No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[Togo]

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/affirmative-consent-as-legal-standard/

Ultimately, the matter of whether a woman consented or not will come down to a matter of belief by the jury. Simply moving to an affirmative consent standard does not prevent the accused from claiming that he asked permission and the woman gave it to him.

The article included a very interesting analysis of making "rape" into several "degrees" with different penalties - something many of us have discussed in other threads. I particularly liked this point in the article:

Dripp identifies another concern; that six months [for certain types of rape convictions] just does not do enough. He brushes this aside with the idea that consecutive sentences for repeat offenses, enhancements and sex offender registration will combine to impose punishment. Here, I think he’s basically right, but mostly for another reason. Lisak’s research shows that most rapes are by recidivist predators. Even if the sentence is short, an adjudication in the first case for a misdemeanor that could serve as prior bad acts evidence in a future trial would make it much, much easier for a survivor to get justice before a jury. Tagging them once, however lightly, would vastly increase the chance of taking the predators out of the population at some point before they reach their normal average of six victims, and would mark them as men to be avoided by targets that might otherwise get to know and trust them.

No, I don't think that works. You're trying to have rape be both a crime that's too minor to be fully protected, and sufficiently important to cause shame and disgrace. No matter what form the trial takes, the conviction rate will strive to match the age-old intuitive standard that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. The more serious the perception of the crime, the more likely people are not to be convicted of it.

I find many of the arguments quite interesting, particularly the idea that affirmative consent as a standard would change public perceptions. However I think it fails on two fronts.

The first problem is that the article makes clear that non-verbal participation counts as consent, which puts us right back to square one. Going back to someone's hotel room, or getting very very drunk with them, could both be seen as enthusiastic participation. This does nothing to reduce the kinds of rape that the article is mostly talking about.

The second problem is that, despite the somewhat rosy picture painted of laws not being enforced in a typical situation, this is still criminalising ordinary behaviour. We can discuss whether it should be ordinary behaviour, but criminalising all such behaviour to aid prosecutions of cherry picked targets selected on the grounds other than whether they've broken the law is just an attempt to substitute subjective judgment by authority for legal grounds, and should be rejected on that basis.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking at the median means nothing when the raw data is shit, which is what the rest of the very same article you cited basically said.

You've given us nothing to contradict the one premise in the article I posted that you disagreed with, and therefore ignored the entire rest of the article.

The denial is strong with you on this topic, isn't it.

FBI data on other major crimes: 2% fake.

Very few of the rape estimates were that low.


You just don't want to believe women bring false rape charges.

 

[RavenSky]

Looking at the median means nothing when the raw data is shit, which is what the rest of the very same article you cited basically said.

You've given us nothing to contradict the one premise in the article I posted that you disagreed with, and therefore ignored the entire rest of the article.

The denial is strong with you on this topic, isn't it.

FBI data on other major crimes: 2% fake.

Very few of the rape estimates were that low.


You just don't want to believe women bring false rape charges.

It has nothing to do with what I "don't want to believe". I know damned well at least a few women make false rape charges. The point is that you have hyper-inflated how many, and you can't back up your claim. The point is the source YOU cited backs up MY position that false rape claims are rare. So rare that bringing them up in every single fucking thread about rape is ridiculous and needs to stop.

We ALL stipulate that a small percentage of women make false rape claims. Done. Stipulated. End of discussion. Move on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Looking at the median means nothing when the raw data is shit, which is what the rest of the very same article you cited basically said.

You've given us nothing to contradict the one premise in the article I posted that you disagreed with, and therefore ignored the entire rest of the article.

The denial is strong with you on this topic, isn't it.

FBI data on other major crimes: 2% fake.

Very few of the rape estimates were that low.


You just don't want to believe women bring false rape charges.

It has nothing to do with what I "don't want to believe". I know damned well at least a few women make false rape charges. The point is that you have hyper-inflated how many, and you can't back up your claim. The point is the source YOU cited backs up MY position that false rape claims are rare. So rare that bringing them up in every single fucking thread about rape is ridiculous and needs to stop.

