Hook-Up Culture at Harvard, Stanford Wanes Amid Assault Alarm

Student Lounge College Life
41

<p>Post #30 is the most important post on this thread for various reasons.</p>

<p>Most rapes are committed by a very small number of serial predators. They have patterns. They “say” they were drunk, but they weren’t. Not really.</p>

<p>This tiny percentage of sexual predators on college campus make it more difficult for the guys and the girls.</p>

<p>Healthy young men know the difference between drunkeness and consent. Healthy young men know when a woman is interested in sex and when she is not. One rule of thumb for healthy young men to follow is if they are unsure if she is involved and interested? She is not. </p>

<p>Protect each other. Don’t let guys take drunk girls off to their frat room or whatnot. If you are a guy or a girl, understand that the single most effective defense against rape on college campus is bystander intervention. The rapists are looking for certain sets of circumstances. Most women who are raped during college are raped during the first semester of their freshman year. Be smart.</p>

<p>For the guys, to avoid the “burden,” just don’t have sex drunk the way you wouldn’t drive. It’s not complicated.</p>

42

<p>“For the guys, to avoid the “burden,” just don’t have sex drunk the way you wouldn’t drive. It’s not complicated.”</p>

<p>Do you profess the same standard for women? </p>

43

<p>ok several points to correct here among people’s general consensus

  1. “provocative dressing” has VERY little effect on the chances of being raped. <a href=“http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp”>http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=djglp&lt;/a&gt;
  2. Rape is still a significant problem for men, and in fact there is even more stigma associated with male rape victims. We all hear the common statistic thrown about that 1/3 women will be sexually assaulted at least once in their life, but in fact 1/5 men will also be sexually assaulted at leas once in their life. In fact, some estimates (based on the prison rapes) suggest that there may actually be MORE men than women raped in this country (although prison rape is different from rape in a civilian context). Either way, it’s foolish to suggest rape sin’t a significant problem for men in this country.</p>

<p>We don’t live in an ideal world, and I think that women especially (but men as well) should take care not to get drunk out of control because whether you like it or not that increases the chance that one will get sexually assaulted (again not their fault, but the bike (or car) lock metaphor is accurate here). Also for men, under current laws, in the case where both a man and a woman are inebriated and have sex, the man is technically a rapist, and while I think these laws are unfair, men should be careful because I’m sure they don’t want to be considered rapists.
Bottom line is; drinking excessively leads to a lot of problems (not just sexual assault, drunk driving, very loosened control, chances of dying, leading to poor decisions, etc.). </p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, this is not true; the man is not technically considered a rapist. My company employee guidelines strictly follow state and federal law and what you state is not true if two inebriated employees have sex, i.e., the male employee is not technically considered a rapist. The hurdle is higher than simply being inebriated. I will let the lawyers explain why you are wrong.</p>

45

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>Personally, actually, I taught my daughters that intimacy is best in the context of a committed loving relationship, and while neither they, nor I, have any feelings one way or the other about men and women who consensually engage in casual sex, I’m pretty sure they agree with me.</p>

<p>That said, I do not believe casual sex leads to rape. Rape is rape. It’s not sex.</p>

46

<p>Maybe it’s under title X (or IX?) laws (which apply to colleges right?), but the law is phrased in such a way (talking about penetration) that it pretty much only applies to men. Someone can correct me on this though. And yeah it’s more than inebriated, it’s drunk beyond the point of being able to legally consent (which is hard to define and even harder to determine when you’re drunk yourself).</p>

47

<p>^^ I recommend looking at the couple other threads on this issue. This has already been gone over in exhausting detail. </p>

<p>But to answer your question, yes. However, it was not part of the law that was debated and voted on; it was administratively added decades later. And many are just issued guidelines, which are asked to be adopted, but are not “law,” as many understand law to be.</p>

48

<p>The original Bloomberg article referring to a quotation from Chris Herries from Stanford University has been withdrawn by Bloomberg because it used a quotation from an opinion piece that Herries penned for the Stanford Daily back in 2012 completely out of context - implying that Herries equates a crime victim’s responsibility for not securing his bike to a woman being responsible for her sexual assault due to her own behavior. In fact, a careful reading of all his opinion pieces shows that he believes that the responsibility for a crime lies solely with the perpetrator of the crime, and not with the victim. He has responded with a piece that can be found in today’s Stanford Daily. It can be found here: <a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/08/25/herries-responds-to-bloomberg-piece/”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2014/08/25/herries-responds-to-bloomberg-piece/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>This incident illustrates the power of the internet at its very worst, and shows that shoddy journalism with a full blown agenda can really cause substantial damage because most readers take at face value what a is written without taking the time to ascertain its veracity. The real victim here is Chris Herries. Shame on Bloomberg.</p>

49

<p>Just because the victim is never to blame, does not mean anyone should take unnecessary risks. Knowing you have a perfect right to walk outside at night with a guy you just met is not much consolation if he assaults you. </p>

