Abbitt Photography wrote:

In February 2014, RAINN, one of the largest rape victim advocacy groups submitted their recommendations to the DOJ White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.  In their document they specifically expressed their concern over colleges handling cases, and recommend than rather than colleges adjudicating such cases internally, colleges should be working with law enforcement who should be the ones to handle such cases.

Speaking to college judicial boards RAINN states:

"...the simple fact is that these internal boards were designed to adjudicate charges like plagiarism, not violent felonies. The crime of rape just does not fit the capabilities of such boards. They often offer the worst of both worlds: they lack protections for the accused while often tormenting victims."  They go on to mention some ways colleges have been sued from both sides for their inability to handle such cases in a just manner.  *

I think victim advocacy groups like RAINN make some very good suggestions regarding some productive and appropriate steps colleges and universities can take to help reduce sexual assaults and to aid victim.  I agree with most of them. However, even they make it clear that college judiciary boards should not be handling such cases as they are, law enforcement should. 

Being serious about sexual assault does not mean we should be allowing, untrained, often biased college hearing boards handle such cases or the accused should be denied proper due process.


*Page 9.  https://rainn.org/images/03-2014/WH-Tas … ations.pdf

.

Agreed it's very bias, and if your against losing your constitutional right of a fair trial with a lawyer present.
Somehow you promote rape, this whole thread has become silly, that is so not the case let alone scary that so many people would give a huge part of our constitutional rights up on unnecessary hype it's a political power grab . We have had this very law for some time to protect students, but again the current administration is going to now rewrite it to make this the law on college campuses. We would then have two separate courts in this nation, and one of them your rights gone. if you don't see this happening i'm sad for our country...

kickfight wrote:

Um... Title IX is already THE LAW. It always was "accepted into our legal system of law" (whatever the hell that redundant phrasing means). And anyone who thinks that stepping onto a college campus means you are no longer are protected under the constitution has ZERO idea what they are talking about, because that's 100% false.

This is a perfect example of people not understanding what the discussion is actually about, while just repeating the crappy misinformation that they consume passively and without a shred of actual critical thinking.

You're being very naive of whats happening in the bigger picture,  hopefully before it needs to go to the Supreme Court you will understand that it is a smoke and mirror play to allow the administration to change the wording of Affirmative Consent and Title IX to they're liking and nullify the laws we have now on college campuses.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
You're being very naive of whats happening in the bigger picture,  hopefully before it needs to go to the Supreme Court you will understand that it is a smoke and mirror play to allow the administration to change the wording of Affirmative Consent and Title IX to they're liking and nullify the laws we have now on college campuses.

No, I'm not. I'm just not susceptible to simplistic propaganda about "the administration" which works on the gullible and easily-led.

kickfight wrote:

No, I'm not. I'm just not susceptible to simplistic propaganda about "the administration" which works on the gullible and easily-led.

You're talking to a Mirror...

Jules NYC wrote:
..gender roles have nothing to do with consensual sex.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this?
I would love to see the logical chain behind this statement (no sarcasm, purely interested in logic).

D a v i d s o n wrote:
You're talking to a Mirror...

OK... I guess I need a new mirror, then, 'cuz this one's clearly broken (and probably in deep denial about that as well).

kickfight wrote:
Um... Title IX is already THE LAW. It always was "accepted into our legal system of law" (whatever the hell that redundant phrasing means). And anyone who thinks that stepping onto a college campus means you are no longer are protected under the constitution has ZERO idea what they are talking about, because that's 100% false.

Title IX is in fact legislation, but the original legislation has nothing to do with criminal acts and in no way suggests colleges need to rule on sexual assaults, let alone say they should do so in ways contradictory to criminal due process. (read your own link and you'll see this)  The mandates by the OCR are simply a tactic to hide behind Title IX to circumvent the due process guaranteed under criminal law and instead have colleges use standards denying the accused such due process so that colleges can determine guilt and issue punishment in circumstances where a court of law would have found innocence. That's the whole point: to have a system of finding guilt and issue punishment by a whole different standard that circumvents the due process guaranteed under criminal law.

