No such thing as Rape Culture redux

[Bronzeage]

"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.

Suppose a man is stopped by a policeman because his car swerved across the centerline. A breathalyzer test indicates he is slightly over the legal limit. His driving performance shows his judgment is impaired. His defense is as follows, "I did not realize I had too much to drink. I never would have gotten in my car, if I knew I was drunk. I didn't do any harm."

Would any judge consider this a valid defense against a DUI charge and find him not guilty?

Instead of whining about women who change their mind in mid penetration, why don't you write a definition of rape which would cover this situation in the criminal code. Your definition must distinguish between consensual sex and sex with a woman who is impaired and unable to make an informed decision, even though to another impaired person, she may seem willing. This will solve a lot more problems than expecting any woman too drunk to drive to be the victim of any man too drunk to drive.

Got that?

 

[Derec]

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

In what way do you perceive there is a difference?

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.

That is not a "solid" standard of evidence but the weakest possible one and really not appropriate here because of the danger of false positives. With PoE the chance of false positives is as high as the chance of false negatives, even if the standard is applied fairly (which I think it is not in many college rape cases - this case for example doesn't even work under PoE). With torts that is less of a problem because the harm of false positives is equal to harm of false negatives. If I think you owe me $1,000 I can sue you. If the court finds for me but shouldn't (false positive) you are out of $1,000 you should have. If the court finds against me but it should have found for me (false negative) I am out of $1,000 I should have. The harm of a wrong decision is symmetrical and it makes sense that the standard of evidence is as well. But in rape cases that is not the case. If a student is expelled for rape/sexual assault but is actually innocent he suffers great harm. But if he is guilty but is found not guilty his accuser suffers no great harm. Since the harm is asymmetrical and thus resembling more a criminal case than a tort case it makes sense that the standard of evidence is asymmetrical as well, giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused. "Clear and convincing" evidence, which most schools have used prior to Obama directive (and still use in non-sexual disciplinary cases) is a good compromise as it is more strict than PoE but less strict than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt".

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.

You replied to my post about a specific case. So do you think this guy is guilty and that he should be expelled? If so why? If not, why have you been silent on that point?

Again, non-responsive (see above)

No, it is very responsive. You said that issue of "drunkenness" is complex and I responded twofold
- this case is not very complex at all
- where there is uncertainty due to complexity the authorities should err in favor of the accused, not against him
Do you have any objections to either of these two points?

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.

I would be in favor of "higher proportion of actual rapists receive discipline" if it could be done without increasing the rate of non-rapists receiving the same discipline. The efforts to increase punishment rate focus almost entirely on weakening the burden of proof and due process rights of the defendant and thus I am against them.

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.

Well in today's climate there is marked lack of due process protections in college kangaroo courts and also there is this attitude that displaying any skepticism for the allegation amounts to "degradation" of the accuser which of course is nonsense.

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

"Clear and convincing" standard is generally used for administrative type hearings and is the appropriate standard here. PoE is not.

Thank you for proving my point.

What point is that? That I stay on topic?

 

[Derec]

Bronzeage, you are mixing apples and oranges. The issue is that if that man instead of driving had sex instead, would he be a "rape victim"? Obviously not, but change the genders (or even have both of them equally drunk) and he becomes a "rapist" and she becomes a "victim" by feminist fiat.

 

[Derec]

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

And your posts could've been written by Andrea Dworkin except that fortunately she is dead.

 

[ksen]

cool no u burn

 

[Cobalt]

Bronzeage, you are mixing apples and oranges. The issue is that if that man instead of driving had sex instead, would he be a "rape victim"? Obviously not, but change the genders (or even have both of them equally drunk) and he becomes a "rapist" and she becomes a "victim" by feminist fiat.

That the more powerful person happens to be drunk (or drunk-er than the other) doesn't magically and automatically change the power dynamic.

 

[Derec]

Bronzeage, you are mixing apples and oranges. The issue is that if that man instead of driving had sex instead, would he be a "rape victim"? Obviously not, but change the genders (or even have both of them equally drunk) and he becomes a "rapist" and she becomes a "victim" by feminist fiat.

