It was a valiant effort but for certain folks sexual assault, sexism, racism, etc is to much a hypothetical problem to them to ever unequivocally state it's wrong. I think someone they have a prior emotional attachment to would have to suffer in their direct view before the equivocations would stop.
You seem to think that answering "yes" to that question must inevitably lead to support of handling cases as they have been recently. Ends don't justify the means no matter how much of a "big freaking deal" a subject is or how much it "disturbs" you. Hopefully you have the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand and accept when you ask a virtue signalling question like that and someone says "yes, but...."
I wish you and others had this much sympathy for the roughly 30% or more falsely-accused sitting on death row, that are there simply because of coerced confessions and known, thoroughly debunked classical forensics techniques. But, in some cases, it is obvious the ends do justify the means, right? Gotta keep that blood fury going, gotta keep that death penalty, meat market prison industry as profitable as ever.
I know, I know. Straw man. I just wonder why this infinitesimally small number of falsely accused assaulters are deserving of our sympathies more than the immorally staggering number of innocents that we have actually slaughtered under the guise of "justice." I find it hard to side with the logic of people that tend to bury their heads whenever the numbers disagree with their self-described morals.
Turns out he was not, and she claimed it was rape because she had sex with him believing something that was not true, and that constituted rape. I completely disagree with that definition of rape, and I have no doubt she believing she was raped was hurt.
I am in no way saying that the number did not fit my expectations therefore its wrong. I am flat out saying that how they define rape is wrong and thus what they measure is wrong. I did a log explanation already, but ill do a short one again.
Here are the criteria for how they define sexual assault.
(1) physical force or threat of physical force
(2) being incapacitated because of drugs, alcohol, or being unconscious, asleep, or passed out
(3) coercive threats of non-physical harm or promised rewards, and
(4) failure to obtain affirmative consent.
1 leaves no room for debate and I agree with it. 2-4 I have big problems as many consensual situations can happen in those, and yet the researchers believe lack of consent is inherent. 4 is probably the most absurd as 2 and 3 are usually reasonable. 4 means you need to get explicit consent, and I can tell you most sexual acts people do not get affirmative consent for. If I tried that with my GF she would get annoyed real quick and shut it down.
(2) being incapacitated because of drugs, alcohol, or being unconscious, asleep, or passed out. Here is the first problem. If you are drinking, taking drugs but still conscious, its still considered rape as being under the influence at any level, they argue that it prohibits valid consent. So if you and your girlfriend get drunk and have sex, and neither feels it was rape, by the definition of the study it is rape.
(3) coercive threats of non-physical harm or promised rewards. Here is the next problem, promised rewards. The threats is valid, so no problem there, but rewards are always there. My GF uses sex as an incentive to do things around the house she wants done. By that definition, she is a sexual victim.
(4) failure to obtain affirmative consent. Big problem here. I have woken up and mounted my GF, and she has done the same to me. By the paper's definition, we have both raped each other.
Sexual assault is not a hypothetical to me. I will not go into details, but I will say its not hypothetical to me at all. Perhaps one of the most offensive things I think I have ever seen you say given how you did not think it through at all because of your own assumptions.
Well I am one of those that do care about killing innocent people. Its why I am against the death penalty. The thought of how many people we now know were innocent makes my stomach turn.
Consent can not be achieved through lies. Consent must be informed. If you intentionally misinform someone you are removing their ability to consent. That makes it rape.
Several problems with your argument, first is that you are missing the main meta criteria, the person must feel that their consent is violated. This alone disproves most of the arguments you make, but I'll address each issue.
First, as I said they have to feel violated. If not, there is no rape.
Next we are going to introduce a new concept that is used: Ongoing explicit consent. You and your girlfriend have explicitly agreed upon continuing consent. Either of you can remove that agreed upon consent at any time, with either verbal or non-verbal notification. But for studies like this it is considered consensual if there is a ongoing sexual relationship and neither revoked it.
The 'promised rewards' is the reverse of coercive threats. It is not done by the victim, it is done by the perpetrator. It is the threat in reverse. 'If you want in the sorority you do the fraternity.'
