<p>
</p>
<p>;-)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the college daughter can file a discrimination lawsuit under Title IX. However, I believe your high school daughter should be able to do the same as well. If she does, and can get a bunch of other high school kids to join in, I think she can definitely get similar changes happen all across public schools, and thus gain the same protection.</p>
<p>You wife is sadly out of luck. All she has is the regular criminal law to protect her. You should consider yourself lucky.</p>
<p>The goal is NOT simply to scare kids into not having sex. It acknowledges sex. But realizes that sex isn’t always hunkeydorey, “they both wanted it.”</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with, You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure. This isn’t some sports game or some fast thinking in the ER where time costs. Okay, maybe time does cost the young male his xxx, but weigh this, folks.</p>
<p>Anyway, I knew my girls were interested in sex. My talks were about safety, not getting pregnant, not getting emotionally wounded (or stupidly setting oneself up for that or physical harm including disease.) And about the fact that many men will pressure them, that this should be something they go into willingly, sure of their interests and their decisions.</p>
<p>That has zero to do with whether some gals intentionally seduce men, get drunk to loosen their inhibitions, or most of the “yes, but” arguments. A gal should be able to make this decision and make it clearly.</p>
<p>One here seems to have some prurient interests, such as an example of “flashing her breasts.” You almost gloat over producing these examples. </p>
<p>I don’t get the repeat, “it’s not illegal to take advantage of someone whose judgement is impaired.” That’s the subject matter here. If she is impaired, what says she wants sex?</p>
<p>Sometimes I get the feeling it’s going to take a lot more than a village.</p>
<p>I’m having trouble with why I’m Sort of Sure But That’s Good Enough would be a standard anyone would aspire to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) If you (you the girl) find that you make decisions you later regret if you’re very drunk, don’t drink that much.</p>
<p>2) If you are about to have sex with someone you barely know, and that hasn’t worked out well for you before, stop. Don’t do it.</p>
<p>3) If you made a drunken decision to have sex with someone last night, or last week, or last month, and now you regret it, suck it up, sweetie. You’re a big girl now. Own your own decisions. Learn from your mistake.</p>
<p>4) Don’t accuse someone of raping you if they didn’t rape you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kudos. If all parents taught their girls this, sexual assault would drop by close to 80%, per the CDC analysis. </p>
<p>Of course, rape victim advocates would say that you are blaming the victim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s simple. What standard do you instinctively follow in your own relationship? So far, many people said on this thread that it is a ridiculous standard that they never follow. Not a single person has said that it is indeed a standard that they follow. What about you?</p>
<p>And before you say that you just know by deed, understand that it just means you are sort of sure, as you can’t read minds. (And, even if you can, I must note that some women I have dated claimed that they can read my mind, but I found that they have serious reading comprehension problems.)</p>
<p>CF, are you suggesting a range of behaviors makes consent clear? Maybe wearing a short skirt, maybe getting drunk? I have pretty strong views about kids who get drunk to get drunk. But I don’t think that’s consent. We tell women not to walk down dark alleys, but does the woman who takes that shortcut do so with consent in mind? Would that absolve a rapist? She was here? On campuses, “Yeah, but she was drunk, so it’s okay?” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your analysis would be right if there was no such thing as drunken rape. That is not a position many people share.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How much do you want to take off for that? I know you read the CDC study too. Remember, I didn’t say 80%. I said close to 80%. So, what share of drunk sex do you think is rape? Yes means Yes says the percentage is 100.</p>
<p>Would you be in favor of adopting Yes means Yes for everyone in the country and not just college kids? Do you think that will pass?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m suggesting that a range of behaviors makes consent clear, but I mean things like enthusiastic non-verbal participation in the sex act, not wearing a short skirt or getting drunk. For one thing, I can’t see how anything would be consent if it weren’t directed at one specific individual. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that the “She Was Just Asking For It” defense? Reading enthusiasm from behavior doesn’t really pass the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure standard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. Goodbye, group sex. This law is a clever one! It will clamp down on ALL sex on campus. So, do you follow it in your personal life? Would you like it to become the law of the USA for all adults?</p>
<p>The reason I like Ezra Klein’s article is this - he didn’t try to spin Yes means Yes into something that it is not, something that leads to “healthy” sex on campus (healthy, of course, by some Puritan standards). He was pretty clear that Yes means Yes basically means no sex outside of steady, commited relationships (though I think even that has exposure). So, the hookup culture is dead. He was also pretty clear that it will also put an end to drunk sex.</p>
<p>As I have been saying all along, the two real epidemics are drinking and hookup culture. Eliminate both (somehow) and the incidence of campus rape will fall from the current very low to undetectable levels. I just couldn’t figure out how to do that as I believe that only voluntary behavior changes are OK when it comes to adults.</p>
