I agree with you. And rape is a serious felony. Which is why I can't take seriously the people who are saying the level of rape on college campuses is a crisis, but let's let campus administrators ajudicate the allegations and punish the rapists. In the case of Yale, that means a reprimand or suspension for most of those found guilty, and expulsion for two of them. Which leaves them free to rape again.

I'm coming at this as a lawyer. I know that people are irrational, illogical, and unreasonable all the time. But when we're going to dish out serious consequences to a third party, the law often takes a look at what a reasonable man or woman would do. Is it reasonable to think that your regular lover is accepting your seduction if she doesn't say anything as your advances escalate? I think it's a legitimate question.

Personally, I read it as "if she lies there not moving or in any way indicating enjoyment," and that's the part that's so messed up to me. Whether or not it reaches the standard that someone should be punished for it, it's really messed up to think that someone WANTS to have sex with someone who is not reciprocating interest in any way*.

*outside, of course, of some sort of pre-negotiated scene

Then you should understand, very well, the role of perceived physical, mental, and emotional ability.

If we want to turn this into a thread about "sex education 101", yes, there are many women and men who believe in "sliding it in" regardless of whether the other person is even remotely interested, of sound mind, of sound body, or even awake. This thread can get into more details if people need to be schooled on how millions of people unfortunately engage in sexual intercourse (whether considered consensual or nonconsensual). That's how some people get their rocks off but people who want to err on the side of caution may consider potential risk.

I definitely agree with you on that. The world is full of lonely, unsatisfying sex.

"Lonely, unsatisfying sex" should be used for consensual sex among sexually incompatible or boring sex partners.

The issue of consent is about more than "lonely, unsatisfying sex".

Of course it is. But we're talking about a particular case where there may have been a rape, and there may have been a reasonable belief that it was just a sad and pitiful encounter.

We have thankfully gotten past the "silent consent" discussion. We have moved to supposed blurred lines between "sad and pitiful encounter" and "nonconsensual and nonreciprocitous" encounter. Nice.

The absence of a "no" is not a "yes."

I agree with your assessment.

This all sounds like a supporting argument for Low D Flat's statement - that there is room for genuine, not malicious, misunderstanding on the part of both parties.

To me, one of the most tragic circumstances would be a woman (or man) who truly feels violated sexually, and an alleged perpetrator who truly believed that the encounter was consensual. Parallel circumstances happen all the time in all kinds of other non-sexual instances. In such cases that go to court (or arbitration, or something similar), one has to start making judgements about what constitutes reasonable behavior/responses given certain situations.

Which is why affirmative consent is a good idea.

Likely because it's an issue of people and people are a bit complicated. That whole pesky human nature/individual differences thingy...

Hyperbole much? Quite a growing body of research in the last decade has made very clear distinctions in the sense that a small minority of repeat offenders are responsible for the vast majority of the offenses.

Except the part where we're also struggling with prison reform in society... and even victims don't always want to see the offender behind bars. I'm also getting the distinct impression that your issues with with the campus element would quickly transition to the cj system were that to happen. The bulk of your commentary, while applicable to campus issues, comes across as a far broader bias against victims than is warranted.

I would love to see some kind of citation or research support for such broad generalizations like this...

It is typically rejected because the system has a horrible track record of obtaining justice or actually punishing the offenders. Those statistics are widely available and simple to search for if you're interested in them.

Actually the whole "sex without consent is rape" thing has been around for a short minute.

Only if you're completely disconnected from the idea of agency and autonomy. If a victim is pursuing the disciplinary process yet the admin and law enforcement stymie that, clearly the victim is not in control. If the victim is not interested in pursuing a disciplinary process, the admin can't just make consequences happen for something of which they are unaware.


Translated: All those bitches be lyin' so it's not real.

Just to be clear, having followed your posting on this topic in more than one thread now, I find your level of rape apology and victim blaming particularly loathsome and profoundly obnoxious. I cringe for whatever GLO took you on as a member and genuinely hope your level of influence on the lives of young people is grossly limited. Frankly, I'd respect you far more if you just came out and stated you just don't believe women when they say they've been raped and leave it at that. Rather, you hide behind your words and distraction in related issues and I find it both pathetic as well as morally and intellectually dishonest.

I don't consider that the statement Low D Flat is making.

We already know that miscommunication and misunderstanding happen. That is why some of us dismiss Low D's and honorgal's attempt to apply their "silent consent" to everyone else.

ITA, glad someone said it.

These two paragraphs are in conflict. But I am glad to see you are acknowledging this research. Of course, it then begs the question of how anyone logically thinks "affirmative consent" is going to prevent rape. As if these repeat offenders are going to ASK? It's about power, not sex.



I'm pretty sure I've been exclusively discussing the campus issues. And really, I'm just fighting fire with fire. When the activists stop lying, and obfuscating, and eliminating due process, I would hope a more reasonable and balanced approach would ensue.


Actually, it would be great to have a discussion of this, but I won't hold my breath. I would love to know what, specifically, the UVA Administration should have done differently in this particular situation, when Jackie did not want anything done.

In reading numerous stories of disappointed and unhappy victims, and the activists and media decrying the way the college administration responds, I've come to the conclusion that the only thing that would satisfy the critics is if no victims were ever unhappy with the outcome of their cases.



