When I was a college student now more than 20 years ago, sexual assault awareness was in its infancy. When we pictured the act of rape, we thought of the stranger jumping out of the alley to attack the unsuspecting woman. But sexual assault is often committed by an acquaintance.
In 1994, a bipartisan group in Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act which was developed after years of extensive grassroots lobbying.
One of the rallying cries is the notion that “no means no.” Mainly young men were taught that, if a young woman said no to their sexual advances, this was the line of demarcation. It didn’t matter whether she was drunk. It didn’t matter if she had been a willing participant up until a point, and it didn’t matter if she had originally said yes.
Despite these efforts, the statistics are stunning. About one in four college women has been the victim of a sexual assault during her academic career. Somewhere between 70 to 80 percent of these were by acquaintances. Many of these involved alcoholic consumption prior to the assault.
The vast majority of rapes and attempted rapes, 95 percent, are never reported to law enforcement, the National Institute of Justice reports.
This is a crisis. There is no way around it.
So California, for once, is blazing a trail with Governor Jerry Brown a few weeks ago signing SB 967. This law changes the standards for sexual assault and requires college campuses to adopt policies for rape responses that include an “affirmative consent” stand, which puts responsibility on someone engaging in sexual activity to obtain an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement from his or her partner.
Sexual assault is a highly personal crime and it is very difficult to prosecute. That is one reason, we suspect, why the percentage of unreported sexual assaults is so high. There are rarely witnesses to the assault, there may be physical evidence, but unless it is a violent rape, it is difficult to prove that it was coerced or that one was an unwilling partner.
“Affirmative consent” means “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity.”
“Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent,” the law now states. “Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.”
This shifts the burden from the woman having to prove that she said no and he ignored her protest to the man having to demonstrate that she consented to the action.
Not surprisingly, many people object to changing the burden. Commenters on the Vanguard objected to the notion, implying that the need to obtain consent is onerous and could be ripe for abuse. That is a possibility. However, it is also the case, as one commenter noted, that perhaps the best defense is to abstain from casual sex, particularly if one or both of the parties have consumed alcohol.
Indeed, we have to sign liability waiver forms for children to go on field trips, we have to sign liability waiver forms and contracts in all walks of life – perhaps in the case of casual sex, in order to protect vulnerable portions of the population, we need to do the same.
The problem is that, while we have established that “no means no,” the easy defense is often that “she didn’t say no.”
That said, I take a lot of exception to Debra DeAngelo’s column in the Enterprise this week. She continues to want to rehash a trial that she didn’t even observe personally. But, really, it was this line that got to me: “[T]he ‘she didn’t say no’ defense is no longer valid… Sorry, sleazy defense attorneys. You can’t go that route anymore.”
Look, I get that rape trials are exceedingly difficult on the victim, but that doesn’t mean that defense attorneys are sleazy when they attempt to create doubt in the minds of a jury about whether the victim did not give consent. That’s their job.
If no one witnesses the crime and there is no physical evidence of a forced assault, what other choice does an attorney have? That doesn’t make the attorney sleazy, in our system of law, and the perpetrator, even a rapist, is entitled to a defense.
That said, I think the lessons here, on a college campus which is where this bill applies more so than in a court of law, are as follows:
First, if you are drinking and with a person with whom you have no established relationship, maybe it is better to refrain from having sex, particularly in instances where the intentions of the woman are in question.
Second, if you do have to have sex, make sure it is mutually agreed to and potentially document it.
Is that really where we have gone as a society that we have to document permission to have sex? Well, perhaps in a society where one in four women are raped during their college career and most don’t report it, then yes.
I am as big a libertarian as there is when it comes to civil liberties, but it is time to teach young people that with freedom comes responsibility. You have to sign an agreement to rent a dorm room on campus, so why is it so shocking to reach an agreement to have intimate relations with a drunken stranger?
The real question is why has it taken so long for the state legislature and college campuses to take sexual assault this seriously.
—David M. Greenwald
“I get that rape trials are exceedingly difficult on the victim, but that doesn’t mean that defense attorneys are sleazy when they attempt to create doubt in the minds of a jury that the victim gave consent. That’s their job.”
I agree that it is the job of the defense attorney to ‘create doubt’. I disagree that creating doubt in the minds of the jury should ever entail an attack on the character of the alleged victim. Bringing up past behavior of the “victim” says absolutely nothing about the current circumstance. Prostitutes can be raped. Wives can be raped by their husbands. Dating coeds can be raped by their boyfriend. Rape is not just about violence, it is about the imposition of an unwanted act upon a weaker ( physically or psychologically ) individual. It is about power. It applies to men as well as to women although the numbers are much smaller. However, the defense attorney can and will attempt to play upon the juries moral sense and imply that it was ‘no big deal’ because of the alleged victims past sexual choices. It is this implication that rape did not occur if she has chosen sexual activity in the past that is sleazy and should never be “part of the job” of a defense attorney.
Tia wrote:
> Bringing up past behavior of the “victim” says absolutely nothing about the current circumstance
If a guy has been “convicted” buy a court ten times for drunk driving do you really think it says “absolutely nothing” if he is found passed out holding a Jack Daniels bottle on F Street?
While I think Tia overstated the point when she said “absolutely nothing” particularly in cases where the alleged victim has a history of fabricating charges, she is correct that prostitutes can be raped and therefore sexual behavior in the past does not prove consent in the future. By shifting the burden here – at least in civil responses – we can avoid that conundrum.
David
You are correct. I did not make allowance for the circumstance in which a “victim” can be demonstrated to have lied under other similar circumstances. Thus illustrating why absolutist statements are rarely valid.
That being said, in a world where 95 percent of sexual assaults go unreported, I don’t believe the problem we face are false allegations. Moreover, there seems to be some strange notion that women who are more inclined to have had multiple sexual partners are also more inclined to offer false allegations. I don’t see any factual basis for that belief. Therefore I reject SOD’s analogy to the drunk.
“If a guy has been “convicted” buy a court ten times for drunk driving do you really think it says “absolutely nothing” if he is found passed out holding a Jack Daniels bottle on F Street?”
No, but if the bottle were sealed, and had a ribbon and card to his good friend who loves Jack Daniels while he himself only drinks cheap wine, I might give him the benefit of the doubt ! ( Smile)
I guess Tia Will would also not want a cop’s history of abusing criminals brought up in a trial where he was accused of beating an inmate. After all, that had nothing to do with the current beating.
David wrote:
> When I was a college student now more than 20 years ago,
> sexual assault awareness was in its infancy.
Did you lock yourself in a computer lab at Cal Poly 20 years ago and never come out or live off campus?
When I was in college THIRTY (30) years ago not a week went by without some date rape story or date rape awareness event on campus. EVERY kid at a UC and State school in CA has been getting date rape prevention stuff long before you started college and kids in the dorms and greek houses have been hammered with it. In addition to the big “take back the night” march (that has been around for FORTY (40) years) that usually goes down greek row (so the protestors can yell at the guys and call them rapists) most schools have extra marches and tons of press covering the “date rape culture” when some drunk idiot usually says something stupid to the people yelling at him telling him that “ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS” (I remember sitting on the deck watching 100+ women screaming at us calling us rapists and asking a friend what he thought would happen if 100+ white guys marched in front of a black fraternity and yelled a them and called them criminals)…
P.S. Trying to find an article about college women calling ALL college men rapists this popped up (I’m sure Frankly will like it since it is just another example of “we get to bully people and say whatever we want, but if you do the same thing it is a hate crime):
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html
As with the 55mph speed limit, this is unenforceable and unrealistic (repealed).
