A more honest article on the college rape mess

[RavenSky]

We are discussing "the college rape" mess. I propose a really simple solution, which is to instruct young men to "not do that," which, instead of blaming the victim, prevents him from becoming a victim. We have a problem which stems from a particular behavior. It is unrealistic to think there is a solution which does not include modifying that behavior.

Excellent post all the way through, but this bit ^^^^ needs repeating

 

[Toni]

I don't know for sure what happened but I can still make judgments about likelihoods based on evidence. Evidence such as her sending him a message saying she had a great time the next day.

No middle ground for Derec.

Kind of like Toni et al always default to "she is a victim and he should be expelled". No middle ground for her either. Except I am not calling for her to be expelled unless there is actual evidence she was lying.

Whoa there, pardner: I haven't stated an opinion at all about whether or not what happened in the Vassar case was rape. I don't believe that I know enough to form an opinion. Everything I've read has been Yu's POV only.

If it was rape or if it was a violation of whatever policies are in effect at Vassar, then expulsion was the right thing. If absolutely everything about Yu's account as published in various media outlets is accurate, truthful and complete, then probably there was no rape. But there is no way of knowing. We only know what Yu is saying and to me, some of what he is saying does not completely support his claims. For instance, some mutual friends saw them walking that night and were concerned enough to try to contact campus police. This may be verifiable by phone records. I haven't read any kind of follow up on that. There may be something to follow up; there may not. I don't know. But if some mutual friends saw a couple walking and were concerned enough that one of them was 'too drunk' then it would suggest to me that perhaps that person was really too drunk to consent to sex.

 

[RavenSky]

So, your plan is to let computer hackers get a free pass on rape? Nice, dude. Real nice.

Computer hackers leave their family basement?

OK, you got me there. I withdraw the point.

 

[J842P]

I do have one suspicion. What maybe happening is, instead of feeling guilty the next day, the young woman might feel anger because she discovers she had sex with a man whom she would not have consented to have sex with, under other circumstances. When it comes down to it, the mournful cry, "But she let me do it," is just not a defense.

I've had sex with a girl who I never would have had sex with sober, and I was very drunk. She was essentially sober, although, she might have had a drink or two. I suppose if I wanted to feel angry about that I would be entitled to that feeling. However, I don't think I should be allowed to denounce her as a rapist.

That is your call. If no one took pics and you didn't wake up with a shoe polish beard and mustache, then no harm done. It's not really fair to expect everyone in the world to be so amiable about being violated.

I wasn't violated. I had consensual sex and I was drunk. People in this thread have tried to turn the conversation into what an ideal world would be like. Ideally, people wouldn't have sex when they are drunk. I don't anymore. After a few times you learn it's never good. Perhaps people who are in a relationship and there is some sort of understanding and they get drunk and have sex, well, that would still be fine in my ideal world. But in the real world people have sex after they have been drinking quite frequently. It's not rape just because I woke up the next day and said to myself "That was a mistake and would have never slept with this girl if I hadn't had so much to drink." That isn't rape.


Now, I have a friend who actually was violated. According to a mutual friend that witnessed it happen, the friend had essentially passed out after heavy drinking and the girl whose house it was took him back to her room and had sex with him. It happens to guys too. There was a guy at my college back around 2009 that made the claim that he had been raped because he ended up having sex with a girl who was rather heavy and he was very drunk. He was ridiculed, but of course he would be, even though perhaps he really was too drunk to have been able to consent. I suspect he wasn't though, and just didn't want it to be known that he had slept with that particular girl. But I do think that illustrates the sexual double standard that exist in society where a man is always assumed to be happy to have sex and a woman is always assumed to want to withhold sex. This sexist double standard is at the root of slut-shaming. Hell, girls who I knew were involved in campus sexual assault activism dismissed his claims of being raped out of hand. When I asked them why, I was actually told that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, the man has always committed and act of rape.

Another phenomenon where this double standard is clear is, as I alluded to above, is slut shaming. Men are "allowed" to have ravenous sexual appetites and having multiple sex-partners doesn't result in the same sort of social stigma as if a woman does the same thing. The other side of the coin is that a man who is unable to have sex is usually branded as inadequate or pathetic. Look at sex toys. In general, sex toys for men, like "vagina pockets" are not very openly talked about. I would be very surprised if any of my friends would admit to owning one, and if they did they probably would be ridiculed. On the other hand, dildos and sex toys for women are pretty much not considered to be a sign of inadequacy or a source of ridicule.

Anyway, my point is that simply being drunk does not invalidate consent.

