Ezra Klein on Yes means Yes

[maxparrish]

No, it's not "exactly the same". But it certainly does have far-reaching and profound consequences. Being expelled from a college can make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be accepted to another college. There's a very high possibility that the effect of expulsion is to bar that person from being able to get a degree - it condemns them to work in fields that do not require degrees, and it could feasibly ruin lives in a way that is as drastic as imprisonment would be.

All that may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with due process, which is a legal term, nor the history of that part of jurisprudence beginning with the Magna Carta.

But obviously we are not speaking of the Due Process Clause's applicability as a legal doctrine, but of Klein's violation of the long-established moral principals that animates it, the "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society... (it) is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.”

Klein's indecency is not one of the law, but of his opposition to a common moral precept that no person should be harmed or denied their common rights because of 'their state' except through a fair and just process - a moral consideration that the thuggish identity group enforcer, Klein, does not believe should be applied to college students of the male "state".

So yes, I continue to hope that such thinking belongs in the 13th century, even if it is 'big of Klein' (or you) to no longer advocate hanging or imprisonment for the accused.

 

[KeepTalking]

All that may be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with due process, which is a legal term, nor the history of that part of jurisprudence beginning with the Magna Carta.

But obviously we are not speaking of the Due Process Clause's applicability as a legal doctrine, but of Klein's violation of the long-established moral principals that animates it, the "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society... (it) is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.”

The Due process clause has no applicability other than as a legal doctrine.

Klein's indecency is not one of the law, but of his opposition to a common moral precept that no person should be harmed or denied their common rights because of 'their state' except through a fair and just process - a moral consideration that the thuggish identity group enforcer, Klein, does not believe should be applied to college students of the male "state".

What right is being harmed or denied by expelling a student from a college or university?

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you believe that a degree from one of those on-line for-profit colleges is comparable to a degree from an accredited university, and will be viewed as comparable by prospective employers? I don't. I also don't think that those on-line and for-profit colleges offer the full complement of studies available at an accredited university. I suppose if your life's goal is to be a medical transcriptionist then you're probably okay. but if you want to be a lawyer, it might be a bit more of a challenge.

Perhaps but then again, probably not. I noticed you completely ignored the data privacy concerns. Some places do not explain the expulsion or even mention it. So, expulsion may not be as big deal as you think. Especially given the recruitment goals for most colleges. There is an accredited school somewhere that will accept someone. So, the expulsion may not put as big a dent in one's life prospects as you imagine.

I had intended to ask you to elaborate on the data policy portion of your post. I apologize that I forgot, I did not intentionally ignore it. I simply did not understand in what context you were using it.

In some cases, for some people, it may not put a big dent in their lives. I think perhaps it deserves a bit more consideration before being swept under the rug though. Not having been expelled, I can't speak from certainty, but I suspect it is a thing of some consequence. In addition to that, very many people won't be in a position to relocate for school. Many people go to state schools specifically because of in-state tuition, and scholarships. Expulsion very likely carries financial consequences that aren't so negligible.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps but then again, probably not. I noticed you completely ignored the data privacy concerns. Some places do not explain the expulsion or even mention it. So, expulsion may not be as big deal as you think. Especially given the recruitment goals for most colleges. There is an accredited school somewhere that will accept someone. So, the expulsion may not put as big a dent in one's life prospects as you imagine.

I had intended to ask you to elaborate on the data policy portion of your post. I apologize that I forgot, I did not intentionally ignore it. I simply did not understand in what context you were using it.

In some cases, for some people, it may not put a big dent in their lives. I think perhaps it deserves a bit more consideration before being swept under the rug though. Not having been expelled, I can't speak from certainty, but I suspect it is a thing of some consequence. In addition to that, very many people won't be in a position to relocate for school. Many people go to state schools specifically because of in-state tuition, and scholarships. Expulsion very likely carries financial consequences that aren't so negligible.

Not compared to imprisonment with its consequences or death.

 

[arkirk]

even with all that due process crap

I'm actually not sure how to respond to the sentiment presented in that phrase.

Due process is often deemed a matter of opinion of some "decider." Our legal system is at least as paradoxical as the Bible, with many little nooks and crannies of exemption for people with genuine "paid for" lawyers. The laws are written to insure that innocent rich people are never punished and guilty rich people are rarely and barely punished. All the due process considerations are there for you if you can afford an attorney and have enough education (also a matter of wealth) to know when you need one.

