Et tu Cuomo?

[Derec]

Andrew Cuomo is very disappointing in his push to enact the "toughest" law on campus sexual assault. Mind you this comes in the wake of high profile false rape claims like Mattress Girl at New York's own Columbia and Jackie Coakley at UVA.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposed policies, which are already in place at New York’s public colleges, would require private colleges to adopt “affirmative consent” as the standard of behavior, putting the burden on an accused student to show that the other person had agreed to the sexual activity, rather than making accusers prove that they had said no; silence or lack of resistance would not be considered consent.

Reversing the burden of proof is on the feminazi wish list as it means more innocent men will be expelled. How any man can support such sexist policies is beyond me.

 

[fromderinside]

Counselling psychologists use the technique all the time. It's called  Counterconditioning. You are rewarded with freedom if you don't think with your dick.

 

[Derec]

Counselling psychologists use the technique all the time. It's called  Counterconditioning. You are rewarded with freedom if you don't think with your dick.

So basically you think it's ok to slut shame college men for engaging in consensual yet casual sex? Because you are seeing no problem with making it easier to punish falsely accused men.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Counselling psychologists use the technique all the time. It's called  Counterconditioning. You are rewarded with freedom if you don't think with your dick.

So basically you think it's ok to slut shame college men for engaging in consensual yet casual sex? Because you are seeing no problem with making it easier to punish falsely accused men.

Yup, that is exactly what fromderinside said.

 

[fromderinside]

So basically you think it's ok to slut shame college men for engaging in consensual yet casual sex? Because you are seeing no problem with making it easier to punish falsely accused men.

Yup, that is exactly what fromderinside said.

... and I'll keep saying it until you realize that when a girl says 'no' or 'don't' or 'stop' or any other non -consensual statement at any time during a 'consensual' sex event that that means its time to get up off of her and apologize for not reading her signs or her rights to be a person ..... and, yes you should both admire her and respect her after you have gone around back and relieved your penis tension with your hand.

Oh, by the way, I didn't write what you wrote so maybe you should rethink your perspective a little.

 

[RavenSky]

Why is there no link to the article in the OP?

 

[Arctish]

Andrew Cuomo is very disappointing in his push to enact the "toughest" law on campus sexual assault. Mind you this comes in the wake of high profile false rape claims like Mattress Girl at New York's own Columbia and Jackie Coakley at UVA.

Evidence Emma Sulkowicz's accusation that one night as she and Paul Nungesser were having consensual vaginal sex, he anally raped her without lube, preparation, or most importantly consent, against her vocally expressed demand that he stop? Oh, that's right, you have none. All you have is a line of text that may have been an idiom or a joke, undated and presented without context.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposed policies, which are already in place at New York’s public colleges, would require private colleges to adopt “affirmative consent” as the standard of behavior, putting the burden on an accused student to show that the other person had agreed to the sexual activity, rather than making accusers prove that they had said no; silence or lack of resistance would not be considered consent.

Reversing the burden of proof is on the feminazi wish list as it means more innocent men will be expelled. How any man can support such sexist policies is beyond me.

Right, because expecting the guy you're with to confirm that you want him to anally penetrate you before he does it is unreasonable. Why, any man who didn't ask, mounted you before you were aware of his intentions, and/or ignored your demand that he stop is completely innocent of wrongdoing! And, yes, I'm saying "you" I the sense that this applies to you, Derec. You think a guy can anally penetrate you without checking to see if you want him to? Well not anymore. Not if Cuomo's proposal is adopted.

Golly gee, it's getting so's a guy has to make sure people want to be buttfucked before you buttfuck 'em. What's the world coming to?

 

[Derec]

Why is there no link to the article in the OP?

Oversight.
Cuomo, Taking Aim at Campus Sexual Assaults, Calls for a Stricter Law

 

[Derec]

... and I'll keep saying it until you realize that when a girl says 'no' or 'don't' or 'stop' or any other non -consensual statement at any time during a 'consensual' sex event that that means its time to get up off of her and apologize for not reading her signs or her rights to be a person ..... and, yes you should both admire her and respect her after you have gone around back and relieved your penis tension with your hand.

