Moms of sons - do you guide your son to be respectful of girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am aware the police need more training.
I am also aware that they quite often get false reports, more often than not.I actually think we need to educate women about what "real" rape is, because these false reports actually make it hard for police to trust women. They are working against themselves.

You are never going to get anywhere positive with this issue if you continue to believe that a couple getting drunk together then having consensual sex is rape on the part of 1 partner.

You are too far to the "everything is rape" side of the argument for anybody to take you serious.

False reports, more often than not? Oh boy.

Here is what "real" rape is -- sex without consent. The sooner everybody is clear about that, the better off everybody will be.

We all know that. Curious what you would call this situation: consensual sex (with *consent,* your favorite buzz-word). Next day, regret, embarrassment on the woman's part. She decides to call their sex "rape," even though she *consented,* enthusiastically, the night before. The police ask her if the sex was consensual. "No," she says. "I didn't *consent*." They then ask him: "Did she *consent* to having sex with you?" He replies, "Yes, she certainly did." Who is right here? Who is lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Good grief. Do you analyze each and every encounter in your daily life? Do you obtain consent first before attempting to grab someone's arm to say hello or to give them a hug? "Hello, Larla. Would you give me your consent to grab your arm? I have something important to tell you!" or "Greetings, Zelda. I would very much like to hug you as it's been awhile since we've seen one another. May I have your consent?"

How exhausting.

Yes, in general, I do try not to grab people's arms unless I'm pretty sure they're fine with their arms being grabbed, and I certainly don't hug people unless I'm certain that they're fine with being hugged. Do you not do this? You just wander about grabbing people's arms and hugging them, without knowing how they feel about it?

And once again -- it is possible to consent without using words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this screaming about consent, yet still no clear definition what consent would mean. Once the poster said grabbing arm without consent could be sexual assault I lost interest. Sometimes I go up to my friend and before I say hello I grab her arm to get her attention. This can now be sexual assault. Insanity.

I didn't say that grabbing somebody's arm without their consent is sexual assault. I said that it's assault. And unless you're fine with random people on the Metro grabbing your arm whenever they feel like it, you think it's assault too.

OVER.THE.TOP. Frighteningly so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole discussion and the irrationality of these posters defining all sorts of suplerflous actions as rape is the reason why this is happening; scary and on our colleges. You guys are zealots.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid

Completely agree. Great article. But seriously scary. Political correctness run amok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am aware the police need more training.
I am also aware that they quite often get false reports, more often than not.I actually think we need to educate women about what "real" rape is, because these false reports actually make it hard for police to trust women. They are working against themselves.

You are never going to get anywhere positive with this issue if you continue to believe that a couple getting drunk together then having consensual sex is rape on the part of 1 partner.

You are too far to the "everything is rape" side of the argument for anybody to take you serious.

False reports, more often than not? Oh boy.

Here is what "real" rape is -- sex without consent. The sooner everybody is clear about that, the better off everybody will be.

We all know that. Curious what you would call this situation: consensual sex (with *consent,* your favorite buzz-word). Next day, regret, embarrassment on the woman's part. She decides to call their sex "rape," even though she *consented,* enthusiastically, the night before. The police ask her if the sex was consensual. "No," she says. "I didn't *consent*." They then ask him: "Did she *consent* to having sex with you?" He replies, "Yes, she certainly did." Who is right here? Who is lying?

You are asking two separate questions.

Question 1: Is it possible to retroactively non-consent? Answer: No, it is not.
Question 2: Who is the best authority on whether or not a person consented? Answer: That person.

But, really, I'm baffled by people's fixation on this far-fetched set of circumstances. Person A regrets having had sex with Person B, and so therefore what Person A does is go to the police and turn this activity that Person A regrets having had into an official matter that leads to an inquiry into every intimate circumstance of Person A's past private life (including the activity that Person A regrets having had). How stupid you must think women are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this screaming about consent, yet still no clear definition what consent would mean. Once the poster said grabbing arm without consent could be sexual assault I lost interest. Sometimes I go up to my friend and before I say hello I grab her arm to get her attention. This can now be sexual assault. Insanity.

I didn't say that grabbing somebody's arm without their consent is sexual assault. I said that it's assault. And unless you're fine with random people on the Metro grabbing your arm whenever they feel like it, you think it's assault too.

OVER.THE.TOP. Frighteningly so.