As long as we have an underclass, it will never be entitled to ALL THE DUE PROCESS written into our laws. If you don't have any money and don't have any education, you are already barred from due process. That condition applies to many millions of Americans.

 

[Emily Lake]

I had intended to ask you to elaborate on the data policy portion of your post. I apologize that I forgot, I did not intentionally ignore it. I simply did not understand in what context you were using it.

In some cases, for some people, it may not put a big dent in their lives. I think perhaps it deserves a bit more consideration before being swept under the rug though. Not having been expelled, I can't speak from certainty, but I suspect it is a thing of some consequence. In addition to that, very many people won't be in a position to relocate for school. Many people go to state schools specifically because of in-state tuition, and scholarships. Expulsion very likely carries financial consequences that aren't so negligible.

Not compared to imprisonment with its consequences or death.

This seems rather like saying that amputation is no big deal to the amputee when compared to being shot by a tank.

 

[laughing dog]

Not compared to imprisonment with its consequences or death.

This seems rather like saying that amputation is no big deal to the amputee when compared to being shot by a tank.

And your point is....? Remember, you are the one who started this with post #30.

 

[maxparrish]

But obviously we are not speaking of the Due Process Clause's applicability as a legal doctrine, but of Klein's violation of the long-established moral principals that animates it, the "moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society... (it) is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.”

The Due process clause has no applicability other than as a legal doctrine.

You've said this strawman before, and I have already replied that we are not speaking of due process's scope of legal applicability. We we are speaking of Klein's violation of the moral principles behind due process. As you don't seem to get this, perhaps we ought to look at what you do know.

Are you are aware that legal concepts and many laws are often based on broader moral principles? Aren't you aware that just compensation, equal protection, and due process are just some of the morally informed concepts behind law, or that civil rights laws only exist because they are an expression of a concept of "right and wrong" treatment of individuals? Do you actually think every is limited to the moral content of a parking violation?

Just as the first amendment is a legal concept, informed by the moral belief in the rightness of free expression, the due process clause is a legal doctrine, informed by the moral belief that individuals should not be harmed by government authorities without a fair and just process.

Whether or not a private or a publicly owned higher education institution is limited in its powers by due process legal protection is an issue that I left unaddressed, but there is no doubt that Klein opposes the moral concept behind basic due process and in providing the accused with a fair and just process because he hews to the thuggish politics of identity group enforcers - a belief that unfair and harmful treatment is warranted because fairness is irrelevant to the cause.

And in that, he is little better than the morally "developed" 13th century.

What right is being harmed or denied by expelling a student from a college or university?

The issue is not the harm caused by being expelled, but the moral wrongness of causing harm by expelling a student through an unjust and unfair process - a core moral issue you seem unable to comprehend (let alone address).

 

[thebeave]

I wonder if Mr. Klein thinks this guy should have just "taken one for the team", rather than defend himself to try and clear his name (which of course, is virtually impossible now).

Prosecutors had intially said the woman was assaulted either in the late hours of Sept. 26 or in the early hours of Sept. 27. At a hearing Friday, Judge Gregory Syren dismissed the charges and made a factual finding of innocence.

Quillin’s attorney Ted Cassman said his client “is innocent. The system worked.”

But Cassman added, “In the meantime, Eugene and his family suffered greatly, not only from an erroneous court charge, but also from exaggerated and erroneous press reports.”

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Cal-student-cleared-in-fraternity-rape-case-5830619.php

Here's the original article:

www.sfgate.com/crime/article/UC-Berkeley-student-charged-in-rape-case-5807024.php

I guess what I'm not totally clear on is why the Berkeley police handled this (which is the right thing to do) rather than a campus "kangaroo court". Any thoughts?

 

[Togo]

This seems rather like saying that amputation is no big deal to the amputee when compared to being shot by a tank.

And your point is....? Remember, you are the one who started this with post #30.

I'd imagine the point is that the seriousness of being shot by a tank doesn't make arbitrary amputation ok, in the same way that the seriousness of rape doesn't make imprisoning the innocent ok.

