<p>I’ve asked if this is about assuming only serial rapists.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t miss that point. Whatever they are measuring has declined by half in 40 years. But if you can’t trust their numbers, you can’t trust their numbers. </p>
<p>It may be that the incidence of violent stranger rape has declined in the last 40 years, like other violent crimes committed by people unknown to victims. (I say it’s the [lead!](<a href=“http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline]lead![/url]”>Lead: America’s Real Criminal Element – Mother Jones)</a>) But we can’t draw any conclusions from statistics if we don’t believe the statistics in the first place.</p>
<p>The BOJ 2 in 1000 number is too low. The oft-cited 1 in 5 number is probably too high, if it is meant to include only criminal sexual assault. We should be happy that BOJ is revamping its survey to get more accurate information.</p>
<p>OK- here is a philosophical question. If you take my watch from me and I go to the police and say you stole it and they find it in your possession but you say I gave it to you, what happens? I believe that in cases where the person with the watch and I don’t know each other the police would arrest that person based just on my word. </p>
<p>I would also venture a guess that if a close friend or relative ended up with the watch that the police would say it was a case of I" said/they said" and not arrest them (although they might ask them to give it back- maybe?). </p>
<p>So why don’t we believe women when they say something was done to them? I’m not saying we should, I am just saying that in cases where a woman goes immediately to police and claims rape and the rape kit shows DNA proof that sex occurred, what should be done? Is it different than my watch example? and, if so, how?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No (and this isn’t directed at you since I know you were asking rhetorically and are not one of the extremists). Am I missing something? Why do people keep talking about kissing as sexual assault? or invading someone’s space? The statues are very clear and it is “sexual contact” that is unwanted. It them goes on to define sexual conduct, which does not mention anything about kissing, etc. It mentions private body orifices and buttocks etc. It specifies digits etc, in private orifices and gentialia in the oral cavity, but from what I have seen it says nothing about kissing and any other innocuous contact.</p>
<p>‘So why don’t we believe women when they say something was done to them? I’m not saying we should, I am just saying that in cases where a woman goes immediately to police and claims rape and the rape kit shows DNA proof that sex occurred, what should be done? Is it different than my watch example? and, if so, how?’</p>
<p>I think the problem that everyone here is grappling with is that in most cases what you describe here does not happen and the incident goes unreported and there is no evidence. That is the problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the boy doesn’t understand consent. This is exactly the issue of affirmative consent. </p>
<p>I don’t have to tell you not to steal my watch-- you are stealing my watch unless I agree to give it to you. Similarly, I don’t have to tell you NOT to have sex with me-- you are assaulting me unless I agree, right then and there, to have sex with you.</p>
<p>The presumed state is that the boy can’t have sex with the girl, and in order to change that state, she has to agree. He is assaulting her unless she agrees, right then and there, to have sex with him, by word or deed. Her dancing with him in a suggestive manner is not consent to having sex with him. Her walking into a room with him is not consent to having sex with him. Only her affirmative consent to the sex counts as consent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While there are certainly a lot of cases where what you say is true (including this case and even several others mentioned here), there are many other cases where a woman does go immediately (including some in the links that have been posted here) and there is evidence </p>
<p>I think it’s a pretty good example. Do you think the cops would arrest your classmate if the two of you were quibbling about whether or not you allowed him or her to borrow the watch. Hmmm.</p>
<p>I think believing someone can follow. I don’t always believe everyone and everything I come in contact with the minute I come in contact with the information or the person. But I’ll formulate my own opinion armed with information from others, information supplied and my own intuition. Humans are on a continuum - hence “if you believe that I’ve got a bridge to sell you” and other idioms. Very few people take claims at absolute face value.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably not, but I think they would if it was someone I had never met. That is why I think that the analogy is somewhat applicable to “he said/she said” cases. From what I hear/read anecdotally, if a woman has never met a man before, police are more inclined to believe the woman versus if he was an acquaintance. But I also know there have been other cases where the accused has claimed they met somewhere that night and that she liked him and that it was consensual where no charges were filed. </p>