That the more powerful person happens to be drunk (or drunk-er than the other) doesn't magically and automatically change the power dynamic.

In other words - it's always the man's fault.

 

[doubtingt]

Suppose a man is stopped by a policeman because his car swerved across the centerline. A breathalyzer test indicates he is slightly over the legal limit. His driving performance shows his judgment is impaired. His defense is as follows, "I did not realize I had too much to drink. I never would have gotten in my car, if I knew I was drunk. I didn't do any harm."

Would any judge consider this a valid defense against a DUI charge and find him not guilty?

This analogy backfires on you. The reason the drunk driver cannot use decision impairment as an excuse is that the court rejects the notion that your decisions when drunk do not "count" or that it undermines the legitimacy of your "willingness" and consent to engage in the act of driving. In the sex scenario in question, both parties are intoxicated to similar levels. If his actions "count" as willful actions that he is responsible for, then so do hers. If they both count, then it was consensual sex and her intoxication does not nullify her consent. If her intoxication nullifies her "will", then it nullifies his "will", and although it means she was raped he didn't willingly do it and in fact he was raped too. So they each raped each other, but not willingly so a two crimes were committed by nobody.
Yes, this is the self-defeating absurdity that any rational and principled application of a "too drunk to consent" definition of rape leads to, when intoxication is well short of being unconscious and it is used to nullify clear and objective actions taken to indicate consent from a completely sober person.

Intoxication of the plaintiff is relevant fact and can be used in ways to support the prosecutions case, but it absurd to use a subjective and unspecified level of intoxication as the basis to ignore all other facts related to the indication of consent under the notion that the drunk person consenting doesn't count as the now sober person consenting. This is in fact what rape-advocates are pushing for and what inclusion of "intoxication" in rape definitions amount to. The way that more moderate levels of intoxication can be reasonably used is in order to discount the arguments by the defense that passivity and lack of active "struggle" implies consent. Note the critical difference between using intoxication to determine that no consent could have been given, versus using it to discount the weaker forms of counter-evidence that a defense might put forth to show consent was implied. With the latter, intoxication is merely part of a counter-argument for the prosecution and is not itself evidence of rape. The same kind of evidence that would be expected for a case where the victim was fully sober would still be needed.

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose a man is stopped by a policeman because his car swerved across the centerline. A breathalyzer test indicates he is slightly over the legal limit. His driving performance shows his judgment is impaired. His defense is as follows, "I did not realize I had too much to drink. I never would have gotten in my car, if I knew I was drunk. I didn't do any harm."

Would any judge consider this a valid defense against a DUI charge and find him not guilty?

This analogy backfires on you. The reason the drunk driver cannot use decision impairment as an excuse is that the court rejects the notion that your decisions when drunk do not "count" or that it undermines the legitimacy of your "willingness" and consent to engage in the act of driving. In the sex scenario in question, both parties are intoxicated to similar levels. If his actions "count" as willful actions that he is responsible for, then so do hers. If they both count, then it was consensual sex and her intoxication does not nullify her consent. If her intoxication nullifies her "will", then it nullifies his "will", and although it means she was raped he didn't willingly do it and in fact he was raped too. So they each raped each other, but not willingly so a two crimes were committed by nobody.
Yes, this is the self-defeating absurdity that any rational and principled application of a "too drunk to consent" definition of rape leads to, when intoxication is well short of being unconscious and it is used to nullify clear and objective actions taken to indicate consent from a completely sober person.

Intoxication of the plaintiff is relevant fact and can be used in ways to support the prosecutions case, but it absurd to use a subjective and unspecified level of intoxication as the basis to ignore all other facts related to the indication of consent under the notion that the drunk person consenting doesn't count as the now sober person consenting. This is in fact what rape-advocates are pushing for and what inclusion of "intoxication" in rape definitions amount to. The way that more moderate levels of intoxication can be reasonably used is in order to discount the arguments by the defense that passivity and lack of active "struggle" implies consent. Note the critical difference between using intoxication to determine that no consent could have been given, versus using it to discount the weaker forms of counter-evidence that a defense might put forth to show consent was implied. With the latter, intoxication is merely part of a counter-argument for the prosecution and is not itself evidence of rape. The same kind of evidence that would be expected for a case where the victim was fully sober would still be needed.