 

[Togo]

I would want these laws to be worked to diminish ambiguity, but I do not accept the oft-repeated claims that men's sex drives should not be blocked, even if it means women's lives are ruined.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'diminish ambiguity' here. The problem as I understand it is not that the rules don't strike people as obviously covering everything that could count as rape. You can call that ambiguity. However, moving the rules so they do look like they cover all activities that could count as rape, and some other activities besides, is no less ambiguous, it just shifts the ambiguous area from one group of people to another.

Do you think that ambiguity is a bigger problem than enforcement? I would have thought that criminalising ordinary behaviour would make enforcement much more difficult. After all, who is going to testify against someone they know, when they know their testimony will be used to enforce a rule that isn't fair? Switch the roles around for a moment - would you testify about a rape victim's sexual history so it could be raised in the trial to prejudice a jury against her? Assuming not, is that because your desire to be fair to her would overrule your desire to obey the law?

I think that enforcement is only possible if people regard the rules being applied as fair and just. Given that rape become much, much, easier if the rules are not fair and just, because in practical terms you'll never get caught, I have no problem with the idea that not criminalising ordinary behaviour is of the upmost importance.

I have no problem with sex being a little harder to get in order to diminish rapes. If people are unwilling to accept that sex might be a little harder to get when you are careful to avoid rape and they want to keep things as they are so that there is no risk of sex being a little harder to get, then it is not accurate, in my opinion, to call that the same thing as deciding to punish innocent people.

I'm not clear how, in the absence of punishing people who aren't trying to commit rape, sex becomes harder to get?

 

[Rhea]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'diminish ambiguity' here. The problem as I understand it is not that the rules don't strike people as obviously covering everything that could count as rape. You can call that ambiguity. However, moving the rules so they do look like they cover all activities that could count as rape, and some other activities besides, is no less ambiguous, it just shifts the ambiguous area from one group of people to another.

Do you think that ambiguity is a bigger problem than enforcement? I would have thought that criminalising ordinary behaviour would make enforcement much more difficult. After all, who is going to testify against someone they know, when they know their testimony will be used to enforce a rule that isn't fair? Switch the roles around for a moment - would you testify about a rape victim's sexual history so it could be raised in the trial to prejudice a jury against her? Assuming not, is that because your desire to be fair to her would overrule your desire to obey the law?

I think that enforcement is only possible if people regard the rules being applied as fair and just. Given that rape become much, much, easier if the rules are not fair and just, because in practical terms you'll never get caught, I have no problem with the idea that not criminalising ordinary behaviour is of the upmost importance.

I'm not able to reply here because the double negatives are too ambiguous for my morning brain.

By "diminish the ambiguity" I mean, rewrite parts of the law that are targeting any sex is that is actually always consensual. While keeping the parts that are, "well half the time that's okay" because, why do something that has a 50-50 chance of making you an actual rapist even if you are never caught and tried, do you really want to keep being a rapist who just isn't getting caught? really?

But people are arguing, Yeah. They should not be prosecuted for the behavior and moreover they should not be made to feel they should even stop it.

I have no problem with sex being a little harder to get in order to diminish rapes. If people are unwilling to accept that sex might be a little harder to get when you are careful to avoid rape and they want to keep things as they are so that there is no risk of sex being a little harder to get, then it is not accurate, in my opinion, to call that the same thing as deciding to punish innocent people.

I'm not clear how, in the absence of punishing people who aren't trying to commit rape, sex becomes harder to get?

Sex becomes harder to get because some things they thought were "normal behavior" are in fact rape and they would have to stop getting that kind of sex to avoid getting arrested for the crimes they are committing. Sex becomes harder because some things they thought were "normal behavior" are very ambiguous and some of them turn out to be actual rape and they would have to stop getting that kind of sex to avoid the likelihood that half the time it would be actual rape that they'd get arrested for. So sex would be harder to get if the ones that are actual rape stop and the ones that are in a category that about half the time is actual rape stop.

Sex would be harder to get if one limits it to getting sex when it is unambiguously NOT rape.
3 broad categories of sex

1. obvious rape where everyone knows it's rape.
2. ambiguous sex, where a large percent of the time only one person thinks it's rape (the victim)
3. obvious not-rape where everyone knows it's not rape.

Some people are arguing that we should make rules that bring awareness to people that they could be brought before court for only type 1 sex. That there should be no risk in attempting type 2 sex and no obligation or even recommendation that they take steps to make it type 3 sex.

