Obama appointee dismisses "Mattress Girl" lawsuit against Columbia

[JonA]

You, on the other hand, immediately engaged in direct character attacks on the other members of this board, and have yet to post anything here ON TOPIC.

This is tedious. My post wasn't an attack on anything or anyone; an observation and nothing more. And it would have been a one-time mention had someone not requested clarification.

But in that regard, my observation was a true observation supported by the evidence, quite unlike the observations made of Derec that he must hate women or the implied charges that he doesn't care about people who are raped.

There is a world of difference between pointing out a general connection and accusing someone of being a misogynistic rapist-lover to their face.

Neither may be on topic, but they are far from the same thing.

 

[RavenSky]

Nope. That would be a physical assault akin to what happened when the black guy was sodomized by cops a while back in NYC.

Depending on the jurisdiction, penetration with foreign objects is considered either sexual assault or rape, I believe. Most people would consider it a form of rape, however.

All rape is sexual assault, but not all sexual assault is rape. Rape usually includes an element of penetration (such as the sodomy by broomstick used in the examples above). Not all sexual assault includes penetration. When that son-of-a-bitch shoved his hand up my skirt and grabbed my vulva, he sexually assaulted me. He did not, however, succeed in penetrating me with his fingers (though he sure as hell tried to)

 

[RavenSky]

This is tedious.

Yes, your continued hypocritical derail attacks on members' characters in this thread are very tedious. You should stop it now.

 

[thebeave]

Nope. That would be a physical assault akin to what happened when the black guy was sodomized by cops a while back in NYC.

As much as it pains me to ever have to agree with TheBeave, he is correct in this specific point. Being sodomized with a broomstick without your consent is "rape" or a "sexual assault" under all but the most antiquated laws, and it would be called "rape" whether the victim was male or female, and regardless whether the assailant was male or female.

I bet you probably feel like you want to take a shower now. Go ahead, I won't take it too personally.

 

[fromderinside]

... is "rape" or a "sexual assault" under all but the most antiquated laws.

Didn't mean to cause you pain RavenSky. I'm happy many posted wahoo assault confirming it is an assault. My son was killed by a sucker punch after the guy's GF told him my son had looked at her. That, to me, is a sexual assault too. But in this case it is merely homicide by assault. Still, I've got assault in the door.

For the rest give it a rest. Using weapons on sexual organs shouldn't be called rape. It is a physical assault with no possibility of leaving other than psychological and some physical scars, no babies possible. My primary concern is with delimiting whether rape is a physical long term consequence term or primarily a psychological consequence term. Of course I favor the idea of rape being restricted to acts against women. Yes I have difficulty with children and post menstrual women.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

If a woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant, are the Republicans ok with her aborting it because it's a child of rape?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

If a woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant, are the Republicans ok with her aborting it because it's a child of rape?

Kind of irrelevant to my question, considering all the people splitting hairs between rape and sexual assault.

 

[Terrell]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

If a woman rapes a man and becomes pregnant, are the Republicans ok with her aborting it because it's a child of rape?

He gets to pay at least 18 years of child support; that has happened in cases of statutory rape.

 

[JonA]

This is tedious.

Yes, your continued hypocritical derail attacks on members' characters in this thread are very tedious. You should stop it now.

 

[JonA]

A Little More to the Topic...

Were the girl's accusations false?

What should the consequences be if they were?

 

[RavenSky]

Were the girl's accusations false?

What should the consequences be if they were?

That topic was covered ad nauseum in 2013 - 2014 when the case was in the news. If you... or Derec... really want to stay *on topic* the article linked in the OP is about Judge Gregory Woods' dismissal of Paul Nungesser's Title IX lawsuite with a window of opportunity for re-filing.

Here is a Wiki summation of the case:

