Author Topic: Leftists might as well flip coin to determine who raped whom in drunken hookup  (Read 30648 times)

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
Are you contending that he was so drunk that he thought she was sober? Otherwise that's a false metric. If he knew she was intoxicated, and had no prior understanding established when the were both sober then _any_ drunk is too drunk. HE doesn't need to sort out how drunk she is, just taht she has been drinking, at all and thus any attempt to get consent is currently invalid.


Quote
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.
Only an enthusiastic and _sober_ yes means yes. The core issue at play is that intoxication invalidates consent. Not degree of intoxication, ins the same way that any intoxication makes driving unsafe. If the issues was one over whether he misjudged whether he was intoxicated, and thus his own ability to offer consent, it would be one thing. But if he was aware taht he was intoxicated and that it was even possible that she was, then the issue isn't one of judgment of his own state but of violation of a structural principle. Like forgetting that driving while drunk or theft are illegal in and of themselves.

And honestly , the drunk driving parallel strongly holds. Unless you are fully sober, you should assume taht you're too drunk to tell whether or not your capable of driving. Unless you're fully sober you should assume that you're too drunk to be trying to figure out who is capable of consenting to sex.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
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).

the visual could show that he turned down advances from anyone with blood in her system.  (Hence the breathalyzer.)

You don't have to have sex with anyone to be accused of rape.  Best keep a photographic account of your abstinence lest a woman's lack of memory of having sex with you be construed as proof you raped her.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
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
No it doesn't. It just means taht people need to have these conversations when sober and secure meaningful consent instead of using alcohol as a tool to short circuit the conversation.

It's exactly the attitude that your expressing here taht causes the problem in the first place. If everyone entered the scenario with the understanding that it was unacceptable to try to get consent at such an event, then there wouldn't be a risk of violation, because no one would be trying to make any judgement call about whose "too" drunk to meaningfully consent. And if they did really want to have a party about scoring sex, then they'd only break out the alcohol after people had figured out who was okay with what.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Are you contending that he was so drunk that he thought she was sober? Otherwise that's a false metric. If he knew she was intoxicated, and had no prior understanding established when the were both sober then _any_ drunk is too drunk. HE doesn't need to sort out how drunk she is, just taht she has been drinking, at all and thus any attempt to get consent is currently invalid.
But was she so drunk that she thought he was sober? Otherwise that's a false metric. If she knew he was intoxicated, and had no prior understanding established when the were both sober then _any_ drunk is too drunk. SHE doesn't need to sort out how drunk he is, just that he has been drinking, at all and thus any attempt to get consent is currently invalid.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
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
No it doesn't. It just means taht people need to have these conversations when sober and secure meaningful consent instead of using alcohol as a tool to short circuit the conversation.

It's exactly the attitude that your expressing here taht causes the problem in the first place. If everyone entered the scenario with the understanding that it was unacceptable to try to get consent at such an event, then there wouldn't be a risk of violation, because no one would be trying to make any judgement call about whose "too" drunk to meaningfully consent. And if they did really want to have a party about scoring sex, then they'd only break out the alcohol after people had figured out who was okay with what.

This is a fitting description of reality on a science fiction board. We have advanced to the next level of consciousness where the suitability of sexual partners is determined in advance of flirting with them and confirmed by mutually signed affidavit before any consumption of alcohol, especially so in college. The future is here, we are now sexually liberated.
 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
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.
Are you contending that he was so drunk that he thought she was sober?

Yes.
Absent any evidence to the contrary, that's what a non Nazi court should presume.  Show evidence that he actually knew she was intoxicated.

"Only an enthusiastic and _sober_ yes means yes."

Did you read the texts? The girl was enthusiastic.  To him and to her friends.  If sobriety is necessary for her to consent, then those who led her to his room collaborated in the rape.

You can't just change rules and definitions and enforce them ex post facto.  This girl was victimized by the University. Not by that dumb boy.


"The core issue at play is that intoxication invalidates consent. Not degree of intoxication, ins the same way that any intoxication makes driving unsafe. If the issues was one over whether he misjudged whether he was intoxicated, and thus his own ability to offer consent, it would be one thing. But if he was aware taht he was intoxicated and that it was even possible that she was, then the issue isn't one of judgment of his own state but of violation of a structural principle. Like forgetting that driving while drunk or theft are illegal in and of themselves."

So she raped him too?  That's what you call structure?  Mutual rape? Or does the person who complains first get to be the victim?