Many lawyers and law professors have written articles indicating they believe OCR had no such authority under Title ix to issue such mandates.  As I mentioned in another post even leading rape victim advocacy groups are speaking out against this.

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/09/ … ent-cases/

L A F wrote:
I can't say I've read this whole thread, but I've read a good bit of the posts...so here's my reply:

I've been on the dating scene for a while.  Relationship here and there, but for the most part, a single lady meeting people.  There have been people that I have met, have dated, have been intimate with.  They were respectful.  When I said no, they took it as no.  And when there was intimacy, there was a still was still a yes involved.  Usually a 'are you sure' ' yes' response. If not, I was the initiator. The body cues where there. But the guys still thought to ask if it was the first time. Because that's what you do.  You're concerned about the other person.  You're concerned about a yes because you never know when a person is new to your life. It's checking. It's respect.

A couple years ago, I was out with a new person.  We were supposed to go out to eat. So I drove to his town, about 45 minutes away, because he was buying dinner. I showed up to his place, to carpool to a restaurant to eat, and he said he had actually bought dinner.  I should have denied, I should have walked away, but I didn't because I didn't want to be deemed crazy...you know, that term guys use to take away a woman's validity. So I figured it was fine.  I finished the rice, he grilled steaks.  And then we went for ice cream. When we came back, he mentioned a movie.  I told him I actually had plans with friends, he was more than welcome to join, but he insisted....just half a movie.  My friends weren't meeting til 10 anyway.  And I  didn't know what to say. Fine. Half a movie. We'll meet up afterwards.



So 20 minutes passed and he kissed me.  I kissed back reluctantly, because he was cool, but not my style. And then he had my hand. And I pulled away. But he was stronger. And then I was in his hallway, and he was asking me how bad I wanted it. And I told him I didn't. I wanted to go home. And soon he had me pinned on his bed.  Grinding against me. And he asked me when the last time I had sex was, and I told him, and that I wasn't interested.  And then suddenly I was the slut.  The one who had sex before, (though not recently) turning him down. That I was some affront to his sexuality. That my lack of interest made me a whore with bad taste. He slut shamed me while trying to rape me.  Because to him it was justified.  The fact that I had sex a few months before in a relationship meant I was open to business.  His for the taking.  That I wasn't allowed to say no.  ( and I don't mean to say that only sex within a relationship is okay.  Do what you want, when you want. Both parties within a sexual relationship get to set the rules)

That night, despite the fact that I fought myself free and made it out without being assaulted, has forever changed my mindset. No means no.  And no, without that being respected, makes me feel like I'm being assaulted all over again. Sex is my choice.  When is my choice.  I get to set the parameters of my sexual experiences.

It's simple guys. It really is.  It's not asking 50 questions, it's asking 'do you want to do this'. And if the response is a hesitant yes, it's asking' 'are you sure? If you don't want to, we can definitely cuddle' and actually meaning it. Because guilting a person, or blaming them for not being ready, isn't fair.  You're pressuring someone. And maybe I just don't get it, but I don't want to have sex with anymore if they're not an enthusiastic yes. If they're not sure, wait.  And if they're never going to be sure, that means reevaluating where that person is in their desire. If they need time, and you're willing to give it, wait. And if they're not, move on the next person. But don't pressure someone thinking that is your ticket.  That's your ticket to being resented.

I just wish guys would realize that sometimes that hesitant yes its a yes based on the idea of 'maybe this less will be less traumatic than if I outrightly refuse'. Because that guy that pinned me down, I thought about that.  If I have sex and kind of say yes, maybe it will hurt less if I said no." Thankfully I wore stilettos and could reach them to threaten them.

So I get it guys, you don't want to have to work for that outright yes, but please understand that sometimes that less than outright yes is pressure to women.  We're afraid to say no because we're afraid of the consequences.  If we mean yes, we'll say it, and we'll say it loudly.  So ask.  If it's not an enthusiastic yes, just deal.  Cuddle for the night.  Build trust.  And if it's meant to happen, it will, and with much more enjoyable vigor.