No, her actions and his actions are two separate things. Suppose you are drunk and sitting at a bar. You pay for your beer with a $100 and the bartender hands you $98 dollars change(you drink PBR draft). I'm drunk too and sit down beside you and say, "T, loan me some money, why doncha?" and pull all the bills from your pocket. I leave and try to remember to whom you were talking.

You just got robbed and the fact your impaired judgment made you unable to respond to an ordinary request does not shift any of the blame to you.

For a law to be valid, it must be coherent enough for a person to be able to determine if they are about to violate a law. This gets tricky when we deal with crimes of impairment. When self induced impairment is involved, a person's ability to determine whether their actions are legal is not a mitigating factor in their guilt. We cannot excuse a crime when the commission of the crime prevents one from knowing a crime has been committed.

It took a long time for US culture to accept the idea that drunk driving was an inherently bad thing, and there was no such thing as "no harm, no foul" DUI. I can remember when a first(second and third) DUI was treated as a regular violation(equal to reckless driving), if there were no injuries or property damage. Times have changed.

If the concept of drunk sex in which there is no physical injury, but also no informed consent, is to be considered a degree of rape, we have to have a definition which gives clear boundaries. This problem comes up often in law and the usual reaction is to place the line far from the actual edge and place it someplace easy to recognize. The laws which define statutory rape are one such case. The statute of limitations set the age of consent at 16(just an example). There maybe millions of 15 year olds who are mature and fully capable of making the decision to have sex, but the law does not recognize special cases, in much the same way it makes no allowance for the person who fails the blood alcohol limit, but can pass the field sobriety test.

 

[J842P]

Suppose a man is stopped by a policeman because his car swerved across the centerline. A breathalyzer test indicates he is slightly over the legal limit. His driving performance shows his judgment is impaired. His defense is as follows, "I did not realize I had too much to drink. I never would have gotten in my car, if I knew I was drunk. I didn't do any harm."

Would any judge consider this a valid defense against a DUI charge and find him not guilty?

This analogy backfires on you. The reason the drunk driver cannot use decision impairment as an excuse is that the court rejects the notion that your decisions when drunk do not "count" or that it undermines the legitimacy of your "willingness" and consent to engage in the act of driving. In the sex scenario in question, both parties are intoxicated to similar levels. If his actions "count" as willful actions that he is responsible for, then so do hers. If they both count, then it was consensual sex and her intoxication does not nullify her consent. If her intoxication nullifies her "will", then it nullifies his "will", and although it means she was raped he didn't willingly do it and in fact he was raped too. So they each raped each other, but not willingly so a two crimes were committed by nobody.
Yes, this is the self-defeating absurdity that any rational and principled application of a "too drunk to consent" definition of rape leads to, when intoxication is well short of being unconscious and it is used to nullify clear and objective actions taken to indicate consent from a completely sober person.

Intoxication of the plaintiff is relevant fact and can be used in ways to support the prosecutions case, but it absurd to use a subjective and unspecified level of intoxication as the basis to ignore all other facts related to the indication of consent under the notion that the drunk person consenting doesn't count as the now sober person consenting. This is in fact what rape-advocates are pushing for and what inclusion of "intoxication" in rape definitions amount to. The way that more moderate levels of intoxication can be reasonably used is in order to discount the arguments by the defense that passivity and lack of active "struggle" implies consent. Note the critical difference between using intoxication to determine that no consent could have been given, versus using it to discount the weaker forms of counter-evidence that a defense might put forth to show consent was implied. With the latter, intoxication is merely part of a counter-argument for the prosecution and is not itself evidence of rape. The same kind of evidence that would be expected for a case where the victim was fully sober would still be needed.

No, her actions and his actions are two separate things. Suppose you are drunk and sitting at a bar. You pay for your beer with a $100 and the bartender hands you $98 dollars change(you drink PBR draft). I'm drunk too and sit down beside you and say, "T, loan me some money, why doncha?" and pull all the bills from your pocket. I leave and try to remember to whom you were talking.

You just got robbed and the fact your impaired judgment made you unable to respond to an ordinary request does not shift any of the blame to you.