Others are arguing that we should make rules that bring awareness to people that they could be brought before court for type 1 or type 2 and that they and they alone have the power to act before the sex to ensure it is type 3.


Apparently, making sure your sex can move to type 3 is too much of an imposition. And it is too much of a burden, too "unnatural" to have to make sure it is type 3 sex and the cost of many raped women is worth ensuring that no one has to endure that "unnatural" act of actually taking a step to determine if it is type 2 or type 3.

Note: the argument about all these unjustly accused sexual participants RELIES UPON their refusal to take a step on their own to get to type 3. They want to have sex without having to be sure AND be immune from prosecution when they were wrong about which subtype of the type 2 sex was had by both parties.

They think having to take an action to get out of type 2 is making sex harder to get and therefore wrong and unnatural.

 

[bigfield]

Some people are arguing that we should make rules that bring awareness to people that they could be brought before court for only type 1 sex. That there should be no risk in attempting type 2 sex and no obligation or even recommendation that they take steps to make it type 3 sex.

Who is making this argument?

Who--besides perhaps Jarhyn--is arguing that having sex with someone without their clear consent carries no risk?

Apparently, making sure your sex can move to type 3 is too much of an imposition. And it is too much of a burden, too "unnatural" to have to make sure it is type 3 sex and the cost of many raped women is worth ensuring that no one has to endure that "unnatural" act of actually taking a step to determine if it is type 2 or type 3.

Is it your position that one requires express consent so that "sex can move to type 3"? Ezra Klein seems to think that is the standard enforced by this law.

 

[Rhea]

Who is making this argument?

Who--besides perhaps Jarhyn--is arguing that having sex with someone without their clear consent carries no risk?

well you said,

Secondly, just because someone lacks empathy* does not mean that they deserve to be punished for putting themselves into a situation that may or may not be a violation of university rules, depending on how those rules are interpreted.

If it may be a violation then, yes, they deserve to be punished. I do not agree that it is either just or necessary to make category 2 immune from prosecution on the grounds that "they couldn't have known." It's just not necessary.

you further said,

Lastly, there is no reason why this law has to be a trade-off between inflicting suffering of one kind on a given number of men versus suffering of a different kind on a given number of women. The government should have provided more detailed guidelines for establishing consent; instead there is still no consensus on what qualifies as consent and what qualifies as too drunk

My statement is that there is clear consensus in type 1 and clear consensus in type 3. Remaining in type 2 is a choice that carries the risk of being hauled before a court to prove your case. Remaining in type 2 is a choice. A risky choice.

Apparently, making sure your sex can move to type 3 is too much of an imposition. And it is too much of a burden, too "unnatural" to have to make sure it is type 3 sex and the cost of many raped women is worth ensuring that no one has to endure that "unnatural" act of actually taking a step to determine if it is type 2 or type 3.

Is it your position that one requires express consent so that "sex can move to type 3"? Ezra Klein seems to think that is the standard enforced by this law.

I am under the impression that the laws do not say "express" i.e. "verbal." I have argued repeatedly that very clear understanding can be gained without voice. Explicit consent can be gained by action. Ambiguity can be diminished. Risk can be mitigated. Some people actually care that they are having a consensual encounter but were acting under "normal behavior" that did nothing to check for it. Now there are more clear outlines on how to do that.

 

[Togo]

By "diminish the ambiguity" I mean, rewrite parts of the law that are targeting any sex is that is actually always consensual. While keeping the parts that are, "well half the time that's okay" because, why do something that has a 50-50 chance of making you an actual rapist even if you are never caught and tried, do you really want to keep being a rapist who just isn't getting caught? really?

Of course. Because in reality it's not a random 50/50 chance, its based on the peculiarities of you and your partner. Most people are pretty sure where they are in relation to consent. Some of them are wrong, of course. But whether they are wrong or not is not a matter of probability.

But people are arguing, Yeah. They should not be prosecuted for the behavior and moreover they should not be made to feel they should even stop it.

Well of course they don't. They have what they consider a normal sex life, it's not any your business what it is, so why should they change? They should change because other people, who also don't know anything about their sex life, might find it hard to seperate in their mind the difference between what they do and what criminals do, should they ever happen to dig into it? That's not going to wash.

