No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Loren Pechtel]

About the only way you can protect yourself is to follow the old adage about not sticking your dick in crazy. However, sometimes crazy doesn't show itself at first. It's certainly impossible to avoid in a casual sex situation.

Well now, there you go. Another important factor is the "don't be a crazy dick." Crazy isn't that hard to spot, if you are paying attention and ask oneself if it's really worth the risk. I don't see the point of making it difficult for a woman to accuse the man who abused her, or took advantage in someway, just to protect men who feel they have the right to sex with a woman because she seemed friendly at time in the evening.

As for crazy, claiming "she's crazy" as a defense, is a pretty dickish move on any man's part.

Not all crazy can be spotted in an evening. Thus you can't hope to avoid all crazies if you engage in hook-ups.

- - - Updated - - -

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I don't see anyone saying that. What some of us are saying is that the proposed rules are incompatible with how sex actually works.

saying it, but failing to demonstrate it as anything other than an opinion... a very disturbing opinion.

Have you ever had a partner ask every step of the way? What steps did they ask at?

Except for my very first time and the two times men tried to rape me, no sexual partner has ever failed to make sure they had my enthusiastic ongoing consent. How much detail would you like?

The question was *ASKING* each step of the way.

That's a much higher burden than simply being aware that one's partner is enthusiastic about what's happening.

 

[RavenSky]

Well now, there you go. Another important factor is the "don't be a crazy dick." Crazy isn't that hard to spot, if you are paying attention and ask oneself if it's really worth the risk. I don't see the point of making it difficult for a woman to accuse the man who abused her, or took advantage in someway, just to protect men who feel they have the right to sex with a woman because she seemed friendly at time in the evening.

As for crazy, claiming "she's crazy" as a defense, is a pretty dickish move on any man's part.

Not all crazy can be spotted in an evening. Thus you can't hope to avoid all crazies if you engage in hook-ups.

- - - Updated - - -

It still comes across as quite a few on this board would rather risk raping someone than risk not having sex.

Which is rather disturbing.

It's too much effort to have a conversation with a potential sexual partner?

I don't see anyone saying that. What some of us are saying is that the proposed rules are incompatible with how sex actually works.

saying it, but failing to demonstrate it as anything other than an opinion... a very disturbing opinion.

Have you ever had a partner ask every step of the way? What steps did they ask at?

Except for my very first time and the two times men tried to rape me, no sexual partner has ever failed to make sure they had my enthusiastic ongoing consent. How much detail would you like?

The question was *ASKING* each step of the way.

That's a much higher burden than simply being aware that one's partner is enthusiastic about what's happening.

It is not a "much higher burden" to verify "that one's partner is enthusiastic about what's happening" - it is what normal caring partners do routinely.

Seriously, all this arguing against being a caring considerate lover is really disturbing.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/24/3571758/forbes-fires-columnist-frats/

Bill Frezza won’t be keeping his gig as a Forbes contributor after he wrote a controversial article entitled “Drunk Female Guests Are the Gravest Threat to Fraternities” that didn’t sit well with readers. The piece was quickly taken down — although a cached version is still available — and a spokesperson for Forbes confirmed to the New York Daily News that Frezza will no longer contribute to the site.

Frezza currently serves as the president of the alumni house corporation for MIT’s Chi Phi chapter and has written regular opinion columns for Forbes. In his now-deleted article, he argued that fraternities are being endangered not by frat brothers’ actions, but by the “female guests” who may get too drunk at their parties.
“We have very little control over women who walk in the door carrying enough pre-gaming booze in their bellies to render them unconscious before the night is through,” he wrote. “In our age of sexual equality, why drunk female students are almost never characterized as irresponsible jerks is a question I leave to the feminists.”
The article also bemoaned false rape accusations that may emerge “months after the fact triggered by regrets over a drunken hook-up, or anger over a failed relationship.” Frezza noted that “it doesn’t take much for a campus kangaroo court to get you expelled, ruining your life while saddling your fraternity with a reputation for harboring rapists.”
As is fairly typical for articles about college women and sexual assault, the column was accompanied by a stock photo of a woman drinking:
stock photo

In an email exchange with the New York Daily News, Frezza said that the accompanying photo was in “poor taste.” But he has continued to stand by his article even after its removal from Forbes’ site. He told the Huffington Post that he “expected it to provoke a conversation” and urged people to “read the whole thing and not just the gawker ‘blame the victim’ spin on it.”