As with the smoking ban at UCD, this is unenforceable and unrealistic.
And with all three, the preceding laws (speed limits, not smoking in buildings, date rape laws and awareness) were all reasonable, and these laws went too far, going from protecting others from perpetrators (smoking, speeding, rape) to attempts at social engineering of human behavior. In the end, only a few saps will be caught in the net, while the real perps will be caught anyway (super speeders, smokers in buildings, rapists) while a few won’t be because resources are taken away to enforce social engineering laws (sap doing 60mph, sap standing 19 feet from building, sap having sex with young woman who self-loosened-up with alcohol wanting to have sex, later regretted it and filed changes, not taking responsibility for her part). If you kill someone because you were blacked out in a car drinking, that is not an excuse for getting away with killing someone with your car. If two college students are blind drunk and horny at a frat party and consummate sex, who is responsible, and who will get the blame? With this law, are we creating responsibility, or a new class of victims?
A lot of women have been date raped, and I do not lessen the pain of that, or the crime of that, or the difficulty in proving that if they are brave enough to try. My concern with this law is that it attempts to take rape, already horrific and illegal, and define the path of the semi-drunken human sexual mating ritual as if it were a DMV driving test and if you don’t pass you are a rapist. Drunken young people are not going to abstain from casual sex; casual sex is part of college life. The strongest barrier to rape is for women to know their drinking limits, and to know that at the core men are driven for sex and some, even when appearing charming, are rapists, especially when those men have been drinking themselves. So be careful out there. Laws not going to save you.
Alan wrote:
> If two college students are blind drunk and horny at a frat party and
> consummate sex, who is responsible, and who will get the blame?
Do you really need to ask, we all know the man will get the blame…
Alan wrote “to know that at the core men are driven for sex ”
South of Davis wrote”we all know the man will get the blame”
Hmmmm….let’s see woman are supposed to assume increased responsibility because men are too driven by desire for sex to do so. Well, if this is correct, who should get the “blame”? Not saying it is, just think that it is an interesting juxtaposition of ideas and that it does exemplify the way our society has traditionally handled men’s and women’s respective responsibilities and roles with regard to sexual activity.
… and we all also know that the woman will get pregnant. The man will definitely get the better of that deal.
Except that the pregnant woman can easily find an OB/GYN to remove the unwanted ‘product of conception’, which has ~ 50% chance of being male. Sounds like a start towards “restorative justice” to me.
Yes she can Hortense, but you as a woman should know that she is more than likely to emotionally remember in self recriminatory tones the life termination decision she made for that human being. That is a lifelong burden to bear for many women.
Note: I am 100% pro-Choice personally, but when actually confronted with having to make the choice, my choice was life.
“Indeed, we have to sign liability waiver forms for children to go on field trips, we have to sign liability waiver forms and contracts in all walks of life, perhaps in the case of casual sex, in order to protect vulnerable portions of the population, we need to do the same.”
LMAO, this sentence just shows what a stupid law this is.
why is that?
Re: “Indeed, we have to sign liability waiver forms for children to go on field trips, we have to sign liability waiver forms and contracts in all walks of life, perhaps in the case of casual sex, in order to protect vulnerable portions of the population, we need to do the same.”
“O, brave new world
that has such people in’t!”
William Shakespeare, The Tempest
Inspiration for Aldous Huxleys title for dystopic “Brave New World”
““O, brave new world
that has such people in’t!”
William Shakespeare, The Tempest
Inspiration for Aldous Huxleys title for dystopic “Brave New World”
Interesting that you should choose this quote, but fail to acknowledge the significance of its origin. It is spoken by Miranda who has spent most of her youth isolated in exile because of her father’s politics. Unexpectedly finding herself introduced to the concept of love, and romance in the form of the Prince of Naples when she has previously only had her father for company, she utters this line. Miranda was and is at the mercy of the whims and fortunes of the males in her life and has essentially no autonomy.
I find this a curious quote for this thread.
Yes, I had forgotton the context when Miranda said it; I was thinking more of the spirit in which it was used by Huxley.
Perhaps in the same way Miranda had little autonomy with males controlling her fate; we are increasingly ceding our definitions of acceptable social behavior and autonomy of judgement in social transactions to legal proclamations and lawyers; and while it might help to protect in some circumstances it generally comes at the expense of excercising one’s own judgement (for both men and women). Perhaps the metaphor of the different animals in Animal Farm is more appropriate, by ceding our personal judgement we move, as individuals, a step down on the evolutionary ladder. Not only is three a crowd in bedroom situations; but having a lawyer present as the 3rd is the last choice for most (I’d rather have a doctor there to caution me about disease and conception!)
No means no was good enough. But apparently women are not capable enough to control themselves and to be decisive when it comes to sex. The men have been saddled with this extra responsibility to make sure they treat the women like they are incapable and indecisive. And at the same time the men are told that women are their equals. Right.
Too bad boys grow to men and natural hormone cause them to be attracted to women. Because with this legislation pushed by NOW my message to growing boys is to very females as being extremely toxic to your well-being. Better just hang with the boys, drink beer and watch sports.
Interestingly enough, this is exactly what I observe to be happening.
And I also observe more frustrated females wondering why they cannot find a “nice man” to date.
Welcome to the liberal pursuit of dystopia.
“No means no was good enough. ”
1 in four women sexually assaulted on a college campus, 95 percent unreported. Those are bad numbers.
“But apparently women are not capable enough to control themselves and to be decisive when it comes to sex. ”
It doesn’t sound like women are the problem here. It’s amazing how the conservative, victim rights advocates, blame the victim when it comes to rape.
“1 in four women sexually assaulted on a college campus”
And this law will cure that? How, exactly?
Maybe it will increase the number of reported cases for which charges are actually filed. That percentage is very low right now.
maybe
David wrote:
> 1 in four women sexually assaulted on a college campus,
>95 percent unreported. Those are bad numbers.
If one in four college men had their wallets stolen by homeless guys that got them drunk after offering them Mad Dog 20/20 (or Night Train or T Bird) would you:
1. Tell your sons not to drink alcohol fortified wine from homeless guys (aka from David’s point of view “blaming the victim”) or
2. Work to pass a “yes means yes” law where any homeless guy that takes a guys wallet must get a “yes” from a sober guy first.
Bonus question: If the “yes means yes” law did not reduce the number of guys passing out and having their wallets stolen would you:
1. Think about now telling your sons not to drink alcohol fortified wine from homeless guys or
2. Work to pass a “written agreement law” (while bashing anyone who thinks more “laws” are not the answer as bad people who are “blaming the victim”.
WHO would DO such a thing?
Nothing like equating rape with petty theft.
If not stunningly obvious, this was not equating, but a metaphor.
Dictionary definition of metaphor:
In other words: equating it.
Don wrote:
> Nothing like equating rape with petty theft.
Nothing like jumping in to action (in less than five minutes) to “bash anyone who thinks more “laws” are not the answer” as a bad person that thinks rape is the same as petty theft…
You’re the one who posted the “metaphor.” If you didn’t mean to compare them, why did you compare them?
Rape is a serious problem. The statistics are daunting: a large percentage go unreported, a large percentage that get reported aren’t charged. And a percentage of cases turn out to be false charges (2 – 8%, per Wikipedia at least).
So we have a couple of problems, and to repeatedly minimize the issue — as you and others here do every time this subject is posted — doesn’t address those facts.
Reporting and prosecution rates: https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
False accusations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
Don wrote:
> A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on
>some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.
