Yes. and I apologized for the comment. I know that the vast majority are good people. It was just that a few of the stricter rules seemed to come from a few lawyers who happened to be. Let’s put that behind us.
The cases are secret from the public. Not just the names, but the cases. However, I did hear one where after 2 gay men had sex, which was verbally asked for, one kissed the other without asking and was expelled for 2 semesters as a result. I’ll have to dig it up. Big article. Poor guy had not even came out to his parents yet, and that is how they found out. His accuser accused him 2 months after the fact.
In another case, a woman accused a guy of not getting consent for a kiss that happened 2 years ago. He could easily have lied, but he told the truth because he did not think it was an issue. They suspended him for 2 semesters.
“Not likely to convict” is not good enough. I can’t enjoy life knowing I can be convicted for nit-picky reasons and that I must lie to save myself. I should be able to tell the truth and be safe from suspensions. If I get fined, I’ll learn not to date that person and move on.
I have. That is what I said. They don’t ask. They just take the lead and do. And I like it. If they did ask, I’d ask them to stop asking and just do it from now on. I like confident women. And I want to strike down a law that could harm them. However, I also no that no man will accuse them.
The real issue here is physical strength differences. If a woman is to afraid of a man to speak up, that is an issue. I think if she knew she could fine him, she would be less afraid. It would not be enough for justice in some cases, but it would be a great deterrent. The innocent would survive the fine, if it carried no verdict.
I’m sure some rapists act on impulse too. What about two people who are in a relationship, and they’re having sex, and one person says they want to stop but the other person keeps going? That wasn’t planned out in advance, and I’m sure that in the heat of the moment, the rapist wasn’t thinking, “Okay, she said no. So that means after this I need to call the police, and I’m going to tell them that I was the one who said no.”
Why is fear worse? I think fear and violation are both feelings that should be considered. Not all female victims (or those you would think to be the “weaker” / more “passive” partners) feel fear; I have a friend (petite female) who was recently assaulted (by a grown man), and she wasn’t afraid, just upset. And male victims (or those one you would think to be the “stronger” / more “active” partners) can feel afraid. Maybe he has PTSD from a previous sexual encounter. Maybe he’s scared of what will happen if he tries to report it. Maybe the woman is in a position of power over him or is abusing him. But yes, I agree that the feelings that one may have after being kissed once without consent would not warrant the labels “assault” or “rape,” though depending on the context, it could be considered sexual harassment.
She did say that you can’t fully know a person. I think there are ways to tell if there’s a risk of you being falsely accused of rape: if said partner is cheating on someone else, if partner is keeping you a secret (due to parents or being in the closet, for example), if partner gives mixed signals or likes playing “hard to get,” if partner doesn’t have problems with telling lies, if partner is abusive.
But couldn’t the accused either threaten the victim to not tell, or attack him/her after being fined, if there was no other punishment? Even if the accuser didn’t retaliate, he/she could still spread rumors about the accused. I’m sure people have been traumatized and even committed suicide over being stigmatized on the victim end too.
I do think we’re on the same page to some degree. I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with you that it’s unreasonable to ask for consent in between kisses, or that there aren’t nonverbal ways of implying consent. I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with you that the laws sound overbearing and unreasonable. And they won’t stop anyone who’s willing to lie.
What I’m not saying is that consent is not important, or that it’s an annoyance or buzzkill to check in with a partner more than once. It’s essential to teach the more assertive people that their more passive partners’ feelings matter more than their own pleasure. It’s essential to teach the more passive people that they have a say in what happens to them concerning sex.
I also agree that we shouldn’t stigmatize people as rapists, nor should they be publicly outed (like how assault victims are often kept anonymous), nor should they be suspended or expelled, before they are found guilty in a court of law. There should be repercussions for false accusers should hard evidence be found or should the person admit to their wrongdoing. I don’t think universities are the best powers to be handling this.
