Miami U flier: 'Top ten ways to get away with rape'

[amigocabal]

Miami U flier: 'Top ten ways to get away with rape'

OXFORD — A flier posted in the men's restroom at a Miami University freshman co-ed dorm offered pointers on the “Top Ten Ways to Get Away with Rape,” from slipping roofies into a girl’s drink to drug her to slitting her throat so she can’t identify her attacker.

Tip 10 read: “RAPE RAPE RAPE, its (sic) college boys live it up!!”

Discovery of the flier last weekend prompted Miami University officials to call a mandatory meeting for male students at McBride Hall. They launched a police investigation that could result in internal disciplinary action for the student responsible if found. Police presence at the dorm was increased.

Continue story...
I am amazed at the capacity of assholery some people have. Imagine if someone posted a flier titled "Top Ten Ways to Kill Jews" on the doors of a synagogue.

[eion]

Not that I'm defending the idiocy of youth, but a mandatory meeting for male students only? Had I been in attendance I would have spoken up somewhat to the effect of, "this surely cannot apply to me, for I do not want even consensual sex with a woman." there's also the assumption that a man must have posted it since it was in a men's restroom. And why not a mandatory meeting for all students to inform on ways to prevent rape as a community, rather than a shame session aimed at only one segment of the community.

[Meest]

Possible is was a badly planned sarcastic comment to bring more attention to the issue. Sad either way.

[Channel72]

^ That was my first thought as well. It sounds like it might actually be a satire or something, meant to highlight how college kids often easily get away with rape. Then again, maybe I've just temporarily forgotten how much humanity sucks.

[TheFeniX]

Not that I'm defending the idiocy of youth, but a mandatory meeting for male students only? Had I been in attendance I would have spoken up somewhat to the effect of, "this surely cannot apply to me, for I do not want even consensual sex with a woman." there's also the assumption that a man must have posted it since it was in a men's restroom. And why not a mandatory meeting for all students to inform on ways to prevent rape as a community, rather than a shame session aimed at only one segment of the community.

I'm in complete agreement. Considering my class load (or lack thereof), I wouldn't be too pleased about taking time off work to sit through a powerpoint presentation of "Don't Rape People" because one asshole decided to fail at either being edgy or sarcasm.

I'm just not really big on being punished for acting like a decent human being.

[Scrib]

Possible is was a badly planned sarcastic comment to bring more attention to the issue. Sad either way.

Yeah, my first impression too. All the more reason to sit EVERYONE down and talk to them about how inappropriate this is. Or they could just not. It's not like this is new information.

[Tanasinn]

It's particularly obnoxious when you consider said students are paying the University to be there, after all. The uni works for them, not the other way around. Being told I have to waste study (or work or even leisure) time because I've got a dick and someone else is a dick is downright offensive.

The response smacks of lazy ass-covering by school administrators.

[eion]

They would likely contend that the meeting was a product of their living in campus housing, not them being students of the university.

Still idiotic, but within their pervue as landlords and potential guardians ad litem for any minor freshmen.

[Zixinus]

This is news? I mean, offensive shit like this pop all over schools all the time. Not just college universities. Idiot students will do stupid things, for all we know, this was meant as joke only the group putting it up understood.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Considering how much rape occurs on campuses and how much of the current fight against rape is in the form of telling women to keep their heads down, I don't see any big issues in having a mandatory meeting to try to convince men not to rape.

[Esquire]

Do you really think anybody who hasn't got it through their head yet that rape isn't okay will be helped by a meeting?

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

One meeting? Probably not significantly (though it might help with people who don't understand the importance and implications of consent). But if the general dialogue starts shifting more in this direction, I think that will help a lot, and you need the little steps to start any big change.