If I said Frankly would be like “a like a duck out of water” (a common metaphor) at the DNC convention would you say I was equating Frankly with a Duck?
P.S. I think Don not only missed my point, but does not understand what a metaphor is…
“And I also observe more frustrated females wondering why they cannot find a “nice man” to date.”
In my experience “nice men” don’t pressure girls to have sex.
“It’s amazing how the conservative, victim rights advocates, blame the victim when it comes to rape.”
It’s amazing how the liberal, defendant rights advocates, want to make it easier for the alledged rapist to get convicted.
i thought we decided last week that this didn’t have anything to do with convictions, that it only set up policy guidelines for administrative purposes on college campuses? what this really does, is as don says, makes it more likely that victims will have the administrative support on college campuses to come forward.
what this really does, is as don says, makes it more likely that victims will have the administrative support on college campuses to come forward.
Maybe, but it also codifies college practices for poorly investigating and adjudicating claims of rape and sexual assault. It is a “Man Presumed Guilty” piece of crap legislation.
It also stupifies and corrupts the real definition of rape and sexual assault.
It punishes 97% of the males that are good, because of the 3% engaged in real criminal behavior.
But most astounding, it will serve to destroy the future lives of many males undeserving of the harm. And for any parent of sons that supported this crap legislation, I have little empathy for your ignorance in harming your sons.
And so the sex should not have occurred. For it to have occurred in an instance when they were so drunk that they had no memory of the assault, the other participant in the sexual encounter IS responsible. That’s what this is all about.
I’m not ignorant. Please stop saying that. It’s derogatory, inaccurate, and serves no useful purpose in this discussion. I have a son and a daughter.
Once women feel safer about coming forward, and feel they will be taken seriously, there should be bona fide charges brought by a prosecutor who knows what he/she is doing. In the present circumstance, it is not uncommon for prosecutors to tell women they won’t succeed if they file charges.
Use the common sense side of your brain. Nobody able to do so should believe the “statistics” being used. It is the dream of militants feminists to label ALL men as rapists. And the political left is at least complacent, but often supportive, of this goal and narrative.
<i>“One in five women is sexually assaulted in college.” This one-in-five statistic came from a single web-based survey of two universities that was conducted in 2006 and posted on the Justice Department’s website in 2007. The survey was anonymous and took 15 minutes to complete. A total of 5,446 undergraduate women between the ages of 18 and 25 filled out the survey, a response rate that researchers admitted is quite low.
The researchers did not get their one-in-five statistic by asking women directly if they had been victims of rape or sexual assault. Instead, researchers asked women about their experiences and then decided if these women had been victims of rape or sexual assault. Two-thirds of the women whom the researchers cite as victims of drug- or alcohol-induced rape and 37 percent of those counted as forcibly raped do not consider themselves to have been victims of crimes. The website advises readers that the survey is not a publication of the Department of Justice and warns readers that reported sexual assault varies widely depending upon survey instruments.
Concerned that there is an unreported sexual assault epidemic on college campuses, the Office for Civil Rights is pressuring schools to inflate their numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults. This is creating an Orwellian world in which a low number of assaults on campus is an occasion not for praise but for censure. In response, colleges are devising hearing procedures to elicit as many assault charges as possible.”</i>
This junk legislation is just another War On Men move… a mechanism for women to recover from regret from their own actions and mistakes, and to punish men and seek revenge.
Rape is terrible and must be dealt with as a most serious of criminal acts. Victims of rape deserve 100% compassion and support, and convicted rapists deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law.
But this legislation does not do anything to advance either cause. Instead, it will destroy the lives of many young men just because they happened to connect with the wrong female.
And for anyone that supports this and thinks it is good, I assume you don’t have college-aged sons or if you do, I pity your ignorance in what you have done to risk the frivolous and unnecessary destruction of his life.
“This junk legislation is just another War On Men move… a mechanism for women to recover from regret from their own actions and mistakes, and to punish men and seek revenge.”
republicans wondering why they are becoming the minority party, ought to read this sentence over and over again.
Don’t speak so fast, the election is in 3 weeks and so far the polls show some nice gains for the GOP.
not referring to the current election.
So DP… one way to look at your point is to say that liberal men will pimp out their integrity to win the game of politics… and maybe hope to be giving a seat at the table when women are finally feeling in charge.
Let me just say that this type of thing will not end well for you or anyone else.
my point is that you’re being insensitive in your comments – just as you criticized romney for his.
I probably am being insensitive to some, but then the legislation and its supporters are being more than insensitive to others… they are directly harming others.
And I think what feels like insensitivity to you is simply your inexperience being challenged on topics that are part of the sacred ideas of left ideology (religion?) surrounded with protection of PC code label weapons. For example, I oppose the legislation so I am anti-female. I provide the excuse for rapists and blame the victim. See how that works?
But if something is wrong, it is wrong. Nobody should get to prop up wrong on a one-sided sensitivity argument.
Who is speaking for boys on this? The same boys that fought and died for this country so others have the freedom to voice an option.
There is an ugly underbelly of the liberal political and media platform and narrative that is anti-boy, anti-male and anti-man. It is very troubling.
But any thinking female should dislike this legislation. They should dislike it because of the resulting social and gender relation impacts.
Part of me is happy about this sort of “progress” to a weird sexless liberal dystopia. It is so ironic though that it is perpetrated primarily from the generation of old, protesting, free-love, substance-abusing children of the greatest generation. Apparently women were stronger and more able to handle their consent during that period of time… because otherwise these do-gooders certainly would have demanded a similar enlightened step in securing women’s rights back in the 60s and 70s.
I am happy because I think the traditional business model for higher learning is broken and this will just be another reason for kids and their parents to start pursuing alternatives. Why the hell spend $30-50k per year only to place the kid in a hornets nest of life-destructing risk?
I am not running for office, so nothing I write is comparable to what Romney said. And I am also not denigrating anyone over this except for the state legislator the governor and all those that support the legislation without consideration of the harm it will cause innocent people falsely accused of wrong doing.
“Instead, it will destroy the lives of many young men just because they happened to connect with the wrong female.”
I actually do no think that this law is sound because I do not believe that it will serve the intended purpose. However, I think the core belief in this statement is that men should be exonerated for their sexual behavior in any circumstance except forcible rape. This is not the only time that this poster has implied that since men are so biologically driven, that it should be up to women to take sole responsibility for sexual responsibility. Note the phrase “happen to connect”. Sexual activity is not something that just happens like an accidental collision in the hallway by two people distracted who don’t see the other coming. Sexual activity is a deliberate acton. If the action is driven by the male, this is not something that is “happening ” to him, it is something that he is choosing to do. So to the men out there, I would ask the following question. What proportion of the time in your lives were you the more assertive partner in pursuing sexual activity vs the times when your female partner was the more assertive ?
There is a reason that men “joke” about not letting their daughters date until they are in their thirties. There is a reason that women ask me my opinion on how to keep their daughters safe, but rarely ask me the same question about their sons. There is a reason that the phrase “shot gun wedding” is used to describe a marriage forced by a girl’s father and no equivalent to force a woman to marry the man she “wronged”.
I am not claiming that women should not accept responsibility for their own actions. But, please let’s not forget that a man is at no risk whatsoever if he decides not to engage in sex. No one is making him take a girl to his room. No one makes him enter hers. Where is the comment that if he wants to avoid accusation, it is as simple as keeping his zipper up.
Frankly wrote:
> the Office for Civil Rights is pressuring schools to inflate their
> numbers of reported and adjudicated sexual assaults
Do you really think this happens and could happen in Davis?