<p>I never thought someone would simply legislate it. Wow! It is interresting though that those that support it for college kids are not that enthusiastic about passing it for the population at large and subjecting themselves to it. I wonder why. Could it be that college kids are still not really considered adults, and parents want to keep helicoptering them by regulating their sex life and drinking?</p>
<p>Oh, I wonder.</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>PG you made reference to the release of information about Jackie claims by UVA to the media. In my post I did not. The WP article give the current status of the investigation:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It appears that all of the stories so far support Sept 28 as the date of the attack. By cross checking names with class rolls, lists of names of members in each fraternity, the aquatic center employment records, and the names of the fraternities that had parties that night the Charlottesville police stand a good chance of coming up with the name of the fraternity where Jackie was assaulted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you telling me that the CDC says that every instance of drunk sex is rape? If that’s what they are saying, they’re undercounting rape by a factor of about 10000.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s the law in the state of California. That’s already 1 in 8 Americans. I think it should be adopted everywhere.</p>
<p>Let’s be clear about the Yes Means Yes law governing sex assault tribunals in California colleges. Instead of speculating, or believing what others say, we can go right to the [text</a> of the law.](<a href=“Bill Text -”>Bill Text - SB-967 Student safety: sexual assault.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some on this thread have said that this criminalizes all drunk sex, because a person who is drunk can’t consent. That is incorrect, as we can easily see. A person can’t consent, the law says, if they are so drunk they can’t understand the “fact, nature or extent of the sexual activity.” If you’re drunk, and you make a drunken decision to have sex, understanding that you having sex, that’s consent. If you sober up and wish you’d made a different decision, too bad. </p>
<p>After not looking at this thread for a day, I come back and see all this discussion about what college girls need to do. I really think that the zeitgeist needs to shift so that guys are sharing more equally in the responsibility.</p>
<p>The view that guys will say or do anything to get some ***** and can’t be held accountable needs to change.</p>
<p>Why don’t we teach guys that if they don’t know the girls well enough to be sure that she will not claim rape later, then you probably should say no to her. Why take a chance?</p>
<p>Yup, they can Just Say No, as well. And this refers to male on female, not men as victims. </p>
<p>I’m still confused how we can say “it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent…”
…and then say that “belief” can be based on “enthusiastic non-verbal” actions. Do we then have to define what “enthusiastic” is? And what those non-verbals are? </p>
<p>I had a friend who did not see herself as raped or assaulted but thought her boyfriend took advantage- his explanation was, but you [had the physical reactions that showed you were ready and thus willing.]</p>
<p>There are two things here. </p>
<p>First, you can’t reasonably believe someone consented to sex if they couldn’t consent. So you can’t say a person consented if they were two years old, or in a coma, because two-year-olds and people in comas can’t possibly consent to sex. You can’t have a reasonable belief that a comatose person consented to your having sex with them.</p>
<p>But then, if the person is in a position to consent to sex, they have to actually consent. You can reasonably believe the person consented if they said Yes, Yes, Yes! But you can also reasonably believe the person consented if when you said, “Hey baby, let’s do it” they flung themselves in your arms and began kissing you passionately, or made some other non-verbal demonstration of interest. </p>
<p>Is this so hard? Do other people on this board have trouble understanding whether the person they’re having sex with wants to have sex with them? There might be some gray areas, but if you find yourself in a gray area with your partner, you can just get right out of that gray area by asking them. </p>
<p>Just saying. Let’s leave it that I think we’re talking about the gray areas and imo that’s the dicey part. He “believed” she showed him she was willing. Someone will need to parse it. And she never said an actual yes or no. (Earlier comments did refer to drunk.)</p>
<p>I think you’re referring to “implied consent.” And yup, plenty of us remember those events. But does "implied’ hold up? *Implied consent is that manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given.<a href=“Law%20Dictionary”>/i</a> Btw, I do think implied consent is consided by many colleges, as is mutual responsibility. </p>
<p>CF, I’ll cease on this. We’ve said what we needed to.</p>
<p>CF - I think what you’re saying does cover 95% of the cases, and probably 99% of the cases when there is a healthy relationship. The problem is that the cases that result in complaints being filed are disproportionately in the remaining 5%. Drunk sex seems to be the case that causes the biggest problems even when the facts are not in dispute – specifically, suppose the female is intoxicated but verbally consents to sex, and in fact enthusiastically participates. Days, weeks, or months later she says that she was too drunk to consent. What should be the standard for how intoxicated a female must be in order for her not to be able to consent?</p>
<p>Clearly if she was too drunk to walk she couldn’t consent. Since until recently most states allowed you to drive a 4000 pound vehicle at speeds of up to 55 mph with a blood alcohol content as high as .10%, I’d say women can consent with BAC of .10%. The dividing line should be somewhere between these two extremes.</p>