Affirmative consent is super important. Just because someone is incapable of defending themselves does not equal consent. Your example is intentionally dishonest. You have her affirmative consent. At some point you and her decided together that this was okay, and you have agreed that the consent is ongoing. Also, once again, she must feel violated for it to be rape.
Then stop equivocating.
If it's not hypothetical to you why won't you simply answer yes? Interchange already took the response through Title IX off the table so he's literally just trying to see if you have common ground with him on anything and you won't give a simple answer.
Answering yes does not mean that you agree to throw the falsely accused under a bus.
Even if you actually agree that it is disturbing, posting paragraph after paragraph in order to not simply say, "yes campus rape disturbs you" comes across as morally repugnant because it can be interpreted as acceptance.
We know you can unequivocally state your position on other topics:
So why not this one?
Are you guys discussing the legal definition of rape or are these just opinions about what you personally consider rape? Here is the legal definition in California:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261.html
Summary:
1. Physical force or threat of physical force/bodily injury
2. If the person is incapable of consent due to a mental disorder or disability which was known to the accused.
3. Intoxication to the point of being incapable of consent
4. Person is unconscious, asleep, or otherwise incapable of knowing what is happening
5. Threat to use the power of office to arrest, incarcerate or deport the person. This would apply to law enforcement and government officials, and is probably aimed at bad cops who coerce women for sex based on threats of arrest
6. Deception, but only in the manner of convincing the person that you are someone else, like climbing into a woman's bed and having sex with her while she thinks you're her husband but you aren't
No, it isn't rape if you go out on a date and lie about your age, then have sex with her, and she later says she would never have climbed into bed with you had she known your true age. After some point, the law is based on the assumption that an adult is responsible for a conscious decision to have sex with someone, and leaves it to them to ferret out deceptions. We don't have to believe whatever someone tells us on a date, and we certainly don't have to have sex with them.
Sexual blackmail also doesn't qualify other than in the narrow circumstance involving law enforcement. If you threaten to fire an employee if they don't have sex with you, that is civilly actionable as sexual harassment, but it isn't a crime. Similarly, it isn't a rape to threaten to expose someone to social embarrassment if they don't have sex with you. Only threats of physical force qualify.
I did answer, I said this.
"So, is it disturbingly common, in a sense yes I suppose. Rape is a horrible infringement and should never be taken lightly." I also qualified that response and expounded upon it.
What else should I say, and how am I equivocating?
it's horrible, I'm not surprised. I also don't think it's at levels disturbing above what I think is a, for lack of a better word natural. We a humans are improving so my hope is that we improve in terms of rape to.
Amazing. So if you tell a girl you are rich, and it turns out you are not rich, its rape because she slept with you on the assumption you were rich. I'm sure the next parts will be just as amazing.
Say the stuff that is bolded. Stop adding "buts", qualifications, and "howevers".
Like this:
So now the bolded says you aren't disturbed by it because a certain amount of rape is for lack of a better word "natural".
So which is it? You said it's disturbingly common but it isn't at a disturbing level.
Equivocation.
If I lie to you about having ocean front property in Kansas to scam you out of money I've done something illegal. You didn't give me the money willingly. I scammed you under false pretenses.
Likewise if you lie about something to get laid. They didn't give you something willingly. You've scammed them under false pretenses. It may not be illegal based on wherever you live but it's fucking wrong.
Does this really have to be explained to you?
It was a valiant effort but for certain folks sexual assault, sexism, racism, etc is to much a hypothetical problem to them to ever unequivocally state it's wrong. I think someone they have a prior emotional attachment to would have to suffer in their direct view before the equivocations would stop.
