Yale's Comprehensive Sexual Misconduct Guide

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

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?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

No, read what I said again.

Read your post yourself.

Originally Posted by honorgal

In some cases, I would easily call it rape. In others, such as the facts presented by Swarthmore co-ed, I would not.

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"?

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Read your post yourself.



You are not just saying that all cases 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"?

Okay, so you ARE saying that ALL allegations have to result in charges and guilty findings.

We've looked at a very specific claim, with a specific set of facts. An example. There is nothing problematic with saying every allegation should be taken seriously and examined thoroughly AND then looking at a specific claim and saying no, that wouldn't be considered rape. That's what colleges are doing all over the country. If you think we should just ajudicate EVERY claim as guilty of rape, why don't you just come out and say it?

People such as myself? You mean like the administration at the ultra-liberal Swarthmore?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

Okay, so you ARE saying that ALL allegations have to result in charges and guilty findings.

You are hopefully better at reading than that.

Originally Posted by honorgal

We've looked at a very specific claim, with a specific set of facts. An example. There is nothing problematic with saying every allegation should be taken seriously and examined thoroughly AND then looking at a specific claim and saying no, that wouldn't be considered rape.

You said "such as the facts presented..." which implies that you are making a general statement from the Swarthmore example.

It is not as though you are not "calling it rape" based on a full investigation. You are not "calling it rape" based on particular details for which you find implausible. Again, your "silent consent" and your disbelief in "silent victims".

[honorgal]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You are hopefully better at reading than that.




You said "such as the facts presented..." which implies that you are making a general statement from the Swarthmore example.

. No, it implies what I am actually saying, not whatever the heck it is that you keep trying desperately but incoherently to imagine I am saying - that all allegations should be taken seriously, and investigated thoroughly, and that some of them, based on the particular facts of each individual case, will turn out to not be rape.

It is not as though you are not "calling it rape" based on a full investigation.

. Well, duh, that's obvious. All we have to go on are what the magazine published.

You are not "calling it rape" based on particular details for which you find implausible. Again, your "silent consent" and your disbelief in "silent victims".

People at colleges all over the country are having to make judgement calls and decisions (ours happen to be theoretical and without consequence for anyone). I'm not sure what your point is? I would not find the male student in that scenario guilty of rape. Neither did Swarthmore. You would., although you never did say what the punishment should be. So what is your point again?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by honorgal

. No, it implies what I am actually saying, not whatever the heck it is that you keep trying desperately but incoherently to imagine I am saying - that all allegations should be taken seriously, and investigated thoroughly, and that some of them, based on the particular facts of each individual case, will turn out to not be rape.

Wait... You ARE making a general point from the Swarthmore example. So you agree with me. Ohhhhh, you almost had yourself confused there.

But now that you know that the Swarthmore incident resulted in punishment. Now what?

Originally Posted by honorgal

Well, duh, that's obvious. All we have to go on are what the magazine published.

Isn't it cool how your devil's advocate from that other thread conveniently disappears?

Originally Posted by honorgal

I'm not sure what your point is? So what is your point again?

That you conflict yourself and, the sad part, are unaware of the conflict.