We ALL stipulate that a small percentage of women make false rape claims. Done. Stipulated. End of discussion. Move on.

Supports your point?? Only if you take the lowest estimates.

 

[RavenSky]

Looking at the median means nothing when the raw data is shit, which is what the rest of the very same article you cited basically said.

You've given us nothing to contradict the one premise in the article I posted that you disagreed with, and therefore ignored the entire rest of the article.

The denial is strong with you on this topic, isn't it.

FBI data on other major crimes: 2% fake.

Very few of the rape estimates were that low.


You just don't want to believe women bring false rape charges.

It has nothing to do with what I "don't want to believe". I know damned well at least a few women make false rape charges. The point is that you have hyper-inflated how many, and you can't back up your claim. The point is the source YOU cited backs up MY position that false rape claims are rare. So rare that bringing them up in every single fucking thread about rape is ridiculous and needs to stop.

We ALL stipulate that a small percentage of women make false rape claims. Done. Stipulated. End of discussion. Move on.

Supports your point?? Only if you take the lowest estimates.

Everything in the complete entry that YOU provided supports my point.

 

[Derec]

Another bullshit expulsion of a very likely innocent male student.
Sexual Assault Injustice at Occidental: College Railroads Accused Student
It fits the pattern we see more and more (UND, Vassar, UGA etc.), no evidence for guilt (other than the allegation itself), plenty of evidence of innocence, police understandably doesn't prosecute because of lack of evidence, but the university expels after a kangaroo court trial where the male student's rights are not respected and where the guilt is de facto presumed.

The biggest WTF moment in the article is a statement by Danielle Dirks, a professor at Occidental that the accused "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and was ‘from a good family.’"
You can't make that shit up! Being a good student now apparently makes you a likely rapist.

The Obama-Biden decree on persecuting male students accused of rape is proving more and more disastrous and needs to be scrapped and replaced with a more just standard using
- higher evidentiary standard, at least "clear and convincing proof".
- colleges should not, in most cases, take any action if civil authorities find no cause to prosecute.
- mutual drunkenness means either both are capable to consent or neither is. Presuming the girl is a "victim" because alcohol renders her incapable of consent but renders the guy fully responsible for his actions is prima facie sexist and unjust.
- restore due process rights including right to question his accuser and all the witnesses against him.

 

[laughing dog]

The Obama-Biden decree on persecuting male students accused of rape is proving more and more disastrous and needs to be scrapped and replaced with a more just standard using
- higher evidentiary standard, at least "clear and convincing proof".
- colleges should not, in most cases, take any action if civil authorities find no cause to prosecute.
- mutual drunkenness means either both are capable to consent or neither is. Presuming the girl is a "victim" because alcohol renders her incapable of consent but renders the guy fully responsible for his actions is prima facie sexist and unjust.
- restore due process rights including right to question his accuser and all the witnesses against him.

The hyperbolic rhetoric sans reality here is consistent with the mentality of a rape culture.

 

[Derec]

The hyperbolic rhetoric sans reality here is consistent with the mentality of a rape culture.

Your non-response is consistent with your other non-responses. If you have any rational objections to any of my points please elucidate them.

There is nothing hyperbolic here - Obama administration did mandate a ridiculously low standard for expelling male students accused of rape and it's starting to bear many rotten fruits, the Occidental case being but one of many.

I wonder when colleges will be required to expel students for "stare rape" which seems to be the next frontier of feminazi "rape culture" hysteria.

 

[laughing dog]

Your non-response is consistent with your other non-responses. If you have a rational objection to any of my points please elucidate them.....

