Author Topic: Avoid Women at All Cost  (Read 3801 times)

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #100 on: December 21, 2018, 11:40:28 PM »
The part of the witch trials I was bring back was method of discerning quilt. If you sink your Innocent if you float your guilty.

But potentially relevant in other ways, some of the biggest accusers were themselves previously accused, but they "repented" of their sins, confessed them(which gave them a pass), and then proceeded to level accusations against the multitude of other secret witches among their number.

Kind of sounds like the basic method that modern cops and prosecutors use to generate new criminal cases.

Well, as they say, History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.

edit: added quote due to page break.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #101 on: December 22, 2018, 12:58:06 PM »
Quote
   But that has nothing to do with men making a rational judgment that the only way they can avoid being miscontrued as expressing an unwelcome desire against a backdrop where acuassations = proof is to avoid women entirely" 

I don't view that as rational because it doesn't solve the problem but perpetuates it. If enough people responded this way I don't see how the next rational response isn't the surpestion of woman. As that is not what most people want is the respose to avoid woman rational? Or is it a reacrion to fear?

I think what's missing from the argument, from all sides, is the type of future we want to aim for. And if what were doing will help us get there.




« Last Edit: December 22, 2018, 01:01:18 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #102 on: December 22, 2018, 01:09:23 PM »
Quote
   But that has nothing to do with men making a rational judgment that the only way they can avoid being miscontrued as expressing an unwelcome desire against a backdrop where acuassations = proof is to avoid women entirely" 

I don't view that as rational because it doesn't solve the problem but perpetuates it.

Why does a person's rational choice have to be one that solves the problem? Why not one that protects themselves? The solution: don't put people in that situation in the first place.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #103 on: December 22, 2018, 01:39:48 PM »
You beat me to it. After posting I realised I was assuming the majority of people would want to solve  the problem and do better, not only, or just protect themselves.

If the the majority are only concerned with protecting themselves then I returned to my first comment. This makes me sad.

Quote
The solution: don't put people in that situation in the first place.
By avoiding the situation or treating everyone with respect? By doing better or building walls.

Which world do you want to live in and what do you want too create for  your children? Even if / when we fall short should we stop trying and retreat into a concern that is only for one's "safety"

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #104 on: December 22, 2018, 05:03:49 PM »
Quote
The solution: don't put people in that situation in the first place.
By avoiding the situation or treating everyone with respect? By doing better or building walls.

I mean try to avoid creating scenarios where ordinary people have a conflict of interest between protecting themselves and helping others.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #105 on: December 22, 2018, 07:55:15 PM »
Right left, talk to me about what’s rational after you’ve missed seeing your kids because you’ve been put in jail while you were trying to help someone.


Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #106 on: December 23, 2018, 12:35:58 PM »
You beat me to it. After posting I realised I was assuming the majority of people would want to solve  the problem and do better, not only, or just protect themselves.

You have to protect yourself.

Quote
In the early hours of Saturday, November 1, 2014, Bonsu, then a junior, was at the house where many of his fraternity brothers lived. There he ran into another junior, whom I’ll call R.M., a white female marketing student. According to a written account by R.M., who declined to be interviewed for this story, the two started talking and smoking marijuana; eventually they kissed. As she wrote, “It got more intense until finally I shifted so that I was straddling him.” She told him she wasn’t interested in intercourse and he said he was fine with that.

Then, she wrote, “I started to move my hand down his chest and into his pants.” R.M. interrupted this to take a phone call from a female friend who was also at the house and trying to find her. The call ended and then, R.M. wrote, “I got on my knees and started to give him a blow job.” After a short time, “I removed my mouth but kept going with my hand and realized just how high I was.” She wrote that she felt conflicted because she wanted to stop—she said she told him she was feeling uncomfortable and thought she needed to leave—but that she also felt bad about “working him up and then backing out.” (In Bonsu’s written account, he stated that R.M. said she needed to leave because she was concerned her friend might “barge in” on them.) The encounter continued for a few more minutes, during which, she wrote, he cajoled her to stay—“playfully” grabbing her arm at one point, and drawing her in to kiss—then ended with an exchange of phone numbers. R.M. had not removed any clothing.

R.M. then went down to the kitchen to find her friend. As she explained in her statement, “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, “as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.”

RM reported the assault, police investigated and quickly dropped it because Bonsu did nothing wrong. However, UMass went on to destroy his life. Many women, like RM, have been trained to do this to men by their campus. It happens, even when you are 100% innocent. It happens often enough that you should protect yourself. The statuate of limitations never runs out either, she can do this 20 yeaes later if she wants.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2018, 12:41:52 PM by Crunch »

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #107 on: December 23, 2018, 01:48:05 PM »
Quote
Right left, talk to me about what’s rational after you’ve missed seeing your kids because you’ve been put in jail while you were trying to help someone.

If what your doing isn't pointing towards the direction you want to go then yes I would say its not a rational response but instead a reaction. If avoidance as a means to protect yourself is the only concern and where you which to go by all means take that path.

I'm surprised I have to explain that treating each other with respect includes having healthy boundaries that protect ourselves and others. "Avoiding Woman at All Cost" is not a healthy boundary, IMO, its also not practical. 

