• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Only in California - Sexual Activity First Needs "Affirmative Consent" From Sober Parties

In what crime is the word of the victim not considered vital evidence? Is there any crime where the victim's testimony is dismissed because such a person might lie? If you see me steal a wad of money off your kitchen table, and call the police to report a crime, what evidence is there that I am a thief?

I claim I gave you the money. The police say you shouldn't have left the money in plain sight. It was an invitation for someone to take it without consent. Is your word dismissed because your accusation could cause me a lot of trouble and there's no proof you are telling the truth?

This is almost precisely what will happen. I've done it before. Except the police will say that since I allowed the thief into my home and left the money in plain sight, there's no reasonable chance that anything will come of me taking it further. Unless I save serial numbers, cash is cash and there'll be little I can do to prove myself. This doesn't imply that I am lying. It is just that there is no possible chance of a conviction and it would be a waste of resources to continue.

I always wonder what happened to men who are so convinced the women of the world are a bunch of revenge seeking vigilantes, the men of the world need special protection from them. What is even stranger is why some men want to raise the level of anguish all rape victims must endure in order to weed out the liars who just want revenge.

This is a misrepresentation of the view that a presumption of innocence should exist and that allegations should be proven. False accusations exist. So do any number of defences against criminal complaints. As recently as a decade ago, people have been executed in your fine country over false allegations. It's a generally understood moral concept that failing to punish the guilty is preferable to punishing the innocent. The existence of people who want to abandon that concept utterly astounds me.

You do not get a free pass on having to prove a complaint because alleged victims need special protection or because it would cause too much anguish not to unfairly punish the accused.
 
I am curious. If we frame this as black men raping white women, will the people speaking here suddenly and magically switch sides?
 
Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute, wrote in the City Journal that Ravensky, Rhea and a few others ought to read - from one (of many women) who disagree with their meme: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

"The Campus Rape Myth, The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university-approved sex toys"

It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.

The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But the movement is an even more important barometer of academia itself. In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university’s intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both. While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at antirape rallies, in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys. The academic bureaucracy is roomy enough to sponsor both the dour antimale feminism of the college rape movement and the promiscuous hookup culture of student life. The only thing that doesn’t fit into the university’s new commitments is serious scholarly purpose.

The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors."

...If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.

None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

...All subsequent feminist rape studies have resulted in this discrepancy between the researchers’ conclusions and the subjects’ own views. A survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped—a result that the university’s director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services calls “discouraging.” Equally damning was a 2000 campus rape study conducted under the aegis of the Department of Justice. Sixty-five percent of what the feminist researchers called “completed rape” victims and three-quarters of “attempted rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report.” The “victims” in the study, moreover, “generally did not state that their victimization resulted in physical or emotional injuries,” report the researchers.

Just as a reality check, consider an actual student-related rape: in 2006, Labrente Robinson and Jacoby Robinson broke into the Philadelphia home of a Temple University student and a Temple graduate, and anally, vaginally, and orally penetrated the women, including with a gun. The chance that the victims would not consider this event “serious enough to report,” or physically and emotionally injurious, is exactly nil. In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences—supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code.

None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the campus rape movement, because the movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,” sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know that it exists. But if you do need evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best proof there is.

Campus rape researchers may feel that they know better than female students themselves about the students’ sexual experiences, but the students are voting with their feet and staying away in droves from the massive rape apparatus built up since the Ms. article. Referring to rape hotlines, rape consultant Brett Sokolow laments: “The problem is, on so many of our campuses, very few people ever call. And mostly, we’ve resigned ourselves to the under-utilization of these resources.”

Federal law requires colleges to publish reported crimes affecting their students. The numbers of reported sexual assaults—the law does not require their confirmation—usually run under half a dozen a year on private campuses and maybe two to three times that at large public universities. You might think that having so few reports of sexual assault a year would be a point of pride; in fact, it’s a source of gall for students and administrators alike. Yale’s associate general counsel and vice president were clearly on the defensive when asked by the Yale alumni magazine in 2004 about Harvard’s higher numbers of reported assaults; the reporter might as well have been needling them about a Harvard-Yale football rout. “Harvard must have double-counted or included incidents not required by federal law,” groused the officials. The University of Virginia does not publish the number of its sexual-assault hearings because it is so low. “We’re reticent to publicize it when we have such a small ‘n’ number,” says Nicole Eramu, Virginia’s associate dean of students.

...The scarcity of reported sexual assaults means that the women who do report them must be treated like rare treasures. New York University’s Wellness Exchange counsels people to “believe unconditionally” in sexual-assault charges because “only 2 percent of reported rapes are false reports” (a ubiquitous claim that dates from radical feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 tract Against Our Will). As Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson point out in their book Until Proven Innocent, however, the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent. Just how powerful is the “believe unconditionally” credo? David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts psychology professor who lectures constantly on the antirape college circuit, acknowledged to a hall of Rutgers students this November that the “Duke case,” in which a black stripper falsely accused three white Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, “has raised the issue of false allegations.” But Lisak didn’t want to talk about the Duke case, he said. “I don’t know what happened at Duke. No one knows.” Actually, we do know what happened at Duke: the prosecutor ignored clearly exculpatory evidence and alibis that cleared the defendants, and was later disbarred for his misconduct. But to the campus rape industry, a lying plaintiff remains a victim of the patriarchy, and the accused remain forever under suspicion.


