time mag article "Sexual Assault Crisis on American campuses"

[awcntdb]

<p>@TheGFG wrote:</p>

<p>

But for the sake of the protection of all citizens in a free society, rape victims who accuse their perpetrators cannot be excused from having to provide a coherent account that stands up to scrutiny.

</p>

<p>Thomas Sowell takes this one step further. He says that women essentially want to be excused, and that women are really focused on outcome, not actual justice based on evidence.</p>

<p>Sowell wrote:</p>

<p>

But there seems to be remarkably little attention paid to two crucial facts: (1) rape is a crime and (2) colleges are not qualified to be law-enforcement institutions.</p>

<p>Why are rapists not reported to the police and prosecuted in a court of law?</p>

<p>Apparently this is because of some college women who say that they were raped and are dissatisfied with a legal system that does not automatically take their word for it against the word of someone who has been accused and denies the charge.

</p>

<p>This question and his rational will need to be addressed clearly for the college quasi-legal system to survive. Simply because, to date, no one has given ANY intellectually sound reasoning as to why there needs to be TWO systems, one non-criminal and one criminal. If rape is a crime, something is frankly weird in wanting a non-criminal system to adjudicate. And no one needs Sowell’s multiple degrees to figure this out.</p>

<p>It is important to understand that this has zilch to do with what anyone thinks and feels. That is how bad law is made. It has to do with what exists. And given a system already exists, the burden is to explain why a different system is required. And currently, this situation is being lost on that ground. </p>

<p>Sowell also wrote:</p>

<p>

There seem to be a dangerously large number of people who think that the law exists to give them whatever they want — even when that means denying other people the same rights that they claim for themselves.

</p>

<p>He is foreshadowing where this collapses once people realize this is what is wanted. Well, they have realized and suing schools because of it. </p>

<p>As a side note: Fascinating in that people are all up in arms about George Will, but this guy is calling women out as simply out to game a system and not a word about him. Hum… He must be loving his protected victim status, even though he went Harvard and U of Chicago, resides at a top institution, and makes $$$$. Must be good to be untouchable. Gees, I would love some of that societal kryptonite. Who wouldn’t?</p>

<p>What is even more interesting is people seem not to know how influential he is behind the scenes. And he is influential for one reason, besides being brilliant - he can be depended on to call things logically.</p>

[Consolation]

<p>

Thomas Sowell takes this one step further. He says that women essentially want to be excused, and that women are really focused on outcome, not actual justice based on evidence.

</p>

<p>Sowell also derides women’s studies departments and his college guide systemati
cally downgrades any school that has one. (Or African American Studies, or anything of that nature.)</p>

<p>Take it from whence it comes.</p>

[Magnetron]

<p>

1. What if they are both drunk and the woman says, “Wouldn’t it be funny if I cut your d**k off and taped it over the door?” He may be drunk too and laugh and say yes. However, if she then actually takes the action, she will be in legal trouble. She will not succeed in arguing that he said yes, and they were both drunk, so how was she to know he was too drunk to consent? The person taking the action is responsible.

</p>

<p>Anyone else find this to be an odd comparison? In 99% of consensual mutually drunk sex (I’m estimating), the intent is to share something enjoyable and temporary, same as when sober. Cutting off a penis is obviously both painful and permanent. I have plenty of “it seemed like a good idea at the time” stories involving alcohol if you would like to borrow one. I’m also embarrassed to say I don’t really understand the female penetration thing, either.</p>

<p>Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the whole point of my former alcohol-fueled social life was to lower my inhibitions and meet potential willing sex partners. At the time (up until 1990) not a bit of what we did would have been considered inappropriate by the women we were with, but now, with the new definitions, we were all rapists.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Yes, well, rape is not mutually enjoyable sex. We are discussing rape, not sex, though many are, as usual, falling into the pattern of acting as if unenjoyable penetration while drunk is a mutual act. It’s not. </p>

<p>Yes, magenetron, you may well be revealing more about yourself than you are about “all” men of your generation. I was in college in the late 1980s and I can tell you that WE did consider that kind of thing to be date rape back then. It’s just that the police did not yet understand it to be date rape.</p>

<p>I knew at least two women in college who were “date” raped, and one gang raped by a fraternity. these guys considered it consensual, though, and had no problem calling and seeing the girls on campus. They seemed to think the night had gone “just fine.” The girls, by the way, did not, and were very damaged by this. One left college with PTSD she never fully escaped.</p>

