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.