For a law to be valid, it must be coherent enough for a person to be able to determine if they are about to violate a law. This gets tricky when we deal with crimes of impairment. When self induced impairment is involved, a person's ability to determine whether their actions are legal is not a mitigating factor in their guilt. We cannot excuse a crime when the commission of the crime prevents one from knowing a crime has been committed.

It took a long time for US culture to accept the idea that drunk driving was an inherently bad thing, and there was no such thing as "no harm, no foul" DUI. I can remember when a first(second and third) DUI was treated as a regular violation(equal to reckless driving), if there were no injuries or property damage. Times have changed.

If the concept of drunk sex in which there is no physical injury, but also no informed consent, is to be considered a degree of rape, we have to have a definition which gives clear boundaries. This problem comes up often in law and the usual reaction is to place the line far from the actual edge and place it someplace easy to recognize. The laws which define statutory rape are one such case. The statute of limitations set the age of consent at 16(just an example). There maybe millions of 15 year olds who are mature and fully capable of making the decision to have sex, but the law does not recognize special cases, in much the same way it makes no allowance for the person who fails the blood alcohol limit, but can pass the field sobriety test.

Bronzeage, every answer you have given implicitly assumes that when a drunk woman and drunk man have sex, it is always the man that has committed the rape. It is that assumption which Derec and and doubtingt have disputed, and you haven't answered, except by restating your position via an analogy.

 

[Toni]

Bronzeage, you are mixing apples and oranges. The issue is that if that man instead of driving had sex instead, would he be a "rape victim"? Obviously not, but change the genders (or even have both of them equally drunk) and he becomes a "rapist" and she becomes a "victim" by feminist fiat.

So, Derec, do you believe that 'drunk' denotes the same level of impairment for all drunk individuals? Do you think that there is a difference in level of impairment between someone who has say a 0.08 BAC vs someone who has a 0.15 BAC? Do you think that different individuals with different BAC levels experience the same level of impairment? Are there gender differences?

Would you expect that an individual with a 0.08 BAC is more or less impaired in terms of ability to assess a situation and make decisions and act on their own behave vs an individual with a 0.15 BAC?

 

[Derec]

So, Derec, do you believe that 'drunk' denotes the same level of impairment for all drunk individuals? Do you think that there is a difference in level of impairment between someone who has say a 0.08 BAC vs someone who has a 0.15 BAC? Do you think that different individuals with different BAC levels experience the same level of impairment? Are there gender differences?

Would you expect that an individual with a 0.08 BAC is more or less impaired in terms of ability to assess a situation and make decisions and act on their own behave vs an individual with a 0.15 BAC?

Of course there are differences but in this case there is 0 evidence that she was too drunk to consent or even that she was any drunker than the accused. All the evidence (witnesses, text messages) points to consensual sex.

 

[Toni]

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.

Derec, you are aware that Title IX was enacted in 1972, right?

 

[Derec]

Derec, you are aware that Title IX was enacted in 1972, right?

Are you aware that most schools were applying the "clear and convincing proof" standard to sexual assault claims (same standard used for other types of hearings) until the 2011 Obama administration directive?

We have yet another very likely innocent male student railroaded and expelled. Do you (and other feminists and Leftists) not care about that at all? Is justice only relevant when it is denied to members of minorities or women?

 

[Toni]

So, Derec, do you believe that 'drunk' denotes the same level of impairment for all drunk individuals? Do you think that there is a difference in level of impairment between someone who has say a 0.08 BAC vs someone who has a 0.15 BAC? Do you think that different individuals with different BAC levels experience the same level of impairment? Are there gender differences?

Would you expect that an individual with a 0.08 BAC is more or less impaired in terms of ability to assess a situation and make decisions and act on their own behave vs an individual with a 0.15 BAC?

Of course there are differences but in this case there is 0 evidence that she was too drunk to consent or even that she was any drunker than the accused. All the evidence (witnesses, text messages) points to consensual sex.

