That's great, but the example given was two drunk people having sex with each other. Drunk people can't meaningfully give consent, right? So is that two people raping each other, even if they both had a great time and decide to do it again the following night? Or is this issue a bit more complicated than you're trying to make out it is?
All of the policies quoted have been relatively lengthy texts. You're saying that it's a simple matter and no confusion is possible. Those two don't square with each other.
for someone who whines about people making these discussions all personal, you sure do that an awful lot
At least I don't make personal attacks on other posters, like calling them whiners.
I'm trying to point out that there is an inconsistency here. Why is that a problem?
If you can find any post of mine ever saying it is a simple matter with no possibility of confusion, you go right ahead and post it WITH links back to the full source.
Hey, chill, it's not like I'm accusing you of supporting the Stubenville rape.
Ok, so you're
not saying that it's a simple matter. But you have been saying that it's just about consent. So now I don't know what your position is. What I do know is that every time I bring up a possible complication, you appear to be arguing against me. Can you clarify?
In the meantime, I will suggest that you re-read an earlier post of mine wherein I discussed at length what I see as the difference between "drunk" (& unable to consent) and having had a couple of drinks but still able to consent.
Ok, so you are saying that two people who are <insert standard of dead drunk here> and have sex, have raped each other? Even if they choose to repeat the experience?
if neither of them reports the incident then there isn't going to be an investigation..
Which brings us neatly back to what I was saying - that the rules involve criminalisation of normal behaviour, and that's a problem even if there isn't an investigation/expulsion in a particular case. Saying that a rule wouldn't be enforced in practice is a get-out. If the rules wouldn't cover in the first place, then we don't need to say it. If the rules do cover behaviour we agree we don't want to prosecute, then they're not doing their job, and should be changed. Or else we have a less credible standard, which reduces the number of people willing to follow it, greatly reduces the possible cultural impact of the rule, which as Rhea and are discussed are really what we're after here, and gives people like Derec all the ammunition they need to actively attack what at base are just a set of rules to ensure everyone can get along.
None of that gets mitigated even slightly by the argument that the rule would, in practice, only be applied to selectively. Which is why I disagreed with that argument when it was first brought up, and disagree with it now.
What is being clarified is what constitutes actual consent.
No, what constitutes consent is what is being redefined, and having additional penalties attached to it. That's a problem when it starts covering previously acceptable behaviour, such as having sex while drunk, where the difficulties aren't so obvious.
nothing is being redefined, and you have not demonstrated that it is.
So why do we need a policy at all? If it's all common sense, and nothing is being redefined, then all we need to do is enforce the current law and everything is fine.
Because some people keep insisting that "no means yes" and the belief that "she's just being coy" means they can ignore the "no" and that consent can't be withdrawn and that falling down drunk people in a black-out state can still consent.
If two people who are dead drunk can't consent to sex with each other, then sex in that state is mutual rape, and intimate contact in that state is sexual assault. Because it is sex without consent, and sexual contact without consent.
Are you suggesting that we should eliminate all laws/policies that most people view as common sense?
No, rape is still illegal, no matter what the university puts in their policy. But if the university is going to add a document to the effect that mutually consenting adults who have sex with each other while drunk are in breach of regulations and may be expelled, then that harms the credibility and thus the effectiveness of practical policies to reduce rape.
Or are you suggesting that what was done to the high school student by the football players was "ordinary" and perfectly fine?
I doubt it. I don't know which of the many, many such incidents you're talking about though.
Steubenville:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case
There were far too many people, including a few on this board, who declared emphatically that this was not a sexual assault, and that the girl somehow consented. It is because of people like that we need such policies.
No, it really isn't. Because people who drug their ex-girlfriends and gang rape them with their friends, and those who support them, aren't going to listen to any policies, and are already violating the existing regime. A new policy does nothing to stop them. I'd follow the line that's been said before here, that the aim with these policies is to create an atmosphere, a culture, where consent is taken seriously, and people are careful of each other when they're not capable of consent. It not (and this is where I disagree with Rhea) about scaring people into obedience with an arbitrary standard, or about satisfying an urge to 'get at' the rapists.
The thing we have to bear in mind is that, ultimately, the social sanction that actually prevents incidents like this isn't going to come from you, or from me, or from the university. It's going to come from some person on the scene, who doesn't have particularly strong politics on the subject, trying to work out whether this issue they've heard of is worth speaking up in front of their friends. At that point, the credibility of the rule is the
only thing that matters.
And if that causes some people to err on the side of caution, so what?
Apart from undermining your own policy, inviting public ridicule, making life harder for anyone who supports you, giving free ammunition to your opponents, stunting the sexual development of students, and making the campus generally an unhappy and uninviting place to live?
Well, the basic problem is that sexual behaviour isn't just a period of randomness before you get a bride/groom in the mail and get allocated a white picket fence. It's how people actually meet and get to know each other and get some basic chemistry together. By promoting rules that inhibit this process, either by creating a feeling of fear and intimidation over intimate contact, or by promoting rules that if followed, leave you at a disadvantage in getting the guy/girl compared to someone who doesn't follow the rules, then you make rule followers less successful. And if you think that a desire to follow college rules is a bigger draw than getting the girl/guy, then you've got a nasty shock coming. Rules that get in the way of dating will be dropped like a hot potato, which is precisely why I believe we can't afford to 'err on the side of caution' - because we're fiddling with interactions that are fundamentally important to people.
The bottom line is you can't both exhibit a fundamental disregard for the negative effects of your policies and expect people to follow them. It's not good enough to dismiss mistakes or problems as unimportant, or to say that
obviously the rule will only be applied when it's appropriate, because that's not how public policy works.