"And honestly , the drunk driving parallel strongly holds."

No, it doesn't.  Because a car can't drive you.

" Unless you are fully sober, you should assume taht you're too drunk to tell whether or not your capable of driving. Unless you're fully sober you should assume that you're too drunk to be trying to figure out who is capable of consenting to sex."

But those driving laws are ONLY reasonable because there is notice. You need a license to drive, and to get licensed you get trained and taught about dangers and illegality of duis. It's immoral and unconstitutional to pass such rules about sex and enforce them without notice.


D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
I was going to do the same substitution NH did.  Anyway…

I can’t tell if Pyr is being openly sexists, just spelling out how a sexists system works or is advocating a zero tolerance policy towards sex combined with alcohol?  That’s like preaching abstinence only sex ed and hoping for the best…

P.S.  Took a page Pete but I understood your whole post and agreed with it.  How bout that.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Thanks, DW.  I must have communicated badly because sci-fi seems to have misunderstood too, I don't think he's with Pyr on this, and I read his post as even more extreme.  (that's an admission I misread you, sf).

You can't consent while asleep, but I think you also can't very well commit rape, either. There's nothing quite as surreal as waking up in medias res, wondering if your partner is awake.  Especially when your dream had nothing to do with sex.  :D

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Are you contending that he was so drunk that he thought she was sober? Otherwise that's a false metric. If he knew she was intoxicated, and had no prior understanding established when the were both sober then _any_ drunk is too drunk. HE doesn't need to sort out how drunk she is, just taht she has been drinking, at all and thus any attempt to get consent is currently invalid.
But was she so drunk that she thought he was sober? Otherwise that's a false metric. If she knew he was intoxicated, and had no prior understanding established when the were both sober then _any_ drunk is too drunk. SHE doesn't need to sort out how drunk he is, just that he has been drinking, at all and thus any attempt to get consent is currently invalid.

Absolutely. That's not in contradiction to what I said in any way.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
If sobriety is necessary for her to consent, then those who led her to his room collaborated in the rape.
Absolutely. Which is why there are big campaigns out there to teach people that that is exactly what doing such amounts to. And why those campaigns are actually effective at reducing rape because it helps all participants act to prevent such situations from occurring instead of pretending taht it's someone else's problem.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
It's exactly the attitude that your expressing here taht causes the problem in the first place. If everyone entered the scenario with the understanding that it was unacceptable to try to get consent at such an event, then there wouldn't be a risk of violation, because no one would be trying to make any judgement call about whose "too" drunk to meaningfully consent

By offering a mandatory seminar on rape for freshmen, then FAILING to explain the rules accurately, it's the University's fault this happened, not anyone's "attitude" at fault.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
But those driving laws are ONLY reasonable because there is notice. You need a license to drive, and to get licensed you get trained and taught about dangers and illegality of duis. It's immoral and unconstitutional to pass such rules about sex and enforce them without notice.

Quote
1.Drunks cannot legally consent.
2. Sex without legal consent is rape
Which of these two are you suggesting that they were not aware of?

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
If sobriety is necessary for her to consent, then those who led her to his room collaborated in the rape.
Absolutely. Which is why there are big campaigns out there to teach people that that is exactly what doing such amounts

Well there was a big campaign at Occidental but they did NOT teach that.  And when asked the school refused to comment.  That makes the school by definition a rape camp.

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
I don't think that when two drunk people have sex, a rape must have occurred.  Possibly we need a different term to refer to the outcome when two drunk people do their best to consent to sex, and then have sex.  It should definitely be discouraged and possibly even penalized (by schools, maybe the law).  But it's harmful to assume that a rape must have occurred.

However, when two drunk people have sex - even blackout drunk - it doesn't mean that a rape cannot have occurred.  I would never want drunkenness to automatically exculpate an accused rapist.  It's easy enough to construct a scenario where a victim is unambiguously raped by a person who will have no memory of the event due to extreme intoxication.  What I'm saying is that "they were both equally unable to consent" does not rule out rape, any more than "the rapist was drunk and the victim was sober" is an impossible scenario. 

I applaud institutions that promote bright line rules like "sober and enthusiastic consent, or no sex".*  However, I don't think that encounters that don't meet this standard are automatically instances of rape.  Now, whether private institutions want to enforce the bright line standard is a separate question, and I can imagine ways of enforcing the standard that aren't terrible. 