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9254
http://daviswiki.org/Jennifer_Beeman_(CVPP)
SOD. Thanks. I forgot about this for a minute. Apparently so did those that believe the fanciful statistics published.
So basically:
You don’t believe the statistics.
You think it’s all part of a feminist agenda.
You’re more concerned about the impact on young men of false accusations, than on young women who might be helped by any tougher legislation.
Others here basically seem to think this is all about ‘date rape’ and that ‘date rape’ isn’t really rape.
I have a son and a daughter.
I pity your lack of concern for women who are taken advantage of by men. I am always appalled by people who excuse bad behavior on the basis of ‘biology’ or ‘hormones’.
Judging from some of the other information he quoted in a previous thread related to the same topic, it looks like he’s borrowing arguments and rhetoric from typical MRA (Men’s Rights Activists) sites, which do focus all the blame back on “women” and either advocate MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) (or, as Frankly says, e.g., “enjoy drinks with your friends…women are wondering why they can’t find good men”), or PUA tactics (Pick-Up Artist), which advocate having sex with as many women as possible, but not forming connections (because women are evil raving feminists).
Again, it comes down to consent (No means No), and to stop perpetuating the idea that if a woman says “yes” (whether by words or actions) she’s a slutty slut who sluts around (this would, IMHO, drastically cut down any of the miniscule number of charges that are filed b/c a woman had regrets the next day–a situation others have already pointed out is already rare as to be “de minimis”).
You don’t believe the statistics.
Correct, I don’t believe the statistics. Read what I posted. Not only are they so extreme to bypass any level of common sense, they are poorly sourced and there is perfect evidence that they are biased and manipulated.
You think it’s all part of a feminist agenda.
Yes I do. And a hard left agenda which is one and the same.
You’re more concerned about the impact on young men of false accusations, than on young women who might be helped by any tougher legislation.
Sure, just like you and others are more concerned about the symbolism of an MRAP rather than its potential to prevent people from being unnecessarily harmed.
When is legislation that will clearly and irreparably harm innocent people justifiable? From your liberal playbook it is okay to throw some unfortunate male away just so you can raise your hand to claim you are a friend of the extreme women’s rights movement? Disgusting hypocrisy to say the least.
Others here basically seem to think this is all about ‘date rape’ and that ‘date rape’ isn’t really rape.
What the hell is wrong with NO MEANS NO!? Anyone says NO and has someone force themselves upon them has the right to claim rape or sexual assault. Anyone who drinks and regrets it the next day should have learned a lesson to never do the same again. But to charge forward to punish the male out of regret… the female goes on with her life, and the male is harmed for life.
You are really okay with this? Fascinating. Politics trumps common sense again!
Congratulations. You just excused the behavior of the person who had sex with an unconscious partygoer. As you would say,
I pity your lack of concern for women who are taken advantage of by men.
You are crossing a line here Mr. Shor.
I have complete and full concern for women. But I also have complete and full concern for men. Don’t you?
It seems that you are willing to accept the significant greater risk that many men would be unfairly harmed from this legislation, just because you think women are NOT capable of saying NO, and/or controlling their consumption of alcohol to a point where they would say YES and not mean it.
The related point here is that it paints women as weak and in need of extra help. I tend to look at them as equals… and perfectly strong enough to say no and to control when they drink to a point before they cannot even tell what they want or don’t want.
I am not crossing any line that you didn’t cross a long time ago in this discussion, Mr. Anonymous.
You have not once evinced the slightest concern for women in these situations. You have informed us that they
You are, indeed, blaming the victim. You repeatedly express your concern for the young men. You have not expressed anything approaching “complete and full concern for women.”
Yep. Men and women need to learn that you don’t force sex on an unwilling or unconscious person.
Although the more common instance is male/female, I have on the other thread on this topic noted the same-sex situation as well. It’s not an issue of being weak, it’s an issue (usually) of being intoxicated. People who are under the influence cannot make rational decisions, whether they are male or female.
Yes, once they’ve learned about alcohol, and other drugs, and mixing them. At the age of 19. There is a significant need for more education and awareness for young adults with respect to the effects of binge drinking. No question about it. But we need to stop making excuses for people who have sex with people who are too drunk or stoned to give consent.
Frankly and Don, there is a simple way to solve this problem … a solution that should work for both of you. Specifically, turn the realities of both the question and the answer around. Instead of forcing the women to affirmatively say “NO,” make it mandatory that the woman has to affirmatively say “YES.” That kind of default voting works in Proposition 218, where only land owners (the woman in the case of sex and its ever present risk of pregnancy) get to vote … and the absence of an actually cast ballot produces a “default” value, with “NO” being the default value in this case.
Think about the opportunities. Mobile phone software companies could produce a App that records any and all affirmative “YES” answers.
Both college and high school male students would see their Grade Point Averages climb as they spend more time studying rather than chasing around looking for situations where fear on the part of the woman causes her not to say “NO.”
“That kind of default voting works in Proposition 218”
In what sense does Prop. 218 “work”? It is a demented sick cruel hoax on democracy.
“It seems that you are willing to accept the significant greater risk that many men would be unfairly harmed from this legislation,”
Zero men who choose not to have sex will be harmed by this legislation. Men have a very easy way to protect themselves. No casual sex. Would any of you have a problem with this solution. After all women have been told for years to “just say no”. Why is this an inappropriate solution for men ?
Well said Tia. Very well said indeed.
Tia Will
“Men have a very easy way to protect themselves. No casual sex. Would any of you have a problem with this solution.”
So Tia, would you have a problem of single women not using birth control? After all, they wouldn’t have unwanted babies if they just said no, a very easy way to protect themselves.
“In other words: equating it.”
Being like does not mean equal in severity. How far do you wish to draw this out?
How far do you want to take the nonsense, Alan? If you post a metaphor, you are drawing an equivalency. It is part of a pattern on this topic of minimizing the facts, of trivializing the situation (“morning regret” comes to mind).
I would like to hear what Frankly, South of Davis, Barack Palin, and Alan Miller think should be done to help young adults who are victims of sexual assault get better outcomes when they report them. I would like to hear what Frankly, South of Davis, Barack Palin, and Alan Miller think might lead to a higher prosecution rate.
I hear excuses, absurd rationalizations, a strange nihilism of suggesting that laws don’t change behavior, and petty “metaphors.” So how about addressing the issue instead of debating language usage? If I need style guidelines, I have Strunk & White.
Back atcha.
There are limits to what more laws can do.
Don Shor: And so the sex should not have occurred. For it to have occurred in an instance when they were so drunk that they had no memory of the assault, the other participant in the sexual encounter IS responsible. That’s what this is all about.
So a female drunk driver runs a stop light and is broadsided by another car and is non-critically injured and she gets to file a claim of harm from the driver of the car that hit her because he is a male.
I get it.
Who is responsible for sex when one person is unconscious, Frankly?
See below. If someone is unconscious they cannot talk… they cannot say no or yes.
Why is it that you would hold anyone and everyone responsible for consuming alcohol to a point that they harmed someone including themselves, but not females?
But note that you just ignored the comparison above. Hard to deal with this pesky inconvenient comparisons that prove the absurdity of what you are promoting.
How about this… with this legislation, a female drinking herself to become unconscious around a male that has also been drinking… is hazardous to the male for being harmed. If the females are to be excused for drinking to a point that they cannot be trusted to control their yes and no, then why isn’t the male given the same consideration?
