All UVa frats on suspension

Parents Forum
2501

<p>Cardinal Fang, if you are passively resisting arrest, then you are resisting arrest. You are not consenting to arrest, and in any event consent is irrelevant to arrest – the point of arrest is that you have just lost the capacity to choose where you want to be and what you want to do. And if you are passively resisting sex, then you are resisting it, and force will be necessary to overcome your resistance, and that will clearly be rape. But if you are not resisting, if you are merely doing minimal accommodation to make it bearable and avoid further discussion. . . well, you could call that consent by action, but it kind of makes a mockery of the “yes means yes” idea you have been supporting.</p>

<p>It’s possible, but I think unlikely, that California courts have interpreted statutory “force” as if it were a term in physics, i.e., mass x acceleration, and present at some point whenever there is motion in the physical world. That would make it a strange companion – I won’t say “bedfellow” – for parallel terms like “violence,” “threat,” “duress”. So I think it means something more than anything at all. (It might please Andrea Dworkin to argue that all heterosexual sex is sex by force, but I doubt that’s what California law means.)</p>

<p>This is all very unpleasant, but I think that, in the absence of something overpowering or threatening, and provided she has the capacity to resist, if a California woman decides to lie back and think of England, something bad is happening to her but it’s not within the California statutory definition of rape. </p>

2502

<p>"I will simply encourage all parents here to call up their kids and ask them what really goes down in college campuses, or even after that throughout the 20’s.</p>

<p>Speaking out of ignorance about the hook-up culture doesn’t help things. Speaking out of ignorance about the binge drinking culture doesn’t help either. Talk to your kids. Get educated"</p>

<p>I have two children who are seniors in college right now, tyvm.<br>
I know you find it hard to believe, but your generation didn’t invent casual sex. It went on in our day as well. As did drunk sex. Really. Honest. </p>

2503

<p>“That’s all fine and good, just don’t legislate your morality. Don’t engage in what you don’t want to engage in. But let others do what they want.”</p>

<p>It’s not morality I’m talking about. I don’t find it <em>immoral</em> to get drunk and take home the first cute guy in a bar. It’s unwise, unsafe, and it’s unbecoming, tacky behavior. But it’s not <em>immoral.</em> </p>

2504

<p>

</p>

<p>Just don’t legislate it and we are good.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are they special snowflakes? :)) </p>

2505

<p>I am glad there is a do-over. The case was botched. Let’s get things right. That is the important thing.</p>

<p>I agree women are not getting a fair shake. Let’s at least get 5 more percent right for starters.</p>

<p>How many rape kits were gathering dust? Can you imagine? Going through the process as a rape victim dealing with a rape kit and law enforcement ignoring the rape kits? </p>

<p>We are starting to make progress. It is a slow grind. Going to take a long time.</p>

2506

<p>I know plenty about what D1 did, down to some names. Don’t agree with it all, but she’s the TMI gal. </p>

<p>Gotta wonder if the poster willing to lump us as “older folks” knows many our ages, beyond as teachers or co-workers, neighbors or whatever. Well enough to have them open up as many here have. Sure doesn’t seem to accept just how much we ourselves did, in our 20’s(and beyond.) Certainly doesn’t t seem able to fathom we’re serious. </p>

2507

<p>Here’s how stupid this is. Let’s assume the exact fact pattern of the Jameis Winston case. Here’s how it goes down:</p>

<p>Winston hits on the current student girl during the school year? Faux college court!!! We have to fight the epidemic on campus!!! This is a huge federal govt priority!!!</p>

<p>Winston hits on a girl in a bar who just dropped out of college. Does title IX apply? I guess not since the victim is not a current student. So no faux college courts. Just the local cops have jurisdiction.</p>

<p>Winston hits on a girl who just graduated from FSU. No faux college courts.</p>

<p>Winston just dropped out of college (to prep for the NFL combine) and hits on a recent graduate. No faux college courts.</p>

<p>Winston just dropped out of college (to prep for the NFL combine) and hits on a current FSU student. No faux college courts.</p>

