<p>So well said. </p>
<p>^By ignoring the relationship angle, you are comparing apples and oranges. The cases that are difficult are those in which there is a personal connection of some kind between the man and the woman, ie. boyfriend and girlfriend, or drunk dates. People don’t ever have an issue with gray areas of consent when some random, previously unknown bad guy from the street breaks into a girl’s first floor apartment and rapes her. You have to compare some of these campus cases (eg. the Stanford one) to a theft like this: For several years Joe has lent his snow-blower to his neighbor Jim, and it was understood Jim could borrow it as needed. However, Joe got sick of the fact that Jim wasn’t careful with it, didn’t re-fuel it, and sometimes forgot to return it to the garage when he was done. So Joe tells Jim, “I’m tired of this. You can’t borrow my snow-blower anymore.” But one day there’s a snowstorm and Jim goes and gets the machine from Joe’s garage anyway. Joe wanted to use it just then too, so is doubly furious. In a fit of anger he calls the cops, saying Jim stole his machine. Jim says, “But I’ve borrowed his blower many times with his permission. You can even ask Bob next door and he’ll vouch that I’m telling the truth. I don’t remember Joe saying anything to me about not wanting me to borrow it anymore. This was just a misunderstanding. I’m not a thief!” </p>
<p>@The GFG
Wow. What I mainly learned from your post is that the understanding many people have of rape has a lot further to go than I had even imagined.</p>
<p>I appreciate your honesty, but I can not believe the suggestion that a more accurate comparison to raping a woman is borrowing the neighbor’s snowblower. </p>
<p>So, a rapist isn’t a thief, he just forgot the woman said no and wanted to borrow her vagina. He isn’t a thief, he planned to return her vagina when he was finished with it. Rape is really just a friendly misunderstanding. </p>
<p>Well, thank you for the clarification. Now that that is explained, I am sure that no one would object (sarcasm). </p>
<p>I really need to think about this before I respond further.</p>
<p>Wow, and you are going to continue to act as though we’re insensitive morons who don’t appreciate the severity of the crime of rape! Of course my theft example and rape are not equivalent crimes; I never implied they were. I was merely trying to provide a quick example where a personal relationship, and especially a relationship with a prior understanding, muddies the waters of the situation. But you clearly have your own narrative in which those who think differently than you must be boors who objectify women. </p>
<p>Let me make sense of this thread. 3boys calls me “confused” because I don’t agree with her, but that is not condescending, and GFG accuses much2 as calling him? an “insensitive moron” because much2 has trouble with the lawn mower/woman comparison (talk about objectifying women’s bodies). There are definitely a big divide here. It’s not about nuances of evidence. It is about the refusal to acknowledge rape as an event on campuses and the denial of basic respect to women. </p>
<p>Having read this thread, I better understand the support system that empowers serial rapists.</p>
<p>This is my favorite rape defense of all time: I forgot. Gosh, you said No five minutes ago, but I forgot! Plus, you weren’t using your vagina then anyway. And I gave it back, so what’s the problem?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you implying that Rule of Law is the support system that empowers serial rapists? By that I mean the bit that “all are equal in the eyes of the law” and the whole innocent until proven guilty thing. By it’s very nature rape is extremely difficult to prove because unlike theft or murder or assault, the activity involved usually has no third party witnesses and is also very frequently engaged in consensually. Victims of the other crimes I’ve mentioned rarely need to think hard about whether or not they have been victimized before reporting.</p>
<p>I agree that sexual assault and rape (I do distinguish between the two, having been a victim of one but not the other) are serious problems on college campuses but I don’t think that the answer lies in suspending the requirements of criminal law and branding an individual as a felon without that individual having been convicted in a court of law. I think it’s good that DOJ is bringing attention to this issue but I don’t think that they are proposing any real solution because they simply don’t have one and nor do the colleges and universities. There just aren’t the simple, easy answers to this problem that everyone seems to be searching for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not the support system. Rapists’ support system is people who say that it’s not rape if she said No but she was his ex-girlfriend and he was in her room. Because he forgot, and anybody could forget. </p>
<p>Relationships are complicated. There’s something about, “I let him rape me because I was tired,” that is problematic. If people can’t see that there will never be a consensus.</p>
<p>I must have missed the post where the accused said that he forgot that his ex had said no but I’m talking about situations where both parties freely spend the night together and one claims the sex was consensual and the other says they did not consent but didn’t object or resist while it was occurring. That really muddies the water and I don’t see how this classic “he said, she said” can be decided one way or the other without witnesses or physical evidence of some kind.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, people of both sexes are sometimes ambivalent about whether or not they want to engage in sexual relations in a given situation and sometimes people do change their mind. I’m just saying that reasonable doubt exists to the point that I would have a hard time convicting someone of a felony in this situation. Am I now part of the system that empowers serial rapists?</p>
<p>@Joblue
Yes, you missed many exchanges. I think you would will understand completely if you read the last 2 pages. </p>
