The College Rape Overcorrection

[AniThyng]

It seems that the problem with all these is that for the individual involved knowing he is an exception is cold comfort.

[Kane Starkiller]

Because it is rare, and the reverse condition is far more common. I can dig around and find a few cases of the rights of the accused not being respected. I dont have to dig in order to find the opposite.

Of course, due process in US universities is a fucking joke in general. The police? Also a joke.

Wait a minute, a man being accused and practically convicted of rape without evidence is a "reverse condition" of a man getting away with rape? This is nonsense since it is not the same man and this is something that I often see crop up in these discussions to try and justify the lowering the standard of evidence for an accusation as serious as rape.

[Joun_Lord]

Your analogy to voter fraud is very apt.

Because it is almost non-existent. False rape accusations are very very rare, because there is a massive social cost paid by women who report rape. Some 40-60% of rapes go unreported, more in the UK, incidentally. Less than a percent of reported rape accusations are actually false (as in, no rape ever occurred. Misidentification is another matter). Conviction rate (of reported rapes) is well under 20% in many jurisdictions

But it does happen and has quite a hefty social cost itself for those wrongly accused.

The fact it is a relatively small amount of rape allegations (between 2 and 8 percent according to wiki) doesn't mean it should be ignored anymore then we should ignore rape itself if the shoe was on the other foot. We don't have to ignore either, like ignoring male rape to focus on female rape (which the numbers of are considerably closer to even with female rape compared to proven vs false rape allegations) as some are inclined to do (though whether this is because of a lack of ability to pay attention to both, better advocacy for female victims compared to males, or the fact males by many are not seen as able to be raped and if they are its something to laugh at unknown).

Related to the topic at hand but apparently url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/0 ... 90380.html]dudes are more likely to be sexually assaulted then falsely accused of it[/url] but again shouldn't detract from the fact an ungodly amount of women are sexually assaulted right alongside them and men still are falsely accused.

[salm]

Dont be a fucking idiot. A person who is drunk cannot consent. They can retroactively consent later, obviously. Or if having sex while drunk is part of a pre-existing relationship (say, you and your partner enjoy having a few drinks and fooling around), that is entirely different matter.

But between strangers? Not A Safe Activity.

This is not a black and white issue. It can be an unsafe acitvity and it can be safe. It depends highly on the circumstances like in most social scenarios. Saying that it is unsafe in 100% of cases is wrong.
Drunk people can and do consent to things all the time. It depends on a bunch of factors like the degree of drunkness.

BTW, the persons in the article in the open post were friends, not strangers.

[Joun_Lord]

Avoiceformen, incidentally, has a pledge. A pledge that calls for their readers to ALWAYS vote not-guilty in rape cases.

Well thats fucking disgusting. Would these so called advocates for mens rights vote not guilty in cases of female on male rape or are they even farther up their own asses then that admittedly deep point and think that rape doesn't exist at all?

Seriously, shit like that is why I understand the fact people look down on the subhuman goblins that call themselves MRAs.

[The Romulan Republic]

Erring on the side of caution is not interfering with private lives of people and refraining from making accusations on practically nonexistent evidence.

Your private life doesn't get to stay private if it becomes non-consensual.

And I don't think that people should be accused without evidence. And if you can't show an example of me saying otherwise or making such an accusation, I expect you to retract the insinuation in question and apologize or I'll consider you a liar.

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

If you can't enjoy sex without alcohol maybe you're not that into the person you're screwing.

[salm]

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

If you can't enjoy sex without alcohol maybe you're not that into the person you're screwing.

The thing is that normal people don´t rape other people, no matter if any of the involved parties is drunk or not.
Now, for lots of people having sex is important and sex is something that often happens during or after social situations which also happens to be the situations where alcohol is consumed. Therefore alcohol and sex often happen together. Which is perfectly fine in the vast majority of cases.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm of two minds about sex when everyone involved is drunk. On the one hand, being drunk means you can't consent (at least after a certain point) and being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for crimes. On the other hand, saying that everyone involved simultaneously committed rape and were raped seems absurd.

But if you are sober and screw someone who is heavily intoxicated, you are by definition a rapist. You may not think of yourself as one and you may not have intended to be one, but you are. Maybe you aren't legally, but morally you are.

I suspect a big part of the problem is that a lot of people have screwed someone who was drunk and don't want to admit that what they did was rape because they think, as you said, "...normal people don't rape other people..."

Edited for accuracy.

