<p>I agree with you and George Will, @Flossy. Trying to prevent campus rape is just a political thing. It is an imaginary problem that reveals people’s true political agenda. </p>
<p>What other point could there be?</p>
<p>Well, I didn’t say any of that which is the problem with so many of your posts @Much2learn. Perhaps a reading comprehension class would be helpful here. Respectfully, of course.</p>
<p>Much2learn you have created a big backstory up there that I have no doubt you actually believe to be true but when you inject that into the reading of a specific case it changes your perception of reality. None of us know exactly what happened in any of these cases. Most likely some were rape and some were not since that’s usually how these things work out. If there is no evidence you seem to want the young man kicked out of school anyway. That is not realistic whoever wins the next presidential election. </p>
<p>@julia1414
@Much2learn
@poetgrl </p>
<p>Recently, after about 70 pages of this thread, Much2learn and poetgrl clarified their position that if the male and the female has a <em>moderate</em> or small amount of alcohol and then have sex, then they do <em>not</em> believe this nullifies consent given by the female, meaning that the presence of alcohol in the female doesn’t automatically make it rape. (If that is a mischaracterization, feel free to correct me.) </p>
<p>However, earlier in this thread, the way they stated their positions was that being intoxicated nullifies consent by the female. Intoxicated could mean any blood alcohol concentration greater than 0.0000. It follows that if the female has 1/2 a drink and the male has 3 drinks and they apparently consent to have sex, then the male has committed rape because the female cannot consent. It is this definition which people have responded to that are “on the other side”, and which have been casually characterized as rape apologists. When they say, “females need to take responsibilities for their actions”, it is with this definition in mind. For instance, if a male and a female have one drink and then have sex (with consent by both parties,) then both parties are responsible for this decision. </p>
<p>DUI studies show that even one drink can impair judgement and lessen inhibitions. However, if you use the definition of intoxication as anything greater than 0.00 blood alcohol concentration, then it is not just 1 in 5 females who have been raped, it is any female who has ever in their entire life engaged in sexual intercourse with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding zero. This would be closer to 5 out of 5. </p>
<p>Please, everybody, be precise in your language when speaking about such an inflammatory issue. </p>
<p>ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz yawwwwwn. </p>
<p>“Recently, after about 70 pages of this thread, Much2learn and poetgrl clarified their position that if the male and the female has a <em>moderate</em> or small amount of alcohol and then have sex, then they do <em>not</em> believe this nullifies consent given by the female, meaning that the presence of alcohol in the female doesn’t automatically make it rape. (If that is a mischaracterization, feel free to correct me.)”</p>
<p>You are correct. I have never asserted that even legally drunk (.08%) equals incapacitated let alone .000%. </p>
<p>What I consider to be a rape apologist is someone who says that when both parties are legally drunk, it is not rape, it is just drunk sex. Just because a woman is drunk does not give a man the right to her body without consent, and then claim that it was just drunk sex because you were both drunk. That is not a reasonable defense.</p>
<p>Additionally, there is a point where your partner may be incapacitated. If the other person is not able to walk straight without assistance or articulate thoughts clearly, or undress themselves, or actively and enthusiastically participate in sex, then they may not be too drunk to consent. Guys at college parties need to understand that if they take a very intoxicated woman back to their room and have sex, that even if she said okay, you may be charged. While some may be tempted to take advantage of the situation, it is not worth the risk. Especially if this is not your SO. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>Specifically, what George Will, Sowell, I and others (not @Flossy) have said is the approach being taken is a political approach, NOT a hardline stamp-it-out approach. The focus and concern on the issue is not political, but the current process to craft a solution sure is.</p>
<p>And no one needs to look any further than what is not being suggested to know it is a political approach - as Mom3boys repeatedly has said, how about report EVERY case of presumed sexual assault to the actual police and let them investigate every single one. Treat every case as a serious felony and take statements etc. from both males and females and give no slack to anyone involved. Hold everyone to the same standards of evidence, statement taking etc. and do not take one person’s word over the other. </p>
