Sexual Assault discussion

[Pakuni]

You are operating in a world view where two people always make the decision to have sex. The reality is that in most of these cases, one person makes the decision to have sex without the blessing of the other person. The decision is made for them. You are placing the burden entirely on the victim. It is their responsibility to say no. Rather than placing the responsibility on the initiator to make sure the person says yes and is in the right state of mind to say yes. I'll give another allegory, a 16 year old has no obligation to tell someone their age if they ask for sex. The burden is on the adult to confirm the other person's age.

This is the really key point for me.
Too often consent is viewed through the lens of the lack of "a clear no" meaning "yes."
It should be the lack of a clear yes means no.
Those who scoff at the notion of enthusiastic consent vastly overstate the difficulty in attaining it.

[wadesworld]

You paralleled his belief of his personal friend's Facebook post about a heinous event (that happened to her) to people believing Facebook conspiracy posts.

At minimum it was brutally insensitive. Mostly you just look like an a$$hole.  I understand how he might be a bit upset.

Why would it make me look like an pretty boy?  I didn't parallel his belief to anything.  I said using Facebook posts as proof of anything isn't exactly the best idea.  2+2=4.  Nobody can really argue that, it's a fact.  But I certainly wouldn't reference someone's Facebook post saying 2+2=4 as proof that 2+2=4.

It wasn't insensitive, it wasn't paralleling anything, and I would think it wouldn't make me look like an pretty boy, but if it does so be it.  Using Facebook posts as proof of anything means absolutely nothing.  Simple as that.

[StillAWarrior]

This is the really key point for me.
Too often consent is viewed through the lens of the lack of "a clear no" meaning "yes."
It should be the lack of a clear yes means no.
Those who scoff at the notion of enthusiastic consent vastly overstate the difficulty in attaining it.

I agree.  But I think one of the challenges of the issue being debated here is that many people at 0.08 show little or no outward sign of intoxication.  A 120 pound woman who has consumed three beers in two hours could give a "clear yes" and "enthusiastically consent" and this would be considered sexual assault.  I find that a little troubling.

[muwarrior69]

Couple of problems with this statement.

First, why did you bring up going on a date and "willingly consuming alcohol"? I'm sure this wasn't your intent, but it seems like you are implying that going on a date and consuming alcohol means that sex is owed or expected. Nothing about going on a date or drinking grants consent to someone else for sex.

Second, I never said anything of the sort. Regret has nothing to do with anything. If a person has sex with someone else while they are incapacitated from alcohol than it is rape. A person can no longer consent to sex after consuming a certain amount of alcohol. Even if the drunk person is throwing themselves at someone, that person has a legal responsibility (in some states) and university responsibility (at all universities that accept federal funding) to not engage in any sort of sexual activity with the incapacitated individual.

Third, while most assaults are male on female, I feel it is necessary to mention that assaults can occur between two men, two women, or a woman on a man.

Fourth, this is not an opinion. It is a federal regulation. In some states it is law. In the near future, it will hopefully be law in all states. A lot of progress has been made the last few years.

As Chick said, alcohol is considered a date rape drug in Wisconsin. I know in the past it was considered normal and acceptable for men and women to get good and liquored up and then have sex. Those days are fortunately ending. To be clear, drunk sex can still happen. You can go out with a friend and have a few drinks, but if the person is to the point of intoxication, then no sex can occur.

So you are telling me that if a male student reported that he was sexually assaulted by a female student his privacy would be protected, witnesses heard corroborating what he told them; and then the accused female would be called that a decision was made the she could no longer remain at the university based on the evidence presented by the accused whom they will not identify.

[muwarrior69]

I bet most of you don't know that in Wisconsin, alcohol is considered a date rape drug. So right or wrong, if you get a girl liquored up and have sex with her, you are taking your chances.  It's something they cover during freshman orientation at MU.

What if the girl gets a guy liquored up and has sex; what is that? Oh, that never, ever happens.

[Pakuni]

I agree.  But I think one of the challenges of the issue being debated here is that many people at 0.08 show little or no outward sign of intoxication.  A 120 pound woman who has consumed three beers in two hours could give a "clear yes" and "enthusiastically consent" and this would be considered sexual assault.  I find that a little troubling.