Have you ever worked with group where there's a problem, and everyone is convinced it's everyone else's conduct that's the problem? They all enthusiastically agree to whatever measures are put in place to stop those idiots messing things up, because they know that they aren't the idiots and don't have to change. And the more scorn that's put on the guilty, the more they're convinced that whatever is being said doesn't apply to them.

3 broad categories of sex

1. obvious rape where everyone knows it's rape.
2. ambiguous sex, where a large percent of the time only one person thinks it's rape (the victim)
3. obvious not-rape where everyone knows it's not rape.

Some people are arguing that we should make rules that bring awareness to people that they could be brought before court for only type 1 sex. That there should be no risk in attempting type 2 sex and no obligation or even recommendation that they take steps to make it type 3 sex.

I've not spotted anyone doing that. Are you sure that's not a straw man?

Others are arguing that we should make rules that bring awareness to people that they could be brought before court for type 1 or type 2 and that they and they alone have the power to act before the sex to ensure it is type 3.

I've not spotted anyone arguing against awareness either.

What I have seen is people arguing that the law should be extended to prosecute those who are not, in fact, committing rape, on the grounds that it acts as a deterrant. That's what the OP citation was arguing, for example.

Apparently, making sure your sex can move to type 3 is too much of an imposition. And it is too much of a burden, too "unnatural" to have to make sure it is type 3 sex and the cost of many raped women is worth ensuring that no one has to endure that "unnatural" act of actually taking a step to determine if it is type 2 or type 3.

Well, I'm not sure where you are getting 'unnatural' from. Did you make it up? Removing that your arguement reduces to:

Apparently, making sure your sex can move to type 3 is too much of an imposition. And it is too much of a burden, to have to make sure it is type 3 sex and the cost of many raped women is worth ensuring that no one has to endure actually taking a step to determine if it is type 2 or type 3.

Which isn't what I was arguing (was anyone arguing this?) What I was arguing that was failing to take into account people's actual sex lives and attitudes to sex in a desperate desire to capture and punish rapists will, in fact, increase the rape rate. Becuase you can't (easily) catch rapits without testimony, and if the rules criminalise ordinary behaviour, that testimony won't be forthcoming.

Note: the argument about all these unjustly accused sexual participants RELIES UPON their refusal to take a step on their own to get to type 3. They want to have sex without having to be sure AND be immune from prosecution when they were wrong about which subtype of the type 2 sex was had by both parties.

Incorrect. They want their sex life to meet their standards, not yours. They want to use their judgement to determine consent, not yours. Overall, that's probably a good thing. The problem comes in the few cases where their judgement is horribly horribly wrong. The best way to combat this is through social awareness - people discussing the matter and working between themselves exactly why lack of protest is not consent. A much less effective way of doing this is to try and enforce a social more from the top down through threat of punishment. If your 'threat of punishment' approach undermines the more effective social awareness approach, then it's counter-productive and best avoided.

----


There may be a fundamental confusion here. As far as I know, the laaw against rape actually gives us everything we could want in terms of an accurate dividing line between the innocent and the guilty. It's just that it's confusing, patchily enforced and poorly understood. While I can see why these are all bad, I don't see how changing the law to include innocent people really helps the situation.

And that's what's being argued for. That we need to include innocent people in our laws against rape, so that the rules are clearer and easier to enforce.

 

[bigfield]

well you said,

Secondly, just because someone lacks empathy* does not mean that they deserve to be punished for putting themselves into a situation that may or may not be a violation of university rules, depending on how those rules are interpreted.

If it may be a violation then, yes, they deserve to be punished. I do not agree that it is either just or necessary to make category 2 immune from prosecution on the grounds that "they couldn't have known." It's just not necessary.

Nobody deserves to be punished for something that may be a violation. If you apply that reasoning on a broader scope it quickly becomes obvious why it is absurd.

If they have violated a rule, then punish them.
If they have not, then do not.

Universities need to make it very clear what qualifies as affirmative consent. There should not be any cases where the university cannot be sure because their definition of affirmative consent is not clear, and their definition of intoxication is not clear.

The rule should not punish the almosts. Consent that only barely meets the affirmative consent standard, or having sex with a person who has been drinking but is not intoxicated, is still consent under this new law, and should not be punished as if it were not consent.