Yes, a person should obtain consent. The problem is that when a person is falsely accused of rape, the burden of proof should not be on the accused but on the accuser. By making it easier to expel students accused of rape with little or no evidence you are making it more likely that innocent students will be expelled.

Oh, by the way, I didn't write what you wrote so maybe you should rethink your perspective a little.

Yes you did. My OP was specifically how these laws make it easier to expel innocent male students (particularly perverse in the wake of Matressgate and Rollinghazi) and your reply was that these men should not think with their dicks. I.e. you are blaming the victims of false rape accusations.

 

[Derec]

Evidence Emma Sulkowicz's accusation that one night as she and Paul Nungesser were having consensual vaginal sex, he anally raped her without lube, preparation, or most importantly consent, against her vocally expressed demand that he stop? Oh, that's right, you have none. All you have is a line of text that may have been an idiom or a joke, undated and presented without context.

It's not only that text but also texts after the alleged "rape" where they were friendly toward each other. I was on the fence before that but the texts make it much more likely than not that she is lying.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposed policies, which are already in place at New York’s public colleges, would require private colleges to adopt “affirmative consent” as the standard of behavior, putting the burden on an accused student to show that the other person had agreed to the sexual activity, rather than making accusers prove that they had said no; silence or lack of resistance would not be considered consent.

Reversing the burden of proof is on the feminazi wish list as it means more innocent men will be expelled. How any man can support such sexist policies is beyond me.

Right, because expecting the guy you're with to confirm that you want him to anally penetrate you before he does it is unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is to expect the guy you had anal sex with to have to prove that you consented when you falsely accuse him of rape months after you had anal sex.

Why, any man who didn't ask, mounted you before you were aware of his intentions, and/or ignored your demand that he stop is completely innocent of wrongdoing! And, yes, I'm saying "you" I the sense that this applies to you, Derec. You think a guy can anally penetrate you without checking to see if you want him to? Well not anymore. Not if Cuomo's proposal is adopted.

It's not about obtaining consent at the time. It's about the accused having to prove it possibly long after the encounter. Remember, the Matress Girl waited months before she made her allegations.

Golly gee, it's getting so's a guy has to make sure people want to be buttfucked before you buttfuck 'em. What's the world coming to?

Again, the reason why this proposed law is so perverse is going right over your head.

 

[Arctish]

It's not only that text but also texts after the alleged "rape" where they were friendly toward each other. I was on the fence before that but the texts make it much more likely than not that she is lying.

"Much more likely she lied" is not the same thing as "she lied". A shift from one end of the gray zone to the other is not a shift from grey to black or white. The texts you are relying on come with all the hallmarks of mined quotes. They have no dates and no context. They don't actually tell us anything about the night in question. They certainly don't indicate Sulkowicz wanted anal sex without any lube and without any preliminary stretching of the sphincter, two things that are necessary to make it not painful.

Mr. Cuomo’s proposed policies, which are already in place at New York’s public colleges, would require private colleges to adopt “affirmative consent” as the standard of behavior, putting the burden on an accused student to show that the other person had agreed to the sexual activity, rather than making accusers prove that they had said no; silence or lack of resistance would not be considered consent.

Reversing the burden of proof is on the feminazi wish list as it means more innocent men will be expelled. How any man can support such sexist policies is beyond me.

Right, because expecting the guy you're with to confirm that you want him to anally penetrate you before he does it is unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is to expect the guy you had anal sex with to have to prove that you consented when you falsely accuse him of rape months after you had anal sex.

Why, any man who didn't ask, mounted you before you were aware of his intentions, and/or ignored your demand that he stop is completely innocent of wrongdoing! And, yes, I'm saying "you" I the sense that this applies to you, Derec. You think a guy can anally penetrate you without checking to see if you want him to? Well not anymore. Not if Cuomo's proposal is adopted.

It's not about obtaining consent at the time. It's about the accused having to prove it possibly long after the encounter. Remember, the Matress Girl waited months before she made her allegations.