[Esquire]

I agree - academically. I'm just having a lot of difficulty picturing somebody who can have it rationally explained that rape is wrong and doesn't already know that.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

There is some stuff you could explain rationally to people since it's stuff that's never really taught. To many people, "rape" is someone ambushing and forcefully assaulting someone, or if we're lucky that as well as date rape. But a lot of people don't think about how pressure can make someone have sex without wanting it or else don't know what can constitute as pressuring someone.

But something to look at is smoking. Smoking rates in America have dropped in recent decades and it's not because people were told "smoking is addictive and unhealthy" and they had an epiphany. But it certainly was helped by a cultural shift that made smoking inconvenient and seen as more and more disgusting. Rational explanation isn't the only way to influence behavior.

[amigocabal]

There is some stuff you could explain rationally to people since it's stuff that's never really taught. To many people, "rape" is someone ambushing and forcefully assaulting someone, or if we're lucky that as well as date rape. But a lot of people don't think about how pressure can make someone have sex without wanting it or else don't know what can constitute as pressuring someone.

Does merely pressuring someone into having sex, without more, constitute rape?

[eion]

If I convinced you to have sex, without any illegal or immoral means (drugs, threats or violence, using my position of authroity, etc.) then that's not called rape. That's called being good at convincing people. If someone can be just talked into sex then they obviously want to have sex.

Oh the horror, college girls are being talked into the beds of college boys. Won't someone think of the hormone addeled children?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Implied negative consequences should be considered rape -- i.e., if a corporate atmosphere exists which leads a woman to think she won't be promoted without having sex with her boss, for example, assuming, of course, that the boss in question deliberately helped foster that perception.

[eion]

I'd lump that in with abuse of authority. If the boss is the one asking for sex from the employee in exchange for favor, then it's a direct abuse of that athority. If it's another employee asking for sex in exchange for favor, and the boss looks the other way or encourages the enviroment in which that happens then it's an indirect abuse of that authority.

Either way it's still using an illegal or immoral means to coerce sex from someone.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Pressuring someone until they give in and have sex with you when they don't want to is a form of rape, yes. Convincing someone such that they now do want to have sex (and not because they feel something bad might happen if they refuse) is certainly not, but these are two different things entirely.

If someone can be just talked into sex then they obviously want to have sex.

Are you actually unaware that people sometimes give in and do something they don't want to do? I mean, even ignoring the constant threat of physical violence or social shaming or any other consequences women can live under that they'd rank as worse than unwanted sex, do you seriously think people only do things they want to?

[eion]

Pressuring someone until they give in and have sex with you when they don't want to is a form of rape, yes. Convincing someone such that they now do want to have sex (and not because they feel something bad might happen if they refuse) is certainly not, but these are two different things entirely.

So If I ask 50 times, nicely, without threats or coercion, for someone to have sex with me, and 49 times they say "no", but on the 50th time they say "yes", then the person doesn't want to have sex, they're just being nice? I know it's a popular saying, but that's not how consent works. If I go to shop for a car, and after hours and hours of bartering I walk out after signing the contract, I don't get to change my mind because the guy just talked to me for 2 hours and managed to get me to say yes. Pressure is not the same thing as coercion. As long as you have the ability to walk away, no one can force you to do anything. Girls need to get some confidence if they are just doing things they don't want to in order to be seen as "nice".

If someone can be just talked into sex then they obviously want to have sex.

Are you actually unaware that people sometimes give in and do something they don't want to do? I mean, even ignoring the constant threat of physical violence or social shaming or any other consequences women can live under that they'd rank as worse than unwanted sex, do you seriously think people only do things they want to?

No, I think people who are able to give meaningful consent and do so ought to be held accountable for it. Of course people do things that later they wish they hadn't, but that's not the same as being forced to do so.

IF there are no physical or verbal threats, and
IF there is no restraint (either chemical or physical) of the party to prevent meaningful consent, and
IF there is no other illegal or immoral coercion, and
IF you give consent to an action, either through initiation or a failure to prevent or otherwise express your desire not to proceed,
THEN anything you do is your choice and your own damn responsibility

If you can choose not to do something, and yet choose to do it, then you want to do it, whether or not you decide later that it was a mistake to do so.

