<p>And this is the point I have been saying from earlier. Do people not think my HR is alerted to all these connected names? Hell yeah. We do not need issues. We will not entertain resumes from any if these people. Not worth the trouble. Does not matter if it off their resumes, they are known. We know all of them. And I am not the only HR on the case. Some things are just not worth it and troubled kids and hanging allegations top the list.</p>
<p>This why I have always taught my kids. Walk the straight and narrow regardless of the price to do that and so I can always have their back. I say this to them because I really know how it can affect them down the road, if they screw up. The Internet is unforgiving beyond belief.</p>
<p>Bay: a comment on buzzfeed linked to some no. VA kids swim team with a coach with the name of the kid that was said to have lawyered up. But I am not clear if that kid has been IDed as “Drew” or just potentially guilty as someone with some swimming connection that also was a phi psi brother</p>
<p>The whole situation is so sad. I too hope that Jackie is getting some counseling or other help and is being protected. Clearly the RS author has not said a word in support of her which seems quite cruel but may be due to legal advice. </p>
<p>The BOJ commissioned a study from the National Academy that said that the BOJ numbers were undercounts, for a variety of reasons. In other words, the BOJ’s own study, commissioned by themselves, says their numbers are wrong. So I think their numbers are wrong.</p>
<p>This is not a tweak to the survey. The recommendations are to abandon the NVCS survey entirely as it pertains to rape and sexual assault, because it cannot possibly get good numbers.</p>
<p>Hah, sowhat and awc…i am a libertarian raised by one socialist parent and one conservative republican parent, now I know why I get myself mixed up in these kinds of threads and why on surface I generally like the positions you both take, even if I don’t agree with every single thing. </p>
<p>Anyway I’m a believer in what I think is the premise of the Ingrid Michaelson song Girls Chase Boys and that is that girls don’t exclusively chase boys. Boys and girls chase each other and in the end they are all chasing after the same thing: love… and when you are young and frankly pretty stupid about that which you don’t know (love), crap happens and yeah i believe in regret sex for both boys and girls but hopefully due process will protect them both from each other. </p>
<p>Oh, of course I would prefer the world where I get to choose who I have sex with, how I have sex with them, when I have sex with them, what have you. But that’s not reality, is it? I got ass/crotch grabbed many times by stone drunk women. During some mad parties I have had strangers - complete strangers and male - try to kiss me and in the process puke all over me. I will tell you, when the kids come into college, they really can’t handle their liquor. Their parents should do a better job teaching them like my parents did. Education starts at home including how to drink and still be in control.</p>
<p>But none of that was rape, was it? That was just usua; crap that you get when you throw a bunch of barely teens together and add alcohol. Now if you are saying that people should ask for permission before throwing up on someone, OK, I agree. But that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about intercourse between two people who like each other, are in control of themselves, like say between you and your SO. Martial rape does happen. So, will you go for No is No or Yes is Yes in your own relationship? And how exactly will you implement it? </p>
<p>Here’s an excellent piece on bystander intervention put out by the government of New Zealand. It’s about 8 minutes long, delves into that murky gray area of drunk and unresponsive females, and offers a few solutions. </p>
<p>Yes, she could have not had any or so much alcohol, but this is the reality for many young people, even at dry schools.</p>
<p>Also - a trigger warning, although nothing violent is shown, it may be upsetting to some people. </p>
<p>You are wrong. Let’s do some math. D Stark you can play too.</p>
<p>You engage in an act that has 1% chance of death. You do this every year. When is the expected number of years before you die? There is no other cause of death for you than this act. (You are immortal otherwise.)</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang, Recommendation by this is that is not proof that BoJ has repudiated their numbers. You said something very concrete, that BoJ repudiated their numbers. You didn’t say that you believe in the recommendation of a study that BoJ has commissioned (Govt commissions a million studies a year and listens to less than 0.1%) and you believe that BoJ should repudiate its numbers.</p>
<p>See, it is this stretch to make the facts fit your worldview that weakens the position of activists. </p>
<p>alh, do you really think this is how the hookup culture works? Seriously?</p>
<p>You are seriously out of touch, and I do not mean this dismissively, I mean this factually. May be that’s how it worked 40 years back (no sex before 4th date, or some such rule). That’s not how it works today. People are far more promiscous and stranger sex is quite common. How much concern for a total stranger do you think anyone has, especially if the goal is to move on the next day?</p>
<p>You may not like it, but you have to accept reality.</p>
<p>I just feel people here are designing solutions for the Victorian age. No drinking. No sleeping around. No drinking and sleeping around. That’s not how it works.</p>
<p>I am at a complete loss as to what I think should be done to fix the situation. Unlike many people here I think of myself and middle of the road kind of a person; someone who can see both sides of the story. Here are 2 examples. </p>
<p>1- innocent until proven guilty? or vice versa? One side has stated that it is better to let a 1000 guilty people go free than incarcerate 1 innocent man. Let’s take that idea to the extreme. We should let every accused person go free because we can’t chance having an innocent man jailed (BTW- you can’t even say that at least you could jail those who admit their guilt because a very small percentage of innocent people admit to crimes they did not commit). Sorry, but such a system would be the pinnacle of stupidity. There is something called “the greater good”. Churchill used that theory when he made one of the hardest decisions in history and sacrificed most of the inhabitants of a town to likely save the country. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a system where 1 million innocent men are jailed just so that not a single guilty guy gets set free is also just as stupid. Where is the middle ground that 99.9% of us probably agree on? Is it 1 in 10? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? where? Is it beyond all doubt? beyond a reasonable doubt? beyond a shadow of a doubt? beyond a preponderance of the evidence? more likely than not? </p>
<p>At some point the greater good outweighs the really crappy situation where an individual (and everyone in their orbit) gets screwed. I don’t know where that is but it exists. </p>
<p>2- The 2nd somewhat unrelated point is deciding which is better, yes means yes, or no means no. I would argue that no means no is what should be used in many cases- like spouses (see SWDYDH, we can agree on something <vbg>). I should not have to ask my spouse to say yes when we get ready to fool around and they are clearly saying with their actions that they want to be intimate. </vbg></p>
<p>OTOH- in cases where a person is incapacitated it is clearly better to have a “yes means yes” policy. So how do you come up with a solution that satisfies both sides of the equation? I don’t know. </p>
<p>I now return you to your regularly scheduled polarizing debate.</p>
<p>I totally agree. Nothing good can come out of that. Plenty of fish in the pond.</p>
<p>But even when I think a woman is interested in sex I remain ready to stop the moment she says no as she can change her mind. If the legal standard becomes that I have to get an OK from her, I would want that in words, and not my “knowledge”. Safety first. Getting that in words throughout the night will be comical though. That’s all I am saying.</p>
<p>Mom2and,
Thanks. That the Phi Psi who retained an attorney is implicated doesn’t mesh with the Dailymail article I posted earlier that reported Jackie’s father saying it wasn’t Phi Psi. Jackie also said she didn’t say he was a Phi Psi or know whether he was one. It’s hard to know what news sources should be believed. </p>
<p>I have been with the same person since 1983, and I cannot even remember the last time I asked for sex verbally. Maybe 1984 or late 1983. </p>
<p>Clearly my relationship is different because I think after a certain amount of time if husband and wives are still verbally asking consent there is communication problem about understanding the non-verbal behaviors and cues of the other person.</p>