le chat dort wrote:
It seems to me that there have been a few non-gender-specific ostriches with their heads in the sand, farting out of their assholes that the sky doesn't exist. I don't like ostrich farts in my face. Ostrich butts don't have ears so they are indeed hard to talk to.

This video pretty much said, "hey! Ask people if they want tea! If they don't enthusiastically say yes and maintain an enthusiastic yes, don't give them tea!" that's good for anyone of any gender to keep in mind when sexually active. It's respecting another human and making sure everyone is on the same page.

How the fuck anyone extrapolated anything else than that from stick figures is beyond me.

+1

kickfight wrote:

+1

- 1

kickfight wrote:
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....

Indeed, and the historical emphasis in criminal law is very different from the emphasis now seen in college judiciary systems and what some people would like to become the new emphasis in criminal law.

In criminal law the emphasis is on a presumption of innocence, allowing the accused the ability to defend themselves against known charges and when finding guilt and issuing punishment to find the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

College judicial systems under Title IX in contrast are about having a higher "conviction rate" and having "gender equality" by being as willing to accept a wrongful finding of guilt as a correct one.  To this end, the accused has no guaranteed right of discovery, so they may not know the details of the charges against them, and they have no right to face their accuser. In many colleges, the accuser makes their statement to the hearing board without the accused even being present. Rather than guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, college hearing boards are mandated to find guilt if they have any inkling at all that the accused is more likely to be guilty than innocent - anything over 50% confident, again that on top of the other mentioned restrictions.   This system is basically saying it's okay to be wrong in nearly half of the findings of guilt, because it will create more findings of guilt. That was the whole Title IX gender equality argument for mandating this, that being only 50% confident of guilt (propensity of evidence) is gender equal.   (At the heart of all of this is the issue of consent)

As you said, it all depends on the emphasis.  Is the emphasis on feeling confident that those who are found guilty actually guilty or is the emphasis on having more findings of guilt, acknowledging many will be incorrect findings of guilt.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Is the emphasis on feeling confident that those who are found guilty actually guilty or is the emphasis on having more findings of guilt, acknowledging many will be incorrect findings of guilt.

The emphasis is on not being sexually assaulted or being accused of sexual assault.

Jules NYC wrote:
- 1

- 2

kickfight wrote:
- 2

If you ever known anyone that has ever been raped or sexually assaulted, it is not funny and has nothing to do with gender roles.  Rape has absolutely -0- consent. 

If it's not about rape or anything that leads up to it, then misdemeanor that third base downtown.

Jules NYC wrote:
If you ever known anyone that has ever been raped or sexually assaulted, it is not funny and has nothing to do with gender roles.

Where did you get the idea that sexual assault was funny and had anything to do with gender roles?

kickfight wrote:

Where did you get the idea that sexual assault was funny and had anything to do with gender roles?

I don't think it has anything to do with either.
Please read the thread again.

Jules NYC wrote:
I don't think it has anything to do with either.
Please read the thread again.

I've read the thread. You don't seem to understand what you're replying to. Go back and figure out what you're replying to.

kickfight wrote:
I've read the thread. You don't seem to understand what you're replying to. Go back and figure out what you're replying to.

Was I mistaken?
I thought I was bled out via le chat dort and you agreed.

If I'm wrong, pardon me.
If I'm right then my thoughts on the topic and the people responding to it remain the same.  I believe I figured everyone for who they are and what they believe in. 

I didn't bring the conversation into that direction.  There's some old-ass views of the world and misogynist views on sexual activity.

kickfight wrote:
The emphasis is on not being sexually assaulted or being accused of sexual assault.

Both address what happens to the accused after an assault has allegedly occurred.   Schools also offer training such as innocent bystander training aimed at prevention, but the differences in protocols afforded the accused are about assigning guilt.  The philosophical difference is about whether it's best to confident beyond a reasonable doubt the accused is in fact guilty (traditional of criminal law) or simply more sure than not sure they are guilty (preponderance of evidence standard, colleges are required to use)

Jules NYC wrote:
I thought I was bled out via le chat dort and you agreed.

