<p>Did some bitter CC virgin make this ruling? This is absolutely ridiculous! Read it closely... I don't understand how this is for real. According to the new policy, you can be charged of sexual misconduct if you have a perceived position of power or influence on campus and engage in even consensual sex or even if that sex occurs in a particular "atmosphere". What is going on?</p>
<p>I love how that one advocate argues how people with higher IQs are more cunning and manipulative and therefore Duke students would be considered the "cream of the crop" for nurturing rapists. What an idiot.</p>
<p>It is ridiculous, but rape laws in general state that if one person is intoxicated, they can’t legally give consent. Based on this, I believe my boyfriend and I are guilty of “raping” each other on numerous occasions ;)</p>
<p>My brother knows one of the boys formerly on the Duke lacrosse team who was accused of rape; it basically ruined this poor kid’s life. I wonder if the new policy has anything to do with the negative press based on the lax case?</p>
<p>Rape is a serious issue and should not be made light of by laws that accusing people of “raping” even if both partners give consent. As far as both partners consent to it, it’s not rape in my opinion. If one person is far too drunk to know what’s going on, then I can understand it being illegal, but not if they’ve just been drinking a bit.</p>
<p>This is really extreme… but I can see it from their perspective. A person in an authoritative position has the potential to use his or her power to persuade a person who works under them into “consensual” sex. But the school went about it all wrong… obviously lol. I see this issue as something that would better be resolved through awareness fliers or whatever… definitely not with this rule >_></p>
<p>But this isn’t even about people who work for other people. If a freshman athlete has sex with a freshman who isn’t an athlete, the new policy says that this could be sexual misconduct if it was conceded under the “influence of power”, and saying that you did it with a member of a national championship basketball team is certainly a position of power.</p>
<p>This is so arbitrary that it could essentially have the effect of banning sex on campus. What is ‘power’? If I am in a club that you are not in, am I more powerful? There is no definition to this, putting probably everyone under its scope.</p>
<p>I implied that I disagreed with the policy.</p>
<p>I was thinking more in terms of authority vs. less authority, not necessarily work nor physical strength. I agree that the sports issue is silly. But I can easily see someone in a position of leadership/influence “persuading” people they have power over to have sex (obvious). I’m thinking of sports captains, frat leaders, and club presidents (similar to hazing). </p>
<p>The question is if such a person should be punished if it was legal and consensual. I don’t know if a rule like that could exist on a college campus, because there’s so much grey area and it’d be hard to enforce…plus, don’t politicians do it all the time? You can’t really penalize someone for taking advantage of another’s poor judgement if it was legal and consensual, unless an official bribery or something was involved. Since a rule doesn’t make sense, awareness is the way to go. Though I’m not so sure how effective that would be.</p>
<p>College students are never gonna stop having sex with each other. What this does is allow an incredibly wide variety of girls to do is declare something sexual misconduct after the fact if she in any way regrets having such casual sex so quickly and being called slutty by some of her girlfriends, or the guy in any way emotionally hurts or ****es her off, by e.g. not thereafter pursuing her alone as his one and only girlfriend. Hey, maybe even while she declares herself free to have sex with others. Otherwise she’ll report it was date rape that night. Yeah that really is where these power dynamics created by this rad feminist rule lead. </p>
<p>As for guys applying this against girls, it just isn’t how female sexuality works. Girls about never have sex and certainly not casual sex with guys way below them in campus sexual power dynamics. But average or above but not super hot girls sure as hell will have casual sex with male stars on campus, whether that’s a varsity athlete or class president (if he’s also got some charisma), or more often cause more plentiful, just a fairly macho guy in a good frat, esp. if an upperclassman. When she does 'cause she really wanted to, when she’s having trouble converting that causal sex into his devotion, she’s got this whip hand of going off the administration or the women’s center and saying date rape. </p>
<p>It’s truly an outrageous and utterly one sided rad feminist power grab, that’s not remotely about equality. As for equalizing the female 7 on campus with the alpha male 9, what equalizes the male 7 with the female 9 in this policy in reality? Absolutely nothing. Cause she’ll never want to screw him but the girl 7 will sure want to screw the male 9, and liking casual sex and being naturally polygamous, the male9 with often go for it if a female 9 isn’t handy and competing at the same time. </p>
<p>Do you guys know how the rad feminists of womens studies centers and departments get their stats on date rape and sexual assault on campus? They lie, by intentionally incredibly and unconscionably misleading. Well quite a lot of them just make stuff up too, to what they think feels about right or think might have an impact, 'cause that rather than truth is important.</p>
<p>For example do you know where rad feminists got their often repeated claim that 25% of college girls will suffer from date rape by the time they finish college? Here’s how. When they survey about how many college women have experienced date rape per se, mind you with no proof at all that it really happened, they get disappointly (to their men are evil rapists) agenda. So instead they starting asking these kinds of rad feminist agenda questions on surveys: "have you ever had sex happen with you that you have wished hadn’t happened?) Note there’s no placing of the wishing it hadn’t happened at the time it was happening. Any kind of regret later is included. There’s conflict in may girls college minds between enjoying free casual sex just like (hot and only hot) guys do without guilt, and in fact not wanting to be or seem slutty to others and feeling guilty about what they did sometimes. Which they’d like to blame on guys often but note these rad feminists aren’t even putting that filter on it. Any regret however much later even if the woman feels it was all her fault, get’s included as a yes. And then they add up those yeses and call that the percentage that have been date raped in college. While the grate majority of these same surveyed women if asked if they were ever raped in college answer no. This is absolutely true and if this isn’t lying by incredible to the max misleading I like to know what is.</p>
<p>Similarly rad feminist count as sexual assault as any unwanted male touching – even if its very briefly a light touch to a forearm or shoulder. </p>
<p>That’s what’s going on and way more in the year after year radical feminist campus campaign (often lead sometimes behind the scenes by full up lesbians) to keep feminist fury and sense of victimhood alive, by calling all or virtually all men rapists, and a whole lot of consensual seductive male on female sex rape. </p>
<p>For a tone of info on the true story about the amount of date rape there is today and the amount of false date rape claims, see the links to informative sources down a bit here:</p>
<p><i>It is ridiculous, but rape laws in general state that if one person is intoxicated, they can’t legally give consent. </i></p>
<p>No they don’t. That’s not the law in hardly any if any state. Instead at most they state that if someone is incapacitated they can’t give implied consent to intercourse by failing to say no and similar. Incapacitated means unable to. As in passed out. Or unable to speak clearly at a minimum. It doesn’t mean “had lowered inhibitions” or did something she thinks she wouldn’t have if she’d been stone cold sober, in hindsight. </p>
<p>I’m an attorney from a top five law school and law review. I’m also not a current state of play feminist.</p>
<p>This is such a wonderful policy. If this were in place a few years ago, those lacrosse players wouldn’t have gotten off scot free just because they “didn’t actually do anything”!</p>