The Sexist

When Rapists Graduate and Victims Drop Out

According to a a new report from the Center for Public Integrity, many U.S. colleges fail to adhere to federal laws that dictate the school's response after sexual assaults are reported on its campus. "Under Title IX, schools must meet three requirements if they find a sexual assault has occurred: end a so-called "hostile environment"; prevent its future occurrence; and restore victims’ lives," writes CPI reporter Kristen Lombardi.

In many cases, however, students found responsible for sexual assault through the college judicial process are administered little more than a slap on the wrist, leaving victims to continue pursuing their education in close proximity to their assailants—or drop out.

CPI's examination of sexual assault data found that, in colleges across the country, expulsion was a rare punishment for even the most serious of cases:

As much as 75 to 90 percent of total disciplinary actions doled out by schools that report statistics to the Justice Department’s Office on Violence Against Women amounted to minor sanctions, although it’s unclear from the data what the nature of the “sexual assault” offenses were. Among those modest sanctions: reprimands, counseling, suspensions, and community service. The most common sanctioning reflected what the data calls “other” restrictions—alcohol treatment, for example, or social probation. Interviews and records in these cases show that other minor penalties include orders that perpetrators write a letter of apology, or make a presentation to a campus advocacy group, or write a research paper on sexual violence. Administrators note that they sometimes issue multiple sanctions. For instance, they may require a no-contact order, a housing ban, and classes on sexual consent. By contrast, the database shows that colleges rarely expel culpable students in these cases—even though the Justice Department encourages its campus grant recipients to train judicial panels to hand down “appropriate sanctions, such as expulsion.”

For many victims, of course, receiving a letter of apology from their rapists does not help to restore their lives or alleviate the hostile environment caused by attending classes with, living close to, and running in social circles with their attackers. These minor punishments also fail to satisfy the third requirement of Title IX: Preventing the future occurrence of sexual assault.

Indiana University, which CPI notes has "expelled only one of 12 students found responsible for alleged sexual assaults in the past four years," explains that “our basic philosophy is not to expel.” Instead, the university offers what CPI characterizes as "teaching moments."

One IU student who was found responsible for "sexual assault (power differential)" was administered a short suspension during the university's summer term, a period when few students even stay on campus or enroll in classes. According to his victim, the student had seen her crying and drunk in the hallway, followed her into her dorm room, and forced sex on her as she passed in and out of consciousness. According to the CPI report, IU did not see this student as a threat to other women on campus. "The university will kick out a student believed to be a threat," CPI reports. But according to Indiana University officials, 'that does not mean that every single person found responsible for sexual assault gets expelled. They’re not all predators.'" The victim ended up dropping out of school.

CPI has uncovered several stories that follow that same narrative. A junior at Bowdoin College "reported being raped by a baseball player in her dorm after an alcohol-soaked party." The player, who was found responsible for the "charge of sexual assault," received a social suspension, but was still allowed to play attend home games; the victim transferred schools. A Penn State student reported being raped by a classmate in an off-campus apartment. Her assailant, who was found responsible for "nonconsensual oral sex" and "nonconsensual intercourse," had his degree delayed for one year; the victim dropped out and transferred, but not before swallowing "'a big handful' of sleeping pills."

Universities that don't choose to expel rapists from campus operate under the assumption that these students won't assault again. Research has disproved that assumption:

But critics say that attitude fails to recognize a disturbing reality about campus rape: Many incidents go beyond “miscommunication” among two drunk students—a common characterization among school officials—to predatory acts. Lisak, the U-Mass professor, has studied what he terms “undetected rapists” on college campuses. His research suggests that over half of student rapists are likely repeat offenders who rape an average of six times. Yet administrators, Lisak observes, “think of serial rapists as the guy who wears a ski mask and jumps out of the bushes.”

“Schools that overlook this paradigm are failing their female students,” charges Bruno, of the Victim Rights Law Center, referring to Lisak’s research. “Giving someone a deferred suspension is like giving someone carte blanche to do it again.”