...College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, ‘Let’s get as drunk as we can,’ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.

The magazine Saturday Night: Untold Stories of Sexual Assault at Harvard, produced by Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, provides a first-person account of such a coupling:

,,,A large number of complicating factors make the Saturday Night story a far more problematic case than the term “rape” usually implies. Unlike the campus rape industry, most students are well aware of those complicating factors, which is why there are so few rape charges brought for college sex. But if the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it. Above all, they could persuade girls not to put themselves into situations whose likely outcome is intercourse. Specifically: don’t get drunk, don’t get into bed with a guy, and don’t take off your clothes or allow them to be removed. ...

But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students should behave with greater sexual restraint as a preventive measure, and you might as well be saying that the girls should enter a convent or don the burka. “I am uncomfortable with the idea,” e-mailed Hillary Wing-Richards, the associate director of the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Women’s Resource Center at James Madison University in Virginia. “This indicates that if [female students] are raped it could be their fault—it is never their fault—and how one dresses does not invite rape or violence. . . . I would never allow my staff or myself to send the message it is the victim’s fault due to their dress or lack of restraint in any way.” Putting on a tight tank top doesn’t, of course, lead to what the bureaucrats call “rape.” But taking off that tank top does increase the risk of sexual intercourse that will be later regretted, especially when the tank-topper has been intently mainlining rum and Cokes all evening.
...
One group on campus isn’t buying the politics of the campus “rape” movement, however: students. ...

Equally maddening must be the reaction that sometimes greets performers in Sex Signals, an improvisational show on date rape whose venues include Harvard, Yale, and schools throughout the Midwest. “Sometimes we get women who are advocates for men,” the show’s founders told a Chicago public radio station this October, barely concealing their disbelief. “They blame the victim and try to find out what the victim did so they won’t do it.” Such worrisome self-help efforts could shut down the campus rape industry.

...Rape consultant David Lisak faced a similar problem this November: an auditorium of Rutgers students who kept treating women as moral agents. He might have sensed the trouble ahead when in response to a photo array of what Lisak calls “undetected rapists,” a girl asked: “Why are there only white men? Am I blind?” It went downhill from there. Lisak did his best to send a tremor of fear through the audience with the news that “rape happens with terrifying frequency. I’m not talking of someone who comes onto campus but students, Rutgers students, who prowl for victims in bars, parties, wherever alcohol is being consumed.” He then played a dramatized interview with a student “rapist” at a fraternity that had deliberately set aside a room for raping girls during parties, according to Lisak. The students weren’t buying it. “I don’t understand why these parties don’t become infamous among girls,” wondered one. Another asked: “Are you saying that the frat brothers decided that this room would be used for committing sexual assault, or was it just: ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky, and if I do, I’ll go there’?” And then someone asked the most dangerous question of all: “Shouldn’t the victim have had a little bit of education beforehand? We all know the dangers of parties. The victim had miscalculations on her part; alcohol can lead to things.”

In a column this November in the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, third-year student Katelyn Kiley gave the real scoop on frat parties: They’re filled with boys hoping to have sex. She did not call these boys “rapists.” She did not demonize their sex drive. She merely offered some practical wisdom to the “scantily clad” freshman girls trooping off to Virginia’s fraternity row: “That frat boy really is just trying to get into your pants.” Most disturbingly, she advised the girls to exercise sexual control: “So dance with that good-looking guy. If he offers, you can even go up to his room to get a mixed drink. . . . Flirt. But it’s probably a good idea to keep your clothes on, and at the end of the night, to go home to your own bed. Interestingly enough, that’s how you get them to keep asking you back.”

You can read thousands of pages of rape crisis center hysteria without coming across such bracing common sense. Amazingly, Kiley hasn’t received any of the millions of dollars that feminists in the federal government have showered on campuses to prevent what they call rape.
 
I will repeat again that the California law has nothing to do with criminal prosecution, but since Canada's law does I will address your objection.

Since the State mandates the rule if the University is to receive funding, the State is using taxpayer funds to distort the course of justice, even if it's in the context of University campuses and even if the only consequence is academic discipline or expulsion (as if that were not enough to destroy someone's life).

But, more to the point, even though it's not a criminal statute, that doesn't mean it's above criticism. I think Apple products are too expensive for what they do, so I don't buy them. But I'm allowed to have an opinion whether I buy them or not.

No one is expecting the accused to "prove her innocence (rather than for the prosecution to prove guilt)". But IF the accused raises a particular defense, they have to meet a certain standard to successfully use said defense.

So, how would you prove that you had obtained affirmative consent?
 
