Leftists might as well flip coin to determine who raped whom in drunken hookup

[Pete at Home]

https://www.thefire.org/occidental-justice-the-disastrous-fallout-when-drunk-sex-meets-academic-bureaucracy/

Here's how it works in camp lefty:

1.Drunks cannot legally consent.
2. Sex without legal consent is rape
3. Being drunk is no excuse for not knowing the other party is too drunk to consent.

Does anyone other than Pyr not see the inherent problem with those three premises for adjudicating rape claims. 

Two young people have had their lives destroyed here by a sadistic set of goons that persuaded one of them to charge rape over an encounter that neither remember. 

I think the administration responsible for this debacle should be labeled as sexual predators and kept a very long ways from any school.

Please read link facts before responding.

[D.W.]

School issued chastity belts with built in breathalyzers is the solution.

[Pete at Home]

If someone is too drunk to consent, are they not also by definition too drunk to form the intent to commit rape or any other crime?

What's nauseating is that this program of Occidental's actually fits the general specs of what the Feds told them to so. (See article.) Nice end run around the constitution. 

[Pete at Home]

This Danielle Dirks sounds like the real sexual predator. A real child molester. She really did a number on that poor girl:

Jane and John would text later that night:

JOHN: What did you guys talk about? [referring to a group dorm meeting]

JANE: Making good decision. Which I found somewhat fitting.

JOHN: Ahaha that is definitely fitting. I think I’m gonna take a long break from alcohol here …

JANE: I might join you on your stint of sobriety

JOHN: Dooo itttt. I’m gonna be sober all week, I need to focus on school and get my head on straight.

JANE: Do you feel guilty?

JOHN: Yes. I was blackout drunk but I still feel terrible about what happened. I’m so sorry that everything happened this way, I wish it was more special for you.

JANE: Okay

JOHN: I don’t know. I’m not angry that stuff happened between us, I just wish we had known each other more.

JOHN: I’m glad that we’re still talking

JOHN: Sigh. I hope none of that came across the wrong way. I want you to know that I’m not a bad guy.

JANE: I think I’m still trying to think through everything. And I’m not doing a great job

“I thought we were just kinda gonna have an awkward friendship moving forward,” John says. “Unbeknownst to me, she’d been talking to a lot of people. You know, counselors.”

One of those counselors was Danielle Dirks, the professor who’d helped file the Title IX complaint the previous spring and the someone that Reddy suggested she speak to. According to Dirks’s statements to investigators, when Jane first told Dirks her story, Dirks called what happened to Jane “rape,” to which Jane replied, “Oh, I am not calling it rape yet.” According to Jane’s statements to investigators, Dirks told her that John “fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and ‘from a good family.’ ”

Look at Dirk's profile for a "rapist." These are the arguments used to convict the guy!

One of those counselors was Danielle Dirks, the professor who’d helped file the Title IX complaint the previous spring and the someone that Reddy suggested she speak to. According to Dirks’s statements to investigators, when Jane first told Dirks her story, Dirks called what happened to Jane “rape,” to which Jane replied, “Oh, I am not calling it rape yet.” According to Jane’s statements to investigators, Dirks told her that John “fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and ‘from a good family.’ ” Dirks would also tell the investigators that Jane’s behavior matched “the dozens of other survivors [of sexual assault] I have met with on campus”; that Jane had been in “a strong state of denial” about the nature of the event; that John was “acting in the same way all these other young men [involved in sexual assaults] have acted by checking in on Jane after the incident, and seeking to manage her by being nice in a manner … described as ‘disingenuous.’ ”

[D.W.]

This follows a pattern you can see in a lot of places.  There is a problem that needs addressing.  People decide something must be done.  A focal point to represent this problem and facilitate action being done is found, exaggerated or warped to conform to the problem, or just fabricated entirely.

Then anyone who questions whether or not the target is really representative of the problem, is treated by those crusading against that problem, as dismissing the problem itself.  They are either convinced that the target is legitimate or are willing to bend reality a little for the greater good.

On the other hand, some people are truly vial human beings and are not above faking being too drunk themselves and saying the right things to manipulate someone into accepting what they did to them.  This sounds like the guy is getting railroaded by someone who is willing to sacrifice an innocent for a good cause.  But it may not be.

Maybe we just need to do a better job addressing our social problems early on so we don't need these lightning rod cases / individuals to grab national attention.  Nobody ever fits the "perfect example" of the issues to be solved anyway so the arguing just allows us to ignore the issues.