We seem to be living in a time were everything is either or, all or nothing, you are with me or against me.  This makes me sad

I'm sorry you were taken advantage of Pete and it is understandable that to protect yourself in the future you make the choice to avoid helping anyone else ever again.  I suspect that's no who you are.

"The art of living requires the most delicate balance between order and disorder control and vulnerability."

“To be a good human being is to have a kind of openness to the world, an ability to trust uncertain things beyond your own control, that can lead you to be shattered in very extreme circumstances for which you were not to blame. That says something very important about the condition of the ethical life: that it is based on a trust in the uncertain and on a willingness to be exposed; it’s based on being more like a plant than like a jewel, something rather fragile, but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.”
― Nussbaum

I know someone is going to point out that defining 'good' in this way is debatable yet I feel there is some truth to the words a choice to living life open or closed...
« Last Edit: December 23, 2018, 01:50:42 PM by rightleft22 »

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #108 on: December 24, 2018, 08:11:21 AM »
It is sad. But that’s the world the left creates. Baby It’s Cold Outside is a song about sexual assault now and being banned from play. There really is no limit.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #109 on: December 24, 2018, 11:11:30 AM »
It is sad. But that’s the world the left creates. Baby It’s Cold Outside is a song about sexual assault now and being banned from play. There really is no limit.

I plan to set a limit myself. See if I can get at a computer and make an argument that “it’s cold outside” teaches women to objectify themselves and to project their desires onto men, refusing to accept responsibility for their own sexual choices. The girl is flirty and creates an atmosphere that blur yes and no.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #110 on: December 25, 2018, 10:07:05 AM »
So the guy in the story, Bonsu, is NOT representative of this idea that you have to avoid sitting next to someone on a plane or never being behind a closed door. I would be willing to believe that having consensual sex is a risk. Having casual sex is even more risky. Having casual sex in a fraternity house while another woman is calling your partner and trying to find them is even more risky. Doing so while your partner is also in a mind altered state pushes you way down the road. Does it suck that Umass messed his case up? Sure. Could he have avoided this situation without an "avoid women at all costs" rule? I think so.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #111 on: December 25, 2018, 11:41:07 AM »
I thought that the term casual sex implied consensual sex. Or is casual rape like a new millennial thing?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #112 on: December 25, 2018, 11:48:45 AM »
An acquaintance of mine told me that her boyfriend let himself get tied up and blindfolded at a swingers party, And they left them outside and some seem to forgot about them but some girl— they don’t know who—  snuck outside and took advantage of him.  Note to 10 years ago, you just be worried about STDs and possible pregnancy of his assailant, But in a post me too world,  he faces possible rape charges if his assailant was a minor or intoxicated.   First rule of police work has become, find someone with a penis to blame.  Like the mentally disabled retarded man in the McDonald’s case which was the basis of the movie “compliance “

Now drake might say that the man just shouldn’t go to such parties in the first place,  but isn’t that the whole argument of the wave of new laws and proposed rules concerning rape litigation?  Since we have decided that a woman should be free  to be a promiscuous so she wants  Without giving up a right to say no at any point, shouldn’t man also have the right to be promiscuous without the threat of being framed falsely for rape?
« Last Edit: December 25, 2018, 11:52:35 AM by Pete at Home »

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #113 on: December 26, 2018, 08:05:20 AM »
I thought that the term casual sex implied consensual sex. Or is casual rape like a new millennial thing?

I wasn't clear about that. The way I was thinking of it is a subset. Consensual sex can be in a relationship also. If you are having sexual relations with a complete stranger, you have no idea about their character and can be less certain of their likelihood of accusing you. If you've dated several times, you are less likely to have a problem. And to be clear, I don't mean immunity, I mean less likely.

As far as a right to this and a right to that, I don't disagree that everyone should have the right to go to a rave on MDMA and bang behind a dumpster. I'm saying it is risky.

I still maintain that this threat is a small one based on the numbers, but there is a spectrum of risk.

Bonsu fell victim to by far the most common case of false accusation, where a woman later regrets her decision. Which also means that no should mean no with finality for the day. If someone is reluctant, it is a very risky scenario indeed to "talk her into it". It may still be consent, but leaves you at high risk especially if she is intoxicated.

Is it fair to the male to have a greater burden if both people are equally intoxicated? Probably not, but too bad. Life isn't always fair. It also isn't fair that a woman has to be more concerned than a man about being drugged so that someone can have sex with her.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #114 on: December 26, 2018, 10:16:29 AM »
I'm surprised I have to explain that treating each other with respect includes having healthy boundaries that protect ourselves and others. "Avoiding Woman at All Cost" is not a healthy boundary, IMO, its also not practical.

I get its the title of the thread, but it's an implied strawman of the actual argument.  We're not really talking about "at all costs".  In fact most of what we're talking about costs the man very little.  It's costs a senior person nothing to decline to mentor a young woman, if you pull back from mentoring all together you dodge any inference that it was sexism.  It costs the young people enormously, it costs the company enormously.  It's about weighing risks.  Mentoring is essentially corporate charity, with the haves giving to the have nots.

