<p>@awcntdb When you say I am missing the point of the issue, you seem to be making the error of believing you get to define the issue for me. I don’t agree with you as to what the issue is when it comes to rape on college campuses. I do not believe in any serious discussion of the rape on college campus that the issue as you choose to define it is the main issue. For me, for most, the issue is clear. Rape. Rape is the issue.</p>
<p>I have been cleaning out old binders and piles of paperwork now that the school year is over and we are temporary empty nesters. I happened to run across 2 year old Health class paperwork in a discarded binder. RIght there in black and white clear as day the definitions of rape and consent were defined and discussed. It was not gender specific as that’s the kind of place that I live. There were hypothetical very true to life relationship scenarios typed out for discussion - some healthy and some unhealthy. There were phrases to circle about what kinds of things YOU want in a relationship and how you want to be treated. This binder was a 10th grade cast off from our son. Our daughter said last year that she was dumbfounded at how many of her friends in college had never had any comprehensive sex education or health class. I guess some kids never hear any of this stuff until their college dorm orientations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I understand you do not agree with me.</p>
<p>However, it is not me who is defining or choosing the issue; it is the courts and the current cases. I am only looking at what the court cases are examining.</p>
<p>When it out comes to crafting a solution, the courts are the ones who are going to do the defining of the issue(s), drawing the legal lines, and clarifying what actions mean what. </p>
<p>Thus, it only seems wise for me to study and to understand what exact issues the courts are reviewing because, in reality, what I think the issue is in my own mind is irrelevant to how the criteria of the law is going to be ultimately written. I may think the issue is one thing, but the court cases may see and say another. </p>
<p>And right now, the court cases are revolving around the issue of whether or not actual consent was given, and this issue is intertwined with the issue of whether the tribunal procedures allow the accused to fairly present his case that consent was given. </p>
<p>The procedural part is the tribunals, but the crux of the issue though is what is consent and does consent have a timetable and timeframe? And is a verbal yes necessary or are affirmative actions a plausible replacement for a verbal yes? Thrown into the mix is the issue of what are considered evidence and proof? However, the overriding issue that is clearly coming out of these cases is the accused believed he had consent and is arguing he never got to present his consent argument in a fair proceeding. </p>
<p>I am sorry to break it to you, but none of the tribunal cases I see even address the issue of rape, so I am not even sure what you are expecting as a solution. I guess then you disagree with the current court cases as well, as to what the issue is.</p>
<p>Without getting too explicit, let me just say that any woman, and most men, know that there are all sorts of moments of consent and not consent during any given sexual encounter, even between spouses who sleep in the same bed. My presence or your presence does NOT imply consent to any and every possible sexual act. Consent is a part of sex, not just sex on college campuses, either.</p>
<p>Here is the second paragraph from the article which started the thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the original report, with a link posted, there are all sorts of facts about rape prevention, rape on campus, who is most at risk, whatnot.</p>
<p>I realize you believe the ONLY issue is going to be settled in the courts, but like most things? It’ll be a matter of opinion, action, law and social norms. Social norms are changing. This changes settled law. It always has and always will. Why? Because law is a matter of how we agree to live together and when that changes, the laws change too. See: segregation, etc…</p>
<p>While I absolutely agree with poetgrl that rape is personal, I also agree with Flossy that it is political. It is a way women have been silenced and rendered powerless since the beginning of time. Several posters have pointed that out.</p>
<p>Kate Millett, Sexual Politics was useful to me in understanding the politics. Also Judith Butler. I don’t agree with everything they write but they radically altered by world view.</p>
<p>As I read this thread, over and over, it is argued that *<strong><em>ing someone is equal to being *</em></strong>ing. Does anyone have suggestions as to scholars currently addressing this idea? I know a lot of work is being done on gender/body studies but am unfamiliar with most of it. Sadly.</p>
<p>adding: Or to be more clear (perhaps) that penetrating someone is equal to being penetrated, because, obviously, there is an issue with definitions of ****ing.</p>