[salm]

But if you are sober and screw someone who is heavily intoxicated, you are by definition a rapist. You may not think of yourself as one and you may not have intended to be one, but you are. Maybe you aren't legally, but morally you are.

I agree. But this is an extreme case. There are a gazillion of other possible szenarios in which nobody involved is a rapist.

[Kane Starkiller]

Your private life doesn't get to stay private if it becomes non-consensual.

And I don't think that people should be accused without evidence. And if you can't show an example of me saying otherwise or making such an accusation, I expect you to retract the insinuation in question and apologize or I'll consider you a liar.

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

If you can't enjoy sex without alcohol maybe you're not that into the person you're screwing.

You will call me a liar because of a post in which I haven't even mentioned you by name because you feel I insinuated something? Obviously if I force someone to do anything against their will this is criminal offense but that needs to be proven.
Having sex with drunken individuals is not as important as the right to do so if they so choose and the right not to be automatically found guilty of rape by the mere fact that one person was drunk.
The issue here is the implied claim that "drunk sex" means a sober person slowly getting another person drunk with malicious intent to exploit their weakness. Does this happen? Of course and not just with alchohol but any number of ways to influence and force a person to do any number of things they don't want to do.
It still doesn't absolve us from the requirement to prove guilt on a case by case basis and not on a generalized claim that any sex with a drunk person is rape.

[The Romulan Republic]

Avoiceformen, incidentally, has a pledge. A pledge that calls for their readers to ALWAYS vote not-guilty in rape cases.

Well thats fucking disgusting. Would these so called advocates for mens rights vote not guilty in cases of female on male rape or are they even farther up their own asses then that admittedly deep point and think that rape doesn't exist at all?

Seriously, shit like that is why I understand the fact people look down on the subhuman goblins that call themselves MRAs.

Telling people to vote not guilty regardless of the evidence sounds like a crime. Isn't that inciting people to commit perjury?

[salm]

I'm of two minds about sex when everyone involved is drunk. On the one hand, being drunk means you can't consent (at least after a certain point) and being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for crimes. On the other hand, saying that everyone involved simultaneously committed rape and were raped seems absurd.

This isn´t as clear cut as it seems. There are countries in which you can be too drunk to commit crimes an go for the insanity plea.
In Germany, if you are over 2.0 promille (2.2 in cases killings) you have a reduced criminal liability and ingeneral above 3.0 promille (killings 3.3) you have no criminal liability.

[The Romulan Republic]

Your private life doesn't get to stay private if it becomes non-consensual.

And I don't think that people should be accused without evidence. And if you can't show an example of me saying otherwise or making such an accusation, I expect you to retract the insinuation in question and apologize or I'll consider you a liar.

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

If you can't enjoy sex without alcohol maybe you're not that into the person you're screwing.

You will call me a liar because of a post in which I haven't even mentioned you by name because you feel I insinuated something? Obviously if I force someone to do anything against their will this is criminal offense but that needs to be proven.
Having sex with drunken individuals is not as important as the right to do so if they so choose and the right not to be automatically found guilty of rape by the mere fact that one person was drunk.
The issue here is the implied claim that "drunk sex" means a sober person slowly getting another person drunk with malicious intent to exploit their weakness. Does this happen? Of course and not just with alchohol but any number of ways to influence and force a person to do any number of things they don't want to do.
It still doesn't absolve us from the requirement to prove guilt on a case by case basis and not on a generalized claim that any sex with a drunk person is rape.

Forgive me for thinking that a post which immediately follows one of mine and refers to something I said was directed at me.

And you will observe that I have explicitly acknowledged the importance of due process in this thread.

Edit: And I don't think anyone here is claiming that all drunk sex is a case of a sober person getting someone drunk like you said.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm of two minds about sex when everyone involved is drunk. On the one hand, being drunk means you can't consent (at least after a certain point) and being drunk does not absolve you of responsibility for crimes. On the other hand, saying that everyone involved simultaneously committed rape and were raped seems absurd.

This isn´t as clear cut as it seems. There are countries in which you can be too drunk to commit crimes an go for the insanity plea.
In Germany, if you are over 2.0 promille (2.2 in cases killings) you have a reduced criminal liability and ingeneral above 3.0 promille (killings 3.3) you have no criminal liability.

Interesting.

However, I presume that their are still legal consequences.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because it is rare, and the reverse condition is far more common. I can dig around and find a few cases of the rights of the accused not being respected. I dont have to dig in order to find the opposite.

