No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Derec]

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.

No, by my own admission I lack the skills to predict the future or read minds.

The idea a woman would have to be a serial false rape accuser before anyone could see a potential problem, reflects this.

Not being a prophet or a mind reader.

No one thinks it is a good idea to ignore false rape claims, since no sensible person thinks rape claims should be ignored.

I think you got this assbackwards. You seem to think false rape claims should be treated as if they were real because you do not think that any "rape claims should be ignored". I, and all sane people, think that false rape accusers should be punished if their guilt can be proven to the same standard as the rape they were claiming happened. I.e. if universities/Obama administration insist on "preponderance of evidence" standard, then the same standard should be used to judge, and expel, false accusers.

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.

Not all change is good. Redefining rape to include forms of consensual sex would be a bad change. Redefining rape to make it subject to a different burden of proof than other crimes would be a bad change. No matter what century we are in.

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.

Considering these facts, he should not be prosecuted for rape in 2014 either, for the simple reason that there isn't nearly enough evidence to convict. It's purely "he said she said".

The only possibility of him being held accountable would be if he inflicted visible injury, such as bruises or a black eye.

You mean actual evidence? Imagine that, a legal system requiring evidence rather than taking the accuser's word for it. Why, that's middle ages practically!

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.

You do not know that the man did "something reprehensible" or if she did, by falsely accusing the man. You weren't in the apartment with them and there is no other evidence. If there is no evidence nothing should happen to either of them. We know that a crime has been committed, but we have no way of knowing which crime (rape or false accusation thereof) or who the perpetrator and who the victim is.

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.

What does that have to do with requiring actual evidence to prosecute the crime?

Of course, some of the recent college kangaroo court cases were even worse than this. Not only was there no evidence of rape, there was actual evidence that the sex was consensual (in the form of, for example, a message from the accuser saying she "had a great time"). And yet the male student got expelled. You probably think that's right because punishing innocent men is ok as long as womyn are protected.

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.

In your scenario there is no "other evidence", much less sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You want to convict men based on her accusation alone, which by necessity means that even more innocent men will get convicted then hitherto. Have you forgotten Brian Banks already? Convicted of rape he didn't commit, was released years after serving five years because the false accuser came clean (after bilking the county for a 1.5 million dollars!). And that is even without implementing your deforms of how rape cases are prosecuted!
Oh, and of course Wanetta Gibson, the false accuser, has not spent a day in jail over this. Neither did Crystal Magnum (although she is serving a sentence for murdering her boyfriend). Neither did Danmell Ndonye.

It is pretty damning when the Left is championing civil liberties for everyone except for men accused of rape.

 

[Derec]

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?

The consensual kind, no matter the sub-kind. Details of students' sex lives should not be meddled into by nanny college administrators.
The happenstance kind of hookup can also be much more exciting which is why people, especially young people are doing it in the first place.

And even if colleges want to crack down on drunken hookups, they should punish both parties to a drunken hookup, not only and invariably the men.

 

[Arctish]

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?

The consensual kind, no matter the sub-kind.

Sober, explicit, and clearly communicated consent, then, because if the girl/guy isn't sober or hasn't clearly communicated with you, you have no way of knowing if s/he's consenting to what you think s/he's consenting to. You might think her/his agreement to go back to your apartment to watch a movie means consent to sex, and all the while s/he has only consented to watch a movie with you in your apartment.

The happenstance kind of hookup can also be much more exciting which is why people, especially young people are doing it in the first place.

Of course it's exciting. That's it's allure. It's like blasting down the highway at 100+ mph on a sweet motorcycle. It's fun! But it's also dangerous. You can be seriously injured if things go wrong, or worse, you could hurt or even kill someone else. And if you have the misfortune of having something go seriously wrong, you have only yourself to blame for choosing to engage in risky behavior.

And even if colleges want to crack down on drunken hookups, they should punish both parties to a drunken hookup, not only and invariably the men.

I agree that women who sexually assault men should be held to the exact same standard as men who sexually assault women. But I disagree that both parties to a sex act should always have the exact same punishment if the act was a punishable offense. That's some sharia shit, there.

If one of them was just passively sitting there and the other climbed on top and started molesting him/her, the onus for the act is on the molester, not the molestee.

 

[Ford]

I agree that women who sexually assault men should be held to the exact same standard as men who sexually assault women.

I think it is worth pointing out here that Derec believes that when a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, she is almost always lying. Women - in Derec's world - are lying opportunists who scream "rape" for no reason, and men are always victims of wrongful prosecution. Especially if they're white.

 

[Derec]

I think it is worth pointing out here that Derec believes that when a woman accuses a man of sexual assault, she is almost always lying.

No, I do not believe that. However, I do believe that in most cases there isn't enough evidence to tell one way or the other in which case neither the accuser nor the accused should be punished.

Saying that there isn't enough evidence to conclude that a rape happened is very different from saying that I believe that the woman is lying.

 

[Ford]

[
No, I do not believe that.

Yeah, I remember all the times you stood up for women on this forum...