You are victim blaming again. Would you tell a rape victim that she should be content with the current law not prosecuting her attacker because she could have seen the signs and avoided him? I agree we should teach people to watch for signs. I agree a guy should accept some risk when he ignores the signs. But to say he be convicted by someone who consented and later denies it just because he could have seen the signs is too extreme. I say a fine is survivable, whereas expulsion is not. I saw your other statement about schools not handling this, but I think they should, if they keep the names, not court details, private.
If he could threaten her not to fine him, he could also threaten her not to suspend him. I think he would be far more likely to do that later. Also, he knows where she lives. Suspending him would not guarantee safety. If we really want to worry about retaliation, we could just lock him up forever. I advocate against paranoia. If shes is worried about it, she can request to have her phone calls recorded, and wear a wire. They can check GPS signals. There are ways to get evidence if people actually want to know the truth instead of just going on someone’s word.
Have you heard of the Violence Against Women Act? Congress mandates that if a woman complains to authorities about a domestic dispute, they can and must prosecute him. It has sex neutral language, and often the woman making the call gets arrested if she does not want him to miss work. That law is used to justify on college campuses administrators going after the guy even if the woman does not want him prosecuted but only wanted someone to talk to. They pressure her to testify against him, secretly though.
Any guy who continues after a woman said no is not just acting on impulse. He might not have planned that night out, but I’m sure he thought about whether he would stop if he heard a no, months ago.
I agree under current laws, he would not bother to go report her. But once the law on campus gets changed to say that “the first person to report is believed as victim, and the second to counter file is disbelieved as retaliation”, rapists will respond accordingly. Under current law, he knows he only needs to counter accuse if she accuses him. So no need to rush out.
Rapists are like lions resting in the shade on the African savanna, looking at the grazers. They look so peaceful. If you saw those cute kitties go hunting at night, you would think it was impulse. Fact is, they were planning it during the day. Rapists know the laws and how to get around them. Making the definition of consent stricter won’t stop them from gaming the system, but it will harm more nice guys. My fine would nail 100% of rapists every time, and the nice guys would only get hit by the occasional mean woman and survive that time.
If there is evidence or reason to believe a guy will attack someone, we can use other means too. Rearranging schedules, having cameras on campus and telling him not to follower her, etc. We just should not expel someone or even suspend them on someone’s word just because we are paranoid of what he might do. We have technology to tell if someone is stalking someone.
People can make decisions on the fly. What I’m saying is that a normal guy will not decide on the fly to ignore a woman who said no. Someone who did that had a mind set that was developed months ago.
I do think failing to respond to “no” or “wait” should be grounds for a serious penalty. What I’m arguing against is penalizing people who don’t ask for verbal permission between similar or non-escalatory acts. They should definitely ask before using or getting out there pen. They should pay attention to their partner and stop to ask when it looks like she is not having fun. We should not narrow the definition of consent just in hopes of catching more people on the witness stand. The rapists will lie, and the nice guys will get hurt.
I also think a small woman should not be charged with sexual assault at all. If she is, it should just be mild harassment. I think the huge push to make it gender neutral only is from the desire to use Title 9, which mandates gender neutrality.
I also think it is never too late to teach students that “no” and “wait” mean not to proceed without first getting affirmative consent, and to be attentive to ones partner instead of only caring about one’s own desires. Some might actually change.
However, I think a typical sex session should have about 3 or so direct questions, unless there are a few new moves or moves not always liked by the other. If new to each other, people should talk a bit more. If in a relationship, they might not need to talk much since they know what the other wants. But regardless of relationship length, they should always pay attention to the other.
“No”, “Wait”, and distressed facial expressions should be legally binding as removed consent. For the harder to determine cases, where she wanted him to stop but gave no signal he or the law recognized, I think a fine is the most humane way to settle it. Courts should not have to decide between no penalty or a life changing penalty such as expulsion.
I’m not arguing against penalties for annoying someone. I’m simply stating that if someone makes a reasonable attempt to get consent and is not scary to the other, then the other should have some responsibility to let the asker know that they don’t like the specifics of the action.