I agree, though I'm not really sure that would ever be ruled a sexual assault in real life. Can anyone really cite a single instance of something like that happening?
The reality is, few offenders are ever charged, few of those actually charged are ever convicted, and few of those actually convicted ever get locked up for any substantial amount of time.
While there have been egregious cases of innocent guys being fracked by the system, such cases are exceptionally rare. There's no epidemic of false rape charges. You're six times more likely to be mauled to death by a dog than you are to be falsely accused of rape.
And while we certainly must take all reasonable steps to eliminate those instances, we shouldn't do so at the expense of reducing sexual violence as much as possible.

[warriorchick]

So you are telling me that if a male student reported that he was sexually assaulted by a female student his privacy would be protected, witnesses heard corroborating what he told them; and then the accused female would be called that a decision was made the she could no longer remain at the university based on the evidence presented by the accused whom they will not identify.

Unless the woman blows into a breathalyzer immediately before or after the act, and there is an independent witness there to read the results, I think it is highly unlikely a guy is going to get convicted based on BAT for having sex with a woman that has no outward signs of drunkenness.  What is the prosecutor going to use as evidence?

[Lennys Tap]

This is the really key point for me.
Too often consent is viewed through the lens of the lack of "a clear no" meaning "yes."
It should be the lack of a clear yes means no.
Those who scoff at the notion of enthusiastic consent vastly overstate the difficulty in attaining it.

The pendulum (in my era) was ridiculously skewed to the point where no (wink, wink) might actually mean yes.

Today TAMU asserts that a clear yes might actually mean no.

Both Orwellian, both absurd. but that's where we've been and, in some spaces anyway, that's where we are.

What we should be teaching our young people is this is not an area where ambiguity or nuance wins the day. Silence is not golden. Yes or no. At every stage along the way. Your words mean something and excuses (I drank too much, I was mad at my parents, I was depressed because I broke up with my girlfriend/boyfriend) don't turn yeses into nos or vice versa.

[Lennys Tap]

Unless the woman blows into a breathalyzer immediately before or after the act, and there is an independent witness there to read the results, I think it is highly unlikely a guy is going to get convicted based on BAT for having sex with a woman that has no outward signs of drunkenness.  What is the prosecutor going to use as evidence?

Agreed (at least for now). But colleges apparently place the threshold at a much lower level. Sounds like in some cases an accusation is all it takes.

[muwarrior69]

I am glad I went to MU 50 years ago. It was a much simpler time. Most of my class mates were brought up with a Catholic upbringing, which meant you treated a young woman with respect and sex was something you did after you were married ( I know how archaic ). I never had to ask permission to hold hands or kiss on any of my dates and there were many; it just happened. In fact if you asked permission they would probably consider you some kind of a prude. I guess by today's standard I would be a serial sexual predator by how many girls I kissed without getting an absolutely unambiguous "Yes you can kiss me." preferably in writing. From what I can tell it seems Title IX training has taken all the romance out of dating.

[StillAWarrior]

I agree, though I'm not really sure that would ever be ruled a sexual assault in real life. Can anyone really cite a single instance of something like that happening?
The reality is, few offenders are ever charged, few of those actually charged are ever convicted, and few of those actually convicted ever get locked up for any substantial amount of time.
While there have been egregious cases of innocent guys being fracked by the system, such cases are exceptionally rare. There's no epidemic of false rape charges. You're six times more likely to be mauled to death by a dog than you are to be falsely accused of rape.
And while we certainly must take all reasonable steps to eliminate those instances, we shouldn't do so at the expense of reducing sexual violence as much as possible.

But we're not talking about "real life."  We're talking about college campuses (or at least I think we are).  And for a kid who gets kicked out of college, I suppose it's some consolation that they're not going to be charged criminally.  Maybe not a lot...but some.  Sexual assault on campuses is a very serious issue that needs to be addressed.  I think we all agree on that.  But I personally think that in some cases the pendulum has swung too far.  The thought that a boy could have sex with an girl who "enthusiastically consents" after drinking three beers in two hours and is showing no signs of intoxication and then be charged with sexual assault if she regrets in the next morning (or if her parents/friends/roommates regret it for her) is a little troubling.  Sure, he's not going to get charged and prosecuted, but it might profoundly affect his life.  Honestly, I really wonder what percentage of college students who have sex in this country every weekend would be deemed to not have consented to the sex under the 0.08 standard.  And anyone who watched Friends and has seen "The One with the Videotape" knows it can be difficult to know who initiated sex.

Also an honest question:  what amount of pot renders someone incapable of consent.

