Campus "rape", a clear indication the univsities are doing it wrong

[RavenSky]

Which still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH whether she consented to sex in her room or if she was raped in her room.

Her claim was not that she changed her mind mid-coitus, but that being drunk rendered her incapable of giving consent. The footage proves that claim wrong.

No it does not. Unless you can produce video of the two of them in her room, you can never claim with any certainty that she wasn't incapable of giving consent.

Also, you are speculating that she might have been raped without offering any evidence... [blah blah blah]

I am not speculating anything. I am telling you that you cannot speculate about her state of mind at a later period of time because of what you think you see in a video from the bar.

 

[ZiprHead]

I am not speculating anything. I am telling you that you cannot speculate about her state of mind at a later period of time because of what you think you see in a video from the bar.

He's had a lot of experience bedding women he's picked up in bars. He would know how these things work.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Just being drunk doesn't mean that somebody can't give consent. If that were the case, millions of people would be guilty of (usually mutual) rape every weekend in the US alone. Not to mention that cabbies giving rides to drunk people would be guilty of kidnapping and theft.
No, it is nonsensical to claim that drunkenness itself makes somebody unable to consent.
While there is such a thing as being "too drunk to consent", it is not the same as just being drunk.

- - - Updated - - -

Generally if she was drunk then she was not in a fit state to give consent regardless of any video.

Wrong. Just being drunk does not make one incapable of giving consent.

Instigating it would have nothing to do with it.

What if he was drunk as well. Does that mean that she raped him, especially since she was the one who instigated the sex?
Or is it yet another instance of sexist double standards?

- - - Updated - - -

Generally if she was drunk then she was not in a fit state to give consent regardless of any video.

Wrong. Just being drunk does not make one incapable of giving consent.

Instigating it would have nothing to do with it.

What if he was drunk as well. Does that mean that she raped him, especially since she was the one who instigated the sex?
Or is it yet another instance of sexist double standards?

As I mentioned before rape cases can be complex. As a rule a person who is intoxicated is not of sound mind at that point. A contract signed by them would be void in the event of sex their case

http://www.shouselaw.com/rape.html
Penal Code 261 PC, California's rape statute, broadly defines the crime of "rape" as nonconsensual sexual intercourse accomplished by means of threats, force, or fraud, or with a victim who is unconscious or incapable of consenting. This kind of rape is a California sex crime in and of itself

This article I think shows that there are also different types of charges and defences.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In practice they can't be sued. Binding arbitration agreements that get it before someone who knows which side of the bread is buttered and thus almost certainly won't rule for the student. Binding arbitration basically means that unless you have a blindingly obvious case don't bother and even then you might lose.

By all means it is quite fascinating (and depressing) how these policies came about.

They came about because the feminists were screaming about campus rape and the Obama administration decided to do an end-run around the Constitution and make the schools punish with little regard for guilt. It's become a common tactic of our government these days--find ways to punish without a proper burden of proof. (We especially see it with traffic tickets. In some places there's a non-refundable fee to fight a ticket that's more than the ticket itself.)

- - - Updated - - -

As I mentioned the whole article is too sketchy for such a complex case as a rape charge and poorly worded. For instance the statement, "too drunk to consent is clumsy." A drunk person can encourage or invite sex but they would be of unsound mind. So the CCTV footage would be seem to be insufficient in itself.

Technically we would have to accept 'innocent until proven guilty' pending a result of an appeal for a retrial.

Agreed, a university can conduct its own investigations as it deems appropriate.

The CCTV footage can show that she appears to be functioning well. Note that she also signed him into her dorm--that's a willful act on her part, inconsistent with being too drunk to do things.

There is no medical research or legal requirement that suggests control of motor functions which do not appear to be impaired due to excess of alcohol wipes out unsoundness of mind. Also the media reports do not say whether there is a claim that she withdrew her drunken permission at any time including during penetration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wrong. The Obama administration didn't change anything. They merely reminded universities and colleges that receive federal money that they are not allowed to ignore or tolerate sexual assault on their campuses perpetrated by or on their students. This had been part of the Title ix legislation passed under Nixon, but Obama made it clear that schools who refuse to make an effort to fulfill these obligations would be censured even though many of them had slid by with little effort I. The past.