At my schools, there is no limit to how detailed and specific the permission request must be. If they want him convicted so they don’t risk funding removal, they can, “So you asked if you could do X. But did you specifically ask it to do Xy? … Then guilty.” That is indefensible.
No one is victim-blaming. No one is saying that the fact that there were signs means that the criminal shouldn’t be prosecuted and punished. I’m saying what you said–we should teach people to watch for signs, and that those who ignore the signs are taking a risk. We take the precautions that we can while also recognizing that crimes like these can’t be completely predicted or avoided. The problem isn’t that the law doesn’t prosecute rapists/false accusers; it’s that people are getting around the law.
People get fined for what? Speeding tickets? Littering? Loitering? A fine might be so survivable that it’s a poor deterrent for a rapist. For an entitled kid with rich parents, $500 for a night where he/she doesn’t have to worry about getting rejected is not a big deal.
The point of the suspension/expulsion is not just for the benefit of the victim. It’s to protect the student body as a whole, and just like one could get expelled for plagiarism, it’s a fitting punishment for a severe crime. We have technology, but not all schools have the time, money, and ethical justification to track every move of multiple people.
But not all rapists are like that. People have such a specific picture of rapists as big, aggressive men who hide in bushes scoping out potential targets. Some people don’t intend to rape, but when the victim tries to terminate the sex unexpectedly, they have the kind of personalities or beliefs such that they don’t care in that moment. Because he couldn’t control himself. Because she looked like she wanted it. Because he only groped him, which isn’t rape. Because he wasn’t looking to see her facial expression. Not everyone knows that what they’re doing is rape. We don’t punish people for their “mindsets”; we punish them for their actions.
Why? A “small” woman can’t rape a man? What is considered “small?”
Hahaha, three or so questions… I think that people should just be encouraged to ask for consent frequently. In one scenario, three questions will be excessive; in another scenario, it might not be enough.
I agree that the definition of consent doesn’t need to be restricted to the level of these policies. I agree that there are nonverbal ways to show consent and to remove consent. I agree that there should be a scale of punishments for sexual crimes depending on severity. I don’t agree that we should so drastically reduce the punishment to protect the few people that might get falsely accused of rape. I don’t agree that universities should be the main parties handling these cases because in addition to often not having the proper training, they can face pressure to convict in ways that are unlawful, as you said.
I agree with you that no matter whether a university handles a case fairly or not, people will have their suspicions that it was afraid of getting fined or did not want to lose tuition, more the former. To protect them, it would be nice if some other body did the investigation.
The problem is rape victims are afraid to go to the police, usually. So for now, the university is the lessor of evils.
I agree with encouraging students to ask for consent frequently. I just won’t them having to feel like they will be expelled if they assumed they did not have to once since they just asked 5 minutes ago for the same thing. They should know that for something minor, if their partner complains, there will be a small penalty, but that it won’t be expulsion or suspension unless it is more blatant.
As for my fine, there is more!
The fine is proportional to the income of the accused, or parents. For the average poor student, whose guilt is unknown at 51%, it would be $500. For an NFL player who makes a million dollars per year and decided to take a class for fun, the fine would be about $30,000. It is not justice for the victim, but very likely would discourage a rapist who knows the fine is all but guaranteed short of convincing the court otherwise.
I agree removing someone for campus security reasons is wise, but not if we are only 51% certain. If someone came in hours or even a day or so after the alleged event, still with some blood, I would put the probability at 85% and feel safe with the expulsion. That certainly would be a campus safety concern.
Also, if someone accidentally causes physical injury, I’m OK with expelling them as though it were deliberate.
I think a university could do an investigation if everything they did was recorded, but just with the names of the parties redacted. Then, a court could look at the full record and determine if it was fair.
The problem is, at my school, not only does the contract say there does not have to be a record, it also says that parties may not pose questions for the jury to hear. They must be posed to the chair to read, which the chair does not have to ask or read aloud. That makes it very difficult to prove what really happened and show whether the contract was followed.