Of course, due process in US universities is a fucking joke in general. The police? Also a joke.

Wait a minute, a man being accused and practically convicted of rape without evidence is a "reverse condition" of a man getting away with rape? This is nonsense since it is not the same man and this is something that I often see crop up in these discussions to try and justify the lowering the standard of evidence for an accusation as serious as rape.

Learn to read. A university disciplinary board has certain procedural rules and processes. The vast majority of the time, these processes are designed in part to hamper the investigation and prosecution of rape. The police dont show up to collect evidence, unaccountably drop investigations, administrators and other officials actively dissuade rape victims from formally pressing charges.

It is not just "men getting away with rape" but "the university pointedly failing to investigate rape appropriately".

Compared to the prevalence of that sort of shit, cases where a formally accused rapist are railroaded are extremely rare, and cannot be called a systematic over-correction to the problem of rape on college campuses.

It is bad. But it is not an over-correction.

But it does happen and has quite a hefty social cost itself for those wrongly accused.

There is a difference between "things that sometimes happen" and "societal problem". At least, as I draw my fine distinctions. You may not draw them as I do, so I will explain said distinction.

There are all manner of things that happen. Lightning hits people, but it is not a widespread problem. Sharks sometimes bite people. Same thing. They are rare fluke events.

A good way to look at it is as follows (applies only to things like crime, not shark attacks etc). Once systematic causes that stem from our social and legal structures are eliminated, the rate of incidence that remains is not a Problem. Norway has murders. It does not have a murder problem (or at least not much one one).

False rape accusations are very rare, and there is no systematic cause. Nothing in our social and legal structures that we have any power to change in any way causes them. Person A gets pissed off at Person B, decides to get back at them, accuses them of a crime they did not commit. It happens. It is bad that it happens. But we cannot do much about it but punish people when they do it. Unless we want to install little mind-control chips or something. In fact, all the social and legal structures we do have that influence the incidence discourage false rape accusations.

Actual rape in the US is a Problem. One we can solve (or rather, change our social and legal structures in such a way that the incidence of it will be reduced to the point that we cannot reasonably reduce it further). There are still systematic causes. We have a culture that encourages and in many ways facilitates rape and the getting away with same. If you want/require the run-down on all the shit that constitutes rape culture, that is another post entirely.

The fact it is a relatively small amount of rape allegations (between 2 and 8 percent according to wiki) doesn't mean it should be ignored anymore then we should ignore rape itself if the shoe was on the other foot. We don't have to ignore either, like ignoring male rape to focus on female rape (which the numbers of are considerably closer to even with female rape compared to proven vs false rape allegations) as some are inclined to do (though whether this is because of a lack of ability to pay attention to both, better advocacy for female victims compared to males, or the fact males by many are not seen as able to be raped and if they are its something to laugh at unknown).

Mostly, it is a combination of homophobia and shame.

The overwhelming majority of male rape victims were raped by men. Excluding hate crimes wherein gay/bisexual men are raped by straight men as part of an ironically anti-gay hate crime, admitting that they were raped by another man is... well it has even more of the same psychological problems that accompany women reporting their rapes. They feel dirty and ashamed. They are afraid it makes them gay, and so wont admit it happened etc.

When men are raped by women, barring statutory rape where the male victims often wont see themselves as being a victim (hot teacher, whatever), there is even more shame. Being overpowered and coerced into erection is all kinds of shameful. They were literally betrayed by their own body. It is hard to get accurate numbers because they wont admit to researchers that it happened.

THEN we get into the perception that men cannot be raped that way (another aspect of rape culture. The same sexist bullshit that hurts women also harms men), lack of advocacy infrastructure or social support etc.

Saying that it is unsafe in 100% of cases is wrong.

Unsafe in the sense that it is risky. My friend X and I have a general explicit understanding that whatever happens after we have consumed absinthe is OK. We care about eachother, we are comfortable with eachother, and there has always been more than a bit of sexual tension there that because our lives are very different we dont usually act on.

But when it does, that is OK.

Other people do not have that understanding. Even friends, necessarily.

When someone is drunk (and I dont mean "has had a beer" but "needs to not have their car keys"), the part of the brain that regulates their behavior is seriously impaired. Or rather, it itself is not impaired, but its ability to send outgoing messages is impaired. Alcohol targets the neural pathways that permit the prefrontal cortex to tell the amygdala to "sit down and shut up". But it might still be SAYING "sit down and shit up".

