If you both drink, without getting roofied of course, end up having sex and there is no evidence of force then it's not rape.

Don't blame someone else for your mistake if you have regrets.

What if you both drink but only one of you is drunk enough to not consent? But then the other one claims that they were too drunk to consent as well?

quote:

---

Men DO objectify women to some degree, even women they are deeply in love with. Males are biologically hard wired to do that. It keeps the species from going extinct.

---

If you can't objectify your wife on some level, the two of you will rarely connect between the sheets. That's reality and nothing to be ashamed of.

Also, fun fact, when presented with the image of a human female, the "person" and "object" recognition happens in the brain of BOTH males and females.

Real college poster. Real college policy.

240 lbs Woman breaks into sleeping man's apartment at 2am and rapes him. Gets nine months sentence with two years probation.

How many years would a man get for breaking into a woman's apartment and raping her in her bed while she slept? Minimum of 30?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/woman-cops-plea-in-sex-attack-on-sleeping-man-786431

Which one is Jake and which one is Josie?!? You shouldn't assume!!!

No indictment for Texas woman who broke into her husband's friend's home and sexually assaulted him while he slept.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex/no-indictment-for-megan-hoelting-908723

quote:

---

Real college poster. Real college policy.

---

The focus on this poster made me think I was drunk.

quote:

---

Real college poster. Real college policy.

---

Then the vast majority of men should be thrown in jail. If you drink, then there is a high probability you have had sex when drunk.

What if she came on to him and inititiated the whole thing?

That poster is bull*****

According to chapter 22 of the Texas Penal Code, in order for sexual activity to be considered legal, consent must be given by:

A person who is old enough to legally agree to sex (an adult aged 17 or over)
A person who is mentally capable of understanding the activity
A person who is fully conscious and aware of the activity
A person who has not been intoxicated or drugged against their will
A person who has not been threatened or coerced

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-sexual-assault-laws.html

The key is intoxicated against their will. And obviously the person can't be so drunk they are unconscious. Despite the fact that feminists want women to be treated like children who are incapable of making their own decisions like a man, the law treats women as adult human beings who must live with the consequences of the sometimes poor decisions they make while intoxicated.

The distinction here is between rape as defined in the penal code and rape as defined in a university's policies.

It is generally difficult to be convicted of rape if you are not a rapist, but it is often very easy to be expelled by a Title IX tribunal based on slanderous accusations.

That's easily fixed. Don't go to a namby pamby liberal arts school run by feminists.

quote:

---

It is generally difficult to be convicted of rape if you are not a rapist, but it is often very easy to be expelled by a Title IX tribunal based on slanderous accusations.

---

the stats that ive seen (albeit from various documentaries) show very few expulsions from major universities on the basis of rape allegations. Have you seen otherwise?

A lot of the problem comes from schools trying to comply with the Obama administration's very aggressive interpretation of Title IX.

quote:

---

That poster is bull*****

---

quote:

---

the stats that ive seen (albeit from various documentaries) show very few expulsions from major universities on the basis of rape allegations. Have you seen otherwise?

---

I have not seen any good stats, but I do have a number of anecdotes about dubious accusations. The problem is the lack of due process in the proceedings and the low standard of proof.

quote:

---

That poster is bull*****

According to chapter 22 of the Texas Penal Code, in order for sexual activity to be considered legal, consent must be given by:

A person who is old enough to legally agree to sex (an adult aged 17 or over)
A person who is mentally capable of understanding the activity
A person who is fully conscious and aware of the activity
A person who has not been intoxicated or drugged against their will
A person who has not been threatened or coerced

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/texas-law/texas-sexual-assault-laws.html

The key is intoxicated against their will. And obviously the person can't be so drunk they are unconscious. Despite the fact that feminists want women to be treated like children who are incapable of making their own decisions like a man, the law treats women as adult human beings who must live with the consequences of the sometimes poor decisions they make while intoxicated.

---

The poster could be accurate. It says Josie 'could not' consent. That could mean she was passed out drunk, asleep, etc. If a person is in a state that they can not verbally communicate a clear yes (not that they would, but are they able to), that could be the line between rape and consent. You have a choice to drink alcohol. That does not mean you relinquish your right to not be violated when you pass out, fall asleep, or are not coherent in speech.


Edit:
However the last sentence, 'a woman who is intoxicated can not give her legal consent for sex....'
That's tricky. On the surface, yes that's b.s. Define intoxicated. Is it the driving bac limit? some other limit?