<p>Winston’s buddy who is a student at Univ of Florida is in town visiting. The Gator hits on the girl who recently graduated from FSU. No faux college courts.</p>

<p>The Gator hits on a girl who is a current FSU student. I don’t know. Probably no faux college court. Or maybe you get a special title ix joint inter-college court between FSU and UF?</p>

<p>Winston hits on current FSU student girl over the summer when he runs into her in a bar in NYC? I don’t know. They are both students (faux college court) but the conduct is in the summer and 1,000 miles away from campus (no faux college court).</p>

<p>Please tell me how any of that makes sense. Recognize in every case that the local police would have jurisdiction. </p>

<p>Is the goal to incent Winston to prey on the non-college student girls hanging around the bars in Tallahassee? What about their rights?</p>

2508

<p>A link to some info on statistics of the “hook-up culture”. Lots of regret sex but not very much unwanted sex (8%).</p>

<p><a href=“Sexual hook-up culture”>Internal Server Error;

<p>While over 60% of college students report having “hook-up” seat some point during college, it would be interesting to know how those numbers of sex acts compare to ones where the parties are in a committed relationship. My guess is that committed sex dwarfs hook-ups.</p>

<p>And here is a link to a study that says most men and women that hook-up are actually looking for a committed relationship. </p>

<p><a href=“Casual Sex Is More Popular Than Ever”>Casual Sex Is More Popular Than Ever;

2509

<p>This is about the situations in which a gal did not want the sex. Not about preventing kids from having sex, not about pseudo criminal court (which some just can’t understand,) and NOT about the reckless consensual examples some can come up with-- T9 specifically does refer to campus and student complaints. (Except any aspects where the CA law overrides federal, as stronger.) </p>

<p>Btw, civil court also only requires preponderance. And btw, I knew plenty of gals in college who defined hook-up culture, yo. </p>

2510

<p>Well, this is interesting and provides some insight into what the girls who want this want. It’s Emily Renda the rape advocacy worker who hooked Jackie up with Rolling Stone.</p>

<p>In testimony given before a U.S. Senate Committee in June, 2014, Renda disclosed that during her own rape attack she was subjected to explicit force that included strangulation, loss of consciousness and injuries to her head and torso. In further testimony, she claimed she “resisted formally reporting and seeking disciplinary action after the assault because I fixated on the fact that my assailant had parents who cared about him”, and “I did not want to ruin his life over what I then viewed as a mistake.”</p>

<p>Mistake?</p>

2511

<p>From a previous @northwesty post:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>From Post #2499:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your questions, while logical, implicitly answer themselves - because the entire movement is support based on sham stats and provocative slogans, such as 1 in 5, rape culture, a female is more likely to be raped in college etc. And when they called on it, as one poster said, they used 1 in 5 because there was no other stat - well, no, the real stats have been around for decades. </p>

<p>My counsels and I had this exact discussion, and they all find it just plain weird that people keep repeating things that are just not true, yet the media etc. repeat them like parrots. The answer though lies in the politics. </p>

<p>Several posters gave you the bottom line answer: There is a rape culture. period. No doubt about it. And no room to question that by anyone. And since there is rape culture that must solved, it does not matter that the stats are a sham and not true; that the overstated risk of rape for females in college is not true; that it is somehow a given that all females instinctively understand what is rape is not true; that the risk of a female being inaccurate in her assessment of rape is so small that guys could be tentatively punished with suspension based on just the accusation; it does not matter that Jackie (and others in the past) may be fabricating stories because there is a problem on college campuses beyond belief; does not matter if the new proposed solutions do nothing for the actual 95% of women outside of college because it is the rape culture that matters most. </p>

<p>But, they knew the stats were not there to support these claims, thus they decided to redefine terms. They purposely tried to pad the stats by calling all sorts of things rape equivalent, including an unwanted pat on the butt etc.</p>