The Obama adm. did not mandate anything. Your persistent conflation of private disciplinary action with the criminal justice system and advocating that private entities refrain from disciplinary action unless the criminal justice authorities take action means protecting more rapists from their actions. Your simplistic notion of "drunkeness" allows more rapists to escape responsibility for their actions. The issue of "drunkeness" and consent is complex and should not be reduced to the sloganeering in your hobby horses. I have yet to see you promote any sort of policy or protocols that would help reduce rape (between any genders) or improve the rates of discipline (private or criminal) in rapes. Instead, your perpetual whining about the perceived lack of protection along with the persistent degradation of alleged rape victims and actual rape victims is evidence that a rather morally repugnant rape culture still exists.


I agree that calling leering or ogling "stare rape" is a hyperbolic rhetorical technique. However, introducing it into an argument about the alleged laxity of protection in private disciplinary responses to rape is pretty much a hyperbolic rhetorical technique as well.

 

[Shadowy Man]

... police understandably doesn't prosecute because of lack of evidence...

Well, it's not clear that the police did their due diligence, considering that the initial exchange with them went like this:

POLICE OFFICER: Did he force you into his room?
ACCUSER: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Well then, it's not rape.

 

[Derec]

The Obama adm. did not mandate anything.

Yes they did. You continue to deny this fact even though you have been informed of this fact repeatedly.
Education Dept. Issues New Guidance for Sexual-Assault Investigations
55 colleges under investigation over handling of sexual violence complaints

Your persistent conflation of private disciplinary action with the criminal justice system and advocating that private entities refrain from disciplinary action unless the criminal justice authorities take action means protecting more rapists from their actions.

Just because it's "private disciplinary action" does not mean that it's a good thing if they punish innocents. A solid standard of evidence is vital to avoid false positives. And since rape and sexual assault are criminal acts and since universities are not properly trained to investigate and adjudicate such cases they should defer to findings of law enforcement. Not doing so results in punishing likely innocent students. Like this guy at Occidental. Like the guys at Vassar and UGA. And especially the guy at UND who was expelled even though the police charged the girl with filing a false rape report!

Your simplistic notion of "drunkeness" allows more rapists to escape responsibility for their actions.

What evidence do you have that this guy is a rapist? None whatsoever and that's why he never should have been punished. As far as "drunkenness", witnesses described both of them as drunk but also said that both of them were willing participants. Furthermore, she sent him text messages that prove that she both wasn't too drunk to consent and that she in fact consented. So no rape, no sexual assault.
It is you and other radical feminists who have a simplistic notion of "drunkenness" (renders a female incapacitated and automatically a "victim" but not the male).

The issue of "drunkeness" and consent is complex and should not be reduced to the sloganeering in your hobby horses.

It can be complex but in that case the authorities need to err in favor of the accused. But this is not even a complex case - there is plenty of evidence that they were in similar state of drunkenness and that they were willing participants. If he is guilty of "sexual assault" because she was drunk then she is also guilty of sexually assaulting him.
In any case, it's not me sloganeering - I make actual arguments based on evidence (or rather utter lack of evidence of guilt). It is the radical feminist side that loves empty sloganeering: "rape culture", "porn harms", #yesallwomen ...

I have yet to see you promote any sort of policy or protocols that would help reduce rape (between any genders) or improve the rates of discipline (private or criminal) in rapes.

I posted a list of necessary reforms to improve the situation. But of course you mean "increase", not "improve". No we should not increase rates of discipline if that means (like it happened after the Obama decree) that it is easier to punish male students on flimsy evidence (like in this case) because it increases the rate of innocent students being punished as well. As it stands, we have too many expulsions, not too few.

Instead, your perpetual whining about the perceived lack of protection along with the persistent degradation of alleged rape victims and actual rape victims is evidence that a rather morally repugnant rape culture still exists.

No, I support subjecting rape claims to appropriate scrutiny instead of blind gullibility and not punishing anyone unless there is sufficient evidence for their guilt. Occidental came nowhere close to proving this male student was guilty and he should not have been punished, period!

I agree that calling leering or ogling "stare rape" is a hyperbolic rhetorical technique. However, introducing it into an argument about the alleged laxity of protection in private disciplinary responses to rape is pretty much a hyperbolic rhetorical technique as well.