To my knowledge, an unconscious male cannot perpetrate a sex act.
Anyone unconscious cannot perpetrate a sexual act, but that does not mean they cannot function sexually.
So only males perpetrate sexual acts?
Frankly, you just updated the logic that said it was the girls fault she was raped because
-she was out at night
-she wore provocative clothing
-she went to a bar, party, etc
-she was flirting
since she passed out, it’s ok to fuck her. How about unconscious women in the hospital? Comatose women?
Nobody is saying it’s okay to have sex (not f*&% as you so vulgarly stated)) with someone who has passed out. Where have you read that? That is and always will be considered rape.
The one who is conscious. Duh.
Frankly, that is a false equivalency. Males and females are equally able get in a car accident. Males and females are not equally able to get pregnant.
First, I don’t know what pregnancy has to do with any of this. I’m more than confused with your comment.
Mine was simply a comment about the responsibility for a person’s actions from drinking. We are basically saying with this legislation that the female gets a pass for her behavior after drinking, and the male has not only the additional responsibility for his own actions, but he also will carry the responsibility to “protect” the female from making a decision she would regret after she sobers up.
The car analogy is the woman driving after drinking and making a bad decision that risks her safety and the safety of the boy that has the encounter with her. She claims she is harmed and she has all the power to file claims against him even though her drunken decision making contributed to all the harm. That would be absurd if a car encounter.
This all seems so sexist to me.
It is reflective of a troubling biased narrative of:
Boy = bad, predator
Girl = good, victim
I have noted that the young women around my sons’ age are bursting with self confidence and sexual aggression. A comment from one of these girls hearing about this legislation was “oh man, I can so mess up a guy with this.”
She was speaking rhetorically I think, but the point is that many young women these days are as sexually aggressive as the young men they pursue.
The problem here is that we are going overboard in making new laws to try and control human sexuality instead of dealing directly with the problem of sex crimes. The unintended consequences will end up doing little to improve the problems with sex crimes, and we will cause more human damage.
In my day there were some (small minority, but they were there) sexually active women who trolled for engineers and other stable economic majors, seeking their MRS degrees, and didn’t care about protection/contraceptives.
Some of us met our “first/last/forever ones” in college, and there are those who still will, despite this.
Me: Anyone who drinks and regrets it the next day should have learned a lesson to never do the same again.
Don: Congratulations. You just excused the behavior of the person who had sex with an unconscious partygoer.
Did she and he say yes or no?
Because if either were unconscious, there is no way that the unconscious could say yes or no.
The NO MEANS NO rule works perfectly here.
Come on Don, think this through a bit more and get out of your partisan political mode.
“Because if either were unconscious, there is no way that the unconscious could say yes or no.”
that’s the point. men no longer get to take advantage of unconscious women and claim she didn’t say no.
Arg! Are you really this dense, or just playing a rhetorical game?
If the girl is unconscious and the boy takes advantage of her, then she can claim sexual assault or rape ALREADY! Without this crap legislation.
your attitude speaks to why there is a 95% rate of unreported sexual assaults. i’m glad you don’t don’t have a daughter.
No there is not a 95% rate of unreported sexual assaults. That is a fabricated number lacking evidence and proof.
And no matter what percent, the harm caused by this crap legislation is not justifiable unless you are a hater of males.
I share your frustration Frank Lee. I don’t even understand the wiring of the brains of some posting here. We favor rape because we think this legislation is vacuous. So it has been written, and so shall it be.
actually frankly, i think the number of unreported rapes is probably higher than that. how many rape cases have you prosecuted and how many have you defended?
Ah, the old “you aren’t in this profession so your opinion ain’t squat” argument. One of the classics.
An unconscious person can’t say no. So does the absence of No mean Yes, Frankly? Because that’s a common situation. So you just excused sex with an unconscious person. Again.
What partisan political mode is that?
You are really not getting this at all.
Are you a man-hater Don?
THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 261 ALREADY CLASSIFIES SEX WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON OR EVEN A SLEEPING PERSON WITHOUT THAT PERSON’S CONSENT AS RAPE!!!!!
So, why then do we need this crap legislation?
We don’t. It is only another stupid liberal feel good move to help them feel more loved by the extreme feminist movement.
It will harm many undeserving males.
But apparently you are fine with that.
And we’re officially done with this conversation.
So all you people in support of this crap legislation… Please answer these question.
Do you expect this to increase the number of claims against men as a result of women saying yes, but they having regrets afterwards?
If you don’t, then please explain why.
If you do, then please explain why you are okay with this.
I have no idea. I would have no problem with increasing and enforcing penalties for false rape accusations.
Do you expect this to increase the number of women who come forward to report rape?
Do you expect this to increase the number of prosecutions of rapes against women who were unwilling or who were unable to give assent?
You have no idea, but you are fine with it not knowing it.
Bravo Don. Sleep well tonight my friend. The young male population will be sure to thank you for your consideration of their well-being.
“Do you expect this to increase the number of claims against men as a result of women saying yes, but they having regrets afterwards?”
no. i have dealt with hundreds of sexual assault cases over the years, regret really doesn’t factor in. most falsely reported cases involve extortion, not regret. few women come forward to report sexual assault because it is a dehumanizing and humiliating process that brings forth the feelings so it is like they are being raped over and over again. you just talk out of your ass as though you have experience and knowledge on subjects like these and you don’t.
So this is all you have any experience with. In your professional life you were never working on the side of boys falsely accused… something that happens a lot. You seem kinda’ like Mike Nifong to me.
DP wrote:
> regret really doesn’t factor in.
Only a real sick evil person (as sick and evil as an actual rapist) is going to lie to try and send a guy to jail so they will not be telling a lot of people “I regret having sex with this guy so I want to send him to jail”…
Two items…
Can someone post the bill # for this legislation? Cannot find it. As I recall, it does not require DA’s or courts to do anything different from the past. Nor does it require private colleges or universities to change anything. Nor does it do anything related to college-age men/women if they do not attend a CA public college or university. Nor does it address high school sexual encounters. Not clear if it would apply to homosexual males or females.
Watch out for accusing people for “analogies”… in David’s piece, it certainly appears that he equates: “a sexual activity” = “sex” = sexual assault” = “rape”. Thus, no difference from, during a session of heavy kissing (presumably mutually agreed to), reaching up the back of a shirt to attempt to undo a bra strap (which had not been specifically agreed to), and RAPE (or “attempted rape”). Are you serious?
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
Thank you.
I have been following this since I spotted the article this afternoon and kept up throughout the evening. I have a close relative who was raped by a casual acquaintance, at UCD. She was prompt in reporting the rape, had a substantiating witness and physical evidence of both the assault and her resistance. She was not drunk. He claimed to be. She was unable to endure the ordeal of interrogation by authorities and accusations and threats against her, by both police and the attacker’s friends, and left the university and academic life altogether. I state this, so that there is no mistake of objectivity. I am not objective, at all. I have heard all the “boys will be boys” and “she was asking for it” crap for 62 years and cannot site a single case where that was the truth. When I read the kind of misogynistic tripe, I have an unwholesome desire for the authors to experience a little of the terror and violation that these girls have.
;>)/
I grieve for your relative.
Except as it relates to the university personnel response, your relative’s experience would be the same, even with this law. I have to assume that the incident you cite goes far beyond touching a breast or grazing the pubic area with fingers. This law would appear to turn these into “sexual assault” or”rape” for the purposes of CA public college/university disciplinary purpose, but for no other purposes.
Bidden wrote:
> I have a close relative who was raped by a casual acquaintance, at UCD.