I'm not ready to agree that Dirks did something monstrous, because I don't know what set of facts she was working with.  According to the set of facts in the linked article, John shouldn't have been penalized, IMO.  That doesn't mean that Dirks knew all that we know from the article when she encouraged Jane to file a complaint, so I don't think it's fair to assume that she wanted John to get expelled while understanding/believing the whole story (and again I'm just assuming the linked article fairly represents the whole story).  She wasn't wrong that intentional sexual assaults do often fit the fact pattern she was aware of at the time.  That the full (as far as we know) set of facts didn't lead to a just result is an institutional failing, not something we can lay entirely at Dirks's feet.


*Although it's quite far from the status quo, and might seem pointlessly out of touch, I still hope.  It should be taught as a way to PROTECT YOURSELF. 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
But those driving laws are ONLY reasonable because there is notice. You need a license to drive, and to get licensed you get trained and taught about dangers and illegality of duis. It's immoral and unconstitutional to pass such rules about sex and enforce them without notice.

Quote
1.Drunks cannot legally consent.
2. Sex without legal consent is rape
Which of these two are you suggesting that they were not aware of?

Asked and answered.  They were told in the rape camp orientation only that folks drunk TO UNCONCIOUSNESS can't consent.

If one can't consent while intoxicated, that means contracts made while drunk are invalid, right?  So no gambling or purchasing drinks while drunk. And anyone who sells anything to a drunk is a thief.

I actually like that structure.  Make a drunk like a child.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
I don't think that when two drunk people have sex, a rape must have occurred.  Possibly we need a different term to refer to the outcome when two drunk people do their best to consent to sex, and then have sex.  It should definitely be discouraged and possibly even penalized (by schools, maybe the law).  But it's harmful to assume that a rape must have occurred.

However, when two drunk people have sex - even blackout drunk - it doesn't mean that a rape cannot have occurred.  I would never want drunkenness to automatically exculpate an accused rapist.  It's easy enough to construct a scenario where a victim is unambiguously raped by a person who will have no memory of the event due to extreme intoxication.  What I'm saying is that "they were both equally unable to consent" does not rule out rape, any more than "the rapist was drunk and the victim was sober" is an impossible scenario. 

I applaud institutions that promote bright line rules like "sober and enthusiastic consent, or no sex".*  However, I don't think that encounters that don't meet this standard are automatically instances of rape.  Now, whether private institutions want to enforce the bright line standard is a separate question, and I can imagine ways of enforcing the standard that aren't terrible. 

I'm not ready to agree that Dirks did something monstrous, because I don't know what set of facts she was working with.  According to the set of facts in the linked article, John shouldn't have been penalized, IMO.  That doesn't mean that Dirks knew all that we know from the article when she encouraged Jane to file a complaint, so I don't think it's fair to assume that she wanted John to get expelled while understanding/believing the whole story (and again I'm just assuming the linked article fairly represents the whole story).  She wasn't wrong that intentional sexual assaults do often fit the fact pattern she was aware of at the time.  That the full (as far as we know) set of facts didn't lead to a just result is an institutional failing, not something we can lay entirely at Dirks's feet.

.

Dirks filed the title nine and she was involved in trying this case.  If she wasn't cognizant of what was taught in the rape camp intro she's too *censored*ing dumb to live.

Quote
*Although it's quite far from the status quo, and might seem pointlessly out of touch, I still hope.  It should be taught as a way to PROTECT YOURSELF

Taught, I agree. But you don't teach children by destroying their lives without notice of the rule you are punishing them for breaking.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2016, 05:44:05 PM by Pete at Home »

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
I would have to agree that if the students were taught that consent only becomes impossible upon passing out, the teachers bear some responsibility for any consequences of that belief in the students.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
However, when two drunk people have sex - even blackout drunk - it doesn't mean that a rape cannot have occurred.  I would never want drunkenness to automatically exculpate an accused rapist

Nor would I, except in this specific situation where the ONLY fact to establish the act was rape was that she was drunk.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
I don't think that when two drunk people have sex, a rape must have occurred.  Possibly we need a different term to refer to the outcome when two drunk people do their best to consent to sex, and then have sex.  It should definitely be discouraged and possibly even penalized (by schools, maybe the law).  But it's harmful to assume that a rape must have occurred.
Sure- whether rape occurred lies entirely in the damage done. Similar to how driving drunk doesn't mean that an accident will occur, or that even if both parties involved in the accident are drunk both will end up seriously injured by it.