<p>@mamalion articulated my thoughts perfectly when she said:
“There is definitely a big divide here. It’s not about nuances of evidence. It is about the refusal to acknowledge rape as an event on campuses and the denial of basic respect to women.”</p>
<p>I understand that nuances such as relationships and ambiguous comments may add complexity to rape cases. I do not understand the refusal to acknowledge that:</p>
<ol>
<li>Campus Rape is a real problem </li>
<li>That a significant percentage of these rapes are real, legitimate rapes and not just “drunk sex”</li>
<li>That very few real, legitimate rapes make it to court, let alone get prosecuted successfully, even when there are no nuances and the victim does everything right</li>
<li>That women that are victims of rape are frequently accorded less respect and more skepticism than men who are victims of any crime ever are</li>
</ol>
<p>The nuances are that not all sexual assaults are rape so the dialogue on college campuses should cover all sexual behavior - e.g. groping, harrassing, etc. The problem is there is also criminal sexual conduct as JoBlue pointed out. It is equally traumatic to be assaulted (sexually) without it progressing to rape. </p>
<p>Even when you look at the now accepted definition of rape from the DOJ the key words are “without the consent of the victim.” This is where it becomes incredibly nuanced and these are the words that need further definition both for our legal system and for our colleges and universities. To define things better would actually give courts more leniency to punish and make it easier for colleges and universities to weigh their decision-making in my opinion. It might give prosecutors something to hang their proverbial hats on when making a decision to prosecute or not. It doesn’t say ‘verbal consent’, it doesn’t say ‘written consent’, it doesn’t say explicit consent…it just says “consent.” Honestly, I don’t know where some of you get the idea that other people don’t “get” that rape happens and that our criminal justice system can do a better job. I have not read anything like that on the entire thread. I have seen many people trying to explain the nuances that make prosecuting rape either through the criminal justice system or judging a violation of a conduct code difficult and offering opinions on where there is not clarity. It people think there aren’t any nuances, which was expressed upwards in this thread, then the current criminal code suffices …personally I would prefer more nuance resulting in more prosecution. The colleges clearly need a more nuanced definition because right now they aren’t entirely clear as evidenced by decisions that are all over the place.</p>
<p>Another area that the DOJ has recently reworded that I totally agree with is to eliminate gender specific references acknowledging that the concept of who rapes whom is not gender specific. </p>
<p>momofthreeboys, for some people, if you don’t join the lynch mob on EVERY SINGLE CASE, no matter how far-fetched, you are the enemy. There is no way to deal rationally with an ideologue.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the posts of many people on this thread are nuanced. I have a hard time when someone says that a) they haven’t read all of them, but b) we are all a bunch of rape apologists. Because, you know, they detected some willingness to entertain the possibility that some guy somewhere was actually falsely accused and that you actually think it matters.</p>
<p>It is possible to hold two thoughts in one’s head at the same time. I, for example, am convinced that the majority of actual rapes are not reported, and that that is a huge problem. I am also convinced that convicting innocent men is a bad thing. Although it is probably LESS of a problem than the unreported, unpunished rapes, it is still a problem.</p>
<p>I am interested in people’s views of the Parker Gilbert case that I linked to early in this thread. I thought that he was pretty clearly guilty, based on what I had read, and was somewhat astounded when he was found not guilty by a jury. It appears that the college has effectively suspended or expelled him, nontheless. I would be very surprised if he turned up there again. (I am also astounded that a friend of the alleged victim slept in the SAME extra-long twin that night and yet says that she has no memory of the alleged multi-phase rape taking place in the SAME BED and slept through it. But that is another issue.)</p>
<p>@ Consolation
“There is no way to deal rationally with an ideologue.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The ad hominems aren’t helpful. </p></li>
<li><p>I didn’t see anyone characterize all of the people here as rape apologists</p></li>
<li><p>“It is possible to hold two thoughts in one’s head at the same time. I, for example, am convinced that the majority of actual rapes are not reported, and that that is a huge problem. I am also convinced that convicting innocent men is a bad thing. Although it is probably LESS of a problem than the unreported, unpunished rapes, it is still a problem.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I agree with all of this.</p>
<p>This article defining what consent is is hilarious. Here are a few examples:</p>
<p>If they aren’t sober, they can’t consent.</p>
<p>The absence of “no” is not consent.</p>
<p>Silence is not consent.</p>
<p>If you have to convince them, it’s not consent.</p>
<p>Only an informed, sober, freely-given, ongoing, enthusiastic “Yes!” is consent.</p>
<p>The last one is particularly interesting. I am assuming that each party has to verbalize his/her consent throughout the entire time they are having sex. This takes talking during sex to a whole nother level. Also, the second to last item is pretty funny. If I use my considerable persuasive charm to convince you to have sex with me, I guess I am going to jail. We better start constructing a whole bunch of new prisons to accommodate the influx of people needing to be incarcerated.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.federalwaymirror.com/lifestyle/229939391.html”>Let's talk about sex ... and consent | Amy Johnson | Federal Way Mirror;