[muwarrior69]

Chastity belts, hey?

Perhaps more like common sense; but then again that is in the eye (mind) of the beholder.

[Folks,,,]

I don't know why I bothered. Reading comprehension on this site is generally on a level <0 when someone has a differing view.  Here goes one more try:

Why would it make me look like an pretty boy? I didn't parallel his belief to anything. I said using Facebook posts as proof of anything isn't exactly the best idea.  2+2=4.  Nobody can really argue that, it's a fact.  But I certainly wouldn't reference someone's Facebook post saying 2+2=4 as proof that 2+2=4.

It wasn't insensitive, it wasn't paralleling anything, and I would think it wouldn't make me look like an pretty boy, but if it does so be it.  Using Facebook posts as proof of anything means absolutely nothing.  Simple as that.

To the underlined: I would agree that is true on things like "click-bait" links and similar things.  False things can be skewed as fact very rapidly on the internet. This is not one of those situations.

To the bolded:
If/then (sic)

I don't know what was posted or any of those details but if you believe that, "well it's on Facebook so it has to be true!" then you believe there were no planes on 9/11 and there were bombs set up in the World Trade Centers to knock them down, all these mass shootings aren't actually happening they're just actors and actresses, including little kids, etc.

It is the man's personal friend and you saying he shouldn't believe her Facebook post merely because it is on Facebook and people post false things on Facebook (like conspiracy theories).  He didn't believe it because it was on Facebook, he believed it because the girl is his friend.  That is the insulting part.



I'll stop now because I don't want to overstep and put words into Bagpiper's mouth.  Just saying how I understood his point of view to be angry to you questioning his belief of someone he personally knows. Also, I've been informed this topic has moved elsewhere (where I will not join).

[GGGG]

I am glad I went to MU 50 years ago. It was a much simpler time. Most of my class mates were brought up with a Catholic upbringing, which meant you treated a young woman with respect and sex was something you did after you were married ( I know how archaic ). I never had to ask permission to hold hands or kiss on any of my dates and there were many; it just happened. In fact if you asked permission they would probably consider you some kind of a prude. I guess by today's standard I would be a serial sexual predator by how many girls I kissed without getting an absolutely unambiguous "Yes you can kiss me." preferably in writing. From what I can tell it seems Title IX training has taken all the romance out of dating.

Not really.  Not much has changed for most people.

[Folks,,,]

Oh and I voted for 0 Kelvin 

[Pakuni]

I am glad I went to MU 50 years ago. It was a much simpler time. Most of my class mates were brought up with a Catholic upbringing, which meant you treated a young woman with respect and sex was something you did after you were married ( I know how archaic ). I never had to ask permission to hold hands or kiss on any of my dates and there were many; it just happened. In fact if you asked permission they would probably consider you some kind of a prude. I guess by today's standard I would be a serial sexual predator by how many girls I kissed without getting an absolutely unambiguous "Yes you can kiss me." preferably in writing. From what I can tell it seems Title IX training has taken all the romance out of dating.

Did the 60s somehow skip over Marquette's campus?

[wadesworld]

I don't know why I bothered. Reading comprehension on this site is generally on a level <0 when someone has a differing view.  Here goes one more try:

To the underlined: I would agree that is true on things like "click-bait" links and similar things.  False things can be skewed as fact very rapidly on the internet. This is not one of those situations.

To the bolded:
If/then (sic)
It is the man's personal friend and you saying he shouldn't believe her Facebook post merely because it is on Facebook and people post false things on Facebook (like conspiracy theories).  He didn't believe it because it was on Facebook, he believed it because the girl is his friend.  That is the insulting part.



I'll stop now because I don't want to overstep and put words into Bagpiper's mouth.  Just saying how I understood his point of view to be angry to you questioning his belief of someone he personally knows. Also, I've been informed this topic has moved elsewhere (where I will not join).

I didn't question anyone's belief of anyone else.  But okay.

Siting a Facebook post, regardless of who posted it or what it's on or how truthful it is, as proving something is fact, is as smart as siting a Wikipedia page in a dissertation.  Just because I won't take my best friend's Facebook post as gospel doesn't mean I have serious questions about his or her character.  It means I understand what social media is.