<p>However, to get to the ground floor, the answer is money - hard to shakedown a corporation and colleges for money without sensationalism. And since the real stats did not help the advocacy groups, therefore, walla, we make them up, and then tell people ignore the stats, even if they are made up because the problem is real anyway.</p>

<p>Simple SOP of too many advocacy group - start with the premise we assume and then do what we need to try and prove it, even if shown to be erroneous. It is what it is in the world of advocacy group politics. </p>

2512

<p>What sort of expert in this is does your supposed counsel have? That can matter re: his platform on which to base an opinion. What makes me turn to him as authoritative? </p>

<p>AND, "the entire movement is support based on sham stats and provocative slogans, such as 1 in 5, rape culture, a female is more likely to be raped in college etc. "</p>

<p>Nope. I don’t abhor the situation based on slogans or some impressively hot aired speaker or media article. You really think we’re stupid???</p>

<p>For heaven’s sake, we abhor this because it’s real and we have experienced it or variations or have friends who did. Why keep coming back to the idea we’re naively impressionable, unable to think and only a few mostly-male posters, parents of boys or one or two females get it? For me, that just blows hot air of its own. Most especially because of the cycling back to bullets any educated person should be able to correctly pick up with a read of T9 and the Dear Colleague letters. And some inquisitive googling. </p>

2513

<p>If Emily Renda needs to think her rape was a mistake, if that is what gets her through the day… I am happy for her.</p>

2514

<p>I agree. I don’t think anyone should be forced to report a rape or anything else if they don’t feel like it. Totally, it’s their choice. The college tribunal alternative I’m not so sure is a great idea for reasons best expressed on here by Northwesty. </p>

2515

<p>

</p>

<p>OK, I have to now speak up for my fellow advocates, even if their cause is different than mine. Good advocacy groups don’t just make up stats, they spin very well. Remember that rape victim advocates got Obama and Biden to side with the 1 in 5 stats which even the authors of the study say is false. This is really good advocacy. Very, very good execution. Based on that the rape victim advocates have created college tribunals that are biased against the accused, and have been able to pass nonsensical Yes means Yes laws. And they have done this with a fraction of the marketing budget of the big corporations. While you and I may not agree with that they did, give credit when due when it comes to their execution. Personally, my hat is off to them and I learned a LOT from this exercise.</p>

<p>Tell me, would you not hire some of these folks to help you run your marketing campigns? Be honest.</p>

2516

<p>Too much flaming on this thread. I’m offended. “repeat them like parrots.” “it does not matter that the stats are a sham and not true” “overstated risk of rape for females” “the actual 95% of women outside of college” (which is not relevant to T9, it’s a different problem to be addressed differently.) “thus they decided to redefine terms” “the answer is money”
Inflammatory, in that it’s bosh. Think what you will. </p>

2517

<p>

</snip></p>

<p>I take it then that you are arguing that in order for actions to be “force”, they have to be directed at active resistance. I find that interpretation to be problematical for a couple of reasons.</p>

<p>First, 261.(a)2, the part about force or duress, is the only way that an alleged rapist can be charged if it is determined that the accuser could have consented; all the other parts of 261(a) are about victims who can’t consent. So, if you interpret “force” as actions directed against active resistance, then the accuser having said No is irrelevant. The alleged rapist can concede that the victim said No the entire time, and still be acquitted, if the jury concludes that she didn’t resist actively. </p>

<p>Second, if the victim has to resist actively in order for the alleged rapist to have committed rape, then 261.6, the part about the definition of consent, is vacuous. There’s never a situation where it applies. </p>

<p>I find it difficult to believe that legislators intended either of these. I don’t think the California law is that it’s not rape unless the victim kicks or punches the rapist, and I don’t think the California legislators inserted a vacuous section about consent.</p>

2518

<p>

</p>

<p>Why don’t you just check case law? </p>

2519

<p>'Cause I’m not a lawyer and don’t have easy access to case law?</p>

<p>It’s a good suggestion, though, and I’d love to hear from a DA or prosecutor who does know.</p>

2520

<p>

</p>

<p>Why not just ask the lawyers on the forum then what they think?</p>