item spelled out for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a private college here in town that partners with us but has no assigned police to them. When they get a report of sexual assault, students have to live on campus first two years, they encourage them to report to the police immediately. If they do we keep them in the loop and they make the determination based on our investigations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is great, however it does not restrict the University from conducting its own investigation that violates code of conduct rules. Does this make any sense? Because I feel we are talking past each other on this minor technicality.
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the victim files a complaint but won't go to the police the security makes the report, will collect names of possible witnesses, and document that the victim chose not to go to the police, *and it ends there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Criminally it ends there, it does not mean the University has to drop the issue of investigating violation under the code of conduct rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wolf1974 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is because if that same victim decides later to go to the police they don't want to deter from the investigation. They do this with the thought of the victim first the school policy second. I don't know if you have daughters or not but I would want to know that the schools first priority is to my daughters safety and well being not a policy violation investigation that may have a huge impact on a criminal investigation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are discussing criminal investigations, I am talking about what the university can do. So, I think all this time we have been talking past each other. If not, help me out here.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974 said:


> I've tried over and over Drerio. I can only explain I can't understand it for you. You said earlier this is no different than a cheating violation. It's a huge difference and its mind blowing that you could compare sex assault to such a thing.
> 
> Sorry I'm on the side of the victim and not the universties on this.
> 
> Going to bounce on to other threads. This has become sorta sickening.
> 
> Thanks for keeping our convo civil. It's a refreshing change on here


So, I can't necessarily bring a student up on criminal prosecution for cheating. But, I can file a university report that allows for the student to be disciplined by the university for violating the code of conduct associated with academic honesty issue. 

The same could be applied if a student files a complaint against another student for sexual assault. It is criminal but it also violates code of conduct rules. So, yes at the level of the university it is only different in the violation and possibly the level of disciplinary action but both are dealt with in the same procedural manner. Why can't I get you to see this? Help me out.


----------



## LongWalk

It is very easy to imagine scenarios in which no one knows whether there is a violation of the criminal code or even the school sexual harassment rules. One very typical college sex conflict. Roommate A has a sex partner and wants B out of the room on Friday night so that (s)he can have privacy. B wanders the halls and crashes on a lounge sofa. A says, thanks. B says, no problem.

A month later B is no longer happy, for A's sex life is intruding on B's sleep. After arguments A agrees that sex partner will not squat in the room anymore. However, come Saturday B returns from a party to discover that A is not sleeping alone. B is mad. The sex partner does not want to leave A and partner request that partner be allowed to sleep over. All three can sleep in the same room. B groans but says okay.

In the middle of the night B is awoken by the sound of bodies slapping. B records on iPhone and shares the recording online.

The partner makes a complaint. B makes a counter complaint.
Who is the accuser? Who is the victim? B might argue that he recorded them having sex to prove that (s)he was being forced to listen to their activity and that it constituted sexual harassment. 

Was any crime committed? Would the university have a duty to inform a student if some thing they reported could be crime? That it was a matter of their perception.


----------



## Ikaika

Wolf1974,

I really think you and I were definitely not on the same page and your assumption of an investigation is based solely what you think of as a criminal investigation. I was not thinking that the University ever engaged in a criminal investigation but rather an investigation that was based only the code of conduct rules. 

A great example, think of some the recent cases of Pro football players. In some of these cases, it would appear a criminal investigation would be warranted, however the NFL did their own brief investigation and determined they violated either the terms of their contract or code of conduct as being a member of the NFL. The terms of violation, meant they were suspended. That is totally separate from any criminal investigation. 

I am sorry I did not articulate it well, but that has been my take on this issue. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## alphaomega

You know what else I like?

Lady cops. There's just something sexy about that...


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> University boards have always conducted interviews. If I suspected a student was cheating, the student and others associated will be interviewed. How is this different?


It is a criminal activity and one which has very politicized underpinnings. Even the accusation of something like this can be quite damning.

This is not some one writing some answers on his shoe.

These are not comparable 'harms' to society in any way.

In addition, one is very foggy. You have two different accounts of what happens. The other, the answers are written on the shoe or not.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> It is a criminal activity and one which has very politicized underpinnings. Even the accusation of something like this can be quite damning.


It is a criminal activity, but it also is an activity that violates the code of conduct. So, I will admit earlier that I may have either confused the issue, which I did not intend to do, by including the Rutger's PD unit as case for how this could be implemented. I was wrong in trying to draw that type of conclusion and Wolf1974 was correct in that challenge. 

But, to suggest that a University cannot conduct an investigation based on the violation of code of conduct rules and set disciplinary measure (non-penal) would not be necessarily correct. 



JCD said:


> This is not some one writing some answers on his shoe.
> 
> *These are not comparable 'harms' to society in any way*.
> 
> In addition, one is very foggy. You have two different accounts of what happens. The other, the answers are written on the shoe or not.


I'm not disagreeing but it is also something that a university should take seriously based upon too many historical accounts of Universities ignoring these allegations. 

I would hope that this does not result in your greatest fears and sure I am not naive to assume that there maybe some false accusations, but how about all the potential silence. 

As for the bold statement, I am not assuming comparable harm, I am saying what the University can do under their own measures of discipline. The gravity of the violation and discipline would be different, no doubt, but the procedure, no different.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> It is a criminal activity, but it also is an activity that violates the code of conduct. So, I will admit earlier that I may have either confused the issue, which I did not intend to do, by including the Rutger's PD unit as case for how this could be implemented. I was wrong in trying to draw that type of conclusion and Wolf1974 was correct in that challenge.
> 
> But, to suggest that a University cannot conduct an investigation based on the violation of code of conduct rules and set disciplinary measure (non-penal) would not be necessarily correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not disagreeing but it is also something that a university should take seriously based upon too many historical accounts of Universities ignoring these allegations.
> 
> I would hope that this does not result in your greatest fears and sure I am not naive to assume that there maybe some false accusations, but how about all the potential silence.
> 
> As for the bold statement, I am not assuming comparable harm, I am saying what the University can do under their own measures of discipline. The gravity of the violation and discipline would be different, no doubt, but the procedure, no different.


Here are three simple steps to 'fixing' the problem (The university cannot accomplish all of these)

1) Stop ignoring the problem under current law (not this new law) That's it! Start enforcing perfectly good law they already have on the books.

2) Women can start to report these things and not wait 8 months after there is no evidence, witnesses can forget everything etc.

3) Ban or severely curtail drinking on campus.

So, as so many other people have noted: this law is useless in the things it wants to change.

Instead of a rapist lying about her saying no, now all he will do is lie about her saying yes. This is not progress.

The only useful thing I found in the law was pressure on the universities to examine rape complaints, informing the people on what consent means, and clarifying the issue of intoxication and the ability to give consent.

Cut off that one bit and it might not be totally useless...though I would make sure that women are very sharply told about the necessity of coming forward in a timely manner. Otherwise they will very likely NOT get justice.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Here are three simple steps to 'fixing' the problem (The university cannot accomplish all of these)
> 
> 1) Stop ignoring the problem under current law (not this new law) That's it! Start enforcing perfectly good law they already have on the books.


Sounds reasonable as long as individuals understand that an unresponsive individual who is unable to protest is someone we would assume is not consenting to any form of sexual encounter. This is partly the impetus for this law. I know it sounds too obvious to assume "I should not be having sex with someone passed out", but unfortunately we do have spell it out to make it a legal definition. 



JCD said:


> 2) Women can start to report these things and not wait 8 months after there is no evidence, witnesses can forget everything etc.


I agree, although it is tough be traumatized and suddenly expect the person to be totally cognizant of what happened and report it Johnny on the spot. It is true, 8 months later, evidence is hard to use, etc. and it becomes more of the he said she said. I viscerally agree, but I could see where this could also be problematic. But, I am neither a lawyer or a psychologist. But, I do know on a personal level what trauma can be like and having it haunt you months, years and even decades later. I know this all too well. I survived psychological child abuse. It was not your classic tough discipline to make me tough. It was the stuff of nightmares. 



JCD said:


> 3) Ban or severely curtail drinking on campus.


I wholeheartedly agree on this single point, no qualifiers at all. It is true and I know personally, the failings of most institutions that simply refuse to attempt to regulate this activity. Dry campuses have been pushed for nearly a decade with almost no enforcement. And, associated activities related to this is what gets most students hurt or in trouble. 



JCD said:


> So, as so many other people have noted: this law is useless in the things it wants to change.
> 
> Instead of a rapist lying about her saying no, now all he will do is lie about her saying yes. This is not progress.
> 
> The only useful thing I found in the law was pressure on the universities to examine rape complaints, *informing the people on what consent means, and clarifying the issue of intoxication and the ability to give consent.*
> 
> Cut off that one bit and it might not be totally useless...though I would make sure that women are very sharply told about the necessity of coming forward in a timely manner. Otherwise they will very likely NOT get justice.


which if spelled out means:

_(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition._

Also keep in the section that provided services to both the complainant and accuser. In all if this were a education preventative mechanism rather than a heavy handed punishment. I have no issue.


----------



## LongWalk

We're spinning our wheels in the same place now. Read some of the media reports on real life cases, they explain a great deal.

I see Drerio's point that the discplinary committees/boards have always existed and must exist because without them the schools would not function. Moreover, failure by the law enforcement authorities should not hinder schools from having codes of conduct that are higher than the criminal code.

For example, at UCLA students may not post sex films of others without permission. Is posting a film that was taken with consent a crime? Perhaps not, but you cannot do it and graduate from UCLA without facing consequences.

Writing crazy messages on Facebook is not a crime but a woman should be able to draw a line. Unwelcome advances have to stop. The police are not going to investigate a guy for telling a girl that she is beautiful and that he cannot forget that great night. How many messages is too many? 

As to the law about consent, it seems clear that if that high but vague standard defines rape, then it should be part of the criminal code. Period. Women in universities should not enjoy a higher level of protection than the general public.


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> We're spinning our wheels in the same place now. Read some of the media reports on real life cases, they explain a great deal.
> 
> I see Drerio's point that the discplinary committees/boards have always existed and must exist because without them the schools would not function. Moreover, failure by the law enforcement authorities should not hinder schools from having codes of conduct that are higher than the criminal code.
> 
> For example, at UCLA students may not post sex films of others without permission. Is posting a film that was taken with consent a crime? Perhaps not, but you cannot do it and graduate from UCLA without facing consequences.
> 
> Writing crazy messages on Facebook is not a crime but a woman should be able to draw a line. Unwelcome advances have to stop. The police are not going to investigate a guy for telling a girl that she is beautiful and that he cannot forget that great night. How many messages is too many?
> 
> *As to the law about consent, it seems clear that if that high but vague standard defines rape, then it should be part of the criminal code. Period. Women in universities should not enjoy a higher level of protection than the general public*.


I agree with the bold part of your response, but I would disagree that we are spinning our wheels on this issue. I would say much has come of it in a positive way. I do apologize however to Wolf1974. I really did not mean to frustrate him. And, I think he raised some valid points. I just think we were talking about two different things. I unfortunately mixed in aspects that did not belong and for that I was wrong. 

But, I think one could say that this is not necessarily some hidden feminist agenda to kill sex. It does raise some interesting issues, but not necessarily unresolvable ones.


----------



## JCD

I want to clarify my thoughts on this matter, as a civic member, a father, and a man. 

I am not totally amiss to 'having two standards' in some ways. But it needs watching and it isn't easily governable.

For example: We have Brad. Brad is a 'bad boyfriend'. He meets Cheryl, they engage in consensual sex and then he tries anal. She says no, they have sharp words. They start to get into it again and he makes the move for her butt again. More sharp words, excuses, he says some stupid things about how 'unsophisticated' she is or some such rot.

They break up that night...as they well should. And he goes the same route with three more girlfriends.

Brad is a pig, a lout and a lecher. He watched too much porn and has very little understanding about women. I make no excuses about his actions, but I want to highlight a legal nicety.

Is he a rapist? Is 'pressuring your girl friend to do something she doesn't want' our new level of rape? Because I can see his GFs getting together and deciding 'hey...he tried it and didn't take no for an answer the first time...he's a rapist!'