Golly gee, it's getting so's a guy has to make sure people want to be buttfucked before you buttfuck 'em. What's the world coming to?

Again, the reason why this proposed law is so perverse is going right over your head.

Cuomo's proposal is about people making sure they have affirmative consent before they engage in sexual activities. Passive consent, implied consent, he-didn't-say-no consent aren't good enough under the proposed rules. The thing is, passive consent, implied consent, he-didn't-say-no consent were never good enough. A person could still be prosecuted and convicted for sex acts with or on another person who did not express their consent.

I just don't get what all the fuss is about, unless you like having sex with people who haven't consented to it, in which case the chances of you being prosecuted and/or punished for engaging in non-consensual sex acts will increase.

 

[RavenSky]

Consent is clear, knowing and voluntary. Consent is active, not passive. Silence, in and of itself, cannot be interpreted as consent. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create mutually understandable clear permission regarding willingness to engage in (and the conditions of) sexual activity.

Consent to any one form of sexual activity cannot automatically imply consent to any other forms of sexual activity.

Previous relationships or prior consent cannot imply consent to future sexual acts.

A person is deemed incapable of consenting when that person is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, physically helpless (whether induced by drugs, alcohol or otherwise), or asleep; and, be it further

http://www.suny.edu/media/suny/cont...exual-Assault-Response-Prevention-REVISED.pdf

I would still like to know what is so hair-on-fire awful about the above

I would also like to know how all of this "shifting the burden of proof" supposedly works.

Accuser: I said "no"
Accused: No, she didn't

Accuser: I did not say "yes"
Accused: Yes, she did

It is still all going to be "he said, she said"

 

[Arctish]

I would also like to know how all of this "shifting the burden of proof" supposedly works.

Accuser: I said "no"
Accused: No, she didn't

Accuser: I did not say "yes"
Accused: Yes, she did

It is still all going to be "he said, she said"

Exactly. The nature of the dispute doesn't change even if the particular rule that was allegedly broken is more stringent than before.

Also, this objection to having to make your case months after an alleged incident is a bit absurd. Cases don't go to courts or disciplinary boards the very day they're made, or even the week they're made. Usually, it's weeks or months before the board convenes or a trial date is set. So what if it's a sex act you're talking about, and not a stolen wallet or a pirated DVD? If you are accused of wrongdoing and must go before a disciplinary board or a court, you'll have to present your side of the story possibly long after the alleged incident. That's no reason not to have a disciplinary process or a trial. Or to clarify a rule so that even idiots know where the line is drawn.

ETA: BTW, the linked article lists a couple of well founded objections to Cuomo's proposal:

Despite the enthusiastic campaign, and a widely held belief that many schools can do better, the proposal has encountered some resistance from legislators, as well as private colleges and universities, concerned about some of its wording. For example, some have taken issue with the accuser’s being labeled in the legislation as “victim,” rather than something more neutral. (The State University of New York and City University of New York have enacted new policies without needing legislative approval.)

“All universities have an obligation to be neutral in these circumstances,” said Assemblywoman Deborah J. Glick, a Manhattan Democrat and chairwoman of the Assembly’s committee on higher education. “You cannot prejudice the circumstances by naming one ‘the victim,’ and the other ‘the accused' ".

Ms. Glick said other concerns about the bill included definitions some considered vague and the lack of an explicit appeals process, which could mean the only available recourse for a student who felt the process was unfair would be to sue.

Those objections make a heck of a lot more sense than complaining about someone having to explain and/or defend actions s/he took months ago.

 

[Derec]

"Much more likely she lied" is not the same thing as "she lied". A shift from one end of the gray zone to the other is not a shift from grey to black or white. The texts you are relying on come with all the hallmarks of mined quotes. They have no dates and no context. They don't actually tell us anything about the night in question. They certainly don't indicate Sulkowicz wanted anal sex without any lube and without any preliminary stretching of the sphincter, two things that are necessary to make it not painful.