The problem with pushing an incident into the spotlight as a symbol for an issue means that you risk as much as you have to gain for that issue.  But it sure does make for good headlines and social media exchanges.

[scifibum]

1. "Too drunk to form intent" is a remarkably terrible idea for an exculpatory standard.

2. There was no criminal charge or conviction.

3. I am glad you are not in charge of deciding who to label a sexual predator.

All that said, assuming the whole story is there, this case definitely seems like an overreach.

[Pete at Home]

I was part of the whole take back the night protest scene in the early 1990s. I am a survivor myself.  To me the movement seems to have been hijacked by sexual predators.  The problem is systemic. No one who advocates doing away with due process or innocent until proven guilty is a friend to the victims.  Your attitude of nothing to see here, don't make a big deal over one incident is exactly what we were fighting back in the 1990s to create rape awareness.

What's happened here is what happens when you use bureaucracy and lawsuits to do the job of a judge and jury.  Occidental apparently screwed up and fostered a few real rapes, so now it needs to round up a few boobies and throw them out for rape, without caring if they actually did it.

Did you read the trail of communication?  The process, with the kid deprived of counsel during the preceding while the girl was getting brainwashed by the "counselor" who happened to be the person who had filed the Title Nine?

[D.W.]

Pete:

Your attitude of nothing to see here, don't make a big deal over one incident is exactly what we were fighting back in the 1990s to create rape awareness.

There is a big difference between, “nothing to see here” and, “I’m sick of trial by social media.”

Me: 

Then anyone who questions whether or not the target is really representative of the problem, is treated by those crusading against that problem, as dismissing the problem itself.

  Ya, like that.

[Pete at Home]

1. "Too drunk to form intent" is a remarkably terrible idea for an exculpatory standard.
 .

Sounds like you are determined to play stupid on this one.  I never suggested a "too drunk to form intent" standard.  What I am saying is Don't you think it's strange to create an outcome where both parties have raped each other, since both are too drunk to consent?

The school's own rape-focused introduction to the school taught the kids that consent was only impaired when one party was UNCONCIOUS. 

Girl goes to school counselor to deal with trauma of finding out she lost her virginity in an incident her texts show her that she initiated, and the counselor browbeaten this vulnerable girl into believing she was "raped.". As a result, she needs therapy.  If you don't recognize that as sexual abuse, you're as much of an enabler as the lady that told me that what my nanny did to me at age seven was just "punishment" and I should man up and get over it.

[Pete at Home]

Pete:

Your attitude of nothing to see here, don't make a big deal over one incident is exactly what we were fighting back in the 1990s to create rape awareness.

There is a big difference between, “nothing to see here” and, “I’m sick of trial by social media.”

Me: 

Then anyone who questions whether or not the target is really representative of the problem, is treated by those crusading against that problem, as dismissing the problem itself.

  Ya, like that.

You sound almost exactly like the football fans who wrote the school newspaper after the football players got kicked out for gang raping that girl. Bio GOP, trial by social media. 

The point is this didn't get to trial.

What you are saying is don't complain about the lynching. They must have had cause.

[scifibum]

Sounds like you are determined to play stupid on this one.

you're as much of an enabler as the lady that told me that what my nanny did to me at age seven was just "punishment" and I should man up and get over it.

Based on the OP, I hesitated to respond.  You were clearly in high dudgeon and not interested in discussion.  I decided to anyway.  Clearly a mistake. 

Pete, I'm sorry if you're triggered and reliving trauma.  But this isn't productive, and you really need to pull back on the bile nozzle.

[Pete at Home]

You didn't try to engage. Reread what you said to me. You could have read and responded to the linked story rather than making assumptions and going after me personally.

[Pete at Home]

The core question of the thread was this:

What I am saying is Don't you think it's strange to create an outcome where both parties have raped each other, since both are too drunk to consent?

For the record, DW and Sci-fi both completely evaded that question. DW doesn't want to try the collegiate makeshift Kangaroo court in the media. And Sci-fi sniped at my wording in the margins.

When I protested and wrote and marched and spoke in the 90s our goal was to get more treatment on campus, more lighting, and to get the cops to treat rape charges as seriously as they treat charges of other crimes.  We got the first two.  But the movement has been hijacked by sheet heads who want a system that destroys lives without any process to see who is being hurt.

[D.W.]