Everytime a man decides that he can't risk a female co-worker for the two person team that requires 2 overnights it hurts women (as their are both less senior women, and presumably some of them will select men to go with them - though I grant senior women sometimes have an overt sexist preference for other women, we hardly ever criticize that).  Even now, I think the rule has become travel separately, make your own arrangements, whereas, when I was younger it was booked together and you spent part of the travel on work and part on socializing.

Rightleft, I want to live in a world where people have tolerance for differences and misunderstandings, but also have the compassion to address issues that make others uncomfortable.  We don't get there if you close your eyes and just repeat a mantra that implies every can just choose to act better, that completely ignores the grey area, and worse it completely ignores the active push to move things all the way through the grey area and out the other side.

I'm not a fan of the fraternity story below, but if someone elects to perform oral sex without pressure (which isn't remotely evident from that story) they were not in fact assaulted.  The entire idea infantilizes women, and denies them any personhood or responsibility for their own choices.  The idea that another person should have a better understanding of a women's true feelings on a subject, than a woman herself  demonstrates through her choices and actions, and even words is crazy.  People need to be told that if they aren't sure they want to do something they need to accept its their responsibility to stop doing it.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #115 on: December 26, 2018, 04:04:22 PM »
Quote
Life isn't always fair.

Life isn’t always fair, but a person who doesn’t think that a legal proceeding should try to be fair, comes off like a species of psychopath.

Pete: “ if a man and a woman both get drunk to the point of not remembering what happened, and during that period happen to have sex, And if all evidence and testimony indicates that both parties and manifested consent, to the extent that consent as possible while intoxicated,  then a rational society doesn’t just presume that there was a rape, and that the one with the penis was the rapist.

Drake: “life isn’t always fair.”

You sir have an attitude of platitude. Can you begin to understand just how completely useless and alienating that response was?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #116 on: December 26, 2018, 04:49:38 PM »
What a University does or a Company does isn't a legal proceeding. As near as I can tell, the criminal justice system does a pretty good job rooting out false claims. You could say something about the civil courts and the likelihood of awarding out claims, and the impact of those proceedings on the behavior of private entities.

"and that the one with the penis was the rapist" - is that really so unfair, considering the rarity of a females who commit rape for a variety of reasons? Yeah, I get that a woman can and has successfully drugged a guy, or tied him up, etc. I get that this projects an unequal burden on a man when in a room of people who are all blackout drunk. Call it chivalry, or call it defending yourself. Not unlike how a woman has always had to watch her alcohol intake to avoid getting raped, that's pretty unfair that women can't cut loose as hard at a party without extra worry.

Our previous standard - that the woman had to prove she physically tried to fight off the person attacking her otherwise it was considered fine - that's unfair.

When the number of false accusers who get away with it equals the number of people who get away with assault, that might be fair. When the number of men getting kicked off campus under accusation equals the number of women who leave school because they got raped, that might be fair.

This is my point, and I'm sorry that the well known platitude got in the way of my point.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #117 on: December 26, 2018, 05:13:52 PM »
TheDrake, I think the problem is that the description of these situations is not fairly characterized as rape or assault, not that we should have a problem believing women who were assaulted.  We're literally talking about stories where there was physical and even verbal consent being recharacterized as rape or assault.  That's before you even get into situations where neither party was able to consent.

I mean if two drunk people willingly have sex that is not a situation - absent more facts - that should result in charges.  If the woman says no - no problem with assault and rape charges.  If the woman is passed out - no problem with rape and assault charges.  If the man in question fed her the drinks - no problem with rape and assault charges.  But, if the man and the woman both got drunk on their own, both willingly engaged in the activity (maybe even enthusiastically and with verbal consent), re-construing that situation after the fact as a rape or assault by the man is not right. 

Regrets /= lack of consent.  I don't think its reasonable to consider "too drunk to consent" as automatically making the other party responsible when it's only applied on a gendered basis.  If we want a rule like that then apply it evenly and charge both the man and the woman with rape as they are each responsible for their own decision to take advantage of a person that was too drunk to consent.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #118 on: December 26, 2018, 11:17:22 PM »
What a University does or a Company does isn't a legal proceeding.”

Obfuscatipn and evasion. The universities started their procedures at the instigation of the Obama administration.


You chop up the quote so it leaves out my question in the first place why something would have to be assumed to be raped in the first place. If there’s no evidence of rape, and if neither party has any recollection of a sexual encounter,  then rape proceeding in the first place is inherently defamatory.  Not to mention life destroying state sponsored persecution.

If the federal government were colluding with universities to systematically blame black people for any alleged rape that might occur, You would not be protesting that it’s not a legal proceeding.  Frack “unfair” drake. You’re an attorney so please do not eat paid the obvious due process question.


Quote
that the woman had to prove she physically tried to fight off the person attacking her otherwise it was considered fine - that's unfair.

Evasion and obfuscation. Those rules were done away by the 1990s federal rules of evidence and the state equivalents, if they weren’t done away with many years before in most states.  How the hell do you use that to justify the unconscionable Star chamber atrocities  that the Obama admin foisted on the university processes in the 2010? 