<p>When I first got my driver’s license, there was a little poem they gave us (supposedly for a tombstone):</p>

<p>“Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died defending his right-of-way.
He was right, dead right!, as he sped along,
But he’s just as dead as if he was wrong.”</p>

<p>There’s a lesson there that goes beyond driving.</p>

<p>So while it’s nice to know whether assault and rape cases are taken seriously and prosecuted, as a parent I’m more concerned about the rate of assaults and the availability of safety escorts and emergency phones and dorm security. I’m less worried about what happens afterwards if my daughter is ever assaulted, than about whether she is likely to be assaulted at all.</p>

50

<p>There is a problem with “no means no.” Some come away learning, "ONLY ‘no’ means ‘no’. If she wasn’t willing, she would have said, “NO!”</p>

<p>The problem is, if someone doesn’t use that exact word but instead says something like, “We shouldn’t” or “I don’t want to!” or “Please, stop!” or even just screams and cries, anything else at all (or even nothing), the legal defense of the (confused, drunken) defendant is, “Well, she never told me ‘no’.” That might work in court, and it might not… but it doesn’t undo the assault/rape.</p>

51

<p>@lvvcsf Nothing quite like rape culture…</p>

52

<p>This is what is wrong with the world. Instead of raising young men properly and teaching them not to rape, and assault, and cat call, we are putting the burden on the victim to take preventative measures. We teach girls how to NOT get assaulted instead of teaching men not to do it. This whole modesty argument is bull crap. In the Middle East, women are covered from top to bottom and still get raped all the time. </p>

<p>That is because rape isn’t about sexual attraction. It’s ASSAULT. Raping someone is like hitting them or fighting them. More often than not, rape is about one person exerting control over another person. When people rape, they get off on the power that they feel. They get off on attacking the innocent or those who are perceived to be defenseless. And if you dont buy that, consider this: For every man attracted to women who show skin, I would bet there is a man out there who is attracted to women who dont show skin. So at that point, what are women supposed to do? Not leave their houses. </p>

<p>This may be a poor example, but read A Streetcar Named Desire. Stanley doesnt rape Blanche because he is attracted to her. He rapes her because he HATES her.</p>

<p>Throughout history, rape was used to systematically humiliate families and husbands. It was used in war to psychological torture the “enemy”. There is no way to prevent rape. Rapists are rapists and they will find a way to rape someone no matter what. It doesn’t matter what you wear, or how drunk you get. </p>

<p>I highly recommend reading the book “Half the Sky” by Nick Kristoff. You get quotes from ACTUAL rapists in other countries who actually come out and say why they rape. Many of them outright said they rape “because it is within their right”. </p>

<p>The only way rape will end is if men stand up and take responsibility for what women experience.</p>

<p>Oh, and if they keep their pants on and stop raping. </p>

53

<p>@petrichor11‌

. This >>>>>>> </p>

<p>You give me hope for the world. Because most people don’t consider this when it comes to rape. This is why preventative measures are futile. There is nothing wrong with being safe and making wise decisions. But if someone gets raped and someone says “Well, you shouldn’t have…”, they are WRONG. 100%. A woman can walk outside topless and if she gets raped, its not because she was topless. Its because someone decided to try to over power her and rob her of her autonomy. </p>

54

<p>Then two drunk kids who have sex can’t be considered rape is that correct?</p>

55

<p>@Pepper03 Your question raises an issue that has been discussed in other threads at length, and the answer is not necessarily as logical as you might expect. </p>

<p>A distinction I suggest taking is the qualifying differences between advocacy and logic. I have come to realize advocacy positions are not necessarily logical positions, and conversely, logical positions often do not make palatable advocacy positions. </p>

<p>To answer your question:</p>

<p>The logical position: two drunk people cannot consent to sex to each other and if they both say “yes” to each other and have sex with no one person forcing the other then it would seem like a wash, and no rape took place. That is the logical position.</p>

<p>The advocacy position: Part 1 of the advocacy position centers around a female has the right to make herself stupid drunk and say yes to sex with a drunk guy. This makes sense because cannot stop stupidity. However, the advocacy position further states that the female yes does not count because a drunk female cannot consent. To be accurate, the advocacy position is not drunk, but moreso a female who has been drinking. So, for a drinking or drunk female yes really means no, no matter how loud she says yes. </p>

<p>Part 2 of the advocacy position states a male does not have the right to get so drunk, as not to be able to ascertain if a female is incapable to taking rational decisions. Therefore, a drunk guy could be told “yes” by a drunk female a thousand times, but the female has the right to be stupid drunk and those yes answers do not count. However, the male, who is also stupid drunk, does not have that right, and thus can be charged with rape, even if no force were used and he were assisted by the female. That is the advocacy position.</p>

<p>Also note that the above means nothing to the 2 - 3% of males (whatever the percentage may be) who are of a criminal nature and could care less about the advocacy position, laws, or anything of the sort. They are going to have sex with the female no matter. These particular guys cannot be taught not to do this; no mommy training can help here. Unfortunately, the advocacy position is never going to protect females from these guys.</p>