Sounds like you are determined to play stupid on this one.  I never suggested a "too drunk to form intent" standard.  What I am saying is Don't you think it's strange to create an outcome where both parties have raped each other, since both are too drunk to consent?

Just to be clear Pete, I think almost everyone thinks this. 

What you are saying is don't complain about the lynching. They must have had cause.

Interesting…  I thought I just made an accusation that people are lynched and while “for a cause” not because they are guilty.  So…  Umm are you saying that the lynch mob must have had A cause?  Then yes.  That’s exactly what I said.   

[D.W.]

The whole reason I dodged your primary point is I felt it was stating the obvious.  You seemed to be fishing for someone to take the (ridiculous) position that this policy was defensible.  So instead, I focused on all the other baggage that came with your point.

[Pete at Home]

The whole reason I dodged your primary point is I felt it was stating the obvious.  You seemed to be fishing for someone to take the (ridiculous) position that this policy was defensible.  So instead, I focused on all the other baggage that came with your point.

No.  I'm saying a lynch mob doesn't need a cause. Just a victim.

My parents saw a lunch mob stoning a young couple in Cameroon 3 years ago.  Most everyone there had no idea why they were killed. Everyone just assumes that whoever started the lynching must have had cause.

What's the point in having social media about politics if not to identify problems in the way things work and discuss what can be done?

[Pete at Home]

The whole reason I dodged your primary point is I felt it was stating the obvious.  You seemed to be fishing for someone to take the (ridiculous) position that this policy was defensible. 

Oh, Pyr will. He's defended that policy here before.  But the crap you said here about social media sounded as if you didn't think the policy should even be publicly questioned. Make up your mind.

[D.W.]

You were looking for a fight and read something that wasn't there. 
(That's what we're accusing Danielle Dirks of, correct?)

I was criticizing our society's sick NEED to be involved in every incident or trial and use it to illustrate our perspectives, political leanings and hopes for change.  We are blind to any details in a case/situation which don't fit our narrative.  Those details which don't fit the narrative are then used by those with opposing perspectives, political leanings or desire to maintain or go back to.

[Pete at Home]

I certainly wasn't looking for a fight with you or Sci-fi and am positively miserable from what he hurled against me. *censored* everything.

I honestly thought that you two would have seen reason on this one.  One big thing we fought for in the 1190s was to change rules so that the accuser wasn't effectively abused again in court, her panties held up as evidence of consent, etc. Well we got those changes.  I'm shocked that sci do would be so obtuse as to fail to recognize that bad procedure itself can have the affect of sexual abuse.  Dink is a state sponsored institutional sex predator, like the Peshawar court that sentenced that woman to be raped.

[Pete at Home]

We are blind to any details in a case/situation which don't fit our narrative.  Those details which don't fit the narrative

Well THAT is the sort of healthy discussion I had hoped to get from (usually) reasonable liberals like you and sci-fi rather than the cold blocking blanket dismissal you gave me.  WHAT details of the story am I overlooking here? Did either of you read it? 

[D.W.]

Dink is a state sponsored institutional sex predator, like the Peshawar court that sentenced that woman to be raped.

Care to explain WTF this means?  By what you quoted from the story, the guy looks like he was coaching someone into fitting HIS narrative.  He seemed to WANT a rape case to champion and trot out for his own reasons.  I find that monstrous but I don’t get how one reaches your designation and comparison.

I didn’t try to dismiss anything.  I’m not suggesting you are “missing anything”.  My point (one of them) was that WE (those who follow these stories) often do not have the full picture.  We can be outraged for all the right reasons.  We can have our hearts in the right place.  We can be championing good causes.  Then we SOMETIMES learn that what we rallied around was flawed.  Sometimes when this happens, the whole cause will look discredited to some.

I was opting not to pick up a virtual pitchfork and torch and lay into Danielle Dirks or Jane for falling prey to his manipulations.  What if, despite what seems to be truly ugly motivation for coaching her, John really was the villain Danielle was trying to paint him as?  It could happen.  Doesn’t change the fact that I think a policy of “drunk boy + drunk girl + sex = male rapist” is pure horse *censored*.  It DOES however change how I speak about it.

[Pete at Home]

If some of the folks put to death in Nazi death camps happened to be rapists or child molesters, does that mean death camps were good and abusive guards should not be charged?

The girl was brainwashed into filing charges that she did not believe to be true. They used a kangaroo court with an inherently self contradictory standard of rape.  If someone storms into a mosque and goes postal, do we ask, what if some of the victims were ISIS members?