 Your argument feels like talking to some freaking anti-Semite who uses the crucifixion to justify persecution of Jews. One atrocity many years ago doesn’t justify a new atrocity. You know better than this. Why do so many men’s brains just go soft with any sort of discussion of women is concerned.? Due process. You studied it. Why are you acting like it’s a voided by the presence of a penis?
« Last Edit: December 26, 2018, 11:26:12 PM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #119 on: December 26, 2018, 11:33:11 PM »
Drake, do you honestly believe that the only bloody alternative to making a woman prove that she  fought her rapist, is to presume rape? 

What happened to you?   You’ve made a grotesque and capricious leap of logic . Please help us understand how you get from point a to point B. This discussion is frightening and confusing.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #120 on: December 27, 2018, 04:28:19 AM »
Gallantry, the privileged male’s willingness to sell less foreign image males down the river in order to improve his own reproductive chances, has no foundation in egalitarianism. This is why some feminisms actually declare solidarity with Islamists and even apostate exmormon pligs. The plig patriarch who kicks out most of his community’s 12,13 and 14 year old boys is just reenacting this same old “life isn’t fair” croci.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 04:33:00 AM by Pete at Home »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #121 on: December 27, 2018, 05:54:49 AM »
Quote
When the number of false accusers who get away with it equals the number of people who get away with assault, that might be fair

Note how Drake avoids even addressing the number of falsely accused persons.  His program of fairness via affirmative unfairness is the Cruz of neomarxist social justice.  He caps for society to allow and enable a number of False Accusers in order to make things more “fair.”  And that’s the Obama title nine rape capade summ d up. Create social justice by destroying more innocent lives. Molochism.

Quote
When the number of false accusers who get away with it equals the number of people who get away with assault, that might be fair
Drake did not invent this hateful view nor did his arguments on Ornery represent it before law school. Law schools around the country have had a hostile take over. La used to be a branch of philosophy but it has become a branch of pre-Socratic sophistry. Georgia’s and Corax are ejaculating in their graves. Lincoln wept.

Quote
When the number of false accusers who get away with it equals the number of people who get away with assault, that might be fair

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #122 on: December 27, 2018, 08:45:51 AM »
Pete, obviously I've touched a nerve with something very personal to you.

I don't respond well to being browbeaten, disparaged, and belittled.

I'll just ask one question. A man and a woman walk into a room. The woman claims she was raped, the man claims it was consensual.

Four possibilities:

1. She was raped. We tell her there's no evidence, we default to consent.
2. She was raped. We hold the man responsible.
3. She falsely accused. We tell her there's no evidence, we default to consent.
4. She falsely accused. We unjustly ruin a man's life, because we believe her.

#1 and #4 are both outcomes we'd never want to see.

How do we choose or balance between the two unfair possibilities?

yossarian22c

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #123 on: December 27, 2018, 09:59:44 AM »

1. She was raped. We tell her there's no evidence, we default to consent.
2. She was raped. We hold the man responsible.
3. She falsely accused. We tell her there's no evidence, we default to consent.
4. She falsely accused. We unjustly ruin a man's life, because we believe her.

#1 and #4 are both outcomes we'd never want to see.

How do we choose or balance between the two unfair possibilities?

As a society we have always chosen #1. Hence the proof beyond a reasonable doubt condition for legal proceedings. The reason for this is simple in case #1 the harm done to the victim was by a criminal and we tell them that there is not sufficient evidence to prove guilt, not that we assume they consented. In #4 the harm done to the person is by society, us as a whole, imprisoning innocent people makes us all complicit in the harm being done to the life and that is not something we should enter into willingly or lightly.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #124 on: December 27, 2018, 10:40:08 AM »
Pete, obviously I've touched a nerve with something very personal to you.

I don't respond well to being browbeaten, disparaged, and belittled.

Pete, please tone it down, this is a discussion of theory for most here, not personalized realty.  It's certainly okay to remind people that there are real harms to positions, but it won't persuade them to make it into an attack.

Quote
I'll just ask one question. A man and a woman walk into a room. The woman claims she was raped, the man claims it was consensual.

I'd like to point out, you are stripping a lot a context out, and in this case it's not fair.  In the stories these days, both people blog about what happened in the room, who said what, how it began, when it happened.  We're not asking you to fill in the gaps, only to acknowledge that some of these situations described as assaults or rapes are not reasonably construed in that manner. 

Quote
Four possibilities:

The "four" possibilities seem to be possible post trial?  I think it's unlikely there's a trial without more evidence.  So for this set of facts the most likely possibility is no prosecution.

There is not such things as a "default to consent."  All there is an inability to prove guilt.  Our justice system is not supposed to be based on who you believe more it's supposed to be based on whether a crime can be proven.

That said a jury may convict someone (though they really shouldn't), a prosecutor may get some to take a deal.  On a fact pattern like this that would almost certainly be based on one person being much more likable than the other, it's easy to believe ugly ackward people are guilty, and easy to be believe cute innocent girls wouldn't lie, but that too is a miscarriage of justice.  It's also, what Pete's complaint about Obama's changes to the University system are about, the Obama administration deliberately moved justice decisions on rape to a matter of who someone believes more, and then went further and deliberately hamstrung the accussed to make sure they'd lose.

Quote
How do we choose or balance between the two unfair possibilities?