I didn't interpret it that way, Jules. Not at all.

Abbitt Photography wrote:
Both address what happens to the accused after an assault has allegedly occurred.   Schools also offer training such as innocent bystander training aimed at prevention, but the differences in protocols afforded the accused are about assigning guilt.  The philosophical difference is about whether it's best to confident beyond a reasonable doubt the accused is in fact guilty (traditional of criminal law) or simply more sure than not sure they are guilty (preponderance of evidence standard, colleges are required to use)

Yes, but none of that really affects the underlying issue, which is consent, and whether consent is communicated and understood. There is a liability to vague consent. The technical aspects of that liability are, in the view of some, sub-optimal. Sure, and that can be explored. But the issue of consent is still the actual focus. The best way to avoid being in a position of guilt in the first place is to approach consent proactively, which is what the video illustrates.

kickfight wrote:
I didn't interpret it that way, Jules. Not at all.

See, this is indicative of how verbal and sometimes physical communication is misconstrued.

Separate from my inability to understand every poster in its pure perfection, I ask of all of you this -
If you have ever known someone or have been sadly subject to yourself, the aftermath of a sexual violation, you may look at this subject in an entirely different light.

... and for the record Kickfight, I'll light a Bic.

Jules NYC wrote:
See, this is indicative of how verbal and sometimes physical communication is misconstrued.

Separate from my inability to understand every poster in its pure perfection, I ask of all of you this -
If you have ever known someone or have been sadly subject to yourself, the aftermath of a sexual violation, you may look at this subject in an entirely different light.

... and for the record Kickfight, I'll light a Bic

I have known a few rape victims throughout my life. My ex-mother in law was raped multiple times in her home country when she was young. My 2nd wife was raped as a child and sexually molested by her adoptive father from age 9 to 15. I've been friends with some girls in the bodymod community who were raped as children and as adults... and tattooing and/or piercings was a way for them to reclaim their bodies.

So, yeah... I personally know a few people and did my best to help to overcome such trauma.

Jules NYC wrote:
Separate from my inability to understand every poster in its pure perfection, I ask of all of you this -
If you have ever known someone or have been sadly subject to yourself, the aftermath of a sexual violation, you may look at this subject in an entirely different light.

Understood, Jules. And yes, as I have stated many times on these forums, my wife and I have taught self-defense to victims of sexual abuse in the past, and are deeply aware of the devastation that abuse can cause.

Jules NYC wrote:
... and for the record Kickfight, I'll light a Bic.

kickfight wrote:
Understood, Jules. And yes, as I have stated many times on these forums, my wife and I have taught self-defense to victims of sexual abuse in the past, and are deeply aware of the devastation that abuse can cause.

I have great empathy for those who have been abused.   I've heard too many stories.
As much as it's made fun of, I celebrate growing up in a small town.

Thanks

udor wrote:
I have know a few rape victims throughout my life. My ex-mother in law was raped multiple times in her home country when she was young. My 2nd wife was raped as a child and sexually molested by her adoptive father from age 9 to 15. I've been friends with some girls in the bodymod community who were raped as children and as adults... and tattooing and/or piercings was a way for them to reclaim their bodies.

So, yeah... I personally know a few people and did my best to help to overcome such trauma.

Damn.  This is the kind of thing that makes my head hang down.
It's not fair, it's not right and no one has the right to devastate an individual like that.
... and for whatever it's worth, and I know I don't know these individuals, I am so very sorry they had to experience so much pain.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Here is a question, 

If you are accused of raping someone. And you have to prove your innocent , but aren't able to know any details of the accuser's details to the incident and not aloud to have a lawyer represent you, is that fair?

What's the definition of fair?

Jules NYC wrote:

Was I mistaken?
I thought I was bled out via le chat dort and you agreed.

If I'm wrong, pardon me.
If I'm right then my thoughts on the topic and the people responding to it remain the same.  I believe I figured everyone for who they are and what they believe in. 