Actually, I wasn't talking about any particular case. Mostly I was referring to your often touted claim of 'mutual rape.' As far as the Yu case (I am sorry--family stuff has taken me out of town and I haven't followed every post in this thread), I believe that a witness said that the alleged victim began to express doubts about having sex. I can't find the link now--but I think it was in this thread and perhaps you know which I am talking about. I am not clear about whether or not this happened before or after actual intercourse. But either participant in sex is allowed to change his/her mind before or during sex and decline to proceed further. The other party must stop.

I did find this interesting article about rapes at Occidental:

http://www.laweekly.com/2013-06-27/news/rape-occidental-college/?storyPage=3

There are multiple reasons for victims' failure to alert police, says David Lisak, a Boston-based clinical psychologist and expert on college sexual assault. Many victims of non-stranger rape — which comprises much of on-campus rape — are too traumatized to speak of the experience. If it's date rape or a rape by someone who, up until the attack, was viewed as a friend, Lisak adds, "It's quite typical for [the victim] not to be able to really apply the label 'sexual assault' or 'rape' to what happened."

And on college campuses — particularly at small schools, where everyone knows everyone else — there's a fear of being ostracized or blamed for what happened.

"It's fairly common for questions and comments to be directed at them, like, 'You were just drunk, you don't really know what happened, you were just as responsible as he was,' " Lisak says.

From an administrative standpoint, he adds, "There's this long-standing view of, 'Well, it's just young people who have often had too much to drink, and it's all very gray, and maybe they need to learn more about consent issues. ... There's an inclination to deal with it as an educational problem rather than as very serious criminal conduct."

Lisa Wade, an associate professor of sociology at Oxy, says that view is widespread in Oxy's executive offices. "I'm rather stunned by how many rape myths I hear come out of the mouths of our administrators," Wade says. "For example, [Occidental president Jonathan] Veitch saying that he was disinclined to believe sexual-assault survivors, or several of our administrators saying that sexual assault is a matter of miscommunication."

But according to Lisak's research, which was published in 2002 in the journal Violence and Victims, young men, including students, who commit rape or other sexual assaults at universities often are not just drunk or confused about the requirement to get consent. He has found that about 90 percent of rapes on college campuses are perpetrated by serial offenders who deliberately target their victims.

"The more research that's done on these guys," he says, "the more they basically look like other sex offenders," who also happen to be college kids or friends of college kids. "What is new is that a lot of people have had this schema that one would not find sex offenders on a college campus, and there's no reason other than we just don't like the idea. It's jarring."

l

 

[Derec]

Actually, I wasn't talking about any particular case.

Why don't you?

Mostly I was referring to your often touted claim of 'mutual rape.'

Sorry, but if both are drunk and you use drunkenness as reason why it's "rape" then logically it's "mutual rape", unless one was significantly drunker than the other. Feminists tend to claim the responsibility is always on the man, no matter how much either of them drink and that's just wrong on so many levels.

As far as the Yu case (I am sorry--family stuff has taken me out of town and I haven't followed every post in this thread), I believe that a witness said that the alleged victim began to express doubts about having sex.

Even if this were true, there are several problems. For one, it was a year ago. How well could a witness remember what was said when? Second, the witness was likely the Walker's friend and is thus not disinterested. Third, if she expressed "doubts" that does not mean she didn't finally voluntarily decide to have sex. The evidence of messages where Walker said she had a good time after they had sex is evidence that the sex was consensual (not that Yu should be required to prove his innocence but increasingly men are required to and in this case even that is not enough!).

I am not clear about whether or not this happened before or after actual intercourse.

I doubt the alleged witness can be 100% clear either, a year later. But that's why the witness identities should be known and the accused should be allowed to question them.

But either participant in sex is allowed to change his/her mind before or during sex and decline to proceed further. The other party must stop.

True, but there is zero evidence that this happened here. And by the same token, if somebody has doubts they can decide either way, which includes the possibility that they decide to have sex. Enter messages where Walker says she had a good time. And in the end, the benefit of the doubt should go for the accused, not against him!

I did find this interesting article about rapes at Occidental:

Wow! What biased piece of BS! Channeling the old Ms. Magazine claptrap about defining rape such that most supposed "victims" do not consider themselves raped and then claiming an epidemic based on that definition.
Now this case, where the male student was expelled even though there was not only no evidence for his guilt but actually much evidence for his innocence, shows that contrary to that article Occidental is too ready to expel male students on flimsy allegations rather then being too reticent in light of genuine allegations that are backed by solid evidence as that article implies.