But the fundamental attitude taht it's okay to try to get primary consent while drunk is at the root of the problem. Adjust that attitude to a default assumption that it's not okay, just like we've adjusted attitudes to be that it's not okay to drive while drunk, and the issue becomes moot. Particularly if the community around them enforces that notion and helps shut people down when they're drunk to ensure taht no accidents happen, in the same way that we help stop each other from driving drunk.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
However, when two drunk people have sex - even blackout drunk - it doesn't mean that a rape cannot have occurred.  I would never want drunkenness to automatically exculpate an accused rapist

Nor would I, except in this specific situation where the ONLY fact to establish the act was rape was that she was drunk.
No, the mental fallout from the incident that led her to seek out counseling was the primary factor in making that determination.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
They were told in the rape camp orientation only that folks drunk TO UNCONCIOUSNESS can't consent.
I skimmed but couldn't find the citation. That's an absurd metric taht seems like it's a specific example scenario that's being miscast as the entirety of the rule.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
However, when two drunk people have sex - even blackout drunk - it doesn't mean that a rape cannot have occurred.  I would never want drunkenness to automatically exculpate an accused rapist

Nor would I, except in this specific situation where the ONLY fact to establish the act was rape was that she was drunk.
No, the mental fallout from the incident that led her to seek out counseling was the primary factor in making that determination.

NOT true.  She explicitly told the Dirk beast that it wasn't rape.  She was stressed about losing her virginity to a man she didn't know under circumstances she didn't remember.  It was the Dirk who forced her on the path of prosecution as therapy, which IMHO aggravated the problem. Drunken hookups are bad.  Calling them rape makes the situation worse because it creates a race to be the victim, since we aren't supposed to be the victim.  No one's going to lecture someone on underage blackout drinking if she's the victim. 

Don't get me wrong, she is a victim, but Dirk is the primary predator here, and the school's negligence and federal title nine perfidy stinks to high heaven.

The alternative is to change the meaning of the word rape to not require a malicious wrongdoer.  And that's a bad idea.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
They were told in the rape camp orientation only that folks drunk TO UNCONCIOUSNESS can't consent.
I skimmed but couldn't find the citation. That's an absurd metric taht seems like it's a specific example scenario that's being miscast as the entirety of the rule.

Take your time and read at your leisure.  I won't declare victory if you take a few days.  It ain't about winning, but about making ourselves understood (thanks sci-fi!) and learning from each other. Pyr taught me about intersectionality, for example. That's why I start these threads.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Sure- whether rape occurred lies entirely in the damage done.
Nope. Rape is sex without consent, damage is irrelevant. Unless you want to allow for defenses based on "she seems fine."
No, the mental fallout from the incident that led her to seek out counseling was the primary factor in making that determination.
But needing to seek counseling isn't included in the definition of rape. Do you really want to suggest that behavior after the fact is a valid indicator of rape?

You seem to be missing the point that if both parties are equally drunk, neither can consent and the law (and school bureaucracies) doesn't have the slightest clue how to deal with it except to fall back on the model of lustful men and chaste women. Ergo, the man is the rapist and the woman is the victim. Despite the fact that female rapist and male victim fits the facts equally well.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Possibly we need a different term to refer to the outcome when two drunk people do their best to consent to sex, and then have sex.  It should definitely be discouraged and possibly even penalized (by schools, maybe the law).

Shoulds schools penalize behavior that in regular society is not only permitted but in some instances (high society, and so forth) applauded and celebrated? It is essentially the epitome of the notion of bourgeois romance to drink wine, have a romantic evening, and make love. What would such a hypocritical policy prove, other than that even liberals can have the mentality of abstinence-only education advocates? I know that some people would answer this question by saying that it should be discouraged and punishable in regular society as well, and to this my reaction is to back away slowly and hope I'll wake up from the bad dream. The day when it's illegal to have drinks with a loved one and make love to them is the day when we have a legitimate fascist society, full stop.

Quote
However, when two drunk people have sex - even blackout drunk - it doesn't mean that a rape cannot have occurred.  I would never want drunkenness to automatically exculpate an accused rapist.  It's easy enough to construct a scenario where a victim is unambiguously raped by a person who will have no memory of the event due to extreme intoxication.  What I'm saying is that "they were both equally unable to consent" does not rule out rape, any more than "the rapist was drunk and the victim was sober" is an impossible scenario.