 In April 2015 the student filed a Title IX lawsuit against Columbia University, its trustees, university president Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's senior-thesis supervisor, Jon Kessler, alleging they exposed him to gender-based harassment and a hostile educational environment in allowing the project to go forward. He says that in so doing they damaged his college experience, emotional well-being, reputation and career prospects.[6][5] His lawyers argued that Columbia allowed Sulkowicz to create a "public persona surrounding her false allegations, which has led to the posting of videos and other proposed performances depicting [the plaintiff] as a rapist" even though the university cleared him of any wrongdoing.[36] Among examples of what they described as "public harassment", they cited Sulkowicz's public display of drawings which they said depicted the genitals of the student she accused as part of her project (Sulkowicz left open the question of whether these drawings were of the student or stories about the student[8]), as well as depictions of the alleged sexual assault, as violations of Columbia's gender-based misconduct policy, which prohibits "Unwelcome remarks about the private parts of a person's body" and "Graffiti concerning the sexual activity of another person." They allege that Columbia is responsible because the university sponsored and supervised the project.[37] The university's lawyers claim the university is "not responsible or liable for her conduct."[36] On August 28, 2015, Columbia's lawyers asked that the case be dismissed, citing First Amendment protections and arguing the student's lawsuit suggests Columbia was obligated "to silence Ms. Sulkowicz, preventing her from speaking publicly on the issue of sexual assault on college campuses — an issue of national concern."[38][39] The case was heard by Judge Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, who dismissed the suit on March 12, 2016, leaving 30 days for the submitting of new arguments before the dismissal would be final.[5][40]

and an explanation of Title IX:  Title IX says: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." It was passed on June 23, 1972, in response to discrimination against women in universities and colleges, which included quotas, requiring higher grades from women, and offering them reduced choice in degree programs

Discuss.

 

[fromderinside]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

No. That's the beauty of my view. Only a female (give or take puberty and menopause) can be raped. If one can convince a judge the woman successfully forced the adult male or if a mother causes her 12 year old child to have coitus with her the best that can be won is assault-sexual or child abuse-sexual.

 

[Derec]

No. That's the beauty of my view.

You misspelled s-e-x-i-s-m.

 

[Terrell]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

No. That's the beauty of my view. Only a female (give or take puberty and menopause) can be raped. If one can convince a judge the woman successfully forced the adult male or if a mother causes her 12 year old child to have coitus with her the best that can be won is assault-sexual or child abuse-sexual.

Why should it be called something different when the victim is male, as opposed to female? Does this thing you propose carry equal criminal punishment, at least on paper? How do you square such a view with equality before the law?

Are you opposed to the concept of equality before the law? If so, why?

 

[fromderinside]

No. That's the beauty of my view. Only a female (give or take puberty and menopause) can be raped. If one can convince a judge the woman successfully forced the adult male or if a mother causes her 12 year old child to have coitus with her the best that can be won is assault-sexual or child abuse-sexual.

Why should it be called something different when the victim is male, as opposed to female? Does this thing you propose carry equal criminal punishment, at least on paper? How do you square such a view with equality before the law?

Are you opposed to the concept of equality before the law? If so, why?

I am in favor of equality before the law if the two parties are equal. However in sex they are not. Women are the only parties to accept the risk of becoming pregnant while men can spin off into the sunset never turning back to offer support. This can best be demonstrated when the two parties are not known to each other beyond the evidence offered either in the the woman or her fetus. Under such conditions males can challenge evidence for failures and get away free giving the woman no other recourse.

In fact even when the parties are known to each other the male attack is against the character of the woman whereas women have no parallel avenue open to them. Equality cannot be established. A law tilted toward males needs overhaul and one place that can take place is with the demonstration of effects of act just like one can attain with other situations where sex is not involved.

I'm asking for actual equality before the law. Sex is an unequal proposition. The only similarity is that both can achieve orgasm with good sex. Beyond that nothing could be further from equal.

 

[thebeave]

Is it rape when she forces him to penetrate her? Is it her raping him due to the possibility of her getting pregnant as a result?

No. That's the beauty of my view. Only a female (give or take puberty and menopause) can be raped. If one can convince a judge the woman successfully forced the adult male or if a mother causes her 12 year old child to have coitus with her the best that can be won is assault-sexual or child abuse-sexual.

So, you wouldn't call this a rape?

 

[Terrell]

Why should it be called something different when the victim is male, as opposed to female? Does this thing you propose carry equal criminal punishment, at least on paper? How do you square such a view with equality before the law?

Are you opposed to the concept of equality before the law? If so, why?

I am in favor of equality before the law if the two parties are equal. However in sex they are not. Women are the only parties to accept the risk of becoming pregnant while men can spin off into the sunset never turning back to offer support. This can best be demonstrated when the two parties are not known to each other beyond the evidence offered either in the the woman or her fetus. Under such conditions males can challenge evidence for failures and get away free giving the woman no other recourse.

So you're not really for equality before the law? Is that what you're saying? In the scenario mentioned by Tom, Jason as well, the woman was the perpetrator; she was not the victim. I chimed in that he'd end up having to pay child support, even though he didn't consent to the sex involved. Why shouldn't he be able to walk free, when she's the one committing the crime?

