time mag article "Sexual Assault Crisis on American campuses"

Parents Forum
1021

<p>

</p>

<p>In the real world, no would buy that nonsense from a husband. And in the real world, the husband will also not buy that nonsense from the wife, even if he does not outwardly tell her. But, he will tell that to his Dad and Mom and really close friends though.</p>

<p>What you are seeing here is the difference between real life and the statutes written by government idiots to serve a political purpose. And the key difference is real life often leaves little to interpretation in certain situations because people are not that dumb; however, government statutes can be Interpreted multiple ways in order to try and achieve a particular outcome.</p>

1022

<p>When you read the article posted by @consolation younghoss, maybe I will go through another far-fetched scenario</p>

<p>Really, in the real world, on college campuses, there are plenty of actual scenarios of colleges covering up rapes and intimidating and harrassing survivors who have come forward to report those rapes.</p>

<p>In the real world, there are all sorts of scenarios, think Stuebenville, of authority figures covering for athletes and others who have raped young women too drunk to walk, who have, in fact, provided that alcohol to those boys and girls. Sad but true.</p>

<p>As for the scenario put forth by another poster (not hunt, by the way), about a young man being drugged by a college age woman? I already said I consider that rape. Consent is the issue. </p>

<p>But, hey, any time YOU want to respond to the posts about actual women being intimidated by real world college students and administrators, that would be a welcome change to this bizarre conversation we are having right now.</p>

<p>In general, @younghoss, the person who is active and does the penetrating is the rapist in a rape scenario. A young women could possibly rape a young man under these circumstances, however, if a young woman is lying there practically passed out, and the guy is raping her, she is not actively participating. The nature of a man raping a woman is such that he is taking an action. He is doing something.</p>

<p>In a fist fight, for example, the person who punches me in the face is hitting me. I am not hitting him.</p>

1023

<p>

I think another problem in this discussion is that people don’t necessarily agree on what those situations are.</p>

<p>Another point I’d like to make: do you think situations in which colleges cover up rapes or discourage women from reporting are faults in the system? I don’t think either of those things is contemplated by the disciplinary systems in place at colleges today–but apparently they still happen. Again, I’m not denying the problem–I guess I’m saying that the problem is more fundamental than the precise disciplinary procedures in place–and thus, the solution will have to go far beyond tweaking the rules.</p>

1024

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree and think the solution is changing the way we think. Poetgrl compared rape to entering someone’s home uninvited and that at any time you are free to insist someone leave your home. Basically we don’t grant women autonomy over their own bodies. Lots of male politicians spend a lot of time legislating what degree of control women have over their bodies. I can’t think of comparable examples of men having their bodies somehow part of the public domain. We don’t really question the fact that women don’t have absolute control of their bodies. Men never question the fact they have absolute control of theirs.</p>

<p>The suggestion comes up over and over on this thread that an intoxicated man has some right to an intoxicated woman’s body. I don’t understand that reasoning at all.</p>

1025

<p>I guess I thought I had autonomy over my body…what am I missing, what do I not have autonomy over?</p>

1026

<p>

</p>

<p>And if the rules are tweaked without addressing the fundamental issues, then all that would occur is even more of a procedural morass, and more lawsuits. </p>

<p>As for your question re schools discouraging reporting, I think this has to be looked at in terms of what is the alternative, which is reporting to the real police. As stated here by posters, there is this view the real judicial system is not supportive of the victims and going to the real police is considered not a good idea. Let us take that at face value. However, I think their going to the schools instead simply shifted the burden of prosecutorial discretion to the schools. And lo and behold, instead of the schools reaching a different conclusion, the schools mirrored prosecutors and, in many cases, exercised discretion, thought there was not a strong case or no case, and tried to stop the process by discouraging reporting. </p>

<p>The difference here is the DOJ did not have the power to step in and rewrite rape law, but it could regulate the colleges via statues, which requires no vote. And the DOJ stepped in when schools were not reaching different conclusions than the real judicial system. </p>

<p>This is about outcome and achieving higher convictions, even if they are warranted or not. I think people on this board have been upfront about that. In some cases, convictions are warranted; but in some cases, they are not. It would not be an acceptable solution to advocates if any new system is a wash. The goal is more convictions, period. And people are catching on to that, and it worries people that what is really being advocated is a railroading system, not a true adjudication system.</p>

1027

<p>Momofthreeboys, at the risk of sparking an off topic debate, consider the fact that the law will not force a man to give a kidney, or even something as simple as bone marrow or blood, to another person to save their life, yet male-dominated legislatures have spent infinite amounts of time inventing laws that control what a woman can do with her body in terms of pregnancy.</p>

<p>Regarding sex, as I wrote above, there is a pernicious belief that it is only natural and indeed a “right” for a male to try to have intercourse with virtually any woman, and that overcoming resistance is just part of the game. Yes, the law says that he cannot take it as far as physical force, threats, drugging her, etc, and that she has to be of the age of consent. But the pervasive belief is that it is normal for him to try, and that it is her job to resist. And if he succeeds a lot of the time, then he is a stud. Not a slut.</p>

<p>Of course, not all men share this view. My H and S, for example, do not. But neither of them is the kind of man who is glorified in popular TV shows and movies.</p>

1028

<p>Here is an appalling case from my alma mater. If you read all the way through it details the witnesses, physical evidence, police report, decision made by the prosecutor and the responses by the university, athletic director and professional coaches. It is sickening. According to almost everyone here this young woman had everything “going for her” in terms of the right kind of reporting and evidence and still no satisfactory result even in charges brought. Not only that but the perp and his buddies went on to reoffend in many ways. Still, his coaches and teammates were willing to vouch for what a good guy he was. He deserved “another chance”. Plus . . . there’s the Rose Bowl. </p>