I agree with you entirely here and think this is a very difficult situation. The current mentality is verging towards "we need to prosecute each case as if it's the bad one where a guy is knowingly taking advantage of an incapacitated girl." This approach smacks of a "no guilty man must go free, at any cost" mentality, which is generally viewed as antithetical to a free society. I agree that trying to distinguish between a case where two innocent kids get too sloshed trying to enjoy themselves, and the shark looking to get girls drunk and take advantage. But I don't believe in being so paranoid about the shark that all innocent kids will be treated as sharks and harpooned. That's not the kind of world I want to live in. I'd rather have increased education about responsibility and less going after people for immorality.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
No, the mental fallout from the incident that led her to seek out counseling was the primary factor in making that determination.

NOT true.  She explicitly told the Dirk beast that it wasn't rape.  She was stressed about losing her virginity to a man she didn't know under circumstances she didn't remember.

And Dirk magically appeared in front of her?

No. She sought out counselling because of disturbance from the issue. Dirk did help her got over her denial of the nature of the violation, but that doesn't change the fact that she was suffering from mental damage due to not having properly consented to the encounter.

Quote
The alternative is to change the meaning of the word rape to not require a malicious wrongdoer.  And that's a bad idea.
It requires violation of consent. No malice is necessary. Only action without competent and unforced consent.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Shoulds schools penalize behavior that in regular society is not only permitted but in some instances (high society, and so forth) applauded and celebrated?
Schools absolutely should not help perpetrate rape culture. The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not.

Quote
It is essentially the epitome of the notion of bourgeois romance to drink wine, have a romantic evening, and make love.
With someone that consents to all of that prior to the events. Not someone that only consents because their judgment has been impaired by alcohol or any other drug. Informed consent first is romance incompetent or forced consent last is rape.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
It is essentially the epitome of the notion of bourgeois romance to drink wine, have a romantic evening, and make love.
With someone that consents to all of that prior to the events. Not someone that only consents because their judgment has been impaired by alcohol or any other drug. Informed consent first is romance incompetent or forced consent last is rape.

You make the mistake of assuming what is already legally false: that consent between spouses is assumed by default. This is not so, and therefore in each instance of sexual overtures consent in some form must be obtained. According to your theory if the couple has wine over dinner then unless they had a discussion in advance to the tune of "we will drink wine and then subsequently have sex; is this acceptable to you?" they are therefore not legally allowed to have sex with each other until their blood alcohol level is zero. Putting aside the fact that this interpretation of the law would be incorrect if you chose to make it, you might also want to consider that if 99% of the population would find such a demand on couples abhorrent to their sensibilities then you might want to rethink your premise that the entire populace must submit themselves to a rule just because you happen to like it.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
And Dirk magically appeared in front of her?

No. She sought out counselling because of disturbance from the issue. Dirk did help her got over her denial of the nature of the violation

You and Dirk are the problem when you assume that trauma means rape.  People may be traumatized by making the wrong choices.  Heaven knows I have.  Dirk made things more traumatic by hijacking Jane's story and turning it into her convenient "profile" narrative. 

John was traumatized by the hookup as well. That's apparent from his texts to her.  Both children got taken advantage of by Dirk's professional aspirations.

Sad to see Pyr slipping from his initial human approach to the extreme that I initially predicted to DW that P would take.  I hate to be right when politics wins over conscience.


« Last Edit: February 10, 2016, 09:40:16 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not.
Dirk has effectively raped both these kids by letting the whole school be taught a drunk until unconscious standard of rape, then arbitrarily calling the boy a rapist after he'd walked perfectly in the lines she had drawn.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Schools absolutely should not help perpetrate rape culture. The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not

You don't change culture for the better by arbitrarily grabbing someone that plays by your previously stated rules and destroying them. You don't promote civil rights by privatizing violations of civil rights. 

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Sure- whether rape occurred lies entirely in the damage done.
Nope. Rape is sex without consent, damage is irrelevant. Unless you want to allow for defenses based on "she seems fine."
Seems isn't relevant. The reason that consent matters is because a violation of consent causes damage.

Quote
No, the mental fallout from the incident that led her to seek out counseling was the primary factor in making that determination.
But needing to seek counseling isn't included in the definition of rape. Do you really want to suggest that behavior after the fact is a valid indicator of rape?
Feeling like one's consent has been violated afterwards is a valid indicator, and the answer to that issue of what the difference is between a drunken encounter that both parties are okay with and one where at least one feels like they did not actually meaningfully consent to what happened.