Some would argue he is. Even from my personal standpoint of 'if she says no, pull out and leave', this case is pretty iffy. Wanting something from your partner they don't to give...that's common. We badger our partners about all kinds of things relentlessly, from marriage, to time with the in laws, to jobs and yes, about sex too.

An act can be rude without being rape and all four of these girls are well rid of him.

That being said, maybe the university might be well rid of him too. Or at least have a 'heart to heart'. Now, it isn't the business of the faculty to govern male/female relationships, but if the girls are crying rape and want something done, well maybe the university can do something...without it being one of these new bogus rape 'preponderances'. Cause if a prosecutor isn't going to touch that case (and I can easily see a lot of DAs demurring as I laid out the facts), I don't, as a man, like the idea of a university being able to run a half assed investigation and get me slapped with that kind of label 'on the cheap'.

If Brad is a rapist, prove it in COURT, not to a discipline board.

But the discipline board might find some other way to pressure Brad about finding greener pastures. In Texas, there was a sort of jury nullification. A murderer would be brought to trial and she would be guilty. Evidence clear cut. No evasions of the fact...and she would walk because the jury decided that her her victim was a real POS and 'needed killing' even if the law wasn't up to snuff in dealing with that issue. This is an extreme example, but I am using to hightlight the point.

My hesitation with allowing something like that is that unlike drerio, I have NO faith in the university administration to not be politicized and under the influence of a lot of people, from their female student body, to some of the more volatile faculty who will likely be on the discipline boards.

You can say it won't happen, Drerio, but the Duke Group of 88 and what the faculty did to Larry Summers really hurt the image of universities in a visceral and prolonged way about their objectivity and you need to do more than dismiss this appearance to a lot of people who are NOT university staff.


----------



## LongWalk

It sounds pretty much as if you copied the Emma Sulkowicz Columbia University complaint. Add that the unwelcome anal penetration came after he suddenly started choking her. The problem is that she waited. Later she found other women who had had similar experiences with him. That is when she accused him of rape.

Neither Columbia nor the criminal justice system punished him. The disciplinary board ruled that no violation took place. The police did not pursue an investigation far.

Her account sounds highly plausible to me. Does it fulfill the preponderance of evidence standard of proof? More likely than not, IMO means over 50%. But come on over 50% is just a coin flip.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> It sounds pretty much as if you copied the Emma Sulkowicz Columbia University complaint. Add that the unwelcome anal penetration came after he suddenly started choking her. The problem is that she waited. Later she found other women who had had similar experiences with him. That is when she accused him of rape.
> 
> Neither Columbia nor the criminal justice system punished him. The disciplinary board ruled that no violation took place. The police did not pursue an investigation far.
> 
> Her account sounds highly plausible to me. Does it fulfill the preponderance of evidence standard of proof? More likely than not, IMO means over 50%. But come on over 50% is just a coin flip.



I read it and was inspired by it, but I feel that Emma was, full stop, no question, raped. There is no question about it to me. 

1) he DID NOT STOP. He continued.

2) He choked her.

That is so unequivocally rape that there is no question. But a couple of tweaks changes it from rape to rude...and yet...some would argue rape in a highly debatable fashion.

I was trying to highlight a situation where a woman could be offended...but that it did not distinctly rise to the level of rape.

The problem with Emma is she waited...and it cost her a lot of credibility. Because the obvious question of 'why', if she was as honest as that interview (and don't think that won't come up in trial) is 'if you didn't think you were raped before, how is it you suddenly think you are raped now?' And that is a reasonable doubt for a jury.

This is why I would like the idea of 'responsibility' to cross gender boundaries on this issue. Yes, women have to be more careful with their dress, their social interactions and drink. I am sorry to say, there is one more necessity. She needs to report a rape if it happens to her. Because one rapist put away means probably a dozen or so other girls spared her misfortune.


----------



## LongWalk

One aspect of sex that is exciting and frightening at the same time is the lack of control. Having vigorous sexual intercourse to the point that someone's brain temporarily goes absent, isn't that about the total breakdown of socialized behavior?

The men who rape. Aren't some of them psycho or sociopaths who simply are enjoy violence and power. The simply have a very low barrier that crumbles when they become aroused? Can education reach them? How on earth are women supposed to understand that their self assurance is actually pathological?

On the other hand some men are coached to rape. Imagine a guy in a fraternity who is taught that frat parties are set up to isolate drunken women who cannot resist. There is no good sex here since the woman is half or completely out of it. 

There is even a brand of spirits EverClear that cannot be tasted in the punch.



> “Alright chods, some of you could use some help on how to mack and succeed at parties. Mostly pledges do, but some bros could use a review. For anytime throughout the party… If you are standing by yourself at any point, YOU ARE OUTTA HERE!!! If you are talking to a brother of your pledge brothers when there are girls just standing around, YOU ARE OUTTA HERE!!!
> 
> Ok, if it is before midnight… A group of girls is standing around, grab a bro or pledge bro and go talk to them. First, introduce yourself and get their name, ask if they are having a good time, and then ask if they want anything to drink. If they say yes, walk them to the bar and tell them what we have to drink. If they say no and they look like they are in a sorority, ask them if they are in a sorority (DUH). If not, choose one of the following: where are you living, where are you from, have you been here before, how are classes going, or where all have you been tonight. Then proceed to have a conversation. IF THEY ARE HAMMERED AT ANY POINT BEFORE MIDNIGHT, JUST SKIP THE CHIT CHAT AND GO DANCE.
> 
> Midnight or after, if you have been talking for awhile and they’ve had a couple drinks, ask if they want to dance. If you see an untalked to group or a solo girl, go up to her and ask if she wants anything to drink. If she says yes, get her a drink and then ask if she wants to dance. If she says no, ask her to dance. DANCING IS FUN!!!!! Always try to dance. If she does not want to dance and is with friends, say “aw thats no fun” (or something like that) and then ask one of her friends.
> 
> Here is how to dance: Grab them on the hips with your 2 hands and then let them grind against your ****. After that slowly alternate between just putting your hand across their stomach, but make sure don’t to go to high (keep it under the boob) or too low(dont try to finger her… yet). After a song, start putting your cheek on the side of her cheek. ALWAYS USE YOUR HANDS OR ARMS TO GUIDE THEIR DANCING in order to maximize your pleasure. If she starts putting her hair over her ear, THAT MEANS SHE WANTS A KISS. Therefore, try to give her a kiss on the cheek. They usually like that and nothing really should ebcome of it. In the case, go for the neck kiss. If for some reason they aren’t down for a cheek kiss, just dance through it or say you are going to get another drink and see if they want one. And then repeat from the beginning.
> 
> If the party is going good (a.k.a. there are a lot of open girls) try to escalate cause it’s awesome. Here is how to escalate: Try to twist her hips around to face you and dance front to front. FROM THERE THE OPTIONS ARE UNLIMITED! You can make-out with her (tongue on tongue), you can stick your hand up her shirt (not right away though), you can go for a butt grab (outside or inside the shirts), or use your imagination. ALWAYS START WITH THE MAKING OUT!!!! NO RAPING.
> 
> A short guide consist of the 7 E’s of HOOKING UP! 1. Encounter (spot a girl or group of girls) 2. Engage (go up and talk to them) 3. Escalate (ask them to dance, or ask them to go up to your room or find a couch, depending on what kind of party) 4. Erection (GET HARD) 5. Excavate (should be self-explanatory) 6. Ejaculate (should also be self explanatory) 7. Expunge (send them out of your room and on their way out when you are finished. IF ANYTHING EVER FAILS, GO GET MORE ALCOHOL. I want to see everyone succeed at the next couple parties.


----------



## LongWalk

> There are two types of rapists: opportunistic rapists, who are primarily sex-seeking rapists that take advantage of a lack of clear consent via coercion or by virtue of their victims having borderline or overtly impaired states of consciousness; and sadistic rapists, for whom using rape as a deliberate weapon is central to the act, for whom the lack of a woman’s pleasure isn’t a bug, but a feature.
> 
> It is opportunistic rapists at whom ideas about enthusiastic consent are directed. Sadistic rapists are a whole different kettle of ****neckery, and so I have a problem with the suggestion that there could be a “world without rape” as the direct result of empowered female sexuality. A world without opportunistic rape, yes. But sadistic rape calls for an additional set of solutions.


 Melissa McEwan


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> There are two types of rapists: opportunistic rapists, who are primarily sex-seeking rapists that take advantage of a lack of clear consent via coercion or by virtue of their victims having borderline or overtly impaired states of consciousness; and sadistic rapists, for whom using rape as a deliberate weapon is central to the act, for whom the lack of a woman’s pleasure isn’t a bug, but a feature.
> 
> It is opportunistic rapists at whom ideas about enthusiastic consent are directed.
> 
> Melissa McEwan


Yes, exactly. Thanks for posting this. Date rape, acquaintance rape, tend to be opportunistic, and all too often simply dismissed as "rude" behaviour, not something that anyone should be held accountable for.

But pressing against a "no", engaging in violence, taking advantage of someone who is naive and easily manipulated are much more than rude. They have lasting consequences for the receiver, and are much more than simply "rude".

And this is exactly the sort of message that enthusiastic consent standards are designed to address.

And contrary to what some are saying here, waiting for an enthusiastic partner is not going to "kill sex" or result in a flood of people eager to prosecute the innocent. It will simply clarify that some sorts of rude behaviour are unacceptable and not to be tolerated.

As it should be, IMHO.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Brad is a pig, a lout and a lecher. He watched too much porn and has very little understanding about women. I make no excuses about his actions, but I want to highlight a legal nicety.
> 
> Is he a rapist? Is 'pressuring your girl friend to do something she doesn't want' our new level of rape? Because I can see his GFs getting together and deciding 'hey...he tried it and didn't take no for an answer the first time...he's a rapist!'
> 
> Some would argue he is. Even from my personal standpoint of 'if she says no, pull out and leave', this case is pretty iffy. Wanting something from your partner they don't to give...that's common.


And this is where we differ: Boyfriends can rape girlfriends; husbands can rape wives. Wanting something from a partner they don't care to give is not rape, but forcing them into it is.

Obviously sorting out the facts and evidence in any particular case will be challenging, but this is true in all sorts of legal cases.

But we still need standards for identifying when people have crossed the line.


----------



## JCD

I will admit to a touch of curiosity and hypocrisy. They are the least of my sins.

To wit: I decided to see what the hell AA said that got Buddy's knickers in a twist.

So let me clarify: I do not think there will be an additional large spate of false accusations. 

I do not thing MOST accusations are false.

I believe a small number of false accusations have been made in the past. I believe the most damage will come from 'iffy' cases and this law significantly moves how we prejudge the case.

When false accusations have been made, in at least one or two instances where it became a public feeding frenzy, the political elements in the university weighed in sans facts but heavy with opinion and opprobrium. This is what people took away from Duke and that is what Drerio suggests isn't going to ever happen, please ignore the past.

I believe there were a number of 'iffy' cases where there was rude and bad sex. Some pushing. I believe in the majority of cases, the girl just chalks it up to experience and walks away.

Other girls pursue it. They equate 'what makes me feel pressured and bad about myself' = rape. This is not a criminal level of evidence. I sympathize with them being unhappy about a scenario such as I speculated about. It is not nice but it is not rape.

No one blames the accused so much anymore, but I am very skittish about taking ONLY her word or giving her word a hell of a lot more weight just because. Because that makes it a constant presumption of guilt from the get go, particularly in the iffy cases.

I think that it is nonsense that opportunistic rapists won't do it because of 'consent laws'. They thought they would get away with it because no one will know for whatever reason. It could have been anyone! So I think the effects will be negligible at best.

I think that it is useless to go from 'no means no' to 'you must have yes'. If someone is going to rape, it is pretty much assumed that they are going to lie. The only person who is going to tell the truth is a guy who honestly did not think he was doing anything wrong legally, even if his GF isn't happy with him for whatever. Some of those men are woefully mistaken. Others are not.

I think third parties WILL get involved in this law.

I can imagine this law being misused. Every law can. This one is more prone to abuse than most. And since I am the targeted gender, I reserve the right to be skeptical.