[D.W.]

Pete, are you in there?  Come back to us.

[Fenring]

What I am saying is Don't you think it's strange to create an outcome where both parties have raped each other, since both are too drunk to consent?

I think you're missing the mark a little in this formulation. In intersectionality lingo if a drunk man and woman have sex the woman is a victim and the man is a rapist. In college culture right now intersectionality is becoming the de facto system of analysis in cases like this, so I don't think you'll see cases where both parties are declared to have raped each other; in each case you'll see the man accused of rape, and expelled prior to a legitimate legal investigation. The campuses conduct their own informal investigation and on that basis can expel the student for being a danger to campus, or for making people feel uncomfortable or unsafe that he goes to school there.

[Pete at Home]

If sci-fi agrees with you that the standard was ridiculous, then I'lol apologize for saying how was enabling abuse. But his point #1 contradicts that position.  #1 denies that a boy drunk to the point of UNCONCIOUSNESS could form intent to rape.  Bad luck if your frat mates put you in someone's bed after you pass out as a prank. Incapacity is no defense for rape in the sci-fi universe.

[Pete at Home]

What I am saying is Don't you think it's strange to create an outcome where both parties have raped each other, since both are too drunk to consent?

I think you're missing the mark a little in this formulation. In intersectionality lingo if a drunk man and woman have sex the woman is a victim and the man is a rapist. In college culture right now intersectionality is becoming the de facto system of analysis in cases like this, so I don't think you'll see cases where both parties are declared to have raped each other; in each case you'll see the man accused of rape, and expelled prior to a legitimate legal investigation. The campuses conduct their own informal investigation and on that basis can expel the student for being a danger to campus, or for making people feel uncomfortable or unsafe that he goes to school there.

If that is the standard interpretation the the school raped both of them when it gave them an orientation that spent hours discussing rape but never explained that intersectionality.  Occidental through this program has become a rape camp.

John—not his real name, as he prefers to remain anonymous—arrived on campus at the end of August and, like all incoming students, attended the mandatory orientation seminars. “Absolutely mandatory,” he says today. “And due to the fact that they’d just been hit with this major Title IX suit a couple months earlier, our orientation was absolutely dominated by sexual assault.” When the presentations turned to alcohol and its role in sexual assaults, John recalls, “the line is basically that you have to get consent. If someone’s incapacitated, if someone’s passed out, [they] can’t give consent. That was pretty clear.” Nothing about signs of potential incapacitation beyond obvious unconsciousness? None that he can recall, John says. “Even now it’s murky on where the line is between drunk and incapacitated.” (Occidental declined to clarify how its orientation distinguished between intoxication and incapacitation either during 2013 or after .)

So they have to tell students not to have sex with someone that's passed out but

[scifibum]

Sigh, Pete, I agree that the outcome in this case was wrong.  I said so in my first post.  I don't exactly know why you flew off the handle, but I'm not interested anymore in figuring it out.  I don't care to participate further, and I'd rather you reflect on productive forum behavior than apologize to me.

[NobleHunter]

I think you're missing the mark a little in this formulation. In intersectionality lingo if a drunk man and woman have sex the woman is a victim and the man is a rapist. In college culture right now intersectionality is becoming the de facto system of analysis in cases like this, so I don't think you'll see cases where both parties are declared to have raped each other; in each case you'll see the man accused of rape, and expelled prior to a legitimate legal investigation. The campuses conduct their own informal investigation and on that basis can expel the student for being a danger to campus, or for making people feel uncomfortable or unsafe that he goes to school there.

I recommend avoiding using words you clearly don't understand, like intersectionality. It means something specific which has SFA to do with this.

I believe I said last time that decided who is the rapist when both parties are sufficiently drunk depends more on the observer's beliefs about gender relations. The real bitch is we're in a period of over-correction following consistent and willful neglect sexual assault. Now the powers that be are erring on the side of potential victims and have forgotten they should be trying to avoid error.

[D.W.]

As the same over-correction sometimes applies to race relations in our country right now I'm not positive intersectionality is a poor word choice. 

I had to look it up to check...

[Pete at Home]

This is what angered me. In response to this,

"If someone is too drunk to consent, are they not also by definition too drunk to form the intent to commit rape or any other crime?"

--you said this:

1. "Too drunk to form intent" is a remarkably terrible idea for an exculpatory standard.