Quote
You seem to be missing the point that if both parties are equally drunk, neither can consent and the law (and school bureaucracies) doesn't have the slightest clue how to deal with it except to fall back on the model of lustful men and chaste women. Ergo, the man is the rapist and the woman is the victim. Despite the fact that female rapist and male victim fits the facts equally well.
Except the man wasn't seeking counselling for trauma after the fact. Perhaps he should have as well. Both certainly needed better education, and the school's decision was pretty absurd in light of the circumstances, because nothing in what they did to him had any bearing on her needs for recovery and security.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Schools absolutely should not help perpetrate rape culture. The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not

You don't change culture for the better by arbitrarily grabbing someone that plays by your previously stated rules and destroying them. You don't promote civil rights by privatizing violations of civil rights.
He didn't play by the rules. He sought sex with someone who was intoxicated. That he misunderstood the rules as evidenced by citing only thinking of it in terms of one extreme example rather than the general principle at play.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not.
Dirk has effectively raped both these kids by letting the whole school be taught a drunk until unconscious standard of rape, then arbitrarily calling the boy a rapist after he'd walked perfectly in the lines she had drawn.
What evidence do you have that that's actually what the school was teaching? The only citation of that in relation to the school was his statement of what he took away from the lecture, not what was in the actual educational material. Seems at least as likely that he just wasn't paying attention.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile

John was traumatized by the hookup as well. That's apparent from his texts to her.  Both children got taken advantage of by Dirk's professional aspirations.
And he should have sought treatment as well. Which is why I said that the appropriate response should have been counselling and education for both of them.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You make the mistake of assuming what is already legally false: that consent between spouses is assumed by default.
No I don't. I point out that it can be negotiated on an ongoing basis in terms of an existing relationship.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Schools absolutely should not help perpetrate rape culture. The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not

You don't change culture for the better by arbitrarily grabbing someone that plays by your previously stated rules and destroying them. You don't promote civil rights by privatizing violations of civil rights.
He didn't play by the rules. [At this point Pyr describes the rules Pyr THINKS should have been offered rather than the ones that anyone in the story claims were offered.]

The rules that OCCIDENTAL taught him at the rape camp preview.

« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 12:04:23 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile

John was traumatized by the hookup as well. That's apparent from his texts to her.  Both children got taken advantage of by Dirk's professional aspirations.
And he should have sought treatment as well. Which is why I said that the appropriate response should have been counselling and education.

How the hell can they give him an education when that satanic Dirk is charging him with rape? 

They are both victims of a sadistic federally imposed social experiment.  The school continues to offer no resources for this boy they victimized and branded for life.  And they refuse to affirm or deny what he said about the content of the rape camp intro.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You make the mistake of assuming what is already legally false: that consent between spouses is assumed by default.
No I don't. I point out that it can be negotiated on an ongoing basis in terms of an existing relationship.
Yes.  Agreed there.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You make the mistake of assuming what is already legally false: that consent between spouses is assumed by default.
No I don't. I point out that it can be negotiated on an ongoing basis in terms of an existing relationship.
Yes.  Agreed there.

"Ongoing basis" has no legal justification. If you want to play the 'consent game' then verbal and clear consent is needed on every occasion. The moment you start to argue that in a relationship consent is assumed on an 'ongoing basis' since you occasionally discuss sex that means you are allowed to have your way with someone as long as semi-recently you discussed sex. But of course this isn't what you're getting at, which surely must be that consent must be established proximate to the actual event of sex; say, the evening of, for example. And once you have as your requirement that it be proximate to the event you have to name how soon before. Once you've done that, you have effectively forbidden the couple from putting a sip of wine in their mouths prior to making that declaration.

Ergo you are reduced to one of two absurd scenarios: one is that proximate consent is needed, meaning a married couple can't have wine with dinner unless they've established consent first. The other is that 'ongoing consent' is good enough, which gives license for a boy to have sex with his drunken girlfriend under the assumption that this ongoing consent is in effect. After all, it isn't and cannot be illegal in and of itself for people to have sex while intoxicated under any semblance of law as we know it. The intoxication is not the issue, but rather the consent is.