I didn't bring the conversation into that direction.  There's some old-ass views of the world and misogynist views on sexual activity.

I wasn't talking to you or making a personal attack, I got barely through the first page. It's infuriating that many people ignore that consent is an issue that we should all be mindful of, not even just in sexual contexts. So, reading the first handful of posts, I reacted as such.

I've been assaulted and my life will be different forever. However now I am much more mindful of communicating with others to make sure I'm not crossing any boundaries. I think, as I said in my last post, that we all could use a reminder on communication and consent. Every single one of us, myself included.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

What's the definition of fair?

Our constitution, regarding are system of law ,that states you are innocent until proven guilty...

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Our constitution, regarding are system of law ,that states you are innocent until proven guilty...

If that's the case, then the whole idea isn't fair because one is .. or is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. One also has ... or is supposed to have the right to remain silent and have a lawyer represent them. If they can't afford one, one would be appointed.  Whether this happens this way or not is another story.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

If that's the case, then the whole idea isn't fair because one is .. or is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. One also has ... or is supposed to have the right to remain silent and have a lawyer represent them. If they can't afford one, one would be appointed.  Whether this happens this way or not is another story.

You got the first part right . The problem is on college campus your guilty and have to prove yourself innocent , that is wrong that is what's going on. And they the administration want this to be federal law. Theres a bigger picture going on that people are missing with these videos coming out.

udor wrote:

I have known a few rape victims throughout my life. My ex-mother in law was raped multiple times in her home country when she was young. My 2nd wife was raped as a child and sexually molested by her adoptive father from age 9 to 15. I've been friends with some girls in the bodymod community who were raped as children and as adults... and tattooing and/or piercings was a way for them to reclaim their bodies.

So, yeah... I personally know a few people and did my best to help to overcome such trauma.

A dear friend who is a victim of sexual abuse, among other kinds of abuse, has around 40 tattoos. For her they are not about reclaiming her body. It's about covering her skin. She only gets tattoos where her bare skin might show with the type of clothing she wears. My BFF's sister who was raped used to wear 2 pairs of pantyhose at all times and a shit ton of makeup. Once again she was covering up as a way to cope, a way of protecting herself. She's better now:)

D a v i d s o n wrote:
You got the first part right . The problem is on college campus your guilty and have to prove yourself innocent , that is wrong that is what's going on. And they the administration want this to be federal law. Theres a bigger picture going on that people are missing with these videos coming out.

We do have to remember that a person having an attorney, etc, is in a court of law. Outside a court of law, anything goes (for the most part) when it comes to governing bodies.  For instance, Ray Rice clocks his then girlfriend. The NFL finds out and suspends him for 2 games. After the video comes out, they change it to an indefinite suspension, his team releases him, this that and the other.

No one I ever heard said it was okay for him to hit this woman. Many people have said it's "double jeopardy" because he got "sentenced" to a 2 game suspension and later they changed their minds to make the punishment more severe.

I am one who believes there is something much more sinister going on in the background, especially when it comes to sex crimes (or even just accusations). The only thing I can say is one should keep themselves out of situations where someone said they did something and have the slightest iota of it being possible. No one is perfect and the door will always be open to accuse someone but this is the way things are right now.

Jules NYC wrote:
For the record, it doesn't matter what sexual orientation or what gender you are, unwanted sexual overtures is a violation. Whether you bake a pie or work construction, it's all the same.

2 things: first, what's the definition of "sexual overture"? Next .. how does one know it will be unwanted until and unless they do it? I'm not talking about touching people here.

Some people get highly bent out of shape when/if a person says hello and/or holds a door for them.  Others go off when/if someone doesn't hold a door for them. What is so violating about saying hello?  What is so violating about telling someone they look nice? If one isn't even allowed to say hello to someone they don't already know, how would one meet new people and break the ice?