Yeah, Obama made it clear to the schools that what mattered was punishing men. The universities listened and went into witch-hunt mode.

It is so bizarre to me that right winger types who typicaly exalt the stringent enforcement of regulations, especially against violent criminals, have chosen to pick out this enforcement as overbearing and unnecessary.

The problem is that the whole thing is an attempt to avoid that pesky issue of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system is one of putting the burden of proof on the defendant, with no meaningful ability to defend themselves. It looks an awful lot like the show trials we see in some dictatorships.

Here is a link to Obama's 'Dear colleague' letter which represents all of Obama's influence on this topic. Why don't you read it and pick out the parts that you disagree with.

The problem is not the words per se, but the message it sends. You had better punish!

On one side, a failure to punish enough causes a loss of federal funds.

On the other side, a miscarriage of justice probably costs them nothing because they're effectively shielded from liability by binding arbitration agreements.

The CCTV footage can show that she appears to be functioning well. Note that she also signed him into her dorm--that's a willful act on her part, inconsistent with being too drunk to do things.

The Cctv I watched showed a girl staggering significantly outside the bar with her friend. Factor in the fact that there is a delay between ingesting alcohol and becoming intoxicated and there is no telling how drunk she was when she arrived in her room.

Yeah, she's obviously drunk but she was still functional not long before getting to her room. Your argument basically amounts to guilty unless proven innocent--which is what I'm objecting to!

- - - Updated - - -

The CCTV footage can show that she appears to be functioning well. Note that she also signed him into her dorm--that's a willful act on her part, inconsistent with being too drunk to do things.

Which still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH whether she consented to sex in her room or if she was raped in her room.

It has everything to do with a too-drunk-to-consent argument, though.

 

[RavenSky]

Which still has NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH whether she consented to sex in her room or if she was raped in her room.

It has everything to do with a too-drunk-to-consent argument, though.

No, Loren, it does not. What happened prior to entering the dorm room is not evidence of what happened inside the dorm room; and you have zero idea of went on in the dorm room.

As others have noted, it can sometimes take additional time for the full effects of ingested alcohol to be felt. She may have been barely borderline functioning during the walk to her room, yet unconscious after entering her room.

The two of them may have had more to drink after getting to her room, until she was passed out.

I am not suggesting either of those things happened or nothing happened. What I am saying... yet again... is that you CANNOT claim with any validity that YOU know what happened in that room on the basis of what was on the video from the bar.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, Obama made it clear to the schools that what mattered was punishing men. The universities listened and went into witch-hunt mode.

Except you cannot produce an iota of text to support your claim.

The problem is that the whole thing is an attempt to avoid that pesky issue of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

These are not criminal charges, so there is no issue of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The problem is not the words per se, but the message it sends. You had better punish!

Translation - you cannot substantiate your claim because the letter does not say what you claim.

On the other side, a miscarriage of justice probably costs them nothing because they're effectively shielded from liability by binding arbitration agreements.

You continue to babble about binding arbitration agreements even though you have not produced any proof that universities require them.

Returning to your OP, you were wrong about the police dropping the charges. You have no clue what the University is actually investigating or who. And you have no evidence that the University is doing "it" wrong.

There is no evidence whatsoever in your posts that you a clue what you are posting about.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Yeah, Obama made it clear to the schools that what mattered was punishing men. The universities listened and went into witch-hunt mode.

If he made it clear that punishing men was the reason behind the Dear Colleague Letter, then it should be easy to produce a citation. You'll also need to explain how universities were restrained before "witch-hunt mode" since they had all the power to go into "witch-hunt mode" before this. In fact they more power prior to the Dear Colleague Letter since they did not have to convene disciplinary councils and impartially investigate complaints and could expel a student with little due process (no disciplinary hearing). Why were the colleges not investigating incidents of sexual assault?

Also can you tell us about the Clery Act in one sentence?