You don't pick.  You prove guilt, or you don't, that's how justice works.  But he said she said is the absolute worst case, and it has absolutely nothing in common with the cases we're discussing.

There's no mystery in the case described earlier.  She was voluntarily kissing him, she moved to straddle him, she put her hand in his pants, she decided to perform oral sex on him, then got conflicted and switched to a hand job and then stopped.  He tried to convince her to stay, including kissing her and pulling her back, but you know what - she didn't stay and he didn't make her.

In what world can that be construed as a rape or an assault by the man?  Only in a University.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #125 on: December 27, 2018, 10:53:07 AM »
I'm not talking about throwing someone in jail, I think I've been clear about that, and yet it seems like many are looking for an HR department to empanel a jury over a complaint, or that a University choosing to kick somebody out of school should involve a DA.

BYU kicks people out for consensual sex, is that also a travesty of justice?

Taking away someone's right to freedom, jail, requires an appropriate standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've never wavered from that with regard to consequence from a muddy situation. This is why the test case we've been discussing was immediately dismissed by the people who investigated it from a criminal angle.

Firing someone generally can be done on simple suspicion. Like, "I think you're taking cash from the drawer". I don't see why firing someone for suspicion of inappropriate behavior has to be different. This varies a lot by state, so I don't want to dig too deep into the exact standards because we'll be mired in right to work and justified dismissals, most of which has to do with unemployment payments.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #126 on: December 27, 2018, 10:59:42 AM »
I'm not talking about throwing someone in jail, I think I've been clear about that, and yet it seems like many are looking for an HR department to empanel a jury over a complaint, or that a University choosing to kick somebody out of school should involve a DA.

BYU kicks people out for consensual sex, is that also a travesty of justice?

Taking away someone's right to freedom, jail, requires an appropriate standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt". I've never wavered from that with regard to consequence from a muddy situation. This is why the test case we've been discussing was immediately dismissed by the people who investigated it from a criminal angle.

Firing someone generally can be done on simple suspicion. Like, "I think you're taking cash from the drawer". I don't see why firing someone for suspicion of inappropriate behavior has to be different. This varies a lot by state, so I don't want to dig too deep into the exact standards because we'll be mired in right to work and justified dismissals, most of which has to do with unemployment payments.

 If you were clear about that, then I’m sorry I missed it. I’m going to take a breather and re-think my response. I think you for gracefully responding to my harsh (  but I think at least partially justified )  inquiries.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #127 on: December 27, 2018, 11:28:42 AM »
TheDrake, I don't see kicking someone out of college after they incur four years of debt without a degree as a "small thing."  Particularly not, when they'll have to explain that situation to every school that would even consider their transfer request, and to every employer they'll ever try to get a job with.  Add in social media and you can pretty much turn them into persona non grata without ever giving them any chance at justice.

It's not a "small" or "light" consequence that we should be blowing off, and its really not the kind of thing a University is designed to do with any kind of impartiality.  If they're going to be empanelled to destroy someone's life, then they ought to be required to give them due process - maybe even be required to hire outside counsel to represent them.  Universities aren't private actors, they are heavily funded by the government (which is why they had to listen to the Obama letter in the first place), and they are not entitled to rewrite justice to make sure more men are "held accountable" regardless of guilt.

It may be that you won't get it until it hits someone you know.  When you see, say your child, accused of rape for the first time he had sex with his girlfriend  - where mutual consent was given and obtained, no alcohol was involved and he thought everything was wonderful, only to find out the next day she never told him she wasn't sure and is accusing him of taking advantage of her.  The University then processes it as an assault administratively, and his former girlfriend that has been encouraged by active counselors to testify against him tells the tribunal that she never wanted to have sex and felt pressured by what she believed his expectations were so she consented against her will.  He's not allowed a lawyer, or even given a university counselor, and so when he sees her hurting because of what she says she thought he believed he apologizes to her because he still loves her. 

Bam, now he's admitted his guilt, is run out of school, $200k in debt, and with a statement in his transferable records that he was dismissed for sexual harm to another student.  He applies to 20 schools, all decline.  Tries to get jobs, but the employers keep getting sent social media reports that link him to the issue and he doesn't get the jobs.  How do you get his life back on track?

If he did it, maybe we don't care, though it's odd that we "believe" felons who did their time deserve a chance, but that doesn't apply here.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 11:31:10 AM by Seriati »

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #128 on: December 27, 2018, 01:07:04 PM »
Since Trump and the GOP congress of 2017-2018  completely dropped the ball on reversing Obamas‘s hideous experiment in college witch trials,  The only way to even begin to mitigate the damage is direct violence against College administrators . Nuremberg was clear that just following orders is not an excuse. Drake’s words are not to blame; he’s a product of a Stockholder Syndrome law school.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #129 on: December 27, 2018, 01:17:58 PM »
Quote
It may be that you won't get it until it hits someone you know.

You could be right. We usually do care more about things that happen to someone we know, whether it is a school shooting, a rape, a false accusation, or getting hit by a drunk driver. The people who started MADD were people whose own family and friends had been killed or maimed. The people who started "Take back the night" were responding to violence against women.