Sound familiar?

 

[Derec]

Sound familiar?

Yeah, god forbid females are to be held to account for any of their behaviors. It's always some guy's fault. That's why when a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, he is the "rapist" and she is the "victim", no matter how much she was into it at the time.

That's also why Ray Rice is banned indefinitely (for life if feminists get their way) but Hope Solo is allowed to play on. Female privilege.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well now, there you go. Another important factor is the "don't be a crazy dick." Crazy isn't that hard to spot, if you are paying attention and ask oneself if it's really worth the risk. I don't see the point of making it difficult for a woman to accuse the man who abused her, or took advantage in someway, just to protect men who feel they have the right to sex with a woman because she seemed friendly at time in the evening.

As for crazy, claiming "she's crazy" as a defense, is a pretty dickish move on any man's part.

Not all crazy can be spotted in an evening. Thus you can't hope to avoid all crazies if you engage in hook-ups.

Pro-tip:

If you lack confidence in your short range crazy detection skills and fear false rape charges, in spite of being the kind of man any sensible woman would desire, stay away from hook-ups.

Asking the women of the world to put themselves at greater risk so you can feel more confident at a frat party is a little over the line.

 

[Derec]

If you lack confidence in your short range crazy detection skills and fear false rape charges, in spite of being the kind of man any sensible woman would desire, stay away from hook-ups.
Asking the women of the world to put themselves at greater risk so you can feel more confident at a frat party is a little over the line.

Bullshit. We should not assume that a rape happened and ignore possibility of false accusations just because you think it puts women "at a higher risk" not to automatically believe all they say and punish men based on their word alone.
There should be no punishment (criminal or administrative) without adequate evidence. Also, if there is evidence that the rape claim is false, the accuser should be punished. Unfortunately most false accusers are not punished even when her guilt is clear.

What you are doing Bronzeage, is apologetics for false rape accusers and blaming the victims.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Sound familiar?

Yeah, god forbid females are to be held to account for any of their behaviors. It's always some guy's fault. That's why when a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, he is the "rapist" and she is the "victim".

That's also why Ray Rice is banned indefinitely (for life if feminists get their way) but Hope Solo is allowed to play on. Female privilege.

If it takes such a power juggernaut, like this "female privilege" you so fear and see lurking in every corner of the universe, to get ONE guy fired for blaming the victim while leaving the system of patriarchy to go on about its merry way, this is some pretty weakass privilege.

 

[Derec]

If it takes such a power juggernaut, like this "female privilege" you so fear and see lurking in every corner of the universe, to get ONE guy fired for blaming the victim while leaving the system of patriarchy to go on about its merry way, this is some pretty weakass privilege.

It was not victim blaming, it was acknowledging that females that get drunk have their share of responsibility for their actions. If drunk males have sex with drunk females, why should only the males be blamed for the outcome? That's blatant sexism.
And the writer was fired because he wasn't politically correct enough.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you lack confidence in your short range crazy detection skills and fear false rape charges, in spite of being the kind of man any sensible woman would desire, stay away from hook-ups.
Asking the women of the world to put themselves at greater risk so you can feel more confident at a frat party is a little over the line.

Bullshit. We should not assume that a rape happened and ignore possibility of false accusations just because you think it puts women "at a higher risk".
There should be no punishment (criminal or administrative) without adequate evidence. Also, if there is evidence that the rape claim is false, the accuser should be punished. Unfortunately most false accusers are not punished even when her guilt is clear.

Do you lack confidence in your ability to identify a false rape accuser, before sexual contact is made?

Side note: Is the percentage of false rape accusers(of course we would want adequate evidence to back this charge, since "clear guilt" is the standard) greater or less than the true rapists who are never punished?

 

[Derec]

Do you lack confidence in your ability to identify a false rape accuser, before sexual contact is made?

How would I possibly be able to know that unless she has falsely accused others in the past and I somehow know this?

Side note: Is the percentage of false rape accusers(of course we would want adequate evidence to back this charge, since "clear guilt" is the standard) greater or less than the true rapists who are never punished?

