Author Topic: Leftists might as well flip coin to determine who raped whom in drunken hookup  (Read 30653 times)

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You're the only one bringing the concept of "monster" in here.
Because being punished for sexual contact without consent just makes you the sexy type of dangerous and a misunderstood rebel? 

Pete throws around a lot of loaded descriptors when he's upset but "monster" is as good as short hand gets for how people see accused rapists. 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The schools rules did not change. It was applying its existing definition of rape,

There you go again changing the facts. The school rape camp established the ONLY noticed definition here, which was that someone drunk to the point of passing out was incapable of consent.

If you had bothered to do more than skim the article you would see that the very WITNESSES at the school kangaroo proceeding, testified that they examined and evaluated her 'consent' according to whether she was conscious and saying yes, because that was what THEY remembered being taught by the school. If they had been taught the standard you pretend had been taught, they would have interceded. Not even Occidental claims that their enforced definition was ever taught at orientation. That's a fact you have pulled out of nowhere.


 If this girl was raped, then the boy was too, and the school was the sole responsible actor, and you are blaming a victim.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You're the only one bringing the concept of "monster" in here.
Because being punished for sexual contact without consent just makes you the sexy type of dangerous and a misunderstood rebel? 
If it's an accident, it should be treated as such, with a focus on restitution through therapy and rehabilitation through education. TI's only when you see intentional action that stronger measures are caled for.

I mean, we don't call someone who accidentally hurts or kills someone a monster, only someone who does it intentionally and maliciously. And we also don't avoid calling the kind of harm or killing what they are just because we want to avoid lumping them in with people who maliciously do those things. The fact that you killed someone though your actions means that you killed someone, regardless of accident or malice behind the act.

Quote
Pete throws around a lot of loaded descriptors when he's upset but "monster" is as good as short hand gets for how people see accused rapists.
And they should differentiate and seek to help those who accidentally commit rape distinctly from how they treat those who intentionally seek to do so.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The school rape camp established the ONLY noticed definition here, which was that someone drunk to the point of passing out was incapable of consent.
You have yet to demonstrate that.

All we have is the testimony of John who said that that was the understanding he came away with, Not what was taught.

On the other hand the school's policy did not change and was explicitly cited as being any sexual activity without consent, as well as including a range of penalties to be applied based on the severity of the incident.

If you have evidence of the school's actual course materials being inconsistent with the school policy, please to present it. The article did not provide such.

Quote
because that was what THEY remembered being taught by the school.

RIght there. Not what they were taught. What they remembered. Two completely different things.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pyr, you say I only cited John and you ignore his roommate's testimony which I also cited.  If you are having access problems, just pause on responding and I will spooonfeed you the relevant portions when I get to my lover's computer.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
If this girl was raped, then the boy was too,
To the extent that he felt that his consent was violated, absolutely. Which is why the proper action would have been to provide them both with counselling and education and not cast blame on anyone.

Quote
and you are blaming a victim.
You're the one looking to cast blame. I'm pointing out that blaming anyone instead of working to rectify the situation is the wrong response.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pyr, you say I only cited John and you ignore his roommate's testimony which I also cited.  If you are having access problems, just pause on responding and I will spooonfeed you the relevant portions when I get to my lover's computer.
And? Neither of them are authoritative sources on the contents of the course, and they're both clearly wrong in their understanding of the actual school policy. n fact their misunderstanding makes them both invalid to cite here.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
RIght there. Not what they were taught. What they remembered. Two completely different things

honest people only testify to what they remember, whiz boy. That makes TWO testimonies versus zero, since the school declined to comment.  Thus by uncontested fact, the school offered no notice.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pyrtolin, I really have to disagree that this case (assuming we have all the facts) fits how people in general understand the definition of rape.  You would likely get nods if you ask people if they agree that rape is "sexual activity without consent".  But then if you asked them if two people could simultaneously rape each other, you'd get blank stares.  That's not how people understand the term.  But if they were both unable to consent, yet took equal part in deciding to have sex, either they raped each other the definition of rape is incomplete. 

If you are saying that John raped Jane, and not vice versa, because Jane experienced worse psychological or other damage from the event, I still disagree.  It's not a good idea to define an act as rape based on the psychological consequences of that act, unless you magically change all of the social ramifications of labeling someone a rapist or rape victim.  I agree with you that ideally, it wouldn't matter how we labeled it as long as we take the proper steps to mitigate the damage and prevent future damage, but that's not the world we live in.  Proscriptions on behavior generally need to be defined in terms of what can be known at the time the decisions are made, and there are ramifications to the labeling itself.  The "rape" label creates an automatic positioning of victim vs. aggressor, and there's too much social inertia in how this influences subsequent events to ignore.

