Then my real concern here isn't the legal proceedings, but going back towards changing attitudes. I think a yes means yes public education campaign is still one of the better ways to go, based on what I've discussed already.
It's best, for the happiness and safety of all involved, to get explicit verbal consent before having sex. I think you will find very few people who oppose teaching students that this is a "best practice" so to speak. Sort of like how we teach students that they should always use a condom, and most campus health centers give out condoms for free.
But we don't expel people for failing to use a condom. That's a key difference between education and policy.
As Bitterroot points out, there's a distinction that needs to be drawn between teaching best practices and mandating best practices. Nobody is going to fault you for wanting to teach that it's best to get affirmative consent, and that without actual consent from your partner you are doing something wrong.
Where we get up in arms is when we start mandating that everyone receives affirmative consent, and if they do not (or if they have had any amount to drink) then they are guilty of a violation.
The school is writing the policy. The law is setting boundaries on what that policy may be.
This is a bull***** dodge and you know it. The boundaries the law is setting clearly state a definition of sexual assault. A compliant school is "writing the policy" to about the same extent that you are "writing me a check" when I have a gun to your head.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
This is a bull***** dodge and you know it. The boundaries the law is setting clearly state a definition of sexual assault. A compliant school is "writing the policy" to about the same extent that you are "writing me a check" when I have a gun to your head.
I don't agree with that analysis, but I don't think it matters either way. For the sake of argument, suppose I grant that the state is writing the policy. So what? It's still not a criminal policy, it's a school conduct policy. It still doesn't make any sense to evaluate compliance with a school conduct policy based on the outcome of a criminal trial when the conduct policy differs significantly from criminal law.
It's best, for the happiness and safety of all involved, to get explicit verbal consent before having sex.
Bleh, this can be applied to virtually everything, not just sex.
So I'm not entirely sure just how useful it really is to say "yes means yes". The entire problem, as I see it, is that getting said explicit consent, and in a manner that makes it provable in court, is difficult.
Two things of note: 1) This is coming form Harvard, which is not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, and 2) This is coming from the law professors specifically.
It seems somewhat telling that one of the biggest concerns they have with Harvard's new policy is the procedural safeguards for the accused. The Harvard policy may or may not be exemplary, and may or may not be representative of what California schools will adopt, but its relevant, and it will be interesting to see the results of the pushback.
Can we also admit that the current conviction rate is ridiculous (in the sense of how hard it is to actually get justice)? I'm not advocating a criminal change in the law, but we really need to examine the system as a whole.
If your talking about the cases that go to trial they have a conviction rate better then a lot of crimes. This whole canard about under reporting is just a way to manufacture a hysteria. NO ONE really knows how many rapes go unreported and feminists are well lets be honest here always going to side with the "bigger number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported. Personally I think the critics of the 1 in 5 number (like Christina Hoff Sommers) are right and it is probably an exageration of female victimhood to the degree of 50 times greater then what conventional research techniques find. The study that produced the 1 in 5 has a LOT of obvious problems.
-Self selection bias as students were asked to participate in the study in the name of fighting sexual assault.
-The study didn't ask if they had been assaulted but vague questions like "have you engaged in sexual activity after consuming 1 or more alcoholic beverage(s)?". The results are then "interpreted" by sexual assault experts who have stated that these women are incapable of knowing whether or not they have been sexually assaulted bcause they live in a patriarchal culture.
-Follow up studies find the vast majority of "victims" do not view themselves as having ever been assaulted, traumatized, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
NO ONE really knows how many rapes go unreported and feminists are well lets be honest here always going to side with the "bigger number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported.
Don't we have exactly as much reason to expect that you are always going to side with the "smaller number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Considering the number of other questionable tactics used by feminists to inflate their findings (see, wage gap) I would tend to agree more with him than yourself. Likely the number falls somewhere between the two extreme, I however have actually seen some of these servays and they are frequently BS. They ask very misleading questions or label conceptual sex as sexual assault after just a single drink.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
According to most definitions of sexual assault I was sexually assaulted in College... funny thing is afterwards I was quite happy to be assaulted.
If you look at the reports used to compile the various statistics, it is frequently the case that the women reporting the incident in the survey don't think they were sexually assaulted either. The survey just decides that the women are wrong and the surveyor knows better.
If you look at the reports used to compile the various statistics, it is frequently the case that the women reporting the incident in the survey don't think they were sexually assaulted either. The survey just decides that the women are wrong and the surveyor knows better.