2. There was no criminal charge or conviction.

3. I am glad you are not in charge of deciding who to label a sexual predator.

All that said, assuming the whole story is there, this case definitely seems like an overreach.

It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.

Or the fact that the federal government has used it's funds to strong arm private institutions into setting up these Kangaroo courts.

The fact that there are no criminal charges does not change the fact that the government is directing these operations therefore when to say constitutional argument does not apply sounds exactly like the Bush admin and Clinton admin's defense for RENDERING processes to foreign government so America doesn't get hands dirty.

[D.W.]

1. "Too drunk to form intent" is a remarkably terrible idea for an exculpatory standard.

2. There was no criminal charge or conviction.

3. I am glad you are not in charge of deciding who to label a sexual predator.

All that said, assuming the whole story is there, this case definitely seems like an overreach.

It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.

How do you get from A to B?  What part in 1, 2 or 3 “sounded” like that?  I just don’t see it. 

Take it at face value.  “Too drunk to form intent” as a defense IS a terrible idea.  You must see that?  The inference that you don’t, I expect, is what lead to point 3. 

[Pete at Home]

Funny that while rapes in the military continue full blast, and we are asked to not pay attention to rapes in Cologne or to screen refugees for dangerous ideas about rape, the Obama admin is telling universities to charge American students with definitions of rape that the college doesn't even bother to warn the kids about as they come in.  Hell, the roommate was diligently following all he was taught in orientation to try to prevent a rape.  And the folks that testified that she was speaking slurred didn't get charged for collaboration for leading him to her room.

[Pete at Home]

1. "Too drunk to form intent" is a remarkably terrible idea for an exculpatory standard.

2. There was no criminal charge or conviction.

3. I am glad you are not in charge of deciding who to label a sexual predator.

All that said, assuming the whole story is there, this case definitely seems like an overreach.

It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.

How do you get from A to B?  What part in 1, 2 or 3 “sounded” like that?  I just don’t see it. 

try the two paragraphs that you left out of the quote.  Referencing the article issues that SD's points #1 and #2 streamlined.

Take it at face value.  “Too drunk to form intent” as a defense IS a terrible idea.  You must see that?  The inference that you don’t, I expect, is what lead to point 3.

I never proposed that in isolation. What I said that IF you are too drunk to consent, THEN you need to rethink whether you can form intent to rape.  Otherwise someone that's UNCONCIOUS can "rape" a slightly less drunk coed that mounts him. 

Do you deny that someone that's drunk to the point of total UNCONCIOUSNESS is incapable of forming intent to rape?  How about chunk to death?  Can a dead man rape?

The standard that the Occidental rape camp intro taught those poor little bastards was only that someone that was passed out was too drunk to consent.

[D.W.]

try the two paragraphs that you left out of the quote.  Referencing the article issues that SD's points #1 and #2 streamlined.

I refuse. 

Pretend that this paragraph is me parroting back what you want to hear.

Pretend this paragraph illustrates my outrage to an acceptable level.

Hope the rest of your day is relaxing and enjoyable.

[Fenring]

I recommend avoiding using words you clearly don't understand, like intersectionality. It means something specific which has SFA to do with this.

Your mistake is thinking that I bring up the term absent a reason for doing so. The theory at face value has SFA to do with it, but how the theory is implemented in practice and who is doing the implement is your missing link. In fact in a case like this I think it's absolutely at the core of the issue, where a situation involving a man AND a woman becomes dissecting as being about a man VERSUS a woman. It's all in the phrasing, you see.

[Pete at Home]

try the two paragraphs that you left out of the quote.  Referencing the article issues that SD's points #1 and #2 streamlined.

I refuse. 

I don't know what you mean.  Do you?

You asked

How do you get from A to B?  What part in 1, 2 or 3 “sounded” like that?  I just don’t see it. 

I told you that I'd answered that as to 1 or two and referenced where I'd said it.

I wasn't accusing you of leaving that out on purpose.  Just cited it because that's where the answer is.

Since you and scifi seem to want me to break it down rather than reading the article, I'll try to go back and cite the relevant parts that I was referencing in the left out paragraphs.

[NobleHunter]

Your mistake is thinking that I bring up the term absent a reason for doing so. The theory at face value has SFA to do with it, but how the theory is implemented in practice and who is doing the implement is your missing link. In fact in a case like this I think it's absolutely at the core of the issue, where a situation involving a man AND a woman becomes dissecting as being about a man VERSUS a woman. It's all in the phrasing, you see.