<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270.html”>http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004147460_rbstevens270.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1029

<p>

</p>

<p>The goal here, for most of us, is justice. Given what we know, given the sheer number of cases you have been shown even on this thread alone, of injustice, there is every reason to believe that ANY prosecution agenda would bring more convictions. But, regardless, and I am a big believer in innocent until proven guilty, there is a systemic suppression of rape reporting and a massive cover up scheme on so many campuses that yes, @Hunt is correct in that the entire orientation of the system needs an overhaul.</p>

<p>Top to bottom. The DOJ recommendations are a start. Obviously more needs to be done to make our campuses safe for women. Our campuses should be safe for women. Clearly they can be far safer.</p>

1030

<p>That makes sense, I forgot about abortion (because so far it’s legal) opponents wanting to control my body. I guess the attitude that men would “try” never bothered me because sure they can “try” but I still control my own body…if they use force or strength then it’s rape and rape is illegal…anyway that’s the way my mind works! I remember being very young and my mom out by the lake wacking male ducks with her kitchen broom because according to her they were “bothering” the female ducks and it was 'bugging" her - cracked me up but there’s some truth to that evolutionary string. The fact that men are different doesn’t bother me, but I would be upset/angry if I legally lost the autonomy of my body.</p>

1031

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, we agree there. </p>

<p>However, I do not think anyone could conclude that the result will be a percentage increase in the number of convictions. The result could easily be less reporting and less convictions simply because you are assuming accusers are actually going to want to do what is expected of them. I have this nagging feeling they will not once they realize it is not as simple as making the charge and the school takes their word for it. </p>

1032

<p>@momofthreeboys You might want to take a look at the laws. There are states where abortion is basically illegal, at this point. Actually, I live in a state where if I were to become pregnant, even at my age, I would be made to go through counseling and to undergo an intravaginal ultrasound, in order to be “made to understand” what I wanted, before I would be “allowed” to have a d&c. </p>

<p><a href=“Abortion Restrictions in States - Graphic - NYTimes.com”>Abortion Restrictions in States - Graphic - NYTimes.com;

1033

<p>

</p>

<p>Not sure the point here, as this is to be expected for just about any law. That is the fundamental basis of our federal system. The several states are free to intact laws to restrict or promote activities, which they feel represent their values. Not every state is the same.</p>

1034

<p>@saintfan the facts in that article are simply appalling. It is extremely well done. But we we still see some here saying that if the prosecutors declined to prosecute, then there was no rape.</p>

1035

<p>…and there ya have it. B-) </p>

1036

<p>The U of W AD said that - and her name was Barbara . . .</p>

1037

<p>poet, you argue a good point. I don’t doubt rapes occur. I don’t doubt sometimes officials try to cover it up. Never said that was a good thing.
Unfortunately none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the scenario Hunt posed, or the twist I added to it. My scenario had nothing to do with cover-ups, minors, people unable to walk, or passed out victims.</p>

<p>The twist I added isn’t far-fetched by any means. It was an example of 2 people drinking that have sex, and then the issue arises of valid consent to sex. All I did was switch the customary genders, to see if the word “consent” is gender neutral, or if its meaning is different depending on the gender.(remember I am referring to adults and voluntary intoxication, NOT to the point of passing out)</p>

1038

<p>He is now married to Hope Solo (herself charged with assault just the other day). They are just a train wreck between them but maybe it will keep him off the local streets which is a good thing for all of us.</p>

1039

<p>

Actually, such a suggestion has never come up, even once, as far as I can tell–other than interpreting something else that somebody said in this way. That’s one of the problems with this topic (like other controversial topics); it’s hard to discuss if you constantly question the “real” motives of people who disagree with you.</p>

<p>What I think a number of people have suggested is that two intoxicated people can have sex without one, but not the other, being a rapist. I know some people disagree with this, but I’m not entirely sure what part of it they disagree with. It seems that some may think that two intoxicated people can’t (or don’t) have sex. That is, some seem to think that intoxicated men cannot perform sexually–I don’t think this is true. Some seem to think that intoxicated women cannot behave in a way that suggests consent to sex–I don’t think this is true, either. Obviously, two people who are unconscious cannot have sex. But I don’t think anybody wants to argue that only sex with an unconscious person is nonconsensual. On the other hand, perhaps the view is that two drunk people can have sex, but if they do, one is a victim and the other is a criminal, depending entirely on the specific sex act they perform. That seems odd to me.</p>

<p>I can see the problem. The problem is that sexual predators are overwhelmingly male, and they use alcohol as a tool for predation. I have no interest in excusing their behavior by pointing to a woman’s choice to get intoxicated. What I don’t know, however, is what percentage of drunken sexual encounters are (1) situations of a sexual predator taking advantage of a victim; (2) situations in which the parties would have consented to sex drunk or sober, and result in no complaint against anybody; (3) situations in which there is no predator, but in which one of the parties would not have consented to sex if sober–and who makes a complaint, and (4) situations in which there is no predator, but in which one of the parties would not have consented to sex if sober–and that person chooses not to make a complaint because she doesn’t feel she has been wronged. It’s clear that participants in this discussion have very different ideas about what the breakdown of these categories is–I will say that I have become persuaded that there are a lot more of (1) than I previously understood. I’m pretty sure (2) happens pretty often. It’s (3) and (4) I’m not so sure about.</p>

1040

<p>Yes, I noticed that. </p>

<p>BTW, I googled him, and discovered that he is the H of Hope Solo who was involved in her arrest for domestic violence. What is he going to do now that he is involved with a woman who fights back, or even strikes the first blow? Frankly, it sounds like a household where one or both of them will end up dead. Very unfortunate.</p>