Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 229 posts

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#201

Post by Grishnakh »

arkades wrote: post #177
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this). I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neithe…

I can only offer myself up as an anecdote, but: I was at grad school at Boston University in the very, very recent past and was lectured on the fact(?) that even a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent during their mandatory Title 9 intro. I can't find any thing regarding their sexual assault policies (other than "we do not allow or condone sexual assault") on their website, though.

If a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent, then what if both parties have had at least one drink? How can that possibly be rape? If it is, then that's sexism, because it's a double standard: they're claiming the woman isn't responsible for her decisions while intoxicated, while the man is.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#202

Post by JadeNB »

chris_wot wrote: post #32
CthulhuOvermind wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To make the point less gender political, view this as something which happens to a same-sex couple, so that the dynamics are less obvious about sexual politics and more about either force, misinterpretation, or confusion or a mixture of all the above. I like your suggestion about viewing this as same-sex couple situation. I wrote my post specifically gender-neutral so as to prepare for the inevitable accusation of…

Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

> Though it's much rarer, it is possible for a woman to rape a man.

Given that it is in response to a poster who clearly knew that (as indicated by the intention of revealing the female to be the perpetrator), in a thread in which (as far as I can see) no doubt about the possibility had been expressed, is this remark adding anything?

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#203

Post by [deleted] »

cauterized wrote: post #199
zyx321 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to posit a variation of the anthropic principle: We are currently alive to have this discussion, therefore the things we've done to get here are not the worst we could have done. I recognize that's not the strongest argument, but it sure as heck beats the stupid "it's 2016, therefore you are on the wrong side of history" meme that people seem so fond of throwing around. To answer your question: Working o…

It's been working out well enough that we're alive? That's a pretty low standard for whether we should discuss the intersection of social/political issues and the tech industry. Surely in that case, we shouldn't be discussing any regulations or taxation of the tech industry either?

[deleted]

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#204

Post by wccrawford »

chris_wot wrote: post #111
mirimir wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much. But damn, if I were a young male today, I would probably require proof of consent from prospective partners. Maybe a signed affidavit, blood sample and affidavits of competent witnesses. Or maybe just forget the whole premarital sex thing. Too dangerous anymore, in so many ways.

It's a great pity that some people falsely accuse others of rape, because all those who have been raped are automatically disbelieved by a significant portion of the population.

While I agree that it's shame that people falsely accuse other of rape, and that it makes the situation worse, I don't think that's the root cause of people disbelieving claims of rape.

I would be that most instances of disbelief stem from knowing the accused and thinking they'd never do it, or having some personal interest in the person not being found guilty of it. For others who aren't acquainted with the accused, I've seen a lot of it come from misogyny in general, and a general belief that men are superior, so the man must be the one telling the truth.

Obviously, that's a bunch of crap. But personal beliefs and feelings don't really require logic, so they continue.

On the other hand, I personally know someone who believes that no woman will ever falsely claim rape because it's such a horrifying thing (and causes such strong feelings in women who were raped), and so she believes every woman who claims it to the extreme, despite any evidence I've ever seen presented to her, and any court findings to the contrary. She appears to be completely able to understand that some people will lie about anything if it gets them what they want at that moment.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#205

Post by zyx321 »

cauterized wrote: post #199
zyx321 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to posit a variation of the anthropic principle: We are currently alive to have this discussion, therefore the things we've done to get here are not the worst we could have done. I recognize that's not the strongest argument, but it sure as heck beats the stupid "it's 2016, therefore you are on the wrong side of history" meme that people seem so fond of throwing around. To answer your question: Working o…

It's been working out well enough that we're alive? That's a pretty low standard for whether we should discuss the intersection of social/political issues and the tech industry. Surely in that case, we shouldn't be discussing any regulations or taxation of the tech industry either?

That was more intended as a defense of conservatism in general, since the post I was replying to gave the impression that "conservative" was synonymous with "wrong, evil or stupid" - maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Still, humor me. Can you tell me why we should be wasting time with the ever more outlandish demands of the politically correct language police? Can you tell me why we should replace merit-based hiring with some variation of the progressive stack? Can you tell me why we should be expelling people from conferences and open source projects over things they say on their private twitter accounts?