I'm sure you had a reason, it's still the wrong word. This case has nothing to do with intersectionality, unless you're using it as a euphemism for social justice. As best I can tell there's no intersection of privileges or lack thereof, just straight gender roles.

Based on the portrayal of Dirks' it's highly unlikely she's a proponent of intersectionality. It requires rather more self-awareness and understanding than shown in the OP. Without making a claim about her actual beliefs (because I don't care to waste the effort to find out), she sounds like a radical feminist who would not recognize the divisions within gender than intersectionality purports to address.

[Pete at Home]

Would love to hear what you mean by intersectionality.

To me, Dirk sounds like a bureaucrat that's found a foolproof replacement for tenure.  She latches onto a couple rape cases, and files a title 9 lawsuit against the school.  Then she uses her position to expand the definition of rape so it becomes a full time job.  Since she's the one who filed the lawsuit, no abuse of power on her part could possibly result in her dismissal, or the school loses title 9 funds.  She's a professional sexual predator, paid for with our tax dollars.

[Pyrtolin]

1.Drunks cannot legally consent.
2. Sex without legal consent is rape
3. Being drunk is no excuse for not knowing the other party is too drunk to consent.

Does anyone other than Pyr not see the inherent problem with those three premises for adjudicating rape claims. 

I was too drunk to remember that it's wrong to kill people.
I was too drunk to remember that it's illegal to steal things.
I was too drunk to remember that it's wrong to drive while your drunk. (Not too drunk to properly evaluate my ability to drive, mind you)


None of those are valid, so neither is "I was too drunk to remember that intoxication impairs consent." It's a false equivalence to suggest that the inability to render proper consent somehow implies the inability to understand taht one is in a situation where the consent of others is questionable.

I do think there's a problem with taking a outright punitive approach to the issue in cases like this, instead of focusing on providing counselling and educational resources in order to rectify the harm and prevent future recurrences.

[Fenring]

Based on the portrayal of Dirks' it's highly unlikely she's a proponent of intersectionality. It requires rather more self-awareness and understanding than shown in the OP. Without making a claim about her actual beliefs (because I don't care to waste the effort to find out), she sounds like a radical feminist who would not recognize the divisions within gender than intersectionality purports to address.

If there is a movement afoot people will get swept up in its thinking process and even sometimes nomenclature without personally having read the core doctrine or even subscribing to it. It does not require being a theoretician in intersectionality for someone to employ its derivative values and apply to them to a situation. You may even be correct that this would be a misuse of the intent of such a theory, which of course doesn't speak to whether proponents of that theory nevertheless misuse it or not. It's like saying the judgemental farmer in a Christian town probably isn't echoing Christian mores when he calls the milkmaid a slut; after all, the Christian ethos is surely about forgiveness and understanding. And yet in practice many Christians have employed Christianity as a theoretical system in a manner at odds with its intent, and so we need not ask whether this hypothetical farmer was really likely to have been enough of a Bible scholar to have based his comments on some reading of the Bible; your argument is that he was just a grumpy guy and his complaint shouldn't be taken in context of any larger social theory. Well in practice I think it's clear why this argument is weak; it suggests that theory exists in a vacuum and that it doesn't trickle down to people who have not personally studied it. In an age rife with blogging and poor excuses for journalism it's an especially weak argument. This isn't a QED of what I suggested, mind you, which was merely my interpretation of the facts as I see them. But when an action is clearly consistent with a larger trend it should hardly be surprising to suppose that the two may be related.

[D.W.]

Pete, replying to you here is feeling way too much like talking someone down off a ledge.  Between that and the simple fact I wasn't getting enough actual work done, I tried to bow out.


I asked you a question.  You told me (I think) it was answered in the part I clipped out.  I assume you mean the part within the same post by you which contained part of scifi’s quote and your response to it.  I assume you mean the answer to my question is buried in this quote.  If so, I’m blind or can’t make sense of it.

It sounded like an evasive defense of the process where two parties are too drunk to consent yet one of them must be designated the rapist and the other the victim.

Or the fact that the federal government has used it's funds to strong arm private institutions into setting up these Kangaroo courts.

The fact that there are no criminal charges does not change the fact that the government is directing these operations therefore when to say constitutional argument does not apply sounds exactly like the Bush admin and Clinton admin's defense for RENDERING processes to foreign government so America doesn't get hands dirty.