No, the danger of the law is that it will penalize consensual sex by restricting what kinds of consent it finds acceptable. A female had anything to drink? It's "rape". Consent wasn't expressed 100% unambiguously and explicitly? It's "rape". And so on.

Only if she presses charges. If she had something to drink and had no objections then it is functionally not-rape because it never goes to court.

Rape is known to be massively under-reported. Surely you can see the danger in saying something is "functionally not-rape because it never goes to court"? It would be a worrying legal fiction to keep as a definition of rape something that is usually not rape, but is easier to prove.

One of the two parties involved, for instance. And since implied consent no longer constitutes consent, it would not be a false complaint.

So your premise is that someone who in fact genuinely consents to sex but did so in an implicit rather than explicit manner will wake up the next morning and take advantage of this law to file charges against the other party?

It's a possibility. There are any number of possibilities by which the law could be abused. When you make something against the rules, but rely on selective enforcement to avoid abuse, you're just asking for trouble.

The law is not about criminal complaints (in California). It is about conduct codes on college campuses.

I will also note that, as shown in the papers about the Canadian application of "affirmative consent" to actual criminal cases, it is as a standard for a defendant's use of a "mistaken consent" defense, not as part of the prosecutor's charges.

Perhaps I should have said "complaints of crimes". Which is the problem - these are crimes, but for whatever reason they are not being handled by the criminal justice system and are instead being handled by a system which does not have the same protections, and is ill-equipped to deal with them.

This part of the above cite report actually supports the positions some of you have that college campuses shouldn't be handling these cases at all:

The less benign reality of sexual violence in the university setting also carries implications for university judicial processes. A judicial board would hardly seem the appropriate venue to deal with a sexual predator. Further, cases of non-stranger rape are extremely difficult to properly investigate and prosecute – they are in fact far more complex than the majority of stranger rapes. A proper investigation requires skilled and specially-trained investigators working closely with specially-trained prosecutors. Absent a proper investigation, almost every non-stranger rape case quickly devolves into the proverbial “he-said-she-said” conundrum, and judicial board members are left helpless to discern what actually may have occurred. This situation increases the likelihood of inadequately or even poorly-handled cases, thereby increasing the harm done both to the victim and to the larger community.

I think we're coming close to something we can agree on. I've raised this as an issue - this is the very role of the criminal justice system, and while imperfect, they are far better equipped and trained to deal with such cases than university disciplinary panels. Between the judge, proescutors and defenders, there's a good chance you've already got a century of legal experience without even considering their other staff. Evidence is gained by those who do it for a living. Warrants and expert witnesses are available, testimony is compelled under oath, transparency, checks and balances abound. This far preferable to randomly selecting an economics sophomore, post-grad Chemistry researcher and an entomology professor and plunging the case in their laps behind closed doors and without allowing legal representation.

We have a system to deal with crimes, we should use that, not a crudely approximated consolation prize.
 
Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute, wrote in the City Journal that Ravensky, Rhea and a few others ought to read - from one (of many women) who disagree with their meme: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

"The Campus Rape Myth, The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university-approved sex toys"

It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.

The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But the movement is an even more important barometer of academia itself. In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university’s intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both. While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at antirape rallies, in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys. The academic bureaucracy is roomy enough to sponsor both the dour antimale feminism of the college rape movement and the promiscuous hookup culture of student life. The only thing that doesn’t fit into the university’s new commitments is serious scholarly purpose.

The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors."

...If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.

None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

...All subsequent feminist rape studies have resulted in this discrepancy between the researchers’ conclusions and the subjects’ own views. A survey of sorority girls at the University of Virginia found that only 23 percent of the subjects whom the survey characterized as rape victims felt that they had been raped—a result that the university’s director of Sexual and Domestic Violence Services calls “discouraging.” Equally damning was a 2000 campus rape study conducted under the aegis of the Department of Justice. Sixty-five percent of what the feminist researchers called “completed rape” victims and three-quarters of “attempted rape” victims said that they did not think that their experiences were “serious enough to report.” The “victims” in the study, moreover, “generally did not state that their victimization resulted in physical or emotional injuries,” report the researchers.

Just as a reality check, consider an actual student-related rape: in 2006, Labrente Robinson and Jacoby Robinson broke into the Philadelphia home of a Temple University student and a Temple graduate, and anally, vaginally, and orally penetrated the women, including with a gun. The chance that the victims would not consider this event “serious enough to report,” or physically and emotionally injurious, is exactly nil. In short, believing in the campus rape epidemic depends on ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences—supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code.

None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the campus rape movement, because the movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,” sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know that it exists. But if you do need evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best proof there is.

Campus rape researchers may feel that they know better than female students themselves about the students’ sexual experiences, but the students are voting with their feet and staying away in droves from the massive rape apparatus built up since the Ms. article. Referring to rape hotlines, rape consultant Brett Sokolow laments: “The problem is, on so many of our campuses, very few people ever call. And mostly, we’ve resigned ourselves to the under-utilization of these resources.”

