time mag article "Sexual Assault Crisis on American campuses"

Parents Forum
761

<p>

</p>

<p>No need flame-proof suit. </p>

<ol>
<li>You state education problem #1 - I believe that females are being trained / taught / indoctrinated that rape is whatever they think it is, regardless if what they believe is irrational and it is not rape. In short, in terms of this issue, rational has been definitely defined downwards.</li>
</ol>

<p>Several current cases point directly to this education problem in terms of understanding what is rape from a rational point-of-view. As difficult as it is for females to hear, not everything involving sex is rape just because they say it is. At my DS’s campus sexual behavior guidelines orientation, it was said that if a female says she was raped, then she was raped. His handbook even says that. Well, that obviously is not true, but many females now buy into all that is necessary is what they think and say, not what really occurred. This blanket educating that rape is what a female says it is is clearly problem #1.</p>

<ol>
<li>It is also interesting that your lecturing points does not include educating females that drunk males may not know what is rationally happening since the guys are INTOXICATED, so it may be better not to get drunk around drunk males. </li>
</ol>

<p>This lack of informing and educating women the obvious dangers that an intoxicated “anyone” is not thinking clearly would seem logical to warn about, but I do not see this occurring. People would not knowingly hang around an intoxicated person who has a loaded gun because of the fact they know the person is not thinking straight and they might get shot. In that vein, why would anyone think an intoxicated male is thinking straight about sex or anything else for that matter? </p>

<p>Therefore, a lecture without the above point presents the same problem the colleges are having now, which is, it holds the guy to a different / higher standard than the female, when BOTH are INTOXICATED, i.e., the guy is considered rational, so he is threatened with expulsion, while the female’s condition is not even part of the equation. Hum…maybe she is irrational too at this point and the sex occurred due to both are intoxicated and both are being irrational? Why is she not held to the same expulsion standard?</p>

<p>In summary, it strains all common sense females are not being taught that intoxicated males are under the influence of a drug and by all standards should be considered temporarily irrational AND it is best not to get drunk around drunk males. And males should be taught the same re intoxicated females. Maybe I am missing this message, but I have not heard this mentioned by the colleges.</p>

<p>Yes, I understand that just because one is intoxicated and if you shoot or assault someone you are still responsible, but that is after the fact. The whole point here is to reduce the problem and not waiting till damage has been done.</p>

762

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that covers it.</p>

763

<p>Women have been taught since the beginning of time it is their responsibility to avoid any unwelcome male attention, including rape. They are taught how to protect themselves and minimize risk. Now women on college campuses are demanding some of that responsibility be shifted to men. They want men held accountable for their actions.</p>

<p>Definitions of rape may be changing. In the 70s rape didn’t happen in a fraternity house because fraternity boys couldn’t be rapists. Until fairly recently it wasn’t rape if you knew your assailant. </p>

<p>It seems to me time to shift the responsibility for avoiding rape to men for a while. Maybe a few centuries.</p>

<p>If young men on college campuses have to give up casual sex, because they are worried they may be accused of rape, that is just not a problem in my mind. </p>

764

<p>“Until fairly recently it wasn’t rape if you knew your assailant.”</p>

<p>When was this? I must have missed it. Now, if you invite him into your bed but fail to remember clearly verbalizing a yes or if you did it doesn’t count because you were drunk that seems like a bit of an uncomfortable over-correction. imho.</p>

765

<p>Marital rape wasn’t a crime in the US until sometime in the 1970s. Date rape didn’t exist as a concept till the 80s. </p>

<p>We are still a long way from over-correction. No young men of my acquaintance feel there is over-correction, not do they feel an adversarial situation is being created on college campuses between sexes.</p>

766

<p>Yes . . . you must have missed it.</p>

767

<p>“Here’s a thought experiment:…”</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I would say there is not enough evidence in the situation as presented. However, it sounds unrealistic and contrived to me.</p></li>
<li><p>If there were witnesses to show that the boy is lying about not knowing she was drunk or if she was drugged, I would find him guilty. </p></li>
<li><p>I would also question how she was so drunk and had had a lot to drink, so much so that she can’t even remember what happened, but he thought she was sober. That suggests to me that one of the two is lying. Others must have seen her at the party. Do they say she was acting drunk or sober? I would ask witnesses for specific examples that led them to that conclusion.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>@awcntdb‌ </p>

<p>“At my DS’s campus sexual behavior guidelines orientation, it was said that if a female says she was raped, then she was raped. His handbook even says that. Well, that obviously is not true, but many females now buy into all that is necessary is what they think and say, not what really occurred. This blanket educating that rape is what a female says it is is clearly problem #1.”</p>

<p>“It is also interesting that your lecturing points does not include educating females that drunk males may not know what is rationally happening since the guys are INTOXICATED, so it may be better not to get drunk around drunk males.”</p>

<ol>
<li><p>I actually agree with you that a woman’s word alone with no support should no be sufficient to expel a man for campus.</p></li>
<li><p>I also agree that it is good to teach women that they should be especially careful not to be so drunk that you are out of control and especially around drunken men. However, this is practical safety advice and in no way shifts responsibility onto a woman who has been raped.</p></li>
<li><p>Rape is the primary problem. Saying this rule is problem #1 sounds like something a rapist would say.</p></li>
<li><p>The primary objective of this rule is to prevent rape. Men should know that when they pick up a drunk woman they do not know, if they take advantage of the situation, they may be charged. That makes young men realize that they are accountable for their actions. They need to know that “we had both been drinking” is not a free pass to do whatever you want to do. </p></li>
<li><p>While this may be the stated rule, I do not believe that anyone thinks that this is adequate to convince a panel. The way that you worded this example sounds like a women saying that all of the 10,000 men on campus raped her last night would result in all of the guys being expelled with no further questions asked or evidence requested. She would not even have to prove that they were with her, or even on campus, or show that any sex happened at all. No other evidence will be requested. I understand that that is your fear, but is just not what is occurring.</p></li>
</ol>

