<p>It’s odd you mention the George Will article. It is currently being shared on social media among many moderate women as an example of why we still have so far to go on this issue. Just in case you were curious. Women are not responding favorably to his thoughts. I’m including independents. </p>
<p>By “open to anything” I meant the proliferation of the attitude that porn is empowering and sexual situations that simulate porn are empowering just by virtue of not feeling fettered by old, stuffy restriction. So now we have pole dancing aerobics classes, 50 Shades of Grey, and people suggesting that the Duke simulated rape porn star is holding all the power cards by owning her sexuality not to mention paying her own tuition. I am all for many if not most manifestations of feminism (not the anti-door holders, though) but this modern permutation does not seem empowering to me and seems to really blur the lines between what is OK and what isn’t.</p>
<p>@awcntdb - I’m not sure where you were going with your comment based on mine, but it seems to be a case of seriously crosses channels</p>
<p>As several of us have said, there are reasons other than misogyny to explain why rape is treated differently than other crimes. While I have no doubt that misogyny and shaming still plays a role, I’d say the fact that there is often no firm evidence to allow courts to distinguish between consensual sex from acquaintance rape has to be taken into account in a big, big way as well. </p>
<p>Going back to the Swat case, I think it is pretty darn reasonable to ask a woman why, if she was sure she didn’t want to be having sex, she didn’t say “no” in the moment that he started removing her clothes. There are plenty of valid answers she might have for that question, but if you’re going to bring a serious accusation against someone, investigators have the right to ask germane questions.</p>
<p>Well said poetgrl</p>
<p>@poertgrl - That does not mean he is wrong. It just means others disagree. Which, incidently, is exactly what should be happening in a free society. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, I could not agree more. </p>
<p>It follows that it is definitely wrong to find someone culpable of a serious offense without a fair hearing or due process.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SHE SAID NO. If the guy wanted to know if she had changed her mind, he could have asked her instead of assaulting her. If she said no a second time (and maybe she did) would we still be asking her why she didn’t say no the third time when he assaulted her? He has to get consent. He didn’t get consent. We know that, because she says she never consented, and she is the world’s expert on whether she consented. There is no secret consent of hers that he is privy to and she is not. It is up to him to get consent, and he did not do that. Which makes him a rapist. Why is this so hard to understand? When you stick you ---- into someone who never agreed to it, that makes you a rapist. If you don’t want to be labelled a rapist, don’t rape. Don’t go sticking your ---- into someone who doesn’t agree to it. </p>
<p>You don’t get to stick your — into someone unless they say No. You only get to stick your — into someone if they say Yes. I realize that some of you men are having trouble with that idea, but she has to consent.</p>
<p>@awcntdb I’ve looked at UltraViolet’s stuff before and find it intellectual dishonest and simplistic soundbite garbage. Just like the garbage at the other end of the spectrum.</p>
<p>To return to the Swat case, I affirm that if the woman is telling the truth, if the facts are as she described, then she was raped. No means no. That is why so many women are up in arms about Will’s dismissal of her rape: he seems to think that it was OK for the man to assault her even though she said No. And assaulting someone if they say No is rape. If we believe her telling of the story, it was rape.</p>
<p>Now, if I were in the justice system, or even if I were evaluating the situation as a college administrator, I would have to hear from the guy. He would, I presume, tell a different story. I might not be able to tell who was telling the truth. Hearing from both parties, I wouldn’t know whether to believe her or him, and therefore I very likely would not be able to pursue a rape conviction, or a college sexual assault case.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t change the fact that IF she is telling the truth, then she was raped by definition, because being penetrated without consent, and in her telling she did not consent, is the definition of rape. There can be no other conclusion.</p>
<p>Awcnt—</p>
<p>Given that Will is complaining about women reporting, and all you are advocating is women reporting, I’m not even sure why you would cite Will to begin with. </p>
<p>What I find odd is that some women, and the reasons have already been elaborated, do not want to call the police. The criminal system, if the accused is found guilty, has the severest punishment - jail and a lifetime as a sex offender so because they don’t want to turn to the criminal system they turn to a university system with potentially untrained individuals, If women are as mad as they say, why are they not filing those thousands of charges nationally with the police? I think recall the Head of Dining Services sat in on the Brown case, and the women on that campus were furious when the outcome was a year or two expulsion. You can’t have it both ways. It is either a crime or it is a code of conduct problem with a very low burden of proof. Of course the university is going to fit the punishment to their perception of the crime. Human nature tells you if you aren’t totally certain about a decision you’ll most likely err on a conservative or cautious side rather than go all out against someone. If they are only certain 50.01% that the accuser is telling the truth they aren’t going to expel a student for life and potentially suffer lawsuits. I have an extremely difficult time understanding why someone using the word ‘rape’ which is understood in our society as a forceful violent crime would not call the police…but that’s just me.</p>