Federal law requires colleges to publish reported crimes affecting their students. The numbers of reported sexual assaults—the law does not require their confirmation—usually run under half a dozen a year on private campuses and maybe two to three times that at large public universities. You might think that having so few reports of sexual assault a year would be a point of pride; in fact, it’s a source of gall for students and administrators alike. Yale’s associate general counsel and vice president were clearly on the defensive when asked by the Yale alumni magazine in 2004 about Harvard’s higher numbers of reported assaults; the reporter might as well have been needling them about a Harvard-Yale football rout. “Harvard must have double-counted or included incidents not required by federal law,” groused the officials. The University of Virginia does not publish the number of its sexual-assault hearings because it is so low. “We’re reticent to publicize it when we have such a small ‘n’ number,” says Nicole Eramu, Virginia’s associate dean of students.

...The scarcity of reported sexual assaults means that the women who do report them must be treated like rare treasures. New York University’s Wellness Exchange counsels people to “believe unconditionally” in sexual-assault charges because “only 2 percent of reported rapes are false reports” (a ubiquitous claim that dates from radical feminist Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 tract Against Our Will). As Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson point out in their book Until Proven Innocent, however, the rate of false reports is at least 9 percent and probably closer to 50 percent. Just how powerful is the “believe unconditionally” credo? David Lisak, a University of Massachusetts psychology professor who lectures constantly on the antirape college circuit, acknowledged to a hall of Rutgers students this November that the “Duke case,” in which a black stripper falsely accused three white Duke lacrosse players of rape in 2006, “has raised the issue of false allegations.” But Lisak didn’t want to talk about the Duke case, he said. “I don’t know what happened at Duke. No one knows.” Actually, we do know what happened at Duke: the prosecutor ignored clearly exculpatory evidence and alibis that cleared the defendants, and was later disbarred for his misconduct. But to the campus rape industry, a lying plaintiff remains a victim of the patriarchy, and the accused remain forever under suspicion.


...College girls drink themselves into near or actual oblivion before and during parties. That drinking is often goal-oriented, suggests University of Virginia graduate Karin Agness: it frees the drinker from responsibility and “provides an excuse for engaging in behavior that she ordinarily wouldn’t.” A Columbia University security official marvels at the scene at homecomings: “The women are shit-faced, saying, ‘Let’s get as drunk as we can,’ while the men are hovering over them.” As anticipated, the night can include a meaningless sexual encounter with a guy whom the girl may not even know. This less-than-romantic denouement produces the “roll and scream: you roll over the next morning so horrified at what you find next to you that you scream,” a Duke coed reports in Laura Sessions Stepp’s recent book Unhooked. To the extent that they’re remembered at all, these are the couplings that are occasionally transformed into “rape”—though far less often than the campus rape industry wishes.

The magazine Saturday Night: Untold Stories of Sexual Assault at Harvard, produced by Harvard’s Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, provides a first-person account of such a coupling:

,,,A large number of complicating factors make the Saturday Night story a far more problematic case than the term “rape” usually implies. Unlike the campus rape industry, most students are well aware of those complicating factors, which is why there are so few rape charges brought for college sex. But if the rape industrialists are so sure that foreseeable and seemingly cooperative drunken sex amounts to rape, there are some obvious steps that they could take to prevent it. Above all, they could persuade girls not to put themselves into situations whose likely outcome is intercourse. Specifically: don’t get drunk, don’t get into bed with a guy, and don’t take off your clothes or allow them to be removed. ...

But suggest to a rape bureaucrat that female students should behave with greater sexual restraint as a preventive measure, and you might as well be saying that the girls should enter a convent or don the burka. “I am uncomfortable with the idea,” e-mailed Hillary Wing-Richards, the associate director of the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Women’s Resource Center at James Madison University in Virginia. “This indicates that if [female students] are raped it could be their fault—it is never their fault—and how one dresses does not invite rape or violence. . . . I would never allow my staff or myself to send the message it is the victim’s fault due to their dress or lack of restraint in any way.” Putting on a tight tank top doesn’t, of course, lead to what the bureaucrats call “rape.” But taking off that tank top does increase the risk of sexual intercourse that will be later regretted, especially when the tank-topper has been intently mainlining rum and Cokes all evening.
...
One group on campus isn’t buying the politics of the campus “rape” movement, however: students. ...

Equally maddening must be the reaction that sometimes greets performers in Sex Signals, an improvisational show on date rape whose venues include Harvard, Yale, and schools throughout the Midwest. “Sometimes we get women who are advocates for men,” the show’s founders told a Chicago public radio station this October, barely concealing their disbelief. “They blame the victim and try to find out what the victim did so they won’t do it.” Such worrisome self-help efforts could shut down the campus rape industry.

