Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Mist_sl said:

You're missing the point. What if she has noevidenceother than her own word proving she was under threat, as is almost certainly the case of a verbal exchange?

Click to expand...

The act is non-consensual if it is coerced under the threat of force, period. Whether the coercion or even the act is provable is an entirely different ball of wax (basically in this scenario neither are.)

So she ended up having anal sex with this guy, probably wasn't all that keen on the idea but did it anyway, felt a little degraded by it, and then later realized he was really just interested in seeing if he could shove it in her butt rather and wasn't really interested in her all that much after. They had friendly communications back and forth but not much else went on. He butt banged her and skedaddled. As time went on she felt worse and worse and worse about losing her black cherry and filed a complaint that she had to double down on and then double down on again.

Mist_sl said:

So is it rape or not? What should a college do in this case? What should the legal system do?

Click to expand...

I just said it is rape, twice, now three times. Do you want me to send you a pair of reading glasses?

If you want a legal opinion about how to prosecute someone for a crime that is inherently unprovable you are better off asking a lawyer, because I have no idea.

The university (beyond conducting their own investigation) should do everything they can for the victim without violating the civil rights of the accused.

Mist_sl said:

It's definitely not rape. But abusing someone just because you can get away with it is still extremely antisocial behavior and she has every right to use her free speech to make sure everyone knows he's a sociopath.

Also, in your blowjob example, is saying "give me a blowjob or I'll beat you so hard you can't get out the door for the next week" rape? She's technically consenting to the blowjob.

Click to expand...

Yes. Denaut explained why. Violence, or the threat of violence, takes away consent. However, nothing else does. And I think this is where some young women get preyed upon and then get angry afterwards. They will fall hard for a guy, and they may not enjoy a sexual activity, but the guy will say "Well, I'm going to break up with you without X". So they end up doing it, despite not enjoying it. I actually knew a woman in college in this same exact boat; whose boyfriend really liked anal and he essentially told her she needs to do it, or they were not compatible. What ends up happening? She spend the better part of my Sophmore semester over my girlfriends house, crying about how mean he was for making her do that...But she loved him and didn't want to leave him. When he eventually broke it off with her, she told my girlfriend "It was like he's raped me for 3 months and now he's going to get away with it".

In her mind, she was trading rape for love. But in reality, while the guy was a prick, hewasn'traping her. Now, I agree with you; she has every right to tell everyone he was a prick. But that ends where she says it was rape. Feminists are going to need to deal with the fact that sexuality is something both shared AND traded in a relationship. Women and men tend to have different levels of sexual desire; it's not a bad thing that sometimes a woman will give a guy sex in the same way that a guy will see a romantic movie with her--as in she may have not decided to go do that on her own, but she's willing to because he did X for her. The real core as to whether that kind of "trade" is healthy is whether or not she still enjoys doing the act of kindness. Most guys don't enjoy romantic movies, but they enjoy going WITH their wives. If a woman is in a relationship where she hates every moment of that "trade"; and feels like she is suffering through it? She needs to be the one to be a grown up, realize it's not healthy and move on.

Men aren't mind readers. Society shouldn't expect them to be. This does create a gray area for assholes to take advantagebutit's far easier to just have women start acting like adults and telling those men to fuck off, then it is for full scale institutional change to punish people who may be assholes, but not criminals.

I am not willing to support the relaxation of the burden of proof on rape accusations just so we catch some small number of sociopaths, at the cost of enabling sociopaths making false accusations to succeed in sending innocent people to jail.

Mist_sl said:

Say the university conducts their own investigation and finds X other girls who report similar incidents with the accused. Solve for X where X = he's a fucking rapist.

Click to expand...

If there were multiple instances where he went full on Ike Turner on multiple women, and they corroborate independently, then yes; I'd be swayed.

But that's not what happened here. One other girl said he grabbed her ass at a party. His other former girlfriend was found by his current Ex and they were able to talk before the investigation. This is problematic for a variety of reasons. But in addition to those, the accusations never carried with them threats of violence. The encounters were allegedly rough; but they were always invited. There was ample evidence the women invited him back again and again. Rough sex, even humiliating sex, is not rape--Mist. He didn't beat them and then say "have sex with me."

The allegation was they ASKED him to come over, initiated sex, then he slapped them and had rough sex with them. Then they asked him to have more sex. That is NOT the context you are putting this in.

Mist_sl said:

What if she's not a grownup? What if he targeted her specifically because he, as a sociopath, identified her as not being emotionally mature enough to engage in a healthy reciprocal sexual relationship and knew he would be able to get away with abusing her for quite some time? Do we need to redefine adulthood in response to society wide changes in maturity level?