 

[RavenSky]

You are picking nits.

omfg THIS from the man who brings up the same three or four cases over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. and pretends they are the norm.

 

[Toni]

I am not confident at all that the college that had employed a dean who said that men can benefit from false rape accusations would handle a case of alleged rape fairly at all. Also, there is no evidence that there is any secret evidence nobody is privy to but is miraculously very damning for the accused. In any case, your double-secret evidence is pure speculation - given the evidence we have (very late claim, messages of "I had a great time", sufficient motor control to put on a condom disproves the "too drunk to consent" claim) it being rape is very unlikely.

Of course you don't. Rape victims are as rare as unicorns these days.

Given the evidence we have (and not some speculation of secret evidence we don't have) it is much more likely she is lying than that she was raped.

Nobody is claiming 'secret' anything. Her account has not been published in any media I have been able to find. We have only Yu's account and even that does not completely exonerate Yu. One side is not enough to determine the facts of any case. Yet you are quite willing to do so.

<edit>

 

[Derec]

You are picking nits.

omfg THIS from the man who brings up the same three or four cases over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over, etc. and pretends they are the norm.

They expose a serious problem in how colleges handle allegations of rape lately - expel at all costs and don't worry about the rights of the accused. At the same time you and others defend these cases over and over and over which makes me think you likewise have no regard for the rights of the accused. Better that 100 innocent men be expelled than that one guilty man is allowed to get his degree. Right?

 

[RavenSky]

Words have distinct meanings, and you don't get to redefine them in order to make a rhetorical point,
so I am hardly picking nits. Especially since your response tacitly condones tricking someone into giving consent, or to engage in emotional coercion to gain "consent".

- - - Updated - - -

You are picking nits. My point was against this idea of retroactive withdrawal of consent, not in favor of coercion. Coerced acquiescence is not consent in my book (but saying things like "I will break up with you if you don't sleep with me" is not coercion no matter what the feminists of Ms. magazine say) so my statement still stands. Trickery is a more difficult concept and I do not see how you could police "truth in seduction" laws without it getting farcical.

- - - Updated - - -

There was more to that case than that, as you well know. You are also aware that the only side of the story in the media is Yu's side.

Not that much more, and you know it. Besides, if Walker wants to give her side she is welcome to. I think that if she had any real evidence that she was raped she would have given her side by now.

You don't care about "her side". All you care about is indisputable electronic surveillance of the rape. Otherwise, she, by your default, is a lying bitch.

And once someone shows that some electronic surveillance was tampered with, even that will now become another tool of the radical feminazis to imprison all men on false rape charges.

Even electronic surveillance isn't enough for some people. There was the thread about the case of the woman who was tied down and raped ON VIDEO but because she had previously engaged in BDSM, certain people here still insisted it wasn't rape and that she was just a lying bitch.

 

[RavenSky]

A consent form is not a bad idea. It's been suggested many times. I remember reading about it in Playboy, back in the 70's. A better idea than the consent form would be to actually know the person whom you intend to stick your penis inside. I realize this is strange idea, but it has merits. If she has to be drunk to want you, something is wrong and when something is wrong, bad things happen.

This is the year 2014, not 1974. Is there some resurgence of chastity or purity movements on campus and I am so out of touch, I haven't heard about it? Is there some sort of Slut Police Force in charge of shaming women who have intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony?

Why else would a young woman feel guilty about having sex with someone? Someone please explain to this poor old man how this works. The last time I saw this kind of nonsense, I was in 8th grade.

I do have one suspicion. What maybe happening is, instead of feeling guilty the next day, the young woman might feel anger because she discovers she had sex with a man whom she would not have consented to have sex with, under other circumstances. When it comes down to it, the mournful cry, "But she let me do it," is just not a defense.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Bronzeage again"

 

[Derec]

Nobody is claiming 'secret' anything. Her account has not been published in any media I have been able to find. We have only Yu's account and even that does not completely exonerate Yu. One side is not enough to determine the facts of any case. Yet you are quite willing to do so.

Actually his account fully exonerates him and we talked about that before. As far as her account, let's see it.

<edit>

I think the difference main is where we put the "too drunk to consent" threshold.

 

[Toni]

I do have one suspicion. What maybe happening is, instead of feeling guilty the next day, the young woman might feel anger because she discovers she had sex with a man whom she would not have consented to have sex with, under other circumstances. When it comes down to it, the mournful cry, "But she let me do it," is just not a defense.

I've had sex with a girl who I never would have had sex with sober, and I was very drunk. She was essentially sober, although, she might have had a drink or two. I suppose if I wanted to feel angry about that I would be entitled to that feeling. However, I don't think I should be allowed to denounce her as a rapist.

