<p>
</p>
<p>Penetrating someone too drunk to consent is rape. If a man penetrates a woman, too drunk to consent, that is rape. If a woman uses an object to penetrate a man, too drunk to consent, that is rape. Men do not get a free pass to penetrate because they are too drunk to consent.</p>
<p>@Much2Learn - I was also responding to the presumption behind awc’s argument that women who have intentional tipsy or drunk sex just decide to “cry rape” the morning after as a matter of course. I meant to say that a good proportion of drunk sex (no study to back this up) IS wanted, consensual and pleasurable. A second category is regrettable in the cold light of day but recognized by the young woman as one to file under “not one of my prouder moments” but today is a new day. If a young woman wakes up and realizes that something has happened to her that she DID NOT want, did not consent to and may be injured or subject to distribution of the incident on social media that is a completely different category. The first two don’t magically morph into the 3rd depending on what kind of mood she’s in. </p>
<p>I don’t think that there is some conspiracy to teach women that they have been raped and to suddenly start accusing their fellow students of misconduct right and left. In fact, with date/frat/dorm rape there is social pressure both internal and external not to report and “ruin the guy’s life” over it. That is a reason why young women hesitate to go to the police in the first place. </p>
<p>Furthermore . . . I don’t see how teaching all students how to prevent rape is divisive. As has been mentioned, in the past rape prevention was all the province of women and was quite divisive. It followed the old “men are like wild animals with animalistic instincts and can’t be trusted” motif. Going out in the world is like going into the woods. First, your safest bet is just to recognize that’s the domain of men and not go out at all. If you must go out travel in groups, carry bear spray and a whistle and know how to react depending on which type of predator you meet. If you see a cougar (which you probably won’t until it’s too late) spread your coat out big like Dracula and look it in the eye - whatever you do, don’t turn your back. If you meet a bear either make lots of noise or play dead depending on what kind of bear it is. If you choose wrong, of course, it’s your fault and the bear is not to blame for mauling you.</p>
<p>The newer paradigm doesn’t assume that young men are wild animals by nature and just can’t help themselves. As the mother of a son I think that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>Look, all laws are just social constructs. Some of you are acting as if laws are not simply agreements among people on how we will parcel out power and live together. All laws are simply agreements. I mean, the law that protects private property is a law we agree on, sure. But, there is no place on the moral continuum where I think your right to private property supercedes my starving neighbors right to eat. But, we agree that if you are starving, and you steal a chicken or pineapple, you can be sent to jail. It’s a law. An agreement. It doesn’t make it right.</p>
<p>If I put my wallet in your glove compartment and get out of your car and go home and call the police the next day and say you stole my wallet, you will be arrested. The police won’t question whether or not I put it there, no matter what you say. We value private property and money quite highly in this culture.</p>
<p>It is a new thing, this insistance that women are not fair game just because they are drunk and you get into their room or get them into your room, but we never really valued a woman’s right to her own body all that highly, not really. Women have had the vote for nearly a century, now. It doesn’t surprise me that they want some law changes. Men can easily protect themselves from predatory women by staying away from the drunk ones.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>yes. It is much easier for men to avoid being accused of rape than for women to avoid being raped.</p>
<p>The misogyny on this thread would be of more concern to me if I didn’t see it as yet another generational divide. I don’t believe the majority of our kids find this a divisive issue. They want to protect each other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, with the name calling, ad hominens. Can’t we have a civil discourse with out it? Instead, take a real stand and call out such posters by post – if you find them. Alternatively, such a post would clearly be against the TOS so report it, and voila, it will disappear.</p>
<p>bluebayou: The idea I could report misogyny, on this board or anywhere else in the world, and voila, it will disappear is such a lovely idea. Thank you for that image.</p>
<p>I am imagining myself as Samantha, twitching my nose. It is a great fantasy.</p>