<p>Cardinal, So I think what you are saying is that it should be instituted that a boy must get an enthusiastic Yes prior to sex. I don’t know what the answer is honestly. I do not advocate for sexual assault, I am disgusted by it, but there really must be due process. How anyone could read my example and know the answer surprises me. It really makes you chose the liar and I don’t know how you do that. </p>
<p>
Well, because of post #1225…
</p>
<p>Post #1217:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I will not try to argue with insanity, as it will just make me look insane too. </p>
<p>I will let other readers reach their own opinion, as to what I write. I will let you continue because you are doing more to damage your own cause than I could ever do. </p>
<p>A general thought:</p>
<p>You know people have weak arguments when they have to keep moving the ball all over the place. When people have to keep arguing endless hypotheticals, changing what people say, changing the constructs of their arguments etc., they are proving that their initial argument is vapid or extremely weak at best.</p>
<p>But, it is interesting that posters like this prove why we can never give anyone, male or female, carte blanche on what they accuse others of. Imagine what such a poster would make up to get what they want given the fact they have no problem making up what another poster says, even though anyone can go back and read and ascertain the accused poster never said as much. Imagine what they would make up if they knew there would be no evidence? Hum. Posters like this are case-in-point never to fully trust word-of-mouth out the box because there are people who just make stuff up, males and females. </p>
<p>What a perfect example of my point that corroboration is essential and fundamental when affecting someone’s life.</p>
<p>I repeat again what I said in a previous post, #1294:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I see how that post says that no female should be believed. NOT.</p>
<p>Now, if the alternative being suggested is that we charge and convict without an investigation and corroboration, then I am back to my other comment that such is third-world thinking, as that is the exact system totalitarian states use to make people they do not like spend years in jail. </p>
<p>I think he should at least get a non-enthusiastic Yes. He hasn’t talked about any Yes at all, in your telling. He hasn’t given one iota of evidence that she consented, and he doesn’t seem to realize that he needs consent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Especially if they broke a window, picked a lock or some other physical evidence that showed they were in your home and intent on robbing you. </p>
<p>I can remember when condoms weren’t discussed in polite company. Then we had a public health emergency and got busy making people aware of safe sex practices. Enthusiastic consent can be seen as another aspect of safe sex education. imho. It is different than what most of us are used to thinking about. It is an idea that would have been nonsensical to me as a college student. Now it does make sense to me. We can make it the norm if we choose to do so. Just like we have made condom use a norm.</p>
<p>Lookingforward has mentioned mini a couple of times. I hope the following is a correct attribution. I remember mini writing his wife told their daughters you weren’t ready for sex if you couldn’t talk about it beforehand with the potential partner.</p>
<p>adding: enthusiastic or affirmative consent? which do we want? I kind of hope most people, male or female, are looking for enthusiasm.</p>
<p>Suppose that the guy had charged $10,000 worth of his tuition on her credit card. She is charging him with theft. He says he didn’t hear her say No. </p>
<p>Normal people say, Dude! That’s her credit card, not yours! You can’t use her credit card unless you get her explicit permission, however unenthusiastic and grudging. She doesn’t have to run around telling people not to use her credit card, because nobody but her can use her credit card unless she explicitly allows them to. </p>
<p>Her own body is more valuable to her than her credit card. You have to get permission to use that, too.</p>
<p>[
</p>
<p>Of couse. I am talking about where there is no other physical evidence. They would likely still be found guilty. In my rape example we would have physical evidence that showed they were “in my home”. </p>
<p>From what I see / hear on the internet (for whatever that is worth), there is a guy being named who was a Phi Psi who was not a lifeguard, but was a swimming coach, which meant that he would indeed be at the pool and could have been mistaken for a lifeguard since he was there in an official capacity. All of his social networks have been shut down, such as LinkedIn or Facebook. This is what I mean by splitting hairs … Phi Psi could say legitimately “there was no one who was a lifeguard” but there was someone who was a swimming coach. </p>
<h1>1356 CF: Just the fact you have to explain it that way shows how we have difficulty looking at these scenarios and interpreting what we see. We really do have to start from the idea women have first rights to their own bodies. Poetgrl pointed that out to me a few months back and it was definitely one of those OMG moments of clarity for me.</h1>