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"?

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.

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!"?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.