What evidence do you have they did not use lube or relax her sphincter? Note that she waited half a year before reporting the "rape", more than enough time for any anal damage to heal and not be detectable. And the tweets do tell us about their relationship. They tell us she talked about anal sex with a person she was having a sexual relationship with. They tell us that after the supposed "rape" she told the accused that she loved him. Combined with several months gap between the alleged rape and her reporting it this looks like a case of revenge by a "woman scorned" because the accused didn't want to take the relationship further.
While we can't know for sure she lied ("black") the evidence puts the case firmly in the "dark grey" category. And besides, if you believe male students should be expelled based on a "more likely than not" standard then why shouldn't female students be expelled for making false rape claims under the same standard? What's sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose!

Cuomo's proposal is about people making sure they have affirmative consent before they engage in sexual activities.

And that is problematic enough because often sexual encounters happen much more organically than bureaucrats are comfortable with. Besides, if two people have consensual sex and neither gives or solicits "affirmative consent" from the other, why only punish the male student?

Passive consent, implied consent, he-didn't-say-no consent aren't good enough under the proposed rules. The thing is, passive consent, implied consent, he-didn't-say-no consent were never good enough. A person could still be prosecuted and convicted for sex acts with or on another person who did not express their consent.

Best require written consent and that lawyers be present just to make sure.
The only purpose of the Cuomo law is to make it easier to expel male students accused of rape where there is little to no evidence of any rape taking place. Hence the reversal of the burden of proof mentioned in the article. What triggered this is probably the outrage on the feminist left that the guy in the Mattress Girl case (Columbia is in NY after all) wasn't expelled. They want him to have to prove his innocence.

I just don't get what all the fuss is about, unless you like having sex with people who haven't consented to it, in which case the chances of you being prosecuted and/or punished for engaging in non-consensual sex acts will increase.

It's not about wanting to have nonconsensual sex, it's about
1. who has the burden of proof when an accusation is made
2. what constitutes consent - often times it's much more organic and implicit than bureaucrats and womyns studies professors want it to be.
3. double standard between how men and women are treated. I.e if you have a man and women doing the same thing (for example both are drunk or neither solicits "affirmative consent" from the other) the male student gets punished, whereas the female student gets a pass.

 

[Derec]

Also, this objection to having to make your case months after an alleged incident is a bit absurd. Cases don't go to courts or disciplinary boards the very day they're made, or even the week they're made. Usually, it's weeks or months before the board convenes or a trial date is set.

The point is about women who wait months (Mattress Girl) or even a year (Vassar false accuser) before making their allegations. You have to add all the administrative delays to that initial delay. And if you then reverse the burden of proof, how can a man possibly be able to prove his innocence?

So what if it's a sex act you're talking about, and not a stolen wallet or a pirated DVD? If you are accused of wrongdoing and must go before a disciplinary board or a court, you'll have to present your side of the story possibly long after the alleged incident. That's no reason not to have a disciplinary process or a trial. Or to clarify a rule so that even idiots know where the line is drawn.

If I accused you of stealing my wallet months ago first question would be why did I wait that long. But a woman who waits that long to accuse somebody of rape is given a pass. Also, if I accuse you of stealing my wallet I would have to present some evidence and the burden of proof would be on me, not you.
Why should the burden of proof be reversed for sex assault cases?

 

[Derec]

I would still like to know what is so hair-on-fire awful about the above

Several things. Ignoring prior relationship and how that affects the manner and explicitness of giving and receiving consent. Mentioning alcohol - sure a person can consume enough alcohol to be incapacitated and unable to give consent but those cases are rare compared to people (men and women alike) drinking and having sex while still being able to consent. Unfortunately many colleges have imposed a draconian and perverse standard that any level of drunkenness negates consent, at least for females. See Occidental College false rape case.

I would also like to know how all of this "shifting the burden of proof" supposedly works.