<p>Hope this answers your question.</p>

56

<p>Also note that the above means nothing to the 2 - 3% of males (whatever the percentage may be) who are of a criminal nature and could care less about the advocacy position, laws, or anything of the sort. They are going to have sex with the female no matter. These particular guys cannot be taught not to do this; no mommy training can help here. Unfortunately, the advocacy position is never going to protect females from these guys."</p>

<p>This is an important point. I understand the “advocates” argument and won’t disagree with the idea that men need to treat women with respect. However, that won’t protect them from men who choose to be criminals. You can only control your own behavior beyond that you can only attempt to predict the behavior of others and act accordingly. By the tone of the original article the headway that advocates have made are having an effect on the way normal young men are behaving. Young men are taking precautions to make sure that they are not falsely accused of a crime. I doubt their overall propensity towards criminal behavior has changed at all. </p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>For normal guys, I believe this is correct. Nothing has changed at all in terms of criminal behavior propensity.</p>

<p>Contrary to what is being sold to females, redefining normal behavior is not going to lower rape incidences on campus one bit. I predict nothing will change basically because the advocacy position does nothing to address the real problems. When anyone does something stupid and exposes themselves, there is a criminal element, which will take advantage of the opportunity to commit a crime. To run around thinking just because I have a right to be stupid means no one will hurt me is misguided at best, but that is the mantra of the moment. </p>

<p>There is a huge difference between should and would. Sure, no one should hurt anyone, but there are those who would and who care less about women’s rights and advocacy positions. </p>

<p>Under current advocacy positions, the same number or more females will be raped on campus with the only difference being they feel invincible before it happens because they have internalized this right to be stupid drunk at all costs. And the reason I say it is very possible more would be raped is the law of unintended consequences - there is a subset of females who are self-aware enough who would get to college and would not get stupid drunk. However, some, if not a lot, would get indoctrinated that this is their right and they should exercise it regardless, and then they follow the crowd. This raises the number of drinking females at risk of the criminal element; raising the number of drunk females will probably raise the number of sexual assaults, i.e., crimes of opportunity.</p>

58

<p>

I think this is because most people assume their sons (and daughters) would never even consider assaulting or hurting anyone. They teach their children to respect and care about others without ever explicitly saying, “don’t rape.” That their child could assault someone is beyond their imagination.</p>

<p>There are definitely preventive measures a woman can take. Like not walking down a dark alley in the middle of the night (although this really applies to everyone). Agreed that the modesty argument is rubbish… for the most part. If a woman is wearing significantly less modest clothing relative to how women around her are dressed, then I do believe that sexual assault becomes much more likely.</p>

59

<p>Well I think I kind of understand all of this @awcntdb. </p>

<p>Well I guess I was taken aback as the parent of a son that I hadn’t raised him not to rape, assault and catcall. I will make sure when he comes home again I instruct him not to do any of those things.</p>

<p>What is the acceptable way to instruct my daughter heading off to college next fall? I don’t want to make the same mistake I made with my son-I hope it isn’t too late to straighten it out as he has just started his fourth year. </p>

60

<p>@Pepper03</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I get your sarcasm, and you are not alone. I am sure you taught your son well, as most moms do. </p>

<p>The advocacy groups, which are really community organizers, took a page out of the community organizing playbook, all the while totally forgetting that those tactics only work on low information people (and politicians). However, such tactics backfire when used on the moderately informed and educated who do not have what I call advocacy tunnel vision. </p>

<p>Case-in-point is to rally their cause they created this myth that the campus rape problem was a problem of ALL males, in effort to gin up support. Thus the cry that ALL mothers should teach their sons not to rape, as if mothers are not doing that already and, as if raping was some natural or commonly taught behavior that could be then taught not to be done. Not sure why people thought that the ultra-majority of upstanding moms who teach their sons properly would rally to a cause that calls them and their sons the problem. Only an idiot joins a movement that thinks he is the problem. Therefore, all the upstanding mothers and their sons, including dads defending mom and sons, are not going to join on to a cause that automatically assumes they are bad parents and not teaching their sons not to rape.</p>

<p>Additionally, only an idiot would fall for that “teach your sons not to rape” slogan because informed people know demographically 95+% of college-aged males have no criminal records, no assault records anywhere in their past and no indication that they would even commit a felony crime. So, to run around saying that just being male is the root of the problem naturally comes off to smart people as hyperbole at best; no, the problem is criminally-inclined males. However, in this regime, the approach is to tar all males with no desire to weed out the criminals. None of the proposed advocacy positions even try to find the criminal element and dispose of it. It just treats all males the same, which obviously they are not. This approach may work on low information people and timid politicians who want to get re-elected, but fails miserably, as a motivator on Main Street and at the kitchen table, and your reaction is more the norm than the exception.</p>