Hunt - I like your post too. I don’t think you can write a rule book on how to interpret actions, and the interpretation sometimes depends on very specific facts as well as the experiences and culture of the interpreter (as awcntb pointed out too).
For example, suppose my neighbor came over to my house while my wife was away to borrow a cup of sugar, make-up on and wearing lingerie under her robe. If my wife then came home it’d be fair for her to think my neighbor was up to something fishy. If I tried to defend my neighbor to my wife by saying “just because she’s dressed that way doesn’t mean she’s looking for sex”, I’m pretty sure my wife would be very angry with me and wouldn’t accept that for a second. (Actually she’d be pretty angry with me just for the fact that my neighbor came over, but that’s a woman’s prerogative. I tend to think women judge quite harshly for things that men are oblivious to, but that’s a different topic).
The problem with these cases is that there’s almost never a videotape, so a juror is very tempted to make inferences from the circumstances and using their personal and cultural biases. In the Alaska/Juneau case, people from more traditional cultures would probably say that a girl showing up to an ex-boyfriend’s house to sleep over in his bed in her underwear is more likely to have been positively inclined to having sex. For me, I’d say (particularly in the college years), having a girl pass-out from drinking in a friend’s bed wearing her underwear without intending to have sex occurs from time to time, and I don’t draw much of an inference. And even how you describe it can matter. If I had instead written “a girl slip into a boy’s bed wearing nothing but her bra and panties”, then I would have painted a different mental image.
To be honest, when I read these cases where the woman doesn’t seem to be incapacitated from alcohol I do wonder why didn’t the girl tell the guy no or push him away. I think several people are going to jump down my throat for saying this … I’m not saying it’s not rape if she doesn’t. It may indicate I have biases, but if I were a juror I’d rather ask the question and get an answer rather than be silent and just put my own biases into the decision. It’s extremely hard to figure out the truth in these cases and most anything that would help me find the truth should be fair game in my book.
We manage to train young men (mostly men) to run into burning buildings or towards gunfire. That’s the purpose of training - so that when the time comes you know what to do and can override your natural instinct. I think that if we spent a few hours training young women for these situations - to be more assertive, to say no, to push guys away, to be more careful about how much they drink, etc. - then we might prevent many of these college cases from occurring rather than get into a situation where there’s no good outcome for anyone. Of course, no training will help a young woman if she’s roofied or has a knife to her throat, but if we can deal with 1/3 of the problem then that’s a start.
I’m using “she” here. Does she have the right to decide, with clear, rational control of the decision?
Don’t confuse it with ‘a woman accuses someone of-’ or ‘he says.’ Or who’s naked, etc. See, I don’t think some are willing to stand up for some better, intentional clarity. Step aside from whether you think YMY will or won’t hold up in court or NMN is better wording.
Sorry, this is me, but even if 2/3 of lawsuits are won by plaintiff, I want to know what drop in the bucket this represents. 2/3 of lawsuits is looking only at lawsuits. It can tell us one thing. But what proportion of college judgments end up in a lawsuit? I don’t think any of us here can answer that. And even if you could show how many expulsions end up disputed, I’d still want reference points. Eg, how many cases result in expulsion? That seems part of rational inquiry to me.
Btw, did you know that T9 does allow a teacher to hug a student? Ok, it’s in certain circumstances, but there’s a lot of misunderstanding here. You get a media report that bothers, then I think some leap to conclusions.
Of course. The reason I (and others I think) aren’t engaging in that topic isn’t because we are monsters or we disagree. It’s because the answer is obviously yes - it’s like asking if someone has a right not to be murdered.
To me, it’s just not an interesting topic. I don’t want to repeat 2nd grade. The interesting aspects are the complexities.
Addendum to my previous post - we should also be training young men to respect women, to ask her before performing any act if there’s any uncertainty, to make sure she’s happy with what’s going on, not to take advantage of drunk women. I think we could do a much better job with this too.
Yes, of course she has the right to decide. The problem cases are the ones where she doesn’t decide anything until much later, sometimes six months. However, she certainly has the right to decide to leave at any time. Now, if he forbids that somehow we have a clear case of rape. if she does nothing it is going to be much more difficult to prove and people will apply their own life experiences to the situation.
Actually, I think the Yes means Yes law makes it even more necessary to verbally say No.