It's a simple 'are you sure'. That it's.  If you can't find the time to say that, then you should rethink your sexual activities.

You are one hundred percent correct. Respect for others is key.  No is always no.  And yes I know of women who have been raped by husbands or boyfriends.

In each case it was an issue of power not lust or misunderstanding. It's an issue of control.

kickfight wrote:

No, I'm not. I'm just not susceptible to simplistic propaganda about "the administration" which works on the gullible and easily-led.

Isn't Soapbox closed?

kickfight wrote:

OK... I guess I need a new mirror, then, 'cuz this one's clearly broken (and probably in deep denial about that as well).

Soap box go away.

JQuest wrote:
What cultural issue did it solve? Umm seriously, slavery was not a cultural issue?.

Slavery still exists.

JQuest wrote:
Teach people to behave honorably? What do you do when they don't even though you've taught them? Your answer supposes something in society that never has been and never will be. I would welcome reading about a single society throughout the entirety of recorded history where everyone acted honorably so they had absolutely no need for social or cultural legislation.

I think you fail to grasp what honor or dignity each mean from a cultural point of view.

Societies HAVE had those norms and had simple laws that protected individual rights. As a matter of fact, more societies have existed like that than those with societal/cultural legislation.

Virtually all tribal societies fit the criteria. The United States for the first 80 years of its existence primarily fits that criteria. The Republic of Rome, the Greek City States, China for more than 2000 years, Alexandre's Empire.

Damon Banner wrote:

ignoring men can be raped too..

which culture? 

rape has existed for as long as humans have existed.  In every nation.  So which culture is the problem and how do we fix it?

doesn't.... you know... getting consent, go towards fixing the problem.

No. Because rapists never cared about getting consent.

Rape is already covered by criminal law. This is simply legislation to create more work (and generate more income) for lawyers.

Jules NYC wrote:

I am not insulted by facts.
As a man, you're going to have a hard time getting through life talking to any woman that doesn't believe in gender roles... and gender roles have nothing to do with consensual sex.

You said you were. Make up your mind.

I have a hard time talking to adults who believe in Unicorns and Fairy Tales and Vampires and Bernie Sanders, too. BFD.

Evan Hiltunen wrote:
I'm in favor of a system that includes due process to all parties involved, proper investigation, processes not hidden from the light, and, if a person is found guilty of rape, they are removed from society.

Well stated.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

You said you were. Make up your mind.

I have a hard time talking to adults who believe in Unicorns and Fairy Tales and Vampires and Bernie Sanders, too. BFD.

Basically it means: Quand la femme a tort, l’homme doit s’excuser devant elle et se taire

I keep repeating myself..

L A F wrote:
That night, despite the fact that I fought myself free and made it out without being assaulted, has forever changed my mindset. No means no.  And no, without that being respected, makes me feel like I'm being assaulted all over again. Sex is my choice.  When is my choice.  I get to set the parameters of my sexual experiences. .

The guy was a rapist. That simple.

He isn't interested in getting consent, so the whole video and legislation about consent MAKE NO DIFFERENCE. You told him you weren't interested. It didn't matter to him.

At a minimum, he should be locked away for assault, battery and attempted rape.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Isn't Soapbox closed?

Last I heard it was.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Soap box go away.

wat

kickfight wrote:

wat

Soap box go away .............. also wat" is spelt what.  Stay on the subject attacking me dosen't accomplish anything it's a discussion not a debate.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
also wat" is spelt what.  Stay on the subject attacking me dosen't accomplish anything it's a discussion not a debate.

wat is commonly used as well, so now you know. Nobody's attacking you. Please quit with the trolling.

D a v i d s o n wrote:

Soap box go away .............. also wat" is spelt what.  Stay on the subject attacking me dosen't accomplish anything it's a discussion not a debate.