Because when I see someone advocating for "intersectionality" those are the kinds of suggestions they seem to come up with.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#206

Post by bitwize »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #103
thaumasiotes wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As made explicit in the sexual assault policies of various US universities, a female is unable to consent if she's had any alcohol (the "1 beer" model of being drunk). It is not a defense, or grounds for a counterclaim, that the male might have been equally or more drunk. (I say made explicit; the "any alcohol" threshold is what's made explicit. The wording of formal policies is generally scrupulously gender-neutral,…

As much as I'd love to take your word on this, for me this still falls into the "they banned Christmas because of the Muslims" category of made up propaganda intended to enrage the more credulous (see the other reply for a demonstration of this). I asked for evidence on this once before on HN, and they came up with two links. Both referred to the exact same case. And that case involved two people so drunk that neithe…

I once saw a poster that said something like "Bob is drunk. Allison is drunk. Allison can't consent."

While a poster is not a statement of policy, it nevertheless is intended to communicate the standard that should be applied: that sex with a woman who is "drunk" (not "incapacitated" or even "significantly intoxicated") is rape, but this standard does not apply to a drunk man.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#207

Post by bitwize »

Grishnakh wrote: post #201
arkades wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only offer myself up as an anecdote, but: I was at grad school at Boston University in the very, very recent past and was lectured on the fact(?) that even a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent during their mandatory Title 9 intro. I can't find any thing regarding their sexual assault policies (other than "we do not allow or condone sexual assault") on their website, though.

If a single alcoholic beverage precludes consent, then what if both parties have had at least one drink? How can that possibly be rape? If it is, then that's sexism, because it's a double standard: they're claiming the woman isn't responsible for her decisions while intoxicated, while the man is.

Under law, if neither party can give consent then each of them is guilty of rape of the other. The age of consent in New York State is 17, but the age of culpability for statutory rape is 16; if two 16-year-olds have sex, they raped each other under New York law.

But the way human social dynamics works is that in most cases, the male initiates sexual activity to which the female has right of refusal. So in cases of heterosexual liaisons where neither party is capable of consenting, the female -- who 90% of the time is the only one put in a position of consenting or refusing -- will not be prosecuted or disciplined, while the male will be.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#208

Post by fsaneq2 »

tehwebguy wrote: post #142
fsaneq2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "When advocating for rape victims, who are severely disadvantaged in these situations" Curious if you have a way to back up the claim the accusers are severely disadvantaged? Based on how it is at Stanford and many universities in the US, the system is certainly stacked in the accuser's favor. See, for example: https://www.thefire.org/stanford-trains-student-jurors-that-... . This leads to terrible mistakes, Joe Lo…

Because no one should have to explain to you that universities and incredibly famous cases like this are the exception. I shouldn't have to back up climate change every time I down vote someone "just asking" about clean coal or some shit every time that conversation happens either. These are horror stories - they hit home IMO because so many men would never dream of assaulting anyone so it's scary to feel lumped into…

We are talking about universities here, presumably, since the title is "college sex-assault trials belong in court". So, dismissing them as an "exception" is neither helpful nor relevant.

I have no idea about how fair the system is out of college. My point was about how unfair it is _in_ college.

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#209

Post by [deleted] »

Steuard wrote: post #196
nailer wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something That's afterwards . I was asking about the general explicit consent concept, which is one must ask explicitly before escalating.

I feel like you're framing this as enormously more complicated than it needs to be. As I understand it, within the affirmative consent framework it is fine to move toward escalating as long as your partner has sufficient chance to signal their comfort before you actually cross any lines. In a lot of the essential cases, those lines are reasonably well-defined. So (e.g.) if you want to touch someone's bare skin under…

[deleted]

Re: College Sex-Assault Trials Belong in Court, Not Campus (2014)

#210

Post by [deleted] »

Steuard wrote: post #198
tomp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think affirmative consent is sensible at all. If it were made law, then I would have been raped, and been raping at the same time, during pretty much all sex I've had in my life! Obviously it's possible to have amazing consensual sex without affirmative consent.

I literally cannot imagine amazing sex that doesn't easily pass the threshold of "affirmative consent". As I quoted elsewhere in the thread, the definition that pops up on Google reads, "Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willi…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN