The College Rape Overcorrection

[madd0ct0r]

a very drunk one?

[Alyrium Denryle]

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."?

Exactly. But this way is more technically accurate, and it also has the added benefit of assisting in the social acceptance of the idea.

Like it or not, most people have at one point or another hooked up while drunk. Most of them are not rapists because the other person consented after the (f)act, or rather, their consent was made manifest and valid.

A great deal of the objection to the idea that drunk sex is sometimes rape comes from the fact that no one wants to be a rapist. Best to give them a perfectly rational and valid "out", and permit them to change their behavior so as not to take an unjustifiable risk of becoming rapists, rather than indirectly calling them rapists and be dismissed due to denial.

[RogueIce]

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.

I think the main point of the article is that, these actions by the DOJ, DOE, White House and lawmakers will create an over-correction, and that would be bad. There may not be a systemic problem with it right now, but the trend created by these new laws and policies may (most likely, in the apparent opinion of the article) make a systemic problem in the other direction.

Now, we can't say whether that will be true. Because these new policies and laws really haven't had enough time, I think, to fully take effect. And even then we'd have to wait and see for whenever allegations handled under the new policies are made, how those investigations go, wait for any counter-allegations of being railroaded/falsely accused, allow those claims to play out and determine their validity, and so on. And then compare between the "good" and "bad" results, of course.

Still, it is a valid argument I'd think to analyze the wording and likely application of these new policies, while comparing to some of the initial reactions, and then question whether or not they'll actually be appropriate in A) addressing the issue of campus rape while B) not going so far in the other direction that due process for the accused is violated.

We'll never get a perfect system. It's run by humans, after all. There will almost always be errors and misjudgments going either way. The question then is whether the new system being implemented is more likely than not to produce these errors and misjudgments, or whether it manages to - for the most part - work equitably for all parties (real victims as well as those falsely accused), and then hopefully have some means of being able to correct the inevitable (and hopefully minimal) mistakes made along the way.

[The Romulan Republic]

a very drunk one?

Point taken.

Which brings me back to the whole "Its bad to get drunk" thing. But that's not something that can solved by the law. Prohibition failed. This is a question of morality.

Edit: Its also a question of self-interest, which might be a more effective way to approach it with some people.

[salm]

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.

Nonsense.
My first statement was that I liked mixing sex and alcohol and that if I lived in a society that made it impossible, dangerous or complicated to have this combination I would try to change the status quo.
I was told that this was a "staggeringly selfish and irresponsible attitude".
Which I rejected with the word "nonsense".

I justified that position with relevant objections.
If anyone, it was you who introduced irrelevant things like hookups among strangers when the "general cause under consideration" is two friends.

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

I don´t how you read that into my words and I have to assume that you purposefully interpreted my words in the most outlandish way possible.
I´m saying that it is not a black and white issue. But I´m repeating myself, so see above.

[salm]

I think the point is that some people believe that if you willingly get drunk you accept the risk of accidentially giving consent.

Other people think that the person getting drunk is not responsible for the accidential consent.

[AniThyng]

I think the point is that some people believe that if you willingly get drunk you accept the risk of accidentially giving consent.

Other people think that the person getting drunk is not responsible for the accidential consent.

It also means that the person who accepted ("accidentally" or otherwise ) said "accidental" consent is now a rapist, a loaded term that now encompasses people who drunkedly have sex with drunk people and people who kidnap and...uh, rape.

[salm]

I think the point is that some people believe that if you willingly get drunk you accept the risk of accidentially giving consent.

Other people think that the person getting drunk is not responsible for the accidential consent.

It also means that the person who accepted ("accidentally" or otherwise ) said "accidental" consent is now a rapist, a loaded term that now encompasses people who drunkedly have sex with drunk people and people who kidnap and...uh, rape.

The obvious solution is to prosecute both for rape, lock them up and then hand out membership cards to both for Rape-Victomous Anonymous.
Preferrably in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. That´ll show em.

[FaxModem1]

This is a problem I have with retroactive consent. Person A and Person B both have sex with each other. Person A thinks nothing of it and moves on with their life. Person B doesn't like the idea of having had sex with A, and retroactively changes the situation to one of rape. Person A is brought before an investigation about the matter. This essentially means that any sexual encounter would actually need those consent forms mentioned above signed just to ensure that people don't later find themselves accused of rape. Though, there is still the possibility with those consent forms that someone could sign one under duress and still be forced to have sex.

[TheHammer]

This is a problem I have with retroactive consent. Person A and Person B both have sex with each other. Person A thinks nothing of it and moves on with their life. Person B doesn't like the idea of having had sex with A, and retroactively changes the situation to one of rape. Person A is brought before an investigation about the matter. This essentially means that any sexual encounter would actually need those consent forms mentioned above signed just to ensure that people don't later find themselves accused of rape. Though, there is still the possibility with those consent forms that someone could sign one under duress and still be forced to have sex.

The obvious solution is that "Yes means yes". And if you gave that yes while under the influence of a substance you willingly ingested, then it is still valid even if you have second thoughts about it later.

[Frank the Tank]

Have any of you piously claiming that people who have been drinking cannot give consent ever:

1) Had sex?
2) Had drunk sex?
3) Had a drink in their lives?
4) Ever "consented" to anything while drinking?


First, what counts as "drunk?" Legally drunk (.04 or .08 depending on the jurisdiction)? Any alcohol in your system? Since whatever answer you give is going to be completely subjective, defend it with something other than "I think it should be like this." What if you've only had half of a beer? Are you now allowed to claim that you were too inebriated to "consent" to anything? Think of all of the bad business decisions consummated by a pint at the pub that could now be reversed by people claiming they were "too drunk" to consent to that decision.

Second, what's the deal with this attitude than when people consume alcohol, men turn into rapists and women turn into rape victims? That's a pretty astonishingly sexist attitude... since when have women been so incompetent and useless?

Third, are there things you can "consent" to while drinking? What are they? If yes, why is sex something to which you cannot consent but other things you can?

[TheHammer]

Have any of you piously claiming that people who have been drinking cannot give consent ever:

1) Had sex?
2) Had drunk sex?
3) Had a drink in their lives?
4) Ever "consented" to anything while drinking?


First, what counts as "drunk?" Legally drunk (.04 or .08 depending on the jurisdiction)? Any alcohol in your system? Since whatever answer you give is going to be completely subjective, defend it with something other than "I think it should be like this." What if you've only had half of a beer? Are you now allowed to claim that you were too inebriated to "consent" to anything? Think of all of the bad business decisions consummated by a pint at the pub that could now be reversed by people claiming they were "too drunk" to consent to that decision.

Second, what's the deal with this attitude than when people consume alcohol, men turn into rapists and women turn into rape victims? That's a pretty astonishingly sexist attitude... since when have women been so incompetent and useless?

Third, are there things you can "consent" to while drinking? What are they? If yes, why is sex something to which you cannot consent but other things you can?

Exactly. These folks are able to sign credit card statements at the end of the night for the drinks they've consumed. "I was too drunk to consent to anything after the third drink, so the rest must be free!" Certainly isn't a valid legal argument.

Hell, by this definition if you call for a cab ride home while drunk, its akin to "kidnapping" because you got in the cab while under the influence of alcohol. You probably wouldn't have done that sober, so arrest that cabby for holding you "against your will" and then extorting money for you before he lets you go.

The fact that this is even debatable is asinine.

[AMX]

If that's really what you think, I have a great investment opportunity that we should discuss over drinks.
It involves you buying a bridge, and me walking away with the money.

It's all perfectly legal, it's not like I forced you to get drunk enough to fall for it.

[Frank the Tank]

If that's really what you think, I have a great investment opportunity that we should discuss over drinks.
It involves you buying a bridge, and me walking away with the money.

It's all perfectly legal, it's not like I forced you to get drunk enough to fall for it.

Is that supposed to be a concession? Or a hard-hitting, fact-based, logical argument? Or just whining?

[AMX]

If that's really what you think, I have a great investment opportunity that we should discuss over drinks.
It involves you buying a bridge, and me walking away with the money.

It's all perfectly legal, it's not like I forced you to get drunk enough to fall for it.

Is that supposed to be a concession? Or a hard-hitting, fact-based, logical argument? Or just whining?

Since you appear to be completely retarded, I'll spell it out for you:
I'm illustrating how utterly absurd it is to compare "paying your bar tab while drunk (on the stuff you just consumed from the bar)" with sex.

Incidentally, on your 4 questions: I don't drink, and I don't fuck girls who are drunk.

[Frank the Tank]

Got it... it's whining and a passive-aggressive concession.

[TheHammer]

If that's really what you think, I have a great investment opportunity that we should discuss over drinks.
It involves you buying a bridge, and me walking away with the money.