...Rape consultant David Lisak faced a similar problem this November: an auditorium of Rutgers students who kept treating women as moral agents. He might have sensed the trouble ahead when in response to a photo array of what Lisak calls “undetected rapists,” a girl asked: “Why are there only white men? Am I blind?” It went downhill from there. Lisak did his best to send a tremor of fear through the audience with the news that “rape happens with terrifying frequency. I’m not talking of someone who comes onto campus but students, Rutgers students, who prowl for victims in bars, parties, wherever alcohol is being consumed.” He then played a dramatized interview with a student “rapist” at a fraternity that had deliberately set aside a room for raping girls during parties, according to Lisak. The students weren’t buying it. “I don’t understand why these parties don’t become infamous among girls,” wondered one. Another asked: “Are you saying that the frat brothers decided that this room would be used for committing sexual assault, or was it just: ‘Maybe I’ll get lucky, and if I do, I’ll go there’?” And then someone asked the most dangerous question of all: “Shouldn’t the victim have had a little bit of education beforehand? We all know the dangers of parties. The victim had miscalculations on her part; alcohol can lead to things.”

In a column this November in the University of Virginia’s student newspaper, third-year student Katelyn Kiley gave the real scoop on frat parties: They’re filled with boys hoping to have sex. She did not call these boys “rapists.” She did not demonize their sex drive. She merely offered some practical wisdom to the “scantily clad” freshman girls trooping off to Virginia’s fraternity row: “That frat boy really is just trying to get into your pants.” Most disturbingly, she advised the girls to exercise sexual control: “So dance with that good-looking guy. If he offers, you can even go up to his room to get a mixed drink. . . . Flirt. But it’s probably a good idea to keep your clothes on, and at the end of the night, to go home to your own bed. Interestingly enough, that’s how you get them to keep asking you back.”

You can read thousands of pages of rape crisis center hysteria without coming across such bracing common sense. Amazingly, Kiley hasn’t received any of the millions of dollars that feminists in the federal government have showered on campuses to prevent what they call rape.

A stunningly misinformed piece, actually. And misleading. From a conservative think tank. How surprising.
 
I'm confused about the married couple scenario, then. Does one of the married people make a complaint about sexual assault? Or how does that fit in with this statement?


It is illegal in most states to rape a spouse. No does mean no. Google for spousal rape for more. Why the concept of making spousal rape on college campuses forbidden makes some get a bad case of drama queen anger is beyond me.

I'd hope in every state it's illegal to rape a spouse. That it's not the case is worrying, but not surprising.

But we were talking about a very clear hypothetical - a married couple who has an unspoken understanding of consent in the relationship, which falls short of the affirmative consent laws. The suggestion appears to be that it's okay to tell the married couple that what they are doing is wrong, but nudge-nudge, hush-hush, no-one needs to find out. If "implied consent" is wrong, that needs to be stated and steps need to be taken to stop it. But if it's not wrong, it shouldn't be kept as a legal fiction.
 
The issue is whether someone's word should be the *ONLY* evidence needed, especially when the woman stands to gain from what she says. (Revenge against someone she's mad at.)

The problem is, men lie too. "No, I didn't date rape her". And, "She's lying".

Of course.

The point is that if her statement "it was rape" is absolute truth then so should his "it was consensual" be. Apply the same standards.

The proper thing to do is investigate. What we are seeing are witch hunts, though--an attempt to expel rapists, guilty or not.
 
Of course, you don't actually have to have fucked someone before you're falsely accused of rape; there are of course examples of false accusations where the sex itself is in dispute (rather than the consent).

But, I'm very unhappy with a judicial system that asks the accused to prove her innocence (rather than for the prosecution to prove guilt).
I will repeat again that the California law has nothing to do with criminal prosecution, but since Canada's law does I will address your objection.

No one is expecting the accused to "prove her innocence (rather than for the prosecution to prove guilt)". But IF the accused raises a particular defense, they have to meet a certain standard to successfully use said defense.

The problem is that the standard to successfully use it is set impossibly high.

We know you killed John F. Kennedy. The only way you can prove your innocence is to bring in the film of what you were really doing then.
 
Heather McDonald of the Manhattan Institute, wrote in the City Journal that Ravensky, Rhea and a few others ought to read - from one (of many women) who disagree with their meme: http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

"The Campus Rape Myth, The reality: bogus statistics, feminist victimology, and university-approved sex toys"

A stunningly misinformed piece, actually. And misleading. From a conservative think tank. How surprising.

How about showing what's wrong with it?
 
A stunningly misinformed piece, actually. And misleading. From a conservative think tank. How surprising.

How about showing what's wrong with it?

Sorry: I thought it was really obvious. To start, the Clothesline Project is not an organization dedicated to combatting rape but violence against women, of which rape is only one form. Most of the rest of that piece is non-informative and merely slut shaming. In fact, women are not required to be teetotaling virgins in order to not deserve rape. No one deserves to be raped. No one. One can enjoy sex, sex with many partners and still be raped. Merely intending or considering the possibility of sex does not mean that either party has agreed to actually have sex with anyone nor does item that either party has given up his or her right to select the partner and the circumstances, or to change his or her mind. Thinking you might probably pick up someone at a bar goesnt mean that you have agreed to sex with anyone at all, much less someone who ensures that you are over served and isolated. And so on.
 