I’m sad to hear that the “casual acquaintance” is not locked up for the rest of his life with Daniel Marsh right now (or at least getting treated for his “illness” in a secure hospital like Tia would like).
> She was unable to endure the ordeal of interrogation by authorities and
>accusations and threats against her, by both police and the attacker’s friends,
>and left the university and academic life altogether.
This sucks, but just like many (including David) were upset at how Daniel Marsh was treated our justice system needs to be a little confrontational. We can’t just send a kid to jail for life if a single cop says he killed some people or send a UCD student to jail for life if a single co-ed says she was raped. Criminal court is ugly and is full of lies, but we don’t have any better way to find out who is guilty.
I’m all for locking up rapists and killers for life (and making room for them by letting all the guys in for drugs out and all the non-violent offenders out to do community service). I just hate these new laws that do nothing to stop rape (that is already against the law), sex with passed out people (that is already against the law) or breaking in to your neighbor’s house to kill them (that is already against the law) or shooting your classmates at school (that is already against the law)…
The logical end of the above cited laws is . . . a politician proposes a “no more bad things happen to people” law . . . and he is re-elected by a landslide.
> The logical end of the above cited laws is . . . a politician proposes a “no more
> bad things happen to people” law . . . and he is re-elected by a landslide.
The law will require white male college students to say “Yes I am a good person” every day (to the newly created Dean or No More Bad things who makes $187K a year/TCOE 234K). If a white male forgets to say Yes to the dean even once the “no yes means no” language of the bill will require that he is kicked out of school. Women and people of color will call this a “small price to pay for “no more bad things happening to people”…
My point was entirely about the misogyny of the usual suspects. Frankly, I don’t bother with any of the red tape and bureaucracy if anyone threatens or harms one of my household. I call it restorative justice.
;>)/
I agree, the administrators control the environment, and law enforcement is paid off well in advance. When I was in the military some of this stuff happened just the same, and the control was in the hands of the Officers in charge. It either never got reported, or washed under the carpet, with a trail of broken people. I left because of this, you are either in or out of that clique. And the next victim is never warned.
As noted, I think there may be less here than has been assumed. Just reading the law, I think the disciplinary code below could still pass muster.
In short, the “she kissed me back” defense could still work to create a “he said/she said” situation where the complainant loses. Moreover, the accused *can’t* claim that his/her consent didn’t count because s/he was too drunk to make a decision — only that s/he was so drunk s/he couldn’t tell s/he was having sex (see 4(B) of the statute).
**
1. The complainant must prove absence of affirmative consent by a preponderance of the evidence.
2. Affirmative consent need not be expressed in words; it may, for example, be expressed by conduct. Although the complainant must be allowed to present evidence that affirmative consent was withheld despite a dating relationship or prior sexual contact, if no such evidence is presented then affirmative consent can be inferred from the existence of such a relationship or such contact. In any case, a dating relationship or prior sexual contact may be considered along with other evidence in evaluating whether affirmative consent was given, whether the accused honestly believed affirmative consent was given, and/or whether the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain affirmative consent.
3. Except as provided in 4 and 5, even if the complainant proves absence of affirmative consent, the accused is excused if s/he honestly and nonrecklessly believed under the circumstances that the complainant gave affirmative consent. By way of example, unless the circumstances in 4 or 5 apply, the accused is excused if s/he honestly believed that complainant gave affirmative consent, even if the complainant was unable to make a reasonable decision about whether to engage in sexual activity because of his/her intoxication.
4. The accused’s belief that affirmative consent was given is not an excuse under (3) if it (a) arose from the accused’s own intoxication, or (b) the accused did not take reasonable steps under the circumstances known to the accused to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.
5. The accused’s belief that affimative consent was given is not an excuse under (3) if the accused knew or should have known (a) the complainant was unconscious, (b) the complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of sexual activity, or (c) the complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.
Nice, rational comment/information… thank you… too many commentters were displaying too much emotive comments, in my humble opinion.
Read the law again… does apply to private colleges/universities if they receive money through the State via financial aid to their students. My bad (memory).
It also appears, (Section (c)) that the institution shall provide resources, including legal, for both the “victim” and the “accused”. Attorneys must have written this.
Barack Palin
“So Tia, would you have a problem of single women not using birth control? After all, they wouldn’t have unwanted babies if they just said no, a very easy way to protect themselves”
I counsel everyone of my patient’s that the only 100% way to prevent pregnancy is to abstain from sexual activity. If they are not going to choose that option, they are opening themselves to the risks inherent in sexual activity.
So now, what exactly was your point ?
Wow, what an off the wall discussion. My opinion? This law will not make a dent in the number of rapes or in any way assist the victims of rape. As Biddlin pointed out, the legal system itself is a horrible experience for a rape victim to go through, so legislators can put all sorts of new laws in place, and it will not help the victims of rape one iota. Rape victims are raped a second time when taking their case to court. They are not going to come forward with any more frequency because of this new law.
What needs to happen? Think about it. We allow co-ed dorms, opposite sexes visiting each others’ bedrooms, no curfews, out-of-control drinking, encourage both males and females to be out at all hours of the night without escorts. In other words simple precautions are not being taken to protect our youth because we send the message to our teens and young adults that “you are free to do anything you want” without the caveat “but if you do, be prepared to take the consequences of engaging in unsafe behavior”.
And frankly, colleges themselves promote the unsafe behavior by giving students complete freedom and almost set them up to be victimized having co-ed dorms with free access at all hours of the night, or no dorms that force students into questionable living arrangements. Add to that the garbage in the media that vigorously promotes sex at every turn and you have a recipe for disaster.
Call me a prude if you like – I’ll gladly where the label with pride. I lived in a co-ed dorm many, many years ago and what went on there was absolutely horrific – in both the male and female floors. Both men and women were victimized in one way or another. So much of it has to do with a lack of societal boundaries, a failure to practice common sense safety precautions, and not instilling a sense of “responsibility” in everyone to treat others as you yourself would want to be treated. Put simply, “With freedom comes responsibility”.
Let me cite concrete examples of what I am talking about, right here in town, that should give everyone pause. Not so many years ago, UCD girls in the marching band complained because their bras were being pulled off while on the bus traveling on away trips. I was appalled at the number of alumni who faulted the girls for complaining. Not one thing was done to stop this disgusting practice that I know of. My eldest daughter was to attend UCD that fall, and was considering joining the marching band. I vigorously discouraged her from having anything to do with this group. Later, she and another girl got jobs washing out research fish tanks at UCD, and were “hit on” by the married man that ran the lab. I encouraged both girls to quit and find work elsewhere on campus. My daughter begged me to say nothing about the married researcher who had made advances to her and her friend. Looking back on it, I should have ignored the pleas of my daughter and made the complaint, even if she wouldn’t.
Taking bras off of unwilling students should never be acceptable behavior in any society, and neither should married men hitting on young girls be acceptable. PERIOD. Students should not drink to excess, or be out late at night alone. Co-ed dorms are inappropriate. Sex outside marriage has inherent risks, and should be discouraged, the trashy media notwithstanding. These are the clear messages we should be giving our young students. Will it prevent all rapes? NO. Will it cut down on the number of rapes? PROBABLY. IMO it is the only thing that will.
I lived in a co-ed dorm, Primero right there on Russell Blvd., and it was very, very tame and surprisingly civilized. We had men and women in alternate rooms on the same floor. By comparison, what went on in the single-sex floors was appalling and very juvenile.