 

[Toni]

Derec, you are aware that Title IX was enacted in 1972, right?

Are you aware that most schools were applying the "clear and convincing proof" standard to sexual assault claims (same standard used for other types of hearings) until the 2011 Obama administration directive?

We have yet another very likely innocent male student railroaded and expelled. Do you (and other feminists and Leftists) not care about that at all? Is justice only relevant when it is denied to members of minorities or women?

I thought this was a thread about rape and not about false rape allegations.

The idea that no means no and that an individual who is incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs or other condition is unable to give consent is hardly outside of the mainstream.

BTW, I have no problems with being termed a feminist or a leftist, although the second is not entirely true. It's not an insult, Derec, nor is it a position which automatically negates the validity of my points of view. Nice try, though.

 

[Toni]

Why don't you?

As previously stated, you often bring up case after case of supposedly false rape claims in every single thread about rape and frequently talk about both being drunk so it was mutual rape. In fact, actual studies have demonstrated that rapists are most often sober and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Mostly I was referring to your often touted claim of 'mutual rape.'

Sorry, but if both are drunk and you use drunkenness as reason why it's "rape" then logically it's "mutual rape", unless one was significantly drunker than the other. Feminists tend to claim the responsibility is always on the man, no matter how much either of them drink and that's just wrong on so many levels.

Again: different levels of inebriation would lead to differing levels of capacity to consent, as you have admitted.

I know of no feminist nor any individual who claims that the responsibility is 'always on the man.' Certainly I have never made such a claim.

As far as the Yu case (I am sorry--family stuff has taken me out of town and I haven't followed every post in this thread), I believe that a witness said that the alleged victim began to express doubts about having sex.

Even if this were true, there are several problems. For one, it was a year ago. How well could a witness remember what was said when? Second, the witness was likely the Walker's friend and is thus not disinterested. Third, if she expressed "doubts" that does not mean she didn't finally voluntarily decide to have sex. The evidence of messages where Walker said she had a good time after they had sex is evidence that the sex was consensual (not that Yu should be required to prove his innocence but increasingly men are required to and in this case even that is not enough!).

I believe it was Yu's friend or room mate who mentioned that she was expressing regrets.

But either participant in sex is allowed to change his/her mind before or during sex and decline to proceed further. The other party must stop.

True, but there is zero evidence that this happened here

.

Except for the witnesses.
http://nypost.com/2013/06/26/row-ov...legedly-false-rape-accusation-by-team-member/

Later, Walker put a condom on Yu and they got down until his roommate unexpectedly showed up, after which Walker “began to lament about her ex-boyfriend and stated that she was not ready to jump into ‘anything new,’ ” then got dressed and left after noting how she “took Peter Yu’s virginity,” the suit says.

Sounds as though she wanted to stop. The article is told entirely from Yu's perspective and it isn't clear whether he attempted to stop her from leaving or forced her to continue to have sex, which would have been rape, just as if he wanted to stop and she did not, it would have been rape.

Same article

Yu says he later learned that two other women on the rowing team — including his “former romantic interest” — had tried to contact campus security after seeing him walking with Walker, “who appeared to be drunk.”

Which directly goes to whether she was too drunk to consent. I haven't read any witness testimony that they were equally drunk.

And by the same token, if somebody has doubts they can decide either way, which includes the possibility that they decide to have sex. Enter messages where Walker says she had a good time. And in the end, the benefit of the doubt should go for the accused, not against him!

We actually don't know what the entire body of evidence or testimony was presented against Yu. We have only his side of the story and even that does not make it clear that it was not rape: his room mate indicates she didn't want to start anything new (and the quote makes her sound pretty sloppy drunk) and other witnesses report her appearing to be drunk. You may be correct: he could have been treated unfairly but it is not possible for us to know given the very slim details in online articles told entirely from Yu's perspective.

I did find this interesting article about rapes at Occidental:

Wow! What biased piece of BS! Channeling the old Ms. Magazine claptrap about defining rape such that most supposed "victims" do not consider themselves raped and then claiming an epidemic based on that definition.