<p>Oh, I agree that it is political, alh. It’s always been political, clearly, from the time when women were considered to be property of their fathers and husbands up til now. Obviously women’s bodies and what women do with their bodies has been politicized for many reasons, not the least of which is simply the fact that they are our bodies and not somebody else’s. I always find it strange that someone who can understand private property laws has so much trouble understanding women’s rights to their own body.</p>
<p>The same person who would have trouble understanding consent laws would have no trouble understanding the concept that in order to enter my house, you need consent. That just because I let you in my yard does not give you a right to enter my house, and even if I allow you into my house, it does not give you the right to injure me or break things. I can ask you to leave my house at any time and you are legally obligated to leave my house. It’s really NOT complicated. My body, my rules.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Settled law is changed only if the law is changed. That is our system. And segregation did not change until the laws re segregation were changed. Social attitudes do not change settled law one iota; they may change behavior, but not the law. </p>
<p>The people who pushed to declare a political donation is not free speech learned this the hard way. There was a firm majority in favor of limiting donations by corporations and individuals to PACS. The prevailing behavior and actions pointed toward acting like donations are not free speech, but the Supreme Court threw the advocates for loop. That is, behavior and state laws limiting donations did not change the fact that the law is still the same today, and donations are considered free speech. </p>
<p>However, this campus discussion is now better if it examines not what we think at CC, per se, but what is happening in the real world. And, in the real world, the issues are the law and the courts, as is explained in the article below.</p>
<p>California’s potential upcoming law is a good place to start and demonstrates this is about consent and only changes in the law, which need to be affirmed by the courts when challenged, will determine what the end result will be. So, it is not me that sees the issue as consent, the law and the courts; it is the people attempting to craft a solution see the issue as consent. And there is nothing saying this law will not be struck down, regardless of people’s behavior. </p>
<p>And, as stated earlier, this is intertwined with the fact that the tribunals are not allowing the accused to adequately present his case for consent. The article addresses this issue, as it is a de facto guilty until proved innocent approach, but what can be presented is limited. </p>
<p><a href=“California's Absurd Intervention Over Dorm Room Sex”>http://reason.com/archives/2014/06/22/californias-absurd-intervention-over-dor</a></p>
<p>One relevant paragraph around which I suspect there will be of much debate is this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But, the paragraph, which will define the biggest problem is this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I highly suspect a dictionary will be required to define what ongoing means and what words, questions and actions are deemed considered ongoing. And it will have to be a continuously, updating online dictionary since the definitions of ongoing, I assume, will be continuously undergoing ongoing changes. </p>
<p>A solution I find quite interesting is this one. However, based on the above ongoing consent thing, the app will need to beep every 10 minutes and the parties will have to press a button to reaffirm the consent. But, obviously, then there will be the court case that 10 minutes is too long, so it should be 5 minutes. And the problem with 5 minutes is it leaves 4 minutes and 59 seconds unaccounted for…</p>
<p>“Can Someone Just Invent an ‘I Consent to Sex’ iPhone App Already?”</p>
<p><a href=“Can Someone Just Invent an 'I Consent to Sex' iPhone App Already?”>http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/18/can-someone-just-invent-an-i-consent-to</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is actually simply your opinion about what is happening in the “real world.” It is simply the focus you bring to the discussion about rape on college campus. It is not “the” issue.</p>
<p>I have no clue why you referenced citizens united, or why you are posting “Reason” a conservative political outlet as the source or your cites, either. I guess there is some sort of conservative political bent against getting rapists off campus? I’m not sure what your point is with all of this. At all.</p>
<p>Are you arguing that if I come into your house with your consent but begin to injure you and break things and you ask me to leave, I have every right to state that you invited me in, therefore you consented to anything I wanted to do inside your house? I’m trying to figure out what you think is really happening in the real world.</p>