If it's not a crime for a woman to have sex with a man or a boy against his will, why? Why shouldn't the law expect her to respect his bodily integrity, while requiring him to respect hers? Why not have all people be required to respect the bodily integrity of all other people, regardless of sex. Do you not see the blatant sexism in your position?

In fact even when the parties are known to each other the male attack is against the character of the woman whereas women have no parallel avenue open to them. Equality cannot be established. A law tilted toward males needs overhaul and one place that can take place is with the demonstration of effects of act just like one can attain with other situations where sex is not involved.

What are you talking about? Where did I say that the law should be tilted towards males? I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. How is a law requiring both sexes to respect the word "no" tilted towards the male? Is he not allowed to say no, if he doesn't want sex with her? Is he not allowed the same legal recourse if she forces the issue, than if the genders were reversed?

I'm asking for actual equality before the law. Sex is an unequal proposition. The only similarity is that both can achieve orgasm with good sex. Beyond that nothing could be further from equal.

Why should biology trump the courts holding everyone to the same legal standards? Does the fact that women can get pregnant diminish or remove their ability to know the difference between right & wrong? If they're not able to know the difference between right & wrong, how can they be trusted with the responsibilities of adulthood; are they exempt, because vagina?

 

[fromderinside]

I am in favor of equality before the law if the two parties are equal. However in sex they are not. Women are the only parties to accept the risk of becoming pregnant while men can spin off into the sunset never turning back to offer support. This can best be demonstrated when the two parties are not known to each other beyond the evidence offered either in the the woman or her fetus. Under such conditions males can challenge evidence for failures and get away free giving the woman no other recourse.

Why should biology trump the courts holding everyone to the same legal standards? Does the fact that women can get pregnant diminish or remove their ability to know the difference between right & wrong? If they're not able to know the difference between right & wrong, how can they be trusted with the responsibilities of adulthood; are they exempt, because vagina?

It depends on who constructed the legal standards doesn't it. If one doesn't take into account differences in consequences how can the law demonstrate the same legal standards? My point is made you refuse to accept it. That's for you to wrestle with. BTW its not vagina its uterus and birth canal. Get your facts straight before you make what I think are ridiculous claims. My claims are explicit and accurate. Your claims waves the hand and calls male reproductive system and female reproductive system the same. When you bring forth a man who has carried a fetus and has given birth then you can claim equal. Also I point out assault still still stands for acts where effects are essentially the same.

 

[Terrell]

Why should biology trump the courts holding everyone to the same legal standards? Does the fact that women can get pregnant diminish or remove their ability to know the difference between right & wrong? If they're not able to know the difference between right & wrong, how can they be trusted with the responsibilities of adulthood; are they exempt, because vagina?

It depends on who constructed the legal standards doesn't it. If one doesn't take into account differences in consequences how can the law demonstrate the same legal standards? My point is made you refuse to accept it. That's for you to wrestle with. BTW its not vagina its uterus and birth canal. Get your facts straight before you make what I think are ridiculous claims. My claims are explicit and accurate. Your claims waves the hand and calls male reproductive system and female reproductive system the same. When you bring forth a man who has carried a fetus and has given birth then you can claim equal.

Really? Why does it depend on who constructed the legal standards? If a man makes a law that says: "You are not allowed to use force or coercion to get sex from another person, who doesn't want to give you sex"; is it any less valid than if a woman makes the same law, word for word? Why should the sex of the person writing the law make the law any different in it's meaning or application?

I'm well aware of the need for a uterus, ovum, & vagina for pregnancy & birthing. "Because vagina" is a jab at the inherent sexism of your position. Since you're nit picking, isn't the vagina one end of the birth canal, specifically the opening from which the newborn departs the woman's body during a natural birth? My position is actually quite simple, no one should commit rape, and anyone who is proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have done so should be held to the same legal standard as anyone else who is proven to have committed the same crime.

Unless I'm mistaken, you're saying that only women who are forced to have sex against their will can be rape victims, while men who are forced to have sex against their will are not. What legal recourse are men who are forced into unwanted sex allowed to have?

The woman doesn't end up pregnant, by this particular man, if she'd simply respected the fact that he didn't want to have sex with her. Your position seems to be punish the victim, because he wasn't born into the "correct" sex.

Why is she entitled to his DNA, if he doesn't want to engage in the act that transfers it from him to her? If she makes the man give this DNA when he didn't want to have sex with her, or give his DNA to her by other means, why should he be obligated to give her a cut of the fruits of his labor for 18+ years? 18+ years is a hell of a lot longer than 9 months.