Think about the last consensual sexual encounter you had. Did your partner give affirmative consent? If you were asked to prove he did, how would you do so?

several posters keep confusing "affirmative consent" with "verbal consent". I'm not sure why.

I would offer my evidence by he did by quoting the words he said or describing the actions he made.

I'm so puzzled by people who have never figured out how to notice (or care?) whether their partner is consenting with "affirmative" (or, "yes-obvious") signals. Of all the sexual encounters I've ever had in my life, when I'm thinking "yes," it has been affirmatively obvious by either word or action.

When I've been thinking "no," sometimes I was not really able to convey it (I can think of 3 instances). Once out of fear, once out of drunkennes and once out of unconsciousness.


Once or twice, I was in no condition to consent to anything, but I had no objections later, so no charges were brought, even though it would have been a clear cut case of far far far too drunk to make any rational consent. So "functionally" it wasn't brought up as rape, even though yah, it actually was.

But for several of you to be so completely muddled by the difference is quite strange to me.
 
Think about the last consensual sexual encounter you had. Did your partner give affirmative consent? If you were asked to prove he did, how would you do so?

several posters keep confusing "affirmative consent" with "verbal consent". I'm not sure why.

I would offer my evidence by he did by quoting the words he said or describing the actions he made.

I'm so puzzled by people who have never figured out how to notice (or care?) whether their partner is consenting with "affirmative" (or, "yes-obvious") signals. Of all the sexual encounters I've ever had in my life, when I'm thinking "yes," it has been affirmatively obvious by either word or action.

When I've been thinking "no," sometimes I was not really able to convey it (I can think of 3 instances). Once out of fear, once out of drunkennes and once out of unconsciousness.


Once or twice, I was in no condition to consent to anything, but I had no objections later, so no charges were brought, even though it would have been a clear cut case of far far far too drunk to make any rational consent. So "functionally" it wasn't brought up as rape, even though yah, it actually was.

But for several of you to be so completely muddled by the difference is quite strange to me.

I am still no better informed about how you would prove affirmative consent.

The commerce example is easy to prove. You either signed something, or handed your credit pin over, or you verbally said 'yes' on the phone and it was recorded. Name specifics about how you would prove affirmative consent in sexual encounters.

Not just examples of what it is (though you've only given a shadowy outline of that anyway) but how you would prove it.
 
several posters keep confusing "affirmative consent" with "verbal consent". I'm not sure why.

I would offer my evidence by he did by quoting the words he said or describing the actions he made.

I'm so puzzled by people who have never figured out how to notice (or care?) whether their partner is consenting with "affirmative" (or, "yes-obvious") signals. Of all the sexual encounters I've ever had in my life, when I'm thinking "yes," it has been affirmatively obvious by either word or action.

When I've been thinking "no," sometimes I was not really able to convey it (I can think of 3 instances). Once out of fear, once out of drunkennes and once out of unconsciousness.


Once or twice, I was in no condition to consent to anything, but I had no objections later, so no charges were brought, even though it would have been a clear cut case of far far far too drunk to make any rational consent. So "functionally" it wasn't brought up as rape, even though yah, it actually was.

But for several of you to be so completely muddled by the difference is quite strange to me.

I am still no better informed about how you would prove affirmative consent.

The commerce example is easy to prove. You either signed something, or handed your credit pin over, or you verbally said 'yes' on the phone and it was recorded. Name specifics about how you would prove affirmative consent in sexual encounters.

Not just examples of what it is (though you've only given a shadowy outline of that anyway) but how you would prove it.

Consent or lack of consent is always difficult to prove and comes down to who is more believable and if there are any corroborating witnesses or testimony. The California statute spells out more explicitly that one cannot assume consent without some affirmation on the part of the person you intend to have sex with.

I don't know if this will actually have any effect on prosecutions or convictions or even charges. But it does make it harder for anyone to claim, believably: I thought she was into it.

Here's a couple of links that shed some light on the general problem:

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/562725/20140814/study-disturbing-narratives-anal-sex.htm#.VAZQWPldXTo

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/562725/20140814/study-disturbing-narratives-anal-sex.htm

Male subjects often expressed that they wanted to have anal sex to mimic pornography and because it was more pleasurable than vaginal penetration, while women mainly said they did it to please their partners. There was a shared understanding between interviewees that women were supposed to be begged or forced into participating and should expect it to hurt, and if they turned down anal sex, they were uptight.

Now, of course this is a small study and one shouldn't draw large conclusions about it, but I think we should all find it disturbing that some groups of people assume that female partners should simply expect some sex to hurt and that it was ok for male partners to expect, beg, cajole and even force partners to accept sex which they acknowledge will be painful. I won't even go into the discussion about the fact that it does not need to be painful and that some women enjoy it except to say that at least some young people who are sexually active are not overly disturbed by the notion that (some) sex hurts (some) women and that is ok, to be expected and that males should not be expected to either abstain from hurtful sexual practices nor ensure that their partner is comfortable and able to enjoy the experience.