I do not know. It doesn't matter which number is greater to condemn both. Even if the number of unpunished rapists is much greater than the number of false accusers (something radical feminists always claim usually by grossly inflating the number of "unreported rapes" and downplaying false rape claims) it does not follow that possibility of false rape claims should be ignored and a female's work be taken as only "evidence" necessary.

 

[RavenSky]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/09/24/3571758/forbes-fires-columnist-frats/

Bill Frezza won’t be keeping his gig as a Forbes contributor after he wrote a controversial article entitled “Drunk Female Guests Are the Gravest Threat to Fraternities” that didn’t sit well with readers. The piece was quickly taken down — although a cached version is still available — and a spokesperson for Forbes confirmed to the New York Daily News that Frezza will no longer contribute to the site.

Frezza currently serves as the president of the alumni house corporation for MIT’s Chi Phi chapter and has written regular opinion columns for Forbes. In his now-deleted article, he argued that fraternities are being endangered not by frat brothers’ actions, but by the “female guests” who may get too drunk at their parties.
“We have very little control over women who walk in the door carrying enough pre-gaming booze in their bellies to render them unconscious before the night is through,” he wrote. “In our age of sexual equality, why drunk female students are almost never characterized as irresponsible jerks is a question I leave to the feminists.”
The article also bemoaned false rape accusations that may emerge “months after the fact triggered by regrets over a drunken hook-up, or anger over a failed relationship.” Frezza noted that “it doesn’t take much for a campus kangaroo court to get you expelled, ruining your life while saddling your fraternity with a reputation for harboring rapists.”
As is fairly typical for articles about college women and sexual assault, the column was accompanied by a stock photo of a woman drinking:
stock photo

In an email exchange with the New York Daily News, Frezza said that the accompanying photo was in “poor taste.” But he has continued to stand by his article even after its removal from Forbes’ site. He told the Huffington Post that he “expected it to provoke a conversation” and urged people to “read the whole thing and not just the gawker ‘blame the victim’ spin on it.”

Sound familiar?

Yep. Typical woman-blaming bullshit.

On the one hand he claims:

Fraternity alumni boards, working with chapter officers, employ a variety of policies designed to guide and police member behavior. Our own risk management manual exceeds 22 pages. The number of rules and procedures that have to be followed to run a party nowadays would astound anyone over 40. We take the rules very seriously, so much so that brothers who flout these policies can, and will, be asked to move out. But we have very little control over women who walk in the door...

and yet

Yes, boozed up males also show up at parties, sometimes mobs of them disturbing the peace on the front steps. But few are allowed in, especially if they are strangers. Plus, it remains socially acceptable for bouncers to eject drunk and rowdy males...

Here is what I recommend to my young charges: Identify drunks at the door. I don’t care how pretty or flirtatious a young lady is; if she’s visibly intoxicated, don’t let her in.

So it took him three quarters of an article of blatant women-bashing to get to this point: Some males AND some females show up at frat parties drunk. Don't let either of them in. Well no fucking duh

In addition to the usual bouncers, assign several brothers to monitor female party guests. If any appear out of control, walk them to the door and put them in a cab heading back to their dorm. You can send me the bill. If they refuse to leave, call for an escort from campus police.

MORE great advice for hosts of a party that they already do apply to their male guests and should apply to their female guests

Never, ever take a drunk female guest to your bedroom – even if you have a signed contract indicating sexual consent.

excellent advice

And please, look out for each other. Do not let a drunk brother take a drunk female to his bedroom.

As misogynistic as most of his writing in this article sounds, at least he is finally doing what women have done forever... telling the guys to look out for each other, prevent the drunk buddy from doing something stupid.

So basically Mr. President of the Alumni House Corporation of the MIT Fraternity is telling us that before this article and his advice, his frat boys were blocking drunk males, "especially if they are strangers", but purposely allowing in drunk females. Hummm... wonder why? Before this article oh so full of paternalistic concern, his frat boys were removing "out of control" males, but not "out of control" females. Hummmm... wonder why? Apparently, before this artcile of heart-felt advice, his frat boys were taking these very drunk girls into their dorm rooms. Hummmm... wonder why?