It's obvious. Normally the accuser has to prove their case. Feminazis want the accused to have to prove his innocence in sexual assault cases.
Look at these examples.
NZ Labour Party plans to reverse burden of proof in rape cases
Luckily Labour lost.
Some sanity from the Washington State Supreme Court: Washington state court says accused rapists cannot bear burden of proving consent
However, it is scary that it got this far and that 3 justices agreed with the sexist and clearly unconstitutional law.
Jessica Valenti Calls for End to Presumption of Innocence, Due Process
Valenti is a radical feminist and Guardian writer who recently defended the UVA false accuser Jackie Coakley: Who is Jackie? Rolling Stone's rape story is about a person – and I believe her

It is still all going to be "he said, she said"

If the burden of proof is on the accuser, "he said, she said" means finding of not guilty. If you reverse the burden of proof then "he said she said" means a finding of guilty because the accused could not prove his innocence.
Feminazis want more men to be expelled, which means expelling men in "he said she said" cases. Feminazis are still mad the very likely completely innocent accused in the Mattress Girl case wasn't expelled and that they had to harass him instead.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, a person should obtain consent. The problem is that when a person is falsely accused of rape, the burden of proof should not be on the accused but on the accuser. By making it easier to expel students accused of rape with little or no evidence you are making it more likely that innocent students will be expelled.

Oh, by the way, I didn't write what you wrote so maybe you should rethink your perspective a little.

Yes you did. My OP was specifically how these laws make it easier to expel innocent male students (particularly perverse in the wake of Matressgate and Rollinghazi) and your reply was that these men should not think with their dicks. I.e. you are blaming the victims of false rape accusations.

First its the authorities who are tasked with providing sufficient evidence not the authority presumed raped. Coming forth bears demonstrated social and authority stigma (see recent material about number of rape kits not processed as an example) unfortunately so most don't come forth. When they rightly do they are presumed liars.

On the other hand society expects men to make conquests so saying they are wronged when they claim they don't seems a stupid comment and it is demonstratively wrong. Making it easy to expel the minority of college students who are male has no effect on the overall rate of male college student failure rates so it can't be very important.

That men think with their dicks is clinically demonstrated and also demonstrated in the literature about sex and marriage. It is a valid position to take given that men do think with their dicks is sexual situations and it is not valid to associate that inclination with criticism of college evaluation method. After all it is a biased situation in the first place in favor of men as I summarized above.

 

[laughing dog]

If I accused you of stealing my wallet months ago first question would be why did I wait that long. But a woman who waits that long to accuse somebody of rape is given a pass.

I am unaware of the real and possible side effects of depression, trauma and self-blame when it comes to wallet theft, along with a history of the police being dismissive of wallet theft claims. Would you please cite some sources so I can educate myself why your comparison is relevant?

 

[RavenSky]

Several things. Ignoring prior relationship and how that affects the manner and explicitness of giving and receiving consent. Mentioning alcohol - sure a person can consume enough alcohol to be incapacitated and unable to give consent but those cases are rare compared to people (men and women alike) drinking and having sex while still being able to consent. Unfortunately many colleges have imposed a draconian and perverse standard that any level of drunkenness negates consent, at least for females. See Occidental College false rape case.

I would also like to know how all of this "shifting the burden of proof" supposedly works.

It's obvious. Normally the accuser has to prove their case. Feminazis want the accused to have to prove his innocence in sexual assault cases.
Look at these examples.
NZ Labour Party plans to reverse burden of proof in rape cases
Luckily Labour lost.
Some sanity from the Washington State Supreme Court: Washington state court says accused rapists cannot bear burden of proving consent
However, it is scary that it got this far and that 3 justices agreed with the sexist and clearly unconstitutional law.
Jessica Valenti Calls for End to Presumption of Innocence, Due Process
Valenti is a radical feminist and Guardian writer who recently defended the UVA false accuser Jackie Coakley: Who is Jackie? Rolling Stone's rape story is about a person – and I believe her

It is still all going to be "he said, she said"

If the burden of proof is on the accuser, "he said, she said" means finding of not guilty. If you reverse the burden of proof then "he said she said" means a finding of guilty because the accused could not prove his innocence.
Feminazis want more men to be expelled, which means expelling men in "he said she said" cases. Feminazis are still mad the very likely completely innocent accused in the Mattress Girl case wasn't expelled and that they had to harass him instead.