I would like you to connect the dots.  The first sentence seems unambiguous.  You took what scifi said, ran it through your brain and out popped that sentence.  That’s what it sounded like to you.  The second and third sentences are accusations that the events were either the desired outcome or at least a conspiracy or bureaucratic *censored*show.  To coin a phrase from the article.  Either way, none of that can be extrapolated (by me at least) from what scifi posted.

If you are INSTEAD reaching those conclusion based upon some piece of the article you linked to rather than the quoted post by scifi, fine.  My confusion is addressed.  Note, I don’t even try to correct the sentiment you express, lest you assume I do by this reply…  Though I do think it is needlessly hyperbolic.

[Pyrtolin]

Would love to hear what you mean by intersectionality.

INtersectionality is where the effects of different types of prejudice come together. Sex based discrimination and race based. Class based, religious based, orientation based, age based, etc...

Prejudices against men and against women are both aspects of sex based discrimination, they're not independent things that create new problems where they overlap with each other.

[Pete at Home]

I told you that Pyr would not disappoint, DW.

Look at all the stupid crap that Pyr wants to pass on as the equivalent of this case, where I am only saying the poor kid was TOO DRUNK TO EVALUATE WHETHER HIS PARTNER WAS TOO DRUNK TO CONSENT.

1.Drunks cannot legally consent.
2. Sex without legal consent is rape
3. Being drunk is no excuse for not knowing the other party is too drunk to consent.

Does anyone other than Pyr not see the inherent problem with those three premises for adjudicating rape claims. 

I was too drunk to remember that it's wrong to kill people.
I was too drunk to remember that it's illegal to steal things.
I was too drunk to remember that it's wrong to drive while your drunk. (Not too drunk to properly evaluate my ability to drive, mind you)


None of those are valid, so neither is "I was too drunk to remember that intoxication impairs consent." It's a false equivalence to suggest that the inability to render proper consent somehow implies the inability to understand taht one is in a situation where the consent of others is questionable.

Pyr recognizes that a drunk person cannot fairly evaluate whether he is too drunk to drive, but expects a drunk underage kid to be able to realize that a slightly less intoxicated girl is too drunk to consent.

Surprisingly Pyr and not Sci-fi recognizes my point that the university's orientation is more to blame than the kid.  It was the school that told him, his roommates and other person's who were monitoring the situation that yes means yes except when your date passes out.  Pyr also doesn't blow off the harm that was done to this boy, or argue that this isn't a disgraceful and newsworthy debacle. 

[Fenring]

Would love to hear what you mean by intersectionality.

INtersectionality is where the effects of different types of prejudice come together. Sex based discrimination and race based. Class based, religious based, orientation based, age based, etc...

Prejudices against men and against women are both aspects of sex based discrimination, they're not independent things that create new problems where they overlap with each other.

Pyr is far more knowledgeable than me on this topic, but I'd like to add that in my experience intersectionality theory looks at these areas of prejudice with an eye towards how the prejudice relates to the power relationship between the people involved. For instance in the case of women who are treated in a sexist manner in the workplace, intersectionality views this not only on its own terms (as treating a person in a sidelining way due to their sex) but also in view of the fact that this is occurring within the context of women having historically been less powerful than men. As such the case of men treating women badly in the workplace isn't merely sexist, but is also an example of the larger issue of men controlling or being domineering over women in general. The larger context is always present in intersectionality, as is the identification of even power which allows for abuses such as racism, sexism, and so forth. It's not merely a result of this theory that two parties are broken down into more-powerful and less-powerful, but in fact this breakdown goes to the core of the theory as a means of examining various types of unfair treatment from the more powerful to the less powerful.

[NobleHunter]

If there is a movement afoot people will get swept up in its thinking process and even sometimes nomenclature without personally having read the core doctrine or even subscribing to it. It does not require being a theoretician in intersectionality for someone to employ its derivative values and apply to them to a situation. You may even be correct that this would be a misuse of the intent of such a theory, which of course doesn't speak to whether proponents of that theory nevertheless misuse it or not. It's like saying the judgemental farmer in a Christian town probably isn't echoing Christian mores when he calls the milkmaid a slut; after all, the Christian ethos is surely about forgiveness and understanding. And yet in practice many Christians have employed Christianity as a theoretical system in a manner at odds with its intent, and so we need not ask whether this hypothetical farmer was really likely to have been enough of a Bible scholar to have based his comments on some reading of the Bible; your argument is that he was just a grumpy guy and his complaint shouldn't be taken in context of any larger social theory. Well in practice I think it's clear why this argument is weak; it suggests that theory exists in a vacuum and that it doesn't trickle down to people who have not personally studied it. In an age rife with blogging and poor excuses for journalism it's an especially weak argument. This isn't a QED of what I suggested, mind you, which was merely my interpretation of the facts as I see them. But when an action is clearly consistent with a larger trend it should hardly be surprising to suppose that the two may be related.