But yeah... it is all the female's fault that these frat boys get into trouble

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How would I possibly be able to know that unless she has falsely accused others in the past and I somehow know this?

Side note: Is the percentage of false rape accusers(of course we would want adequate evidence to back this charge, since "clear guilt" is the standard) greater or less than the true rapists who are never punished?

I do not know. It doesn't matter which number is greater to condemn both. Even if the number of unpunished rapists is much greater than the number of false accusers (something radical feminists always claim usually by grossly inflating the number of "unreported rapes" and downplaying false rape claims) it does not follow that possibility of false rape claims should be ignored and a female's work be taken as only "evidence" necessary.

What about the number of punished rape victims?

You, and an unfortunately non-negligible percentage of the population, are so aggressive whenever a claim is made. You pretty much equate the inability to prove it happened with 'she is lying'.

 

[Bronzeage]

How would I possibly be able to know that unless she has falsely accused others in the past and I somehow know this?

Side note: Is the percentage of false rape accusers(of course we would want adequate evidence to back this charge, since "clear guilt" is the standard) greater or less than the true rapists who are never punished?

I do not know. It doesn't matter which number is greater to condemn both. Even if the number of unpunished rapists is much greater than the number of false accusers (something radical feminists always claim usually by grossly inflating the number of "unreported rapes" and downplaying false rape claims) it does not follow that possibility of false rape claims should be ignored and a female's work be taken as only "evidence" necessary.

By your own admission, you lack the skills to evaluate another person through simple social exchange, so your judgments of other people are not reliable. The idea a woman would have to be a serial false rape accuser before anyone could see a potential problem, reflects this.

No one thinks it is a good idea to ignore false rape claims, since no sensible person thinks rape claims should be ignored. The problem here is the refusal to accept a changed definition of rape. This is the 21st century and certain things which would not have been included in the accepted definition 50 years ago, are now considered to be rape.

Consider this, in 1950, if a woman willing went to a man's apartment, where there were no other people, and he subsequently took her to the bedroom and used his superior strength to hold her down and have sex, he would not be prosecuted for rape. The only possibility of him being held accountable would be if he inflicted visible injury, such as bruises or a black eye. The fact she willing entered his apartment was considered a blanket consent. If she was not a virgin at the time, it was a foregone matter. It took a long time for society to view this man's behavior as something reprehensible, and there were lots of people who expressed all the same things you say in this thread and in other threads.

In words, if a woman was not ready to suffer grievous bodily harm, she could not claim she had been raped. Of course, she gets fucked, whether she takes the beating, or not.

This is the same situation. The line is being moved and those who used to feel safe inside the line are no longer so safe. We are no longer asking women to take endure a beating, just so they can accuse their attacker. Her word, along with the other evidence of the incident will be considered in a rape charge. This means some men will suffer for actions which they once could commit with impunity. That's the nature of progress.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you don't know what kind of person you are pursuing, ask about him or her before you fuck. Why is this so difficult to get supposedly adult people to behave like adults?

Damn!

Some people posting here read like they are fucking ten years old with no fucking idea about fucking other than to say "Ooooooooo," and point with a shit eating grin on their faces.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is not a "much higher burden" to verify "that one's partner is enthusiastic about what's happening" - it is what normal caring partners do routinely.

Seriously, all this arguing against being a caring considerate lover is really disturbing.

You can normally see their enthusiasm without asking for permission.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you don't know what kind of person you are pursuing, ask about him or her before you fuck. Why is this so difficult to get supposedly adult people to behave like adults?

Damn!

Some people posting here read like they are fucking ten years old with no fucking idea about fucking other than to say "Ooooooooo," and point with a shit eating grin on their faces.

You expect an honest answer to: "Are you crazy?"

 

[RavenSky]

It is not a "much higher burden" to verify "that one's partner is enthusiastic about what's happening" - it is what normal caring partners do routinely.

Seriously, all this arguing against being a caring considerate lover is really disturbing.

You can normally see their enthusiasm without asking for permission.