It does make me wonder how widespread this attitude is and if it extends to other sexual practices. Is there a general belief that many/most women don't enjoy sex unless they are drunk? Or passed out? Is there a general belief that sex is something that males must beg for, or even force and that this is somehow acceptable? That women who decline are uptight (this is what women were told when I was young) or if they do have sex, they are promiscuous sluts who have by default accepted sex with anyone who wishes to have sex with her, especially if it's a good looking athlete or wealthy student?
 
Now, of course this is a small study and one shouldn't draw large conclusions about it, but I think we should all find it disturbing that some groups of people assume that female partners should simply expect some sex to hurt and that it was ok for male partners to expect, beg, cajole and even force partners to accept sex which they acknowledge will be painful.
Now only the last item is actually wrong. The rest is merely persuasion. To say (as for example the infamous Ms. Magazine "study" of college rape does) that trying to change a woman's mind about sex is tantamount to "rape" is the real problematic thing here.

I won't even go into the discussion about the fact that it does not need to be painful and that some women enjoy it except to say that at least some young people who are sexually active are not overly disturbed by the notion that (some) sex hurts (some) women and that is ok, to be expected and that males should not be expected to either abstain from hurtful sexual practices nor ensure that their partner is comfortable and able to enjoy the experience.

This thread is not about "best practices" or what people in loving (or even liking) relationships should do, but about what counts as "sexual assault". It's the same problem as demanding "enthusiastic consent". That is ok as something to strive to as a best case scenario but not something to demand as a minimum to make a sexual event not a "sexual assault". "Reluctant consent" or "halfhearted consent" is still consent.

It does make me wonder how widespread this attitude is and if it extends to other sexual practices. Is there a general belief that many/most women don't enjoy sex unless they are drunk? Or passed out?
There is a big difference between being merely "drunk" and "passed out". To conflate these two is a big problem in these discussions. But both genders often enjoy alcohol consumption in conjunction with sexual activity, especially with strangers. Here there is again the double standard of treating drunk women as "victims" but equally drunk men as "predators".

Is there a general belief that sex is something that males must beg for, or even force and that this is somehow acceptable?
Why are you trying to equate begging for sex with forcing someone to have sex against their will? If you convince a female to (pity) fuck you because you begged her more power to you and it's perfectly consensual sex, forcing her isn't. The two could not be more different.
But in a nutshell, on the average men want sex more and have orders of magnitude harder job actually getting sex than women. As such it is often necessary to persuade, seduce, beg, bargain or outright pay women to have sex with us. Those are still 100% consensual. Unfortunately some men also cross the line into forcing women to have sex or taking advantage of them when they are unable to consent (either actively or opportunistically). Men usually have to work hard to get sex. But you should not equate consensual and non-consensual means just because they both involve work on the man's part and the women don't initiate it.

That women who decline are uptight (this is what women were told when I was young) or if they do have sex, they are promiscuous sluts who have by default accepted sex with anyone who wishes to have sex with her, especially if it's a good looking athlete or wealthy student?
Who is saying all that?
 
How about showing what's wrong with it?

Sorry: I thought it was really obvious. To start, the Clothesline Project is not an organization dedicated to combatting rape but violence against women, of which rape is only one form. Most of the rest of that piece is non-informative and merely slut shaming. In fact, women are not required to be teetotaling virgins in order to not deserve rape. No one deserves to be raped. No one. One can enjoy sex, sex with many partners and still be raped. Merely intending or considering the possibility of sex does not mean that either party has agreed to actually have sex with anyone nor does item that either party has given up his or her right to select the partner and the circumstances, or to change his or her mind. Thinking you might probably pick up someone at a bar goesnt mean that you have agreed to sex with anyone at all, much less someone who ensures that you are over served and isolated. And so on.

While I agree there is some slut-shaming in that article that doesn't mean the facts they present aren't true. When the women themselves don't think they were raped I have a hard time seeing a rape.
 
Sorry: I thought it was really obvious. To start, the Clothesline Project is not an organization dedicated to combatting rape but violence against women, of which rape is only one form. Most of the rest of that piece is non-informative and merely slut shaming. In fact, women are not required to be teetotaling virgins in order to not deserve rape. No one deserves to be raped. No one. One can enjoy sex, sex with many partners and still be raped. Merely intending or considering the possibility of sex does not mean that either party has agreed to actually have sex with anyone nor does item that either party has given up his or her right to select the partner and the circumstances, or to change his or her mind. Thinking you might probably pick up someone at a bar goesnt mean that you have agreed to sex with anyone at all, much less someone who ensures that you are over served and isolated. And so on.

While I agree there is some slut-shaming in that article that doesn't mean the facts they present aren't true. When the women themselves don't think they were raped I have a hard time seeing a rape.

