<p>And as we have seen with recent news out of Egypt and India, strict codes about the place and conduct of women in society is certainly no shield from rape. It’s not as if we can go back to some magical good old days where everything was proper and above board because that time never never existed. </p>
<p>Momofthreeboys “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?”</p>
<p>Here is the post where I answered this question earlier in the thread.
Re: “level playing field” and <a href=“time mag article "Sexual Assault Crisis on American campuses" - #420 by Much2learn - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>time mag article "Sexual Assault Crisis on American campuses" - #420 by Much2learn - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums;
<p>Honestly after reading this entire thread including the links, I think if I had a daughter I would tell her that if someone tries to rape her, especially an acquaintance, that she better fight back for all she is worth. Enough that the guy has to hit her to subdue her. Because I suspect that by yelling and fighting that gives a woman the very best chance at a conviction. Maybe someone will hear you shouting no. Or maybe there will be adequate bruising so that at a minimum an assault charge will stick. </p>
<p>It seems like saying no should be enough, but apparently it isn’t for everyone - - and I do agree that the non verbal communication IS a factor that is part of the whole mating ritual. It can’t just be dismissed. </p>
<p>It also seems to me that maybe the charge of rape needs to be refined. With murder, we have first degree, second degree and manslaughter. Is there anything similar for rape because the egregiousness of the Swarthmore case is not on par with stranger rape . . .they may both be awful for the victim (as is homicide), but with homicide there is a charge that addresses the lesser degree of intent and has commensurately lower criminal penalties. Perhaps juries would be more likely to convict if the sentences were more variable based on the circumstance?</p>
<p>You have to be careful with that, though. Nothing will more reliably produce ptsd than acquaintance rape.</p>
<p>The trust issues of being raped by the guy who was supposedly protectively walking you home from the party, a favorite ploy of the predator, by the way, can have long term effects. It’s not so cut and dried as it might seem.</p>
<p>Also, a woman is not obligated to have sex with a man just because they are alone together. That is like saying, “Why did you let people into your house for the holiday party if you didn’t want someone to steal your diamond earrings?” Who would ask that?</p>
<p>
I like the sound of that. </p>
<p>The problem is the colleges do not have to base their decisions with the same degree of evidence and certainty as the legal system so the threshold is lower to find someone in violation of the college code of conduct which seems to be appealing to women. I’m one of the posters who thinks colleges should be obligated to call the police with accusations of criminal conduct. Accusers can chose one or the other or both avenues to pursue.</p>
<p>In our state criminal sexual behavior does have classifications…Rape, Criminal Sexual Conduct in the first degree, in the second degree, etc. but states can vary.</p>
<p>The Title IX proceedings are NOT criminal. The accused is not guilty of a crime and is not a criminal. They are guilty of violating the university Code of Conduct - much like a plagiarism charge that results in expulsion or suspension. This can be good or bad for the college or society depending on individual perspective of each individual situation. </p>
<p>3mom “But honestly, i don’t understand these cases where women go home with guys if they don’t want sex.”</p>
<p>From the perspective of teaching young ladies to be safe, I see what you are saying. However, on college campuses, boy and girls hang out together often in each others dorm room. </p>
<p>I do want my daughters to make good decisions, but I worry that telling them that they shouldn’t go into a boys room sends the message that every boy is untrustworthy and a potential rapist. That is not a message that I want to send, if it is not absolutely necessary. Am I too naive?</p>
<p>What should I tell my freshman daughter?</p>
<p>That’s a tough one. Probably depends on what kinds of conversations you and your daughter are comfortable with. If I had a daughter I would tell her that if she’s been drinking and partying and perhaps kissing and touching but doesn’t want to have sex she should probably not go into the guy’s room or wrap up the evening at the party and get home with a girlfriend. Just remember back to your dating years and how you handled things. If you didn’t want to sleep with someone you went back to your place and if he brought you to your place you said thanks, goodnight, maybe gave him a kiss and shut the door even if they were begging – you didn’t escalate it to an awkward place by inviting him in etc. etc. or going to his place. Sometimes it’s easier to do that than to get in an awkward place and have to say no and push someone away. Alcohol plays a huge part in almost all of these situations so i don’t think the answer is never to go to a boy’s room, I think the answer is to gauge the situation. Alcohol lowers almost everyone’s inhibitions both male and female and clouds reactions and judgement. </p>
<p>It’s tough, i jumped my H’s bones and we ended up married so I’m no paragon of virtue and my kids have hear the story time and again 
but in some ways it does make it easier to talk frankly when you haven’t lived a perfect life!</p>