<p>You might want to examine your past, or not. </p>

<p>Call me old fashioned? Really? More like self-involved.</p>

[momofthreeboys]

<p>I think I’m glad I was out of college before the 80s hit. Bad hair, bad music and it sounds like pretty bad college environments. I wonder if women changed or men changed? </p>

[bearpanther]

<p>I was at Brown many moons ago when women started writing the names of men they accused of rape/assault in bathroom stalls. The women said they had to do it because the administration would not listen to them, or gave the men accused slaps on the wrist. As for the men whose names were on the wall, who can say if they were all guilty? Once the names were out there, the cloud was over them. It was not a good time. Students were angry with the administration, women and men were mad at each other…</p>

<p><a href=“Rape List, serving the Brown community since 1991 - The Brown Daily Herald”>Rape List, serving the Brown community since 1991 - The Brown Daily Herald;

<p>The women went on the Donahue show to discuss:</p>

<p><a href=“The Date Rape List part 1 - YouTube”>The Date Rape List part 1 - YouTube;

<p><a href=“The Date Rape List part 2 - YouTube”>The Date Rape List part 2 - YouTube;

<p>Some changes were made as to how the school handled sexual assault, but obviously not enough (see this recent incident: <a href=“Brown University Will Allow Rapist Who Choked His Victim Back On Campus | HuffPost College”>Brown University Will Allow Rapist Who Choked His Victim Back On Campus | HuffPost College)</p>

<p>And like others who have posted here, I’m very wary about a university panel being the first line of defense or the sole arbiter of justice in this matter anyway.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>Yeah. Cuz nobody was raped in college before the 80s. More like it was a huge secret shame issue back then. Honestly, just like pedophelia, the emergence of victims from a secret crime in no way indicates an increase in the crime rate itself. In face, with education, it seems as if the incidents of rape may be decreasing since 07. But, the incidence of rape in the 70s was not lower than in the 80s. The incidence of reporting is higher, now, fortunately. </p>

[younghoss]

<p>I see it as an odd comparison too. The question was about the legality of cutting off a penis. First, the question did not ask permission to cut it off, but only if it would be funny. Second, an offer “obviously in jest” is not considered a legal offer.
A guy having trouble with a Corvette just out of warranty might be so exasperated to say- “for 2 cents I’d sell that car”. It’s not binding if a guy overhearing that hands him a nickel and says “it’s a deal, give me the keys and keep the change”</p>

<p>It’s tough when a poster here writes something and others disagree based on a misunderstanding. Magnetron says part of his alcohol fueled college life was to lower his(own) inhibitions. What is wrong with that- (as it relates to sex crimes)? He didn’t say lower others’, he didn’t say he gave alcohol in excess to women, he didn’t say he helped others pass out, or anything like that. He drank to lower his own inhibitions. That’s a sex crime?</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

Sowell also derides women’s studies departments and his college guide systemati
cally downgrades any school that has one. (Or African American Studies, or anything of that nature.)

</p>

<p>And his reasoning? It is three-fold. He argues such departments: 1) indoctrinate people as to some politically correct view of history and society, with little presentation of other views and interpretations, 2) create resentment between social groups, and 3) teach very little valuable skills that are useful in the job world.</p>

<p>And interestingly, the least tolerant people, most angry at others for somehow doing them wrong, and the students with one of the highest employment rates hold these degrees. </p>

<p>He mentioned on TV years ago that he would debate publicly the head of any such departments on the facts taught by those departments and not one has taken him up on it. I wonder why. If he is so wrong, why not take the opportunity to discredit him forever publicly? I never get people who disagree with him and then run from the fight with him. Pretty much an open admission they know they cannot keep up intellectually and on the facts.</p>

[TheGFG]

<p>This is just anecdotal, but I know a smart grad student at our state flagship who was working on a degree in the women’s studies dept, and finally gave up on it and switched majors. She’s quite liberal, but has well thought-out opinions and was tired of having to completely agree with the professors or else see her grades suffer. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

I was at Brown many moons ago when women started writing the names of men they accused of rape/assault in bathroom stalls. The women said they had to do it because the administration would not listen to them, or gave the men accused slaps on the wrist.