<p>It is entirely possible that a good starting point would be for women to figure out exactly what they want before it gets figured out for them and by this I mean if they want expulsions perhaps they have to give up the 50.01% and settle for a higher degree of evidence. My main point is that if students don’t start working with administration on this it’s going to get decided for them and they may not like the outcome. It will be interesting to hear what the DOJ actually uncovers as they begin to look at some of the individual cases now in court as well as the investigations they have announced. As a woman I hope they give clearer guidance. As a mother of boys I hope they give clearer guidance. I still don’t believe criminal acts should be judged punitively by universities, but that train has left the station. </p>
<p>This is getting long, but I think the reason women don’t like the George Will article is because if you read between the lines it is an “older” person’s perspective…again, this hookup culture could be solved to a great extent if dorms were single sex, if hours were in place, if 3 feet on the floor rules came back. What women wants all that big brother protection after fighting so long for the right to self determination. But honestly, i don’t understand these cases where women go home with guys if they don’t want sex…go somewhere neutral and public and talk all night if that’s what you want. I honestly believe that while hormonally charged young men would like to have sex, first and foremost they just want to be close to whatever woman has caught their eye. Women have more power of self determination than some of these young women in the anecdotal stories seem to display. So now you can flame away.</p>
<p>CF, if every person who persisted in attempting to persuade an established sexual partner to have sex when they initially said not now was a rapist, and if every such partner who ultimately decided “Oh, whatever, okay” was raped, then most adults would probably be either rapists or rape victims. And that is pretty much how I read that story. </p>
<p>It seems that the status of their relationship was changing, but that is rarely a simple and straightforward event with clear boundaries. If it were in this case, she might have chosen to tell him to vacate her bed, for example. </p>
<p>She didn’t say not now, she said never again, in her telling. He was allowed to try to persuade her, sure, but in order to succeed at the persuasion, she had to eventually agree, which she never did.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/college-sexual-assault-george-will-and-the-latest-in-rape-denialism-83083/”>http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/college-sexual-assault-george-will-and-the-latest-in-rape-denialism-83083/</a></p>
<p>There have been many articles in response to George Will’s article. Here is a typical one. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But that would not solve the problem of rape, because there were plenty of rapes back in the good old days of single sex dorms. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>I can never look at “—” the same way again. </p></li>
<li><p>“But honestly, i don’t understand these cases where women go home with guys if they don’t want sex…go somewhere neutral and public and talk all night if that’s what you want. I honestly believe that while hormonally charged young men would like to have sex, first and foremost they just want to be close to whatever woman has caught their eye.”
Please, momofthreeboys, repeat this again for all women to hear. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>momofthreeboys wonders why women don’t report rape to the police, and then answers her own question in her post. </p>
<p>Why would a woman go home with a guy if she didn’t want to be raped? Why would she be in a coed dorm-- she must have wanted to be raped. It’s all her fault. She deserved to be raped. Why are we picking on the fine upstanding boys who just wanted to be close to her? They’re hormonally challenged, they can’t be expected not to rape a young woman if they are alone with her. That’s what momofthreeboys says to the rape victim, and it’s often what police are going to be saying, too. </p>
<p>No, that is not what she says to the rape victim nor has she said anything remotely close in all of her posts in this thread. </p>
<p>I love that that piece is written by a young man. Quite excellent. </p>
<p>Mom3, my objection to Wiils piece is that he acts as if rape on college campuses is a new problem. No. The new thing is that women are talking about rape. His old school paternalism never protected women from rape. It only protected rapists from reporting. </p>
<p>He is wrong. So wrong. </p>
<p>But as I said earlier, young men are increasingly standing with women on this issue because they are increasingly insulted by the idea that they can’t tell the difference between sexual yes and sexual no. They know that if their girlfriend says she will never ever have sex with him again, her not forcing him to leave that very minute is not a “yes”</p>
<p>No that’s not what mom3 says, CF. </p>
<p>We can puzzle this out together. We don’t have to agree on all of it, but we agree on most</p>
<p>We are used to asking about women and why they did this, that, the other. I would say, why did he have sex with a woman who wasn’t interested? That’s the thing. Men are going to have to think about it now. God knows women have had to since the start of time. </p>