The thread is about "rape culture" in general and thus on topic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I totally stare raped that woman.

 

[ksen]

I totally stare raped you.

But that's ok because you gave me consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

... police understandably doesn't prosecute because of lack of evidence...

Well, it's not clear that the police did their due diligence, considering that the initial exchange with them went like this:

POLICE OFFICER: Did he force you into his room?
ACCUSER: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Well then, it's not rape.

Did you read the case?

Among other things, a text message from her to him asking if he had a condom. Why would she care if she wasn't planning to have sex with him?

 

[laughing dog]

Yes they did. You continue to deny this fact even though you have been informed of this fact repeatedly.
Education Dept. Issues New Guidance for Sexual-Assault Investigations
55 colleges under investigation over handling of sexual violence complaints

I stand corrected. However, what was actually mandated and what you claim was mandated is different.

Just because it's "private disciplinary action" does not mean that it's a good thing if they punish innocents. A solid standard of evidence is vital to avoid false positives.....

A solid standard of evidence is recommended as being consistent with Title IX: preponderance of evidence just like in civil cases. Since these are not criminal proceedings, that makes sense.

What evidence do you have that this guy is a rapist? None whatsoever and that's why he never should have been punished. As far as "drunkenness", witnesses described both of them as drunk but also said that both of them were willing participants. Furthermore, she sent him text messages that prove that she both wasn't too drunk to consent and that she in fact consented. So no rape, no sexual assault.
It is you and other radical feminists who have a simplistic notion of "drunkenness" (renders a female incapacitated and automatically a "victim" but not the male).

Instead of replying "it is you and other radical misogynists who promote rape culture with that rhetorical hyperbolic non-responsive bullshit" (see how easy it is to fling content free ad homs), I will note that is non-responsive to my point. There is no way my comment could have been reasonably interpreted to refer to some specific case.

It can be complex but in that case the authorities need to err in favor of the accused. But this is not even a complex case - there is plenty of evidence that they were in similar state of drunkenness and that they were willing participants. If he is guilty of "sexual assault" because she was drunk then she is also guilty of sexually assaulting him.

Again, non-responsive (see above)

In any case, it's not me sloganeering - I make actual arguments based on evidence (or rather utter lack of evidence of guilt). It is the radical feminist side that loves empty sloganeering: "rape culture", "porn harms", #yesallwomen ...

LOL - argument utilizing slogans is sloganeering.

I have yet to see you promote any sort of policy or protocols that would help reduce rape (between any genders) or improve the rates of discipline (private or criminal) in rapes.

I posted a list of necessary reforms to improve the situation. But of course you mean "increase", not "improve". No we should not increase rates of discipline if that means (like it happened after the Obama decree) that it is easier to punish male students on flimsy evidence (like in this case) because it increases the rate of innocent students being punished as well. As it stands, we have too many expulsions, not too few.

Thank you for admitting you do not wish to truly improve the rates of discipline (i.e. a higher proportion of actual rapists receive discipline). Thank you for proving my point.

Instead, your perpetual whining about the perceived lack of protection along with the persistent degradation of alleged rape victims and actual rape victims is evidence that a rather morally repugnant rape culture still exists.

No, I support subjecting rape claims to appropriate scrutiny instead of blind gullibility and not punishing anyone unless there is sufficient evidence for their guilt. Occidental came nowhere close to proving this male student was guilty and he should not have been punished, period!

When you apply the same standards of evidence in criminal proceedings as you do to private disciplinary hearings, then you do not.

The thread is about "rape culture" in general and thus on topic.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[ksen]

"Planning to have sex" is not the same as "consenting to have sex."

For all we know she could have planned to have sex with him at the time of the texts and then changed her mind when penetration was imminent. If she changed her mind and he went ahead and penetrated anyway then that's rape.

 

[Shadowy Man]

... police understandably doesn't prosecute because of lack of evidence...