I can understand why you would have a hard time seeing a rape that the victims don't recognize as rape. I completely understand that and would probably agree with you if I didn't know too many victims of child abuse (I'm talking about people I grew up with, so I saw it. It's not an exaggeration), sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and so on. Most people have a tendency to believe that whatever situation they grew up with is 'normal,' and not abusive. Even today, a lot of people do grow up in families where the man rules the roost and if the women folk get smacked now and then and don't really have much say in finances, or how kids are raised or where they live, etc. then, that's just how things are and how they are supposed to be. It is unfortunately true that people often grow up and then repeat the same dysfunctional patterns they grew up with: the offspring of alcoholic parents often marries an alcoholic, for example. That's part of the issue.

The other issue is general attitudes which haven't seemed to change that much. I've seen various versions of this, citing similar studies and surveys for many decades:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

Among other gems:

51% of the boys and 41% of the girls said forced sex was acceptable if the boy, "spent a lot of money" on the girl;

· 31% of the boys and 32% of the girls said it was acceptable for a man to rape a woman with past sexual experience;

· 87% of boys and 79% of girls said sexual assault was acceptable if the man and the woman were married;

· 65% of the boys and 47% of the girls said it was acceptable for a boy to rape a girl if they had been dating for more than six months.

In most articles I've read, the way it was stated is that most of the teens/college students didn't consider it rape if the guy had spent a lot of money; if they had been dating a long time, etc. rather than it was acceptable to rape a girl under certain circumstances.

Because of such surveys, studies, etc. I believe that sometimes, a rape victim doesn't really understand that no one had the right to force him/her to do certain things, so even if they didn't want the sex, even if they protested, said no, tried to escape: some won't consider that rape because a) he loves me b)we've done it before c)he spent a lot of money at that fancy restaurant, d) guys can't help themselves; I shouldn't have gotten him excited and so forth.

Just as some victims of domestic abuse don't recognize that being punched in the face, thrown down the stairs, etc. is abuse. They just think it is normal and that they shouldn't have made the abuser so angry or let him/her drink so much, etc.
 
Think about the last consensual sexual encounter you had. Did your partner give affirmative consent? If you were asked to prove he did, how would you do so?

several posters keep confusing "affirmative consent" with "verbal consent". I'm not sure why.

I would offer my evidence by he did by quoting the words he said or describing the actions he made.

I'm so puzzled by people who have never figured out how to notice (or care?) whether their partner is consenting with "affirmative" (or, "yes-obvious") signals. Of all the sexual encounters I've ever had in my life, when I'm thinking "yes," it has been affirmatively obvious by either word or action.

When I've been thinking "no," sometimes I was not really able to convey it (I can think of 3 instances). Once out of fear, once out of drunkennes and once out of unconsciousness.

Once or twice, I was in no condition to consent to anything, but I had no objections later, so no charges were brought, even though it would have been a clear cut case of far far far too drunk to make any rational consent. So "functionally" it wasn't brought up as rape, even though yah, it actually was.

But for several of you to be so completely muddled by the difference is quite strange to me.

What is "strange to me" is the pointless promotion of a litigious non-solution to the so-called campus "rape crisis". You see, there ARE THREE elements to this issue:

First, is there really a rape culture and crisis on college campuses or is this just another confabulated feminist issue?

Second, even if there were a 'rape crisis' does does affirmative consent address it or does it merely spawn more ambiguous 'buyers regret' paybacks?

Third, even if there is a crisis, and affirmative consent addresses the problem, is it practicable or tolerable in a liberal society?

As no one in this thread really cares if the crisis is real (although I have demonstrated it is not), for the sake of argument let's pretend that is. If so, just how likely is it that rape is due to a confusion over mutual desires ? Do you think that rape or sexual assaults occur because of mixed signals or blurred communication?.

Rape and sexual assault are crimes of violence, often induced by alcohol, not a failure to communicate. It serves no legitimate purpose, and even supporters of the bill have admitted that sexual violence is not the result of mixed signals: studies show that people who commit sexual violence are almost always aware that they are intentional and directed at more compliant women (e.g. those drunk or "round heeled") rather than a product of of “blurred” communications. (http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/05/3364041/new-study-blurred-lines-alcohol/)

Finally "affirmative consent" is impracticable and illiberal. It is a non-specific jumble of characterizations, unmoored to specifics:

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml

SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:

...The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

So rather than accept the natural progression of romance and/or seduction (by either party) the government regulators intrudes on the privacy of student sex lives to impose a required and repeated "affirmative consent" - from start to finish.

Worse yet, the law is vague and, and if taken literally, is absurd. Rhea (and perhaps others) do not believe it requires verbal consent. Really? We know what it is NOT: silence or compliance. And the law specifically states it has to be a "voluntary agreement", repeatedly given for each and every activity of an evening. So one wonders, if not verbally, how else does one obtain these voluntary agreements, via Morse code?

Perhaps those who celebrated the right of privacy, the banishment of government from our bedrooms when it comes to birth control or sodomy ought to be asking themselves how to justify the new intrusions of the regulatory state mandating procedures in sexual relations. Don't you think?
 
Back
Top Bottom