<p>Are we just assuming that everyone is drinking themselves into a stupor? Because my freshman daughter is 17 and she doesn’t drink. She often doesn’t attend parties or leaves as quickly as possible because these gatherings are really stupid and annoying if you’re sober. This likely helps a lot.</p>
<p>@actingmt “Are we just assuming that everyone is drinking themselves into a stupor?”</p>
<p>No, I am not assuming that everyone is drinking themselves into a stupor. </p>
<p>She have always been responsible in her behavior, but not naive, at least for a high schooler. She goes to parties, but does not drink at them and is self-confident enough to leave if there is a lot of drinking and she is uncomfortable. </p>
<p>However, going off to college in the fall will be a whole new ballgame. It is difficult to know what to tell her. On one hand you want her to be as safe as possible, but on the other hand, you have to be realistic and you want her to have fun. </p>
<p>What do you think? </p>
<p>Things can change, acting. Count your blessings while you can. </p>
<p>I didn’t drink a lick of liquor before I stepped onto campus and look where I am now. </p>
<p>Honestly, I never worried about this at all with my kid because even in high school she knew perfectly well which kids had the booze parties and who slept with who and all the drama. I knew, too. Their parents would be appalled. Anyway, she thought it was all really dumb and not at all interesting except for a critical gossip session so I didn’t feel the need to tell her anything about this issue. And, at this age they don’t usually listen to what you tell them. I have gotten more than a few phone calls telling me about parties she couldn’t wait to get out of because everyone was stupid sloshing drunk and she wasn’t participating. But, don’t misunderstand. She has a boyfriend and has plenty of fun but just isn’t a drinker let alone a binge drinker. She is young, so that could change but I’m not too worried about it since she really likes to be in control of herself which is helpful and she’s very focused on her purpose at school. She knows she is not there to have fun and her major is very time consuming. So far, so good.</p>
<p>Binge drinking puts young women at higher risk for rape, but sober young women can get raped too. The young woman I mentioned before, who was assaulted by the drunk athlete, was herself sober AFAIK. Possibly she may have done something unwise like not locking her door, but by all accounts the only thing she did to “lead on” the rapist was be beautiful.</p>
<p>Of course. But it’s pretty clear from this thread that drinking is not a small part of this problem. Rape is not a college issue, it’s a crime that can happen anywhere and should be reported to the real police. The college angle seems to have a whole lot to do with liquor and miscommunication. </p>
<p>Here’s the thing: I actually agree that the Swat case, if the girl’s story is 100% accurate, is rape, although I also agree with whoever said they wouldn’t be comfortable locking up the guy for fifteen years over it. As far as mixed signals go, there’s no comparison between “she was wearing a short skirt and kissed me” and “a recurring, recent sexual partner decided to sleep in my bed.” As for the claim “I said no five minutes ago, so I shouldn’t have to again,” that makes perfect sense as an argument to justify a rape charge, and almost none as an explanation for the behavior of a real live human being who is absolutely certain she does not want to be having sex. There’s really no reason to believe that if she had reiterated her “no” more forcefully not to mention done something like get out of the bed and leave the room, the guy wouldn’t have stopped; that someone is willing to pressure a woman into sex doesn’t mean that he would also be willing to hold down and violently assault her over her protests. Granted, she shouldn’t have had to say anything more than the initial no, but that isn’t a good reason not to have said or done something else once it became necessary, and that makes her story less than fully credible to me.</p>
<p>Again, if the story is true, even though I don’t understand her silence, I still think it is rape. But the chances that the guy’s version of events would have been precisely the same, if asked, are almost nil. In his version, the break-up would have been less definitive, her “no” - which even she says was “basically” a “no, I will not have sex with you” – would have been more like “Really, we shouldn’t,” and rather than lying there stock still, she would have been in some manner participating. </p>
<p>In that case, the only way it is rape is if you hold by the (IMO) absurd standard that consent must always be verbal, which would mean the only thing separating countless mutually satisfying sexual encounters from a crime that could land the man in jail for years would be the fact that a woman had decided, for whatever reason, to classify it as such after the fact. I don’t think we need the government, courts, or colleges to protect women from having to actually say “no”.</p>
<p>In any event, whether the guy were telling the truth or not, or whether, as is more than likely, the truth lay somewhere in between, there would be pretty much no way to call him guilty under any fair system, legal or not. </p>
<p>“Rape is not a college issue”</p>
<p>Rape definitely is a college issue, but you are correct that it is not only a college issue.</p>
<p>“The college angle seems to have a whole lot to do with liquor and miscommunication.”</p>
<p>Liquor contributes. However, a significant percentage of college rape cases do not involve alcohol. </p>