<p>A thread this long about the crisis of rape on college campuses which is primarily concerned with the outlier case of the girl who has drunk sex and then regrets the unsatisfying sexual experience and accuses the unskilled sad sack guy of rape can either be categorized as misogynistic or a part of rape culture, either one. It can’t honestly be seen as a serious discussion of the issue of rape on college campus so much as the issue of parents afraid young men might be accused of rape if they get drunk and forget to get consent. It’s sad, but not a serious conversation about the issue of rape on college campus.</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t have access to all the reports of rape on campuses across the country. Do you? What we have in front of us to discuss are the cases whose details get publicized, and in those cases drunkenness is a factor. Secondly, fraternities are often cited as a large part of the campus sexual assault problem, and what fraternities do is host parties with alcohol, which girls attend. Third, no serious discussion dismisses the viewpoints of others by accusing them of being afraid their sons are potential rapists. </p>
<p>No surprise that different people disagree. I think because there are current lawsuits surrounding these procedures indicates the differences are more than just opinions; they go to the heart of the what is considered fair. </p>
<p>A document, such as Title IX, just because it is written with double standards and with provisions that make little sense when enforced equally is a sign of politics, not a call for justice. And, I suspect it will fail miserably when the minds of justice kick in. </p>
<p>I think we all look forward to the real courts, not administrators who are clueless to the law and the Constitution, resolving this issue. Unfortunately, proponents of a quasi-legal system will most likely find out that it takes two to have sex and the word of one person having sex does not legally trump the word of the other person. </p>
<p>And, the college cases show this is not about rape, as it has been known, but with redefined definitions of rape, which clearly not everyone understands or agrees with. Time to let the courts decide.</p>
<p>I may not have access to all reports of rape, but they are recorded by law. Reports exist and are studies. I have every reason to believe that the framers of the White House report did and that the people involved in drafting it have expertise beyond that of the posters, including myself. It might make some sense to read the original document, which I don’t remember seeing posted earlier.<a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report_0.pdf”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/report_0.pdf</a></p>
<p>blue bayou, as far as misogyny, I called you on it a few days ago, responding to a specific post where you differentiated between person and “female” as if women weren’t people and you didn’t seem to realize that men could be raped. You didn’t respond. </p>
<p>I have found college confidential to be very helpful in getting my daughter into a great school, but she is in now. I do not see a reason to continue here. So long!</p>
<p>^^ I will use this as an example to my DSs as how to not to act just because one may strongly disagree with someone or even a group of people. One can quit a thread, but to quit the forum???!! I</p>
<p>I have this nagging feeling this is the attitude of people who are losing the intellectual logic of an argument and resort to foot-stomping. If there were one thing the Founding Fathers got right was the courage to debate, disagree, and continue debating openly. Sure they fought each other, even dueled, but running out the room was one thing they did not do; an example that could do us all well in 2014.</p>
<p>I am pretty much done presenting my views, but for those continuing, please continue and remember running from the fight is an automatic loss. I will chime in if I think I have something new and different to add. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, these are the clearly defined laws about rape, and they are not new. Whether or not you personally agree with them, the laws being discussed here in terms of rape ARE the laws. It’s not easy to prove since sexual predators like rapists and pedophiles know to commit these crimes in secret and there are no witnesses. However, that does not change the law, and the law is not fuzzy on this. No consent = rape. End of sentence.</p>
<p>As for what the courts will decide, it should be interesting, absolutely. I’ve heard a lot of predictions about all the things the courts would find against the law but didn’t on CC… Gay Marraige, the affordable care act, affirmative action. So far, I’ve rarely been surprised.</p>
<p>I expect the courts to find some cases in favor of the college and some in favor of the boys. In the meantime, we will continue to try to figure out what to do about the rapists on college campuses. Read the report mamalion posted the link to. Those are the alarming facts and the laws will become clear to you as you read. The laws have been around for a long time. They aren’t new. What is new is a push to find ways to enforce them, nothing else.</p>
<p>So, there are rapists on college campuses just as there are rapists everywhere else. But, there is also an effort to wildly inflate the numbers by including sexual assault (a very broad category evidenced by a poster who insists she was not a victim of sexual assault, but rather annoyance at the hands of a creep) and as usual create a new victim group. Then they get points for coming to the aid of the victims and everyone who disagrees is anti-women. Nevermind, that they are half women. Then they’re just stupid. That’s the politics part and it’s as clear as day.</p>
<p>much2learn posed a good question(june 20 post 419), and though I’m neither a doctor nor an atty, I think I can answer that specific scenario, at least from my personal perspective.
