Yale's Comprehensive Sexual Misconduct Guide

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

Honorgal, Which GLO are you a member of?

What does that possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by honorgal

. No. It wasn't even a factor in the Swarthmore case. That's why its a straw man.

How about when the situation is reversed? A woman initiates, the man says no, and the woman persists? Is that rape?

Your definition of straw man is different from any definition I'm familiar with. Asking a question in no way commits such a fallacy. To address your question, yes, I would say if a man says no and the woman persists, she raped him.

Originally Posted by honorgal

I'm not questioning why she didn't physically fight back. I do question why you would encourage such a total lack of agency in college women. I find it absurd. And dangerous.

I've never said I encourage a lack of agency in college women. I find it absurd and dangerous that you want college men to think it's not rape to have sex with women who have already told them no.

Originally Posted by honorgal

What does that possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Well, it *is* Greekchat. Most contributors to the forum are affiliated with Greek life somehow.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Your definition of straw man is different from any definition I'm familiar with. Asking a question in no way commits such a fallacy. To address your question, yes, I would say if a man says no and the woman persists, she raped him.

your question was based on a factual element that was not an issue that was considered in the Swarthmore case, ie. did she or didn't she fight back?

I've never said I encourage a lack of agency in college women. I find it absurd and dangerous that you want college men to think it's not rape to have sex with women who have already told them no.

. You haven't said it directly but that is certainly the result. Unless I am misunderstanding you, any time a person initiates sex after they have been told no once, any sex that follows is rape.

Well, it *is* Greekchat. Most contributors to the forum are affiliated with Greek life somehow.

. And I am. Is it a requirement to disclose my affiliation?

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by honorgal

your question was based on a factual element that was not an issue that was considered in the Swarthmore case, ie. did she or didn't she fight back?


. You haven't said it directly but that is certainly the result. Unless I am misunderstanding you, any time a person initiates sex after they have been told no once, any sex that follows is rape.


. And I am. Is it a requirement to disclose my affiliation?

Oh, for Pete's Sake. Of course it's not a requirement to disclose your affiliation. It's just standard practice to introduce yourself, along with your Greek affiliation, on a Greeklife-related message board.

My "question" was never mine to begin with. You're the one who insinuated that a rape has not occurred if the woman didn't fight back. Forget the whole fighting back thing and go back to the question I originally asked you. The Swathmore woman told the guy no and he had sex with her anyway. I asked you, if that's not rape, then what is it?

I'll be honest, your attitude about this is both disgusting and alarming. Especially for someone with college age children. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to your daughter, I bet you'd stop putting quotation marks around "victim."

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

Oh, for Pete's Sake. Of course it's not a requirement to disclose your affiliation. It's just standard practice to introduce yourself, along with your Greek affiliation, on a Greeklife-related message board.

My "question" was never mine to begin with. You're the one who insinuated that a rape has not occurred if the woman didn't fight back. Forget the whole fighting back thing and go back to the question I originally asked you. The Swathmore woman told the guy no and he had sex with her anyway. I asked you, if that's not rape, then what is it?

Yours is a very truncated version of the facts in the Swarthmore case.
He initiated sex and she "basically" said no. So he stopped his physical advances. He then initiated sex again and she said she "just kinda laid there and didn't do anything. I had already said no. And I was tired..."

I'll be honest, your attitude about this is both disgusting and alarming. Especially for someone with college age children. If, heaven forbid, something were to happen to your daughter, I bet you'd stop putting quotation marks around "victim."

I find your attitude alarming too. Do you have a daughter? Would you tell her to just lay there passively because it's up to her partner not to do something she doesn't want?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Do you have a daughter?

Ah yes, now we are at the "do you have a daughter...would you tell her...." segment of the discussion.

Guess what? Being able to empathize and relate to this topic does not require having a daughter or having children at all. It requires understanding the historical and contemporary singificance of sexual violence. It requires awareness of the many women and men who were and are "silent victims" during and after the incidents.

I understand the apprehension that people have with definitions of rape and varying experiences that can make it more difficult to consider some instances rape. I understand that. I also understand that people blur the lines which can cause assumptions and resulting confusions among women and men. I understand that.

What I don't understand is the apparent inability to grasp a larger message even if you disagree with the details of a particular incident. THAT I cannot understand other than it being a defense mechanism resulting from a need to maintain the "silent consent" and "blame feminism" approaches.

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Ah yes, now we are at the "do you have a daughter...would you tell her...." segment of the discussion.

Guess what? Being able to empathize and relate to this topic does not require having a daughter or having children at all. It requires understanding the historical and contemporary singificance of sexual violence. It requires awareness of the many women and men who were and are "silent victims" during and after the incidents.

I understand the apprehension that people have with definitions of rape and varying experiences that can make it more difficult to consider some instances rape. I understand that. I also understand that people blur the lines which can cause assumptions and resulting confusions among women and men. I understand that.

What I don't understand is the apparent inability to grasp a larger message even if you disagree with the details of a particular incident. THAT I cannot understand other than it being a defense mechanism resulting from a need to maintain the "silent consent" and "blame feminism" approaches.

I am not the one that brought daughters into the discussion, nor did I ever intimate that only someone having daughters can relate and empathize to this subject.

I fully grasp the larger message. I don't see that endless discussion of it, rather than the messy ambiguities, is going to prevent future rapes.

The "teach men not to rape" meme displays a misunderstanding (willfully so, for many) of the nature of rape and rapists.