It's all perfectly legal, it's not like I forced you to get drunk enough to fall for it.

Do you actually have a bridge to sell in this case? Or are you simply committing fraud, which isn't legal whether the victim is drunk, sober, or otherwise?

[AMX]

If that's really what you think, I have a great investment opportunity that we should discuss over drinks.
It involves you buying a bridge, and me walking away with the money.

It's all perfectly legal, it's not like I forced you to get drunk enough to fall for it.

Do you actually have a bridge to sell in this case? Or are you simply committing fraud, which isn't legal whether the victim is drunk, sober, or otherwise?

Oh don't worry, you'll get something that qualifies as a bridge for the purposes of the contract.
The trick is that the actual details are in the fine print you won't get to see until you're drunk enough that you can't actually read it.

A bit like rape qualifying as sex for the purposes of the rapist, but that analogy is admittedly a bit of a stretch.

[TheHammer]

If that's really what you think, I have a great investment opportunity that we should discuss over drinks.
It involves you buying a bridge, and me walking away with the money.

It's all perfectly legal, it's not like I forced you to get drunk enough to fall for it.

Do you actually have a bridge to sell in this case? Or are you simply committing fraud, which isn't legal whether the victim is drunk, sober, or otherwise?

Oh don't worry, you'll get something that qualifies as a bridge for the purposes of the contract.
The trick is that the actual details are in the fine print you won't get to see until you're drunk enough that you can't actually read it.

A bit like rape qualifying as sex for the purposes of the rapist, but that analogy is admittedly a bit of a stretch.

Are you attempting to make some kind of point? Because you're missing the mark badly. A deal done in bad faith as you describe is still almost certainly fraud.

Sex between two consenting adults is a legal act in this country. The major issue with "too drunk to give consent" is there is no clearly defined line, apparently other than the fact that one or both parties "regretted" the decision the next day. Many people may regret consensual sexual encounters while sober, that does not retroactively make them rape.

[Simon_Jester]

This is a problem I have with retroactive consent. Person A and Person B both have sex with each other. Person A thinks nothing of it and moves on with their life. Person B doesn't like the idea of having had sex with A, and retroactively changes the situation to one of rape. Person A is brought before an investigation about the matter. This essentially means that any sexual encounter would actually need those consent forms mentioned above signed just to ensure that people don't later find themselves accused of rape. Though, there is still the possibility with those consent forms that someone could sign one under duress and still be forced to have sex.

The obvious solution is that "Yes means yes". And if you gave that yes while under the influence of a substance you willingly ingested, then it is still valid even if you have second thoughts about it later.

This results in a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, though. Person B's accusation "I didn't say yes hard enough; I was pressured" becomes grounds to force Person A to prove that Person B did say yes... or be convicted of a crime.

Given the room for the human mind to retroactively color its perception of an event in terms of its later opinions*, there is a lot of room there for people to be accused of crimes they never thought they were committing at the time, had no particular reason to believe they were committing at the time... and have no way to avoid committing, short of Timothy's consent form.

*Remember all those high school bullies who think they had 'fun' with the people they bullied...

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Incidentally, on your 4 questions: I don't drink, and I don't fuck girls who are drunk.

So far this seems to be the case with 100% of the people who have taken a hardline view on drunk sex being rape in this and the previous thread. Don't you find it troubling that only people with no personal experience whatsoever on drunken hookups share your viewpoint? That the only ones willing to make harsh declarative statements about what people can and cannot consent to at various states of inebriation have little to no experience with intoxication?

[TheHammer]

This is a problem I have with retroactive consent. Person A and Person B both have sex with each other. Person A thinks nothing of it and moves on with their life. Person B doesn't like the idea of having had sex with A, and retroactively changes the situation to one of rape. Person A is brought before an investigation about the matter. This essentially means that any sexual encounter would actually need those consent forms mentioned above signed just to ensure that people don't later find themselves accused of rape. Though, there is still the possibility with those consent forms that someone could sign one under duress and still be forced to have sex.

The obvious solution is that "Yes means yes". And if you gave that yes while under the influence of a substance you willingly ingested, then it is still valid even if you have second thoughts about it later.

This results in a "guilty until proven innocent" situation, though. Person B's accusation "I didn't say yes hard enough; I was pressured" becomes grounds to force Person A to prove that Person B did say yes... or be convicted of a crime.

