<p>
</p>
<p>I told you this already. If you define this behavior as rape, then both kids are raping each other, so that they can just sue each other and both can go to jail. That’s, like, dumb.</p>
<p>"I don’t think men lie more than women in general.</p>
<p>They both lie.</p>
<p>I think most women tell the truth when they say they have been assaulted. “”</p>
<p>It certainly appears that the definitions of what constitutes assault vary widely. And perceptions of various actions differ as well. So both parties can tell “the truth” without there being much common ground.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we can never solve the campus rape epidemic as it makes for good copy and when it bleeds it leads. But we can definitely lower incidence of rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would say to limit terms to sexual assault and sexual misconduct or rape and sexual misconduct. I think it makes it easier to see the forest through the trees. It is not reasonable to expect that the majority in this country would agree that a butt-grab at a college party equals rape or sexual assault. I think most reasonable people can accept that it is misconduct. Part of the problem is that too many advocacy people are limiting themselves to rape and people are scratching their head going “no way” there can’t possibly be that much rape on a college campus - and there is not, I agree, but there is sexual misconduct most likely and probably some bad alcohol induced sex and probably some regret sex. You lose people when you say all those things are the same, because they aren’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, no.</p>
<p>The law is pretty clear on what constitutes rape. The whole perception thing comes into play if we move the case to the court of public opinion. I don’t much care for the latter court.</p>
<h1>1692 - Bay wrote:</h1>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, Bay. I am less worried about numbers than I am about the rapist profile. Who are they? If it is literally half a dozen serial rapists, couldn’t a crack investigative team identify them pretty quickly? If they went through reports and records?</p>
<p>If something else is going on, I do think education and changing how we think about this is important. Assuming not all rapists are serial rapists, what would you do in terms of education to shift attitudes? Please let’s think of some ideas beyond warning young women to be careful. Even though that is real life, I don’t like they have to bear that burden and think they have a right to be safe on campus. I am wondering if it is possible to educate both sexes in such a way the campus becomes a safer place? Ideas?</p>
<p>SWDY, you saw two people having sex. They were both incredibly drunk. The guy is too drunk to understand if the woman is consenting and the women is too drunk to consent.</p>
<p>The guy isn’t too drunk to get it up though.</p>
<p>The above is what you saw.</p>
<p>I am not interested in the woman on the guy scenario. Two people are both drunk but the guy is the agressor. The above is true?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All schools are different. But, I bet it happens at super majority of schools, not just some schools.</p>
<p>The big problem is there are no standards across the board of any sort. As @momofthreeboys noted, Title IX is just guidelines; it is up to the colleges to develop their own processes and procedures. I can safely say there is not one school in the country that is not violating someone’s rights somewhere in these tribunals, whether it be the accuser or the accused’ rights. They are not legal people; these are academics. </p>
<p>However, the dirty little secret is most colleges do not have the money to do any of this stuff properly, even when they have lawyers. Additionally, these tribunals are running on barebones budgets with most of the tribunal members being administrators who pissed to high heaven they are given this task, yet not paid much of anything more for the additional time they put into these things, in addition to doing the actual job for which they were hired.</p>
<p>Forget the HYPS and UVAs mentioned throughout this thread, as those colleges have money and actually spend time on developing all kinds of procedures. In contrast, 99% of colleges do not have the money, and when there is no money there are no standards because they cannot afford to hire full time tribunal staffs to ensure standards are followed consistently. Most tribunals really operate on an ad hoc basis. </p>
<p>What is even more interesting is the unintended consequence on kids who need FA. Where do people think the money to pay out for cases lost to both males and females who sue the school is coming from? Not from the B&G budget or professors’ salaries, as those are fixed costs. The money is going to come at the cost of FA by giving out less than they could and planning reductions in the out years, as a contingency against rising legal costs. The higher SES kids will not be affected at all.</p>
<p>Anyone who thinks that having a lower drinking age will lessen binge drinking among young adults hasn’t paid attention to Britain, Ireland or Australia.</p>
<p>I would not term a 1 in 100 risk of rape (actual rape, with penetration) every year of college to be a low incidence. That’s two or three every week at UVa, 90 young women every year that are raped. Do you think that would be something UVa would boast about: “Hey, we only had 80 students raped this year! Hurray!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am part of some advocacy groups myself (I won’t say what, as that is deeply personal, and I know that I won’t be able to debate it rationally). Anyway, I would like to share some standard tactics used by advocacy groups. Let me first start with an old example which I think is textbook material for any advocacy group.</p>
<p>When the AIDS epidemic first started, it was seen as a male homosexual only issue. Now, male homosexuals are less than 1% of the total population. The pharma companies were simply not going to invest major dollars in developing retrovirals if the addressable market was limited just to male homosexuals. The NIH was also not going to devote much funding to it. So, what the Gay Advocacy groups did at that time was pretty novel - they started a campaign that AIDS affects heterosexuals too. Trouble is, reseach was showing that the risk of transmission of contracting HIV from heterosexual sex was less than 1 in 1000. That’s a risk even DS would probably be comfortable with. But the wonderful execution of the activists meant that pretty soon there was a condom mania to prevent spread of HIV among heterosexuals, and AIDS was treated as a legitimate health problem. The rest is history, research was done, drugs were developed, and AIDS today is a managable disease. </p>
<p>However this was achieved only by expanding the scope of the problem. This is classic strategy which is employed by all advocacy groups who care about a low incidence issue. The whole conflation issue that we see among rape and sexual assault, to the extent someone here even said that if rape accusers are not believed at face value in courts then that itself is proof of rape culture. This way, just the sky being blue can be a proof of existence of the rape culture and the whole country would be in a tizzy to somehow change the color of the sky to move society forward from rape culture.</p>