I am glad AA agrees that more women need to come forward and I applaud the school having COUNSELORS and PSYCHOLOGISTS who an help them stabilize and testify. Not INVESTIGATORS. That isn't their job, training and they are less constrained from bias or bad behavior legally.

One can blithely say 'oh...if they get it wrong, they can always appeal it'. Tell that to Richard Jewell. Because lawyers are free. Because a university won't spend several hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to fiscally outlast some middle class family who is out for justice. Because just because you are correct, you can always PROVE you are correct. So don't try to sell me on 'appeal's making the boo boo better.' 

Hope this clarifies.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> I will admit to a touch of curiosity and hypocrisy. They are the least of my sins.
> 
> To wit: I decided to see what the hell AA said that got Buddy's knickers in a twist.
> 
> So let me clarify: I do not think there will be an additional large spate of false accusations.
> 
> I do not thing MOST accusations are false.
> 
> I believe a small number of false accusations have been made in the past. I believe the most damage will come from 'iffy' cases and this law significantly moves how we prejudge the case.
> 
> When false accusations have been made, in at least one or two instances where it became a public feeding frenzy, the political elements in the university weighed in sans facts but heavy with opinion and opprobrium. This is what people took away from Duke and that is what Drerio suggests isn't going to ever happen, please ignore the past.


If you gleaned from my comments some absolute point of view, I may not have articulated my stance very well. I did not mean to project the impression of "ever" or "never". I should have suggested and will suggests that I believe this law will not have the large reaching affect of the "frenzied fears" associated with activism and false accusations. I am sure there will always be a circus media atmosphere in some cases, but by and large most we will never hear about. One would hope as this law is not only implemented but massaged to give more meaning that most of the fears of the student body of any University will not apply. I think Deejo said it best that we are in fear of something that will likely only have an effect of very few, probably not us. 





JCD said:


> No one blames the accused so much anymore, but I am very skittish about taking ONLY her word or giving her word a hell of a lot more weight just because. *Because that makes it a constant presumption of guilt from the get go,* particularly in the iffy cases.


So the issues of *guilt before innocence* or assuming *fabrication over truth of a complaint*, both have the same sense of injustice. It requires a lot more than our bias opinion. Rather this requires good footwork to be done to decipher where the truth can be found. Thus, I view this new law as a set of procedure that will do little to change this particular balance. 



JCD said:


> I think that it is nonsense that opportunistic rapists won't do it because of 'consent laws'. They thought they would get away with it because no one will know for whatever reason. *It could have been anyone!* So I think the effects will be negligible at best.


It is true that this law may provide very little deterrence but to suggests a negligible effect, I would not agree. So, without the law one could escape their bad behavior based the technicalities of what is consider resistance to the offense. However, that new twist provides less of a legal and code of conduct escape. So, deterrence? No. But, it does remove the offender and thus reduces more opportunities. 



JCD said:


> I think that it is useless to go from 'no means no' to 'you must have yes'. If someone is going to rape, it is pretty much assumed that they are going to lie. The only person who is going to tell the truth is a guy who honestly did not think he was doing anything wrong legally, even if his GF isn't happy with him for whatever. Some of those men are woefully mistaken. Others are not.


I think the same argument could be said for the old definition of rape, meaning you had to physically resist and not just verbalize by saying "no", could be seen just as absurd. I do believe in context of a person who is unable to verbalize their "no" is needed. It is tricky to then take the full roundabout of having to make an affirmation. I can only assume that it was to suggest state of mind and not so much that "yes" all the way through the act is what they intended.


----------



## LongWalk

> So, without the law one could escape their bad behavior based the technicalities of what is consider resistance to the offense. However, that new twist provides less of a legal and code of conduct escape. So, deterrence? No. But, it does remove the offender and thus reduces more opportunities.


This is possible.

Googling this subject it is apparent that many schools are just now this year taking a more proactive stance and requiring freshmen to attend sex harassment workshops.

This subject is now in the eye of the media.


----------



## LongWalk

> *Brown University Ordered to Disclose Fundraising Records in Rape Lawsuit*
> By Don Jeffrey Oct 10, 2011 8:20 PM GMT+0200 0 Comments
> Brown University was ordered by a federal judge to produce fundraising documents from an alumnus whose daughter accused a fellow student of rape.
> 
> U.S. District Judge John McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, granted a request by William McCormick III, who was accused of rape in a school internal investigation, and his parents to compel the university to produce the records of Richard Dresdale, the father of the alleged victim, within 14 days, according to an order dated Oct. 7.
> 
> The McCormicks sued Brown, the student who said she was raped, and her father in October 2009, claiming that the university falsely accused McCormick of sexual assault. In an amended complaint filed in December 2009, the McCormicks said that the Dresdales had libeled their son and caused him to be expelled from the college.
> 
> Dresdale is “an alumnus of Brown and has raised very substantial sums of money for Brown,” the McCormicks said in the complaint.
> 
> The plaintiffs sought information on Dresdale’s fundraising activities for Brown from January 2000 through the present. Brown, located in Providence, argued in court papers that Dresdale, not the university, should be the source of the information.
> 
> Marisa Quinn, a spokeswoman for Brown, didn’t immediately respond to a phone message seeking comment on the order. Brown is closed today for the Columbus Day holiday.
> 
> Ranked Wrestler
> 
> McCormick, whose family lives in Waukesha, Wisconsin, was a nationally ranked wrestler in high school, according to court papers. He was awarded a scholarship to Brown, enrolled in September 2006 and was sent home two weeks later, court records show. A court filing states that he agreed to give up his education and scholarship “under duress and under the implied threat of false criminal rape charges.”
> 
> No criminal complaint was filed in the alleged incident.
> 
> The case is McCormick v. Dresdale, 09-00474, U.S. District Court, District of Rhode Island (Providence).


The wrestler later majored in English. I think all that really happened is that this huge guy fell in love a girl and she was scared because he was awkward and sincere.

Do women sometimes feel emotionally "raped" when a man they do not want to pursue them is in love? Is that in itself frightening?


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> The wrestler later majored in English. I think all that really happened is that this huge guy fell in love a girl and she was scared because he was awkward and sincere.
> 
> Do women sometimes feel emotionally "raped" when a man they do not want to pursue them is in love? Is that in itself frightening?


The girl's family in that case was rich and not just sort of rich but rich with a B (billions). The scary part is what money and influence does to any law.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I believe there were a number of 'iffy' cases where there was rude and bad sex. Some pushing. I believe in the majority of cases, the girl just chalks it up to experience and walks away.
> 
> Other girls pursue it. They equate 'what makes me feel pressured and bad about myself' = rape. This is not a criminal level of evidence. I sympathize with them being unhappy about a scenario such as I speculated about. * It is not nice but it is not rape.*


And as I was trying to say earlier, this is what I see as the heart of the disagreement in this thread: Does the "iffyness" around date and acquaintance rape mean that it is not in fact rape? 

So, to remove the "political" heat for a moment, let's take sex out of the picture, and consider simple assault. 

One person hits another, perhaps hurting them quite badly. Often, the victim doesn't complain. They "chalk it up to experience".

But it is *still* assault. 

Now maybe we are quite happy to not press charges for every little tussle. Surely many are not worth the hassle, and should the police be called, all they will do is break it up and go away, perhaps with a finger waggle and a warning to behave. More egregious behaviour might result in community service, fines, maybe a night in jail. Or many nights, depending on the circumstances and evidence.

Now suppose a student bullies another student, or shoves him. An institution like the university simply cannot afford to ignore this kind of thing, even if it isn't strictly speaking criminal. It wouldn't be fair to all of the other students, who have paid enormous amounts of tuition, to have someone threatening them or making them feel uncomfortable. So, if anyone complains of being bullied or hit, there will be an inquiry into the matter. If inquiry indicates it's criminal, police will be involved. In other cases they may not be. Either way, the university will reserve the right to determine its own response, and if the accused is found to be causing problems on campus, some penalty will be meted out: from restrictions on attending campus social events, to probation, to expulsion. 

Sexual assault is no different. 

Of course, it seems utterly absurd to think about enthusiastic consent laws for physical assault because we all know that no one wants to be beaten on whether conscious or not. It's obvious.

With sex, on the other hand, maybe we do want it. And certainly there's no harm in asking.

But just as there is a line that gets crossed when tussle becomes assault, there is a line where "rude" becomes sexual assault. 

And that line is consent.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> If you gleaned from my comments some absolute point of view, I may not have articulated my stance very well. I did not mean to project the impression of "ever" or "never". I should have suggested and will suggests that I believe this law will not have the large reaching affect of the "frenzied fears" associated with activism and false accusations. I am sure there will always be a circus media atmosphere in some cases, but by and large most we will never hear about. One would hope as this law is not only implemented but massaged to give more meaning that most of the fears of the student body of any University will not apply. I think Deejo said it best that we are in fear of something that will likely only have an effect of very few, probably not us.


First issue last: excuse me for having sympathy for the 'probably not us'. That it will 'only hurt a few other people' isn't exactly a commendation!

Or to turn it around: if I had argued that keeping the current law would only 'result in a few more girls being raped in comparison, and probably not us' I would be vilified most horribly as an insensitive brute. Being blithe about some male being victimized...'hey, it's not me'. I found that bad when he said it, I find it equally offensive on repetition. 

Describing them as 'frenzied fears' does not make them so, but it's a nice use of biasing language. I cited four women columnists and there are dozens more who all feel exactly the same way. Are they all 'frenzied and fearful'? You might look at my grammatical mistake or two and dismiss me as a shallow thinker. What about them? One of them is a very liberal woman who is actually a big pain in the ass on most topics. If SHE is troubled, maybe there is more truth to my allegations than you are comfortable with. I am not saying I have the whole truth...but I got a piece of it.



> So the issues of *guilt before innocence* or assuming *fabrication over truth of a complaint*, both have the same sense of injustice. It requires a lot more than our bias opinion. Rather this requires good footwork to be done to decipher where the truth can be found. Thus, I view this new law as a set of procedure that will do little to change this particular balance.



Fact not in evidence. Show me how the old way assumed the girl was automatically a liar. It didn't. It did not add tons of legal weight only on her say so. It did not mandate that every single action of the male was going to be examined: "did you get a yes when you kissed her? Did you get a yes when you fondled her? Did you get a yes when you inserted yourself?" Technically, as soon as he cannot answer in the affirmative for any specific action, he's legal toast. IF the woman wants to push the issue. You know...like a billionaire Brown babe.




> I think the same argument could be said for the old definition of rape, meaning you had to physically resist and not just verbalize by saying "no", could be seen just as absurd. I do believe in context of a person who is unable to verbalize their "no" is needed. It is tricky to then take the full roundabout of having to make an affirmation. I can only assume that it was to suggest state of mind and not so much that "yes" all the way through the act is what they intended.


WHAT THE HELL! That is a ridiculous comparison. We ask a woman to do a single act well within the ability of 99% of population: Say no. Don't act. Don't put yourself in line for abuse. So, short of a deaf, blind rapist, he also has no excuse once he hears the word or sees the shake of her head.

And you need to show that a jury of reasonable people would think that having sex with someone mentally defective was 'okay'. Because if I were on a jury (and trust me, the women on this board have an incredibly low opinion of my view on rape, it seems) an intoxicated girl, a drugged girl, a sleeping sick girl, a retarded girl who says she was forced...the guy is done! And I didn't need to have this mostly absurd change in the law to come to that conclusion. 

So IMO this law does nothing except a) ruin sex the way the majority of people do it if followed, b) moves the goal posts of guilt slightly but significantly. As I said MANY TIMES BEFORE, this law does not make it easier to FIND rapists, or even judge a rape. It simply makes it easier to criminalize a man. 

Don't expect me to applaud this fact.


----------



## JCD

Okay gentlemen. Show of hands.

How many of you in the past got a definite verbal affirmative from the person you were having sex with at each stage of your 'interaction'?

No? You are according to this law a rapist.

How many of you have turned over late one night and tried to have sex with your SO and gotten a firm 'no'...and carried on trying? According to this law, you are probably a rapist, particularly if you succeeded without her saying yes. A sigh and an eyeroll are not an 'affirmation of consent'.

I find it no defense of a law for someone to say 'but but but...it won't be applied that way'. The question is 'can it be applied that way'.