I know a fair number of people who have been assaulted, groped, harassed. I've seen it with my own eyes. I have about a dozen cousins who are going to college, as far as I know none of them is getting falsely accused and being thrown out of college, nor heard of it. I don't know of any student groups getting together and marching around protesting false accusations. I have been exposed to various cherry picked anecdotes, some of which date back a dozen years.

This is why I accept this as a real, but pretty rare event, and I don't see it as a societal problem. Most people manage to navigate this world without running afoul of a life ruining event.

From the Washington Post (paywall), over a six year period there have been 150 lawsuits filed over due process violations.

This compares with 1 in 5 female college students who report being violated in some way.

So, yes, I may be underestimating the risk, impact, and volume of false accusations. But I'm a lot more worried about rampant sexual assaults, in a world where every woman can't even leave a drink unattended and people have invented nail polish that changes color if your cocktail has been drugged.

I'm not indifferent to the men who do face this calamity in their lives. I'd like to help them out. It's just not clear to me how you do that without giving a get out of trouble free card to rapists.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #130 on: December 27, 2018, 01:22:58 PM »
Let's be clear about something: whatever Federal policy may have affected these matters (and I don't really know anything about that either way), there's a larger cultural issue impacting these scenarios, and one that predates Metoo. The general critical theory approach to inspecting every scenario in terms of power structures and who is the stronger and weaker party will inevitably create distorted results on every level of analysis. So for instance if you view a regular outing of a man and woman, this manner of analysis will automatically assign to it properties to do with relative strength:

-The man is physically stronger, and so is an oppressive threatening force in relation to the woman.
-The man is a participant in a culture that has oppressed women historically, and so is in a dominant social position in relation to the woman.
-The man is in a culture that abuses and gaslights women, and so is in a privileged position in regards to sexism.

And the list goes on. Any altercation or disagreement between them will be seen through the lens of the man being a party punching down, while the woman is punching up; and further, that any choices or errors made will be interpreted as being related to the fact of the power disparity on multiple fronts. e.g. "she may have said yes, but this was said to someone who is understood to have been physically and socially stronger than her." The fact of a particular leader or government supporting a certain approach to inter-sex relations is somewhat incidental to the larger cultural trend of inspecting social occasions through the lens of power structures, which is certainly a powerful force in universities anyhow. So even if no government had ever said anything about the matter, it seems to me that the academic-cultural trends in universities would have produced this kind of problem on their own anyhow; it was a logical and even inevitable outcropping of the academic popularity of this type of theory.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #131 on: December 27, 2018, 01:30:57 PM »
Drake, if you member the caselaw leading up to Guantánamo Bay, even the George W. Bush administration understood then if you want to create an institution to completely skirts basic human rights as outlined under the constitution, do you need a place at offshore. Justice Scalia outlined  The whole scheme in dicta, and Guantánamo Bay was born. You can’t continue to run this crap in US universities using taxpayer money and act as if these US citizens on US soil are not entitled To the due process that we have all come to expect since the Magna Carta.  You can’t kill, in prison, or otherwise destroy   A human being under color of law under the jurisdiction of a civilized country, without due process. Compromise that, justify that, and we are at war. It’s just a matter of time until the other side figures out that it’s the target of a war.  And eventually they will respond appropriately.  I’m picturing the dean of some left wing university being taken out in broad daylight by a private drone of unknown origins. Male engineering students will be blamed, but eventually the news will turn its attention to the matriarchs of the men’s movement, the honey badgers.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2018, 01:36:03 PM by Pete at Home »

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #132 on: December 27, 2018, 01:56:07 PM »
This compares with 1 in 5 female college students who report being violated in some way.

I would be rabidly in favor of pushing for social norms that devalue abusing and belittling women. I've seen multiple instances first-hand of different areas of college culture hard-pushing misogyny and sexism. However this needs to be balanced with accepting the notion of objective assessment of which scenarios mean what, as Pete points out. There is a massive difference, for example between reporting "being violated" and reporting "feeling violated". At present it seems that these are largely conflated or understood to have the same implication; certainly on many campuses. The danger is to risk gaslighting real reports; but the solution to this cannot be to believe any claim's validity out of the gate either. That this conflation is happening is no mystery: it's practically the stated goal of many activist streams to default to believing women who make such claims. And let me be even more specific: they seem very confused about the difference between believing that the woman had a very real and significant experience that was negative, versus believing the literal claims she makes at face value, as she states them; or even more specifically, believing her interpretation of them. The former is a matter of believing that a person had an experience; whereas the latter is a question of accepting an objective accounting of events that implicate other people. And this issue is further marred by the fact that the same groups that advocate for a critical theory approach to power dynamics *also* tend to view reality as fluid and non-objective; this can fall under either fully relativist reality, or at least what we might call objective-subjective reality, which seems like a contradiction but seems to say something like "there is no one objective reality, however a person's claim to have experienced something must be taken to be an objective fact which others cannot refute." How to find logical wiggle room in this type of approach to quasi-legal claims is nearly impossible: it's basically like being told that you need to accept the rules, and that actually there are no rules other than that if someone says a thing happened then it did. I'll bypass for the moment how the parties pushing these theories fall into *that* particular power structure.

