by _sabotage_ on Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:48 am
Great, we are in agreement, we disagree with this:
DY posted this a while back(I referred to it mistakingly as. AOG's article).
From the weekly standard:
"It turns out that when you decouple the sex drive from modesty and prudence, it takes armies of elected officials, bureaucrats, and consultants to protect females from “undesirable” behavior. Virginia’s governor Terry McAuliffe is establishing a task force on campus sexual violence comprising up to 30 top state officials and representatives from law enforcement and higher education. Connecticut is requiring colleges to form sexual assault response teams, on the model, presumably, of active shooter response teams. California has just enacted a law mandating that colleges receiving state funds require students to be in “affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement” in order to engage in sexual activity, agreement that is “ongoing throughout a sexual activity and that can be revoked at any time.” Gloria Steinem and a gender studies professor from New York’s Stony Brook University explain in the New York Times: The California law “redefines that gray area” between “yes” and “no.” “Silence is not consent; it is the absence of consent. Only an explicit ‘yes’ can be considered consent.” In other words, California’s new statute, like many existing campus policies, moves the sexual default for female students back to “no.”
But isn’t this bureaucratic and legislative ferment, however ham-handed, being driven by an epidemic of campus rape? There is no such epidemic. There is, however, a squalid hook-up scene, the result of jettisoning all normative checks on promiscuous behavior. A recent case from Occidental College illustrates the reality behind so-called “campus rape.” Girls are drinking themselves blotto precisely in order to lower their inhibitions for casual sex, then regretting it afterwards.
The freshman complainant, Jane Doe (a pseudonym), began her weekend drinking binge on Friday, September 6, 2013. She attended a dance party in the dorm room of John Doe, another freshman whom she had just met, and woke up the next morning with a hangover. She soon began “pregaming” again—that is, drinking before an event at which one expects to drink further. Jane drank before a daytime soccer game and continued during the evening, repeatedly swigging from a bottle of orange juice and vodka which she had prepared. Around midnight, she went to a second party in John Doe’s dorm room, still drinking vodka. John, too, had been drinking all day. Jane removed her shirt while dancing with John and engaged in heavy petting on his bed, sitting on top of him and grinding her hips. Jane’s friends tried to shepherd her home, but before she left John’s room, she gave him her cell phone number so that they could coordinate their planned sexual tryst.
When she arrived at her own dorm room, John texted her: “The second that you away from them, come back.” Jane responded: “Okay.” John wrote back: “Just get back here.” Jane responded: “Okay do you have a condom.” John replied: “Yes.” Jane texted back: “Good, give me two minutes.” John texted: “Knock when you’re here.”
Before leaving her dorm room, Jane texted a friend from back home: “I’m going to have sex now.” Jane walked down to John’s room at approximately 1 a.m., knocked on his door, went in, took off her earrings, got undressed, performed oral sex, and had sexual intercourse with him. When an acquaintance knocked on John’s door to check up on her, Jane three times called out: “Yeah, I’m fine.” Shortly before 2 a.m., Jane dressed herself and returned to her room. On her way there, she texted her friends vapid messages, complete with smiley faces, none of which mentioned assault. She then walked to a different dorm where she sat on the lap of another male student whom she had met the night before, talking and joking. The next day she texted John asking if she had left her earrings and belt in his room and asked to come by to pick them up.
Now someone who asks a male if he has a condom, who conspires with him to have sex, who announces to a friend that she intends to have sex, who voluntarily goes to his dorm room in order to have sex, who has sex through no coercion or force on the male’s part, is as voluntary and responsible an agent in that sex act as the male. Any male on the receiving end of such behavior, who is asked if he has a condom before a planned sex act, is going to rightly assume that he is facing a willing and consenting partner. And yet Occidental, under investigation from the Obama administration for ignoring sexual violence (a baseless charge), found John guilty of assault and expelled him. Though Jane’s actions and statements seemed to indicate that she consented to sexual intercourse, John should have known that she was too incapacitated to consent, the adjudicators concluded."
My take:
Prosecutors are bloodthirsty, if you let them redefine or minimize gray areas, they will seek a conviction to the point that encourages innocent parties to accept plea bargains as their best option even if they were taken completely surprise by the charge of rape. We have a prison industrial complex and a legal complex with mouths to feed. Even if found innocent, legal costs would be high all around.
We are good at putting people in prison because we are good at criminalizing and enforcement.
What a lot of posters seem to be upset about is my demand to have refusal be explicitly stated and clearly understood.
Fingernail clippers aren't a blade and a samurai sword isn't something you'd expect to be in someone's hand when they are asking nicely. What I mean by that is if the accusers statement is:
She was forcing my arms behind my head. I was helpless. After a minute, I took myself mentally out of the situation as far as I could and just tried to limit how much I was physically hurt by her.
If he were Shaq and she was Ally McBeal, I wouldn't believe him. Just as if the story was that the supposed victim turned out to be the armed party.
If the story goes, it was clear I didn't want to have sex with him because I put a gun to his belly, pulled down his trousers and smacked his penis and said no.
My point is that as in most cases, the man is bigger, stronger, and if equally incapacitated as the woman, I would regard his size as an indicator of his ability to prevent forced sex without resorting to violence.
Someone wrote that that person was let go. I had left which case I was referring to unclear. The case I was referring to is the case where the student was expelled.
Serious consequences to what amounts to be a case like those I brought up which several posters said, yeah but there was consent so it wasn't rape. As the policy is being enforced, all of those case I mentioned were rape. But everyone is so quick to rush to the aid of the victim. I would like to know there was a victim, because the sentiments which I wholeheartedly agree with of ensuring everyone has the right to decide if they want to engage in sex, will be used by the state to literally scare people out of having sex.
They will prosecute. Anything you say can and will be used against you. The prosecutor isn't making moral decisions, he works for the state with the goal of convicting. With such arbitrary measures in place to secure a conviction by law, rather than by harm, stick to porn or put part of your student loan towards retaining a lawyer, getting pre-sex contracts, and some recording equipment. Good luck getting laid either way.
Metsfanmax
Killing a human should not be worse than killing a pig.
It never ceases to amaze me just how far people will go to defend their core beliefs.