When sober the next day, that reintegrates. Whatever the prefrontal cortex had to say about the night before, for good or ill, is reintegrated.

At that point, there are three ways it can go.

"Its all good"
"Meh. I should not have done that, but whatever, no harm no foul"
and
"Oh dear god, I feel so violated right now"

That third one is rape.

You, being outside that person's mind, do not know without some sort of prior arrangement where that will go. Even with a friend--especially with a friend, actually.

Original Consent=Invalid.
Condition: Schrödingers Rape. It both is and is not rape, until sobriety is achieved and the waveform collapses.

Well thats fucking disgusting. Would these so called advocates for mens rights vote not guilty in cases of female on male rape or are they even farther up their own asses then that admittedly deep point and think that rape doesn't exist at all?

Oh no. Worse. [Sarcastic Quotes]Men being raped is a HUGE problem for feminism (even though Feminists do their best to tackle men being raped as well). One of the biggest problems of our time. But women are bitches who accuse men of rape for no reason so often that even when there are bruises and DNA evidence, it is safest to vote not guilty[/sarcastic quotes]

[Kane Starkiller]

Learn to read. A university disciplinary board has certain procedural rules and processes. The vast majority of the time, these processes are designed in part to hamper the investigation and prosecution of rape. The police dont show up to collect evidence, unaccountably drop investigations, administrators and other officials actively dissuade rape victims from formally pressing charges.

It is not just "men getting away with rape" but "the university pointedly failing to investigate rape appropriately".

Compared to the prevalence of that sort of shit, cases where a formally accused rapist are railroaded are extremely rare, and cannot be called a systematic over-correction to the problem of rape on college campuses.

It is bad. But it is not an over-correction.

Yes it is an over-correction and you still insist on framing this as some kind of battle of rape victims vs falsely accused people when one has nothing to do with the other.
Take for example your statement that "the university pointedly failing to investigate rape appropriately". This case falls squarely in that category. The university failed to investigate the case correctly. Sometimes it tries to sweep in under the rug other times it tries to quickly pronounce the accused guilty and always the motivation is to save their own ass.
In this case they over-corrected to try and save their reputation and therefore infringed on the rights of the accused.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Learn to read. A university disciplinary board has certain procedural rules and processes. The vast majority of the time, these processes are designed in part to hamper the investigation and prosecution of rape. The police dont show up to collect evidence, unaccountably drop investigations, administrators and other officials actively dissuade rape victims from formally pressing charges.

It is not just "men getting away with rape" but "the university pointedly failing to investigate rape appropriately".

Compared to the prevalence of that sort of shit, cases where a formally accused rapist are railroaded are extremely rare, and cannot be called a systematic over-correction to the problem of rape on college campuses.

It is bad. But it is not an over-correction.

Yes it is an over-correction and you still insist on framing this as some kind of battle of rape victims vs falsely accused people when one has nothing to do with the other.
Take for example your statement that "the university pointedly failing to investigate rape appropriately". This case falls squarely in that category. The university failed to investigate the case correctly. Sometimes it tries to sweep in under the rug other times it tries to quickly pronounce the accused guilty and always the motivation is to save their own ass.
In this case they over-corrected to try and save their reputation and therefore infringed on the rights of the accused.

An over-correction is systematic. If i miss while shooting at a target, an over-correction would have me attempt to fix the mistake by making another one in the opposite direction. I am not merely talking about the university in the OP. But universities in general.

One or a few universities bucking the trend created by the overwhelming majority of them does not an over-correction make. The general trend among universities nation-wide is to hinder rape accusations as much as possible. Which is why the DOJ is crawling up their collective asses right now.

Stop attacking strawmen. Or go back and take a course in reading comprehension.

[Grumman]

Telling people to vote not guilty regardless of the evidence sounds like a crime. Isn't that inciting people to commit perjury?

No, it is not. How courts treat calls for jury nullification varies, but it is not a crime, especially when you are an outside party and not an attorney.

If this group is really calling for jury nullification in all rape cases they are wrong to do so, but that is because they want it in all rape cases, not because jury nullification is itself inherently evil or a crime. Jury nullification was used to protect people who broke laws against freeing slaves, for example.

[salm]

Unsafe in the sense that it is risky. My friend X and I have a general explicit understanding that whatever happens after we have consumed absinthe is OK. We care about eachother, we are comfortable with eachother, and there has always been more than a bit of sexual tension there that because our lives are very different we dont usually act on.