Too many of the solutions in this thread reek of apologism and cover for sociopathic acts. No neurotypical person would engage in this kind of behavior (abusing someone just because they can get away with it.) At what point do you realize that people who's rights you're defending are the subset of people who do the most harm to society? The whole reason we have a legal system is to protect us from anti-social acts.

Click to expand...

At what point do you realize that women are also capable of sociopathic acts, or acts of vengeance (And I'd say this is a much broader swath of people, no?)? That a woman is perfectly capable of being mad at a man and accusing him of heinous shit just to get back at him. I've watched this happen, literally(edit)(And I'd argue it's very easy for an angry ex, who is a perfectly reasonable human being, to go batshit crazy, man OR woman, I'm only bringing up women here because they are the ones that will be given institutional power in our little debate.). At what point do we want to give those women institutional power to harass people over a relationship that didn't work out? Is that reasonable for society to put so much power in the hands of someone who has such a high chance of being unreasonable? Especially because, as you said, these people might not be emotionally mature? (Sounds like the perfect kind of people to give the power to ruin someone's life....Awesome.)

Life is about compromises Mist. It's a lot easier for society to expect women to be adults, then it is to give undue power to women to punish an exceedingly small amount of men. I believe in"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer",doctrine. I'm not about to give any faction of society the power to hunt communists with a lower burden of proof, even if there is a reasonable chance there are actually communist spies about. I thought we learned that lesson already.

Lithose_sl said:

Life is about compromises Mist. It's a lot easier for society to expect women to be adults, then it is to give undue power to women to punish an exceedingly small amount of men.

Click to expand...

I think you are wording this a bit harshly. I think society can do more than simply expect women to be adults. Just like it is useful to educate men to know that "no means no", women should be educated that if they aren't interested in the act, they should make it clear (and that "using no in a playful way" is a bad idea). This isn't "victim blaming", it is coming up with some social rules to help people in sometimes awkward and confusing (and exciting) situations.

khalid_sl said:

I think you are wording this a bit harshly. I think society can do more than simply expect women to be adults. Just like it is useful to educate men to know that "no means no", women should be educated that if they aren't interested in the act, they should make it clear (and that "using no in a playful way" is a bad idea). This isn't "victim blaming", it is coming up with some social rules to help people in sometimes awkward and confusing (and exciting) situations.

Click to expand...

It might be worded harshly, but that's what I meant. I'm all for programs to teach women to guard themselves. To prepare women for the fact that there might be predators out there. Being an adult is not easy; it never is. But society should have the expectation that people who are legally adults? Act like it. If society thinks it's failing at that? Then by all means, bring out some positive liberty and give women more tools to make that leap. The wrong way to go about it though is to give someone who is admittedly NOT an adult, a huge legal club with which to smack people who upset them.

Cad_sl said:

I think if culture changed a bit to where women weren't basically required to act like they don't want it to get past slut shaming, and requiring men to "push through the no to get to the yes" which a lot of girls respond to, then a lot of this would be a lot more clear cut.

Click to expand...

Yep, agreed, that is definitely a problem. Definitely need education on this. Hopefully, as religion fades out, this will also lessen. At least, as long as RedPill fuckery doesn't replace the religious bullshit.

khalid_sl said:

Yep, agreed, that is definitely a problem. Definitely need education on this. Hopefully, as religion fades out, this will also lessen. At least, as long as RedPill fuckery doesn't replace the religious bullshit.

Click to expand...

Redpill or sex negative feminism. The rise of those two ideologies makes me wonder if we aren't really just predisposed to treat sex like its' the edge of some kind of abyss that has to be approached with an ideological predisposition to navigate you over.

Cad_sl said:

What would everyone say?

Click to expand...

Caught ya slippin'. Walk it off.

khalid_sl said:

I think you are wording this a bit harshly. I think society can do more than simply expect women to be adults. Just like it is useful to educate men to know that "no means no", women should be educated that if they aren't interested in the act, they should make it clear (and that "using no in a playful way" is a bad idea). This isn't "victim blaming", it is coming up with some social rules to help people in sometimes awkward and confusing (and exciting) situations.

Click to expand...

To any man in the western world that isn't a sociopath nodoesmean no. This hasn't always been true but then the education campaign you described happened and it was astonishingly effective as is evidenced byplunging of rapes per capita by85 percentsince the 1970s.

The problem is that once education has reached everyone that it can reach, you need a different solution to solve instances where education is not effective. If education has been effective in the past, then more education (Yes means Yes) is not necessarily the method you'd need to bring it down further.