It's not that she wasn't caught up in some larger social theory, it's that you're identifying the wrong one. The farmer might be indulging in prudish christian misogyny but it would be outright wrong to blame his comments on the witchcraze. This isn't intersectionality, it's a failure mode of feminism that's at least 40 years old.

To expand on Pyr's definition, it's an attempt to describe why the experiences of black women are different from those of white women. I think the term was created to provide a model to help criticize white feminism's habit of ignoring the experience and stories of black feminists.

The either/or power dynamic is a common feature of social justice criticisms of the kyriarchy. It's not a distinguishing factor of intersectionality.

[Pete at Home]

Would love to hear what you mean by intersectionality.

INtersectionality is where the effects of different types of prejudice come together. Sex based discrimination and race based. Class based, religious based, orientation based, age based, etc...

Prejudices against men and against women are both aspects of sex based discrimination, they're not independent things that create new problems where they overlap with each other.

If you recognize that, then I don't understand why you ... Never mind.  I'm finding you more reasonable than I expected on this thread.

If I understand you right, we both agree that the worst aspect of this case is the lack of notice.  That the university's lengthy rape discussion set up a different standard than that which was enforced.

If boys are told the insane standards that this school applies for rape, I.e.you don't even need to be conscious to "rape" someone, they can properly protect themselves by avoiding alcohol, wearing chastity belts, and carrying a video camera and a breathalyzer to every sexual encounter.  That will put that predatory title nine kyrarch out of work.

[scifibum]

Pete, stop ascribing vile beliefs and statements to me.  Your track record in this thread is 0 for X, and in general is probably running below 20%.  I have done nothing to deserve this crap.

[D.W.]

If boys are told the insane standards that this school applies for rape, I.e.you don't even need to be conscious to "rape" someone, they can properly protect themselves by avoiding alcohol, wearing chastity belts, and carrying a video camera and a breathalyzer to every sexual encounter.

Maybe I did fail to read the article properly. 

Are you intentionally (or mistakenly) blurring the lines between conscious, incapacitated and unconscious?  What you just wrote, is an entirely differing condemnation of their policy than the situation I thought was outlined. 

Your advice is sadly appropriate regardless. 

[Fenring]

If boys are told the insane standards that this school applies for rape, I.e.you don't even need to be conscious to "rape" someone, they can properly protect themselves by avoiding alcohol, wearing chastity belts, and carrying a video camera and a breathalyzer to every sexual encounter.

Ironically carrying around a video camera would do the opposite of protecting anyone. Since intoxication is viewed as restricting the ability to consent, and since any level of intoxication might be employed in order to set this standard, you'll find a situation where if every guy on a campus recorded his activities with women where both parties drink any amount of alcohol, then probably upwards of half the student body would legally be rapists. Imagine if this logic was applied to marriages, where if a man and his wife have a little to drink and they have sex it legally makes him a rapist?

The obvious case this system was meant to address was men taking advantage of girls so drunk they were effectively incapacitated, and yet the line cannot be drawn there since each level of inebriation carries with it a partial level of lacking good sense. You end up with a blanket rule where any amount of alcohol in a female means she cannot consent, which turns ordinary people into villains and in a strange way distracts attention away from the actual culprits the rule was intending to address in the first place (those who purposely manipulate incapacitated women).

[Pete at Home]

If boys are told the insane standards that this school applies for rape, I.e.you don't even need to be conscious to "rape" someone, they can properly protect themselves by avoiding alcohol, wearing chastity belts, and carrying a video camera and a breathalyzer to every sexual encounter.

Maybe I did fail to read the article properly. 

Are you intentionally (or mistakenly) blurring the lines between conscious, incapacitated and unconscious?  What you just wrote, is an entirely differing condemnation of their policy than the situation I thought was outlined. 

Your advice is sadly appropriate regardless.

I think we've both misunderstood each other and from what sci-fi said I have misunderstood him as well.  I suspect him me as well.

Note to self:.stop using the word Lefty in headings as no amount of explaining makes clear I don't mean it to refer.to all "progressives" or liberals.