After the Indiana University victim the judicial process, she received an e-mail from another woman who also lived in the IU dorms. The same student who had cornered her while drunk and crying, the woman wrote, "has come into my room on two occasions and forced himself upon me." In an appeal, the IU victim forwarded the woman's ominously similar claims on to officials. According to CPI, "Indiana University officials did not factor her claims into sanctioning."

Comments

  1. #1

    I never thought I'd hear myself sounding like a rape apologist, but I'm aware that might be what I'll sound like when I say this...

    I actually agree with universities that do not expel rapists. Yes, rapists should be punished much more severely than they are right now by the criminal justice system. Firing them from jobs is also fair game. Social ostracization. Whatever. But denying them access to education seems counterproductive. In fact, an education may be the only thing that helps them learn what they did wrong and might help prevent them from raping again.

    Of course, what I'm saying is a far cry from what seems to happen in a lot of universities these days, and yes, I know that your original point isn't "EXPEL ALL RAPISTS," but rather the problem that rapists rarely get more than a proverbial slap on the wrist, which ends up making the victims look even worse. And I totally agree, that needs to change. But of all the punishments that should be leveled on rapists, I just don't think cutting them off from academic opportunities is it. Prosecute them, send them to jail, and then have their spot in the university waiting for them when they get out. (And of course, I also think this should be true for ANY crime, not just rape.)

  2. #2

    Melissa,

    I think expelling them from school is vital. It's important that we establish that this is not normal, "forgivable" behavior. If a perpetrator still can still continue his education as originally planned, he can still maintain his social status, career opportunities, etc., which basically means he can still be an influential socially respected person, which totally normalizes the behavior.

    As for his education, if he really wants to put his life back together, he can go to community college or try to apply to another school. It would be difficult for him, of course, but unless raping someone can seriously upset your life, people will still feel it's ok to do it. After all, if you plagiarize a paper you get expelled...raping someone should be considered at LEAST as serious.

    Also, as a simple matter of justice, if the perpetrator is not removed from the environment, then the VICTIM feels pressured to leave the environment or struggles at school, which denies educational opportunities to her.

  3. #3

    LeftSide, you point out something terrifying: plagiarism is a fairly victimless crime, but can get you expelled. Rape cannot. That's messed up.

  4. #4

    that's completely sickening. sexual crimes are so dismissed as no big deal, when it can be the most detrimental thing that ever happens to a woman. And yet, they wonder why so many rapes go unreported. What's the incentive if you will just be treated as a criminal yourself, ignored, called a liar, or worse, be believed and the rapist gets a meager slap on the back and a "here here, don't do that again sonny." boys will be boys attitude. UGH

  5. #5

    I had a very close friend of mine drop out of her ivy league school after being raped by an ex-boyfriend. She had met him in her academic program and could not continue her program and avoid him.

    I see nothing wrong with expelling a rapist (as previous commentors have pointed out, this would merely put rape on par with the crime of plagiarism.) At the very least, to ensure that the campus does not become a hostile environment to the victim, rapists should be suspended from the school for a full year. This would help the survivor avoid the social ostracization that victims are frequently punished with for speaking against the rapist and hopefully get the rapist out of any of her classes by putting him a year behind. If the rapist doesn't want to face a year's break in his studies, he can apply to transfer to another university. His continued presence at the school creates a hostile environment for the victim and frequently leaves her with no social support if the network of friends turn against her in support of him.

  6. #6

    could anyone explain to me what does "found responsible for alleged sexual assaults" mean? i find this sentence really confusing especially the "responsible for alleged" bit. another thing that seems very strange to me is that universities are required to deal with cases concerning such serious a crime as rape? what about sanctions prescribed by penal code and criminal law?

  7. #7

    There you go again, Amanda, using the word "rape" in the title of the post while subsequently qualifying your intended meaning by calling it "sexual assault." I do remember you made a retraction on that point in the Jungle thread, at least insofar as a statistical figure was concerned.

    If someone is found guilty of committing a rape, and if the determination of their guilt was done justly, it would be by verdict in a criminal court. In that case, continued enrollment at a university is irrelevant, because there will be a criminal sentence as a result of the conviction.

