<p>Well, I certainly didn’t talk to my kid about rape. At the dinner table or elsewhere.</p>
<p>We did, however, talk about “the innate worth and dignity of every human being.” (The 1st principle of Unitarian Universalism.) We also talked about “Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations.” (The 2nd principle.) We read and talked about history and the POV of the author and innate biases and ethical dilemmas and intellectual honesty. Those values pervaded the atmosphere in which he grew up. We made sure he participated in the sexuality education class at our church that approached the subject from that point of view.</p>
<p>I think Mom3, in 1902, finally tapped what we’ve been grasping for. If we want this to work, it has to truly work. I think her post redirects us, without the mocking and posturing. </p>
<p>We don’t have the answers. We have lots of opinion and plenty of emotion. That’s all I want to say, for now. </p>
<p>I talked a lot about various aspects of rape culture with my sons. They understand my concerns. They see rape culture as an issue that impacts men as well as women.</p>
<p>adding: An example would be explaining why I’m not taking them to see Robin Hood, Men in Tights which has a comic rape scene. I explained I didn’t find rape a comedy – ever.</p>
<p>And while I’m at it, I DO NOT want the federal or any state or local government legislating sexuality. I think we have had enough of that, historically, and are just now beginning to get free of it. It isn’t any more acceptable when it is done from a left-wing POV than when it is done from a right-wing POV. (re the yes means yes legislation)</p>
<p>Agreed. And I would add, prevent future victims, which reminds me about Lisack’s study (referenced in the Slate article) of the possibility of serial rapists on campus. If true, then just expelling them through an academic hearing is not enough (IMO), since they will just go on to assault someone else. They need to go to jail. Perhaps academics should become mandated reporters.</p>
<p>They didn’t miss the central meme. You are right that you can’t compare the straight numbers as presented. You can, however, compare them when you make a slight substitution and change “80 women per year at UVA who are raped”, to “the number of women that are raped, and because of the system can’t have a fair judicial process”. Oh, wait, that’s also a number very close to 80.</p>
<p>You are upset at stories where a guy has been wrongly accused or the system doesn’t give him a fair shot at clearing his name. I am too. That last story made me so mad. I don’t want a system like that. I also don’t want a system like we have now where victims (men or women) can’t get something meaningful done about the crime that was committed against them. The bottom line is that unless it was a case of stranger abduction and rape that a woman’s attacker doesn’t get a conviction. </p>
<p>The problem in the Michigan story isn’t [bold]necessarily[/bold] the system. It is quite possible that it is just stupid people making the decisions. And before you say “exactly! So replace them with the judicial system”, remember that the same thing happens all the time in the judicial system. I’ve been involved in enough court cases to see that myself. </p>
<p>Therein lies the crux of the problem. Many would argue that an accuser’s claim isn’t taken at face value. It is assumed to be a lie. Many police assume the woman is making it up to get back at the guy, or that she had “regret sex”. </p>
<p>Mostly, that’s a myth. Mostly they don’t even go to the police or want to go to the police. And, mostly it is probably not a criminal case. Not always.</p>
<p>“Agreed. And I would add, prevent future victims, which reminds me about Lisack’s study (referenced in the Slate article) of the possibility of serial rapists on campus. If true, then just expelling them through an academic hearing is not enough (IMO), since they will just go on to assault someone else. They need to go to jail.”</p>
<p>Exactly. Jesse Matthew was expelled from Liberty University. Then later went on to rape/kill two young women in Charlottesville. </p>
<p>Colleges should focus on (i) prevention, (ii) victim support, (iii) assisting real law enforcement for rapes, and (ivI adjudicating (as a conduct problem) low level accusations of sexual misconduct and harassment.</p>
<p>College kangaroo courts should only deal with less serious offenses and less serious punishments. Dean Wormer is fine handing out double secret probations for naughty conduct.</p>
<p>If colleges continue to deal with high level offenses and high level punishments, then you need to have full monty due process. See post #1890 above. </p>
<p>“Would it work? It seems like it wouldn’t be any harder than requiring a condom. Everyone has a phone on them nowadays. Too far out? Too onerous? What downsides am I not seeing?”</p>