To be fair, it is possible to be the victim of a crime and not realize it. Indeed, this is the ideal outcome for con artists: the mark thinks that a transaction was fair due to confusing math, or that they lost money out of sheer unavoidable bad luck. If I've been unwittingly shortchanged and you point it out to me, then I am wrong and you do know better. So this fact cannot by itself be used to criticize the study. You have to make some argument to the effect that, unlike some other crimes, the nature of this particular crime precludes the possibility of unwitting victimhood because the key element of the crime is the presence or absence of consent.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If you look at the reports used to compile the various statistics, it is frequently the case that the women reporting the incident in the survey don't think they were sexually assaulted either. The survey just decides that the women are wrong and the surveyor knows better.
To be fair, it is possible to be the victim of a crime and not realize it. Indeed, this is the ideal outcome for con artists: the mark thinks that a transaction was fair due to confusing math, or that they lost money out of sheer unavoidable bad luck. If I've been unwittingly shortchanged and you point it out to me, then I am wrong and you do know better. So this fact cannot by itself be used to criticize the study. You have to make some argument to the effect that, unlike some other crimes, the nature of this particular crime precludes the possibility of unwitting victimhood because the key element of the crime is the presence or absence of consent.
I think it is possible for someone to be sexually assaulted and not be familiar enough with the law to know that they were assaulted/raped. But I also know that the definitions being thrown around here and in other places are very all encompassing to the point where I would venture to guess that something like 50%+ of college students could be considered victims of sexual assault according to some people (assuming they applied the same definition to men and women).
I think it is possible for someone to be sexually assaulted and not be familiar enough with the law to know that they were assaulted/raped. But I also know that the definitions being thrown around here and in other places are very all encompassing to the point where I would venture to guess that something like 50%+ of college students could be considered victims of sexual assault according to some people (assuming they applied the same definition to men and women).
Interestingly enough, a significant number of the definitions thrown around (particularly the ones dealing with alcohol) would peg both my wife and myself as having sexual assaulted the other one on numerous occasions. Neither of us would agree, but there is a non-insignificant number of times where one (or both of us) has had a few drinks followed by...
Interestingly enough, a significant number of the definitions thrown around (particularly the ones dealing with alcohol) would peg both my wife and myself as having sexual assaulted the other one on numerous occasions. Neither of us would agree, but there is a non-insignificant number of times where one (or both of us) has had a few drinks followed by...
This is an argument Ive made several times. By actual legal definition, the vast majority of adults (both men and women) have committed the crime of sexual assault/rape by the time they retire from the workforce (indeed i would venture to say before the age of 30). Not that I in anyway condone sleeping with an heavily intoxicated woman, sometimes two people can be heavily intoxicated and still wish to engage in sexual activities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Interestingly enough, a significant number of the definitions thrown around (particularly the ones dealing with alcohol) would peg both my wife and myself as having sexual assaulted the other one on numerous occasions. Neither of us would agree, but there is a non-insignificant number of times where one (or both of us) has had a few drinks followed by...
This is an argument Ive made several times. By actual legal definition, the vast majority of adults (both men and women) have committed the crime of sexual assault/rape by the time they retire from the workforce (indeed i would venture to say before the age of 30). Not that I in anyway condone sleeping with an heavily intoxicated woman, sometimes two people can be heavily intoxicated and still wish to engage in sexual activities.
What I also find interesting when it comes to alcohol is you could end up in a situation where you sexually assault each other with neither person feeling assaulted (even ignoring the situation where they are just drunk). For example in my situation I was extremely drunk with a girl one of my buddies was interested in... she made an advance and I rejected her because I didn't want to hurt my buddy. Shortly after that she tried again and I no longer cared (I think the first time she asked and the second time she just went for it). Anyway... so here we have me being sexually assaulted... then I get into it and shove my hand down her pants without asking... now I never asked whether or not that was ok and she was drunk so I was sexually assaulting her. These situations can be very complicated and so far I have not once seen a suggestion for a law that would come close to covering how complex these situations can be.
Don't we have exactly as much reason to expect that you are always going to side with the "smaller number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported?