Lastly, there is no reason why this law has to be a trade-off between inflicting suffering of one kind on a given number of men versus suffering of a different kind on a given number of women. The government should have provided more detailed guidelines for establishing consent; instead there is still no consensus on what qualifies as consent and what qualifies as too drunk

My statement is that there is clear consensus in type 1 and clear consensus in type 3. Remaining in type 2 is a choice that carries the risk of being hauled before a court to prove your case. Remaining in type 2 is a choice. A risky choice.

Do you think risky sexual acts should be outlawed, regardless of the outcome?

Do people who engage in acts that

Otherwise I don't know why you keep bringing up the risk. Because your response has nothing to do with my statements you've quoted.

Apparently, making sure your sex can move to type 3 is too much of an imposition. And it is too much of a burden, too "unnatural" to have to make sure it is type 3 sex and the cost of many raped women is worth ensuring that no one has to endure that "unnatural" act of actually taking a step to determine if it is type 2 or type 3.

Is it your position that one requires express consent so that "sex can move to type 3"? Ezra Klein seems to think that is the standard enforced by this law.

I am under the impression that the laws do not say "express" i.e. "verbal." I have argued repeatedly that very clear understanding can be gained without voice. Explicit consent can be gained by action. Ambiguity can be diminished. Risk can be mitigated. Some people actually care that they are having a consensual encounter but were acting under "normal behavior" that did nothing to check for it. Now there are more clear outlines on how to do that.

Where is your evidence that students commit rape out of honest ignorance of their partner's lack of consent? What makes you think that the people who actually care are failing to get explicit consent?

Who are you out to punish? None of this risk-mitigation has any bearing on the predators and abusers, the ones who consciously commit rape and then plead ignorance.

 

[Rhea]

Of course. Because in reality it's not a random 50/50 chance, its based on the peculiarities of you and your partner. Most people are pretty sure where they are in relation to consent. Some of them are wrong, of course. But whether they are wrong or not is not a matter of probability.

This does not match the reality of the rape cases in court (or colleges). "I didn't realize s/he objected" is a frequent defense, along with "s/he asked for it," "s/he owed me," and "s/he didn't say no."

Many of the cases involved here are first time sex encounters. These are not people who are pretty sure they are in a relationship with consent. They are not even in a relationship. There's nothing inherently wrong with hook-up sex, in my opinion, and nothing inherently difficult in making sure it is actually consensual. But people have argued here and in many other threads that explicit consent is awkward and unnatural.

I'm not going to look up the quotes. The whole idea of people arguing against gaining explicit consent just really depresses me. They are here.

Well of course they don't. They have what they consider a normal sex life, it's not any your business what it is, so why should they change?

Holy shit because the other person in the relationship said it was against their will, that's why!

3 broad categories of sex

1. obvious rape where everyone knows it's rape.
2. ambiguous sex, where a large percent of the time only one person thinks it's rape (the victim)
3. obvious not-rape where everyone knows it's not rape.

Some people are arguing that we should make rules that bring awareness to people that they could be brought before court for only type 1 sex. That there should be no risk in attempting type 2 sex and no obligation or even recommendation that they take steps to make it type 3 sex.

I've not spotted anyone doing that. Are you sure that's not a straw man?

Yeah, I'm sure. But too done with thinking about the reality of it to go hunt them up again.

What I have seen is people arguing that the law should be extended to prosecute those who are not, in fact, committing rape, on the grounds that it acts as a deterrant. That's what the OP citation was arguing, for example.

I take the Klein comment as part hyperbole and part tired admission that this is what it would take for the casual rapists to wake the fuck up to thinking about their partner for real. The fact that this is what it would take for them to actually think for even a second about their partner's consent is a sad dark state of affairs and I can hardly believe it needs to be said, but there is Klein admitting from a man's perspective that this is what it would actually take for fathers to write cautionary e-mails to their son';s at college about checking for consent.

I didn't say it, Klein did. Until they feel that they are at risk for UNjust arrest, they will never contemplate that they are at risk for a just arrest. It's always about some violent stranger in an alley, never about the clean-cut frat boy, right?

Incorrect. They want their sex life to meet their standards, not yours. They want to use their judgement to determine consent, not yours. Overall, that's probably a good thing.

Because there is no disagreement about whether rape has occurred? There's never a real rapist who gets off by claiming "she never said no" and there's no system where raped people get pummeled and damaged by a court process that fails to take their victimhood seriously?

There's a "standard" that works right now to prevent people from doing something they think is "normal behavior" when it is actually rape?