As Chris Rock said, if Clarence Thomas had looked like Denzel Washington, we never would've heard of Anita Hill and sexual harassment wouldn't have been so prominent at the time.  She'd have said "oh stop, with your fine self" instead of filing charges.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

We do have to remember that a person having an attorney, etc, is in a court of law. Outside a court of law, anything goes (for the most part) when it comes to governing bodies.  For instance, Ray Rice clocks his then girlfriend. The NFL finds out and suspends him for 2 games. After the video comes out, they change it to an indefinite suspension, his team releases him, this that and the other.

No one I ever heard said it was okay for him to hit this woman. Many people have said it's "double jeopardy" because he got "sentenced" to a 2 game suspension and later they changed their minds to make the punishment more severe.

I am one who believes there is something much more sinister going on in the background, especially when it comes to sex crimes (or even just accusations). The only thing I can say is one should keep themselves out of situations where someone said they did something and have the slightest iota of it being possible. No one is perfect and the door will always be open to accuse someone but this is the way things are right now.

Well, you're not understanding, what I’m saying so maybe I’m not the one to get this though to you, our most others on here. This is not simply a consent, we all know what consent is. It's about the administration trying to make federal law, again federal law, and your guilty of rape on any college campus just by being accused of it. And you have to prove your innocence. This has nothing in common with a football suspension or fine...I just don't know how else to get this across to you; you need to read what’s happening to males on campus. There is no rape crisis on campuses this is manufactured and is an agenda to get a foot in the door to change our system of law... From you are innocent till proven guilty without the benefit of doubt. to your guilty till your innocent...Simple minds are just going along with this campaign that it's just good, and a the right thing to teach people, what they already know, haha. To build this up like it's an epidemic that it's not... I wish more people would be more interested in politics to read past the headlines, and listen to more than one side of news stations...

D a v i d s o n wrote:
Well, you're not understanding, what I’m saying so maybe I’m not the one to get this though to you, our most others on here. This is not simply a consent, we all know what consent is. It's about the administration trying to make federal law, again federal law, and your guilty of rape on any college campus just by being accused of it. And you have to prove your innocence. This has nothing in common with a football suspension or fine...I just don't know how else to get this across to you; you need to read what’s happening to males on campus. There is no rape crisis on campuses this is manufactured and is an agenda to get a foot in the door to change our system of law... From you are innocent till proven guilty without the benefit of doubt. to your guilty till your innocent...Simple minds are just going along with this campaign that it's just good, and a the right thing to teach people, what they already know, haha. To build this up like it's an epidemic that it's not... I wish more people would be more interested in politics to read past the headlines, and listen to more than one side of news stations...

I get what you're saying ... I really do.  The football suspension was an example of a governing body (the NFL's League Office) doing what they wanted to do even though it's contrary to the US Constitution.

In the court of public opinion, many people are guilty of sex crimes even if they are yet to go to trial.  Apparently, a lot of people believe police won't arrest and charge a person with a sex crime unless they did it. Many people have said a person should be castrated upon arraignment. If they're found not guilty in court, it's because they have a slick talking lawyer but they're guilty of something or they wouldn't have been charged with it so it's fitting.

These are things that sound like the Salem witch trials to me. If someone is accused of being a witch, they will die. They'll either be drowned to death or they'll be burned alive but they will die.  I'm not saying this is good, fair, right, just or anything else that normally carries a positive connotation. I'm saying this is or seems to be the mentality.

College campus leaders (presidents, deans, etc) can't make this federal law by themselves. They can pressure people into making this federal law the same way Maureen Kanka pushed for Megan's Law here in NJ even though it made/makes no real sense. They've continued with it, making it easier and easier to get on this list. It has got to the point where no one will be able to stop it because anyone who tries must be afraid of getting on the list themselves OR they're soft on crime. So what if millions of dollars are spent on this every year and no one can show how it makes anyone any safer.  Eventually the law went federal and now the money is spent nationwide.

In the beginning, it was mainly to divert attention from Bill Clinton's sex scandal but it is now much more sinister and threatens democracy here in the US.  Other countries have adopted similar laws and it may well threaten democracy there, too. I don't want to go soapbox here so I won't say anything else on this idea (threatening democracy) but I get what you're saying.