Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

PP here -- please explain how what I wrote challenges the presumption of innocence? We don't require mugging victims to prove that they didn't want to give the thief their money. We don't require assault victims to prove that they weren't attacking the accused and that therefore the assault wasn't self-defense. Victim consent should be an affirmative defense, like self defense, and the burden should be on the accused to establish it.

If victim consent becomes an affirmative defense, rather than an element of the offense, you have basically criminalized all sex. What are the elements of the rape offense at that point? Having sex. That's all.

+1.

I agree with the posters who say that we should educate our sons on this issue....about participating something like this and witnessing something like this. No one should be treated like this. And I would be beyond horrified if my sons were anywhere near this.

However, as the mother of sons (and daughters), making consent an affirmative defense and requiring proof of consent goes too far the other way. At my youngest DS's HS, there have been 2 false allegations of sexual contact (groping) this school year alone. I won't go into the backstory, but in both cases, the girls were angry at being spurned by the boys. And let's face it, there is a stigma connected with even being accused of rape. So it would be equally horrifying to me to see a boy stigmatized becase a girl knew she could damage him most by falsely accusing him. And there are recent cases in the news of it happening. Physical evidence of rape is becoming increasingly easier to get (DNA, rape kits, etc.) But how does one prove consent - have her sign a contract beforehand?

PP here who talked to her son about the newspaper piece (I posted about the hormones cocktail too). I agree with this - goes too far.

On the other hand I intend to continue teaching my sons that consent must be crystal-clear and that any alcohol or drugs automatically negates any consent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

PP here -- please explain how what I wrote challenges the presumption of innocence? We don't require mugging victims to prove that they didn't want to give the thief their money. We don't require assault victims to prove that they weren't attacking the accused and that therefore the assault wasn't self-defense. Victim consent should be an affirmative defense, like self defense, and the burden should be on the accused to establish it.

If victim consent becomes an affirmative defense, rather than an element of the offense, you have basically criminalized all sex. What are the elements of the rape offense at that point? Having sex. That's all.

+1.

I agree with the posters who say that we should educate our sons on this issue....about participating something like this and witnessing something like this. No one should be treated like this. And I would be beyond horrified if my sons were anywhere near this.

However, as the mother of sons (and daughters), making consent an affirmative defense and requiring proof of consent goes too far the other way. At my youngest DS's HS, there have been 2 false allegations of sexual contact (groping) this school year alone. I won't go into the backstory, but in both cases, the girls were angry at being spurned by the boys. And let's face it, there is a stigma connected with even being accused of rape. So it would be equally horrifying to me to see a boy stigmatized becase a girl knew she could damage him most by falsely accusing him. And there are recent cases in the news of it happening. Physical evidence of rape is becoming increasingly easier to get (DNA, rape kits, etc.) But how does one prove consent - have her sign a contract beforehand?

And how does one prove that she didn't want to have sex? Have him sign a statement that she didn't want to have sex? DNA just shows that sex occurred. Do we really want to require women to resist to the point of physical harm? Do we want to teach our boys that it's ok to coerce/threaten a girl into having sex even if she doesn't want to up until you have to hurt her? THat if you just wait until that girl who doesn't like you gets drunk enough, maybe you can nail her? Yes, there is a significant stigma to false accusations, but I don't think you can compare the stigma of being falsely accused to the stigma of being sexually assaulted, either in severity or in frequency.

Anonymous wrote:Look, people influenced by hormones, and especially teens influenced by hormones (and more especially teen BOYS so influenced) have clouded judgment and make poor decisions. Add alcohol to the hormones cocktail and it's a very bad combination of circumstances with potentially devastating consequences.

The Steubenville thing is way beyond the pale, but my point is that at the end of the day, if there is any question at all about whether sex was rape, most of the time, the accused will be the boy/man. It is therefore incumbent on boys and men to understand very clearly that if they are in a situation that they believe entails mutual consent, they must make 100% sure that the consent is clearly and freely given in a conscious way. Anything less entails risk they should not take on.

I don't see a down side to educating our sons on this, but I see a huge up side.