But, isn't it true that you can back out of signed legal documents if you prove you were intoxicated? Meaning it's agreed upon 9by whoever made that rule) that you can not give legal consent (signing a document) if you're drunk.

Read the damn poster: "a woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex"

Read my damn post: "The key is intoxicated against their will. And obviously the person can't be so drunk they are unconscious. "

Read the law I posted, it speaks to both consciousness as well as intoxication in relation to consent.

LEARN TO READ, DAMN IT

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is generally difficult to be convicted of rape if you are not a rapist, but it is often very easy to be expelled by a Title IX tribunal based on slanderous accusations.

---

the stats that ive seen (albeit from various documentaries) show very few expulsions from major universities on the basis of rape allegations. Have you seen otherwise?

---

I think people rarely hear of the expulsions, because they aren't news or documentary worthy. The ones that make the news are the ones where the university/college turned a blind eye.

One would think that an unwarranted expulsion for false allegations would be more newsworthy than inaction.

You would think, but maybe it has to do with perception. If a male is expelled from school on sexual assault/rape allegations, it would seem he would be more likely to stay quiet and walk away, rather than bring himself and those allegations into the news.

Whereas if a female was sexually assaulted/raped and the university turns a blind eye, there are laws protecting her identity and organizations she can go to to file a complaint and bring it to light without her name having to be released.


Just my guess.

quote:

---

You would think, but maybe it has to do with perception. If a male is expelled from school on sexual assault/rape allegations, it would seem he would be more likely to stay quiet and walk away, rather than bring himself and those allegations into the news.

Whereas if a female was sexually assaulted/raped and the university turns a blind eye, there are laws protecting her identity and organizations she can go to to file a complaint and bring it to light without her name having to be released.


Just my guess.

---

I can see your point if the assault actually happened, but we are talking about false allegations. In that case i think the exact opposite would be true, that the falsely accused would be emboldened by his innocence and shouting it from the tallest rooftop and the false accuser would want to slink away quietly knowing that the accusations could never be proven.

I can only speculate, as I am not a man.

Any guys want to weigh in? If you were wrongly accused of rape/sexual assault and then expelled from college, would you go to the news and sing from the rooftops that you are innocent?(I am also assuming you did actually have sex with her, and she has buyers remorse, and not that she just picked you out and accused you of this when you had never had a sexual encounter with her)

It's a rapidly growing litigation niche:

quote:

---

Nungesser leads the swelling ranks of male students suing colleges, seeking damages and asking judges to force schools to clear their records. A database on the website of advocacy organization Boys and Men in Education says at least 90 men have filed such lawsuits in the past few years, and some lawyers say the total number is even higher. Until recently, the lawsuits focused on claims such as breach of contract and lack of due process. But increasingly, lawyers are throwing gender discrimination into the mix. Accused men are now echoing the complaints of their (most often) female accusers: that schools are violating Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.

---

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/12/18/other-side-sexual-assault-crisis-403285.html

Schools are really kind of damned if they do, damned if they don't, thanks to Obama's "Dear Colleague" letter.

The one in five number always thrown around is bull****, too:

quote:

---

One campus rape is one too many. But the severe new policies championed by the White House, the Department of Education, and members of Congress are responding to the idea that colleges are in the grips of an epidemicand the studies suggesting this epidemic don't hold up to scrutiny. Bad policy is being made on the back of problematic research, and will continue to be unless we bring some healthy skepticism to the hard work of putting a number on the prevalence of campus rape.
It is exceedingly difficult to get a numerical handle on a crime that is usually committed in private and the victims of whichall the studies agreefrequently decline to report. A further complication is that because researchers are asking about intimate subjects, there is no consensus on the best way to phrase sensitive questions in order to get the most accurate answers. A 2008 National Institute of Justice paper on campus sexual assault explained some of the challenges: "Unfortunately, researchers have been unable to determine the precise incidence of sexual assault on American campuses because the incidence found depends on how the questions are worded and the context of the survey." Take the National Crime Victimization Survey, the nationally representative sample conducted by the federal government to find rates of reported and unreported crime. For the years 1995 to 2011, as the University of Colorado Denver's Rennison explained to me, it found that an estimated 0.8 percent of noncollege females age 18-24 revealed that they were victims of threatened, attempted, or completed rape/sexual assault. Of the college females that age during that same time period, approximately 0.6 percent reported they experienced such attempted or completed crime.
That finding diverges wildly from the notion that one in five college women will be sexually assaulted by the time they graduate. That's the number most often used to suggest there is overwhelming sexual violence on America's college campuses. It comes from a 2007 study funded by the National Institute of Justice, called the Campus Sexual Assault Study, or CSA. (I cited it last year in a story on campus drinking and sexual assault.) The study asked 5,466 female college students at two public universities, one in the Midwest and one in the South, to answer an online survey about their experiences with sexual assault. The survey defined sexual assault as everything from nonconsensual sexual intercourse to such unwanted activities as "forced kissing," "fondling," and "rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes."