If he wanted to make the point that, "Hey, I know this girl personally, I know her take on it, and I know that she wouldn't fabricate anything that serious.  I know for a fact something bad happened and I trust her and feel horrible for her, and it's disgusting that people would make the team members the victim in this situation," then go ahead and say that.  When you say, "What about the victim's Facebook posts on the matter?!  It's clear it happened!" well, I can point to millions of examples of very trustworthy people posting something on Facebook that isn't true.  That doesn't mean that I don't trust that he knows the girl and that she's a victim and a trustworthy person.  It means that siting Facebook as proof is a mistake.

Not difficult to understand.

I literally said nothing about the situation at all.  From what I've heard it's not something to be proud of as both an MU basketball fan and an MU alum.  So I'm sure he does know what he's talking about and I'm sure it's a horrible situation.  Doesn't make her posting on Facebook proof of that.

[Pakuni]

The thought that a boy could have sex with an girl who "enthusiastically consents" after drinking three beers in two hours and is showing no signs of intoxication and then be charged with sexual assault if she regrets in the next morning (or if her parents/friends/roommates regret it for her) is a little troubling. 

You've said this twice now. And I agree.
But I'm asking whether anyone is aware of any instances in which this actually occurred. Can anyone cite cases - even a singular case - in which some was found/adjudicated guilty of sexual assault under the scenario you've laid out above.

[muwarrior69]

Did the 60s somehow skip over Marquette's campus?

From my experience, for the most part, pretty much. The dorms back in my day were segregated by gender and if you brought some one of the opposite sex to your room it was quickly reported. Curfews were pretty much followed (yes, we had curfews). In fact the dress codes were dropped my Senior year, 68-69. The 60s didn't happen until the 70s at MU.

[MU82]

After reading this entire discussion, I'm gonna take a strong stance and say I'm against sexual assault.

Thank you.

[StillAWarrior]

You've said this twice now. And I agree.
But I'm asking whether anyone is aware of any instances in which this actually occurred. Can anyone cite cases - even a singular case - in which some was found/adjudicated guilty of sexual assault under the scenario you've laid out above.

I can't cite any.  I'm simply responding to the fact that apparently there are those in higher education that feel very passionately that this is the appropriate standard and result.  Based on what I've read on this thread, TAMU would be the one to have this information.  On the previous page, he said, "a majority of our accused in these situations are found not responsible."  The obvious implication of this sentence is that there is a minority that are found to be responsible.  Not sure how many that would be.  And not sure if the results at other schools would be comparable.

[Galway Eagle]

I referenced Facebook to point to her rising above the incident and being a vocal individual for victims. If I wanted to say all that other stuff you mentioned then that puts more emphasis on what happened to her rather than how impressive it is she rose above it.

[wadesworld]

I referenced Facebook to point to her rising above the incident and being a vocal individual for victims. If I wanted to say all that other stuff you mentioned then that puts more emphasis on what happened to her rather than how impressive it is she rose above it.

Fair enough.  Lost in translation.  My apologies.

[muwarrior69]

What's been enlightening to me is how far the pendulum has apparently swung.  No one here advocates for inappropriate behavior.  I guess where Lenny and I are is that what's being described at the margin sounds like pretty normal behavior.

I'll go back to that article that was linked.  Everyone was cool until a meddling mom decided to read her kids diary.  And then proceeded to ruin a kids life.  Helicopter b*tch.

I have some sympathy for the mom. It was the University who proceeded to ruin a kids life.

[HouWarrior]

TAMU and other Title IX compliance folks may want to consider The Onion's proposed changes for colleges viz sexual assaults:

..."Several high-profile assault cases on college campuses are leading many schools to address how they prevent and respond to them. Here are some ways universities can protect students from assault:

•   Create a safe system in which students can freely report any non-varsity-athlete attackers to campus authorities
•   Installation of a 24-hour hotline for anyone with information on what the victim was wearing that night
•   Formulating a written action plan that outlines exactly how the school will deflect reports of assault
•   Ask all prospective students to thoroughly explicate the word “no” on their applications
•   TKE’s blacklight rush party to be attended by at least one Title IX attorney
•   Grievance panels to carefully assess all the facts from both victim and assailant to determine whose family is the bigger donor
•   Lengthen orientation-week skits about alcohol tolerance and party safety from 15 minutes to a full 25
•   Provide everyone on campus, both students and faculty, with a clear definition of behaviors that constitute boys just being boys
•   Allegations to be immediately reviewed by a dedicated team of internet commenters...."

lol

Its worth noting that the dedicated team of internet commenters is already available to MU, courtesy of the fine folks at MU Scoop. lol