Think back to your sexual interactions and determine every time you were a bit pushy or chasing a girl around the room. Now see how those actions would look in the glaring spotlight of this law used technically and aggressively.

So...how many of you are rapists?


----------



## LongWalk

JCD,

You are wrong. This law does not define them as rapists. It only makes them guilty of violating the standard that universities use to judge sexual misconduct hearings.

You can be declared innocent of rape in criminal trial but expelled for not having gained consent in the civil proceeding.

The standard of proof is lower. Beyond a reasonable doubt versus more likely than not.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> JCD,
> 
> You are wrong. This law does not define them as rapists. It only makes them guilty of violating the standard that universities use to judge sexual misconduct hearings.
> 
> You can be declared innocent of rape in criminal trial but expelled for not having gained consent in the civil proceeding.
> 
> The standard of proof is lower. Beyond a reasonable doubt versus more likely than not.




Hmm. "Criminally declared a rapist" vs. "administratively declared a sexual assaulter'.

In my mind a distinction with nary a difference except for a prison term. Anyone searching your record will still find this on it.

Fine. Quibble away. You are trying to dodge the issue.

Answer the question! Using this as applied fully, are you 'guilty of violating sexual guidelines of the university'?

And having answered that, in the moment, did you think you did anything criminal? Did your partner?

It is a rotten law if you don't think you did wrong, your partner didn't think you were wrong...but the ultra wise university has made you a sexual assaulter.

And no, don't try the dodge of 'it is only applied if someone reports it'. I am asking to apply this law to your personal sexual interactions. If it criminalizes them, it's a bad law.

Hey, and women...unsolicited sex without an affirmation...that morning blowjob you did in a fit of love for sleepyhead?...welcome to the land of sexual assault. Just saying.


----------



## LongWalk

JCD,

I am not dodging the issue.

Your point is a good one.

In the UCLA disciplinary rules there is explicit definition of what kind of photos one may not post without consent. Besides specifically naming key hills, dales and monuments, the rules forbid naked stomachs. So, a bikini pic could get you in hot water. 

However, when came to defining consent, there was no specific instruction. If a woman lets you take off her shirt and bra is that consent?

Can you assume that kissing her lips allows you to graduate to her breasts?

Obviously, such rules are impossible to write. To put them into sex instructions would invite mockery.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> JCD,
> 
> I am not dodging the issue.
> 
> Your point is a good one.
> 
> In the UCLA disciplinary rules there is explicit definition of what kind of photos one may not post without consent. Besides specifically naming key hills, dales and monuments, the rules forbid naked stomachs. So, a bikini pic could get you in hot water.
> 
> However, when came to defining consent, there was no specific instruction. If a woman lets you take off her shirt and bra is that consent?
> 
> Can you assume that kissing her lips allows you to graduate to her breasts?
> 
> Obviously, such rules are impossible to write. To put them into sex instructions would invite mockery.


No. My point is that if a law criminalizes perfectly ordinary interactions, than it is a very bad law. 

Because just as a good king is a great boon to society, but a bad king is hell on earth, so too do you need to judge a law. What will a law like this do in the hands of a bad person?

This law makes us all criminals except maybe for a few Carmelite Nuns.

Edited to add: Excuse me. Not criminals. "Offenders of campus guidelines"...which is on your permanent record.

Reedited to add: and yes, it already invites mockery. As it should.


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> No. *My point is that if a law criminalizes perfectly ordinary interactions, than it is a very bad law. *
> 
> Because just as a good king is a great boon to society, but a bad king is hell on earth, so too do you need to judge a law. What will a law like this do in the hands of a bad person?
> 
> This law makes us all criminals except maybe for a few Carmelite Nuns.
> 
> Edited to add: Excuse me. Not criminals. "Offenders of campus guidelines"...which is on your permanent record.
> 
> Reedited to add: and yes, it already invites mockery. As it should.


It's annoying that this law places restrictions on all students in an attempt to deter the actions of a minority but it's not new. It actually the norm. I'm reminded of that concept every time I buy something in a tamper proof casing. Not only is it a pain to open but it's easy to slice yourself up on hard plastic plus everything we buy costs more. But I'm angry at thieves who cause this problem rather than the stores and manufacturers.

In the case of this law, we can be angry at the guys targeted by it; angry at universities; angry at girls who use poor judgement. Now all college students have a code of conduct that's restrictive as a result of them. I'm not angry at the law makers though because they're trying to regulate the environment and culture which has made the problem so common.


----------



## always_alone

What the new law does is affirm a person's bodily autonomy.

"No means no" is too often interpreted to mean "you are entitled to do whatever you want until the person stops you". Grope, fondle, harass, stick it in, whatever you want, until that person says "no". 

"Yes means yes" says that the person has rights to determine their own bodily integrity. No one has any right to grope, fondle, penetrate unless the person actually consents.

Anyone who is pushing where there is no consent really should be thinking twice about what they are doing. It is actually quite devastating, humiliating, objectifying, and violating to have one's own body treated like public property, there for someone else's amusement.

Affirmative consent need not be verbal, but it needs to be affirmative and coherent.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

always_alone said:


> And as I was trying to say earlier, this is what I see as the heart of the disagreement in this thread: Does the "iffyness" around date and acquaintance rape mean that it is not in fact rape?
> 
> So, to remove the "political" heat for a moment, let's take sex out of the picture, and consider simple assault.
> 
> One person hits another, perhaps hurting them quite badly. Often, the victim doesn't complain. They "chalk it up to experience".
> 
> But it is *still* assault.
> 
> Now maybe we are quite happy to not press charges for every little tussle. Surely many are not worth the hassle, and should the police be called, all they will do is break it up and go away, perhaps with a finger waggle and a warning to behave. More egregious behaviour might result in community service, fines, maybe a night in jail. Or many nights, depending on the circumstances and evidence.
> 
> Now suppose a student bullies another student, or shoves him. An institution like the university simply cannot afford to ignore this kind of thing, even if it isn't strictly speaking criminal. It wouldn't be fair to all of the other students, who have paid enormous amounts of tuition, to have someone threatening them or making them feel uncomfortable. So, if anyone complains of being bullied or hit, there will be an inquiry into the matter. If inquiry indicates it's criminal, police will be involved. In other cases they may not be. Either way, the university will reserve the right to determine its own response, and if the accused is found to be causing problems on campus, some penalty will be meted out: from restrictions on attending campus social events, to probation, to expulsion.
> 
> Sexual assault is no different.
> 
> Of course, it seems utterly absurd to think about enthusiastic consent laws for physical assault because we all know that no one wants to be beaten on whether conscious or not. It's obvious.
> 
> With sex, on the other hand, maybe we do want it. And certainly there's no harm in asking.
> 
> But just as there is a line that gets crossed when tussle becomes assault, there is a line where "rude" becomes sexual assault.
> 
> And that line is consent.


Interesting argument. Made me think of the following:

Two guys are just messing around, slapping each other or wrestling. It's just a game, no big deal. Just male bonding kinda stuff.

Then one takes it up a level and hits harder. The other guy says, "hey, man! Too rough!" The first guy hits hard again, then harder and harder.

Now, let's say one or both of the guys is drunk. Or perhaps the one who is physically much stronger/bigger is the one doing the hard hitting. He proceeds to beat the crap out of the other guy, even as that guy says to stop.

In this case, did the first guy having it coming because it started out as mutual and just playing around? Or should the second guy be charged with assault because the first one said to stop?


----------



## always_alone

The law doesn't criminalize ordinary sexual behaviour. In ordinary sex, both parties are enthusiastically consenting.

As it should be.

Only those scenarios where there is no affirmative consent are considered bad behaviour.

As it should be.


----------



## JCD

SurpriseMyself said:


> Interesting argument. Made me think of the following:
> 
> Two guys are just messing around, slapping each other or wrestling. It's just a game, no big deal. Just male bonding kinda stuff.
> 
> Then one takes it up a level and hits harder. The other guy says, "hey, man! Too rough!" The first guy hits hard again, then harder and harder.
> 
> Now, let's say one or both of the guys is drunk. Or perhaps the one who is physically much stronger/bigger is the one doing the hard hitting. He proceeds to beat the crap out of the other guy, even as that guy says to stop.
> 
> In this case, did the first guy having it coming because it started out as mutual and just playing around? Or should the second guy be charged with assault because the first one said to stop?


It is only interesting in that 'no means no' already covers this issue. When the other person said 'play time is over', whether is it male horsing around or sex, that is a very firm line in the sand legally.

So in your scenario, or in a case where a woman says 'no' to groping, a legally compelling case can be made.

What this new law does, to use your analogy, is to say 'if you do not say yes to every blow, the other person is assaulting you'.

Which is clearly not the case.


----------



## JCD

Thundarr said:


> It's annoying that this law places *ridiculous*restrictions on all students in an attempt to deter the actions of a minority but it's not new. It actually the norm. I'm reminded of that concept every time I buy something in a tamper proof casing. Not only is it a pain to open but it's easy to slice yourself up on hard plastic plus everything we buy costs more. But I'm angry at thieves who cause this problem rather than the stores and manufacturers.
> 
> In the case of this law, we can be angry at the guys targeted by it; angry at universities; angry at girls who use poor judgement. Now all college students have a code of conduct that's restrictive as a result of them. I'm not angry at the law makers though because they're trying to regulate the environment and culture which has made the problem so common.


A minor difference. Now, one is not 'owed' sex on campus. One is not 'owed' drinking on campus (and lord knows, one is not 'owed' constantly being comfortable on campus either. This is school, not a resort. Moving parts create friction, whether it be cogs or people)

However, I don't think the tamper proof wrap is a correct analogy, though I feel the same anger at meth manufacturers who make is difficult to buy pseudoephedrine.

It is as if they suddenly made it illegal to want to buy a pencil. Millions of people had done it before and right off campus, millions of people are still doing it...but HERE and NOW, pencil buying will only be done to a rigorous standard using Bicentennial quarters. If you do not buy a pencil with Bicentennial quarters, it is illegal.

The old way worked fine...except that THE COLLEGE ITSELF didn't always collect the money for the pencils. So if you want to know who to point the finger at, it is the college. The problem at Columbia wasn't that there were not suitable rules on the books. It was that the university DID NOTHING with the rules it had. Same as many other campuses. So...if the university didn't enforce the old rules, what makes you think that they will enforce the new ones? Ah yes...the money.

What the state should have done is kept the law but threatened the funding. Same result without adding ridiculous standards to sex.


----------



## Ikaika

Let's repeal it and allow that very small sector of students to take advantage of those situations where another student is too inebriated or unconscious to say "no", with impunity. After all what is the problem?


----------



## Thundarr

JCD said:


> What the state should have done is kept the law but threatened the funding. Same result without adding ridiculous standards to sex.


The verbiage in this law could be been spelled out differently and there wouldn't be a need for redefined consent. If the law specifically set expectations for a reduction in sexual assaults while also holding universities accountable for reporting all accusations then universities would be forced to crack down on the environment and culture.


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> The law doesn't criminalize ordinary sexual behaviour. In ordinary sex, both parties are enthusiastically consenting.
> 
> As it should be.
> 
> Only those scenarios where there is no affirmative consent are considered bad behaviour.
> 
> As it should be.


I understand your feelings and I accept that there is common sense in your interpretation of how the law should be interpreted. I can also see Drerio's point that this law will not be radical in practice. It will, however, give institutions a tool to redress the apparently growing culture of sexual harassment.

Of course there are statistics that show the rise and fall of certain crimes. Cause and effect are not always apparent. But I would guess that sexual violence against women is worse because of a number of factors:

1) Internet pornography fueled expectations;
2) the decline of the nuclear family, leaving boys without healthy role models;
3) the disappearance of community;
4) psychological damage from war;
5) etc

Will the adminstrators be sober and impartial? Will they err on the side of reasonable skepticism?

If a woman has 7 or 8 uninvited emails, begging for a date. That is an objective record. How many constitutes too many?

There is room for inconsistent application of this law.

I would say that closing fraternities for promoting excessive drinking is a good start to civilizing universities.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> Let's repeal it and allow that very small sector of students to take advantage of those situations where another student is too inebriated or unconscious to say "no", with impunity. After all what is the problem?