So when a random person on the Metro grabs your arm, you think, "Oh hey, no problem, nice to meet you!"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all human interactions can lead to misunderstanding. We don't therefore ban human interactions. Nor do we require signed contracts before human interactions. Somehow everybody is able to figure this out countless times every single day -- except when it comes to sexual human interactions, at which point it apparently all becomes so complicated and nebulous that all of these poor pitiful well-meaning people are just completely at sea. I wonder why.

Also, grabbing somebody's arm actually is assault. So is hugging somebody who does not want to be hugged. Is it prosecutable assault, if so, should prosecutors prosecute it? Well, there are bigger fish to fry. Nonetheless, they are both assault. Don't do those things.

Wow. Extremist much? I'm picturing you going about your day, offended at the slightest touch or glance. Must be fun to be around!

Feel free to walk up to somebody on the street and grab their arm and hug them. Be sure to stick around to find out what happens next.

Gee, will my friend say I assaulted her if I walk up behind her and grab her arm to say hello, or give her a hug? We're not talking about strangers, you moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also? I will say something pro-men here, since some people *or person, as I suspect, cough cough* thinks some of us who are concerned about rape hate men....

Anyway, men are more likely to ALSO be sexually assaulted than to have a false accusation against them. The amount of energy spent on this thread about the bullshit "trend" of false accusations is laughable and disgusting.

I don't think it's just one person, but I do think that calling women men haters if they are concerned about rape to be concerning. I also agree with the bolded. My ex-DH who I am still friendly with has been in law enforcement for over 20 years and he said that women coming in to even REPORT rape is unusual. And he doesn't EVER recall having to "educate" someone about "real rape" vs. what...? Phony rape? And this is in a CHicago suburb with a huge population.

So while I don't think it's conducive to call people "troll" that someone is disagreeing with, I do understand the frustration of seeing the false accusation thing being brought up over and over again, so I can see why there is testiness.

[Anonymous]

Ooops, I forgot to bold what I said I did, heh.

It was this:

The amount of energy spent on this thread about the bullshit "trend" of false accusations is laughable and disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Good grief. Do you analyze each and every encounter in your daily life? Do you obtain consent first before attempting to grab someone's arm to say hello or to give them a hug? "Hello, Larla. Would you give me your consent to grab your arm? I have something important to tell you!" or "Greetings, Zelda. I would very much like to hug you as it's been awhile since we've seen one another. May I have your consent?"

How exhausting.

Yes, in general, I do try not to grab people's arms unless I'm pretty sure they're fine with their arms being grabbed, and I certainly don't hug people unless I'm certain that they're fine with being hugged. Do you not do this? You just wander about grabbing people's arms and hugging them, without knowing how they feel about it?

And once again -- it is possible to consent without using words.

Well then, aren't you a hypocrite. Because weren't you just blathering on about how one must gain consent before having sex? Meaning, verbal consent? And no, I don't interview my friends and acquaintances about how they'd feel if I were to grab their arms or give them a hug. Normal people generally know who's up for a hug and who isn't. Kind of strange that you wouldn't know this.

And by the way, your ridiculous examples of arm grabbing and hugging? They really emphasize the fact that you seem to have a screw loose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am aware the police need more training.
I am also aware that they quite often get false reports, more often than not.I actually think we need to educate women about what "real" rape is, because these false reports actually make it hard for police to trust women. They are working against themselves.

You are never going to get anywhere positive with this issue if you continue to believe that a couple getting drunk together then having consensual sex is rape on the part of 1 partner.

You are too far to the "everything is rape" side of the argument for anybody to take you serious.

False reports, more often than not? Oh boy.

Here is what "real" rape is -- sex without consent. The sooner everybody is clear about that, the better off everybody will be.

We all know that. Curious what you would call this situation: consensual sex (with *consent,* your favorite buzz-word). Next day, regret, embarrassment on the woman's part. She decides to call their sex "rape," even though she *consented,* enthusiastically, the night before. The police ask her if the sex was consensual. "No," she says. "I didn't *consent*." They then ask him: "Did she *consent* to having sex with you?" He replies, "Yes, she certainly did." Who is right here? Who is lying?

You are asking two separate questions.

Question 1: Is it possible to retroactively non-consent? Answer: No, it is not.
Question 2: Who is the best authority on whether or not a person consented? Answer: That person.

But, really, I'm baffled by people's fixation on this far-fetched set of circumstances. Person A regrets having had sex with Person B, and so therefore what Person A does is go to the police and turn this activity that Person A regrets having had into an official matter that leads to an inquiry into every intimate circumstance of Person A's past private life (including the activity that Person A regrets having had). How stupid you must think women are.