We need a different label for "both unable to legally consent but both participated in deciding to have sex".  Perhaps "negligent sexual miscreancy" or something.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You're the only one bringing the concept of "monster" in here.
Because being punished for sexual contact without consent just makes you the sexy type of dangerous and a misunderstood rebel? 
If it's an accident, it should be treated as such, with a focus on restitution through therapy and rehabilitation through education. TI's only when you see intentional action that stronger measures are caled for.

I don't think you get it. Someone either IS or IS NOT a rapist. If they are they are a criminal and are going on the sex offender registry and their life is over. If not then the case is closed and they did nothing legally wrong, whether or not you think it was morally wrong. There is no such legal thing as an accidental rapist. There are no 'shades of rape'. The man is either guilty or not guilty based on a defined standard. I know what you want to say - that people should be understanding and treat a 'lesser rape' with a gentleness not offered to violent rapists. But until the legal system reflects your opinion it's just hot air.

Based on your previous responses to my comments about the standard for consent it almost sounds like you know there's no reasonable way to define consent under your definition of rape, even though you wish there was. You keep saying that a couple can assume consent based on some sort of negotiated agreement made over time, but what you fail to understand is that the rape issue only crops up after a bad event, not before it. You can talk all you want about 'mutually understood agreement', but if a woman accuses a man of rape she will obviously never agree that they had such an agreement even if he was confident they did have one. The fact of them having had discussions about it won't mitigate the fact that the woman feels violated and the man (in theory) thinks he's done nothing wrong. The law must dictate what is and isn't wrong, and cannot be concerned about how each party felt about the consent or the consequences. As scifi and Pete correctly point out, not every bad result of sex ought to be called a rape.

I also think it's wrong (bordering on heinously immoral) to have a college campus enforce a standard of rape not legally accepted and punish students according to that internal policy. It should be illegal for a private company to brand someone under a criminal terminology based on their subjective say-so. If they do so they should be brought down for defamation and possibly criminal harassment. Imagine if a university adopted some arbitrary definition of murder and then publicly labelled a student as a "murderer" even though under the law he would be ruled to have committed nothing more than an accident, or perhaps even would be found criminally negligent. But once you say someone is a murderer their life is over, although frankly not half as much as dubbing them a rapist. That is a problem with American culture but in any case it's reality and you can't adjudicate these cases as if it isn't.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
RIght there. Not what they were taught. What they remembered. Two completely different things

honest people only testify to what they remember, whiz boy. That makes TWO testimonies versus zero, since the school declined to comment.  Thus by uncontested fact, the school offered no notice.
And memory is about as unreliable a thing as you can lean on. The school has a celar policy taht has not changed. If you want to argue about what the course taught then find some slides from the course, otherwise asserting anything about the actual contents of the course is unfounded and the only actual evidence we have is the clear policy statement, which did not change.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Rape is a type of battery, ie what law men call "assault".  Neither battery nor assault applies without intent.

If you reach to shake someone's hand and don't know they don't shake hands, you have not committed assault. 

"And memory is about as unreliable a thing as you can lean on"

Eyewitness testimony is more relevant than your conjecture.

There's also Jane's testimony that she didn't believe it was rape.  In absence of ANY controvertng evidence, there was no notice and you are wasting time.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
I like how we got to page 3 and this all seems MORE ridiculous than my page one first reply.     ;D

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
*Sigh* Here's the Occidental web page for policies and procedures related to sexual respect:

http://www.oxy.edu/sexual-respect-title-ix/policies-procedures

The pertinent section is III.C.1

Quote
1. Sexual Assault

 “Sexual Assault” is having or attempting to have sexual intercourse with another individual:   

By force or threat of force;
Without effective affirmative consent; or
Where that individual is incapacitated.

Sexual intercourse includes vaginal or anal penetration, however slight, with a body part (e.g., penis, tongue, finger, hand) or object, or oral penetration involving mouth to genital contact.

You will note that the three conditions that basically qualify here for rape are using force, lack of consent, and someone being incapacitated, just as both the article and Pete state. Any further arguments with this, Pyr? According to their own website John did not breach this policy.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 03:23:16 PM by Fenring »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
*Sigh* Here's the Occidental web page for policies and procedures related to sexual respect:

http://www.oxy.edu/sexual-respect-title-ix/policies-procedures

The pertinent section is III.C.1

Quote
1. Sexual Assault

 “Sexual Assault” is having or attempting to have sexual intercourse with another individual:   

By force or threat of force;
Without effective affirmative consent; or
Where that individual is incapacitated.

Sexual intercourse includes vaginal or anal penetration, however slight, with a body part (e.g., penis, tongue, finger, hand) or object, or oral penetration involving mouth to genital contact.