The drunken sexual behavior was largely at the fraternity parties. In fact, there were a couple of notorious incidents in frat houses that gave a lasting reputation to certain of them.
Don Shor: The drunken sexual behavior was largely at the fraternity parties. In fact, there were a couple of notorious incidents in frat houses that gave a lasting reputation to certain of them.
The Dark Power of Fraternities
wdf1 wrote:
> Lawsuits against fraternities are becoming a growing matter of public interest,
Just like many Muslims are criminals that belong in jail many fraternity guys (of all religions) are criminals that belong in jail.
The difference is that when a criminal Muslim kills someone the left wingers at most colleges bring flowers to the Mosque and talk about “tolerance” and “avoiding a backlash” but when a criminal fraternity member rapes someone the left wingers march to the fraternity house and sue to kick it of campus (and ban all fraternities)…
Don wrote:
> I lived in a co-ed dorm, Primero right there on Russell Blvd., and it was very,
> very tame and surprisingly civilized. We had men and women in alternate rooms
>on the same floor. By comparison, what went on in the single-sex floors was appalling
>and very juvenile. The drunken sexual behavior was largely at the fraternity parties.
I’m sure that there was plenty of “drunken sexual behavior at the fraternity parties” in Don’s day (as I’ve heard from my brother in law), but most sex is outside the fraternity house (only a small number of women get excited by the smell of beer and BO in a place with a sticky floor). My sister lived in the co-ed Segundo (that I was told had a bigger “party” rep than Primero) and mid week the kids that like her were great students were tame, but every weekend the kids would drink like fish and the place turned in to a big “pukefest” as the kids who (mostly) did not do a lot of drinking in college would mix beer, wine, shots and “California Coolers” (remember those) until they were sloppy drunk (and place had puke all over)…
Lasting reputation that ended certain of them. More than once.
So basically you are talking about a return to strong traditional American family values.
Isn’t it ironic that many of the same people rejecting the promotion of strong traditional American family values because of their belief/fear that it is too exclusive and too intolerant and might leave someone out, also are the most demanding that we stamp out all the harm resulting from bad behavior that would otherwise be reduced by the promotions of strong traditional American family values.
They raise their kids to believe they are entitled to any and all expressions of self, and then cringe aghast when the kids actually can’t control or restrain themselves.
It is even more ironic to note that the same people demanding more rules to control all the messing around are baby boomers that launched the demand that they all be allowed to mess around.
We have met the enemy and it is people plagued with a fear of real and perceived inequality gaining positions of power. They appear to be unable to see the negative consequences of their emotional pursuits, and hence leave a trail of harm that is their own doing, and demand fixes that heap on more harm.
Anon
When you say “we should”, who are you including in the “we” ?
Educating girls and women about the risks inherent in sexual activity both outside and yes, inside marriage too, has been an integral part of my career for the past 30 years. I have also been a major advocate, and thorn in the side of my Internal Medicine colleagues to stress the same education for they male patients. There are some bright spots in which mothers have begun taking educating their children seriously as opposed to the previous generations who were either so intimidated or so embarrassed about sex that they would not even discuss the subject with their daughters, let along their sons. However, there are some hold outs who believe that the less that their children know about sex, they will somehow be magically be protected from its risks.
No political leader would dare take on the very serious business of educating out young people about sex, its pleasures and its risks and responsibilities. Getting a realistic portrayal of sexual reality in the schools has been a virtual impossibility until recently when I have heard from some that the quality of the instruction seems to have improved a bit from when my children were in school. No political wife of other high profile female such as a business leader would dare take it on despite its importance to our social, physical and financial well being. We as a society are “prudes”. But not in the sensible way that you are portraying. We would much rather just not discuss the issue and sweep it under the carpet than recognize it for the real social issue that it is with sexual recklessness on both the part of men and women ruining countless lives.
So since our leading social organizations, our churches, our schools, our political leaders, and most parents will not address this issue openly and honestly …… who are the “we” that you are referring to ?
Define “it”. Even if you could define “it”, you can’t control “it”.
Editor: My previous comment was better. Don’t you note when you omit a comment, so we know it wasn’t eaten by the computer? That’s how most forums work.
My experience was that co-ed living was better than single-sex living in terms of how people behaved. By your logic, frat houses would be better places for students than co-ed dorms. I don’t agree.
tribeUSA
“we are increasingly ceding our definitions of acceptable social behavior and autonomy of judgement in social transactions to legal proclamations and lawyers”
I think there is some truth to this. I also think that as a society we remain far too accepting of a might makes right, and “boys will be boys” mentality. As I have stated, I do not favor this particular law. But I also believe that it is wrong to hold a double standard that allows boys to get away with unacceptable behavior because “they are driven by sex” or “hormones”. Laws would never be necessary if all human behavior was exemplary.
So if what we want is less laws, what we need to do is to behave better ourselves and teach our children to behave better. We need to teach both our young men and our young women to take responsibility for protecting themselves, whether that is contraception, protection from sexually transmitted infections, or protection from false accusations of unwanted sexual activity. We need to teach our young men and our young women that their brains should at all times control their genitals, not the other way around. Alcohol is not an excuse for bad behavior. We need to stop catering to the idea that we are not really responsible for what happens when we are drunk regardless of our gender. And we need to stop dead in its tracks the idea that women are solely responsible for continuing to say “no” repeatedly even when the man persists, and persists, and persists. One “no” should do it guys. If it did, no one would ever be writing any “stupid” laws for anyone to construct any “War Against Men” myths around.
What about the women out of control driven by sex hormones. Do you think boys invented drunken twerking?
About 50% of the people posting on this topic are sexist beyond belief.
Male hating, including some obvious gender self-loathing, is clearly on display and it is disgusting to say the least.
We need to teach our young men and our young women that their brains should at all times control their genitals, not the other way around.
Like we did in the 60s and 70s?
Alcohol is not an excuse for bad behavior.
I agree… including the behavior of the drunk female.
But why is it that liberals can reflect fondly on those old pot and acid-dropping parties where the sex (called “love” for the PR) was plentiful and “free”, but then today paint a complete negative male-hating picture of rape and sexual assault.
I think that it is all part of their political agenda to demonize certain classes and groups that represent strength and stand in their way of world dominance toward their view of a liberal utopia. From my perspective is qualifies as being labeled as the American version of ISIS fighting with the pen, politics and courts instead of the knife and gun. Maybe that is why American liberals tend to be more sympathetic toward Islamic extremism.
All I know is that more people better stand up to both or we are doomed to a downward spiral toward a profoundly less enjoyable and less free life.
Frankly
Do you even think before you post ? Did I say a single word in this post that did not apply to both men and women ?What the heck does the statement that we should teach sexual responsibility have to do with whether or not that was done in the 60″s or 70″s ? Who exactly are these liberals who are so fondly reminiscent of those days ? I am not hearing from any of them here. Where is any of these posts has anyone said anything about “male hating ” except you? As for rape and assault, why don’t you use any source that you would like including any far right wing source and see who commit the highest number of rapes and assaults. Do you suppose it is men or women ? You say that you want to deal with facts and not emotion, and then when anyone points out a single aspect of reality ( namely that our society has a double standard for sexual behavior, even though you have said as much on other threads ) it must be because they hate men. And then you talk about others whining that they are being victimized, while you whine about the “War on Men ” !
our society has a double standard for sexual behavior
Yes it does… apparently based on this legislation. The double standard of “I flirted with him all night, kissed him and gave him every indication that I was going to have sex with him, I got real drunk and did have sex with him, but the next day I felt terrible about it, so I used the new power given to me to make myself feel better by punishing him for not helping me decide what I could not decide for myself.”