Constant threat of physical violence? While women are often the victims of violence, I wouldn't call it a constant threat; otherwise no woman would leave the house.

Rape is a horrible thing, but being pressured to have sex by someone who has no authority over you is not the same as being coerced into sex with your boss in exchange for not being fired, being grabbed in an alleyway, or drugged in a club. Young people are bad decision makers by and large, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable for those decisions.

[Scrib]

Yeah, I'm sorry but to buy the definition of rape being sold you need to infantilize people to the point that they have no control over their own actions. I can buy that it's useful for us to sell this idea but the notion that you can somehow not be responsible when you're talked into sex without any physical coercion is nonsense to me. Sorry, part of being a grown-up is dealing with people pressuring you for shit.

Don't get me wrong, it makes perfect sense on a practical level, there will always be some troglodyte that sees his actions as perfectly fine. A push isn't coercion, and so on. But on a moral level I find it difficult to buy this claim.

Implied negative consequences should be considered rape -- i.e., if a corporate atmosphere exists which leads a woman to think she won't be promoted without having sex with her boss, for example, assuming, of course, that the boss in question deliberately helped foster that perception.

AS long as it's deliberate, I'm somewhat on the fence in cases where the implication is not deliberate. You and a person are on a yacht for example, can you be said to consent if you fear the repercussions? Can you sue someone when you agreed to have sex with them without ever indicating that you wanted otherwise? I lean towards no.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

IF you give consent to an action, either through initiation or a failure to prevent or otherwise express your desire not to proceed

You are precisely the audience who needs to be lectured on how not to rape, apparently. If you think it's valid consent if the other person isn't saying no hard enough by your standards then you have something to learn.

If you pressure someone into having sex against their will without realising you are doing so, you're obviously not on the same level as someone who's doing it deliberately. But either way the victim is being hurt, so making people better understand when they are doing this reduces suffering.

"Girls need to get some backbone and stop having sex against their will"... or, maybe, boys could get some consideration and stop setting up situations where women feel it's the better choice to have sex against their will. Or not, since that's less convenient for men after all.

Yeah, I'm sorry but to buy the definition of rape being sold you need to infantilize people to the point that they have no control over their own actions.

I don't believe it's infantilisation to say that if someone is having sex when they don't want to because they feel the consequences could be worse if they refuse that that is a bad situation and not legitimate consent. If it's not clear, my argument isn't dealing at all with people who DO want to have sex at the time (and are not under the influence of things like drugs) and then change their mind well after it's happened, as that's something else entirely.

For the people who are arguing against me, do you see people giving in to sex they don't want as something that is an acceptable situation so long as there's nothing like overt threats of violence or abuse of authority? Or are you just arguing that it's not "really rape"?

[weemadando]

Hey eion, before you talk more about "being able to just walk away", when was the last time you genuinely feared sexual assault?

[eion]

IF you give consent to an action, either through initiation or a failure to prevent or otherwise express your desire not to proceed

You are precisely the audience who needs to be lectured on how not to rape, apparently. If you think it's valid consent if the other person isn't saying no hard enough by your standards then you have something to learn.

If someone doesn't want to have sex with me, and I keep asking, and rather than kicking me out or leaving themselves or hell calling the police they remain there, I would say that their resolve is weak or their mind is looking to be convinced. Until we have telepathy, we have to trust people on their words and actions. Don't want to do something? Don't do it. My, how simple. If you truly do not want to have sex with the person, and nothing is preventing you from leaving the area, WHY ARE YOU STILL THERE?

If you pressure someone into having sex against their will without realizing you are doing so, you're obviously not on the same level as someone who's doing it deliberately. But either way the victim is being hurt, so making people better understand when they are doing this reduces suffering.