The bottom line is that if one doesn't believe in objective reality then there is almost no tolerance for the idea that a woman's (or man's) story needs to be scrutinized for details, while yet it is still understood that there is some sort of objective truth to her claim itself that cannot be contested. My feeling is that this underlies the major issue, which is that we cannot actually avoid gaslighting *someone* unless we accept that there is such a thing as an objective account of what happened. The law itself seems to implicitly understand this, but extra-legal proceedings don't need to. This is actually a philosophical issue, not a governmental one. I can't see such scenarios being resolved reasonably unless we can find a way of both scrutinizing the truth of claims, while yet believing a woman when she says that something significant happened. We can acknowledge a subjective experience while not yet accepting its objective significance.

Case in point: I knew a girl years ago who claimed to have been raped and sexually violated multiple times. My first thought was a sardonic one, mirroring Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest: "To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness." But nevertheless after others offered their commiserations and affirming how wicked men can be (and to that I offer no contest), I took a bit of a risk and decided to inquire after specifics in all the cases she mentioned. She was happy to comply, and told me in detail what happened in each of those scenarios when she says she was raped. After hearing 3-4 different situations, I understood something immediately: a person's subjective experience of what actually happened can be so biased and self-involved that it makes it impossible for that person to even hear what they're saying in any objective sense. For example, in one case she was with a boyfriend and consenting to sex, but during the act she became frightened and sort of froze up a bit, ceasing to vocally participate any more and offer positive feedback. In her view this was a clear-cut case of rape because he didn't cease what he was doing when she "clearly" was no longer consenting. When I asked her whether she asked him to stop, she said no, because (a) it 'should have been obvious' to him that she wasn't into it any more, and (b) she was too scared to say anything. Then I asked her to consider that some people are horrible at picking up on subtle signals, and whether it was possible that he was simply clueless to all of this 'obvious' stuff and thought he was enjoying a beautiful occasion with his girlfriend. To my surprise she agreed quite readily to this possibility, and maintained that even if his intention was good he still raped her, but that she could understand that and doesn't hold a grudge (!). The other scenarios she mentioned played out mostly in a similar manner, although to be fair there was one occasion where it did sound like a guy went too far and took advantage of her to a degree. Now take a girl like this, who was otherwise quite affable (and we became friends after this talk), and put her in a situation where she's more damaged by it, and ends up in the company of a counselor who pushes the idea that she was sexually assaulted and that there's a villain behind her bad feelings, and that justice must be done. There's actually a play about this by David Mamet called Oleanna, which seems to describe a scenario where a woman is told by a "group" that she's been victimized and needs justice, and ends up ruining a man's life over it, but where we're left to wonder whether that group is actually the party that's victimized her for their own ends.

My story is anecdotal of course, but what I'm describing shows that one can both takes claims seriously, while holding judgement on the details until they're analyzed properly. But even putting this issue aside, I do generally agree with the notion that I'd rather see guilty men go free then people unfairly ruined. When I suggested to this particular girl how serious it is to implicate someone in rape, and that maybe she should consider the distinction in wording between accusing someone of a crime, versus simply saying she felt violated, she did actually seem open to this notion. But I fear that we can't realistically expect everyone to be that reasonable.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #133 on: December 27, 2018, 02:12:01 PM »
Thanks everyone, you have given me some things to think about. My mind isn't changed, but it is probably more open than it was before the discussion.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #134 on: December 27, 2018, 02:36:40 PM »
Seriati may not agree with me  but his story underscores the dangers of off camera sex.  In an environment where women can be taken seriously when they say that they’re unmanifested feelings should have been instantly detected, The only defense is the time stamped video of her screaming give it to me daddy

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #135 on: December 28, 2018, 09:36:08 AM »
Quote
An official at Mizzou indicated during a deposition that a male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school’s Title IX policy because his physical size gave him “power over her.”

The guy wasn’t a jerk, just asked her out. She said no but maybe later, he pursued her a bit and she asked him to stop. Which he did, apologized for making her uncomfortable. It was deemed a violation of  the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another because he is physically larger than her. The guy got suspended.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #136 on: December 28, 2018, 10:01:06 AM »
Things like that won't get better until school administrators lose their jobs over it, and become personally liable for the harms they cause.

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #137 on: December 28, 2018, 11:20:17 AM »
Things like that won't get better until school administrators lose their jobs over it, and become personally liable for the harms they cause.

Your man Trump has not even reversed Obama’s Title nine fatwa forcing the universities to set up the kangaroo courts in the first place. This is the first time in my life that i’ve seen a case were Direct Action is warranted. Something big and visible, Fight Club style.  These star chambers turn the clock back on 600 years of established common law civil rights

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #138 on: December 28, 2018, 01:05:39 PM »
This compares with 1 in 5 female college students who report being violated in some way.

I've only seen 1 study that ever claimed that number, and as I recall, we shredded here on Ornery at the time it became known. Care to cite your sourcing on that number? Given how frequently it comes up, it shouldn't be hard. And you are the one asserting it as valid. :)

IIRC, that particular study was getting lambasted for defining sexual assault in a very unusual way. More specifically, in a manner by which many of the women answering the survey were very likely to not view themselves as having been "sexually assaulted."