Don't get me wrong, I take issue with "Yes means Yes" in how its interpreted at present. Its far too ambiguous, and I don't believe that the accused should have the burden of proof placed upon them that the accuser said "Yes" hard enough. I happen to believe that while you certainly should get that first "Yes", that it remains in effect until if and when they say "No"... But I suppose that's too reasonable...

In any event, the bigger issue to me is that if some have their way, you can't even take "Yes" to mean "Yes" if the parties have been drinking. You could be doing everything right in terms of obtaining "consistent consent" or whatever the expectation is, and find it retroactively invalidated based on whether the other party decides that in hindsight they were too drunk to make that decision.

Given the room for the human mind to retroactively color its perception of an event in terms of its later opinions*, there is a lot of room there for people to be accused of crimes they never thought they were committing at the time, had no particular reason to believe they were committing at the time... and have no way to avoid committing, short of Timothy's consent form.

*Remember all those high school bullies who think they had 'fun' with the people they bullied...

I would agree. And that's a problem.

[Frank the Tank]

[quote=Arthur Tuxedo"]So far this seems to be the case with 100% of the people who have taken a hardline view on drunk sex being rape in this and the previous thread. Don't you find it troubling that only people with no personal experience whatsoever on drunken hookups share your viewpoint? That the only ones willing to make harsh declarative statements about what people can and cannot consent to at various states of inebriation have little to no experience with intoxication?[/quote]


If I didn't know better, I'd think the people taking the harsh stand were bitter and perhaps a bit envious of people having drunken hookups. Of course, this being SDNet, there's certainly NO WAY that emotions are coloring anyone's viewpoints. I'm sure a fact-based response will be forthcoming any minute now.

[Beowulf]

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

Any corrective action we take to reduce false rape reports (such as penalizing reporters who's claims are unsubstantiated, increasing the reporting burden etc) will have the tendency to decrease the legitimate percentage reported.

When 77 universities (last I checked) are under DOJ legal-probes for miserably failing to investigate rapes on their campuses and for obstructing actual criminal cases, that indicates better than anything what the actual problem is, and that there is not in fact an over-correction of any kind. And in any case, the university should have absolutely no role whatsoever in dealing with the criminal code.

Prove it. Last time you tried a claim similar to this (men getting raped is very rare), you wandered off after I posted reputable stats that it was approximately as common as women getting raped, never to return to the thread. There's the Lisak study. It comes to a conclusion of between 2 and 10% in the abstract... but that's cases where they could substantiate it as false. Between substantiated as true and substantiated as false comes a wide mass of "he said/she said", where the truth is only known by the two participants, if that. Looking deeper, of the 117 cases they coded, 8 were false reports, 61 did not go to disciplinary action or prosecution, and 48 were referred to discplinary or prosecutorial action. Which is to say 52% of the cases were not very strong. Some of that 52% (an unknown, and unknowable portion) are also false reports. We just don't know the rate. Some of that 52% is cases where there was never enough evidence. Some cases the victim decided to stop co-operating with police. Some of them were the victim mislabelling the incident (didn't actually met the elements of the crime).

As for massive social costs for women, well, yes. But you can't say that the massive social cost alone will inhibit women from making said claim, especially with efforts being undertaken to reduce said social costs. What's House's favorite saying? "Everybody lies." People will lie when they think it's advantegous for them to lie rather than speak the truth. Not all of them, but enough. Believing that women never lie about this gives the implication that anytime someone's acquitted, it's a miscarriage of justice. That accusations are guilt.

I do agree with you that universities should have no role in the criminal code.

They are actually a thing. A group of people who hang out on reddit and read websites like returnofthekings and avoiceformen. Avoiceformen, incidentally, has a pledge. A pledge that calls for their readers to ALWAYS vote not-guilty in rape cases.

Obvious claims require obvious proof. Link it.

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.

Ahem. Bullshit. You claimed male rape was very very rare in the last thread. With a sensible definition of rape of "non-consensual intercourse", men and women have approximately the same 12 month prevalence of rape, with the vast majority being "made to penetrate".

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.

I think you've managed to come up with a new bullshit idea. Someone can enthusistically initiate intercourse, but since they're drunk they've been raped.

[AniThyng]

With regards to social costs, it seems to me the article implies that CB was pressured by her mother into turning it into rape rather than leaving it at mere sexual activity.

Also note that the university itself only later tacked on the too drunk to consent after it was clear consent was given.