Or “I was attracted to him and wanted him for myself, so one night after we both got drunk, I had sex with him. But later he told me he does not want to see me again. I am so angry at him I will make sure he pays for it by using this legislation to make him pay.”
First, rape is rape. There are enough laws on the books and it is already clear. Rapists are criminals and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I am fine with increasing punishment for convicted rapists. I think that castration would be fine in many cases.
But this isn’t a debate about rape. This is a debate about crap legislation that treats men and women differently, and serves to unfairly harm more men while doing nothing to help women except to give them tools to seek retribution for their own mistakes.
The point here with this legislation is that a girl can get drunk and not be held accountable for her decisions… including her decision to have sex with a boy. But a boy that is equally drunk will be held accountable, not only for his decisions, but for the girl’s drunken mistakes also.
There is your double standard and for those that support it a clear indication that they don’t think females are as capable as men of controlling themselves and making good decisions. And so they need greater protection and that responsibility is placed on the boys.
If that is the case then just admit that men and women are not equal. Men are expected to be more responsible.
Tia–yes, I agree with most of your post. I would say that if the first “No” is ineffective (as men are known to employ selective hearing in such circumstances), a good resounding slap-in-the-face should follow. I think traditionally the slap-in-the-face has been accepted as an unambiguous signal to back off; and anyone who did not regard this signal was considered a low-life (by both men and women); if not a rapist. If the slap-in-the-face doesn’t stop the lout, scream, break out the pepper spray, kick him in the groin; all of these defenses are acceptable. I think there are very few college men who are so brutal and degenerate that these defenses would not be effective.
And with regards to the education; perhaps more fathers need to teach their sons honor; including that women are to be venerated, respected, and protected; and not exploited as objects of sexual gratification.
“Do you think boys invented drunken twerking?”
YES! I think Michael Jackson started it by grabbing his crotch while singing on stage.
Twerking originates from African dance.
Drunken twerking is thing that US females do.
Drunken twerking watching is a thing that US boys do, and that is the reasons that the US girls do it.
Where did Lap Dances originate? 🙂
Lapland I think. 😉
Making a law like this is a boon for the lawyers that will have fun litigating it. There are laws against sexual assault, but then there is this one. Making “lists” like this then tell people what is a violation or not. Just like you cannot legislate Morality, one like this is going to be argued to death. IF the administrators of Universities and Colleges had any policy on it, their overriding greed will corrupt it like it has in the past. SEE Penn State, or any other place with TV money pouring in. Grants and Endowments place a close second.
I am enjoying reading the debate about a small segment of society, who seem to be pushing back adolescence at least a decade. Most of these games were over at the end of High School, but some predators who make it through should just be sent to the Legal System, just like the also inevitable September occurrences of flashers from the new crop of Freshman that show up each year. Others are the perpetual “Frat Boys” and Sorority Sistahs” that permeate society, and sometimes breed.
This conversation keeps taking me back to a time when I ran into a guy in Davis that I “partied” with in college, about 2-3 years after he graduated. He was in town for late September in Davis, as apparently he did every year. He was in town to “party” with freshman women from the fresh crop new to Davis, who seemed flattered at the attention of an older man their first few days living away from mom and dad. Uh huh.
He seemed quite proud of himself at this tactic, and he looked slightly more demented then he did in college . . . . . I wonder how many years he was able to pull that off.
“But this isn’t a debate about rape”
Well, here is one basis of our disagreement. I think that this debate is absolutely about rape. It is about rape in all of its forms whether it is by violent physical empowerment, by ignoring the word “no” or by taking advantage of an individual who is incapable of acting in their own self interest ( for what ever reason). I have already stated several times that I do not favor this law. And you continue to quote my posts and then claim that it is only about this law. No, the law is the pretext for the conversation. If rape did not occur, there would be no need for any laws against it. You also have not responded to my question about who commits more instances of rape, men or women. It is you who is choosing to ignore the issue of rape which I suppose you pretty much have to since we are in agreement about the probable lack of utility of this law. If there is not an issue, then how can you rail on about liberals and their nefarious intent to victimize poor males.
The topic is the legislation. If you don’t support it then why are we having any argument?
There is not any type of rape that I support or forgive. There is no way I hold any victim of rape responsible.
But I absolutely hate new rules and laws that don’t help improve anything and cause other problems. It is embarrassing when politicians, the media and some voters chase all this damn symbolic crap so we can all feel good about ourselves. So ignorant people breath a big sigh of relief and there is less energy and resources going toward REAL help and REAL solutions. Meanwhile we develop new problems from the crap legislation.
In the past I had asked for examples of other countries, states or cities that my left leaning friends would say we should model. The only places mentioned tend to be Northern European communities. I have been reading more about these places and I have noted one major difference. Northern European people tend to be very practical. They debate similar social challenges, but they tend to put more rational thought and action into their solution designs. I think this explains a lot about how and when they tend to have better functioning societies. They implement solutions. We implement crap that feels good.
It does not matter which political party pushes new crap legislation. We should all reject it and lambast the party responsible unless the legislation absolutely solves the problems. This legislation does not.
SB967:
Establishes an affirmative consent policy.
Requires campuses to provide resources for the victim.
Requires campuses to develop specific policies and practices for investigating the incident.
Protects the victim from disciplinary sanctions, with exceptions.
Requires campuses to provide prevention and outreach programs.
Provides for the costs of these mandates to be reimbursed by the state.
Several of these provisions clearly help improve conditions for the victims.
All of these provisions make it more likely that a victim will get assistance and appropriate followup to a complaint. This might increase reporting of rapes, increase the percentage of reported rapes that are prosecuted, and could increase the rate of successful prosecution. Ambiguity as to what constitutes unwanted sexual activity is reduced.
The law is gender neutral, and can apply to any combination of sexes of victim and accused.
Don wrote:
> Requires campuses to develop specific policies and practices for investigating the incident.
Just like I would be opposed to having (mostly) conservative apartment management taking over for the police to “investigate” CRIMINAL incidents I am also opposed to having (mostly) liberal dorm management taking over for the police to “investigate” CRIMINAL incidents.
I’m no big defender of cops, but I think they will do a much better job investigating a rape than a 19 year old RA majoring in environmental science.
P.S. If we want “campuses” to take the lead in investigating rape do we want them to take the lead on other things such as bike theft and tax fraud?
“I’m no big defender of cops, but I think they will do a much better job investigating a rape than a 19 year old RA majoring in environmental science.”
Don’t make absurd comments.
Another reason not to have a “college” (that cares more about it’s reputation than the victim) investigate rapes:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/katiejmbaker/rape-victims-dont-trust-the-fixers-colleges-hire-to-help-the#4ehhp3
To Don Shor: If you think new policies, etc. are going to increase the reporting of rapes, IMO you are extremely naive. Let’s see who is right – only time will tell. My prediction is this new law will not change a thing, bc of the nature of the crime.
Always good to know, and right in keeping with the general tone of this whole discussion.
“My prediction is this new law will not change a thing, bc of the nature of the crime.”
this point that was made by anon needs to be examined.
the nature of the crime is a factor. but you’re forgetting the other factor, i talk to women a lot who have been victimized, most of the time, i am counseling them to file charges, the chief reason they don’t want to file charges is not the nature of the crime but the perceived unlikelihood of the perpetrator getting convicted. so changing the burden could make a tremendous difference. i showed my colleague who prosecutes sex crimes this thread and she was astonished by some of the comments.