Ok whatever I'm out...

R.EYE.R wrote:

Basically it means: Quand la femme a tort, l’homme doit s’excuser devant elle et se taire

I keep repeating myself..

I have a hard time talking to people of any age that can't read.
I could write it in French, I took French honors for a while, but I will tell you in English:

This is not an enjoyable discussion any more.  Even if I indulged you both, you both are looking for a fight, not a discussion.   I believe that even if I expressed how gender roles have nothing to do with sexual consent, you both will still attempt to insult me or anyone else that understands what sexual consent is.

I better go into the kitchen and make me some coffee now.
Have fun with the thread.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Title IX is in fact legislation, but the original legislation has nothing to do with criminal acts and in no way suggests colleges need to rule on sexual assaults, let alone say they should do so in ways contradictory to criminal due process. (read your own link and you'll see this)  The mandates by the OCR are simply a tactic to hide behind Title IX to circumvent the due process guaranteed under criminal law and instead have colleges use standards denying the accused such due process so that colleges can determine guilt and issue punishment in circumstances where a court of law would have found innocence. That's the whole point: to have a system of finding guilt and issue punishment by a whole different standard that circumvents the due process guaranteed under criminal law.

Many lawyers and law professors have written articles indicating they believe OCR had no such authority under Title ix to issue such mandates.  As I mentioned in another post even leading rape victim advocacy groups are speaking out against this.

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/09/ … ent-cases/

This whole "Department of Education's OCR trumping due process" stuff sounds like a lot of academic/legal back-and-forth by people who have a clear business stake in the matter, so I have to take all of this with a huge grain of salt and retain an extremely skeptical position on any claims pro or con.

kickfight wrote:
This whole "Department of Education's OCR trumping due process" stuff sounds like a lot of academic/legal back-and-forth by people who have a clear business stake in the matter, so I have to take all of this with a huge grain of salt and retain an extremely skeptical position on any claims pro or con.

Indeed.  It's driven more by special interests and political agenda than by a desire to fairly and productively address sexual assault and issues of consent.  That's precisely the problem.  As I mentioned and linked previously, even RAINN opposes this move.  Even some feminists originally in favor of it are now speaking out against it (example in link) .  It's a political mess that students are unfortunately caught in the middle of. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 0211043510

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Indeed.  It's driven more by special interests and political agenda than by a desire to fairly and productively address sexual assault and issues of consent.  That's precisely the problem.  As I mentioned and linked previously, even RAINN opposes this move.  Even some feminists originally in favor of it are now speaking out against it:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241 … 0211043510

And that's the problem with any issue being politicized to serve special interest agendas: the actual issue ---in this case, consent--- gets lost under all the jockeying for position and leveraging for self-promotion. Additionally, once these issues are politicized, when they are further leveraged to prop up the usual tired and expired "nefarious conspiracy theory" angle, the credibility aspect plummets even further.

kickfight wrote:
And that's the problem with any issue being politicized to serve special interest agendas: the actual issue ---consent--- gets lost under all the jockeying for position and leveraging for self-promotion.

Agreed, and I think that's the point several people here have been trying to make.  The idea of consent as presented in the video seems simple, but in the real world it's been used as means to introduce a number of agendas, policies and practices which go far beyond simple consent and have very real implications. Whether or not one agrees with colleges handling such cases by protocols completely different than criminal protocols, the fact remains, that's what's happening. Disagreeing with such policies does not mean one disagrees with consent, it's debating the real life issues that for good or bad are now directly tied to issues of consent.

Sadly, you can't really separate the simple idea of consent from all the very real complex ways it is regulated, adjudicated and punishment issued based on said consent.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Agreed, and I think that's the point several people here have been trying to make.  The idea of consent as presented in the video seems simple, but in the real world it's been used as means to introduce a number of agendas, policies and practices which go far beyond simple consent and have very real implications. Whether or not one agrees with colleges handling such cases by protocols completely different than criminal protocols, the fact remains, that's what's happening. Disagreeing with such policies does not mean one disagrees with consent, it's debating the real life issues that for good or bad are now directly tied to issues of consent.