By chance are you channeling always_alone? That was a ridiculous and offensive statement and a total mischaracterization of what I have said.

Do you think that before this, juries were saying 'oh...she was passed out...of COURSE she deserved to be raped..."

This isn't the 50's. It isn't even the 70's. 

But if university types show the same 'zeal' in investigation with the new law as they did with the old one, this law is useless on it's face.


----------



## BaxJanson

I wonder - if a person is accused, and interviewed by the police and the university. The criminal investigation takes time, but the university hops right on it - don't want to look bad for the media. They interview the victim (hopefully using highly trained interviewers who know how to do so without asking leading questions). They interview the accused (hopefully respecting his right to innocence until proven guilty.) He goes before the committee - where he has no right of representation. The board agrees there's some proof there, based on his own testimony and answers. But hey - it's organized - they follow Robert's rules of order and everything! Notes are taken, the student expelled, everything written up and reported exactly as the university is required to do, all done with the best resources they have available.

Now the court case comes. The fellow, being at least semi-intelligent, lawyers up right away. He's ostrasized from his community, out thousands of dollars, unable to get a college degree, and generally hated. The police play fair, and the investigation proceeds apace. Now the prosecuting attorney comes in, and the fellow hasn't spoken to the cops, hasn't incriminated himself - as is his right not to.

But then there is this treasure trove of interviews and answers, all typed up and official. Not performed in a courtroom, no representation present, no one trained in the policies and procedures of the court. And the university reached a verdict, didn't they? That says something right there doesn't it? Everyone who knows him, knows he was kicked out of school for raping that girl, don't they - after all, he's already been found guilty and punished for it. This guy is facing life, and the university's involvement puts him in significantly more danger than if he faced the criminal system alone. 

But what should he do at the university level to improve his chances? Lawyer up? This is just a meeting. Hope he's got the cash to convince a lawyer to defend him outside of a courtroom setting. Stay silent? He doesn't have a right to remain silent here - silence is seen as agreement (ironic, that.)


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> By chance are you channeling always_alone? That was a ridiculous and offensive statement and a total mischaracterization of what I have said.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that before this, juries were saying 'oh...she was passed out...of COURSE she deserved to be raped..."
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't the 50's. It isn't even the 70's.
> 
> 
> 
> But if university types show the same 'zeal' in investigation with the new law as they did with the old one, this law is useless on it's face.



It is all in the legal definition isn't it?


----------



## Ikaika

BaxJanson said:


> I wonder - if a person is accused, and interviewed by the police and the university. The criminal investigation takes time, but the university hops right on it - don't want to look bad for the media. They interview the victim (hopefully using highly trained interviewers who know how to do so without asking leading questions). They interview the accused (hopefully respecting his right to innocence until proven guilty.) He goes before the committee - where he has no right of representation. The board agrees there's some proof there, based on his own testimony and answers. But hey - it's organized - they follow Robert's rules of order and everything! Notes are taken, the student expelled, everything written up and reported exactly as the university is required to do, all done with the best resources they have available.
> 
> Now the court case comes. The fellow, being at least semi-intelligent, lawyers up right away. He's ostrasized from his community, out thousands of dollars, unable to get a college degree, and generally hated. The police play fair, and the investigation proceeds apace. Now the prosecuting attorney comes in, and the fellow hasn't spoken to the cops, hasn't incriminated himself - as is his right not to.
> 
> But then there is this treasure trove of interviews and answers, all typed up and official. Not performed in a courtroom, no representation present, no one trained in the policies and procedures of the court. And the university reached a verdict, didn't they? That says something right there doesn't it? Everyone who knows him, knows he was kicked out of school for raping that girl, don't they - after all, he's already been found guilty and punished for it. This guy is facing life, and the university's involvement puts him in significantly more danger than if he faced the criminal system alone.
> 
> But what should he do at the university level to improve his chances? Lawyer up? This is just a meeting. Hope he's got the cash to convince a lawyer to defend him outside of a courtroom setting. Stay silent? He doesn't have a right to remain silent here - silence is seen as agreement (ironic, that.)



It is not that every case seen at the university level automatically results in expulsion. The high profile media circus ones make it appear that way, but I'm not sure that is the set aim of this law, especially since it appears they, the university, will be providing services to the accused. 

It would be great if every student entering the university system were respectful of others and responsible for their own actions.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> It is all in the legal definition isn't it?


Still calling you on the cheap shot.

and your argument is crap because legal codes have already had laws in place to deal with unconscious and intoxicated people being raped.

And they are the ones who should be judging this issue anyway, not some English professor from NoName U.


----------



## LongWalk

In the cases where there is no serious criminal conduct, e.g., infatuated man waits in corridor to try and ask girl out and follows up with email and text messages apologizing and begging for a chance to talk, the university can easily keep it internal. They simply warn him and forbid him from approaching her. There is no question of police involvement.

Studen takes video of dormmate making out on dance floor and posts it the Internet. No crime here but a violation of school rules Easy to handle.

Man and woman have sex by mutual consent on Saturday night. Come Sunday man wakes woman with morning erection. She says it is rape. Man says she consented in the same fashion as the night before. Now that the R word has popped up does the university have the responsibility to inform the man that he has been accused of rape before they interview him?

Do they call in the police or ask the woman to? If the woman hesitates to call the police but wishes the university to continue its investigation, what then? If the university complies with her request, it is carrying out a criminal investigation. If the man asks if there is a criminal complaint against him, should they answer "no"? 

This person who aids the man, is he or she a lawyer?


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> I understand your feelings and I accept that there is common sense in your interpretation of how the law should be interpreted. I can also see Drerio's point that this law will not be radical in practice. It will, however, give institutions a tool to redress the apparently growing culture of sexual harassment.
> 
> Of course there are statistics that show the rise and fall of certain crimes. Cause and effect are not always apparent. But I would guess that sexual violence against women is worse because of a number of factors:


You are incorrect on your facts. According to the BJS, rapes including attempts have dropped *64%* from 1995 to 2010.

In 1995, there was north of 500,000 women raped per year. It has come down to something like 280,000.

That is generally called a decrease. Honest people would call it a significant decrease.

BUT...people are talking about it more. That is not the same as it occurring more frequently.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Still calling you on the cheap shot.
> 
> 
> 
> *and your argument is crap because legal codes have already had laws in place to deal with unconscious and intoxicated people being raped.*
> 
> 
> 
> And they are the ones who should be judging this issue anyway, not some English professor from NoName U.



true these laws have been redefined to include those incapable of rendering physical or verbal resistance in the Justice code since 2012 and thus the heart of this new law. So I am still not sure what the issue is for the objection?

Also, universities have always had code of conduct rules in place. Only now they are catching up to what the definition that you appear to accept as it stands. So again, what is the objection? 

Reference: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attor...isions-uniform-crime-report-s-definition-rape


----------



## LongWalk

JCD said:


> You are incorrect on your facts. According to the BJS, rapes including attempts have dropped *64%* from 1995 to 2010.
> 
> In 1995, there was north of 500,000 women raped per year. It has come down to something like 280,000.
> 
> That is generally called a decrease. Honest people would call it a significant decrease.
> 
> BUT...people are talking about it more. That is not the same as it occurring more frequently.





> Starting in 1927, the FBI began collecting data on “forcible rape,” that is "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." In its latest crime report, the FBI has expanded its definition to include both genders of victim and perpetrator and a broader definition of what constitutes rape.
> 
> The difference in reporting is reflected in the numbers. Under the new definition, data show that rapes increased nearly nine percent in the first six months of 2013, compared with the same time period the previous year. Under the old definition, the opposite was true: rape fell nearly 11 percent in 2013.
> 
> Katie Hanna, executive director of the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence in Cleveland, says that the former definition did not “reflect the large number of victims we know, as advocates, are out there.”
> 
> “By including the new definition, what it says is this is a public health issue we need to take seriously," Ms. Hanna says, adding that the number of rape victims is likely much greater, since a large percentage of victims choose not to report the crime.


CSM


----------



## Buddy400

always_alone said:


> The law doesn't criminalize ordinary sexual behaviour. In ordinary sex, both parties are enthusiastically consenting.


Always Alone identifies "ordinary sex" as sex in which both parties enthusiastically consent. There is nowhere near a consensus on this point. I and most other people have had plenty of sex in which one party was certainly willing to participate yet their participation could hardly be defined as "enthusiastic". But AA just state this as a fact. This is not even noting that "enthusiastic" is very open to interpretation. This is a problem because misinterpreting enthusiasm can now make you a rapist.

But, the main problem with AA is that she constantly misinterprets other people, doesn't respond to the arguments being put forward and never gives the other side the benefit of the doubt. I have seen NO attempt on her part to even try to understand where anyone else is coming from.

If we disagree with her, we must love rape. The more the better.

And there's just no point in carrying on a conversation with someone like that.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> CSM





> Starting in 1927, the FBI began collecting data on “forcible rape,” that is "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will." In its latest crime report, the FBI has expanded its definition to include both genders of victim and perpetrator and *a broader definition of what constitutes rape*.
> 
> The difference in reporting is reflected in the numbers.* Under the new definition,* data show that rapes increased nearly nine percent in the first six months of 2013, compared with the same time period the previous year. Under the old definition, the opposite was true: rape fell nearly 11 percent in 2013.
> 
> Katie Hanna, executive director of the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence in Cleveland, says that the former definition did not “reflect the large number of victims we know, as advocates, are out there.”
> 
> “By including the new definition, what it says is this is a public health issue we need to take seriously," Ms. Hanna says, adding that the number of rape victims is likely much greater, since a large percentage of victims choose not to report the crime.


Did you just seriously put this up as a rebuttal of my point that for TEN YEARS under a CONSISTANT definition, rape has more than halved? Really?

Guess what? If I decided to put into the crime statistics a kid stealing a piece of gum, I am guessing that the theft statistics would also experience a huge jump.

But even more so, you said SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN is on the increase. Then you dare to cite a new FBI definition which includes male on male rape and STILL only get a 9% increase.

This is a shameful use of statistics.

See...I am using a consistent definition for my period of time. You are suddenly changing the definition to 'prove' in a very disingenuous way that 'there was in increase.' There still was no increase. You started measuring other things and added them to the total.

Since you have heretofore been a straight shooter, I am going to assume that you just didn't read your quote, or having read it, didn't consider the ramifications of what you just read.

So to summarize this article you cited, it is useless to compare these numbers to the prior *10 years of decrease* because they changed the definition. I am guessing there was a justice motivation as well as a political motivation. See, it's very hard to scream foul at men if every year we show a decrease in sexual violence towards women. It is very much a campaign issue.

Please note that suddenly, in a critical midterm election, campus rape and gay marriage are suddenly all over the papers to drum up some outrage. Where was this issue for the last six years except in the hearts of advocates? Not very big in the minds of the media. And here is a handy definition change (probably long overdue, but strangely timely...) the year before the polls.

Yes, I am very cynical.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> true these laws have been redefined to include those incapable of rendering physical or verbal resistance in the Justice code since 2012 and thus the heart of this new law. So I am still not sure what the issue is for the objection?
> 
> Also, universities have always had code of conduct rules in place. Only now they are catching up to what the definition that you appear to accept as it stands. So again, what is the objection?
> 
> Reference: Attorney General Eric Holder Announces Revisions to the Uniform Crime Reportâ€™s Definition of Rape | OPA | Department of Justice


Are you bothering to read a single thing I write? I would say the evidence suggests 'no'.

1) I am fine with laws against the sexual use of someone OVERLY intoxicated (a very tricky issue probably well beyond the pay grade of a professor) and someone incapacitated. I stated this very clearly. AND the LEGAL system already has this definition. It has for some time. This is not the point of contention. 

2) I am fine with the educational portion. Sure, teach men what the LAW is...and sure throw in the university guidelines. I'd also take some time to educate women on exactly what rape IS (and even more importantly, ISN'T since a few people seem to think it is 'anything I don't like sexually') as well at telling them that their chances of justice depend on them doing the right thing and reporting. THIS is not the point of contention.

