Idea for reducing rape

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easier solution: stop raping people. It's really not all that difficult. If you don't have affirmative consent, don't have sex. It's really simple.

X2. A verbal yes. Really simple and clear.

Sometimes even a verbal yes plus other evidence of consent isn't enough.

There is one case right now from Occidental College where college students got drunk, the "victim" left the boy's room with friends, she went back to his room after texting a friend that she was going to have sex with the boy and texting the boy to ask if he had a condom, and witnesses agree that the sex was consensual. However, the girl was "saving herself" and the next day regretted having drunken sex and after discussing the incident with a faculty advisor filed a complaint against the boy.

Despite all of the evidence and the active participation of the girl, the boy was still found to have violated the university's consent policy and expelled.

See http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/04/occidental-expels-student-for-rape-under

There was an op-ed in the Washington Post a few weeks ago about just this type of thing, but it happened at Yale. Both the woman and the man were drunk, had consensual sex, but she regretted it the next day and filed a rape report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-in-sexual-assault-charges-dangers-for-male-and-female-alike/2014/11/11/16045622-69c8-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html The comments are well-worth a read too.

It's frightening and repulsive to think of our daughters being raped. But as the parent of girls AND boys, it's equally frightening to me to think of my son being falsely accused of rape by someone he had enthusiastic, consensual sex with but who later regretted it. A false accusation can ruin someone's life just as much as being raped can. I agree with the PP who stated false accusations of rape severely diminish the ability of a real rape victim to be taken seriously. Flame away, but it's the truth. My sons know not to rape, period. And my daughters know not to falsely accuse someone of rape.

Totally agree. I have a girl and a boy in college and I am actually more afraid for the boy than the girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Easier solution: stop raping people. It's really not all that difficult. If you don't have affirmative consent, don't have sex. It's really simple.

would this have to be written?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easier solution: stop raping people. It's really not all that difficult. If you don't have affirmative consent, don't have sex. It's really simple.

But girls give affirmative consent and still accused boys of rape.

verbal can = he said/she said -- so that's not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easier solution: stop raping people. It's really not all that difficult. If you don't have affirmative consent, don't have sex. It's really simple.

X2. A verbal yes. Really simple and clear.

How should it be recorded? Should a notary be present?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Easier solution: stop raping people. It's really not all that difficult. If you don't have affirmative consent, don't have sex. It's really simple.

X2. A verbal yes. Really simple and clear.

How should it be recorded? Should a notary be present?

I'm thinking if her signature is legible that should be good enough. But the consent has to be unequivocal - not wiggle room.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our policy should focus on preventing the vast majority of cases where a victim is (a) being assaulted, (b) intentionally placed in a condition where consent is impossible (i.e., drugs or a relatively sober attacker getting a victim drunk(er)), or (c) an attacker taking advantage of a condition where consent is not possible (i.e., a victim who is already seriously drunk or unconscious but not through the attacker's doing).

The vast majority of sexual assaults are just that - they are incidents where a person (usually a man) physically assaults or otherwise causes a woman to participate in sex without her consent. And those events have lifetime consequences for the victims, and they should have similar consequences for the perpetrators.

The problem in colleges is the grey area where something happens, a woman feels like the she was assaulted/violated, but there isn't enough evidence for legal prosecution. Our current environment is saying that traditionally colleges/universities have leaned too far towards protecting the men in those situations, erring on the side of not prosecuting/disciplining/expelling, and now because of public, media and government pressure, the pendulum is swinging the other way.

Now that it's swinging the other way, we're seeing a few cases of colleges/universities erring on the side of over-enforcement, like the Occidental case and a few others that have made the news. In the Occidental case, I believe, based on the facts that have been made public, the boy rightly assumed consent and the girl regretted the consensual sex the next day. Even though she began to have emotional issues about it, those were her issues to deal with. I believe Occidental wronged the boy by expelling him, and I think the courts will vindicate him and compensate him.

But we shouldn't be making policy based on circumstances like the Occidental case. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

But it's the hard cases that can make bad law. Like if you start with consent and during the act she withdraws consent, then what. Do you have to stop right then?

[Anonymous]

It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

Sorry, that should be... There is NOT an objective standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

Sorry, that should be... There is NOT an objective standard.

You are so right. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

well the written agreement must stipulate she may not withdraw consent once the act has commenced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

well the written agreement must stipulate she may not withdraw consent once the act has commenced.

You are probably being facetious, but this would essentially being agreeing to be a sex slave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

well the written agreement must stipulate she may not withdraw consent once the act has commenced.

You are probably being facetious, but this would essentially being agreeing to be a sex slave.

DOnt bother. This is the misogyny troll that always haunts DCUM. Not worth engaging with.

[Anonymous]

This counts as an "idea"? The bar has really been lowered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's sounds so simple to say that it's as simple getting consent. The problem with any sort of consent is that it can be withdrawn at any time after initial consent, so the existence of consent can never be truly known to other person. Also, there is objective standard to determine consent.

Basically, it is impossible a young man to truly know if the woman consents. He can only surmise that her initial agreement was provided with sound mind and was not subsequently revoked. Politicians and activists are simply being dishonest and cynical by pretending that this standard either prevents rape or protects one from false accusations. Young men don't have a crystal ball that they can look into to divine what highly-educated legislators clearly struggle to define.

This is why men tend to be leery of throwing other men under the bus until it becomes clear that there is no way that the act was consensual. Even if they can't articulate it, they intuitively know that they are theoretically at risk of being accused of rape any time they have sex with a woman, so they take a wait and see approach until the facts become so preponderant that a rape must have occurred.

well the written agreement must stipulate she may not withdraw consent once the act has commenced.

You are probably being facetious, but this would essentially being agreeing to be a sex slave.

well, a person cold consent to that if they wanted. Maybe you're suggesting a woman would never agree to sex unless she retained the right to withdraw said consent at any point during the act. This id a slippery slope here - so a guy might be guilty of rape if he doesn't stop fast enough once consent is withdrawn?

[Anonymous]

Aw, just ban all drunken sex already LOL