Sure. The problem there is that the controversial aspects of any issue will always be tainted by the necessarily-self-serving interests of all participants in that controversy. The larger point that others have been trying to keep surfaced (amidst the focus on the controversial aspects) is that consent can be relatively straightforward and non-controversial if very simple approaches to it can be taken... as illustrated in the video in the OP.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Sadly, you can't really separate the simple idea of consent from all the very real complex ways it is regulated, adjudicated and punishment issued based on said consent.

Well, actually, one can. It depends on whether one is focused solely on the controversial aspects of it, or whether one considers that the controversial aspects are not the whole story. One can reasonably assume that college students are having a whole mess of sex without running afoul of university protocols on consent.

kickfight wrote:
Well, actually, one can. It depends on whether one is focused solely on the controversial aspects of it, or whether one considers that the controversial aspects are not the whole story. One can reasonably assume that college students are having a whole mess of sex without running afoul of university protocols on consent.

Sure, one can talk in theory simply about consent, but as you indicated in reality, that's not the whole story.  Yeah, most students won't be sexually assaulted or be accused of sexual assault. The issue of course is driven by those who will be and for them, simple consent as explained in the video will not be the whole story.  (Also policies related to consent can have impact on people, even if they are not themselves assaulted or accused of assault)

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Sure, one can talk in theory simply about consent, but as you indicated in reality, that's not the whole story.  Yeah, most students won't be sexually assaulted or be accused of sexual assault. The issue of course is driven by those who will be and for them, simple consent as explained in the video will not be the whole story.  (Also policies related to consent can have impact on people, even if they are not themselves assaulted or accused of assault)

Well, again, it depends on the emphasis. If one is entirely focused on the adverse outcomes of ANY policy, then no amount of preventive or cautionary or illustrative content will be meaningful. But yes, as I indicated, in reality, that's not the whole story. If a guideline to consent can be illustrated in a video, which helps maintain consent within non-controversial boundaries, then it's worthwhile content. The idea is to prevent as many people from being sexually assaulted or being accused of sexual assault.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Slavery still exists.

There can be no discussion if you continue to move the goal posts to argue slavery exists as it did in 1862 (and that is your implication) is no more than a cheap attempt at a false equivalency.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
I think you fail to grasp what honor or dignity each mean from a cultural point of view.

Societies HAVE had those norms and had simple laws that protected individual rights. As a matter of fact, more societies have existed like that than those with societal/cultural legislation.

Virtually all tribal societies fit the criteria. The United States for the first 80 years of its existence primarily fits that criteria. The Republic of Rome, the Greek City States, China for more than 2000 years, Alexandre's Empire.

No, quite the contrary I think you need to understand the discussion is about consent and college campuses in 2016. If you want to discuss social engineering in regard to its legal under pinnings  in America circa 1856 which includes relief for the poor dating back as far as Plymouth in the 1600's , the history of political moral and social reforms under Augustus and the  Roman Empire or discuss honor in the Han dynasty feel free to start another thread. However to assert that legislative social change has not occurred previously and does not occur through legislation is simply incorrect.

JQuest wrote:
However to assert that legislative social change has not occurred previously and does not occur through legislation is simply incorrect.

Given the nature of our government one must admit that favorable social conditions must exist before such legislation could be passed.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Slavery still exists.

Yes it does and there are many people fighting to stop it . But it's extremely difficult to do when up against massive amounts of money...

Abbitt Photography wrote:

Sure, one can talk in theory simply about consent, but as you indicated in reality, that's not the whole story.  Yeah, most students won't be sexually assaulted or be accused of sexual assault. The issue of course is driven by those who will be and for them, simple consent as explained in the video will not be the whole story.  (Also policies related to consent can have impact on people, even if they are not themselves assaulted or accused of assault)

Good discussion on your part, sad that people don't understand what's really happening to thier rights.