But when it does, that is OK.

Other people do not have that understanding. Even friends, necessarily.

When someone is drunk (and I dont mean "has had a beer" but "needs to not have their car keys"), the part of the brain that regulates their behavior is seriously impaired. Or rather, it itself is not impaired, but its ability to send outgoing messages is impaired. Alcohol targets the neural pathways that permit the prefrontal cortex to tell the amygdala to "sit down and shut up". But it might still be SAYING "sit down and shit up".

When sober the next day, that reintegrates. Whatever the prefrontal cortex had to say about the night before, for good or ill, is reintegrated.

At that point, there are three ways it can go.

"Its all good"
"Meh. I should not have done that, but whatever, no harm no foul"
and
"Oh dear god, I feel so violated right now"

That third one is rape.

You, being outside that person's mind, do not know without some sort of prior arrangement where that will go. Even with a friend--especially with a friend, actually.

Original Consent=Invalid.
Condition: Schrödingers Rape. It both is and is not rape, until sobriety is achieved and the waveform collapses.

If that is the way you meant it can you explain how this meaning made sense as an answer to my post? The one which you called me an idiot for.


Furthermore risk doesn´t necessarily warrant taking away or obstructing peoples freedom to do it. Risk belongs to every days life and arguing that you shouldn´t do something or shouldn´t be allowed to do something because lol risk is a silly way to argue.
I think most people know that getting drunk involves the risk of doing stupid shit they might regret. Still they willingly do and should take it if they please.

[The Romulan Republic]

Telling people to vote not guilty regardless of the evidence sounds like a crime. Isn't that inciting people to commit perjury?

No, it is not. How courts treat calls for jury nullification varies, but it is not a crime, especially when you are an outside party and not an attorney.

If this group is really calling for jury nullification in all rape cases they are wrong to do so, but that is because they want it in all rape cases, not because jury nullification is itself inherently evil or a crime. Jury nullification was used to protect people who broke laws against freeing slaves, for example.

Fair enough.

Its still hideously unethical to tell people to vote not guilty in all rape cases though. But one of the most important principles is that moral and legal should not always be the same thing.

[AniThyng]

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

It baffles me that people consider the risk of getting raped worth getting drunk too. Given that you've also declared that consent given while drunk is invalid consent, and there is a nonzero chance that said "consent" may not be given after the fact, and that sober people may take advantage of said drunken state, AND that drunk people may also "take advantage" of said drunken state and lead to a farce of both parties being incapable of consent.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If that is the way you meant it can you explain how this meaning made sense as an answer to my post? The one which you called me an idiot for.

In response to the general point that it is better to err on the side of caution than err on the side of being rapist, you replied
"nonsense", and then justified that moronic position with objections that are irrelevant to the general case under consideration, which are drunken hookups on college campuses.

Furthermore risk doesn´t necessarily warrant taking away or obstructing peoples freedom to do it. Risk belongs to every days life and arguing that you shouldn´t do something or shouldn´t be allowed to do something because lol risk is a silly way to argue.

Wait... so you are saying that risking raping someone is an acceptable risk, and we ought not counsel against taking such a risk?

[The Romulan Republic]

It stuns me that people consider fucking a drunk person so important that its worth possibly raping someone and/or being accused of rape. Get some fucking perspective.

It baffles me that people consider the risk of getting raped worth getting drunk too.

Indeed.

Given that you've also declared that consent given while drunk is invalid consent,

It certainly is.

and there is a nonzero chance that said "consent" may not be given after the fact,

I don't see how you can give consent after the fact. It was consensual or it wasn't. After the fact is simply declining to press charges to me.

and that sober people may take advantage of said drunken state, AND that drunk people may also "take advantage" of said drunken state and lead to a farce of both parties being incapable of consent.

It may seem to be a farce but it is a real problem.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't see how you can give consent after the fact. It was consensual or it wasn't. After the fact is simply declining to press charges to me.

Think of it this way.

Consent is given, or not. But invalid consent is different from refused consent.

This is why I call it Schrödingers Rape. When drunk, the question of consent is not answered one way or the other. It is Unobserved

You cannot know how the waveform will collapse until it collapses when the other person is sober.

[The Romulan Republic]

Interesting idea.

But in practice, its better to just say "Its clear consent or its rape."

And who is going to think "Its okay to do this because their's a chance it'll turn out later that I didn't commit rape."?