3) I am NOT fine with professors investigating rapes. Police and prosecutors do not write papers on 'Transgendered Echoes as Reflected in Crimean War Correspondence' and professors should not write crime reports. Just because you are smart and technically good at one thing does not mean you are technically good or smart at ALL things...as any number of dead doctors who thought they were pilots can attest to. This is the small bone of contention because I can see where a university has to do _something_. I am unsure if they have to do _this._

4) The large bone of contention is a law which essentially criminalizes normal behavior *if they want to.* You can say they will never do it. I don't believe that is a good basis for writing law. And I'm sorry that always_alone has never had a boy try to steal a kiss from her or make a move without her 'obvious and enthusiastic support' or never got coaxed into the mood by her partner. Believe me, it happens all the time to other people.

So you did not answer the question. If we used the technical application of this law, would your sexual actions in the past be actionable by these new laws?

Because the way you are dodging the issue seems to prove that this is a 'yes'.

This is the PR nightmare of this law: that it can, strictly speaking, define perfectly ordinary people as sexual assaulters...when they know they are NOT sexual assaulters. Trying to explain to people that they should now prosecute their sons for things that they engaged in (because as you pointed out REPEATEDLY, it is gender neutral...so any woman coaxing a man or sticking his penis in her mouth without a yes...she's a rapist!)...it's a tough sell. I'd try to dodge the issue too...

The basis of this law is a sexual power shift...and power is always a zero sum game. Anything, ANYTHING a woman does not want is criminalized. A kiss, a touch. Do I want my daughters forcibly fondled? Absolutely not. Likewise, I do not want my son criminalized because he misjudged the response of an _always_ hypersensitive woman.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> Are you bothering to read a single thing I write? I would say the evidence suggests 'no'.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I am fine with laws against the sexual use of someone OVERLY intoxicated (a very tricky issue probably well beyond the pay grade of a professor) and someone incapacitated. I stated this very clearly. AND the LEGAL system already has this definition. It has for some time. This is not the point of contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I am fine with the educational portion. Sure, teach men what the LAW is...and sure throw in the university guidelines. I'd also take some time to educate women on exactly what rape IS (and even more importantly, ISN'T since a few people seem to think it is 'anything I don't like sexually') as well at telling them that their chances of justice depend on them doing the right thing and reporting. THIS is not the point of contention.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I am NOT fine with professors investigating rapes. Police and prosecutors do not write papers on 'Transgendered Echoes as Reflected in Crimean War Correspondence' and professors should not write crime reports. Just because you are smart and technically good at one thing does not mean you are technically good or smart at ALL things...as any number of dead doctors who thought they were pilots can attest to. This is the small bone of contention because I can see where a university has to do _something_. I am unsure if they have to do _this._
> 
> 
> 
> 4) The large bone of contention is a law which essentially criminalizes normal behavior *if they want to.* You can say they will never do it. I don't believe that is a good basis for writing law. And I'm sorry that always_alone has never had a boy try to steal a kiss from her or make a move without her 'obvious and enthusiastic support' or never got coaxed into the mood by her partner. Believe me, it happens all the time to other people.
> 
> 
> 
> So you did not answer the question. If we used the technical application of this law, would your sexual actions in the past be actionable by these new laws?
> 
> 
> 
> Because the way you are dodging the issue seems to prove that this is a 'yes'.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the PR nightmare of this law: that it can, strictly speaking, define perfectly ordinary people as sexual assaulters...when they know they are NOT sexual assaulters. Trying to explain to people that they should now prosecute their sons for things that they engaged in (because as you pointed out REPEATEDLY, it is gender neutral...so any woman coaxing a man or sticking his penis in her mouth without a yes...she's a rapist!)...it's a tough sell. I'd try to dodge the issue too...
> 
> 
> 
> The basis of this law is a sexual power shift...and power is always a zero sum game. Anything, ANYTHING a woman does not want is criminalized. A kiss, a touch. Do I want my daughters forcibly fondled? Absolutely not. Likewise, I do not want my son criminalized because he misjudged the response of an _always_ hypersensitive woman.



So professors are not investigating criminal activity, only student code of conduct violations. And only recommendations would be made anyway. There are no decisions happening beyond what university lawyers allow in the final rulings. So the diatribe above is unnecessary since all this was covered pages ago.

This law just suggest that consent (affirmation - their wording) can't be given if communication is not possible due to circumstances of intoxication. I don't know why that is so hard to swallow since you seem to agree with it. So I don't believe this law is covering typical relational behavior.


----------



## Ikaika

You have fun with the continued argument, I just don't see where it important for me to continue beating the dead horse any longer.


----------



## LongWalk

Well, Drerio, there is suspicion enough to go round. People suspect that men are using alcohol to set up rapes. Alcohol an decision making don't go together well. Ironically, one of the reason men and women drink together is to accelerate the demolision of boundaries. Women go to the frat parties to meet men. They just don't understand that some men are not interested in getting to know them through courtship.

Some fear that women may use complaints to rewrite history. It would be naive to assume that men with bad intent are fictional, for we know they aren't. Likewise, it would be naive to assume women never do falsely accuse. We cannot change human character.

Universitites ought to be very careful about whom they name to disciplinary boards. They ought to undergo screening.


----------



## LongWalk

JCD,

Do you believe rape statistics, however, rape is defined reflects the real number of rapes?

What percentage of women never report rape because they feel too sh!tty after it happens?


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> So professors are not investigating criminal activity, only student code of conduct violations. And only recommendations would be made anyway. There are no decisions happening beyond what university lawyers allow in the final rulings. So the diatribe above is unnecessary since all this was covered pages ago.
> 
> This law just suggest that consent (affirmation - their wording) can't be given if communication is not possible due to circumstances of intoxication. I don't know why that is so hard to swallow since you seem to agree with it. So I don't believe this law is covering typical relational behavior.


Wow. Just...perfectly obtuse.

This law does *not just cover unconscious women.* Do you get that distinction? If all the law said was 'hey boys, you stick your wick into a overly drunk girl (though the wording means they can criminalize ANY girl who drinks...something I am iffy with, but overall okay with) or one who is out of it, you are toast.'

I said this a half dozen times.

The sticking point is this: ANY sex with ANY woman which is not matched up with a *distinct and continuous 'yes'*, consistently reaffirmed, means you are a...well, not rapist, since you cling to the technicality.

You are in violation.


This is an important point. Essentially it means trying to coax a girl into connubial bliss is now a crime. If she is not automatically ripping her clothes off as fast as you are, to use always' definition, you are guilty of at least sexual assault.

I find the fact that a woman is not expected to be responsible enough to say 'no' is frankly demeaning to the whole gender.

But to paraphrase a famous conservative thinker on gay marriage: Give this law to the girls. They won't like it.

The school has worked hard to remove romance and game playing from sex on campus. Good on them! They don't need my opinion. It's already passed.

That the few remaining boys on campus, seeing this authoritarian drive, might go off campus looking for safer women is a perfectly credible response. That a boy suddenly doesn't touch a woman until they are specifically and baldly asking for it, no matter how much eyelash batting or hair flicking she does, will probably lead to a great deal of frustration on the part of the women. Most of them don't want to 'own' their sexuality.

The hook up culture will get worse, in my estimation, not better.

I am frankly surprised that a supposed academic is not open minded enough to understand another viewpoint, particularly when so many people, even ones who agree with this, seem to understand it automatically.


----------



## LongWalk

JCD,

Why do you write that Drerio is a "Supposed academic"?

Your just attacking his character, not his argument. I agree with some of your points but there is right way to make them. Calling someone a fraud just undermines your arguments.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Did you just seriously put this up as a rebuttal of my point that for TEN YEARS under a CONSISTANT definition, rape has more than halved? Really?
> 
> Guess what? If I decided to put into the crime statistics a kid stealing a piece of gum, I am guessing that the theft statistics would also experience a huge jump.


It is telling, this equation of the FBI definition of sexual assault with a kid stealing gum.

So this is how it is? The FBI has nothing better to do than hound innocent boys stealing kisses and packs of gum?

None of this sexual assault claptrap is to be taken seriously?


----------



## LongWalk

Always Alone,

Do you think that a complaint based solely on a woman's word should be sufficient to result in a reprimand or expulsion?


----------



## Runs like Dog

I've always been a proponent of single sex education at all levels. Socializing is for other times other places.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> Always Alone,
> 
> Do you think that a complaint based solely on a woman's word should be sufficient to result in a reprimand or expulsion?


Never. And never once have I suggested it should be.

This law is *not* about listening only to women, nor is it about meting out punishment simply because there is an accusation.

Nor should it be.

The law is *not* about criminalizing ordinary flirtation or sexual behaviour.

Nor should it be.

As drerio has said, umpteen times now, with direct quotes, this policy is about making explicit that consent is not just absence of a "no", but must be affirmative and coherent.

That is *not* to say that it has to be written and notarized, indeed the law doesn't even insist on verbal. Just affirmative and coherent.

I don't quite get why so many are so convinced that this is "killing sex" as I don't even see it as a particularly high bar. All it's really saying is that if a person is asleep, incapacitated, stumbling drunk, saying things like "I don't want to do this", reluctant or unhappy about it, then this will be taken as evidence that they were *not* consenting.

Why is this seen as so terrible? It all strikes me as rather obvious.


----------



## LongWalk

Fair enough.

But usually the rapist takes his victim to another room in the fraternity. It must be that the goal is to get a woman drunk enough that she becomes pliant but not unconscious.

Without witnesses I don't see how it can work.

If a woman goes to a party with friends and is raped, those friends could be the witnesses. For example, they are called over to help her home. They could inform the police if they felt she had been assaulted. But if they simply pile her into a car and drive home, who is going to witness?


----------



## JCD

From Popular Crime by about 'prosecutorial creep':



> Take “premeditated” murder. When laws were first passed to distinguish “premeditated” murder from acts of passion— in cold blood, as opposed to hot— “premeditated” murder meant that it was actually premeditated. It was thought through in advance. “All murder is heinous,” the law intended to say, “but to murder someone in cold blood is especially heinous, and so we will give a harsher penalty for that.” The law, however, failed to say how much premeditation was enough. Prosecutors immediately began arguing that any premeditation was the same as actual premeditation. One second’s premeditation was enough.
> ...
> We have “three strike” laws now; three crimes of violence, and you get a life sentence. In principle, I’m on board; hell, I don’t understand why it takes three crimes of violence to lock somebody away.
> ...
> Those laws failed because of definition creep. The original meaning of the term “felony” was that a felony was a crime for which the penalty was the loss of life or the loss of a bodily part. Now, anything can be a felony. You steal something worth $1,000, that may be a felony. If you’re caught with enough marijuana to host a frat party, that’s a felony.
> ...
> So prosecutors would get on somebody’s case, and, boom, he’s got three felonies before he can get to the bathroom. This was never the intention of the habitual criminal laws, so those laws gradually collapse
> ...
> Sexual predator registries were intended to let people know if a child molester was living next door, which I am all in favor of— *but sexual predator registries in practice are overrun with 28- year- old men who, when they were 18, had sex with their 16- year- old girlfriends, and guys who got drunk and left the house naked and got arrested for indecent exposure, and former teachers who lost track for a moment of how inappropriate it was to tell a dirty joke in front of their students.*
> It sounds like I am arguing on behalf of criminals here. I’m not. I’m arguing on behalf of laws that work. Did you ever start on a three- day business trip with one small suitcase, only you started stuffing more and more things into the one suitcase until you wound up with a busted zipper? Prosecutors, by their nature, are zipper- busters. They chronically overstuff the suitcase. In order to have laws that work, you have to stop prosecutors from busting the zippers. XXII


This law looks like a zipper buster to me.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> JCD,
> 
> Why do you write that Drerio is a "Supposed academic"?
> 
> Your just attacking his character, not his argument. I agree with some of your points but there is right way to make them. Calling someone a fraud just undermines your arguments.


There is something called 'arguing in good faith.'

Drerio has stated that he could not see how this law could possibly be misused. I got called a script writer for some melodramatic fantasy.

So I cited four (4) people who also saw the same weaknesses.

Nope...still can't see it!

I outlined major weaknesses in implementation and the fact this does nothing new. 

La la la la! It changes everything, he asserts.