It is so bizarre to me that right winger types who typicaly exalt the stringent enforcement of regulations, especially against violent criminals, have chosen to pick out this enforcement as overbearing and unnecessary.

The problem is that the whole thing is an attempt to avoid that pesky issue of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The current system is one of putting the burden of proof on the defendant, with no meaningful ability to defend themselves. It looks an awful lot like the show trials we see in some dictatorships.

Scholastic disciplinary hearings are not criminal trials. Offenders do not face imprisonment, steep fines, restitution, or being put on a sex offender registry. All students at all colleges are required to follow a code of conduct. Brutal rapists face the same consequences as those accused of academic dishonesty: possibility of expulsion. If an expulsion occurs, the offenders are still at liberty, can get federal aid, and attend another college or university.

Here is a link to Obama's 'Dear colleague' letter which represents all of Obama's influence on this topic. Why don't you read it and pick out the parts that you disagree with.

The problem is not the words per se, but the message it sends. You had better punish!

Nothing in the DCL states that punishment is required. Inquiry is required. Nearly all investigations die immediately due to lack of action by the victim. Very few find the offender "responsible", most punishments are simply probation (a.k.a. don't sexually assault anyone for a year) where a note is removed from the transcript after the probationary period ends. Suspensions are the same, but the student cannot attend the school for the specified period of time. The rarest is expulsion. Here are some statistics from Minnesota: http://www.startribune.com/report-tracks-sexual-assault-cases-on-minnesota-campuses/404081966/

Incidents reported to campuses: 294
Number investigated: 164
Reported to law enforcement:55
Respondent found responsible: 68
Disciplinary action greater than a warning:79

On one side, a failure to punish enough causes a loss of federal funds.

Please list the schools that have lost federal funds due to the Dear Colleague Letter of 2011, or Title IX. Because there are none.
Please cite where schools are required to punish a certain percentage of cases, or a certain quota of cases. This should be easy due to open records laws, but you won't find any because it does not exist.

On the other side, a miscarriage of justice probably costs them nothing because they're effectively shielded from liability by binding arbitration agreements.

Public colleges do not have binding arbitration. If they did it would need to be posted on the school's policies page. Please provide an example of a public college that requires binding arbitration. Also, and more importantly, what liability? That they would be forced to readmit the student and collect tuition?

Loren, what you are effectively arguing is that a college can expel a student for cheating, but cannot do so for sexual assault because "reasons".

 

[TSwizzle]

The Cctv I watched showed a girl staggering significantly outside the bar with her friend. Factor in the fact that there is a delay between ingesting alcohol and becoming intoxicated and there is no telling how drunk she was when she arrived in her room.

Who knows, maybe she was less drunk.

 

[Rhea]

If you know a person is drunk 13 years old and they are instigating sex is it legal to have sex with them?

Does that help you decide?

Does a person have some responsibility for what they do if they willfully consume alcohol? know they are underage?

Does that help a little?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Does that help you decide?

Does a person have some responsibility for what they do if they willfully consume alcohol? know they are underage?

Does that help a little?

This gives two illustrations they do not possess the legal mental capacity of consent to sex or anything else. (noting laws exist to punish adults who have sex with minors).

Another point, which is relatively recent in our laws is a woman's right to withdraw consent at any point including any point during penetration. We can also add that progressive laws and attitudes also deem that a woman is not duty bound to have sex with her husband because she is bound to in a wedding contract.

Outdated earlier concepts deemed that if a woman agreed to sex that was somehow the same as a binding contract. I think there is no need to explain how this was of any use.

 

[RVonse]

Another point, which is relatively recent in our laws is a woman's right to withdraw consent at any point including any point during penetration.

I did not know that. I am wondering at this point with such a law, how biology itself can prevent any man to be innocent of rape during normal and regular intercourse? I am wondering because it is quite biologically impossible for a man to stop ejaculation once it has started irregardless of what may be uttered out the woman's mouth. So who knows, maybe the feminists will invent some sort of medical device penis valve that the male must wear every time just in case she might change her mood before actual ejaculation has occurred.