<p>Well, some people may not know until the moment what or with whom they desire to consent to. Kind of kills romance and (consensual) seduction. </p>
<p>And the idea of some database somewhere – I don’t care how secure, that just seems rife with issues. There only “database” that should contain any list of people I have slept with or consent to sleep with should the opportunity arise should be in my head!!</p>
<p>I’m not going to go read the entire article again but I don’t remember it showing that, and if it did, all reasonable studies/analysis show that is wrong. 1 in 5 is also wrong but it sure isn’t 0.25%.</p>
<p>Bay, my family taught me to think. Whether or not I shared their specific youthful vices. I’m loathe to just call it “their thing.” One way or another, we can teach our kids to think- and no, I don’t think all families put the same value on that. Certainly CC is rife with people who just expect grades and a tier of colleges.</p>
<p>SWDYDH, you’re not going to be right, no matter how you insert that you already said this or that. I find your posts, from how the problem is less than others see it, to how most rapes are reported by girls who have been dumped, to how this is “mostly about drunken sex and nothing else…And that women are enthusiastic participants,” what’s “fashionable,” and more, to be inflammatory. </p>
<p>Going back a little, if we want the accused to have a fair listen, then we give it to the accusers as well. And vice versa. We think this through. We don’t make sweeping generalizations based on hand-picked tales, icons, as Mom3 called them. My first reaction to the Michigan story was- “is this a fair representation of what really happened?” Just as many of you freaking said about Jackie. Do you not see the parallels?</p>
<p>Btw, Liberty U is a good example of a low drinking culture, no? And yet?</p>
<p>In addition, in some circumstances, other prejudices may come into play as well. A friend (female) was on a jury once (majority female) in a criminal rape prosecution that acquitted the defendant because most of the jury thought the woman was practicing prostitution without a pimp and made the accusation because the customer welched. It tore my friend up – she believed the victim – but the African-American women on the jury were united in their skepticism about the African-American victim and their sympathy for the African-American defendant. And some details of the woman’s story didn’t make complete sense, so there was room for doubt.</p>
<p>You cannot consent to sex if you are drunk. I’m not sure why that is a point to argue or even discuss. If Mackenzie Phillips was on drugs when her father had sex with her, was that consensual? No, she was on drugs and not able to consent.</p>
<p>And as for “epidemic”, anecdotally many of us have experienced or known people who were nearly raped when drunk, let alone those who were raped while drunk like my young relative. </p>
<p>But I have to question people who want to remove “comic references to rape” from mass media. There are MANY comic references to violence in mass media, why not remove all them too? I saw a Change.org petition saying that the FCC should mandate shows with rape scenes (Sons of Anarchy was mentioned) to put a special code, in <em>addition</em> to sexual situations and violence which clearly they must have.</p>
<p>So violence is okay? Hannibal Lechter eating faces is okay? Bugs Bunny shooting Daffy Duck is okay? But rape is not?</p>
<p>I find it hilarious in History of the World Part I when Mel Brooks plays the King of France as a nasty pig, and meets many stereotypes as well as a comic gang rape scene. He also makes fun of Hitler and so on. If you start drawing lines, you will never stop. If someone has PTSD, they have to deal with it, and avoid any possible exposure and NOT make it the world’s responsibility to cater to everyone’s tragic past.</p>
<p>Just don’t watch TV or movies, you can do it for yourself. But don’t slice and dice our freedom of speech.</p>
<p>Having been in the advocacy business for a while (for a ultra-low SES group at <em>much</em> higher risk of abuse than privileged college kids who can afford $250k tuition bills), this is not what the police assume. I, too, have argued in vain with the cops to bring cases. Their position always has been that it is not what they believe, it is whether they have evidence that will stand in court under cross-examination. That there is truth, which no one really knows, and there are facts that can be proven in a watertight manner in a court of law, which is the only thing that ultimately matters in court. That they have limited resources and can’t chase low probability of success cases.</p>
<p>Uhm, Mackenzie Phillips and her dad were both drug addicts and her accusations were of an incestuous relationship. Jesse Matthew is suspected of being a serial killer and interestingly the cops blamed this whole PC thing for the eventual capture taking over a decade, But, talk about outlier cases. Oh my. </p>