<p>Maybe she did all those other non verbal things you described…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s sexual assault if he didn’t consent in word or deed. Does he say he didn’t? Presumably, there were witnesses, because this act occurred in public, and they might be able to illuminate the matter.</p>
<p>I think this article in Slate has it just about 100% correct.</p>
<ol>
<li> Police and prosecutors should handle rape, not professors.</li>
<li> Due process is not optional when it comes to combating campus rape.</li>
<li> Deal with alcohol on campus.</li>
<li> Advocates undermine their cause and credibility when touting stats and stories that don’t hold up under scrutiny.</li>
</ol>
<p><a href=“College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.”>http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well did she?</p>
<h1>1368</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>This really bothers me. I am trying to figure out why. I think because I’d like to assume my body doesn’t need to be guarded… that I’m in a safe space. I understand the reality of campus life is that young women need to be “on guard” but that is another way some are defining rape culture… that women need to guard and protect themselves from a culture which is potentially dangerous. This may just be reality. But naming that reality is a start. imho</p>
<p>I hate defamatory innuendo, but when you are investigating, everything is relevant. I note from the internet that the UVA head swim coach resigned mysteriously in July 2013. It makes one wonder whether he had any relevant knowledge about the incident.</p>
<p>^^ That phrase doesn’t bother me at all. (here comes another poor analogy…) It’s like driving defensively. Not only do I need to concentrate on my own driving, I need to be on the look out for others and their dangerous behavior. </p>
<p>mamalumper: I am very interested in all your posts here and it is always good to get a new point of view, as some of us have been having many similar discussions for some time now. One thing that is happening here - imho- is some shorthand going on because we already have a pretty good idea of each other’s views. I wish there were a way to catch you up but can’t think what it would be. No one has enough time to go back through all the old threads. I can’t even keep up with this one today. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. In a court of law, the victim’s testimony is certainly considered evidence. The jury gets to determine whether or not the accuser is credible, and if the defendant chooses to testify, whether or not he is to be believed. MANY posters on this thread have dismissed victim statements as something which should not be considered in the University proceedings because it is a he said/she said, when in fact in a court of law, he said/she said, he said/he said, she said/she said is considered on a DAILY basis as EVIDENCE, sometimes as the most compelling evidence. </p>
<p>Based on the comments presented by some posters here, there really is NO SUCH THING as corroborating evidence of a rape for the reasons already stated:</p>
<p>DNA has no bearing unless the accused denies having ever been in sexual contact because DNA tells you nothing about whether the contact was consensual.</p>
<p>Physical trauma has no bearing because it doesn’t speak to whether it is rape or consensual BDSM.</p>
<p>Victim testimony is insufficient because that’s just he said/she said.</p>
<p>Unless a victim has been drugged and is fortunate enough to get to a hospital in time for blood work to reflect this, I don’t see how it’s possible to corroborate a rape to the satisfaction of some of the people on this thread (and there are a couple who could probably even question the relevance of drugs in a woman’s system without proof that the drugs were ingested unknowingly). This evidence is used in a court of law, but for some reason is insufficient for the discussion of how to handle evidence of this type in a university setting, specifically with regard to expulsion of accused rapists.</p>
<p>rom828: exactly! We take for granted we have to drive defensively. We take for granted women have to live defensively. Men usually don’t have to live defensively with regard to the threat of rape. Women do. Just one of those facts of life we take for granted.</p>
<p>Sorry it bothers you. I would say that same thing in reference to people who are grossly obese, or people who smoke or people who drink too much, etc. etc. Your body is yours…it’s one of the few things in life that belongs solely to you and that you can have some control over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I get where you’re going with this, but as I tried to say last night not everyone is going to define behavior as sexual assault. If some woman is grinding on some guy on the dance floor, etc. most guys would take it as she was interested in them big time, not that she was sexually assaulting them, even though technically as you pointed out fondling is considered sexual assault. The vast majority of people, when they meet someone, consider “touching” as a signal that the person is interested - not that the person is assaulting them in a negative way. Most people can differentiate being touched in a way that is undesireable vs. being touched in a way that is desireable. This is why if two people end up in bed together and they have been partying and people saw them touching and people saw them leaving and neither of them was falling down drunk and then the next day or the next week or the next month or the next year one of them says it was a crime…the police are going to want to know what happened that changed the situation. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except for the fact that there are no undergraduate coaches for the Virginia swim team.</p>
<h1>1388</h1>