<p>“Miscommunication” cases do happen, and make interesting discussion in a forum, but are a small percentage of actual cases. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with this. However, I think it’s important to distinguish what IS rape from what can be PROSECUTED as rape. If her story is true, and she said no, and then lay there stock still while he masturbated inside her, that would be rape. And to those who say, guys wouldn’t do that, I say, we already know that some guys (the rapey kind) masturbate inside unconscious women. So, it IS rape.</p>
<p>But situations like hers are hard to prosecute. If I were on a jury and heard her story, unless he simply confirmed it, I couldn’t in good conscience vote to convict. Even though I would believe that she was probably the victim of a rape, there would be a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Geez, she wasn’t unconscious. Her own account is that she didn’t protest because she was too tired. Women generally protest rape, at least a little. As they should. So, now we have to teach our boys not to rape girls and we have to teach our girls to object when approached by a rapist. Funny enough, no-one ever taught me these things. But, I learned them somehow. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have two DSs who do the same thing. One in college and one about to go. In high school, they left unsavory situations and often just did not go. Same in college for the eldest and I expect the same from youngest. Simple - teach your kids that they are strong enough and do not have to stupidly follow the crowd. This is not about being naive; it is about being smart.</p>
<p>@Niquii77 - You can step away from that behavior. You do have a choice in the matter. And, based on how you wrote your post, I can tell you know as much already.</p>
<p>@poetgrl wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I often cite articles I disagree with to discuss differences of opinion, which may exist. I have no problem presenting something, which may be opposite to what I believe. Although, this is not the case here because I do think you and others miss the fundamental societal-based point Will is making.</p>
<p>Will and people, such are Sowell, are usually ahead of the curve, and this may be the case here. Will is NOT complaining about women reporting; his point is way deeper than that and larger. I recommend reading it again.</p>
<p>His main point is there is a danger in creating victimhood status for almost anything AND (this is a big and) defining serious issues, such as rape, downwards so much that everything seemingly becomes a rape transgression. Just look at this thread - people have come to the conclusions that some cases discussed on here are not rape, yet the colleges defined it as such simply because the accuser said so. And the colleges made no attempt to find useful, discernible definitions of rape. Now imagine the possible amount of such cases that have to exist, which have not made it to the press. Not good to have amorphous definitions of anything and then making concrete decisions based on those definitions.</p>
<p>The examples Will gave also show that now, regardless of the circumstances, females on campus can pretty much call anything rape. There are even proponents that a female can somehow go back in time and change her mind about what happened. And if a female student simply claims rape, even if it might not be later defined as rape, that female is now a protected victim; the accuser is assumed correct; the accused is presumed guilty; and, on-campus due process goes out the window. Not a good or fair system.</p>
<p>The most important societal point Will is making is the current general atmosphere of creating victim classes is not healthy for society because it sets up a blame game between groups, which reduces the perception that personal responsibility is not necessary, makes presumed-guilty bogeymen out of entire classes of people, and creates tension before people even meet. Not good for society, as a whole, and I suspect he will be proved correct in the end.</p>
<p>Even the victimhood thing Will talks about is playing out here with him as well. </p>
<p>Thomas Sowell wrote almost the identical things, as Will. In fact, Sowell was more blunt and straight-forward, as to what he sees as the problems. Yet, no group has the courage to call for Stanford to fire Sowell. I have not seen anything yet in that regard. I bet 100 to 1 the reason is Sowell is black, and he is considered a member of a protected victim class, and people are scared to death to call for his ouster else they look racist. And Stanford would not take the chance to look racist by firing one of its most vaulted intellectuals for having an opinion. </p>
<p>Will has no such protected status, so all guns point at him. This is not healthy for a free society when two people say or do the same thing, but we, as a society, are afraid to treat them equally. That is not equality; it is intellectual segregation, which, to me, is just as repulsive as physical segregation. Not good for society in general either.</p>
<p>Here, read the Sowell article and see if it is different from Will’s re campus rape issue? I can save you the read, if you like. It isn’t different in its message, and Sowell is even more direct in his assessment. But, Sowell need not worry; he’s protected. I do find this protected distinction disquieting for a healthy society. And, incidentally, that is Will’s overriding point in his article.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377804/sexual-assault-campus-thomas-sowell”>http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377804/sexual-assault-campus-thomas-sowell</a></p>