Do you see how preposterous you make things when you begin to make the notion of consent some legally arduous procedure to follow? Obviously we don't want sharks getting girls drunk to take advantage of them. But I believe that if you try to codify banning sharkhood you throw the baby out with the bathwater and create a generally fearful environment.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Reinforce your note to self - when you start with a reference to lefties or leftists or those on the left, you are probably slurring people who you do not intend to slur. Try using more specific language, such as stating you don't like the behavior of people who do specific actions or hold specific beliefs, but make sure your broadside is not so broad as to make assertions about what I or many others on the left believe. 

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The other is that 'ongoing consent' is good enough, which gives license for a boy to have sex with his drunken girlfriend under the assumption that this ongoing consent is in effect.
His girlfriend? Right there you've established a prior relationship that gives context that wasn't in the event above where not prior relationship existed.

I never said anything about proximate consent, that's something you made up. I said prior consent, as in, having discussed and agreed to consent to sex while intoxicated ahead of time, and having taken reasonable measures over time to ensure that that agreement was still valid, as well as showing a history of respecting each other's wishes when consen might be withdraw at an given time for any given reason. Had this been a well established and non-abusive relationship where prior effort had been made to establish clear boundaries and acceptable behavior, then the issue would not have arisen because she wouldn't have suffered the same damage that caused her to see help and they would have had a context to directly renegotiate terms if something unexpected had arisen.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
Schools absolutely should not help perpetrate rape culture. The point is to stop celebrating such attitudes the facilitate and even promote rape in all situations, school or not

You don't change culture for the better by arbitrarily grabbing someone that plays by your previously stated rules and destroying them. You don't promote civil rights by privatizing violations of civil rights.
He didn't play by the rules. [At this point Pyr describes the rules Pyr THINKS should have been offered rather than the ones that anyone in the story claims were offered.]

The rules that OCCIDENTAL taught him at the rape camp preview.

What rules are those? The article says nothing about what was actually taught, only what he thought was taught. Where do you have additional evidence that he accurately represented what was taught?

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile

John was traumatized by the hookup as well. That's apparent from his texts to her.  Both children got taken advantage of by Dirk's professional aspirations.
And he should have sought treatment as well. Which is why I said that the appropriate response should have been counselling and education.

How the hell can they give him an education when that satanic Dirk is charging him with rape? 
By assigning that as the penalty. The article noted that community service or similar could have been the penalty so a proper rehabilitative sentence was well within their power to apply. Unless there are details being left out of the information provided, their choice to apply the maximum penalty here is bizarre and unjust. No one has disputed that, so far as I can tell.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
The other is that 'ongoing consent' is good enough, which gives license for a boy to have sex with his drunken girlfriend under the assumption that this ongoing consent is in effect.
His girlfriend? Right there you've established a prior relationship that gives context that wasn't in the event above where not prior relationship existed.

Not that I intended to trap you, but you have fallen into a trap anyhow. Now that you've specified that two people being boyfriend and girlfriend means ongoing consent is assumed you are actually dismissing what is considered to be a common source of what's called rape on campus; namely a boyfriend taking liberties, aka date rape. Now maybe you'll define boyfriend differently than 'guy I'm dating' but I don't see how that can be a legally valid distinction.

In any case you've pigeonholed yourself into saying that this need for stone-cold sober consent is only needed between people who aren't 'dating' or significant others or whatnot. While abstractly I do agree that this is the most worrisome case (i.e. where the two people don't trust each other yet) we are still left with the quandry of how to quantify how well they know each other. What should be the legal standard for two people having reasonable grounds for trust? Is having had any conversation about sex at all sufficient? What if they 'dated online' for a long time and are now meeting for the first time. Are they considered as having 'ongoing consent' legally or are they 'strangers' according to how you'd like the law to play out? What about people who've seen each other many times but are totally crap at getting to know someone (or don't care to) and have about as much knowledge of each other as strangers? Is there ongoing consent? And how about friends who are technically not dating but who know each other pretty well?

There are so many shades of 'knowing someone' that I cannot see how one could realistically legislate based on needing consent if you 'don't know each other that well' but can assume ongoing consent if you 'trust each other.'

By the way, I never asserted you were speaking of 'proximate consent', as I called it, but I left it open as an option should you have wished to make use of it.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Reinforce your note to self - when you start with a reference to lefties or leftists or those on the left, you are probably slurring people who you do not intend to slur. Try using more specific language, such as stating you don't like the behavior of people who do specific actions or hold specific beliefs, but make sure your broadside is not so broad as to make assertions about what I or many others on the left believe.