You have repeated all of your regular talking-points, including all of your hyperbolic language (feminazis, etc.) and yet you didn't actually answer my questions. It's ok, I didn't expect you to.

Bottom line, if you don't have enthusiastic unambiguous consent, you are risking a rape charge. If you can't be bothered to get that enthusiastic unambiguous consent for your own protection if for no other reason, then I really can't be bothered to care.

An agent in my office is likely going to be facing an ethics committee. If they rule against her, she could lose her license, and thereby her livelihood. It is clear to me that she did not do anything wrong, but the problem is that she doesn't have anything in writing. It is going to come down to her word against the Buyer's (who waited two years to file the complaint, btw) We had a discussion today about CYA... follow up conversations with emails, take contemporaneous notes, email text exchanges to yourself to save, etc. it really really really sucks that we have to be so untrusting, but some people are dishonest vindictive assholes.

It really really really sucks that an otherwise honest guy needs to be 10,000% sure that he had enthusiastic unambiguous positive consent instead of assuming anything, but that's the best way to protect himself even if he doesn't give a shit about her beyond someplace to stick his dick.

 

[Derec]

You have repeated all of your regular talking-points, including all of your hyperbolic language (feminazis, etc.) and yet you didn't actually answer my questions. It's ok, I didn't expect you to.

I have provided adequate answers. And there is nothing hyperbolic about calling women who want to see men punished without evidence as feminazis.

Bottom line, if you don't have enthusiastic unambiguous consent, you are risking a rape charge.

Nothing in life is unambiguous, except perhaps for Lojban. And while enthusiasm is certainly something to be strived for in, it's a very bad legal or administrative requirement. I certainly do not want universities or courts deciding if consent was enthusiastic enough. Consent is consent, and the only thing required to make a sexual encounter consensual is consent, no matter the details.

Also, why should the onus always be on the man. Should a female be expelled also if the consent given by a man wasn't enthusiastic or unambiguous enough?

If you can't be bothered to get that enthusiastic unambiguous consent for your own protection if for no other reason, then I really can't be bothered to care.

In other words, blame the victims of false rape charges? I guess that kind of "blaming the victim" is considered politically correct when saying " If you can't be bothered to put on a longer skirt for your own protection if for no other reason, then I really can't be bothered to care" or "If you can't be bothered to not get drunk at parties for your own protection if for no other reason, then I really can't be bothered to care" would be considered extremely inappropriate.
The person to blame for rape is the rapist. The person to blame for false rape accusations is the false accuser. In neither case is it appropriate to blame the victim.

An agent in my office is likely going to be facing an ethics committee. If they rule against her, she could lose her license, and thereby her livelihood. It is clear to me that she did not do anything wrong, but the problem is that she doesn't have anything in writing. It is going to come down to her word against the Buyer's (who waited two years to file the complaint, btw) We had a discussion today about CYA... follow up conversations with emails, take contemporaneous notes, email text exchanges to yourself to save, etc. it really really really sucks that we have to be so untrusting, but some people are dishonest vindictive assholes.

So are you saying that men should be required to keep written records of all their sexual encounters? And again, why the double standard? Why give a pass to dishonest women making false rape allegations?

It really really really sucks that an otherwise honest guy needs to be 10,000% sure that he had enthusiastic unambiguous positive consent instead of assuming anything, but that's the best way to protect himself even if he doesn't give a shit about her beyond someplace to stick his dick.

And again, you blame the victim when you should be blaming the perpetrator (false accuser). This thread is about laws making it easier to expel male students with little or no evidence which makes it easier for false accusers and more difficult for their victims. I guess you support such sexist laws.

- - - Updated - - -

I am unaware of the real and possible side effects of depression, trauma and self-blame when it comes to wallet theft, along with a history of the police being dismissive of wallet theft claims. Would you please cite some sources so I can educate myself why your comparison is relevant?

And how does any of this even remotely justify reversing the burden of proof in rape cases?