The problem comes in the few cases where their judgement is horribly horribly wrong.

a few.
?

The best way to combat this is through social awareness - people discussing the matter and working between themselves exactly why lack of protest is not consent.

Klein's comment states that this will never happen until the people doing this finally realize that THEY are the one's we're talking about.
Sad if that's true. I gave college men more credit that that, but, apparently Klein disagrees.

There may be a fundamental confusion here. As far as I know, the laaw against rape actually gives us everything we could want in terms of an accurate dividing line between the innocent and the guilty.

You and I disagree that this is a true thing in America.
I believe it is obviously and demonstrably not a true thing in America.

It's just that it's confusing, patchily enforced and poorly understood. While I can see why these are all bad, I don't see how changing the law to include innocent people really helps the situation.


And that's what's being argued for. That we need to include innocent people in our laws against rape, so that the rules are clearer and easier to enforce.

No. What';s being argued is that we need to include ALL of the rapists in the law and some of those rapists are doing the same thing as non-rapists which is having sex with assumed consent. Those who are assuming correctly but still merely assuming are at risk of being wrong about what they are assuming. And they should know that. Those who are assuming incorrectly are rapists. But they don't realize this yet. The inclusion of them in the law will help to get actual rapists convicted.



Note:
Those who are using assumed consent and are assuming correctly will not face charges because their partner was consenting - the assumption was correct.
Those who are using assumed consent and are NOT assuming correctly will find their partner pressing charges.

If your assumption of consent was correct - no charges - because no one is pressing charges.

 

[Rhea]

Do you think risky sexual acts should be outlawed, regardless of the outcome?

I think assuming consent and not checking for it creates a risk that you could be wrong and find yourself afterward with charges pressed against you.

Where is your evidence that students commit rape out of honest ignorance of their partner's lack of consent? What makes you think that the people who actually care are failing to get explicit consent?

Good question. Because people are arguing (in many previous threads as well as now, this is not the first) that getting consent is onerous. This leads me to believe that currently they are assuming consent. Also that many college rapes are not properly prosecuted. Also that many of them consider themselves not-rapists while their victims obviously do.

And because I have seen these men in action and seen the way they talk about it later.

Perhaps my assumption that they genuinely think they are good guys is flawed. Perhaps I should not give them so much credit.

Who are you out to punish? None of this risk-mitigation has any bearing on the predators and abusers, the ones who consciously commit rape and then plead ignorance.

I disagree. I believe it will help them believe they will not get away with it.
I am not out to "punish" anyone. I am more concerned with sufficient clarification to act as a deterrent to public acceptance of something that is not acceptable leading to lack of prosecution.

Note:
Those who are using assumed consent and are assuming correctly will not face charges because their partner was consenting - the assumption was correct.
Those who are using assumed consent and are NOT assuming correctly will find their partner pressing charges.

If it is your contention that all of the people in the second group knew it going in, then they will continue to face charges. And if it is your contention that all of the first group were finely tuned masters of perception thenh they will continue to not face charges.


No one is going to press charges unless they feel they were raped. (derec's tales of 2, 4 and 8 year old cases clearly demonstrate how rare the false accusation is.)

 

[bigfield]

I think assuming consent and not checking for it creates a risk that you could be wrong and find yourself afterward with charges pressed against you.

Sure. But that is strange behaviour; it would require one to virtually ignore one's partner. Lack of explicit consent is conspicuous.

Where is your evidence that students commit rape out of honest ignorance of their partner's lack of consent? What makes you think that the people who actually care are failing to get explicit consent?

Good question. Because people are arguing (in many previous threads as well as now, this is not the first) that getting consent is onerous. This leads me to believe that currently they are assuming consent. Also that many college rapes are not properly prosecuted. Also that many of them consider themselves not-rapists while their victims obviously do.

And because I have seen these men in action and seen the way they talk about it later.

Perhaps my assumption that they genuinely think they are good guys is flawed. Perhaps I should not give them so much credit.

Perhaps.

Who are you out to punish? None of this risk-mitigation has any bearing on the predators and abusers, the ones who consciously commit rape and then plead ignorance.

I disagree. I believe it will help them believe they will not get away with it.
I am not out to "punish" anyone. I am more concerned with sufficient clarification to act as a deterrent to public acceptance of something that is not acceptable leading to lack of prosecution.