So I ask a question if any of his sexual actions could be read as violations of this statute, to show how incredibly broad and general this rule can be stretched. 

Instead, in response, I get this assertion that this law is about unconscious women and how I should be on board to protect them.

WTF? This wasn't anyone's point.

So I responded that, hey, these laws already exist, thanks a lot, and anyone with common decency (and even myself) already knows how pathetic and contemptuous such actions are.

His response? Oh. You agree so you should support this whole law, totally ignoring that it isn't protection of the unconscious which is the sticking point.

Now, anyone with a healthy and broad minded world view can look at the other side and ask themselves 'what would Torquemada do with such a law if they had their way with it'? After they finished vomiting , they could then say..'Oh...I get where you are coming from. '

Do I get that sense from Drerio? No. I am trying to remind him of his responsibility to examine these ideas, which he doesn't seem to be doing. Dismissal is not examination, and frankly he is backtracking on some of his own critiques in the beginning .

So. Violation of arguing in good faith? It reaches my bar.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> JCD,
> 
> Do you believe rape statistics, however, rape is defined reflects the real number of rapes?
> 
> What percentage of women never report rape because they feel too sh!tty after it happens?


I think that rape statistics are pretty accurate. Every *reported rape* is handled and recorded accurately.

Now, UN-recorded rape. This is absolutely unknowable. Totally. Advocates want to use the 'unknowable' number to make the problem look as big as possible. You don't get funding for shrinking problems which declined 64% in the last ten years until someone monkeyed with the numbers.

Additionally, I am, in some ways, pro-choice. These women who did not report made a choice. They wanted family peace, lack of social consequences, lack of drama etc. more than they wanted justice or to make the world a slightly safer place. It isn't because they are scared that no one will believe them. Always will believe ANY woman and she is not alone in this case. They have support groups, charities and reporters frothing at the mouth to make a new cause célèbre. 

So, in every meaningful way, they voted that what happened to them is socially irrelevant. I deplore that unreported rapes occur but I am not going to be excoriated over an unknowable number.

Nor should we make policy on the unknowable. If a climate scientist came for funding to fix global warming without any numbers, should we fund him? Use what you can measure and talk the ladies and men into being more forthcoming about their victimization.

As a personal note, I believe the opportunistic losers are raping slightly less due to porn (power fantasies without the risk of jail time) and that the percentage of unreported rapes has probably dropped in close to equal measure to the recorded amount because we have made a great effort to inform all American women 'we will believe you'. This speaks well of us that we did this.


Edited to add (Post AA's response which I didn't read): A woman may be scared about the rape. Fear is irrational. However I think that as a society, we've made the message pretty clear that rape victims will be given a fair hearing, evidence will be collected to determine guilt, that a good faith effort will be made to give her justice and that efforts will be made to emotionally support her and keep her protected as well as could be expected.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> Without witnesses I don't see how it can work.


Without witnesses, what can't work?

Most rapes don't have witnesses. Many other sorts of crimes don't either. It might make it harder to figure out who did it and how to catch them, but it doesn't change the law itself.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Always will believe ANY woman and she is not alone in this case.


It is interesting to me that you are both purposefully ignoring me, and at the same time peppering your posts with what you suppose that I believe and say.

And have the nerve to call other people out for arguing in bad faith.

Your prerogative. You don't have any obligation to listen, never did. But I can't help but wonder if you'd find me a little less offensive if you weren't so busy shoving words down my throat.

As for the law? It's clear that you don't like it and thought the old one would do. But what you haven't shown at all is that the new law would have the dire consequences you predict for it.

Tell us, where exactly do you see the law making ordinary sexual behaviour into rape? What in the language makes you think women have new power to put just about any guy in jail should they so desire?

And how would *you* deal with sexual assault situations that weren't covered by the previous rape laws? Say, for example, a guy likes to cop feels on the street or on public transit. Do we just "chalk it up to experience" that guys like this are louts? Or do we try and recognize through law that randomly groping people is actually an offense?


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> There is something called 'arguing in good faith.'
> 
> 
> 
> Drerio has stated that he could not see how this law could possibly be misused. I got called a script writer for some melodramatic fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> So I cited four (4) people who also saw the same weaknesses.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope...still can't see it!
> 
> 
> 
> I outlined major weaknesses in implementation and the fact this does nothing new.
> 
> 
> 
> La la la la! It changes everything, he asserts.
> 
> 
> 
> So I ask a question if any of his sexual actions could be read as violations of this statute, to show how incredibly broad and general this rule can be stretched.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, in response, I get this assertion that this law is about unconscious women and how I should be on board to protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? This wasn't anyone's point.
> 
> 
> 
> So I responded that, hey, these laws already exist, thanks a lot, and anyone with common decency (and even myself) already knows how pathetic and contemptuous such actions are.
> 
> 
> 
> His response? Oh. You agree so you should support this whole law, totally ignoring that it isn't protection of the unconscious which is the sticking point.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, anyone with a healthy and broad minded world view can look at the other side and ask themselves 'what would Torquemada do with such a law if they had their way with it'? After they finished vomiting , they could then say..'Oh...I get where you are coming from. '
> 
> 
> 
> Do I get that sense from Drerio? No. I am trying to remind him of his responsibility to examine these ideas, which he doesn't seem to be doing. Dismissal is not examination, and frankly he is backtracking on some of his own critiques in the beginning .
> 
> 
> 
> So. Violation of arguing in good faith? It reaches my bar.



I did not ever say any law could be misused, but you have decided to assume as much. Too bad you have not read anything I wrote

I do believe you need to re read the law. I don't see dismissal as an automatic and the gist of the argument of the law has everything to do with the capacity to communicate under intoxicated circumstances.

Feel free to go back and quote any of my absolute positions.


----------



## JCD

drerio said:


> I did not ever say any law could be misused, but you have decided to assume as much. Too bad you have not read anything I wrote


No but you have been extraordinarily defensive about THIS one, saying that any fears on this, to use your words, vague and hard to judge law, seems overwrought folly.


----------



## Ikaika

JCD said:


> No but you have been extraordinarily defensive about THIS one, saying that any fears on this, to use your words, vague and hard to judge law, seems overwrought folly.



I'm not defensive about this issue at all, I have far less fears about this law than the original argument would suggest. That has been my argument all along, if you had paid attention.

So he said and she said is easy to judge? When has that ever been the case?

I believe a few others have continually pointed out the same issue. Yet, some on here assume this as feminist entrapment, painting scenarios which may exist only in the extremes. 

Since when have we done anything for 100% perfection? That is not any test data a good science experiment has to meet, p <= 0.05


----------



## Ikaika

If one reads the law, it is somewhat easy to figure out what situation it targets. And yes if we could just curtail heavy consumption of intoxicating substances on campus that would solve everything, but universities are not. 

I never assumed it would not inadvertently cause problems in the extreme. However, one would hope those situations could be used as teachable moments (for both complainant and accuser) and not ones targeted toward any particular,demographic student group.


----------



## LongWalk

I agree with your general conclusion, Drerio. However, the law does have an inherent weakness in attempting to regulate sexual behavior that may or may not be criminal. As soon as people misunderstand this law to define the criminal offense of rape, then it has failed.

How it is applied in real life will depend on the universities and the quality of their bureaucracy. A person with an agenda could insert himself into the discipinary boards.


----------



## always_alone

Unfortunately, it would seem we have yet to bring in adequate protection or justice for rape victims:

Yung, Corey Rayburn, How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis (March 4, 2014). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 1197, 2014. Available at SSRN: How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis by Corey Rayburn Yung :: SSRN



> In contrast to the widely held conventional wisdom, the rate of rape in America has not decreased over the last twenty years, as has been the case for other violent crimes. Instead, America is in a crisis of sexual violence that has gone undetected because police departments across the country systemically underreport rape.





> In 2005, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch caught the city police department* aggressively discouraging rape victims from proceeding with their cases.*69 One means police used to make rape complaints disappear was for police to have the complainants sign a “waiver” that implied that their allegations were “unfounded.”70





> In 2009, The Baltimore Sun uncovered the undercounting of rape in the UCR data the Baltimore Police Department submitted.83 The newspaper discovered that the police were designating a very high rate of rape complaints as “unfounded.”84 *Police also discouraged rape victims from filing complaints so that written reports would not be required.*85





> In 2003, Human Rights Watch released a report documenting the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police’s systemic failure to property investigate rape complaints.108 The report found practices similar to those in Baltimore, New Orleans, Philadelphia, and St. Louis wherein police regularly prematurely “unfounded” complaints, failed to document
> incidents, and improperly downgraded offenses.109





> One study found that police who take rape complaints believe one third of complainants were making false reports.116





> Several small studies indicate that police classify numerous ordinary rape complaints (often involving intoxicated or confused victims)as “unfounded.”139


----------



## Ikaika

LongWalk said:


> I agree with your general conclusion, Drerio. However, the law does have an inherent weakness in attempting to regulate sexual behavior that may or may not be criminal. As soon as people misunderstand this law to define the criminal offense of rape, then it has failed.
> 
> How it is applied in real life will depend on the universities and the quality of their bureaucracy. A person with an agenda could insert himself into the discipinary boards.



We could spend a lifetime finding weaknesses in every law or code of conduct ruling, but to perseverate on the extremes seems a bit over the top to me. 

In the end I think most of those who preside over such cases take the "law is blind" approach, however the media circus around specific case would make it appear otherwise. My heart does go out to the unjustly accused and one would hope that justice serves them the same as "victims" of crime. 

My position all along.


----------



## Lionelhutz

always_alone said:


> Unfortunately, it would seem we have yet to bring in adequate protection or justice for rape victims:
> 
> Yung, Corey Rayburn, How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis (March 4, 2014). Iowa Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 1197, 2014. Available at SSRN: How to Lie with Rape Statistics: America's Hidden Rape Crisis by Corey Rayburn Yung :: SSRN


All statistics can be used to mislead, whether by intent or by self-deception.

In recent years many police forces have been under political pressure to under-report all crime, particularly violent crime.

The definition of "rape" in both police reports and in academic studies can vary widely from only violent forced intercourse at the one extreme "sexual assault" of any kind. Also the unreported prevalence is extremely difficult to quantify. I have see one estimate based in part to the answer to the survey question "Did you ever feel pressure to have sex when you didn't want to?"

The issue is not a comparison of a law against rape versus no law against rape. It is also not about the enforcement of existing legislation or the penalties imposed. It is about a new law and its likely consequences and interpretation.

If both parties get drunk and have sex. No one says anything during. Both wake up and regret it. Both claim they would not have had sex but for the alcohol and the "advances" of the other.
Can both be guilty of rape under this law?


----------



## Thundarr

Lionelhutz said:


> The issue is not a comparison of a law against rape versus no law against rape. It is also not about the enforcement of existing legislation or the penalties imposed. It is about a new law and its likely consequences and interpretation.
> 
> If both parties get drunk and have sex. No one says anything during. Both wake up and regret it. Both claim they would not have had sex but for the alcohol and the "advances" of the other.
> Can both be guilty of rape under this law?


In your scenario, both students are breaking the code of conduct and neither student is guilty of rape. It's a stretch to think either would be expelled for a first offense unless it was very cut and dry. Even in criminal law first time offenders don't get the harsh penalties that repeat offenders do. I know this from being a stupid teen and not getting shafted by the legal system. And that's crimes across the board when there's either proof or a confession. In this case, it's a fuzzy scenario regarding fault to begin with.

So I understand the thought behind your question but I think it's based on theory rather than realistic practice.


----------



## Thundarr

LongWalk said:


> I agree with your general conclusion, Drerio. However, the law does have an inherent weakness in attempting to regulate sexual behavior that may or may not be criminal. As soon as people misunderstand this law to define the criminal offense of rape, then it has failed.
> 
> How it is applied in real life will depend on the universities and the quality of their bureaucracy. A person with an agenda could insert himself into the discipinary boards.


I think that the 'element of agenda' is already there with existing law. 

With current law a girl can sleep with a guy and then go to the hospital and police saying that she was raped. But unless there's someone to coraborate that she was passed out or that they saw her screaming no and a guy force her then it boils down to he said/she said.