Political Left and right are based on affiliation and identification rather than principles. But you are right, many otherwise reasonable  people for some reason buy into a universe built out of a 1789 seating trend in France as a true and accurate assessment of politics.

Fishing for a shorthand that separates those that hold views that happen to be called "progressive," from those who chose and modify their views to me more trendy and "progressive.". Meaning that if a cause is popular with a certain crowd, put it on the front burner until it goes out of style. Rock the boat in whichever direction it's already leaning.


Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile

John was traumatized by the hookup as well. That's apparent from his texts to her.  Both children got taken advantage of by Dirk's professional aspirations.
And he should have sought treatment as well. Which is why I said that the appropriate response should have been counselling and education.

How the hell can they give him an education when that satanic Dirk is charging him with rape? 
By assigning that as the penalty. The article noted that community service or similar could have been the penalty so a proper rehabilitative sentence was well within their power to apply. Unless there are details being left out of the information provided, their choice to apply the maximum penalty here is bizarre and unjust. No one has disputed that, so far as I can tell.

The penalty is appropriate for "rape.". Hell, being expelled is cakewalk compared to being branded a "rapist.".

You don't just change the socially recognized definition by grabbing someone, labeling them a monster, because of a change hitherto unspoken set of rule changes.  That makes Kafka sound like the sermon on the mount. 

You don't think there's anything off-putting about making "rape" victims do community service for rape? 

I grant that what you propose is less screwed up than what the school did.  And you seem to be making an effort to engage the real world.  But there's still serious disconnect.  I agree that the practice of dry Ken hookups is degrading and harmful for some of the same reasons that rape is harmful.  But you widen the harm when you blur the specificity.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
. Now that you've specified that two people being boyfriend and girlfriend means ongoing consent is assumed you are actually dismissing what is considered to be a common source of what's called rape on campus; namely a boyfriend taking liberties, aka date rape.
I didn't say that it was assumed. I said that an ongoing sate _can_ be negotiated. Not that it necessarily is. You can't one-size fits all all relationships. You have to look at whether such an ongoing agreement has been established- the relationship state means that it's possible, as opposed to two strangers or even loose acquaintances meeting without any other context, where, by definition, there's no possibility that they've negotiated such.

Quote
In any case you've pigeonholed yourself into saying that this need for stone-cold sober consent is only needed between people who aren't 'dating' or significant others or whatnot.
No, only between people that haven't previously established an agreement that it's okay between them.

Quote
While abstractly I do agree that this is the most worrisome case (i.e. where the two people don't trust each other yet) we are still left with the quandary of how to quantify how well they know each other. What should be the legal standard for two people having reasonable grounds for trust?
The standard should be that they've built and established that trust, and have mutually agreed to extend it. Different people have different comfort levels. The way to determine what it is is to _ask_ them and verify that the agreement is mutual and not coerced.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 11:30:19 AM by Pyrtolin »

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
According to Jane's own testimony, Dirk didn't bother with such facts or listen to Jane's feelings.  Dirk just took John's "profile" plus the fact that underage drinking nice, normally reserved kids had had emotional issues after a drunken hookup, and forced the rape script onto the situation.

Rape isn't the only sort of emotionally damaging sex, and to force that script when it doesn't belong is a sort of institutional molestation in itself.

Pyrtolin

  • Members
    • View Profile
Quote
You don't just change the socially recognized definition by grabbing someone, labeling them a monster, because of a change hitherto unspoken set of rule changes.
The schools rules did not change. It was applying its existing definition of rape, regardless of John's misunderstanding of it, and the definition- sexual activity without consent, is a very standard definition.

You're the only one bringing the concept of "monster" in here. Once the nature of what happened was identified, and the fact that it was completely accidental due to mutual incapacity and poor baseline understanding, the school should have exercised proper judgement in the range of punishment options that it's policies make explicitly clear it can choose to exercise and picked the ones that fit the needs and severity of the situation. Unless there's a lot of information about John's past transgressions against school rules that are being left out of the story, the school chose extremely poorly based on actual likelihood of repeat and what he situation demanded to help provide proper treatment and education to prevent future incidents.

Had this been a deliberate and remorseless act, it might be reasonable, if rude and demanding, to apply the label "monster". But given that it was an accident, it's absurd to minimize the impact of what happened and the harm done by pretending it wasn't really rape- an attitude that sets up acceptance of future recurrences and helps perpetuate the an overall culture that's permissive of rape in such situations.