Since the law allows for actions and non-verbal cues to indicate Yes, any initial verbal or non-verbal Yes can be followed by other non-verbal cues. If two people are not in the same mental “place,” as to what is happening, the non-verbal cues can easily be mistaken as to what is being meant. Saying “No” rather clearly is really then paramount at that point to make things clear., if stopping is desired.
I just do not see how Yes mean Yes switches the burden at all. All it does is defines another layer in the process, but changes nothing in terms of how to stop something cold, as too many interpretations are involved - again, back to he said, she said. There is no he said, she said interpretation with the word No. It is quite clear.
It works, but it only works after I’m already being assaulted. That is to say, if I say No, then the guy was assaulting me. I don’t want guys to be able to assault me. I don’t think the protection of being able (maybe) to stop an assault in the middle of it by saying no is enough protection for me. I don’t want to be assaulted in the first place.
Look at the case of the Alaska girl. She woke up with the guy already having intercourse with her. The prosecutor said that he couldn’t charge the guy because she didn’t then say No, which is accurate as to Alaska law. But look at what would have happened if she had said no. He still would have been having sex with her against her will, she still would have been raped, and if he had stopped raping her when she said No, he probably still would not have been charged.
A system that says a guy can rape a woman for a little while, and it’s not rape, is no system I want to endorse. I understand why guys like it. But I do not.
CF - I know you’ve changed your mind on this a while ago, so this isn’t a comment on your own position. But people keep bringing it up because it’s very important in the world of these college sexual misconduct hearings. Saying that the Dear Colleague Letter is ok except for mandating the preponderance of evidence standard has a “so, other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln” quality to it.
And to be fair, preponderance of evidence seems to work ok in the civil court system. But in the court system people aren’t stripped of their rights to an attorney, to discovery, to review and challenge evidence, cross-examine witnesses, not to confronted with anonymous witnesses like in a star chamber, have an independent trained judge, etc.
There are very few things I’d call “un-American”. This falls into that category in my book.
But, as per usual with the tactics deployed by you and some of our cohorts, you have changed the circumstances to fit your desired result.
Of course, male and female friends can share a bed without having sex, and have not indicated consent to sex simply by doing so. But of course that is not what I said, is it?
I saw the context differently. You stated, "A reasonable woman in her right mind, even if drunk, does not take off all of her clothes and get into bed with a man...if she is not interested." I'm just allowing for cases when she doesn't feel she has any other option- intimidated or forced are obvious. Drunk applies too. Does it mean she's interested?
No holier than thou- this thread is covering a lot of opinions and we're all treading on each other's toes. Understand all of us are giving AND getting. (Oops we didn't consent but...)
I would like to believe we are all reasonable women (and men) in our right minds bringing extremely different perspectives and life experiences to the discussion. I hope you don’t leave the thread, Consolation. Even if I’m sometimes misreading you, I do want to read what you have to say.
Yes means yes does not mean that two people stop whatever they are doing and ask if it’s OK. That is what we are awc is trying to say. If two kids are clutching each other and kissing and making noises…that’s going to be a yes even if some people want to make this transactional where everything stops and one person says in a clear voice - are you ok with me proceeding…that’s not going to happen, not anytime soon, probably never… I’m pretty old but I remember being single - you’d meet a guy and he’d do one of 4 things generally at some point in the evening - he’d either say if he was the confident sort: “I’m going to kiss you.” or he’d say if he was the shy sort: “May I kiss you” or some such derivative. or he’d dive in and say nothing - but I had 3 options for every single scenario - I could say “no” or I could say “yes” or I could turn my head and push away from him saying nothing. So that is how the evening is going to start and probably that is how every single pivotal moment is going to begin so I can’t disagree with acwn that girls have to step up and not just assume that a vague law and the college are exempting them from something if they don’t say yes or they don’t say no. I don’t see the difference frankly in possible outcomes. Yes means yes isn’t going to make a hill of beans difference to a rapist and it’s pretty worthless for college kids that don’t know what they want. I don’t have a huge personal investment is whether the world spins on yes means yes, or no means no…but you better believe I’ve going to be saying “No” as loud and clearly as I can if someone is doing something that I don’t agree with.
We do not dismiss people solely on the basis of a personal accusation by one person on another. And we do not stupidly think we can adjudicate sexual assault claims, even though we have a cadre of lawyers capable of setting up and directing such a tribunal.