You will note that the three conditions that basically qualify here for rape are using force, lack of consent, and someone being incapacitated, just as both the article and Pete state. Any further arguments with this, Pyr? According to their own website John did not breach this policy.


Pyr when you claimed that the school had a fixed policy that had not changed, what did you base it on? 


"The school has a celar policy taht has not changed. If you want to argue about what the course taught then find some slides from the course, otherwise asserting anything about the actual contents of the course is unfounded and the only actual evidence we have is the clear policy statement, which did not change."

No sir. The school doesn't even allege that John had notice of their rule.  And it is not on the website.  Your sloppiness with the facts here approaches dishonesty.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Pyrtolin, I really have to disagree that this case (assuming we have all the facts) fits how people in general understand the definition of rape.
Which is why there are education campaigns out there to get people to change their understanding to one that is actually effective at preventing it. It's a bad public understanding that helps enable and promote it in our culture at large.

It seems like the school in question was trying to do that, but either did not effectively convey the idea or students were ignoring the education material provide and assuming they already knew the content.

Quote
If you are saying that John raped Jane, and not vice versa, because Jane experienced worse psychological or other damage from the event, I still disagree.
If he did not feel his consent was violated, then he was not raped. If he did feel his consent was violated, he would have had some degree of damage from coping with that. It's not the relative amount of damage, it's the fact that having one's sense of meaningful consent violated causes damage.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
"If he did not feel his consent was violated, then he was not raped"

re you still here flapping without reading the damned article?  After being informed of the previously unnoticed "definition" of consent, John DID report he had been rape but they threw it out.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pyr when you claimed that the school had a fixed policy that had not changed, what did you base it on? 
Explicit citation in the article:
Quote
None of these definitions mattered. The only definition that mattered to Mirkovich was Occidental’s:

“Incapacitation is a state where an individual cannot make an informed and rational decision to engage in sexual activity because s/he lacks conscious knowledge of the nature of the act (e.g., to understand the who, what, when, why, or how of the sexual interaction) and/or is physically helpless.

Quote
However, Mirkovich also concluded that because multiple witnesses describe her as “slurring her speech, stumbling, and not making sense … [Jane’s] decision-making ability was significantly impaired… . [She] was not aware of the consequences of her action and she did not have the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of the act. Accordingly, [Mirkovich] finds [Jane] was incapacitated.”

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
"If he did not feel his consent was violated, then he was not raped"

re you still here flapping without reading the damned article?  After being informed of the previously unnoticed "definition" of consent, John DID report he had been rape but they threw it out.

Do you understand what the word "If" means? It's a conditional specifier that's used to work through hypothetical . If he did feel that his consent was violated , then the clause after the word "then" does not apply.

I did not say "He did not feel violated" I said "In the hypothetical cast that he did not feel violated" by nature of the meaning of "if".

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
"Without effective affirmative cosent" would cover being sufficiently drunk. The problem is that both parties were sufficiently drunk (or I'm assuming they were because there's nothing to discuss if they weren't).

Sense? Feel? How on earth do you make that into law or even a matter of facts? Especially since it seems to allow for the retroactive withdrawal of consent. You really ought to pay more attention to the implications of your theoretical framework. "Sense of meaningful consent" is manna from heaven for MRA false-accusation conspiracy theorists.

Proper sex-ed frames consent as a bright line with strict liability for crossing it. It's an either/or condition and if you aren't sure where the line is you don't go any further than where you know for sure is on the right side of it. Consent is also a defined event, obtained prior to and during (at least, not withdrawn during) activities. It cannot be obtained or withdrawn after the fact, nor should its presence or absence be inferred by actions taken by the participants following the event. Anything else allows for the marginalization and erasure of victims who fail to follow the proscribed narrative.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
"Without effective affirmative cosent" would cover being sufficiently drunk. The problem is that both parties were sufficiently drunk (or I'm assuming they were because there's nothing to discuss if they weren't).

They were both sloshed. Although the school pursued the argument that Jane was technically incapacitated I can see how you'd use the word "effective" here to denote being in sound capacity to do so. But don't you think that word might actually be meant to imply that the consent must effectively be understood as consent? This would cover communication such as linguistic, nodding of the head, a thumbs up, a wink, or whatever else that connoted affirmation. That's actually how I understood the clause when I first read it, and since the school pursued the incapacitation argument perhaps this is also how they understand it. If, indeed, the word "effectively" literally means that the consent must be effectively communicated (i.e. successfully communicated) then the state of mind of the person consenting would not be a stated mitigating factor in disqualifying the consent.