This book Deborah Roffman should be required reading for all parents with kids about age 8 up, certainly for parents who have teenagers: http://sexandsensibility.net/
There is a chapter on the "boys will be boys" assumption, too. And there is plenty of information about how parents can remain in charge without being overbearing.
I came across the book in the Washington Post, in an article that discussed the case of, I believe, a Cardozo sports team calling prostitutes to their hotel room during an away game. Read the chapter about "values" but the whole book should be required reading, from cover to cover.

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/281607.page#3109824

This is the link to the entire background.

This young lady was allegedly given a date rape drug in one of the alcoholic drinks she willingly drank. She had previously broke up with the Prosecutor's son and some view the Steubenville Big Red football team members actions as trying to extract justice on her. They also had a nickname they were proud of 'The Rape Crew." A football coach allegedly had an apartment where the Rape Crew brought their dates. (sidebar - Another victim has stepped forward.)

The prosecutor dissauded the victim and her mom from pressing charges despite having a flash drive full of videos, tweets etc. She was transported unconscious from party to party, sodomized, raped, peed on and dumped in a lawn for dead. One of the parties was held at the prosecutor's home, the same prosecutor who dissauded the victim and her mom from pressing charges despise holding a flip drive of evidence from social media.

The same prosecutor who's son tweeted a month earlier, "No one breaks up with ------." The same prosecutor whose son witnessed this and said nothing. The same prosecutor whose son's friends were extracting their brand of justice for their buddy who was blown off by this girl from neighboring West Virginia. The FBI, the Ohio Attorney General's office and the DOJ got involved in this despicable crime after it came to light through the actions of the internet group called Anonymous. They helped to uncover through hacking, investigating, doxing and just looking at social media of the kids involved she was encouraged to attend to a party by a friend who was a girl. The girl told her one of the accused had a crush on her and ----- was okay with it. The victim did not want to go because she worried --------- would be upset. The girl, her boyfriend, ------- friend, crossed the state border to pick her up in neighboring West Virginia and transported her to home of Big Red Football, Steubenville, Ohio.

The racial component seems very real to me: white prosecutor obstructs justice and alleged corrupt sheriff throws the book at the poor black kids. There are allegations of money exchanging hands at a restaurant in a meeting between key players. It's ugly and I am glad DoJ is involved.

The person speaking in the video is not returning to Ohio State University.

OP, my DC understands this is blatant criminal behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

PP here -- please explain how what I wrote challenges the presumption of innocence? We don't require mugging victims to prove that they didn't want to give the thief their money. We don't require assault victims to prove that they weren't attacking the accused and that therefore the assault wasn't self-defense. Victim consent should be an affirmative defense, like self defense, and the burden should be on the accused to establish it.

If victim consent becomes an affirmative defense, rather than an element of the offense, you have basically criminalized all sex. What are the elements of the rape offense at that point? Having sex. That's all.

+1.

I agree with the posters who say that we should educate our sons on this issue....about participating something like this and witnessing something like this. No one should be treated like this. And I would be beyond horrified if my sons were anywhere near this.

However, as the mother of sons (and daughters), making consent an affirmative defense and requiring proof of consent goes too far the other way. At my youngest DS's HS, there have been 2 false allegations of sexual contact (groping) this school year alone. I won't go into the backstory, but in both cases, the girls were angry at being spurned by the boys. And let's face it, there is a stigma connected with even being accused of rape. So it would be equally horrifying to me to see a boy stigmatized becase a girl knew she could damage him most by falsely accusing him. And there are recent cases in the news of it happening. Physical evidence of rape is becoming increasingly easier to get (DNA, rape kits, etc.) But how does one prove consent - have her sign a contract beforehand?

Anonymous wrote:what kind of parents raise the bystander kids who saw this whole thing unfolding and did nothing other than take pictures of the "b" or videos and otherwise just think it was a hilarious thing to see her so drunk she could barely stand?

My earlier stated point exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

Look, people influenced by hormones, and especially teens influenced by hormones (and more especially teen BOYS so influenced) have clouded judgment and make poor decisions. Add alcohol to the hormones cocktail and it's a very bad combination of circumstances with potentially devastating consequences.