Just to be clear, I find your personal attack rude and pathetic. I'm sure its been a strain the last few weeks, watching the story crumble and realizing that you are in the unenviable position of hoping and praying that the story is true, and that Jackie really did get brutally gang raped by seven men. Would not be a position I would want to be in.

ETA: My bias is not against any victim. My bias is against political ideology that has no principles and no regard for truth or facts.

Then what on Earth have you been typing about for 99% of your posts?

Are you suggesting that I have I been arguing in favor of affirmative consent "laws"?

Honorgal is NOT a member of a GLO!

And you know this how?

And more importantly, why would you care one way or another? Bizarre.

LOL! You posted earlier that you were not a member of a GLO but that your three children were! Enough said.

Which post?

Kinda like the rather intense smearing of a gal you've never met? Or different? Just want to make sure I'm clear.

Honestly, I'm surprised I'm the first. GC is rocking some kid gloves lately...

No, you aren't clear at all. Are you referring to Jackie? Or something else.

So this is a group that is usually very intolerant of dissenting opinion?

I guess I'm not surprised.

GCers typically love a good debate. It can get heated. There are some dissenting opinions that can rub people the wrong way and especially with a particular tone. Every GCer gets told to fuck off if people tire of our message and/or our tone. That includes being placed on "ignore". Honorgal is not exceptional in this and, again, will not be able to martyrize herself.

Martry: a person who pretends to suffer or who exaggerates suffering in order to get praise or sympathy

I'm definitely not suffering. Fascinated would be a better description.

Placing someone on ignore always conjures up a tantruming child sticking their fingers in their ears and humming "lalalalalalalalala". But, whatever floats your boat.

About time you properly applied a concept. You are pretending to be the lone voice or lone fighter for your perspective. That is why you attempted to dismiss the majority of people in this thread as "group think".

It is one thing to think people are clueless and shortsighted regarding a topic, I think that quite often in GC discussions. But you come across as though you think you have some inside knowledge of campus dynamics that is not shared with the "group thinkers".

You are certainly not the only GCer who either knows people who work in a college/university or works at a college/university. You are also not the only GCer who knows alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, people who lied, people who were falsely accused, alleged victims who were telling the truth, etc. Therefore, many of us are well aware of these dynamics and still manage to have varying perspectives.

FYP.

Would be hard to pretend when it's not something I think. Unless you can show me where I have said I'm the lone voice, then you are simply making up what YOU think I'm thinking. If you are not sure, you can just ask.

I'd call this projection.


Again, maybe this is projection. Someone already made this same observation and I replied that I don't claim to be an expert or insider knowledge. I have my own observations and experiences, we all do, and I have read widely from a variety of factual sources on this topic. That's what forms my opinions. No need to make it into something its not.



LOL...of all the numerous times you've tried to put words in my mouth, this one takes the cake.

I'm sure you believe this and that's fine. I am only telling you how your posts are interpreted by some people. All of our posts are interpreted differently by different people. Welcome.

Boohoo to you.

No, you see, when HG is/knows someone who falls into one of these groups, it makes her an expert, while when anyone else is/knows someone who falls into one of these groups, it means we are unable to escape the groupthink. OBV.

Dont worry, I'm not crying. I think you are funny.

Then you aren't as dense as you sometimes come across. Welcome.

;)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand...the language in Title IX puts reporting responsibility on anyone who a student could reasonably perceive to be representing the school, and there seems to be a growing consensus that such language includes a much larger number of faculty/staff members than had previously been trained on this stuff. I found this pretty surprising, because that means that, at some schools, students could report stuff to their academic adviser or professors or RA's, for example, and it wouldn't have gone anywhere. I'm glad that schools are working to remedy that, because 1) it means we'll get a better idea of the true stats, and from there, possibly be better able to address root causes, and 2) it means that victims who are reporting stuff are going to get the appropriate support at the U, rather than some untrained faculty or staff member having no idea what to do.

This aspect, at least, seems very uncontroversial. I don't see how it could possibly be a bad thing to make sure students get the proper support, and the fact that processes were this sloppy in the past underscores, IMO, the need for all these investigations and the attention to this issue.

for anyone who is interested:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...cs/shguide.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...4-title-ix.pdf
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/lis...gue-201104.pdf

Honorgal, is this you?

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/11/prin...ng_experience/

Oh crap, not Princeton Mom again. Attention whore.

While we're at it, for most violent offenses and property offenses, the offender-victim relationship is that of family, friend, or acquaintance.

So, to save some much needed resources, let's remove all of these offenses from the books so they can no longer be punishable under the law.

Unless you've been victimized by a complete stranger, there is nothing society and the criminal justice system can and will do to help. I hope it was all a learning experience. Choose better company next time because, after all, we are the company we keep.

Honorgal posted:


ETA: My bias is not against any victim. My bias is against political ideology that has no principles and no regard for truth or facts. Last edited by honorgal; Yesterday at 05:16 PM.
http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums...tons/quote.gif http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums...iquote_off.gif

It is clear to me that this has been a political rant all along. Go to any right wing blog like Free Republic dot com and you will find the same language. Honorgal posted a link to that very blog on her first go-around on this topic last spring. People on that particular blog are often told to go "Freep" online polls and message boards.

Now where is the "Ignore" button?

I have never posted a link to the Free Republic, on here or anywhere else. Can you show me the post? And while you are at it, perhaps you can show me the post that backs up your other baseless accusation.