</p>

<p>I do not know one guy on the planet who would not file real charges if he felt someone seriously assaulted him in a major way. Why in the world were / are these women acting helpless when there is a police station down the street? </p>

<p>Did those women at Brown not see that their actions did not match their rhetoric, so they were probably looked at with skepticism. If you say rape is serious, then choose non-serious avenues to solve, such as a university administration and writing names on bathroom stalls, people will wonder how serious you are. Those were not serious actions and did not match their rhetoric. </p>

[awcntdb]

<p>

More like it was a huge secret shame issue back then. Honestly, just like pedophelia, the emergence of victims from a secret crime in no way indicates an increase in the crime rate itself… The incidence of reporting is higher, now, fortunately.

</p>

<p>Excellent point and analogy. </p>

<p>If at least one result is that rape is studiously reported, that is nothing, but a good thing. However, there needs to be a clear definition and understanding what in the world rape is, to both males and females, because there is currently no consistent understanding at all what it is. </p>

<p>I am not one who buys into this idea that it is rape just because a female says so. No society can function under such undefined and varied rules because then the rules are as many as the number of females. </p>

<p>I would suspect the last thing we want is for males and females to think they need to walk around with personal operating manuals, which is kind of where the minutae in the discussion sounds like we might be headed. That would definitely codify us as a society devoid of common sense at that point.</p>

[Magnetron]

<p>poetgrl, I don’t believe we’ve met, but if you knew me you would know how wrong you are in your assumptions about me. I’m a very reserved guy, pretty good with the distinctions and was never into one-night stands. Only once did I date - for 2 years - a woman who did not drink alcohol. I was not always 100% sober and neither were they, including now with my wife of 22 years. Our wedding reception was an epic party - according to this new definition (and poetgrl), I raped my wife on our wedding night. She would not agree. If whatever happened to you in life causes you to believe otherwise, well, I’m sorry. I lived in a house with 3 other young guys, many people came and went, all willingly, and only a few - girlfriends, some good, some not so good - ended up in our beds. </p>

<p>I find it unjust that a woman, not visibly impaired, can be a sexual aggressor, initiate the act, but then retains the right for the next 15 years to press felony charges against her male partner. I too, know women who were raped forcibly, by coercion, and by opportunists when they were drunk. I know guys who had committed forcible rapes and got away with it. Putting all of these incidents in the same “rape” category as a husband and wife who shared a bottle of wine (2 glasses and she is no longer capable of consent) will only lead to confusion and more George Will-like columns. </p>

<p>My point, the same one made by many others earlier in this thread without being accused of being rapists, is that there is a big distinction between choosing the wrong partner after two drinks, legal to drive but illegal to give consent, and being raped while blacked out. These two scenarios are being jammed together in the same arguments of campus rapes and shouldn’t be. It is a rhetorical mistake to make a portion of the argument so ridiculously easy to disagree with that will have an deleterious effect on the greater argument, the societal forgiveness of both situational and aggressive rapes more typical of what happens on campuses.</p>

<p>So, to the good women of this board, I will bow out knowing I’m not necessarily welcome on this thread. Just be assured that, except for this one point, I’m absolutely on your (and my daughter’s) side.</p>

[Consolation]

<p>While I am not a big fan of some of the stuff that has emerged from the gender studies area lately, it is clear to me from things of his that I’ve read that Sowell is carrying a large ideological backpack while simultaneously congratulating himself on being “rational.” </p>

<p>This is like the type of middle-aged white man I used to work with that would claim that everything they did was purely a “business decision,” had nothing to do with any prejudices or preconceived notions and so forth, and yet oddly enough many of those “business decisions” seemed to require golf outings with other white, middle-aged businessmen. Yeah, right. </p>

<p>You can go on admiring him, but be intellectually honest and admit that you have no idea at all why any individual might choose to refuse an invitation to debate him, since presumably you are not psychic.</p>

[poetgrl]

<p>@Magnetron First, I have no thought that you are a rapist. Also, I don’t acknowledge the “rightness” of any of the “many” posters who seem more concerned with the rare case of false rape reports rather than the horror of how many young women face predators on college campuses. </p>

<p>I don’t know you, but your point in your post seemed to be to say that you don’t believe these women have been raped simply because you were not a rapist. You also said all men in your generation would be considered rapists now. I said not “all” men. My husband, who I was dating then, my friends? Not so much. I’m sure you know if you had sex with a woman incapable of consent. You say no. I believe you.</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>One interesting thing about Sowell is his political history. </p>

<p>He started out a Marxist and abandoned that when he could not find data and historical precedence to back up its teachings. He gave several interviews with the exact projects he was working on, which transformed him.</p>

<p>Then, he was a democrat of sorts and again could not find data to back up the rhetoric and positions. Incidentally, that is why he started writing books because what he learned from exhaustive research did not comport to what was being taught, as conventional knowledge. </p>

<p>So, his ideology is a truly deduced one. And he is one of the few who brings data points and serious historical relevance to bear in his arguments. He is way beyond the race-based need to couch his arguments.</p>

<p>OK, that’s my one off-topic post for today.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

…“many” posters who seem more concerned with the rare case of false rape reports rather than the horror of how many young women face predators on college campuses.