The Steubenville thing is way beyond the pale, but my point is that at the end of the day, if there is any question at all about whether sex was rape, most of the time, the accused will be the boy/man. It is therefore incumbent on boys and men to understand very clearly that if they are in a situation that they believe entails mutual consent, they must make 100% sure that the consent is clearly and freely given in a conscious way. Anything less entails risk they should not take on.

I don't see a down side to educating our sons on this, but I see a huge up side.

I agree with this, actually, and plan to teach my boys the same. Even obtaining explicit consent does not fully eliminate the risk, as it will always be one person's word against another with your whole life at stake. You have to be smart about things.

what kind of parents raise the bystander kids who saw this whole thing unfolding and did nothing other than take pictures of the "b" or videos and otherwise just think it was a hilarious thing to see her so drunk she could barely stand?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

PP here -- please explain how what I wrote challenges the presumption of innocence? We don't require mugging victims to prove that they didn't want to give the thief their money. We don't require assault victims to prove that they weren't attacking the accused and that therefore the assault wasn't self-defense. Victim consent should be an affirmative defense, like self defense, and the burden should be on the accused to establish it.

If victim consent becomes an affirmative defense, rather than an element of the offense, you have basically criminalized all sex. What are the elements of the rape offense at that point? Having sex. That's all.

Anonymous wrote:What kind of parent raises a girl like this. This would be my worse nightmare for a daughter. To be "that" girl. Yes, she was raped, but getting this sort of thing happening to her repeatedly over the summer at a series of parties? Come on.

She must not think very highly of herself, which is very sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

Look, people influenced by hormones, and especially teens influenced by hormones (and more especially teen BOYS so influenced) have clouded judgment and make poor decisions. Add alcohol to the hormones cocktail and it's a very bad combination of circumstances with potentially devastating consequences.

The Steubenville thing is way beyond the pale, but my point is that at the end of the day, if there is any question at all about whether sex was rape, most of the time, the accused will be the boy/man. It is therefore incumbent on boys and men to understand very clearly that if they are in a situation that they believe entails mutual consent, they must make 100% sure that the consent is clearly and freely given in a conscious way. Anything less entails risk they should not take on.

I don't see a down side to educating our sons on this, but I see a huge up side.

What kind of parent raises a girl like this. This would be my worse nightmare for a daughter. To be "that" girl. Yes, she was raped, but getting this sort of thing happening to her repeatedly over the summer at a series of parties? Come on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

PP here -- please explain how what I wrote challenges the presumption of innocence? We don't require mugging victims to prove that they didn't want to give the thief their money. We don't require assault victims to prove that they weren't attacking the accused and that therefore the assault wasn't self-defense. Victim consent should be an affirmative defense, like self defense, and the burden should be on the accused to establish it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

I suppose that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing has got to go, then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently had a conversation with my 15yo about rape and consent, based on this letter:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/ask-amy-teen-victim-looks-for-answers/2013/02/15/e6791910-7793-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html

I read him the letter and asked him if he thought it was rape and he said yes. We then talked about confusing signals, how any confusion means no, and how anyone influenced by drugs/alcohol is not capable of saying yes. We also talked about how it is not just a question of a girl not saying "no," that she must fully and clearly say YES. Anything less = back off.
It came up again last night for some reason, and we talked about how if you are in a situation where, like this girl, you *cannot* speak up and be clear, and are uncomfortable doing so, well then you should not be intimate with that person to begin with - that discomfort like that is a signal that you should not be in that situation.

THANK YOU. Why do we assume, in this country, that a woman's default state is "I clearly want to bone that guy"? And that is something that needs to be overcome by her saying "no"? The burden shouldn't be on the woman to disprove that she wanted to fuck some guy. The burden should be on the guy to establish that she affirmatively wants to have sex with him.

PP here. I sincerely believe that it is our solemn duty and obligation to talk early and often to our sons about this, and I do just that (over their protest and embarrassment). Research is clear that as their parents we have the most influence on them. We have their ears in ways that others do not. We are therefore obligated to use that power for good (LOL) and make sure that they understand clearly what the parameters are (and possible consequences are of not respecting them).