Me again, and I also agree with this. Why the need for far-fetched circumstance? Actual rapes happen so often, that it's bizzare to me to have so many posts about GRABBING ARMS?! And I am saying this to "both sides."

Anyway, not that many women do false accusations because it throws them under the bus as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am aware the police need more training.
I am also aware that they quite often get false reports, more often than not.I actually think we need to educate women about what "real" rape is, because these false reports actually make it hard for police to trust women. They are working against themselves.

You are never going to get anywhere positive with this issue if you continue to believe that a couple getting drunk together then having consensual sex is rape on the part of 1 partner.

You are too far to the "everything is rape" side of the argument for anybody to take you serious.

False reports, more often than not? Oh boy.

Here is what "real" rape is -- sex without consent. The sooner everybody is clear about that, the better off everybody will be.

We all know that. Curious what you would call this situation: consensual sex (with *consent,* your favorite buzz-word). Next day, regret, embarrassment on the woman's part. She decides to call their sex "rape," even though she *consented,* enthusiastically, the night before. The police ask her if the sex was consensual. "No," she says. "I didn't *consent*." They then ask him: "Did she *consent* to having sex with you?" He replies, "Yes, she certainly did." Who is right here? Who is lying?

You are asking two separate questions.

Question 1: Is it possible to retroactively non-consent? Answer: No, it is not.
Question 2: Who is the best authority on whether or not a person consented? Answer: That person.

But, really, I'm baffled by people's fixation on this far-fetched set of circumstances. Person A regrets having had sex with Person B, and so therefore what Person A does is go to the police and turn this activity that Person A regrets having had into an official matter that leads to an inquiry into every intimate circumstance of Person A's past private life (including the activity that Person A regrets having had). How stupid you must think women are.

Hmm. Ever heard of one "Jackie from UVA"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this screaming about consent, yet still no clear definition what consent would mean. Once the poster said grabbing arm without consent could be sexual assault I lost interest. Sometimes I go up to my friend and before I say hello I grab her arm to get her attention. This can now be sexual assault. Insanity.

I didn't say that grabbing somebody's arm without their consent is sexual assault. I said that it's assault. And unless you're fine with random people on the Metro grabbing your arm whenever they feel like it, you think it's assault too.

OVER.THE.TOP. Frighteningly so.

So when a random person on the Metro grabs your arm, you think, "Oh hey, no problem, nice to meet you!"?

We're talking about PEOPLE WE KNOW. My God, you veer from one extreme to another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that I'm much more concerned about actual rape than false accusations. There is no phenomena of false accusations. They happen, and it's horrible, and the ones in the media get a lot of attention. But rapes happen more, and that's what I choose to focus my energies on.

Where is this info from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am aware the police need more training.
I am also aware that they quite often get false reports, more often than not.I actually think we need to educate women about what "real" rape is, because these false reports actually make it hard for police to trust women. They are working against themselves.

You are never going to get anywhere positive with this issue if you continue to believe that a couple getting drunk together then having consensual sex is rape on the part of 1 partner.

You are too far to the "everything is rape" side of the argument for anybody to take you serious.

False reports, more often than not? Oh boy.

Here is what "real" rape is -- sex without consent. The sooner everybody is clear about that, the better off everybody will be.

We all know that. Curious what you would call this situation: consensual sex (with *consent,* your favorite buzz-word). Next day, regret, embarrassment on the woman's part. She decides to call their sex "rape," even though she *consented,* enthusiastically, the night before. The police ask her if the sex was consensual. "No," she says. "I didn't *consent*." They then ask him: "Did she *consent* to having sex with you?" He replies, "Yes, she certainly did." Who is right here? Who is lying?

You are asking two separate questions.

Question 1: Is it possible to retroactively non-consent? Answer: No, it is not.
Question 2: Who is the best authority on whether or not a person consented? Answer: That person.

But, really, I'm baffled by people's fixation on this far-fetched set of circumstances. Person A regrets having had sex with Person B, and so therefore what Person A does is go to the police and turn this activity that Person A regrets having had into an official matter that leads to an inquiry into every intimate circumstance of Person A's past private life (including the activity that Person A regrets having had). How stupid you must think women are.

Hmm. Ever heard of one "Jackie from UVA"?

Yes, I have (by the way, I'm not the person you quoted, but I want to respond). Yeah, "Jackie" did an awful thing, and it got a lot of media attention. So what? How in the world does this story negate the thousands of stories that aren't even being told by women who were raped? Point out ONE PERSON here who said that there are no false accusations, ever. I'll seriously wait, because nobody thinks that.