 

[Derec]

Sober, explicit, and clearly communicated consent, then, because if the girl/guy isn't sober or hasn't clearly communicated with you, you have no way of knowing if s/he's consenting to what you think s/he's consenting to. You might think her/his agreement to go back to your apartment to watch a movie means consent to sex, and all the while s/he has only consented to watch a movie with you in your apartment.

People should be more obvious, like offering coffee.

I guess she is an "attempted rapist" in your world, where everything has to be spelled out and absolutely unambiguous (as if that's ever really achievable using human language!) By the way, if alcohol is out, why not stimulants like caffeine?

Of course it's exciting. That's it's allure. It's like blasting down the highway at 100+ mph on a sweet motorcycle. It's fun! But it's also dangerous. You can be seriously injured if things go wrong, or worse, you could hurt or even kill someone else. And if you have the misfortune of having something go seriously wrong, you have only yourself to blame for choosing to engage in risky behavior.

Two people are engaging in risky behavior. Why only hold one of them responsible just because the other (almost always the woman) regrets it afterwards and issues a complaint? At the time, they both did the same thing (had consensual sex with somebody less than sober) and both should be punished equally, or neither should.
If a man and a woman got drunk and rode motorbikes fast together they would both be in violation of DUI and traffic laws. Why not when it comes to sex? Why pretend that it's the man's fault?

I agree that women who sexually assault men should be held to the exact same standard as men who sexually assault women.

But in this case there was no real sexual assault. There was a mutual, consensual, drunken hookup. They both did exactly the same thing (have consensual sex with someone drunk). Why should the woman be treated like victim and man like a rapist merely because she made a complaint (first)?

But I disagree that both parties to a sex act should always have the exact same punishment if the act was a punishable offense. That's some sharia shit, there.

If they both did the same thing, they should be treated equally. I am not talking of somebody taking advantage of a barely conscious person. I am talking of an encounter where both are drunk and both are actively participating in the sexual activities. How do you justify only going after the man in that case, merely based on how the woman feels after the act. Just because she feels bad about the sex the next day (or year, see Vassar) doesn't mean she didn't consent as much as the man at the time sex was happening. A woman (or a man, but that (almost) never happens) should not be able to retroactively withdraw consent.

If one of them was just passively sitting there and the other climbed on top and started molesting him/her, the onus for the act is on the molester, not the molestee.

True, but I am not talking of such a situation. That is also not the situation with the college cases that have been controversial, like Vassar or UGA.

 

[Derec]

Yeah, I remember all the times you stood up for women on this forum...

Way to miss the point.

 

[Ford]

Yeah, I remember all the times you stood up for women on this forum...

Way to miss the point.

Way to avoid the fact that you've never met a woman you don't hate.

 

[Derec]

Way to miss the point.

Way to avoid the fact that you've never met a woman you don't hate.

What a hateful, and very wrong, assertion. But I have come to expect such crude personal attacks from people who have no rational arguments to contribute.
Wanna offer some wisecrack about my sex life or lack thereof? Care to suggest I should fuck men? All happened in this thread alone. You are but a Johnny-come-lately!

 

[Ford]

Wanna offer some wisecrack about my sex life or lack thereof?

No, I just want you to provide evidence of a time when you defended women.


Feel free to link to your ardent defense of female rape victims or your expressed outrage over the unfair treatment of the female gender.


Is that too much to ask?

 

[Juma]

Wanna offer some wisecrack about my sex life or lack thereof?

No, I just want you to provide evidence of a time when you defended women.


Feel free to link to your ardent defense of female rape victims or your expressed outrage over the unfair treatment of the female gender.


Is that too much to ask?

Why not attack that posts and not the person?

 

[Ford]

Why not attack that posts and not the person?

I am attacking Derec's posts. Again, he has never posted anything in defense of women, and his posts have excused rapists and domestic abusers. Derec has not once posted anything that did not come down on the side of alleged rapists or abusers.

 

[Derec]

I am attacking Derec's posts. Again, he has never posted anything in defense of women, and his posts have excused rapists and domestic abusers. Derec has not once posted anything that did not come down on the side of alleged rapists or abusers.

No, I am not excusing "rapists and domestic abusers". What I am saying is that we need to treat people as innocent until proven guilty. Without evidence you cannot assume they are actually guilty of what they are being accused of.

 

[Ford]

So you're not going to post the many threads where you stood up for women's rights, then.


I'm shocked.


(but not really)

 

[Arctish]

People should be more obvious, like offering coffee.

You know what makes that clip funny?

It's because we can all understand how miscommunication can cause distress, regrets, uncertainty, doubting oneself, kicking oneself, and all of the crazy obsessive behavior George was exhibiting. That's why communication is so important.

BTW, Elaine was right: maybe coffee was coffee.

I guess she is an "attempted rapist" in your world, where everything has to be spelled out and absolutely unambiguous (as if that's ever really achievable using human language!) By the way, if alcohol is out, why not stimulants like caffeine?

^ That's so silly I was tempted to ignore it, but on the off chance you were trying to make a genuine point about consent, the girl in that clip obviously sought George's consent to come up to her apartment. She didn't just drag him up there when he was too drunk to know what she was doing. So, no, she's not anywhere close to becoming a rapist.