That is your call. If no one took pics and you didn't wake up with a shoe polish beard and mustache, then no harm done. It's not really fair to expect everyone in the world to be so amiable about being violated.

I wasn't violated. I had consensual sex and I was drunk. People in this thread have tried to turn the conversation into what an ideal world would be like. Ideally, people wouldn't have sex when they are drunk. I don't anymore. After a few times you learn it's never good. Perhaps people who are in a relationship and there is some sort of understanding and they get drunk and have sex, well, that would still be fine in my ideal world. But in the real world people have sex after they have been drinking quite frequently. It's not rape just because I woke up the next day and said to myself "That was a mistake and would have never slept with this girl if I hadn't had so much to drink." That isn't rape.


Now, I have a friend who actually was violated. According to a mutual friend that witnessed it happen, the friend had essentially passed out after heavy drinking and the girl whose house it was took him back to her room and had sex with him. It happens to guys too. There was a guy at my college back around 2009 that made the claim that he had been raped because he ended up having sex with a girl who was rather heavy and he was very drunk. He was ridiculed, but of course he would be, even though perhaps he really was too drunk to have been able to consent. I suspect he wasn't though, and just didn't want it to be known that he had slept with that particular girl. But I do think that illustrates the sexual double standard that exist in society where a man is always assumed to be happy to have sex and a woman is always assumed to want to withhold sex. This sexist double standard is at the root of slut-shaming. Hell, girls who I knew were involved in campus sexual assault activism dismissed his claims of being raped out of hand. When I asked them why, I was actually told that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, the man has always committed and act of rape.

Another phenomenon where this double standard is clear is, as I alluded to above, is slut shaming. Men are "allowed" to have ravenous sexual appetites and having multiple sex-partners doesn't result in the same sort of social stigma as if a woman does the same thing. The other side of the coin is that a man who is unable to have sex is usually branded as inadequate or pathetic. Look at sex toys. In general, sex toys for men, like "vagina pockets" are not very openly talked about. I would be very surprised if any of my friends would admit to owning one, and if they did they probably would be ridiculed. On the other hand, dildos and sex toys for women are pretty much not considered to be a sign of inadequacy or a source of ridicule.

Anyway, my point is that simply being drunk does not invalidate consent.

I think your post demonstrates just how far we have to go in terms of educating society about rape and consent. Clearly men can be raped. They are most often raped by other men, but they can be raped by women as well. There are double standards, flowing both ways.

While some guys are not able to get or maintain an erection if they are really, really drunk, other guys are capable of such. Further, some guys who are really really drunk are capable of forcible rape. As are women.

- - - Updated - - -

A consent form is not a bad idea. It's been suggested many times. I remember reading about it in Playboy, back in the 70's. A better idea than the consent form would be to actually know the person whom you intend to stick your penis inside. I realize this is strange idea, but it has merits. If she has to be drunk to want you, something is wrong and when something is wrong, bad things happen.

This is the year 2014, not 1974. Is there some resurgence of chastity or purity movements on campus and I am so out of touch, I haven't heard about it? Is there some sort of Slut Police Force in charge of shaming women who have intercourse outside the bounds of matrimony?

Why else would a young woman feel guilty about having sex with someone? Someone please explain to this poor old man how this works. The last time I saw this kind of nonsense, I was in 8th grade.

I do have one suspicion. What maybe happening is, instead of feeling guilty the next day, the young woman might feel anger because she discovers she had sex with a man whom she would not have consented to have sex with, under other circumstances. When it comes down to it, the mournful cry, "But she let me do it," is just not a defense.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Bronzeage again"

I keep getting that same message a lot these days.

 

[Derec]

Even electronic surveillance isn't enough for some people. There was the thread about the case of the woman who was tied down and raped ON VIDEO but because she had previously engaged in BDSM, certain people here still insisted it wasn't rape and that she was just a lying bitch.

You mean the Columbia case, which was a particularly vile case of miscarriage of justice? Where two people engaged in BDSM sex and the girl, Jamie Rzucek, cried rape. Even though the guy had exculpatory evidence of them exchanging emails about BDSM sex that evidence was not allowed under "rape shield" laws and he was wrongfully convicted and had to spend 18 months in prison before being freed on appeal. By the way, the false accuser had history of false accusations, another thing that was barred under "rape shield".

 

[Toni]

Actually his account fully exonerates him and we talked about that before.

We disagree.

As far as her account, let's see it.