<p>I am not saying the above in a judging way. This is a valid tactic something corporations use all the time to sell products (witness Noam Chomsky and Manufacturing Consent). Consent however can be manufactured in many spaces using the same technique used by modern marketeers, and the whole rape advocacy thing is one such example. I don’t blame the rape advocates. I would personally like the incidence of rape lower as well. I also do know that a headline number “Rape Incidence Falls Yet Again To Lower Than One Percent” is not going to help matters. So I am OK in general with the strategy that these advocates take. I just hope they don’t cause some collateral damage like requiring dry campuses and expelling kids for having sex, or by getting boys expelled from school without due process. That’s all really.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The one who is unconscious is raping the one who is conscious? What a novel interpretation of rape.</p>
<p>Let’s return to a more standard definition, and let’s look again at your scenario:
</p>
<p>In your scenario of two “stone cold” drunk people, is it ever possible that one person is committing an “animal act” as you describe it, and the other person is not committing an animal act, they are merely the victim of the aggressor’s animality? I’m not understanding here why you think that the two drunk people automatically match up in their inclination toward “animal acts,” especially since you acknowledge that one of them might be unconscious. In your description, a person is not seeking consent, so how are they ascertaining that the other person wishes to perform “animal acts”?</p>
<p>It sounds like you’re saying it all works out. But it doesn’t all work out every time. Are you saying that when young women say that they were raped when they were drunk and the guy was drunk, that they are making a category error because they can’t possibly be raped in that situation? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because that’s what I have witnessed. Example, one girl gets sloshed and started to give another sloshed guy a lap dance. Pretty soon they have their clothes off and one has his/her mouth dipped into the other’s privates, or they are in 69. Then one simply passes out, the other has no clue and continues on. Then the bystanders (if any left) spearate the two, try to put their clothes back on as much as possible, and take them home. If there are no bystanders the other one likely passes out at some point, too. Then you have this awkward silence next morning when no one knows what happened.</p>
<p>I have a question for you. When you guys were young, when there was free sex and drugs for all or whatever, you guys didn’t do this? This sounds new to you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am absolutely sure that it is possible, but from my experience I haven’t seen it. It could definitely have happened beyond close doors. But try proving that in court.</p>
<p>Everything is possible, but the courts deal with what is probable.</p>
<p>Sorry, wrong thread</p>
<p>SWDY, I am a guy. Most guys who are 20 years old and that drunk hanging out with a girl are really not going to care
If she attacks him, are they? </p>
<p>And if he does, he can sober up quick. And if you disagree, that’s fine. I don’t drink much. Maybe I am wrong. </p>
<p>So I did understood you correctly? </p>
<p>1 out of a thousand to get aids is HIGH.
80 rapes at UVA is high.</p>
<p>Not every low percentage number is a low number. </p>
<p>8 percent women lying about sexual assaults is not a low number. It is a low number compared to 92 percent. The odds are a woman is telling the truth. We shouldn’t trash an accuser. 8 percent is still high. </p>
<p>I could go on…sometimes a 1 out of a million number is too high. I was talking to an oncologist. I asked him if a particular tumor was rare. The oncologist said, “All the tumors I deal with are rare.”</p>
<p>Rare and too high. </p>
<p>According to the study done by Professors Callie Marie Rennison and Lynn Addington: </p>
<p>“Non-student females are victims of violence at rates 1.7 times greater than are college females,” the authors wrote, and this greater victimization holds true for sex crimes: “Even if the definition of violence were limited to sexual assaults, these crimes are more pervasive for young adult women who are not in college.”</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>Came across this from The Boston Globe, written by a former Yale student who had an “informal complaint” lodged against him while an undergrad:</p>
<p><a href=“A sexual harassment policy that nearly ruined my life - The Boston Globe”>A sexual harassment policy that nearly ruined my life - The Boston Globe;
<p>He wrote it in response to the new Harvard policy that 28 faculty have protested (lack of due process). His story seems even shadier in that a formal detailed accusation wasn’t even made, and yet it is out there with no way for him to defend it. This, to me, does not seem like good policy, but maybe I am missing something?</p>
<p>Wish I knew if awc speaks authoritatively…or just with emphatic certainty. #1774 is a good example, imo, of “he said.” And Title IX includes expectations. Any DCL may offer guidance or clarification, but that shouldn’t confuse that T9 is some sort of optional concept or “guidelines.”</p>
<p>When in doubt, go to the source. Sometimes, that’s going to mean: not another poster.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The rape laws are gender neutral. It seems you want them to be discriminating by gender. Yeah, it’s technically rape, but no man would care about getting raped, so let’s drop that - is that what you are saying.</p>
<p>That’s pretty sexist and offensive, not to mention illegal. Par for the course though for those that take sides on the rape issue. By the way, I never said trash the accusers. I said comfort them, support them unconditionally, but when it comes to a court of law, still cross examine them.</p>
<p>Did you know that over a lifetime 100 out of 100 people will die? Boy, do we have a death epidemic or what!?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incidence of rape increases as SES drops. This whole issue of college rape is one of middle and upper class suburbanites who raised kids in an antiseptic environment and are freaking out even at very low incidene of rates. They don’t care if rural or inner city poor young women get raped. Otherwise there would be a movement to prevent it.</p>
<p>I wonder if these people ever took some basic courses in the psychology of rape. It’s not about sex, it’s about power. When poverty goes up, the lack of power goes up as well, and with it comes desparation for some power, any power. No, this is not a justification for higher rape incidence in lower SES, it is an attempted explanation (and I am not a sociologist so take this with a lump of salt).</p>