Of course it's exciting. That's it's allure. It's like blasting down the highway at 100+ mph on a sweet motorcycle. It's fun! But it's also dangerous. You can be seriously injured if things go wrong, or worse, you could hurt or even kill someone else. And if you have the misfortune of having something go seriously wrong, you have only yourself to blame for choosing to engage in risky behavior.

Two people are engaging in risky behavior. Why only hold one of them responsible just because the other (almost always the woman) regrets it afterwards and issues a complaint? At the time, they both did the same thing (had consensual sex with somebody less than sober) and both should be punished equally, or neither should.
If a man and a woman got drunk and rode motorbikes fast together they would both be in violation of DUI and traffic laws. Why not when it comes to sex? Why pretend that it's the man's fault?

I agree that women who sexually assault men should be held to the exact same standard as men who sexually assault women.

But in this case there was no real sexual assault. There was a mutual, consensual, drunken hookup. They both did exactly the same thing (have consensual sex with someone drunk). Why should the woman be treated like victim and man like a rapist merely because she made a complaint (first)?

But I disagree that both parties to a sex act should always have the exact same punishment if the act was a punishable offense. That's some sharia shit, there.

If they both did the same thing, they should be treated equally.

Yes. If they both did the same thing, they should be treated equally and face the same possible consequences. However, if one was more responsible for the wrongdoing than the other, that should factor into determining possible punishment. If Person A was 75% responsible for an instance of rule breaking and Person B was 25% responsible, equal punishment might not be justified.

I am not talking of somebody taking advantage of a barely conscious person. I am talking of an encounter where both are drunk and both are actively participating in the sexual activities. How do you justify only going after the man in that case, merely based on how the woman feels after the act. Just because she feels bad about the sex the next day (or year, see Vassar) doesn't mean she didn't consent as much as the man at the time sex was happening. A woman (or a man, but that (almost) never happens) should not be able to retroactively withdraw consent.

Once again, the difference is that drunk consent is not the same as valid consent, even if it just so happens that when the drunks sober up they realize they would have consented anyway. It's a gamble. You might get lucky, or you might get accused of a sex crime for molesting a drunk.

It's the same principle as other kinds of drunk consent. Drunk signing up for the Navy is not a valid enlistment. Drunk signing a mortgage is not a valid legal agreement. Drunk proposals of marriage are not valid contracts. Drunk anything is not the same as the same thing done sober. This isn't controversial when it comes to leasing a car, so why is it so hard to accept when it comes to sex?

If one of them was just passively sitting there and the other climbed on top and started molesting him/her, the onus for the act is on the molester, not the molestee.

True, but I am not talking of such a situation. That is also not the situation with the college cases that have been controversial, like Vassar or UGA.

That is exactly the situation in the UGA case. She did not molest him. He molested her.

The Vassar case is less clear cut, and I, too, think Vassar should not have taken the actions it did. I think Vassar is in the wrong on that one.

 

[Derec]

So you're not going to post the many threads where you stood up for women's rights, then.

I support equal rights for men and women. But women's rights are not controversial on this forum, so what's to discuss?

 

[Ford]

So you're not going to post the many threads where you stood up for women's rights, then.

I support equal rights for men and women. But women's rights are not controversial on this forum, so what's to discuss?

I'm asking you to point out all the times you supported women's rights.



Apparently that's not something you want to discuss.

 

[Ford]

You don't have to post everything, Derec. Just a greatest hits, if you will.


Link us to a selection of posts where you stood up for women.

 

[Jokodo]

No, by my own admission I lack the skills to predict the future or read minds.<snip>

And lacking the skill to read minds is exactly why you want to be explicit, especially when interacting with someone you barely know.

Of course it's exciting. That's it's allure. It's like blasting down the highway at 100+ mph on a sweet motorcycle. It's fun! But it's also dangerous. You can be seriously injured if things go wrong, or worse, you could hurt or even kill someone else. And if you have the misfortune of having something go seriously wrong, you have only yourself to blame for choosing to engage in risky behavior.

Two people are engaging in risky behavior. Why only hold one of them responsible just because the other (almost always the woman) regrets it afterwards and issues a complaint? At the time, they both did the same thing (had consensual sex with somebody less than sober) and both should be punished equally, or neither should.
If a man and a woman got drunk and rode motorbikes fast together they would both be in violation of DUI and traffic laws. Why not when it comes to sex? Why pretend that it's the man's fault?

You seem to refuse to understand the analogy. It's about responsibility for the consequences if the risky behaviour turns out bad, not about penalising the risky behaviour as such. They may have made the same decisions, but if one but not the other feels violated afterwards, than the consequences have been different, a difference any legal system takes into account.

If a man and a woman got drunk and rode motorbikes together, and the woman hit a pedestrian who died on the spot, the woman but not the man would be additionally charged for criminally negligent homicide or some such, which comes with jail time of up to 10 years, a multiple of what even repeat offenders have to expect for DUI.