She's not required to provide it to the public. Certainly she had to provide an account to the disciplinary board. It is almost certain that some details of her account will be presented in the current suit against Vassar. How much of that makes it to the media is really just a guess.

<edit>

.

I think the difference main is where we put the "too drunk to consent" threshold.

I'm pretty sure we would disagree about the threshold.

 

[Derec]

She's not required to provide it to the public. Certainly she had to provide an account to the disciplinary board. It is almost certain that some details of her account will be presented in the current suit against Vassar. How much of that makes it to the media is really just a guess.

Lawsuits are public record. So her side of the story should be there soon, if not already. You are welcome to scour it for any bits you deem damning to Yu.

I'm pretty sure we would disagree about the threshold.

Yeah, I have no problems with fine motor skills after one or two beers. Neither am I incapable of giving consent.

 

[Toni]

Even electronic surveillance isn't enough for some people. There was the thread about the case of the woman who was tied down and raped ON VIDEO but because she had previously engaged in BDSM, certain people here still insisted it wasn't rape and that she was just a lying bitch.

You mean the Columbia case, which was a particularly vile case of miscarriage of justice? Where two people engaged in BDSM sex and the girl, Jamie Rzucek, cried rape. Even though the guy had exculpatory evidence of them exchanging emails about BDSM sex that evidence was not allowed under "rape shield" laws and he was wrongfully convicted and had to spend 18 months in prison before being freed on appeal. By the way, the false accuser had history of false accusations, another thing that was barred under "rape shield".

No, Anthony Dale Crawford, who was acquitted of rape charges although he tied up his wife, duct taped her mouth and her eyes and he videotaped her struggling, attempting to escape and attempting to scream. She admitted that they had engaged in BDSM previously but claimed that this was rape. He was acquitted and went on to rape and murder his second wife, for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, Anthony Dale Crawford, who was acquitted of rape charges although he tied up his wife, duct taped her mouth and her eyes and he videotaped her struggling, attempting to escape and attempting to scream. She admitted that they had engaged in BDSM previously but claimed that this was rape. He was acquitted and went on to rape and murder his second wife, for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced.

Pfft. Typical. His second wife was totally dressed like a whore when he did that. The misandryst judge screwed this guy.

 

[Derec]

No, Anthony Dale Crawford, who was acquitted of rape charges although he tied up his wife, duct taped her mouth and her eyes and he videotaped her struggling, attempting to escape and attempting to scream. She admitted that they had engaged in BDSM previously but claimed that this was rape. He was acquitted and went on to rape and murder his second wife, for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced.

I see. Given what you said and the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it seems that while the verdict was likely factually wrong in hindsight of his later actions, it was legally right because their admitted BDSM history provided a reasonable doubt as to whether the video showed rape or a consensual scene.

 

[RavenSky]

Which just proves my point that not even a video tape of a violent rape is good enough for some people.

Good night.

 

[Derec]

Which just proves my point that not even a video tape of a violent rape is good enough for some people.
Good night.

As you can see from the other case I linked to, just because people engage in BDSM sex does not mean it's rape.

 

[Toni]

No, Anthony Dale Crawford, who was acquitted of rape charges although he tied up his wife, duct taped her mouth and her eyes and he videotaped her struggling, attempting to escape and attempting to scream. She admitted that they had engaged in BDSM previously but claimed that this was rape. He was acquitted and went on to rape and murder his second wife, for which he was ultimately convicted and sentenced.

I see. Given what you said and the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt it seems that while the verdict was likely factually wrong in hindsight of his later actions, it was legally right because their admitted BDSM history provided a reasonable doubt as to whether the video showed rape or a consensual scene.

Not really. While Trish Crawford's former husband was allowed to testify that they had BDSM sex during their marriage; Anthony Dale Crawford's former wife was not allowed to testify that he had violently raped her.

The real issue is that the Crawford case was the first case of marital rape ever brought to trial in South Carolina. This was 1992. The second issue is South Carolina. The jury was looking for a reason to acquit because it was an entirely new idea that a husband didn't have the legal right to do whatever he wanted to his wife. In fact, Crawford admitted that his wife said no. He just claimed not to believe her.

On the other forum, this was discussed in much greater detail. I have no wish to repeat the discussion here but the fact is that he duct taped her eyes and mouth, which would have caused pain upon removal of the duct tape and would have also left nasty marks on her face, probably ripping out eyelashes, ripping off skin from eyelids and lips. Not likely to be part of a consensual act.

Another woman was abused, terrorized and finally raped and murdered because a jury refused to believe, despite videotaped evidence, that what happened was rape.