    What we have here is a failure to communicate -- Amanda's failure in particular. The reason why college students accused of rape are getting let off with a "slap on the wrist" is because the "determination of their responsibility" is really just a board of inquiry that doesn't afford them the same rights as criminal defendants. It's a sham, and different rules are applied within a university setting to determine guilt or responsibility compared to the rules in a real criminal court (you know, where defendants have actual constitutional rights). Those different rules are basically whatever the board of inquiry says they are, and they're enforced as arbitrarily as the board of inquiry desires for them to be enforced.

    Seems to me that if there was an actual rape that occurred, the policy of the university should be simple: if any student is convicted in criminal court for a sexual assault, then this or that consequence shall follow.

  8. #8

    John, did you read what happened in the cases described? THOSE ARE RAPE.

    And, requiring that victims be able to get criminal convictions against their assailants in order to have the school take action is TOTALLY unrealistic--do you realize how few rapes actually get prosecuted?

    Furthermore, universities expel students for "honor code violations" like plagiarizing a paper without going through criminal courts. If the university judicial system is strong enough to expel a student for plagiarism, why isn't it strong enough to expel a student for rape?

  9. #9

    You know, those all caps really are compelling and persuasive. Sometimes I just don't know if I'll be able to compose a retort when faced with such relentless logic.

  10. #10

    All right, then, with normal capitalization:

    The four situations described in the article involve women who were forced to have sex against their will:

    1) "According to his victim, the student had seen her crying and drunk in the hallway, followed her into her dorm room, and forced sex on her as she passed in and out of consciousness."

    2) "A junior at Bowdoin College 'reported being raped by a baseball player in her dorm after an alcohol-soaked party.'”

    3) "A Penn State student reported being raped by a classmate in an off-campus apartment. Her assailant, who was found responsible for 'nonconsensual oral sex' and 'nonconsensual intercourse,' had his degree delayed for one year."

    4) "The same student who had cornered her while drunk and crying, the woman wrote, 'has come into my room on two occasions and forced himself upon me.'"

    These meet the legal definition of rape, and are therefore rape.

  11. #11

    and this seems to clearly reflect the difference between plagiarism and rape. plagiarism as you say is violation of a “honor code" and as such should be treated by the institution which requires its members to comply with such a code. rape, on the other hand, is a serious violation of "criminal code" and must be treated accordingly. it is rather obvious that these are two markedly different sets of rules and potential violations carry different consequences.
    furthermore, as i think it was already said, a person found guilty of a crime would be subjected to sanctions which would make studying on the same course with the victim of said crime quite improbable.
    for these reasons my main concern would be the process that those who are "responsible for alleged sexual assaults" must go through and the conduct of university boards while dealing with such cases.

  12. #12

    but all these are accounts given by alleged victims, and as such must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in the court of law (as opposed to decision made by some university panel) before a person who allegedly committed those acts could be subjected to any sanctions.

  13. #13

    Yeah, I dropped out after being raped my freshman year- six years later, I still struggle with PTSD and related depression, and I still don't have my degree. I was smart, too...

  14. #14

    John Dias- Staunch defender of capitalization, staunch enemy of reading comprehension.

  15. #15

    Raf, is there any reason why rape can't be prohibtied by a university honor code in addition to criminal codes? A university honor code is a set of rules as to behavior that will not be accepted at the school. It often includes things like cheating, plagarim and drug and alcohol use - offense that may or may not also constitute a crime. What is wrong with a school saying that sexual assualt will not be tolerated, and those who perpetrate it will be asked to leave?

  16. #16

    raf,

    What you are forgetting is that institutions that receive any federal funding are required under Title IX to address sex discrimination on campus. Sex discrimination includes sexual harassment and sexual assault. Because of this federal law, educational institutions are required to investigate any charge of sexual harassment and assault, whether or not it is reported to police. There is no law requiring victims of sexual assault to report their assaults. Obviously, rape is a serious crime no matter where it happens. But if it happens on a college campus and the institution ignores it, or waits until a criminal trial has concluded in order to take action (which could not come until after the victim's graduation date), it is also sex discrimination under federal law.

    Now, that's not to say that these schools are in any way required to find the accused responsible for any charge brought against them. But when they do find the accused responsible through their own judicial process, they are required to remedy the discrimination in a way that removes a hostile environment from campus, prevents future assaults, and restores the victims' lives.