<p>In the real world, 1 in five young women will be sexually assaulted on a college campus. this is down from 1 in four seven years ago. In the real world, those of us working with these kids are pretty darned happy to see that bystander educatation is working. </p>
<p>In the meantime, if you want a law that says once I’m in your house I’m free to do whatever I want there? Fine. I doubt most people would agree.</p>
<p>I do have faith that the young men of the current generation will do a much better job of understanding and supporting ‘consent’ in all the fuzzy and changing circumstances than Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. </p>
<p>This is one of those generational things, I think, where a trip up through the courts could move the law backwards from what is the societal norm rather than forwards. (unless, of course, someone can effectively argue the private property element as @poetgrl suggests)</p>
<p>Perhaps. We just need to find that happy middle ground where protection applies to both genders. I am personally not comfortable thinking my sex needs protection to the exclusion of another gender. When “do you have a condom” is no longer consent we have a problem. But I have faith we will get where we need to be.</p>
<p>Do you have a condom is consent for mutually satisfying sex. It is not consent for now I have a condom and bam! I think you know the difference. If a man fails to arouse his partner, whether she asked if he has a condom or not, she is not obligated to have sex with him. </p>
<p>We are talking about rape and non consensual sexual acts. If I am in bed with a potential sex partner, my presence there does not imply consent for any or all sex acts he or she might choose to perform on me or with me.</p>
<p>It is not a matter of being a protected sex, it is a matter of penetration. You do not have the same rights inside my house as I do. If a young man chooses to participate in penetration where he is the one being penetrated? Then he has the right to say stop at any time, as the penetrator has the right to stop at any time. It’s really not all that complicated. Your body/your rules. Your house/ your rules. Your yard/your rules. etc… Not complex.</p>
<p>Mutually satisfying? OMG. Well, it’s no wonder there is so much “rape”. Good grief.</p>
<p>Of course, you have the right to say stop. But, in many cases linked on this thread the female failed to say anything of the kind. One specifically claimed she was too tired to protest. No-one is “too tired” to object to being raped. Sorry. </p>
<p>I am not comfortable with the idea that getting into bed with a man, willingly getting into a bed, is not signaling you want sex. I suspect that men might think that also. </p>
<p>So, you are saying that in a dorm situation where there are no chairs available, a woman making out with a man on her bed is obligated to have intercourse with him? </p>
<p>That’s ridiculous.</p>
<p>So, you are saying that a woman and man getting to know each other sexually can kiss at the door or have intercourse? Nothing inbetween? That’s hilllarious.</p>
<p>My daughters will not have sex with a young man unitl they are in a monogomous relationship. This does not mean that there is no making out before that to see if either WANTS a monogomous relationship. My youngest recently dated a guy for three months before they decided to be exclusive. He was perfectly capable of understanding that she wasn’t having sex with him until then. He also had no interest in leaving her at the door at the end of the date. Jeez.</p>
<p>Men are not animals.</p>
<p>No but I think it is signaling keep going until I kick you out of this bed or if it is his bed I get myself out of the bed but again it comes down to words and actions </p>
<p>Yeah, I guess if that’s all the guy wants, then that will be his interpretation. Since my girls tend to be with young men who want relationships, that’s not really what the guys want…the girls to leave the minute they want to stop progressing towards intercourse. They seem to want the girls to stick around, hang out, watch some tv, order some pizza. They seem to be able to handle that girl in their bed just fine.</p>
<p>Most guys can. </p>
<p>No they aren’t animals - an ex of my oldest posted a pic of him sleeping on her couch with her cat. Clearly common sense not to sleep in bed together anymore. We simple can’t adjudicate away common sense and we can’t absolve men or women from using common sense. </p>
<p>Consent to making out in a bed =/= consent to sex. It should be easy to recognize that, despite the risk of “signaling”.</p>
<p>exactly.</p>
<p>So, just as the parents of young women give them the rules regarding drinking and campus behavior and stranger behavior and not putting down their drink, not going into dorm rooms or fraternity rooms, not leaving friends at parties, etc… young men should realize they need to stay away from drunken girls. If they are interested in the girl, they can talk to her another time. They just need to learn to let that pass by.</p>
<p>Both sexes can avoid predators, but it is far, far easier for men to avoid than women.</p>