<p>My quote from today’s editorial was in no way directed at you, Pizzagirl. I hadn’t even read your post. Too many to catch up on.</p>
<p>Tatin, hope you’re shocked (and I think you are, one would have to be.) What an a-hole attitude. Everybody seems to be grubbing for their share of attention, which really hints at some morality issue popping up in our culture.</p>
<p>Imagine rape. Some people can’t even speak of it. Imagine a false accusation. Right. Now imagine an accurate accusation. JG should be able to distinguish between the “stigma of being inaccurately accused of being a rapist” and the stigma that dang well should be attached to an actual rapist.</p>
<p>Said with respect for the fact that no one is named, no one is on trial, no one is yet convicted in Cville. And that some of you are parents of boys.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a fantastic way to aid and comfort rapists. In this scenario, when a guy rapes a woman, and she comes forward, she’s in danger not only of being disbelieved about her rape, but of being punished for the supposed consensual sex she engaged in. If we wanted to discourage women even more for reporting rapes, this would be a good way to do it.</p>
<p>"This is a fantastic way to aid and comfort rapists. In this scenario, when a guy rapes a woman, and she comes forward, she’s in danger not only of being disbelieved about her rape, but of being punished for the supposed consensual sex she engaged in. "</p>
<p>So is making it illegal for adults, that supposedly can consent to sex but aren’t old enough to consent to alchohol, to drink. Since an adult can’t go to a club, bar or secure legal establishment to socialize with peers, they have to go to secret parties that are by definition SECRET. Because drinking is illegal. So rapists can go to these secret parties, ply women with alchohol and rape them with near impunity. We have set up the perfect system to aid and comfort rapists. Let’s undo it. </p>
<p>Apparently, Zerlina Maxwell disagrees. She writes in the Washington Post: “We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”</p>
<p>From the Goldberg opinion piece. This is the quote directly above his comments. He was referring to believing what an accuser says (apparently without question). </p>
<p>TatinG, that guy who wrote that opinion piece doesn’t give a crap about your daughter.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I am sorry for what happened to you.</p>
<p>Believing by default is a support group thing, which makes sense for a support group. It does not make sense for an investigative reporter writing for a national magazine as we have learned (duh) or a police department or a college rape headquarters. whatever exactly that is. Also, I thought there was a very big gap between what the school was told happened and what the article says happened and that’s not insignificant. UVA turned it over to the police weeks ago and my understanding is that not much is happening because Jackie is not co-operating with the cops. If this is incorrect can someone please clarify the incorrect part. Thanks.</p>
<p><a href=“UVA Furor Sparks Debate Over Existence of ‘Rape Culture’ - The New York Times”>UVA Furor Sparks Debate Over Existence of ‘Rape Culture’ - The New York Times;
<p>These newspaper articles shouldn’t continue to put photos of the Phi Kappa Psi house in the heading. It just perpetuates what is looking to be a mistake.</p>
<p>Dstark and Pizzagirl. I prefer to talk about issues without getting personal. It’s easier for the conversation to stay civil that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sentence is so far from the point that Goldberg and the point are not even in the same galaxy. Goldberg is writing about how we should maintain objectivity in the face of rape accusations, which is fine as far as it goes. But why is he comparing the reputation hits for being raped and for being falsely accused? That makes no sense. </p>
<p>A rape victim suffers pain and trauma even if no one knows about her rape. When she is crying on the therapist’s couch, she’s probably not crying about her reputation, but about her flashbacks, her inability to trust people anymore, her feeling that she should have done something, anything, to prevent her attack, or some other lasting damage from her rape. To compare this to a reputation hit, however serious, is insensitive at best.</p>
<p>Moreover, Goldberg gets the logic wrong. if we do as Goldberg says and tentatively believe the accused rapist is innocent, then the woman won’t suffer a reputation hit for being raped. If we conclude her accusation is false, then she wasn’t raped. Rather, we’ll think she is a false accuser.</p>
<p>TatinG, You can prefer what you want…</p>
<p>I think you should think about how these issues affect your daughter.</p>
<p>PG, I too am sorry for what happened to you.</p>