One does have to wonder what law the feminists will put on the books next? Perhaps the next thing they will pass is a law that will say a woman can withdraw consent anytime before the child is born. And then after that, the next law will be a woman will be able to call a rape any time before the child's first birthday.

All I can say is that it is a good thing that biology and evolution are smarter than some of our laws that the feminist's have seen fit to put on the books. Without biology and nature urge, mankind would surely have zero babies being born at this point. Perhaps that is even part of scheme of these liberal laws in order to get less people on this earth which is obviously over populated and over consumed. Thinking in those terms, perhaps the feminists really are on to something.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Another point, which is relatively recent in our laws is a woman's right to withdraw consent at any point including any point during penetration.

I did not know that. I am wondering at this point with such a law, how biology itself can prevent any man to be innocent of rape during normal and regular intercourse? I am wondering because it is quite biologically impossible for a man to stop ejaculation once it has started irregardless of what may be uttered out the woman's mouth. So who knows, maybe the feminists will invent some sort of medical device penis valve that the male must wear every time just in case she might change her mood before actual ejaculation has occurred.

Um...

It's not exactly a new invention, dude.

Also, it's not really anything to do with ejaculation or not. When a woman makes clear her desire to end the encounter, you stop. That's the gentlemanly thing to do, it's the polite thing to do, it's the respectful thing to do. Likewise, it's generally best practice during intercourse to warn the lady if you're about to take the shot. Especially during oral.

One does have to wonder what law the feminists will put on the books next?

The reasonable ones: probably something about clearing up the ambiguities around the concept of "implied consent" which many rapists actually use to convince their victims that they were never actually raped.

The unreasonable ones: a more strict broad and expansive definition of "rape" that includes unwanted touching, suggestive comments, use of suggestive imagery (e.g. erotic cartoons or doodles) or unwanted suggestive language.

All I can say is that it is a good thing that biology and evolution are smarter than some of our laws that the feminist's have seen fit to put on the books. Without biology and nature urge, mankind would surely have zero babies being born at this point.

Seven billion people live on this plane right now. How many more babies do we really need?

 

[RVonse]

Also, it's not really anything to do with ejaculation or not. When a woman makes clear her desire to end the encounter, you stop. That's the gentlemanly thing to do, it's the polite thing to do, it's the respectful thing to do.

:Yes, yes, and yes. But when it goes to court you have to go on more than he said, she said. Under this new law, I see no way a male can prove not being guilty since by default he is automatically guilty when the sex act is underway.

An no, I do not usually report to my partner when ejaculation is eminent and ask for permission. That would actually spoil everything for both of us. Frankly, I would feel more like a robot than a human being.

 

[laughing dog]

Also, it's not really anything to do with ejaculation or not. When a woman makes clear her desire to end the encounter, you stop. That's the gentlemanly thing to do, it's the polite thing to do, it's the respectful thing to do.

:Yes, yes, and yes. But when it goes to court you have to go on more than he said, she said. Under this new law, I see no way a male can prove not being guilty since by default he is automatically guilty when the sex act is underway.

There is no new law. There has been no change in criminal law or procedure. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is still in place.

 

[RVonse]

Seven billion people live on this plane right now. How many more babies do we really need?

You got me there Eddie. Can't argue with that. Well maybe the deep state and congress will get up into a nuke war with Russia to solve some of it. I just hope it is a partial exchange of warheads so we can start over again.

I'm 60 now so I am kind of in the waning days of sex and familyhood. But if I were a young man today and wanted to start a family I don't know what I would do. I would probably have my future wife sign some sort of agreement saying the kids will really be mine and also an agreement that the sex to have the kids would not be interpreted as rape. Otherwise, if things go wrong (as they do 50% of the time) the woman will have all kinds of legal and criminal charges available to her at the divorce court to make sure the mans life is ruined.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It has everything to do with a too-drunk-to-consent argument, though.

No, Loren, it does not. What happened prior to entering the dorm room is not evidence of what happened inside the dorm room; and you have zero idea of went on in the dorm room.