</p>

<p>I can’t find any such ‘concern’ on this thread…</p>

[awcntdb]

<p>^^ I think you two are talking different definitions. </p>

<p>What I believe the distinction here is the principle that when a women who has engaged in sex says its rape, then it must be rape. And that statement cannot be doubted. </p>

<p>The false rape case is just that; sex had not occurred, or it was truly consensual and the female is now lying.</p>

<p>I do not think it is that stark a distinction and, I repeat what I wrote a couple posts back:</p>

<p>

I am not one who buys into this idea that it is rape just because a female says so. No society can function under such undefined and varied rules because then the rules are as many as the number of females.

</p>

[TheGFG]

<p>poetgrl, you need to stop persisting in your statement that some posters on here are MORE concerned with false accusations of rape than with the plight of raped women. That is a dishonest portrayal of the views of those on this thread; no said that or even remotely implied it. Since when does pointing out one problem mean you discount all others as important or more important? Go back and re-read this thread, because you are dead wrong. Some of us are questioning the investigative inadequacy of campus tribunals, and therefore it is natural that the discussion include the possibility that false reports will not be detected by these groups and how detrimental that would be to the falsely accused.</p>

[Much2learn]

<p>My 10:08 am post attracted the following comment:</p>

<p>MY 10:08 post (in part, see above for full text)
“6.Men have to adjust to the fact that women who are drunk and nearly passed out are no longer fair game to carry back to your room. If you do it, there can be consequences. Saying you were drinking too will not save you.”</p>

<p>In response, @ActingMT wrote:
“Please, how many of these cases are young men carrying passed out women back to their rooms? Tell your daughter not to pass out in public for starters. Public intoxication is a crime, too.”</p>

<p>My response:
ActingMT’s comment troubles me on several levels.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It asserts that this happens infrequently. That is fine. I don’t disagree. However, this thread about young women being raped has probably spend most of its time discussing fairness to young men, and many things that will probably happen infrequently. Therefore, it is amazing to me that as soon as an infrequent event that may be harmful to the ladies is mentioned, it was disparaged as infrequent and not worth discussion. No one responded to any of the concerns about men in that way. It seems to be a clear double standard.</p></li>
<li><p>Once the first sentence attempted to discredit my comment as infrequent, the second sentence goes further with an Ad Hominem attack on my daughter and, by implication, and all women. It implies that my daughter has a drinking problem, and also that if she, or any women is too drunk, then what happens to them is their risk and problem. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>Impugning someone’s family, especially when she was not mentioned in my post, is not appropriate. Feeling the need to make a personal insult suggests that you feel frustrated by my point, but feel unable to mount an intellectual rebuttal, so you attack the person or their family.</p>

<p>It is also a clear case of blaming the victim which illustrates to me that we still have not reached a point where men and women are thought of equally. Hypothetically, if your son were to become so drunk that he was incapacitated and another guy took him back to his room and raped him, would your response be to tell him that he should not pass out in public, because public intoxication is a crime? I sincerely hope not. That would be awful. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Your last sentence further highlights the disparate treatment of men and women. First, I did not say it was in public. You added that yourself to enhance your ad hominem. Second, there have been endless posts in this thread about college students of both sexes drinking. However only in this instance where only the woman was mentioned as being incapacitated does someone respond by saying that public intoxication is a crime. This further suggests a double standard. </p></li>
<li><p>There have been many posts such as “If they are both drunk, how can the boy be fairly held more responsible than the girl?”. None of these drew a harsh comment similar to yours, i.e., “Please, in how many of these cases is the young man really as drunk as the girl? Tell your son not to rape women for starters. Rape is a crime.” </p></li>
</ol>

<p>If anyone did comment in think many people would, appropriately, call the comment out as inappropriate. However, when this comment disparaged a women, the thread went on and no one said anything. This further suggests to me that although people say they want things to be exactly equal, many people only raise that concern in defense of men. It is still does not seem to be considered as offensive to disparage women. That is a problem. </p>