768

<p>@Consolation - If you think it covers it, then we leave it at that from your end.</p>

<p>However, I ask in general, so why is the intoxicated male threatened with expulsion if the intoxicated female is just as culpably irrational in the act as he? And there is no evidence either way and he said she consented and she says she did not consent. That is the issue the colleges are having problems with, and this approach does not solve it. It just extends the same double-standard.</p>

<p>Very few are buying the intoxicated female is a rational, innocent bystander. That is my point. This approach is still subject to lawsuits due to unfair practices and a double-standard of different expected behavior, while in the same intoxicated condition. This intoxicated male expulsion, but intoxicated female stays stuff, I am betting, will not last. </p>

769

<p>“Yes . . . you must have missed it.”</p>

<p>Well, the 70’s were a while ago. lol. And, I do remember more than a small amount of discussion and controversy about the topic of date rape when I was in college so acting like this is a new issue is a little baffling.</p>

<p><a href=“Date rape - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Also, Lorena Bobbitt in the 90’s dealt with marital rape quite effectively.</p>

<p>Seriously, if having sex with a drunk female makes a young man a rapist, most are probably rapists. That’s just sad. And, it’s not at all empowering to women who on the other hand claim they want to be treated equally but cannot be held responsible for any bad choices they may make while drunk. Its really ridiculous.</p>

770

<p>How many on this board feel college men will be seriously disadvantaged if they can’t have sex with a drunken woman (not their SO) without worrying about rape accusations?</p>

771

<p>@alh‌ </p>

<p>That question does not even have relevance because you are asking sober people. </p>

<ol>
<li><p>There are tons of college men who have sex with intoxicated college women and do not worry about rape accusations BECAUSE the men are too intoxicated to even know to worry. </p></li>
<li><p>There are tons of college women who have sex with intoxicated college men BECAUSE the women are too intoxicated to know to worry. </p></li>
<li><p>In 99% of these cases, it is all after fact and only after the intoxication clears do the issues arise.</p></li>
</ol>

772

<p>I am interested in argument that if two people actively participate in sex, but are both too drunk to consent, that t neither should no be held accountable. </p>

<p>While I agree conceptually that neither should be accountable if that is in fact what happened, My problem with it is that I do not believe that is it possible.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>If the woman is actively participating, and sober enough to be on top or to grab the man and initiate penetration on her own initiative, for example, I think that she is also sober enough to understand what she is doing, just like the man. If the man is able to physically perform, I think that he is also sober enough to understand what is happening. </p></li>
<li><p>What I do not understand is this hypothetical situation where the man claims that they both actively participated in sex, and simultaneously claims that he was incapacitated, just like she was. If either person is incapacitated, they are not actively participating. If he sober enough to have understand the situation and have sex with his part tner, he is not incapacitated.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Furthermore, is it really that hard to understand that a woman who is lying still, who is not undressing herself, who is not touching you back in a participatory manner, not kissing you back, and not even looking you and smiling, is probably incapacitated? </p>

773

<p>One of the cases on this thread was a SO who stayed in bed after a break up and then called it a rape months later. It’s a problem. I don’t get the SO distinction at all. </p>

<p>Women do seem to want the right to drink to excess and have hook-up sex. The morning after issue is the problem. They can barely remember and the college calls it rape because they were drunk? That’s over-correction.</p>

<p>Drunk does not equal incapacitated. Drunk people talk, laugh, and kiss back. Judgment is impaired.</p>

774

<p>“Furthermore, is it really that hard to understand that a woman who is lying still, who is not undressing herself, who is not touching you back in a participatory manner, not kissing you back, and not even looking you and smiling, is probably incapacitated?”</p>

<p>Is there some reason to think most of these cases involve students who have passed out? That is not what I read in the majority of the cases linked on this thread. </p>

775

<p>Women have the right to drink to excess and have hook-up sex. Men do not have to participate. </p>

<p>Men need to protect themselves. It is their own fault if they end up in such a situation and are accused of rape. Didn’t anyone ever warn them this was extremely risky behavior?</p>

776

<p>^^ The super-majority of cases are where the female is not passed out. I think there is only one like that I have seen, the Brown case I believe.</p>

777

<p>“Women have the right to drink to excess and have hook-up sex. Men do not have to participate.”</p>

<p>Okay, who are these drunk women having hook-up sex with then? See, this is getting silly now.</p>

778

<p>

</p>

<p>OK, this is just illogical thinking. If both parties are intoxicated none of this rational thinking can take place even if both parties were warned. </p>

<p>But, be careful of saying own fault about men because the same can be said of the women re it is their fault they had sex because they were drunk and engaged in risky behavior.</p>

779

<p>I have decided college men having sex with a woman who has been drinking to excess and wants to hook-up is the the equivalent of a college woman going upstairs in a fraternity house with someone she doesn’t know well and drinking something out of a cup she didn’t see poured. </p>

<p>Women have always had to be careful and protect themselves.
Now men have to be careful, too.
That’s fair. imho</p>

780

<p>

</p>

<p>Really??!!! </p>

<p>OK, you clearly have not seen the thousands of females I have seen who drank away no problem. Their only worry was the empty keg or punch bowl. </p>