<p>This system already exists, but advocates do not want to use it. People, rightfully, wonder why. And this is why many question what in the world is going on. And when others new to the issue look hard enough, they too start to ask, “Why did the allegedly assaulted females not go to the police?” Yes, we have heard the answer: the already established system is not liked because it does not give the results they want. Now, in our societal framework, what do we call something, which is purposely redesigned to give a different outcome regardless of what reality might be? I daresay, it is called a political approach and solution.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Baloney. The old “reading comprehension” insult is never respectful.</p>
<p>If you have read much of this thread the level of misinterpretation is pretty high. Many posters have been called rape apologists when nothing of the sort was said. I think way back when somebody was even accused of being a rapist. It’s pretty crazy. </p>
<p>“Baloney. The old “reading comprehension” insult is never respectful.”</p>
<p>That was sarcasm. However, nothing she attributed to me was said by me. None of it. I don’ t know if it was actually said by anyone, but just upthread another poster says that it wasn’t and that seems likely to be correct based on a week or so of history. At this point, I just think Much2learn has a political agenda that is more important to her than the actual problem. That’s not where I started, though. </p>
<p>This one cracked me up…it’s a quote from another place (not CC) and I’m stealing it…oops:
</p>
<p>“Yes, we have heard the answer: the already established system is not liked because it does not give the results they want.”</p>
<p>Isn’t it possible that the established system has been doing a bad job dealing with rape victims – independent of the proof problems that some rape cases present? I mean, they are a bunch of government employees, and some of them are really terrible at this part of their jobs. There are rational reasons why rape victims expect worse treatment by police and prosecutors than victims of other crimes.</p>
<p>If you believe someone has misquoted you, say so. If you think someone is twisting your words to benefit their agenda, say so. The “you obviously have a reading comprehension problem” is just an immature attempt to say “you’re clearly stupid” rather than addressing a particular argument with supporting facts. It’s lazy, it’s disingenuous, and frequently has been labeled as against TOS, and if not that, than against “fair play” and good faith in debate. </p>
<p>No one here has a reading comprehension problem. Most of us are educated, intelligent adults who should be able to craft a better retort than that.</p>
<p>@Hanna No argument from me there. And, where those obvious mistreatments exist, I agree in amending.</p>
<p>However, the devil is in the details. Is it not? If what is not liked about the existing system is central to what society sees as a fair system, then advocates of a different system have a problem. And that problem is society, as a whole, is not going to stand for an unfair system. Specifically, a system, which limits or ignores the basic constitutional rights of an accused will not be tolerated.</p>
<p>Also, it is important not to equate what is viewed as “worse treatment” by accusers with “unfair treatment” by police and prosecutors. One person’s bad treatment could be another person’s process to remain fair, without any intended malice or intent to treat anyone bad.</p>
<p>Accusers may not liked to be to asked or want to answer certain personal questions, but that does not translate into “worse treatment,” if the questions are directly salient to the claim and charges. Things, which have to be done to insure a full investigation and accounting are made may not be liked by the accuser, but at the same time, they may be the fairest things to do for all involved.</p>
<p>And of course it is like no other crime because sexual assault is intensely personal; the most personal of crimes, short of being killed. Therefore, to expect to be treated like any other crime is not realistic because it is like no other crime.</p>
<p>@Nrdsb4 </p>
<p>I suppose after someone has been calling you a rape apologist for days on end the debate does tend to go downhill. And, this was done in pretty inflammatory fashion, btw. Maybe, you missed it. My position is clear so I can only assume that any attempt to mischaracterize it at this point is willful, but not stupid. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, being intoxicated should not reduce the severity of a crime. I agree with this principle. </p>
<p>And we have already established that a woman may be too intoxicated to consent, even if she is not to the point of being incapacitated. The next logical step is that a woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse without her consent must have been raped by her partner, the male.</p>
<p>However, a man has the same right to be able to consent to sexual activity that a woman has. If he is too intoxicated to consent but engages in sexual intercourse, then by this standard the woman has also raped him. </p>