Note that in real-life practice I agree with you that a girl who's in a drunken stupor shouldn't be taken advantage of and you should tell her to sleep it off, but legally it's a different matter entirely to create a blanket rule that will be enforced in a criminal court. As I argued with Pyr, if being drunk cancels a person's ability to consent you go straight down a rabbit hole of having to define a precise blood-alcohol level where that person has lost the license to decide things. I also wonder, as Pete mentioned, whether being drunk in this sense would invalidate other legal contracts made in that state. Slurring speech can't be enough, since one person might slur speech at one level of intoxication while another person will take a lot more booze to get there. The physical affect cannot be a legally determining factor in judging someone to be a sex offender or not. There has to be a hard line that is factual and not to do with feelings or subjective appraisals of a drunk person.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 04:14:08 PM by Fenring »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
"Without effective affirmative cosent" would cover being sufficiently drunk. The problem is that both parties were sufficiently drunk (or I'm assuming they were because there's nothing to discuss if they weren't).

They were both sloshed. Although the school pursued the argument that Jane was technically incapacitated I can see how you'd use the word "effective" here to denote being in sound capacity to do so. But don't you think that word might actually be meant to imply that the consent must effectively be understood as consent? This would cover communication such as linguistic, nodding of the head, a thumbs up, a wink, or whatever else that connoted affirmation. That's actually how I understood the clause when I first read it, and since the school pursued the incapacitation argument perhaps this is also how they understand it. If, indeed, the word "effectively" literally means that the consent must be effectively communicated (i.e. successfully communicated) then the state of mind of the person consenting would not be a stated mitigating factor in disqualifying the consent.

Note that in real-life practice I agree with you that a girl who's in a drunken stupor shouldn't be taken advantage of and you should tell her to sleep it off, but legally it's a different matter entirely to create a blanket rule that will be enforced in a criminal court. As I argued with Pyr, if being drunk cancels a person's ability to consent you go straight down a rabbit hole of having to define a precise blood-alcohol level where that person has lost the license to decide things. I also wonder, as Pete mentioned, whether being drunk in this sense would invalidate other legal contracts made in that state. Slurring speech can't be enough, since one person might slur speech at one level of intoxication while another person will take a lot more booze to get there. The physical affect cannot be a legally determining factor in judging someone to be a sex offender or not. There has to be a hard line that is factual and not to do with feelings or subjective appraisals of a drunk person.

Oh, it gets better.  Pyr then says that it depends on who is psychological ally damaged, but admitted that John was probably damaged (should have sought counseling). More importantly, damage is irrelevant to fault, since as with Pyr's metaphor analogy to drunk driving, the drunk driver may die while the person she collides with might be OK.  The sheer recidivism of serial rapists militates that the act of committing rape must seriously screw you up. 

So then Pyr says, well whoever says later that they were raped, and he defends Dirk by saying that John never said he was raped therefore he is rapist. But even that demented theory fails under these facts.  Both Jane and John initially said they were not raped and then later said they had after being counseled in the ever changing rules of Occidental Rape camp.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Pyr when you claimed that the school had a fixed policy that had not changed, what did you base it on? 
Explicit citation in the article:
Quote
None of these definitions mattered. The only definition that mattered to Mirkovich was Occidental’s:

“Incapacitation is a state where an individual cannot make an informed and rational decision to engage in sexual activity because s/he lacks conscious knowledge of the nature of the act (e.g., to understand the who, what, when, why, or how of the sexual interaction) and/or is physically helpless.

Quote
However, Mirkovich also concluded that because multiple witnesses describe her as “slurring her speech, stumbling, and not making sense … [Jane’s] decision-making ability was significantly impaired… . [She] was not aware of the consequences of her action and she did not have the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of the act. Accordingly, [Mirkovich] finds [Jane] was incapacitated.”

Sigh. Pyro, that was written AFTER the blunder*censored*. You claimed that it was the college noticed policy BEFORE the incident.  You claimed that the college definition never changed.  You made that up, didn't you?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
"If he did not feel his consent was violated, then he was not raped"

re you still here flapping without reading the damned article?  After being informed of the previously unnoticed "definition" of consent, John DID report he had been rape but they threw it out.

Do you understand what the word "If" means? It's a conditional specifier that's used to work through hypothetical . If he did feel that his consent was violated , then the clause after the word "then" does not apply.

I did not say "He did not feel violated" I said "In the hypothetical cast that he did not feel violated" by nature of the meaning of "if".

OK. My bad there. Thanks for clarifying what you meant.  But it's a strange standard given that you have said that human memory was the least reliable thing.  One might feel differently about different iterations of what one remembers.  Plus Stockholm syndrome screws with feeling itself.  You might be fighting your DHAESH kidnapper when he rapes you for the first time in momma's kitchen but have six of his kids and huddle with him under the mosque as drones whiz overhead and you might remember that first rape warmly like Gone with the wind.  The feeling of memory is far more plastic than facts and details.