Oh, I've pressured guys to have sex with me, knowingly. Sometimes they said yes, sometimes no, but I NEVER coerced anyone or forced anyone to do anything against their will. You know how I know? Because they weren't drugged or held against their will or someone I had authority over or threatened. PRESSURE DOES NOT EQUAL COERCION. If a child begs for a toy 5,000 times, they are pressuring their parents. If they tell their parents to buy them the toy or they'll stab their little brother, then it's coercion. In the former case should the parents give in we’d say they lacked resolve and should have stood fast, but are definitely accountable for their choice, in the later we say they lacked the ability to give meaningful consent and the choice is irrelevant.

"Girls need to get some backbone and stop having sex against their will"... or, maybe, boys could get some consideration and stop setting up situations where women feel it's the better choice to have sex against their will. Or not, since that's less convenient for men after all.

Lots of boys have consideration, but being young their hormones run away with them. And the same is quite often true of girls. They let their hormones get the best of them and perhaps sleep with a guy they wish later they hadn't. And so they convince themselves that they were in some way forced or coerced. And so we’ve taken a regretted, but entirely consensual encounter, and rounded it up to rape.

For the people who are arguing against me, do you see people giving in to sex they don't want as something that is an acceptable situation so long as there's nothing like overt threats of violence or abuse of authority? Or are you just arguing that it's not "really rape"?

No, I'm arguing that they do in fact want the sex. Lacking any method to remove the person’s ability to give meaningful consent: If they didn't, they wouldn't have the sex. It's a complex philosophical distinction you are clearly blind to. Without some manner of force, you cannot force someone to do something. You can beg them, you can pressure them, but without forcing their hand you can't force their hand.

Let's explore a little thought experiment. Two Boxes, both entirely impenetrable. They are connected by a pane of glass that is totally soundproof and impenetrable. An intercom allows a person in Box A to talk to a person in Box B and vice versa, but only if both people have their intercoms switched on.

The Person in Box A asks the person in Box B to press a button in that box which dispenses a candy bar in Box A. Person B refuses. Person A continues to ask, and ask, but that’s all they can do. There is no way for them to reach into the other box and press the button themselves. Person B could switch off their intercom at any time and prevent Person A from asking any more.
Three Outcomes are possible. In the coercion success outcome Person A does something to immorally pressure Person B into pressing the button, say threatening to harm themselves physically if the button isn’t pressed, In the pressure success outcome Person A says or does something that is not immoral to convince Person B to press the button, and In the ceased communication outcome Person A either stops asking or Person B turns off their intercom, preventing any further communications.
If later, after pressing the button, Person B claims to have been forced to do so, she can only rightly claim so if Person A used some immoral means to do so. Asking a question, no matter if it’s 1 time or 5,000 times, is not immoral. Dickish perhaps, but not immoral.

Talking someone into a contract is not the same as putting a gun to their head and making them sign it. Show me the duress, or show yourself out.

Weemadando, that would be walking through the city about 3 months ago coming home from a bar. A couple of guys were following us but we ducked into a diner and waited till a large group of people were walking towards the parking lot we were in. As we drove off they yelled faggot and such. But that is a VERY clear example of potential assault. Two horny teenagers rolling around on a dorm bed and one of them is reluctant but willingly remains is not a very clear example of such. You done with your red herring now?

[Losonti Tokash]

Are you aware that a physical threat can be implied by such things as standing between the victim and the doorway or putting your arm around the victim? As you said, they don't have telepathy. They don't know your intentions or what you might do if they try to leave or reject you more forcefully. If someone says no over and over again, possibly for hours, especially if they're visibly uncomfortable, and you keep pushing, you're not just a douchebag, you're probably a rapist.

PS, Ando's point was about possessing a perspective where you are constantly objectified and sexualized and in a situation where you are in fact pretty likely to be sexually assaulted, for your entire life. You're male, so your perspective is skewed.