<p>We have many different systems for resolving disputes and doing justice, not just one. The state cannot keep a person in prison for years, take away his right to vote, etc., expose him to constant strip-searches and loss of communications privileges, without proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, substantial civil fines can be imposed, and millions of dollars of damages awarded, on mere preponderance-of-the-evidence proof. And – as people note time and time again here – internal disciplinary proceedings at a college are a world unto itself, where too much and too little proof can seemingly be required simultaneously.</p>
<p>And then there’s the powerful “court” of personal reputation among your peers, in your community, and the otherworldly court whose judgment many expect at the end of their lives, or the end of days . . . . That’s the only one where the standard is “truth” plain and simple. But I hear that court judges not just your deeds, but what is in your heart as well, so it’s apples-and-oranges with any other system (and I won’t get started on the function of “grace”).</p>
<p>I wish all of those systems functioned better, but I am not willing to get rid of any of them, much less rely exclusively on any one of them.</p>
<p>Did the medical examination show signs of forced entry?</p>
<p>Look, a lot of attention is being put on whether women should be believed. We can believe all women who bring a rape charge. But the court is simply not going to believe anyone without evidence. We can change the whole of society but that would still leave the law unchanged and the judges will still have to ask for evidence. That’s why rape cases are so hard.</p>
<p>You want to change people’s minds to believe women? Well, you are barking up the wrong tree. You need to change the law to guilty until proven innocent. Are you OK with that? </p>
<p>I see a lot of righteous back and forth on this forum but unwillingness to take it to its logical conclusion, that if we are to believe women unconditionally, we must change the legal system to guilty until proven innocent. That’s lazy thinking.</p>
<p>Actually, though, it’s not. The activists know that they can’t change the criminal law accordingly, but they can cause civil damage as in kicking a boy out of college simply based on an allegation and with lack of due process, or trying a boy in the court of public opinion. To me, that’s disturbing. It goes against the spirit of the US legal system.</p>
<p>All I know is that now I know the full names of both Jackie and the alleged “Drew” (the Phi Psi lifeguard who is lawyering up) and I am just sick over the fact that I know both of these names, because both of these young people are being smeared all over the internet, and one is a truth-teller and one is a bald-faced liar, and I don’t know that I can say which one is what at this point.</p>
<p>SoWhat: You ought to learn to read Census reports better. There is nothing like 44 million college-going women at any time. That’s maybe the number of women alive in America today who have some sort of college degree. The number of women in college at any time is going to be something on the order of 6-7 million.</p>
<p>OK, I am sorry, but this above is a downright dangerous thing to say on a college forum. Boys, if you are reading this, completely ignore the above. There is no such thing as consent by deed. Remember this forevger, as it will help you avoid raping someone. You may think the girl is doing all these things because she wants to have sex, but she may NOT. You are not the person to interpret what her act means. It is NOT a defense in a criminal court, just as she dressed slutty and winked at me is not a defense either. </p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, this was irresponsible of you.</p>
<p>If my daughter gets attacked from age zero through age 17, she and the accused get their case handled by the real criminal justice system (for better or worse). From age 22 through death, her case also gets handled by the real criminal justice system.</p>
<p>But if she gets attacked while she’s 18-21, then she and the accused have their case handled by a bunch of amateur gownie-types. Huh?</p>
<p>If colleges stay in this line of work, then they have no choice but to go all in. Counsel for the accused paid for by the school. Counsel for the accuser paid for by the school. Professional trained investigators and prosecutors. Discovery. Cross-examination of witnesses. Rules of evidence and procedure. Pay for a real judge who’s not conflicted. Etc. etc. etc. There’s a reason 28 Harvard Law School professors called Bravo Sierra on Harvard’s new “Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution.” Doesn’t the name of that office tell you how futile this exercise is?</p>
<p>Or the schools could help the victim (if she’s willing) access the criminal justice system that already exists to handle such cases. </p>
<p>Again, no one should try to satisfy some random people on the internet. But everyone should listen to lawyers when they say that only 20% of rape cases result in a conviction because of the existing US legal standards. And this is after the cops and the prosecutors thought that they had a case.</p>
<p>Why is it so surprising that cops and prosecutors don’t want to bring cases that have no supporting evidence beyond he said she said? </p>
<p>I cannot believe Buzzfeed would publish a kids name. Blech. If one of my kids was a member of any fraternity and had anything to do with swimming anywhere in the vicinity of that college during the time period being discussed you bet I’d get him a lawyer if for nothing but to protect him from irresponsible media. </p>
<p>Actually, this is not true. If they like the toucher, they then think that it is a sign of interest. If they don’t like the toucher, they take it negatively. If it is a cute boy she has had a crush on, it will not be sexual assault, it will be bliss. If however it is that creepy kid who sits in the corner and has a bad haircut, unfashionable clothes, and no sense of humor, it is then likely to be sexual assault. But the act is the same, just the interpretation is different. This is precisely why asking about violation of personal space in a survey and then marking it down as sexual assault is not very smart.</p>
<p>I have no idea what sort of system would work. It took me decades to even see what is right in front of my face. Western history, Eastern history, all history is history of the patriarchy. I think society may be about to move beyond patriarchal thinking and I have no idea what that means and what it will involve. It is more than my brain can hold.</p>
<p>I’m hoping when I get to JHS’s last court all will be explained and I’m pretty excited about that possibility actually.</p>
<p>In reading pieces about this issue I ran across one in which the accused were able to prove their innocence with a video tape. Temple U, maybe? The tape showed the woman participating of her own free will. </p>
<p>What constitutes explicit verbal consent to sex?</p>
<p>Yes to the general concept of intercourse?
Yes to specific acts (like, for example, anal)?
Yes to how such specific acts will be conducted (like, for example, with or without lube)?
If a new act springs into action in the middle of intercourse, should the negotiation cycle all over again?
How should the documentation be done?</p>
<p>I hear a lot about explicit verbal consent, I would like those that practice it explain to me how they do it.</p>
<p>JHS, I stand corrected and thank you. So, using the 11 million number vs. my 44 million number, the number of rape and attempted rape of college women is around 400 thousand. The numbers now sort of tie between the two BoJ studies. </p>
<p>I suggest we have a drone inside the room. If one of the participants doesn’t say yes after every x minutes then it zaps the partner. It will only go to sleep mode after both parties’ heat level goes down to normal levels.</p>
<p>D Stark, Your risk aversion then is much, MUCH higher than most. Systems are not designed to cater to the extremely risk averse. That procedure, of course, got approved by the FDA because of that reason. </p>
<p>SoWhat: That table says that 44.5% of 18-24 year-old women were enrolled in degree granting institutions in 2012. That’s about 6 million women, 5 million who are enrolled as full-time students. [This replies to a post that has been changed, so it no longer makes sense as a reply.]</p>
<h1>1494: You are allowed to talk during sex. With a new partner it is a good idea. imho. “Do you like this? Does that feel good? Are you into X? Can we Y?” You can say this sexy, dirty, whatever works. I can’t believe I have to post this. I haven’t seen that many pornos, but don’t they talk? Isn’t there a sound track beyond just moans?</h1>
<p>Going back to some ideas in #1399</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I want to focus on the communication part. I agree with that. Women (and men) need to communicate what they want. Absolutely.</p>