Derec, it's actually a very serious issue, and one where much education needs to be done. Many of the childhood victims of sexual abuse by priests did not term what happened to them as 'rape' because they didn't believe that it could happen to a boy (in the case of male victims. Although they are not prominently featured in news articles, there are plenty of female victims as well) or that whatever a priest (or coach, or teacher or favorite uncle, etc.) did was ok. Even Mary Kay Letourneau's victim, aka her now husband, does not see that a 35 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old as rape but clearly, it is.

In many cultures, both men and women believe that a woman (or child) must submit to a man, regardless. And if the two are unmarried, it is her fault, even if she is a child. She is often severely punished.

In the U.S., the fact that men can be rape victims is just now gaining popular acceptance. Until about 20-30 years ago, in most states, a husband could legally force his wife to have sex and it was not deemed rape. I've known people who did not count beatings which resulted in black eyes, broken bones, etc. to be 'abuse.' He just lost his temper. I provoked it. And of course, male victims have an even harder time coming to grips with the fact that they are being abused.

Too many people still believe that if you dress a certain way, or drink too much or flirted with someone or if he bought you dinner or if you've had sex with him before or if you are married, then it cannot be rape. Too many people believe that the only people who rape are those who are so desperate for sex that they must use force. A handsome athlete cannot be a rapist: don't all women want to sleep with him? Why would he need to rape anyone? And yet, some handsome, popular, well liked athletes are also rapists who don't believe it is rape because they believe that they are entitled to whatever they want. And that no woman would actually turn them down. Even if she was passed out at the time, she surely wanted it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Derec, you are aware that Title IX was enacted in 1972, right?

Are you aware that most schools were applying the "clear and convincing proof" standard to sexual assault claims (same standard used for other types of hearings) until the 2011 Obama administration directive?

We have yet another very likely innocent male student railroaded and expelled. Do you (and other feminists and Leftists) not care about that at all? Is justice only relevant when it is denied to members of minorities or women?

I thought this was a thread about rape and not about false rape allegations.

The idea that no means no and that an individual who is incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs or other condition is unable to give consent is hardly outside of the mainstream.

True, but Derec is bringing up "If both parties are equally drunk, are they both rapists?" It's a tough question for some.

If they are both rapists, then they both should be punished, including the female.

If only he is, that is a double standard. Feminism theoretically is about equality.

 

[laughing dog]

That is not a "solid" standard of evidence but the weakest possible one ....

It is the standard for civil cases. Since this is not a criminal case, but a private disciplinary actions where the consequences are much less severe (as in civil cases), the concern about "false positives" is not as great. I realize that bothers rape apologists, radical misogynists and others, but that is the reality.

You replied to my post about a specific case. So do you think this guy is guilty and that he should be expelled? If so why? If not, why have you been silent on that point?

I did not reply to the post on a specific case. Frankly, I am not interested in a specific cherry-picked case because policy should not be based on anecdotes.

No, it is very responsive. You said that issue of "drunkenness" is complex and I responded twofold
- this case is not very complex at all
- where there is uncertainty due to complexity the authorities should err in favor of the accused, not against him
Do you have any objections to either of these two points? .....

Since I was not responding to a specific case, your answer was literally non-responsive to my point.

I would be in favor of "higher proportion of actual rapists receive discipline" if it could be done without increasing the rate of non-rapists receiving the same discipline. The efforts to increase punishment rate focus almost entirely on weakening the burden of proof and due process rights of the defendant and thus I am against them.

Thank you for proving my point that I have not seen you ever promote or propose improving these rates.

Well in today's climate there is marked lack of due process protections in college kangaroo courts and also there is this attitude that displaying any skepticism for the allegation amounts to "degradation" of the accuser which of course is nonsense.

Yet another hyperbolic statement consistent with a rape culture.

"Clear and convincing" standard is generally used for administrative type hearings and is the appropriate standard here. ..

Do you have a source that corrobates your claim? Because in my experience, your claim is false.

What point is that? That I stay on topic?

No, that you engage in comments consistent with promoting a rape culture.