As others have noted, it can sometimes take additional time for the full effects of ingested alcohol to be felt. She may have been barely borderline functioning during the walk to her room, yet unconscious after entering her room.

The two of them may have had more to drink after getting to her room, until she was passed out.

I am not suggesting either of those things happened or nothing happened. What I am saying... yet again... is that you CANNOT claim with any validity that YOU know what happened in that room on the basis of what was on the video from the bar.

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

She claimed too-drunk-to-consent, shortly before the sex she demonstrated that was false.

She didn't claim she was forced, thus any speculation that she was forced is just feminist crap.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Also, it's not really anything to do with ejaculation or not. When a woman makes clear her desire to end the encounter, you stop. That's the gentlemanly thing to do, it's the polite thing to do, it's the respectful thing to do.

:Yes, yes, and yes. But when it goes to court you have to go on more than he said, she said.

You do. Which is why the courts require you to prove nonconsent beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because you can prove that sex occurred doesn't automatically demonstrate that it was unconsensual.

An no, I do not usually report to my partner when ejaculation is eminent and ask for permission. That would actually spoil everything for both of us.

For one thing, yes, that would DEFINITELY spoil the fun if you sat there like a dumbass and said something like "I must report that ejaculation is immanent, do I have your permission to refrain from pulling out?" I once woke up my neighbors two doors down by shouting unreasonably loud "HOLY FUCK, I'M GONNA BLOW!"

But if you're with a woman with exceptionally good oral skills, you don't just pop off without warning; that's a good way to get your junk bitten off if she isn't expecting it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Another point, which is relatively recent in our laws is a woman's right to withdraw consent at any point including any point during penetration.

I did not know that. I am wondering at this point with such a law, how biology itself can prevent any man to be innocent of rape during normal and regular intercourse? I am wondering because it is quite biologically impossible for a man to stop ejaculation once it has started irregardless of what may be uttered out the woman's mouth. So who knows, maybe the feminists will invent some sort of medical device penis valve that the male must wear every time just in case she might change her mood before actual ejaculation has occurred.

One does have to wonder what law the feminists will put on the books next? Perhaps the next thing they will pass is a law that will say a woman can withdraw consent anytime before the child is born. And then after that, the next law will be a woman will be able to call a rape any time before the child's first birthday.

All I can say is that it is a good thing that biology and evolution are smarter than some of our laws that the feminist's have seen fit to put on the books. Without biology and nature urge, mankind would surely have zero babies being born at this point. Perhaps that is even part of scheme of these liberal laws in order to get less people on this earth which is obviously over populated and over consumed. Thinking in those terms, perhaps the feminists really are on to something.

If you put a gun at a man's head during this point, you will be very surprised at how he would very quickly cease.

We have tried to separate ourselves intellectually from biological stimulus response mechanisms as we see that our choices should not inhibit the choices of another person.

Many societies consider that women can be bought and sold like cattle where a few wives is a status symbol. Further even a marriage contract in the West until recently was considered like a contract of work where the wife served the husband's urges whenever he desired.

Men may have biological instincts but we are slightly separated from the animal kingdom in our recognition of equal rights of male and female.

Woman and men both have biological instincts and there is no shortage of consensual sex by any means.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Also, it's not really anything to do with ejaculation or not. When a woman makes clear her desire to end the encounter, you stop. That's the gentlemanly thing to do, it's the polite thing to do, it's the respectful thing to do.

:Yes, yes, and yes. But when it goes to court you have to go on more than he said, she said. Under this new law, I see no way a male can prove not being guilty since by default he is automatically guilty when the sex act is underway.

An no, I do not usually report to my partner when ejaculation is eminent and ask for permission. That would actually spoil everything for both of us. Frankly, I would feel more like a robot than a human being.

If the sex was consensual and this was not agreed otherwise then there would be less of a case. However if what you say was something she asked not to do, or at anytime wanted to end this then you would be at fault.

Biological drives are in themselves are an automation which drives a range of functions according to a set of coded instructions. As societies developed codes, ethics and laws, we have found a need to curb these when necessary to ensure we preserve the rights of all as much as we can.