I wish you and others had this much sympathy for the roughly 30% or more falsely-accused sitting on death row
Are you guys discussing the legal definition of rape or are these just opinions about what you personally consider rape? Here is the legal definition in California:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261.html
Summary:
1. Physical force or threat of physical force/bodily injury
2. If the person is incapable of consent due to a mental disorder or disability which was known to the accused.
3. Intoxication to the point of being incapable of consent
4. Person is unconscious, asleep, or otherwise incapable of knowing what is happening
5. Threat to use the power of office to arrest, incarcerate or deport the person. This would apply to law enforcement and government officials, and is probably aimed at bad cops who coerce women for sex based on threats of arrest
6. Deception, but only in the manner of convincing the person that you are someone else, like climbing into a woman's bed and having sex with her while she thinks you're her husband but you aren't
No, it isn't rape if you go out on a date and lie about your age, then have sex with her, and she later says she would never have climbed into bed with you had she known your true age. After some point, the law is based on the assumption that an adult is responsible for a conscious decision to have sex with someone, and leaves it to them to ferret out deceptions. We don't have to believe whatever someone tells us on a date, and we certainly don't have to have sex with them.
Sexual blackmail also doesn't qualify other than in the narrow circumstance involving law enforcement. If you threaten to fire an employee if they don't have sex with you, that is civilly actionable as sexual harassment, but it isn't a crime. Similarly, it isn't a rape to threaten to expose someone to social embarrassment if they don't have sex with you. Only threats of physical force qualify.
The problem is that colleges and universities have been made to create extrajudicial means of passing judgement by largely unqualified individuals. Legality has been by and large tossed out the window.
I am sure any of us can concoct a scenario that validates our position in this debate, but the answer will always be "it depends".I don't agree with this stance. While I'm not sure if Title IX itself is a good thing, and am damn sure that there are problems with its implementation, I am not at all troubled with its basic legality and would not call it extrajudicial means of passing judgment.
I'll provide a comparative example. Say you are a small business owner. One of your employees comes to you and states that another employee sexually assaulted her. She has filed a complaint with the police, and the police have started an investigation, but they have informed her that the case will likely take years to go to trial and there is limited evidence to prove the case. Your employee is saying she would quit if you did not fire the other individual. She tells you that after the assault she heard form other co-workers that he had assaulted an ex-employee of yours who did not feel comfortable reporting to you or police.
Do you have a right to fire the guy? Or to investigate the claims further? What standard should you be allowed to use in order to take action against him? If you fire him, and another potential employer calls you for a reference, what should you be able to say?
A position that you should not be able to investigate or take action in this case is, in my view, preposterous. Particularly since you have some indication that he has a good chance to assault another of your employees.
Now, you could investigate and find insufficient evidence to take action and let your other employee quit and still hire the guy. Fine. No problem with that either.
I am sure any of us can concoct a scenario that validates our position in this debate, but the answer will always be "it depends".
How do you know she is telling the truth, and are you the right person to follow-up on leads as a business owner or manager?
On the one hand, our society is gravitating towards a softer hand with criminals, and developing paths for them to find meaningful employment and reintroduce them as productive and law abiding members of society.
On other hand we are willing to burn people at the stake based on allegations.
You should be able to do whatever you want to do, bounded by state and federal law on what is acceptable or legal to do, with state and federal law in turn under judicial review to ensure constitutional protections.My scenario isn't about what you should do as an employer. It's about what you should be able to do, if you choose it. Same with universities. If they have a code of conduct, they should be able to enforce it as they see fit (exposing them to civil liability if they do so corruptly). Title IX is only able to affect universities that receive Federal funding, as it should be.
My scenario isn't about what you should do as an employer. It's about what you should be able to do...
The question is not if it is wrong to do, the question is if that qualifies as rape. So, if your wife asks if you took out the garbage and if you did you will get a BJ, and you say yes knowing you did not, did you sexually assault her?
placing a person's once in a life time chance at a college education on the line against a mere accusation is even more horrendous.
You know that you are allowed to go to college more than once, right?
As far as I know not currently illegal in any jurisdiction in the United States but it should be. It is illegal in a number of other countries it is. There have been several cases in the UK over Rape by Deception, and there has been a few famous cases in Israel including one man that was convicted of Rape by Fraud for claiming he was a neurosurgeon, and another for claiming he was Jewish and unmarried.