Sort of, you should question my motivations and bias etc. The thing about MRAs is we both want rapists/assaultists brought to justice and victims to get help but we are also very commited to protecting due process and making sure no-one gets railroaded. In truth boys and men are getting the shaft in all the above. A hysteria one way or the other is a bad idea for us as male victims are already going to be doubted due to the culture of viewing males as the "perpetrator sex" and the already ongoing war on men's due process rights.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Sort of, you should question my motivations and bias etc. The thing about MRAs is we both want rapists/assaultists brought to justice and victims to get help but we are also very commited to protecting due process and making sure no-one gets railroaded.
Couldn't feminists just as easily say exactly the same thing? If this statement is sufficient to establish that you are unbiased, it should be sufficient to establish that they are unbiased.
A hysteria one way or the other is a bad idea for us as male victims are already going to be doubted due to the culture of viewing males as the "perpetrator sex" and the already ongoing war on men's due process rights.
And feminists say that women reporting these crimes get doubted due to the rape culture and that there's an ongoing war on women's rights.
I am continually struck by the perfection of the symmetry between your two sides' rhetoric and worldviews. You are a feminist - only with "women" scratched out and replaced with "men".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
A hysteria one way or the other is a bad idea for us as male victims are already going to be doubted due to the culture of viewing males as the "perpetrator sex" and the already ongoing war on men's due process rights.
And feminists say that women reporting these crimes get doubted due to the rape culture and that there's an ongoing war on women's rights.
I am continually struck by the perfection of the symmetry between your two sides' rhetoric and worldviews. You are a feminist - only with "women" scratched out and replaced with "men".
Dont even try to start with the women get the worse end of rape. In the majority of states in the US its note even legally possible for a woman to rape a man short of using a toy or other device.
The second half of your statement is quite true though. At the very least extremists from all movements sound exactly the same and use exactly the same arguments. The MRA and feminists sound the same because 90% of the issues are the same. Both sides word their problems differently but at the end of the day many of the problems are just two sides of the same coin, looked at from opposite sides.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Not to necro this thread, but I ran across a ... let's say "jarringly candid" article on the topic that I thought forum-goers would find interesting. It's by well-known columnist Ezra Klein, which makes it all the more interesting to me.
Not to necro this thread, but I ran across a ... let's say "jarringly candid" article on the topic that I thought forum-goers would find interesting. It's by well-known columnist Ezra Klein, which makes it all the more interesting to me.
Even if we uncritically accept the dodgy statistics upon which Klein bases his argument -- from the known-to-be-dubious "1-in-5" campus rape number to the figures about the rarity of false accusations, which I for one am now treating with extreme skepticism, given recent events -- isn't this just revanchism?
Public policy should not be unabashedly used as a tool of revenge, especially when that revenge is not being felt by the persons who actually committed the acts in question, but rather by those who merely share with them an inborn characteristic.
Not to necro this thread, but I ran across a ... let's say "jarringly candid" article on the topic that I thought forum-goers would find interesting. It's by well-known columnist Ezra Klein, which makes it all the more interesting to me.
Even if we uncritically accept the dodgy statistics upon which Klein bases his argument -- from the known-to-be-dubious "1-in-5" campus rape number to the figures about the rarity of false accusations, which I for one am now treating with extreme skepticism, given recent events -- isn't this just revanchism?
Public policy should not be unabashedly used as a tool of revenge, especially when that revenge is not being felt by the persons who actually committed the acts in question, but rather merely those who share with them an inborn characteristic.
I agree with you; I think Klein's "defense" lays bare the problems with the law in a way that many of its supporters would not be willing to admit.
That's what struck me about this article. It (implicitly) admits that this law is gender biased. It admits that the law will overreach. It admits that the purpose is to punish all men for the sins of a few.
The fact that a relatively mainstream journalist can see the law as acceptable after acknowledging all these flaws is pretty terrifying to me.
It reminds me of the debate thread about Jeffrey Dahmer; how do you convince a sociopath that murder is wrong? Well, how do you convince an opponent who is willing to discard traditional notions of procedural fairness and justice that falsely convicting innocent people is a problem?
What happens when neither partner gives 'active consent' do they both go to jail? I hope so because otherwise it would be some heinous gender discrimination.
That's what struck me about this article. It (implicitly) admits that this law is gender biased. It admits that the law will overreach. It admits that the purpose is to punish all men for the sins of a few.
The fact that a relatively mainstream journalist can see the law as acceptable after acknowledging all these flaws is pretty terrifying to me.