<p>From your posts, it seems that you think the physical act of sex is something that a man does to a woman because it (usually) involves penetration, and therefore the man has automatically given his consent. You brought up the unlikely case that a woman who uses a sex toy on an inebriated man is in your opinion a rapist. This link you’ve made between who requires consent and who is penetrated is not fundamental. Perhaps you think the female doesn’t need to get consent from the male because females cannot initiate the sex act on their own? Without getting into details, I can think of plenty of common sex acts which require more action on the female’s part than the man’s. Therefore, I do not see why the anatomical differences between the male and female should mean only one gender requires consent in a typical sexual encounter.</p>
<p>There was another case you mentioned where a slightly intoxicated woman (well below legal intoxication) has sex with a much more intoxicated man (legally intoxicated, above 0.08) and you said that rape occurred in this case as well. You didn’t clarify who had committed the rape. If you think the woman committed rape in this instance, then it makes even less that only the man would be the rapist if they are both legally intoxicated to the same extent. </p>
<p>^^ Yes, but just like small children, you only hurl insults when you have no salient argument. I feel the same way about people calling other people misogynists and rape apologists as I do about people calling people rapists when they clearly have never been charged and convicted or calling women murders if they choose to terminate a pregnancy. Makes me roll my eyeballs. awcntdb may go off on tangents occasionally but his argument is being played out in more places than ours and you can skip the article and read the comments. Mirror discussions and aittle bit of name calling and maybe even slightly more vituporous from the Chronicle of Higher Education:
<a href=“Why Colleges Are on the Hook for Sexual Assault”>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Colleges-Are-on-the-Hook/146943/</a></p>
<p>No, I have been clear that if the man is not consenting or participating, and the woman is on top and causes penetration to occur, that she can be the responsible party. It is just unlikely in my experience, for that to occur, but certainly possible.</p>
<p>I’m glad then, that though M2L and I disagree on some things, she does not consider me a rape apologist. I have never said anything like this: “Just because a woman is drunk does not give a man the right to her body without consent, and then claim that it was just drunk sex because you were both drunk. That is not a reasonable defense.” “Without consent”? What about with consent? I’ve never said sex without consent is ok, drinking or not. I’m not sure anyone here has said sex w/o consent is ok, though some disagree on what is consent. I see the another side of the coin that also applies, to slightly amend M2L’s wording- I’d change it to: “Just because a woman is drunk does not overrule her right to her body and give consent, and then claim that it was just rape because you were both drunk. That is not a reasonable accusation”. I believe she still should have the right to say Yes or No. Some here(not M2L) want to take away her right to say Yes when drinking.</p>
<p>I have said though that when voluntarily drunk but not incapacitated a Yes should count as a Yes from either gender. There, many here disagree with me. I just cannot agree with those that say - "I said yes, but I was drinking, so even though the man was drinking too,* he* should have known to what degree my thinking was influenced by hooch and should have over-ruled my Yes answer and said No for both of us, and since he didn’t over-rule my consent- it’s rape.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s going to get to that. Again, in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education there was another analysis and with increasing frequency it’s becoming apparent that if colleges are not able to provide sufficient due process when the allegations fall into what amounts to criminal accusations. The DOJ and government essentially hung colleges and universities out to dry, but the lawsuits will shape what will happen in the future. It is also clear to me, but I found interesting is that the crux of the arguments is focused on is what rights women are willing to give up and what rights men are willing to give up. It feels to me that women are being very vocal about wanting to be a protected class and that boggles my mind. Right now it feels like men who feel their rights have been trampled are using the courts while the women are still pushing their agenda through Title IX.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting that males would risk the potential legality of videotaping vs. university sanctions which is pretty creepy, but I think in general, the concept of expulsion is more serious than people might think. </p>