If so, I finally have her answer to what she would call it when a man has sex with a woman who has said no: It's just a "learning experience." :rolleyes:

If it's not her, perhaps she'll answer. I won't hold my breath, though.

(I think it was rhetorical sarcasm when she asked if honorgal is Princeton Mom.)

I identify as "middle wing" or "no wing--they all suck".

I think we all know that these are complex issues. There can be fairness and unfairness across the board. I agree that women are not perpetual victims and we need to do away with both the offender mentality and the victim mentality as extreme ways of addressing these social issues. We do want (potential) victims to be able to voice opposition if able to do so.

But, the issue I have with people who coat this as "she should've stopped him" and "it isn't really rape" is that the very same people who espouse this viewpoint would fly to the highest hill of heaven if this was their loved one alleging that she had been raped. Sure, these people may "slut shame" this loved one given certain circumstances but the louder viewpoint would be "stop the press, I'm tired of this mess happening to our DAHHHLING family member!!!"

It really reminds me of the pro-life and pro-choice debate. There are pro-lifers who have had abortions and who have urged the women in their families to have abortions because somehow the women in their families are more awesome and deserving of an untainted future than everyone else.

/rant

Here is the link you posted:

http://archive.freep.com/assets/free...C422124157.PDF

And no, you can find your own posts to "edit" them so as to make disappear things you initially said in them.

Oh, I thought it was a joke. Nope, sorry to disappoint your fevered imaginations, not me. None of my kids went to Princeton, nor did I (I assume she or one of her kids did). And I've never been on CNN. Rats! :D

You owe me an apology. But I won't hold my breath.

www.freep.com is the Detroit Free Press URL. It's a newspaper. In Detroit. Not exactly a bastion of right wing activists.

lol - still no answer

It's okay, honorgal. I'm not surprised you won't answer the question.

I guess I misunderstood the question. I thought it was "Honorgal, is that you."

I think every allegation should be taken seriously and examined thoroughly. If we take the example of UVA, we see an almost unanimous reflex to do the former, and a lot of loud noisy and unfair opposition to the latter. That's not going to solve the problem.

As for what I bolded, whether intended or not, the message that is evolving from activists is the opposite. I think that message infantilized and puts more women in danger. I respect the opposing view, but I don't see much evidence of reciprocity. (Maybe an occasional hint ;) )

You should put this in your signature to override anything you type to the contrary.

Not necessary. I have never typed anything to the contrary of allegations being taken seriously and examined thoroughly.

So your posts about "silent consent" and "victims who didn't resist" didn't come across as dismissing certain claims?

I don't think you misunderstood so much as you're deliberately avoiding the question; at least, you're coming across as though you're reluctant to answer the question. But, just to be clear, I'll ask it for the second time on this page alone:
If not rape, what do you call it when a man has sex with a woman who has said "No"?

No, read what I said again. Are you saying that ALL allegations have to be found to have merit and result in charges and a guilty finding?

No, not reluctant. I just didn't realize who had posted the link to the lady on CNN.

That's pretty simplistic, isn't it? In some cases, I would easily call it rape. In others, such as the facts presented by Swarthmore co-ed, I would not.

Read your post yourself.

ETA: In addition to your previous posts about your silent sex with your husband and how someone who is really being victimized would not be silent during the victimization.

You are not just saying that all claims should be investigated. You are not just saying that not every claim is legitimate. We all already know these things.

What you are saying is that if it isn't easily "called rape" by people such as yourself then that is problematic which comes across as dismissive. Do you not see how this viewpoint doesn't challenge better handling of claims but, instead, encourages what is already happening in the dismissal of claims that do not automatically fit the "formula of rape"?