I concur. I often opine about the bizarre rise of postmodern leftism or cultural Marxism or SJWism or whatever the right term is, and I'm just as often told I'm paranoid for believing this to be a significant and harmful cultural force.
But consider this situation. Of course people have been advocating for harmful policies since the dawn of time, but until recently, one could reliably judge that these were evil people advocating deliberate evil, or good people who advocated the policy out of ignorance.
However, in recent years it has become all too easy to locate examples of at least notionally good people cognizantly advocating evil on the basis of a belief that, upon analysis, reduces to "evil is good". And that's a bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.
However, in recent years it has become all too easy to locate examples of at least notionally good people cognizantly advocating evil on the basis of a belief that, upon analysis, reduces to "evil is good". And that's a bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think this is an especially recent phenomenon. Look at Catholicism in the middle ages or eugenics 100 years ago. All well-meaning.
The difference is that one could disprove something like eugenics because it purported to be scientific. Or one could persuasively identify the problem of Catholicism as corruption of the leaders and ideals of the church, as reformation leaders did.
SJW-ism is just the ad hoc tyranny of emotions with no pretensions to ideological coherence. Self-contradictory double standards are literally the foundational dogmas ("race X cannot be the subject of racism" et al.). That's what makes it so infuriatingly difficult to combat.
It's best, for the happiness and safety of all involved, to get explicit verbal consent before having sex. I think you will find very few people who oppose teaching students that this is a "best practice" so to speak. Sort of like how we teach students that they should always use a condom, and most campus health centers give out condoms for free.
But we don't expel people for failing to use a condom. That's a key difference between education and policy.
Where we get up in arms is when we start mandating that everyone receives affirmative consent, and if they do not (or if they have had any amount to drink) then they are guilty of a violation.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't agree with that analysis, but I don't think it matters either way. For the sake of argument, suppose I grant that the state is writing the policy. So what? It's still not a criminal policy, it's a school conduct policy. It still doesn't make any sense to evaluate compliance with a school conduct policy based on the outcome of a criminal trial when the conduct policy differs significantly from criminal law.
Bleh, this can be applied to virtually everything, not just sex.
So I'm not entirely sure just how useful it really is to say "yes means yes". The entire problem, as I see it, is that getting said explicit consent, and in a manner that makes it provable in court, is difficult.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html
Two things of note: 1) This is coming form Harvard, which is not exactly a bastion of conservative thought, and 2) This is coming from the law professors specifically.
It seems somewhat telling that one of the biggest concerns they have with Harvard's new policy is the procedural safeguards for the accused. The Harvard policy may or may not be exemplary, and may or may not be representative of what California schools will adopt, but its relevant, and it will be interesting to see the results of the pushback.
If your talking about the cases that go to trial they have a conviction rate better then a lot of crimes. This whole canard about under reporting is just a way to manufacture a hysteria. NO ONE really knows how many rapes go unreported and feminists are well lets be honest here always going to side with the "bigger number is better" when theorizing on how many rapes go unreported. Personally I think the critics of the 1 in 5 number (like Christina Hoff Sommers) are right and it is probably an exageration of female victimhood to the degree of 50 times greater then what conventional research techniques find. The study that produced the 1 in 5 has a LOT of obvious problems.
-Self selection bias as students were asked to participate in the study in the name of fighting sexual assault.
-The study didn't ask if they had been assaulted but vague questions like "have you engaged in sexual activity after consuming 1 or more alcoholic beverage(s)?". The results are then "interpreted" by sexual assault experts who have stated that these women are incapable of knowing whether or not they have been sexually assaulted bcause they live in a patriarchal culture.
-Follow up studies find the vast majority of "victims" do not view themselves as having ever been assaulted, traumatized, etc.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
If you look at the reports used to compile the various statistics, it is frequently the case that the women reporting the incident in the survey don't think they were sexually assaulted either. The survey just decides that the women are wrong and the surveyor knows better.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think it is possible for someone to be sexually assaulted and not be familiar enough with the law to know that they were assaulted/raped. But I also know that the definitions being thrown around here and in other places are very all encompassing to the point where I would venture to guess that something like 50%+ of college students could be considered victims of sexual assault according to some people (assuming they applied the same definition to men and women).
Interestingly enough, a significant number of the definitions thrown around (particularly the ones dealing with alcohol) would peg both my wife and myself as having sexual assaulted the other one on numerous occasions. Neither of us would agree, but there is a non-insignificant number of times where one (or both of us) has had a few drinks followed by...
