It's troubling to me that there's no expectation of reasonableness here when the consequences to the sexual partner are so severe. I think it's unreasonable to invite a (recent) former lover into your bed, wish for him to stop his second attempt at intimacy, and say and do nothing to convey your wishes. In fact, I think it's insane. Of COURSE there are circumstances where women reasonably fear physical or emotional punishment for saying "no," and of course it's rape if they stay silent due to that intimidation. But this survivor didn't claim any fear of this kind -- not even based on earlier trauma, much less this guy's actions. It's not clear to me that this guy knew that she didn't want to have sex at the time it happened. (If she'd even shaken her head, I'd want him in jail. But she didn't.)

I support an affirmative consent rule that's clear to everyone as a community standard. I applaud schools working to establish that standard explicitly. But it wasn't in place at the time and place of that case. I don't think expulsion and the "rapist" label are the right consequence for these facts.

It is difficult to determine your awareness because you are all over the place.

You want to dismiss the existence of a "college rape crisis" but you are unwilling to believe these issues are learned prior to college.

The fact is these issues exist before and beyond college. The "college bubble" which places these issues in a small confined space is the only reason why a "societal rape crisis" and "world rape crisis" are called a "college rape crisis."

Something being a "crisis" does not mean what you interpret it to mean in this context. Just as "agency" and "onus" do not mean what you take them to mean in every context.

That is your interpretation.

We won't call you all's silent consent with your partner "rape" just as you all should not dismiss this perspective as "unreasonable".

In addition, I find it interesting that discussions of rape lead people to believe humans are truly rational, logical, and reasonable. Most discussions of offending and victimization consider the inconsistencies and complexities of humanity (while still maintaining that even an irrational person can be a victim who didn't deserve to be a victim even if there were misunderstandings on the part of the offender and/or victim). Discussions of rape conveniently do not.

People who do not believe they have physical, mental, and emotional ability to resist are operating based on their own risk assessment and logic. That may seem unreasonable and shortsighted to you but, as with most forms of crime and deviance, it is easy for people not in the situation (or people whose situation ended differently) to say what should be done in an ideal situation.

On the contrary. It's the "college rape crisis" that is all over the place. Varying fact situations and criminal and non-criminal behavior is lumped into one big shit storm to make the case that colleges are dark, dangerous places where 1 in 5 young women are raped and all men are considered rapists unless they can prove they got consent. If true, the sane response would be to reform the criminal justice system to lock up the rapists where they belong. There is broad consensus in our society that rapists deserve jail time.

And yet, that solution is vehemently rejected by those using the term "crisis" (activists, administrators, the media and the federal government). It's only then that they start talking about "murky gray areas and the complexities".

We are also told that a victim must always remain in control of the aftermath, in deciding how or if to seek justice. But also that college administrations and law enforcement are absolutely the only ones to be held accountable for letting all these rapists escape punishment.

It's incoherent.



The focus is on colleges simply because it's the easiest target, not because there actually IS a rape crisis. It IS a bubble and that's where the activists have the power to jettison due process.

In all fairness, the more people you have in one area, the higher the likelihood that some crime may be committed. Think about it. I don't agree that all men are rapists and I am angry when people lie about rape because it really takes away from people who have actually been victimized but, I don't think we should ignore it all together. We need to address the "hook-up culture" that we have. We need to acknowledge that it isn't okay to put something in someone's drink or that "no" might mean "yes" to some people. I'm just as upset as you with how the Greek community has been raked through the mud over these claims but, I think we need to address any kind of criminal activities--especially rape, on a college campus.

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.