While I don't see anything wrong with asking permission, could you kindly point out specifically what it is in either of these policies that you so strenuously object to, I would be much obliged

Consent is informed. Consent is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision
by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.
Consent is voluntary. It must be given without coercion, force, threats, or intimidation.
Consent means positive cooperation in the act or expression of intent to engage in the
act pursuant to an exercise of free will.
Consent is revocable. Consent to some form of sexual activity does not imply consent
to other forms of sexual activity. Consent to sexual activity on one occasion is not
consent to engage in sexual activity on another occasion. A current or previous dating
or sexual relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute consent. Even in the
context of a relationship, there must be mutual consent to engage in sexual activity.
Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any
time. Once consent is withdrawn, the sexual activity must stop immediately.
Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated. A person cannot consent if
s/he is unconscious or coming in and out of consciousness. A person cannot consent if
s/he is under the threat of violence, bodily injury or other forms of coercion. A person
cannot consent if his/her understanding of the act is affected by a physical or mental
impairment.
For purposes of this Policy, the age of consent is consistent with California Penal Code
Section 261.5.

http://ophd.berkeley.edu/sites/defa...ent and Sexual Violence Issuance Ltr (1).pdf

Sexual Violence : Consent
In many cases of sexual assault, the central issue is consent or the ability to give consent. Consent is when a person agrees or gives permission to another person to engage in certain sexual acts. Understanding consent is important for both parties.

What is consent?

Consent is a knowing and voluntary verbal or non-verbal agreement between both parties to participate in each and every sexual act.
Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other or all forms of sexual activity.
Conduct will be considered "non-consensual" if no clear consent, verbal or non-verbal, is given.
A person has the right to change his or her mind at any time. In other words, consent can be withdrawn at any point, as long as he or she clearly informs the other party that he or she is withdrawing.
Taking drugs or consuming alcohol does not relieve the obligation to obtain consent.
Effective Consent

Effective consent can be given by words or actions so long as the words or actions create a mutual understanding between both parties regarding the conditions of the sexual activity--ask, "do both of us understand and agree regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how this sexual activity will take place?"
When someone affirmatively demonstrates that (1) they do not want to have sex, (2) they want to stop any sort of the sexual acts, or (3) they do not want to go any further, the other party must stop completely. Continued pressure after that point can be coercive.
Consent in Relationships

Current or past sexual relationships or current or past dating relationships are not sufficient grounds to constitute consent.
Regardless of past experiences with other partners or your current partner, consent must be obtained.
Consent can never be assumed, even in the context of a relationship. You have the right to say "no" and you have the right to change your mind any time.
By law, a person cannot give consent, even when he or she might verbally say so, when:

The person is so intoxicated or unconscious due to alcohol or drugs
The person is physically or mentally disabled
The person was coerced due to force, threat of force, or deception or when the person was beaten, threatened, isolated, or intimidated.

http://studentconduct.osu.edu/page.asp?id=42

 

[Derec]

If you don't know what kind of person you are pursuing, ask about him or her before you fuck. Why is this so difficult to get supposedly adult people to behave like adults?

You are blaming the victim. How is this different than blaming a rape victim for not not realizing that the person she was flirting with was a rapist.
It seems you and Bronzeage expect only men to be prophets and mind readers and be able to magically sniff out false accusers.

 

[Arctish]

My disagreement was with your statement that "they were drunk, which means there was not actually true consent". It is possible for two people to be drunk and yet actually consent. That appears to be simply a disagreement in terms of the minimum threshold for what qualifies as drunk.

It is possible to have consent when both you and your partner are drunk. However, the difference between that kind of consent and the kind you get when you're both sober is the difference between happenstance and planning. One is random, unpredictable, and risky; it has it's allure, but it's dangerous. You might be pleasantly surprised in the morning to learn you and your partner are compatible, and were happy to wake up together. OTOH, you might be unpleasantly surprised to learn your partner thinks you raped him/her while s/he was too drunk to fend you off, and is going to report you to Student Affairs.

The other kind of consent is much less risky. It's not quite the thrill of rolling the dice, but the end result can be much more satisfying. The fact it's much less likely to result in a rape charge or expulsion from college is enough for most people to prefer it. The fact it takes your partner's feelings into account is enough for most prospective partners to prefer it, too.

So which one do you think colleges should be promoting in their Codes of Conduct, the random consent-by-drunk-happenstance or the predictable consent-by-sober-agreement?