This is an argument Ive made several times. By actual legal definition, the vast majority of adults (both men and women) have committed the crime of sexual assault/rape by the time they retire from the workforce (indeed i would venture to say before the age of 30). Not that I in anyway condone sleeping with an heavily intoxicated woman, sometimes two people can be heavily intoxicated and still wish to engage in sexual activities.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
What I also find interesting when it comes to alcohol is you could end up in a situation where you sexually assault each other with neither person feeling assaulted (even ignoring the situation where they are just drunk). For example in my situation I was extremely drunk with a girl one of my buddies was interested in... she made an advance and I rejected her because I didn't want to hurt my buddy. Shortly after that she tried again and I no longer cared (I think the first time she asked and the second time she just went for it). Anyway... so here we have me being sexually assaulted... then I get into it and shove my hand down her pants without asking... now I never asked whether or not that was ok and she was drunk so I was sexually assaulting her. These situations can be very complicated and so far I have not once seen a suggestion for a law that would come close to covering how complex these situations can be.
Sort of, you should question my motivations and bias etc. The thing about MRAs is we both want rapists/assaultists brought to justice and victims to get help but we are also very commited to protecting due process and making sure no-one gets railroaded. In truth boys and men are getting the shaft in all the above. A hysteria one way or the other is a bad idea for us as male victims are already going to be doubted due to the culture of viewing males as the "perpetrator sex" and the already ongoing war on men's due process rights.
Phrasing.
And feminists say that women reporting these crimes get doubted due to the rape culture and that there's an ongoing war on women's rights.
I am continually struck by the perfection of the symmetry between your two sides' rhetoric and worldviews. You are a feminist - only with "women" scratched out and replaced with "men".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Dont even try to start with the women get the worse end of rape. In the majority of states in the US its note even legally possible for a woman to rape a man short of using a toy or other device.
The second half of your statement is quite true though. At the very least extremists from all movements sound exactly the same and use exactly the same arguments. The MRA and feminists sound the same because 90% of the issues are the same. Both sides word their problems differently but at the end of the day many of the problems are just two sides of the same coin, looked at from opposite sides.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Even if we uncritically accept the dodgy statistics upon which Klein bases his argument -- from the known-to-be-dubious "1-in-5" campus rape number to the figures about the rarity of false accusations, which I for one am now treating with extreme skepticism, given recent events -- isn't this just revanchism?
Public policy should not be unabashedly used as a tool of revenge, especially when that revenge is not being felt by the persons who actually committed the acts in question, but rather by those who merely share with them an inborn characteristic.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I agree with you; I think Klein's "defense" lays bare the problems with the law in a way that many of its supporters would not be willing to admit.
That's what struck me about this article. It (implicitly) admits that this law is gender biased. It admits that the law will overreach. It admits that the purpose is to punish all men for the sins of a few.
The fact that a relatively mainstream journalist can see the law as acceptable after acknowledging all these flaws is pretty terrifying to me.
It reminds me of the debate thread about Jeffrey Dahmer; how do you convince a sociopath that murder is wrong? Well, how do you convince an opponent who is willing to discard traditional notions of procedural fairness and justice that falsely convicting innocent people is a problem?
I concur. I often opine about the bizarre rise of postmodern leftism or cultural Marxism or SJWism or whatever the right term is, and I'm just as often told I'm paranoid for believing this to be a significant and harmful cultural force.
But consider this situation. Of course people have been advocating for harmful policies since the dawn of time, but until recently, one could reliably judge that these were evil people advocating deliberate evil, or good people who advocated the policy out of ignorance.
However, in recent years it has become all too easy to locate examples of at least notionally good people cognizantly advocating evil on the basis of a belief that, upon analysis, reduces to "evil is good". And that's a bridge too far, as far as I'm concerned.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I don't think this is an especially recent phenomenon. Look at Catholicism in the middle ages or eugenics 100 years ago. All well-meaning.
The difference is that one could disprove something like eugenics because it purported to be scientific. Or one could persuasively identify the problem of Catholicism as corruption of the leaders and ideals of the church, as reformation leaders did.
SJW-ism is just the ad hoc tyranny of emotions with no pretensions to ideological coherence. Self-contradictory double standards are literally the foundational dogmas ("race X cannot be the subject of racism" et al.). That's what makes it so infuriatingly difficult to combat.