<p>I am aware of an event at a HS in the NE in around 2005 where a couple of girls ended up at the hospital drugged, and their classmates claimed everyone took rohypnol for the fun of it. And all the parents of the classmates agreed with this assessment. Therefore - no sexual assault or rape.</p>
<h1>1304 - If the bad grades came before the weekend in question, then one could easily surmise that was the horse. I’d say bad grades causing depression are more common than rape causing depression since bad grades are more common. It could be that she failed a midterm just before she began looking depressed or something else happened completely unrelated.</h1>
<p>At this point there is no credible evidence that Jackie was raped. She said one thing to Rolling Stone, she said another thing to Emily, she said a very different thing to Andy and Cindy. Now she might confuse the place or the number of attackers but she would surely know the name of her date that night (who said he never met her, a claim that could easily be refuted if untrue) and she would surely know the difference between oral sex (the story she told Andy and Cindy) and being vaginally raped on a broken glass table. She has zero credibility at this point. </p>
<p>We should be careful here. The last few posts sound like a witch hunt to find some shred of truth in Jackies’ story. I read a story in the Wapo this weekend that indicated that Jackie has named the fellow life guard and the Wapo spoke with him. He claims not to know Jackie, just of her and that they had never been on a date. I am sure that is being investigated. </p>
<p>Thank you for clearing that up, mamalumper. I hope I didn’t sound like I am on a witch hunt, as I am not.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4,</p>
<p>As a practical matter, there are probably very few if any, criminal cases that make it to trial with only he said/she said testimony. There is going to be other compelling evidence presented as well.</p>
<p>Nobody here is on a witch hunt for Jackie. Actually, it’s the other way around. The 7 boys were labelled as pigs since the Ederly story was bought hook, line and sinker.</p>
<p>Hmmm, come to think of it, maybe I’m on a witch hunt for RS and Ederly. </p>
<p>I’m not understanding your point, Mamalumper. You give an example of a guy who was suspended from campus for rape. You tell us details of this incident. I presume that you’re not trying to trick us, and you’re giving us the relevant details so that we can evaluate the situation and say whether, knowing those details, we would deem the incident an assault. If you suppress some relevant details, then of course we can’t give a reasonable answer.</p>
<p>Please read the Slate article posted by Northwesty (post 1382) as I was going to post the same link. It is written by a woman and takes the issue of campus sexual assault seriously, while still pointing out the major flaws in much of the conventional wisdom. She is, however, the women who wrote a Slate article last year telling young women not to get drunk and so is considered by some to be victim blaming. However, the article make some important points.</p>
<p>Particularly (and as I have pointed out on several occasions) Lisak’s oft-quoted assertion that most campus rapes are by serial rapists. His findings have never been duplicated and his setting was very far from a traditional 4-yr residential college filled with 18-23 yr olds (Section 4 of the article). </p>
<p>Here is the link again: </p>
<p><a href=“College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.”>http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html</a></p>
<p>The article also includes this:</p>
<p>Carol Tavris is a social psychologist and author of the feminist classic, The Mismeasure of Woman, and, with Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me). She says she is troubled by the blurring of distinctions between rape (notably by predatory males), unwanted sex (where one party agrees to sex not out of desire but to please or placate the partner), and the kind of consensual sex where both parties are so drunk they can barely remember what happened—and one of them later regrets it. She says, “Calling all of these kinds of sexual encounters ‘rape’ or ‘sexual assault’ doesn’t teach young women how to learn what they want sexually, let alone how to communicate what they want, or don’t want. It doesn’t teach them to take responsibility for their decisions, for their reluctance to speak up. Sexual communication is really hard—you don’t learn how to do it in a few weekends.”</p>
<p>Tavris also believes holding only men responsible for their sexual behavior has pernicious effects on women because it supports a victim identity that is already too prevalent in our society. “It’s so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake,” she says. “It’s much easier to say it’s all his fault. Look, sometimes it is all his fault. That’s called rape. But ambiguities and unexpected decisions are part of many encounters, especially sexual ones.”</p>
<hr>
<p>I am not a rape apologist, and know that in most cases women know the difference between regret the next day and rape. Women that believe they have been sexually assaulted must be listened to and supported. I don’t think it takes away from that support if I also believe that some of the efforts to support women in this by inflating numbers, shoddy and sensational reporting, finding young men guilty with little evidence, and not requiring women to take any responsibility for bad choices are not appropriate. </p>
<p>Here and in other similar threads, positive suggestions have been to include better education on drinking and sexual assault, bystander educations, more scrutiny of fraternities and other groups that may be the setting for some of these assaults, support for women who believe they have been assaulted, better investigation including keeping records about who has been accused and appropriate punishment when warranted. </p>