Well, it's not clear that the police did their due diligence, considering that the initial exchange with them went like this:

POLICE OFFICER: Did he force you into his room?
ACCUSER: No.
POLICE OFFICER: Well then, it's not rape.

Did you read the case?

Among other things, a text message from her to him asking if he had a condom. Why would she care if she wasn't planning to have sex with him?

That really has no bearing on whether the police officer she spoke to was appropriately handling the case given the verbal exchange relayed as above. The officer is displaying a significant bias against a rape victim before the investigation has even begun and that is not appropriate, regardless of the evidence at hand. I'm not saying that the police did not do their due diligence, just that this kind of behavior does not bode well.

 

[Derec]

"Planning to have sex" is not the same as "consenting to have sex."

For all we know she could have planned to have sex with him at the time of the texts and then changed her mind when penetration was imminent. If she changed her mind and he went ahead and penetrated anyway then that's rape.

So are you saying that if there is any doubt whatsoever that she might not have consented the guy must be found guilty and expelled?
The fact is that this case fails even the very low "preponderance of evidence" threshold as it is far more likely, based on all the evidence, that she consented and was able to do so than that she didn't.
I think he should win this lawsuit handily.

 

[ksen]

"Planning to have sex" is not the same as "consenting to have sex."

For all we know she could have planned to have sex with him at the time of the texts and then changed her mind when penetration was imminent. If she changed her mind and he went ahead and penetrated anyway then that's rape.

So are you saying that if there is any doubt whatsoever that she might not have consented the guy must be found guilty and expelled?
The fact is that this case fails even the very low "preponderance of evidence" threshold as it is far more likely, based on all the evidence, that she consented and was able to do so than that she didn't.
I think he should win this lawsuit handily.

I'm saying your posts could have been written by any MRA whackjob.

 

[doubtingt]

"Studies" about false allegation rates are close to useless, since what they lack any direct measure of false allegations and just "estimate" rates based upon a large set of such questionable assumptions that the true rate is guaranteed to differ notably from the estimate and its largely a crapshoot whether its higher or lower than the estimate.
Here is one thing we can be nearly certain of, given that every relevant fact of human psychology predicts it: The rate of false accusations will increase in proportion to the lowering of evidentiary standards required for punishment, whether criminal court standards or those used by University panels. Thus, lower standards both increase the number of false accusations and the % of those false accusations that produce punishments of the accused. This is especially true when the standards are lowered to the minimal "more likely than not" level advocated by the Dept of Ed, which means that all accusations are essentially prosecuted by the University and even accusations lacking any supporting evidence have a good chance of punishment, so long as the accused cannot prove the negative that they didn't commit a rape. Since even the pre-judgment actions advocated by these policies are harmful forms of punishment, the odds of payoff to anyone knowingly making false accusations will be high enough to increase motivation to make them, and such low standard prosecutions become commonplace the ability of the accused to sue for false allegations will be greatly hindered, thus removing some of the negative consequences for making false accusations.

Take the college students in those pics about "stare rape". if there is a "rape culture", then these women reflect a "false rape-accusation culture" which supports and enables unethical false accusations of rape. Just like most men (including many of those who have had sex with intoxicated women) wouldn't rape, most women would not make false accusations of rape. However, the kind of policies and rhetoric being advocated here and by anti-rape-advocates in general are guaranteed to increase those numbers, and anyone pretending to care about liberty and justice should at least pretend to be concerned about that and not blindly pursuing increased convictions at all costs. Derec aside, most of those people concerned about lowering standards of evidence and broadening and greatly subjectivizing rape definitions do not deny that most actual rapes go unpunished. There are many false negatives. But minimizing false positives at the expense of some added false negatives is the hallmark of criminal justice systems in free progressive societies. Ironically, it is liberals that generally support this approach to criminal justice and conservatives that have no problems convicting the innocent if it means more convictions of the guilty. Yet, when it comes to rape, this principle goes out the window.