<p>Great post, Consolation. </p>
<p>All evidence suggests that there are plenty of fairly unambiguous rapes that are never being reported or prosecuted. I don’t think that problem is helped by pulling out the pitchforks in cases that are far, far murkier. In fact, it may hurt the prosecution of the more egregious cases, because it gives those inclined to be suspicious ammunition for assuming that most claims of rape are overblown or impossible to prove.</p>
<p>I can understand how the notion of questioning a rape victim’s behavior in any way can make us uneasy because it does, in fact, come close to victim blaming. But as Consolation said, this is a nuanced situation. It should be possible to acknowledge that while women are NOT to blame for rape, one’s behavior may in certain instances put one in a situation where a) the risk of rape is more likely and b) that will make it much harder to prove that a crime has taken place, and not because either the school disciplinary committee or the police force thinks sexually active women are just asking for it anyway.</p>
<p>This is the point that I think the GFG was trying to make above. Most crimes don’t resemble legal behavior. When they do, it becomes a lot harder to determine guilt or innocence. For instance, murder is illegal, but self-defense is not, so a killer that can plausibly argue, if not definitively prove, that his actions were taken in self-defense has a much better shot than one for whom the circumstances don’t admit of any such interpretation. That doubtless results in a certain number of murderers getting acquitted, but that’s how it works. Even if you lowered the standard of proof to “clear or convincing” or “preponderance of the evidence,” you might still have difficulty getting convictions in a fair system. </p>
<p>The fact that a woman may have voluntarily gone home with a man after a night of partying doesn’t preclude her from being raped. But it does mean that she has put herself in a situation that, assuming she didn’t spend the encounter either passed out at one extreme or screaming “no” and trying to fight back at the other, the fact is that it is going to look a heck of a lot like a lot of consensual encounters.</p>
<p>It isn’t a matter of deliberately punishing a woman for her sexuality. It is just a sad reality. </p>
<p>Much2learn, I think that branding most of the posters on this thread rape apologists is an ad hominem. But YMMV.</p>
<p>Regarding Parker Gilbert, I think on surface I can understand why the jury ended up doing what it did, it sounds like there was no compelling statements by the accuser even later to the Nurse that would give indication that she was incapacitated and unable to consent or if not incapacitated said explicitly ‘no.’ The actions of the accuser - rolling over and going back to sleep and not locking the door does not compute - she didn’t even wake the roommate up it sounds like. It’s extremely unfortunate, but part of me wonders if any jury could find guilty tipsy sex (the victim told the nurse she was not drunk) between 2 colleges kids with a roommate who had not been drinking present and claimed not to hear the accuser express lack of consent. BUT I do NOT think Parker Gilbert should "sue’ Dartmouth or try to get his college record expunged, although i have no knowledge of what Dartmouth used from the accuser that would push them to the 51% level that they would need to boot him - but my gut says with limited information that I think he should count his lucky stars or at least hold off until Amanda Childress shoots herself in her other foot 
and is on leave recuperating.</p>
<p>I’d add another note to the OP for her original question: Tell your daughter to lock her door at night. I’m surprised kids don’t do this. Even my two older ones (on a small campus) did lock their doors at night. </p>
<p>@ consolidation
I honestly do not know what you are referring to. Perhaps this quote by<br>
@mamalion ?</p>
<p>"Having read this thread, I better understand the support system that empowers rapists.</p>
<p>While I can’t speak for her, I did not read that comment to imply that all posters or most posters in this thread empower serial rapists. I read it as “certain posts in the thread empower rapists.” </p>
<p>I also did not think it was targeted at you or 3mom.</p>
<p>I second Consolation and apprenticeprof’s posts on the previous page. Calling attention to the nuances of some cases, and discussing perceived problems with campus trial procedures does not make one a rape apologist. Rape obviously happens on campuses, and it’s terrible. Students are also falsely accused of rape, and are found “guilty” with no proof by campus entities which are woefully lacking in the necessary training and investigative resources to do so properly. That’s also terrible. As Consolation said, it’s possible to hold both positions at once.</p>
<p>Those of us with boys who’ve already finished 4 years of college may have more concerns about campus trial procedures because we’ve seen some real life scenarios that were plain scary. The one I wrote about happened to my own S freshman year. Thank God it blew over, but let me tell you, we were terrified of the girl making an unfounded accusation and here’s why: it is now considered unacceptable to doubt for one second the story of a girl who claims she was raped. To do so makes you a horrible person who blames victims and wants to let rapists get off scot free. Also, in the current climate, rape doesn’t have to be proven to be accepted as having occurred. Some on here seem to be saying “if a girl says she was raped, then she was raped.” Therefore, one can currently have no confidence that a college trial system will actually ferret out the truth. Furthermore, even if a rape accusation is later proven false, due to internet publicity a young man’s life can be seriously and permanently damaged. Corrections in the media are never as well-publicized as the original story, are they? And let’s not for one second think that withholding a boy’s name means people won’t find out who the accused is. People can and do figure these things out pretty easily. </p>