So far, after 28+ years, we have not had any assault claims or accusations by employees concerning other employees. Anyway, it is clear in the handbook that any felony crime, including rape, will be reported to the police, as we do not investigate or handle any felonies in-house. Not our core competency, so would not even try.
I am quite sure your last company fired the guy on more than an accusation though. The company would have set itself up for a serious lawsuit if it fired the guy on the basis of someone else’s word alone, and it turns out to be wrong. There must have been something else supporting that claim in order to fire, such as a police report or pattern of behavior.
But, I will tell you, unless there is a criminal filing or verified patten of behavior, I will not direct firing of someone just on the accusation of another. There must be something else supporting the claim. As I stated before, we have dismissed people for a whole lot less, but a basic investigation, which are not difficult to do, verified the claims and thus dismissal was warranted, and more importantly, could be defended in court.
LF: I think everyone has agreed that if a woman is being intimidated by force or restrained in any way or is too drunk, consent is not valid. I am not sure what you are getting at in 4642. Of course the women has the right to decide, but also, if capable, the responsibility to let the man know what that decision is. Men can’t read a woman’s mind.
You and some others seems to always assume that the girl is incapacitated and clearly can’t consent. I don’t think there is any argument there (except the how drunk is too drunk question).
CF you continue to bring up Alaska. But let’s be real, a more typical situation is the man tries to push the limit - not assaulting, but having consent to that point and then trying to move a bit further along. A no at that point can stop the situation immediately without an assault taking place. You could argue this was attempted perhaps, but not assault.
Agree with momof here. The typical scenario is not to stop at each moment and ask clearly to continue. Of course there should be more moments like that - is this OK, does this feel good, but often (esp with young men) does not happen. And let’s be real, some (possibly many?) young woman have no interest in being asked and go for the most macho types (sports stars, frat boys from the most popular frat). They may find the boy that stops to ask to be a bit of a loser. That is one way that young women also contribute to the negative campus culture around this issue.
The guy didn’t think it was rape. He thought it was a cool night on the town. He was kind of bragging. Picked up some girl at a bar. He was looking for somebody in trouble. She couldn’t walk up the stairs. I don’t remember if he carried her. She was kind of unconscious during sex. She was out of it. He had his way with her.
She didn’t say no though.
Three of us heard the story. We all came to the same conclusion.
You find other things where you can fire somebody.
What is the difference between a basic investigation that can result in firing and adjudicating sexual assault claims? You should be investigating both sexual assault and sexual harassment. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t call the police in the case of a sexual assault, but you have to have your own internal investigation too:
It’s even possible that you can (though it’s rare) be found personally liable if you don’t take handle it properly:
Please, folks, before you post, stop and ask yourself whether you are fairly characterizing the posts of people who disagree with you. Don’t accuse people (for example) of saying that women don’t have the right to their own bodies, unless somebody has actually said that. Don’t say that somebody is claiming that women always lie, unless somebody did say that. Don’t say that somebody wants to punish men even if they are innocent, unless somebody did say that.
Make sure that when you use terms like “incapacitated” that you think about what you actually mean by that.
And here’s something for all of us to think about: pay attention for the next few weeks when you are watching TV and movies. How is “consent” portrayed in the media?
There is a guy I know. He was investing people’s money for 20 years or more. Borrowed their money and paid them back. Financial crisis comes. He can’t pay his bills anymore. Turns out…he has $100 million in debt and $10 million in assets. Kind of hard to pay off the debtholders that way.
It was a ponzi scheme.
The guy is in civil court. It’s a mess. The debthoders are going to receive about 3 cents on the dollar. The lawyers are going to get most of the rest.
There were no criminal charges. I was talking to one of the lawyers. I asked why this guy wasn’t arrested. The lawyer had no clue. The guy was a crook. The lawyer said maybe because he was old. I think the guy is in his late 70’s. Maybe he is 80 by now. The case has been going on for several years. It’s a civil case so…
dstark, maybe the fleeced investors didn’t want the guy to be criminally prosecuted because they were hoping to get back at least some of the money. Having somebody prosecuted is not always in the best interests of that person’s victims–and I guess that makes my point relevant to our preceding discussion, and why victims’ groups might not support mandatory reporting to the police.