Clarification is what is lacking in these laws.

Note:
Those who are using assumed consent and are assuming correctly will not face charges because their partner was consenting - the assumption was correct.
Those who are using assumed consent and are NOT assuming correctly will find their partner pressing charges.

If it is your contention that all of the people in the second group knew it going in, then they will continue to face charges. And if it is your contention that all of the first group were finely tuned masters of perception thenh they will continue to not face charges.

It's my contention that this group of boys assuming consent is largely a group of phantoms, and that the "she didn't say no defence" is the resort of predators and abusive partners, who commit rape deliberately.

No one is going to press charges unless they feel they were raped. (derec's tales of 2, 4 and 8 year old cases clearly demonstrate how rare the false accusation is.)

I'm aware of that. But on principle, that is not how any law or rule should work. Whether you think the cost is acceptable or not is completely irrelevant.

 

[ksen]

A letter from a recent male graduate

Dear Conor,

I am a recent graduate, and want to share with you a few of my experiences that I think are illustrative of why the new affirmative-consent laws are out of touch with the reality of the human experience. I hope they can be of some value to the debate.

I was raised by a left-leaning, feminist family who (at least I thought at the time) were relatively open about sex. But while I arrived at college with a healthy respect for women, I was totally unprepared for the complex realities of female sexuality.

“Oh,” sighed one platonic female friend after we had just watched Harrison Ford grab Alison Doody and kiss her is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, “Why don’t guys do that kind of thing anymore? Now days they are all too scared.”

On our second night together, one of my first partners threw up her hands in disgust. “How am I supposed to get turned on when you keep asking for permission for everything like a little boy?” She said. “Just take me and fuck me already.”

She didn’t stay with me for long.

This would be a recurring theme. More than once I saw disappointment in the eyes of women when I didn’t fulfill the leadership role they wanted me to perform in the bedroom. I realized that women don’t just desire men, they desire men’s desire―and often they don’t want to have to ask for it. I also realized that I was in many ways ashamed of my own sexual desire as a man, and that this was not healthy.

At this point I was experiencing some cognitive dissonance with my upbringing, but in time learned to take an assertive lead unless I got a “no” or otherwise thought I was about to cross a boundary as indicated by body language.

One night I ended up back in a girl’s room after a first date (those do happen in college). She had invited me in and was clearly attracted to me. We were kissing on her bed, outer layers of clothing removed, but when my hands wandered downward she said, “No, wait.” I waited. She began kissing me again, passionately, so again I moved to remove her underwear. “Stop,” she said, “this is too fast.” I stopped.

“That’s fine,” I said. I kissed her again and left soon after, looking forward to seeing her again.

But my text messages received only cold, vaguely angry replies, and then silence. I was rather confused. Only many weeks later did I find out the truth from one of her close friends: “She really wanted you, but you didn’t make it happen. She was pretty upset that you didn’t really want her.”

“Why didn’t she just say so then, why did she say we were moving too fast?”

“Of course she said that, you dumbass. She didn’t want you to think she was a slut.”

Talk about confusing. Apparently in this case even no didn’t mean no. It wasn’t the last time I've come across “token resistance” that is intended to be overcome either. But that’s a line that I am still uncomfortable with testing, for obvious reasons.

But I have learned not to ask when it clearly isn’t necessary, or desired.

One of my fondest sexual experiences started with making eye contact across a room, moved to a dance floor, and then to an empty bathroom. Not a single word was ever spoken, because none had to be. We both knew and understood. I was a man and she was a woman, and we found ourselves drawn together in that beautiful way that men and women have been since a time immemorial, a time long before language was ever spoken.

Today in California this would be considered rape. I find that very sad. Women are not infantile. They can make their own decisions about sex, and that includes being able to say no―even if they don’t want to have to say yes.

Regards,

Anonymous

The part at the end where he says "women are not infantile" resonates with me. To me it seems this type of law is implicitly saying that women are not able to make decisions for themselves. For example, the law (as I understand it) says a woman is not capable of giving consent with any alcohol in her system. If I were a woman I'd find that extremely insulting and condescending.

This particular kind of law leaves me feeling very off center because I empathize and agree with the women who see a problem of rape culture and are trying their best to fix it. But a law like this that is so unclear and so ambiguous just seems to be the wrong direction as it has the potential to do much more harm than good.