<p>Its not an either/or thing. We can both care profoundly about our daughters’ safety, and also be aware that the life of a man falsely accused of being a rapist will be severely impacted. We don’t have to choose one side or the other.</p>
<p>Judging from from Maxwell said to which Goldberg is responding it sounds as if Maxwell and other activists want to shift the burden of proof. That is that once accused it is up to the accused to prove himself innocent, which is not our system. </p>
<p>Defour, that was then and this is now. And even with “four on the floor,” Kinsey (before my generation) and a late 60’s or early 70’s (brief, from another source) follow up showed lots of young girls were having consensual sex, alcohol or no. I did a survey of my college’s seniors, for a senior project, and the figures came up the same. </p>
<p>But whether a gal is a virgin or not doesn’t change the potential assault component, when it’s non-consensual. (Assault is not always associated with the legal definitions of battery.) Sometimes, of course, we can imagine (or dig into our own memories) of times when it matters less to a gal. Sort of an “Oh, well” attitude. But that’s a different thing. </p>
<p>A lot of emphasis on this thread of the woman’s “fault,” whether it’s being in the wrong place or being drunk. Or mis-remembering. Does that somehow change the basics? No.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course we can. </p>
<p>I’m glad to hear that from you dstark.</p>
<p>It’s not our system to send someone to prison if he can’t prove himself innocent. It’s very much our system to impose all kinds of other sanctions on people who can’t prove themselves innocent. For example, ever heard of taxes? You get a presumption of innocence if you are indicted for tax fraud, but if you are “merely” being audited by the IRS and assessed additional taxes, penalties, and interest, you as the taxpayer absolutely bear the burden of proof, not the government. Your social security disability benefits can be taken away unless you prove that you are unable to work. You can be stripped of your driver’s license. Under some circumstances, you can be held in a residential treatment facility until you prove you are not dangerous to yourself or others.</p>
<p>You can be suspended from a university, especially a private university, or kicked off campus, for all kinds of reasons, without any guarantee that you will be afforded a presumption of innocence.</p>
<p>I do think ‘college culture’ should be changed. College students must be forcefully reminded that they are there spending tens of thousands of dollars or their parents money or loan money to be educated to be able to be self-supporting adults. College time is not party time. </p>
<p>Too many parties, too much drinking, too many ‘hook-ups’ (which is promiscuity for both male and female by another name). </p>
<p>Perhaps colleges need to become more difficult. I’ve read that long essays and papers are no longer usual at some colleges. Assign more reading. Grade on a true curve. No more easy A classes. No more grade inflation. </p>
<p>That will keep the students in the libraries rather than at the parties.</p>
<p>I have a son. 
He was in a fraternity. :)</p>
<p>I have one girl who spent most college weekends in the library, didn’t care for parties. This did not isolate her from the intentions of some boys.</p>
<p>And I also spent plenty of time on Rugby Road. It was a zoo. </p>
<p>Maxwell isn’t necessarily the only say and her comments don’t require JG to go to the opposite extreme. She may have led to his consideration, but it doesn’t excuse his own remarks. Think about it.</p>
<p>I have a tale similar to PG’s, same age, same innocence. I count myself lucky I got out of it, but he tried again another time. In my own home, an open area, so you can’t say I took any risks. Later he’d jiggle my door handle and I look back and thank God I had the presence of mind to have locked my door. Hugs to you. This crap happens. And, btw, my story doesn’t color my views on this thread. I’m just an advocate of critical thinking, not waving our arms and dismissing the problem because RS went rogue.</p>
<p>But people somehow don’t put faces to the stories. They depersonalize what is one of the most personal issues a female can deal with. They make jokes, they change the topic, they roll their eyes. They stand so far back from all this that they’re looking at the easy end of stats (how incidences reported may have declined.) They speculate about lying and mental issues.</p>
<p>That’s not real. </p>
<p>I told D1 about the RS hubbub and it let loose a floodgate about the year she lived on a floor with many athletes. As far as campuses go, right, the gals should maintain the control they can. And the guys should learn to “just say no” to their own urges, as well. What says an opportunity (a nearby gal) is an excuse to go ahead? Are they really so powerless they can’t think?</p>