“How can this be?” Much2learn asks. It isn’t that a drunk man can’t get an erection or penetrate a female, in the scenario. It also isn’t that he is so drunk he is “unable to understand” he is penetrating her. It is that he may have his judgment SO clouded by alcohol that he may not understand the consequences of his decision. And that, was the point of the quote much2learn addressed.
Many here feel it is an acceptable belief that a drunk gal may get aroused and may say yes, but her Yes doesn’t count because her judgment was clouded by drink.
For some, a woman’s decision to drink to the point of choosing poorly excuses her from being held accountable for her decisions, yet a man doing the same is held accountable for not only his decisions, but hers too. I believe the quote much2learn addressed referred more to understanding consquences of sex rather than understanding the act, itself, of sex.</p>
<p>It brings back the question that if a person makes a poor decision because of intoxication, is he/she responsible for that decision? Yes? No? Depending on gender?</p>
<p>Again, the above comment refers only to Much2learns’ scenario in the post I referenced.</p>
<p>Women who choose poorly don’t automatically feel raped or violated. They just end up the next day feeling like they chose poorly. Rape is NOT a misunderstanding or change of heart. All y’all seem to not be clear on that yet.</p>
<p>As a professional, I come into contact with the victims of sexual assault pretty regularly. Working in the aftermath of acuaintance rape, and what it does to a young woman, I have a very clear picture of what this is all about. For me, nothing political, except in that there should be justice. These young women work very hard to overcome the PTSD and resulting issues that arise from rape. They do so admirably.</p>
<p>Say what you will, the one really amazing thing I have seen happening in the last few years, as rape comes out of the shadows, as young men join the ranks of those who are disgusted by rape and engaged in rape prevention through bystander education programs, is the lessening of the shame around this issue and the way this speeds the recovery of these victims of these serial predators. </p>
<p>The great thing about bystander education is that more and more young men are being made aware of the fact that they agree with each other and that rape is repugnant to them, as well. They are less afraid, more supportive, and much more likely to step in. Just seven years ago, the same surveys revealed that 1 in 4 women were either victims of an attack or completed rape on campus. Since then, with bystander education, the number has gone down to 1 in 5. We are making a lot of progress in this area. There is no reason to believe we can’t make more.</p>
<p>I’m glad this generation has no interest in pretending this isn’t a problem. They are so brave and unafraid and less and less ashamed and this is such an excellent situation in terms of bringing this crime out of the dark and into the light, where more girls report, and more and more of the criminals can be gotten out of such a target rich environment. </p>
<p>You can call it political. But to those of us who see these victims? It’s personal. Very.</p>
<p>I am so very proud of how our kids are changing the world.</p>
<p>@poetgrl You are missing the entire point of the issue - it is not about the definition and the clearly defined laws of no consent = rape. The problem is no one knows what constitutes consent. If it were as literal as you state, then there would be no need for this thread. </p>
<p>It has nothing to do with what I think; the lawsuits surround the fact that the colleges have varying and disparate, definitions of when and what is defined as consent. </p>
<p>And, more fundamentally, several cases focus on does a female have the legal right to change her mind after saying yes after the act has been done? Is it the initial yes that is consent or the latter no that is the non-consent that governs the encounter? Which overrides? Thorny issue, for sure.</p>
<p>Good to see you back poetgrl. I disagree with you in several places, but appreciate and value your input to the discussion.</p>
<p>I hope Saintfan wasn’t referencing me, when he/she repeated my phrase “choose poorly” in the post right after mine. In my post, I specifically said my comment referred only to the previous post from much2learn. A reader would not be clear on my meaning if they took my very limited post as if it were intended for all men or women. My post absolutely did not try do define rape in any way, but addressed a concern of much2learn about a guy’s ability to consent to sex. I hope saintfan is clear on that.</p>