Courtesy of Maria Casacalenda/Flickr

There are approximately 12 million female college students in the U.S. (There are about 9 million males.) I asked the lead author of the study, Christopher Krebs, whether the CSA represents the experience of those millions of female students. His answer was unequivocal: "We don't think one in five is a nationally representative statistic." It couldn't be, he said, because his team sampled only two schools. "In no way does that make our results nationally representative," Krebs said. And yet President Obama used this number to make the case for his sweeping changes in national policy.
The one-in-four assertion would mean that young American college women are raped at a rate similar to women in Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war.

The Sexual Victimization of College Women, a 2000 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, is the basis for another widely cited statistic, even grimmer than the finding of CSA: that one in four college women will be raped. (An activist organization, One in Four, takes its name from the finding.) The study itself, however, found a completed rape rate among its respondents of 1.7 percent. How does a study that finds less than 2 percent of college women in a given year are raped become a 25 percent likelihood? In addition to the 1.7 percent of victims of completed rape, the survey found that another 1.1 percent experienced attempted rape. As the authors wrote, "[O]ne might conclude that the risk of rape victimization for college women is not high; 'only' about 1 in 36 college women (2.8 percent) experience a completed rape or attempted rape in an academic year."
But the authors go on to make several assumptions that ratchet up the risk. The study was carried out during the spring and asked women to describe any assaults experienced during that academic year. The researchers decided to double the numbers they received from their subjects, in order to extrapolate their findings over an entire calendar year, even as they acknowledged that this was "problematic," as students rarely attend school for 12 months. That calculation brought the incidence figure to nearly 5 percent. Although college is designed to be a four-year experience, the authors note that it takes students "an average" of five years, so they then multiplied their newly-arrived-at 5 percent of student victims by five years, and thus they conclude: "The percentage of completed or attempted rape victimization among women in higher educational institutions might climb to between one-fifth and one-quarter."
In a footnote, the authors acknowledge that asserting that one-quarter of college students "might" be raped is not based on actual evidence: "These projections are suggestive. To assess accurately the victimization risk for women throughout a college career, longitudinal research following a cohort of female students across time is needed." The one-fifth to one-quarter assertion would mean that young American college women are raped at a rate similar to women in Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war.
No one disputes that only a percentage of sexual assaults get reported, but the studies that have tried to capture the incidence of unreported rape are miles apart. As Christopher Krebs observed, "Some [surveys] I think create high numbers that are difficult to defend. Some create artificially low numbers that are impossible to defend." We do have hard numbers on actual reports of sexual assault on campus thanks to theClery Act, the federal law that requires colleges to report their crime rates. But even these figures are controversial. Minuscule sexual assault numbers have long been a consistent feature of Clery Act reporting. Victim advocates say administrators deliberately suppress their numbers in order to make the schools look safer. (Unsurprisingly, schools deny this.) In July, the Washington Post published the Clery number for 2012: There were just over 3,900 forcible sexual offenses, with most schools reporting single or low double-digit numbers. (Under the Clery Act a "forcible sexual offense" does not require the use of actual physical force, it can simply be an act against someone's will. Offenses include everything from rape to fondling.) Given the approximately 12 million female college students, that's a reported sexual assault rate of 0.03 percent.
Reported sexual assaults have been rising on campus in recent years, at a time when other campus crime is declining. (The nation as a whole has experienced a dramatic drop in all violent crime over the past few decades, including sexual assault, which is down more than 60 percent since 1995.) The rise of reporting on campus sexual assault is generally described by security experts as a function of a greater willingness on the part of women to make complaints, not an increase in incidence. Despite reports of "soaring" sexual assault rates on campus, the raw numbers remain low. At the University of Chicago, the jump from 2011 to 2013 was 83 percent: an increase from six reports to 11, which represents 0.4 percent of the university's undergraduate women. Carnegie Mellon went up 220 percent, from five cases to 16, or 0.6 percent of the university's undergraduate women. President Obama has asserted that only about 12 percent of sexual assault victims make a report to authorities. If he is correct, and we extrapolate from the Clery numbers, that would suggest there were 32,500 assaults in 2012, reported and not, or a 0.27 percent incidence.