With the new law a girl can sleep with a guy and then go to the hospital and police saying that she was raped. Bus unless there's someone to coraborate that she was sh!tfaced falling down drunk, or passed out, or that they saw her screaming no and a guy force her then it still boils down to he said/she said.

So the only difference is that her being really drunk is the bar rather than her being passed out. So it's a cultural shift of when it's dangerous or not for a guy to push the envelope. He said/She said doesn't change at all. But I admit that I'm bias in one regard. I never was crazy for sh!t face drunk girls. They generally annoyed the crap out of me. Yes it happened rarely but there was no penalty so I didn't consider it risky.


----------



## always_alone

Lionelhutz said:


> The issue is not a comparison of a law against rape versus no law against rape. It is also not about the enforcement of existing legislation or the penalties imposed. It is about a new law and its likely consequences and interpretation.
> 
> If both parties get drunk and have sex. No one says anything during. Both wake up and regret it. Both claim they would not have had sex but for the alcohol and the "advances" of the other.
> Can both be guilty of rape under this law?


I understand what the issues are. My last post was in part to point out that bias is not a new problem, nor is it specific to one group, or uniform in opinion. 

Indeed most of the problems raised about enforcement of the new law are not themselves new, or unique to this law.

Yes, the new policy means that women too can be guilty of rape. Does this not make sense, given that they sometimes are?

Yes, it means that intoxication is a factor in deciding to whether or not there was any consent. But isn't it? 

Yes, there are a few blurry lines about what is and is not something worthy of prosecution or penalty. But isn't this true in all sorts of situations we would never hesitate to call crimes?


----------



## CrazyGuy

1) I want to clarify something first. I think rape is horrible. Rapist should be punished severely.

2) I have been away for a long time. Excuse me if I am repeating something earlier.

3) I can't stand feminists. I do not think they are about equal rights. I think they want preferred treatment. Yeah I am touchy about this subject. Every time I start yapping about this stuff I get called a bunch of names. 

I do not understand why, after all the scandals, colleges treat serious crime internally. (Penn State) the worse example I know. Rape accusations should be turned directly to the Police. I just do not trust that college administrators will handle it in a fair way. The Police have the resources. 

Growing up, all my life, I was basically told that I am some kind of monster, something to be cautions about . In middle school and up we had assemblies every year. Basically they focused on date rape. We were told that boys "point of no return" was so much sooner than girls. After we reach that point it is "next to impossible" for us to stop. Thus we end up raping the girl who did not want sex. Then both lives are ruined and I can look forward to going to hell. 

This screwed me up in my marriage. We had, have a sexless marriage. I felt guilty for my desire. My wife thought I was over sexed and wished my drive would go to zero.

I found statics reported by Feminist to be wrong. 25% of girls raped in college? I know it does happen, but I do not personally know anybody that was. Holly crap if that was the case we should have Tasers mounted in Vaginas or something for college women. 

Anyways, I stumbled across Karen Straughan videos on YouTube. Wish I knew more women like her. Professional counselors never helped me. Silly as it is I found her videos more helpful to me. The things she says are things I thought about years ago but got beat out of me over time. It was bad enough for me growing up. I hope I can help my son to have a healthy mind as he grows up. "don't be that lying feminist" - YouTube


----------



## Thundarr

CrazyGuy said:


> I do not understand why, after all the scandals, colleges treat serious crime internally. (Penn State) the worse example I know. Rape accusations should be turned directly to the Police. I just do not trust that college administrators will handle it in a fair way. The Police have the resources.


You said a lot more than this CrazyGuy but this is the piece of your comment I'd like to comment on.

Universities historically haven't had accountability. This law actually sets a standard with a few rules that change that. From this standpoint, it seems like a good thing regarding your thoughts rather than a bad thing because they cannot rugs sweep assaults now.


----------



## LongWalk

Karen Straughan is very smart, articulate, analytical. She is not feminine or sexy. Fine as a buddy.

Her breakdown of the types of false accusers is good.

In my opinion the inherent differences between men and women include the following:

1) Men are more violent, more criminal, more extreme than women. The curve for certain behaviors put more women in the middle.

2) Women are better liars than men. Men want to lie. Women can read men's lies better. When a BPD woman starts acting, for a certain period of time she can utterly snow people who do not know her. I have a friend whose crazy ex kidnapped their three daughters and fled from one European country to another. She accused him of being a monster who sexually molested his daughters. It was all nonsense.

After she won sole custody in the crooked courts of the her home country, he travelled back over and over. His daughters lost their ability to speak French. He learned the Nordic language to reestablish contact. He used every minute he had with them (at first under the guard of social workers) to let them know he loved them and had not deserted them.

Eventually he even rented a house in the village where they lived. At first all the villagers thought he was a monster. But over time he won over the villagers who realized that this woman was psychologically not 100%. My friend went from hating the country that stole his daughters to adapting culturally and linguistically. All of his daughters speak French now and they are very close to him.

His wife lied about sexual abuse. To lie about rape would have been nothing for her.

As to knowing women who have been raped, any man who has had girlfriends has heard stories about rape and abuse. Women remember the men who would not take no. Even if they forced the women to assent to sex, it was very close to rape if not rape. Acquiescence to get rid of the guy is the decision they take, knowing they will not date him again.

When women are quite drunk, they may be interested in sex but realize that they are not capable of performing or enjoying. They may urge the guy to stop or just lie there. This too may not be rape, but it is also very unpleasant. The worst is if the two persons actually like each other but because of alcohol exhibit bad judgment.

Especially vile are the male buddies who praise the guy for scoring with a girl because she is drunk. They have a misogynistic attitude.

Also, important to note: misogyny and misandry are not always a constant in an individual but rise and fall, depending on mental health and life circumstances.


----------



## Deejo

The 25% is women who experience sexual assault ... not necessarily rape. If no one close to you (that you are aware of) has been raped, then consider yourself and the women you know, fortunate.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> The 25% is women who experience sexual assault ... not necessarily rape. If no one close to you (that you are aware of) has been raped, then consider yourself and the women you know, fortunate.


Recent data shows that nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) in the US have been raped at some point in their lifetime. This figure includes forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated penetration, but not other forms of sexual assault.

For men, the rate is 1 in 71 (1.4%)


NISVS Summary Reports|National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey|Funded Programs|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC


----------



## jaharthur

28 Harvard Law School professors object to university's new sexual harassment policy:

Rethink Harvard's sexual harassment policy - Opinion - The Boston Globe


----------



## LongWalk

A quote from the statement by the Harvard dissidents:



> Harvard has adopted procedures for deciding cases of alleged sexual misconduct which *lack the most basic elements of fairness and due process, are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused*, and are in no way required by Title IX law or regulation. Here our concerns include but are not limited to the following:
> 
> ■ *The absence of any adequate opportunity to discover the facts charged and to confront witnesses and present a defense at an adversary hearing*.
> 
> ■ The lodging of the functions of investigation, prosecution, fact-finding, and appellate review in one office, and the fact that that office is itself a Title IX compliance office rather than an entity that could be considered structurally impartial.
> 
> ■ *The failure to ensure adequate representation for the accused, particularly for students unable to afford representation*. (Note: Drerio often admitted that he did not know what representation meant in practice.)
> 
> Harvard has inappropriately expanded the scope of forbidden conduct, including by:
> 
> ■ Adopting a definition of sexual harassment that goes significantly beyond Title IX and Title VII law.
> 
> ■ Adopting rules governing sexual conduct between students both of whom are impaired or incapacitated, rules which are starkly one-sided as between complainants and respondents, and entirely inadequate to address the complex issues in these unfortunate situations involving extreme use and abuse of alcohol and drugs by our students.


----------



## LongWalk

I will throw out an opinion – the Obama administration is intellectually dishonest. They routinely hide behind certain social liberal holy causes to disguise and distract from the real actions of the administration. Upholding the rule of law has not been a priority. Eric Holder was a disgraceful AG. I am sure that cares nothing for women who have raped. He was always interested in power and his clique. Getting women to vote Democrat is a goal.


----------



## JCD

LongWalk said:


> A quote from the statement by the Harvard dissidents:


Those 'dissidents' are Law School faculty. And they include Alan Dershowitz, not known as a generally pro rape maven.

But he has a fine eye for civil rights and the violation thereof.

One wonders about his opinion of the California law.

And from what I've read, Ezra Klein is PERFECTLY OKAY with an increase in false accusations so it 'scares' heretofore innocent guys from being anything less than 100% sure.

At least he is honest (and has an imagination)


----------



## CrazyGuy

always_alone said:


> Recent data shows that nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) in the US have been raped at some point in their lifetime. This figure includes forced penetration, attempted forced penetration, or alcohol/drug facilitated penetration, but not other forms of sexual assault.
> 
> For men, the rate is 1 in 71 (1.4%)
> 
> 
> NISVS Summary Reports|National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey|Funded Programs|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC


Ok, thanks for the clarification and statistics. I find them odd though. 3% of men are basically responsible for raping 20% of women in the US. I just can't rap my mind around that. So the average rapist rapes 6 times? How do they get away with it so often? 

I just do not see how this law will help. Rapist will do what they do regardless of consent, like they always have. It is not about looks, dress, age. It is about power. No means no was straight forward. Regret after sex would be still the same he said she said. Perhaps recording the consent would be required to cover all your bases? I think a lot of couples will purposely ignore the new law. Then somebody will convince one of them that they have been a brainwash victim all along.


----------



## JCD

CrazyGuy said:


> Ok, thanks for the clarification and statistics. I find them odd though. 3% of men are basically responsible for raping 20% of women in the US. I just can't rap my mind around that. So the average rapist rapes 6 times? How do they get away with it so often?
> 
> I just do not see how this law will help. Rapist will do what they do regardless of consent, like they always have. It is not about looks, dress, age. It is about power. No means no was straight forward. Regret after sex would be still the same he said she said. Perhaps recording the consent would be required to cover all your bases? I think a lot of couples will purposely ignore the new law. Then somebody will convince one of them that they have been a brainwash victim all along.


They get away with it because of one of two factors: the girls weren't certain that it was rape either, perhaps chalking it up to 'he is an a-hole whom I am never seeing again'.

Second, even if they are certain they were raped, they do not report it.

It is like that Columbia case. A bunch of women got together and went to the administration MONTHS after their consensual dates with this one dude and said 'hey, on our last date, while we were having consensual sex, he raped us and we only figured it out now after we had a bonding session with a lot of other bitter exes."

Yes, I am very strongly spinning this. That is exactly what a defense attorney would also do. And looking as 'facts' like that, the college had to ask themselves: can we really know what happened?

So while I deplore what happened to them, I am not totally certain that this was 'swept under the rug' as much as the college was acting with some care.

So in some ways, the women allow this state of affairs to continue by 'suffering in silence.' This is not to say that there are not more egregious cases of covering things up ala Penn State.


----------



## Forest

LongWalk said:


> I will throw out an opinion – the Obama administration is intellectually dishonest. They routinely hide behind certain social liberal holy causes to disguise and distract from the real actions of the administration. Upholding the rule of law has not been a priority. Eric Holder was a disgraceful AG. I am sure that cares nothing for women who have raped. He was always interested in power and his clique. Getting women to vote Democrat is a goal.


How they can kowtow to the Islamic thing, I cannot understand. Islam is fundamentally repressive and exploitive of women, punitive in the most cruel and inhumane ways imaginable, and has no concept of civil rights.

Its pure spineless political bilge. Any party that believes in fair treatment of women would fight them tooth and nail.


----------



## Shoto1984

Forest said:


> How they can kowtow to the Islamic thing, I cannot understand. Islam is fundamentally repressive and exploitive of women, punitive in the most cruel and inhumane ways imaginable, and has no concept of civil rights.
> 
> Its pure spineless political bilge. Any party that believes in fair treatment of women would fight them tooth and nail.


This is a huge generalization. Yes there are Islamic people living with close to stone age ideas. There are also Islamic people who you wouldn't know were Islamic except that they go to pray on Fridays. My neighbors for example. So maybe qualify these statements a bit.


----------



## pragmaster

It's crap but that's how it is now. You have to tiptoe everywhere. 

As much as I hate feminism, let em' have it. If the world were to fall in another dark age I am sure the atrocities would occur again.


----------