Of course, definitions seem to have shifted for some groups since then. But then, by that new measure, I have been sexually assaulted, and I'm male. I'm pretty sure what happened wasn't sexual in nature, but it certainly meets the "strict interpretation" that many love to espouse.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #139 on: December 28, 2018, 01:08:26 PM »
Things like that won't get better until school administrators lose their jobs over it, and become personally liable for the harms they cause.

Your man Trump has not even reversed Obama’s Title nine fatwa forcing the universities to set up the kangaroo courts in the first place. This is the first time in my life that i’ve seen a case were Direct Action is warranted. Something big and visible, Fight Club style.  These star chambers turn the clock back on 600 years of established common law civil rights

Given Trump's own history on the matter, he's probably decided that in one hornets nest it is best for him to stay well clear of. That one would probably go over worse for him than what he's been doing complaining about the Mueller Investigation.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #140 on: December 28, 2018, 01:23:37 PM »
Quote
An official at Mizzou indicated during a deposition that a male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school’s Title IX policy because his physical size gave him “power over her.”

The guy wasn’t a jerk, just asked her out. She said no but maybe later, he pursued her a bit and she asked him to stop. Which he did, apologized for making her uncomfortable. It was deemed a violation of  the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another because he is physically larger than her. The guy got suspended.

Suggest you really read about the full case rather than commenting based on some meme you saw

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #141 on: December 28, 2018, 02:08:30 PM »
Your man Trump has not even reversed Obama’s Title nine fatwa forcing the universities to set up the kangaroo courts in the first place.

Pretty sure that DeVos rescinded the "Dear Colleagues" letter from the Obama administration.  https://www.bustle.com/p/betsy-devoss-title-ix-sexual-assault-announcement-kills-obamas-dear-colleague-letter-2356036

Did the process stall out or something?

Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #142 on: December 28, 2018, 03:26:08 PM »
Your man Trump has not even reversed Obama’s Title nine fatwa forcing the universities to set up the kangaroo courts in the first place.

Pretty sure that DeVos rescinded the "Dear Colleagues" letter from the Obama administration.  https://www.bustle.com/p/betsy-devoss-title-ix-sexual-assault-announcement-kills-obamas-dear-colleague-letter-2356036

Did the process stall out or something?

That’s my understanding, But you’re better at digging up facts since I no longer have access to my university tools. There was a week when it was under consideration, but then it fell off the radar. 
It was a great deal of boo-hoo wing and people saying that they didn’t feel safe if they couldn’t call destroyed boys lives with an anonymous accusation

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #143 on: December 28, 2018, 03:50:32 PM »
Quote
An official at Mizzou indicated during a deposition that a male student who was physically larger than the female student he asked out may have violated the school’s Title IX policy because his physical size gave him “power over her.”

The guy wasn’t a jerk, just asked her out. She said no but maybe later, he pursued her a bit and she asked him to stop. Which he did, apologized for making her uncomfortable. It was deemed a violation of  the school’s policy for sexual misconduct regarding one having “power or authority” over another because he is physically larger than her. The guy got suspended.

Suggest you really read about the full case rather than commenting based on some meme you saw
I did. Do you have a point?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #144 on: December 28, 2018, 04:04:48 PM »
The point is that he stalked her for months, after being repeated asked to stop. This qualified as 'pervasive'.

The line about being physically big was being asked in passing. This isn't about some dude asking somebody out on a date, getting rejected, and asking again and apologizing.

If anything, the physically big line might indicate that you can get away with stalking someone if you are 4 foot tall.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #145 on: February 07, 2019, 10:05:27 AM »
About our man Fairfax. I suppose he should have avoided this woman at all costs so that he wouldn't get unfairly accused, right? I mean, inviting this woman he met at the DNC back to his hotel room to "get documents" and then kissing her? This is the one part they both agree on, not in dispute.

There's nothing reasonable about him inviting her to the room to get "fresh air" or for her to have gone with him. Would anyone think that he would invite a male colleague he just met a few times back to his hotel room to fetch documents with him?

My point being that in either case, false accusation or sexual assault, he made his own queen size to lie in.

Of course he didn't have to avoid her at all costs, it would have been reasonable for him to sit in a conference room with her, have drinks with her in the hotel bar, or any number of other activities. He just had to avoid inviting her back to the hotel, no matter what his intentions.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #146 on: February 07, 2019, 10:31:45 AM »
Not sure why you think Fairfax is relevant to this thread.  There's nothing about the context that connects it to the work environment or any work related choices, they just happened to work in the same place.  Even her account makes it clear that she was interested in him (she specifically says the kissing, while surprising was not unwelcome).  The context of this thread was not advocating an end to dating and to human reproduction.

It was specifically, about the risk to intentional, appropriate work interactions that comes from seeing any act of kindness or connection as an unwelcome sexual event.  If the story was about how they had to use space in a hotel room for an office because of the convention and they both had to be there, it would be much more what was being talked about.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Avoid Women at All Cost
« Reply #147 on: February 07, 2019, 10:40:47 AM »
True, that was the primary focus of the thread. But we had also delved into Mike Pence like defenses - like never being alone in a room with a woman no matter what the circumstances.

I don't know if you can call a BJ in your hotel room dating or reproduction, but I get your meaning - it didn't mean an end to consensual sex.