---

This is a fantastic article, btw, I encourage anybody who is the parent of boys or young men to read it.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html

quote:

---

Carol Tavris is a social psychologist and author of the feminist classic, The Mismeasure of Woman, and, with Elliot Aronson, Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me). She says she is troubled by the blurring of distinctions between rape (notably by predatory males), unwanted sex (where one party agrees to sex not out of desire but to please or placate the partner), and the kind of consensual sex where both parties are so drunk they can barely remember what happenedand one of them later regrets it. She says, "Calling all of these kinds of sexual encounters 'rape' or 'sexual assault' doesn't teach young women how to learn what they want sexually, let alone how to communicate what they want, or don't want. It doesn't teach them to take responsibility for their decisions, for their reluctance to speak up. Sexual communication is really hardyou don't learn how to do it in a few weekends."

Tavris also believes holding only men responsible for their sexual behavior has pernicious effects on women because it supports a victim identity that is already too prevalent in our society. "It's so much easier to be a victim than to admit culpability, admit your own involvement, admit that you made a mistake," she says. "It's much easier to say it's all his fault. Look, sometimes it is all his fault. That's called rape. But ambiguities and unexpected decisions are part of many encounters, especially sexual ones."

---

tldr

Swimmer fails to accept that she is the exeception to the rule that women are not rational.

quote:

---

I can only speculate, as I am not a man.

Any guys want to weigh in? If you were wrongly accused of rape/sexual assault and then expelled from college, would you go to the news and sing from the rooftops that you are innocent?(I am also assuming you did actually have sex with her, and she has buyers remorse, and not that she just picked you out and accused you of this when you had never had a sexual encounter with her)

---

I'd ask for a lot of hush money and go about my way and go somewhere else. If they didn't comply I'd be on the rooftop and also be using her full name any chance I get.

quote:

---

Read the damn poster: "a woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex"

---

Right.. now read my post, damn it. I proposed the situation where someone signing a legal document can back out if they prove they were intoxicated, meaning somewhere in the legal system, being intoxicated prevents you from giving legal consent.

I had something notarized recently, and the notary asked, among other questions, 'are you of sound mind to make this decision to sign the document'.

This would lead me to believe, if I said I was intoxicated, he would not have followed through, because my consent would not be legal.


Did your read all that?

I wouldn't justify signing a legal document that requires a notary and sex as good comparison here.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Read the damn poster: "a woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex"

---

Right.. now read my post, damn it. I proposed the situation where someone signing a legal document can back out if they prove they were intoxicated, meaning somewhere in the legal system, being intoxicated prevents you from giving legal consent.

I had something notarized recently, and the notary asked, among other questions, 'are you of sound mind to make this decision to sign the document'.

This would lead me to believe, if I said I was intoxicated, he would not have followed through, because my consent would not be legal.


Did your read all that?

---

the question "are you of sound mind" typically isnt asked (at least I dont ask it that way). Its meant to make sure the person signing or acknowledging the document knows what they are signing and what the document does. Its really about competence. A person who has had a few drinks (maybe even tipsy), is still competent to sign a document in most circumstances.

A different set of laws applies to contracts and sexual assault.

quote:

---

I can only speculate, as I am not a man.

Any guys want to weigh in? If you were wrongly accused of rape/sexual assault and then expelled from college, would you go to the news and sing from the rooftops that you are innocent?(I am also assuming you did actually have sex with her, and she has buyers remorse, and not that she just picked you out and accused you of this when you had never had a sexual encounter with her)

---

I would sue the ever living **** out of the school, but I'd do it as John Doe.

I'm generally of the mind that universities aren't equipped to adjudicate serious crimes like rape. From what I've read about how most universities do investigate these allegations, the deck is heavily tilted against the accused, to the point where many of the men accused of rape are not allowed to offer evidence in their own defense, cross examine or rebut statements made by the accuser, be assisted or advised by counsel, or in some cases, even take written notes of the proceedings.

Rape is a serious crime and should be investigated and prosecuted as such. It's a travesty of justice when a rapist walks free, but it is equally as bad when a man is wrongfully convicted, either by a court of law or these university star chambers, of rape.

Celee if you want to play goalie for this bull**** then ****ing own it.