    I am aware of no similar federal laws that relate to plagiarism. Schools are not legally required to punish plagiarism on campus; they are legally required to punish rape.

  17. #17

    Jenny, i totally agree with you, there is no reason, and definitely there is nothing wrong with educational institutions requiring students to behave in certain ways and in allowing such institutions to take certain steps in cases involving sexual assault. however, here we are dealing with allegations of serious sexual misconduct which being a criminal offence could lead to serious consequences for the alleged perpetrators. for that reason such cases should be examined in certain manner - through the courts of law. clearly, universities should have (and i believe they do have) certain powers to deal with those found guilty of alleged crimes. in any case, in democratic society the criminal code and the idea of due process should always prevail over some "code of conduct" respected by one institution or another.

  18. #18

    amanda,
    thanks for your comment.
    i am very well aware of the duties placed on universities under the title ix. as i already mentioned, i am mostly interested in the scope of powers and extent of different measures that educational institution might be allowed to implement in order to secure safe and free from sex discrimination environment without infringing at the same time on basic rights of those directly concerned. however, answering to that question would probably involve deeper analysis of legal principles involved and is quite beyond my abilities. nevertheless, it seems to me that any calls for outright expulsion on mere allegations are a bit to harsh and it could be the case that institutions which would decide to implement such treatment might leave themselves open to litigation brought by unfairly expelled students.

  19. #19

    “The university will kick out a student believed to be a threat,” CPI reports. But according to Indiana University officials, ‘that does not mean that every single person found responsible for sexual assault gets expelled. They’re not all predators.’”

    UH. They kinda are.

  20. #20

    I prob shouldn't post this but fuck it:

    At Virginia Tech, I got charged with 17 misdemeanors and two feolonies, expelled, banned from all VT property for life, and thrown in prison for two months after an anti-campus rape political action and then the school didn't give much of a shit when Marcus Vick sexually assaulted a 15-year-old girl. Shit, I still remember that the university tried to pressure Take Back The Night to stop a woman from getting on the podium and talking about having been sexually assaulted in her dorm because it was an unresolved case (i.e., a case they had no intention of resolving).

    They do not give a shit and they will do whatever they can to cover this up.

    The kicker is they just sent me something asking if I wanted to buy a fucking class ring.

  21. #21

    Legba, I have some GBLTQ friends who go to Tech (and in the school's defense, they love it most of the time) and they have been treated appallingly badly by the administration. It doesn't surprise me at all that this go-fuck-yourself attitude extends to rape victims and TBTN. Frankly, it seems to extend to anyone who isn't a straight, white, male engineering student.

  22. #22

    I unfortunately am one of the many who saw their rapist happily graduate while I now suffer living the consequences of being raped and having an indifferent school administration. It is infuriating that for so long people care more about protecting the rights of rapists over the rights of victims (i.e. right to education) and protecting a school's reputation over a survivor.

    I'm glad this issue is getting more attention and hopefully something concrete will come out of it.

  23. #23

    Waga wrote (#22):

    "I unfortunately am one of the many who saw their rapist happily graduate while I now suffer living the consequences of being raped and having an indifferent school administration. It is infuriating that for so long people care more about protecting the rights of rapists over the rights of victims (i.e. right to education) and protecting a school’s reputation over a survivor."

    You know what? There ought to be a law against rape. Someone should do something about that.

  24. #24

    i assume that by saying "the rights of rapists over the rights of victims (i.e. right to education)" you meant rights of "alleged" rapists over the rights of "alleged" victims. and it seems to me that both should have the same rights, not only in respect of education.

  25. #25

    raf, if society is so focused on maintaining rapes as "alleged" and putting up immense institutional barriers to pursuing, investigating, and prosecuting rapists to go from "alleged" to "convicted," it is by definition a violation of victims' rights.

  26. #26

    LeftSidePositive, one day, you or your son/daughter could wake up as "alleged rapist". would you be still so hasty to remove the distinction between "alleged" and "found guilty of"? would you be happy to pack your bags and remove yourself from the campus with the tag "rapist" in your cv? would you be happy to see the future career of your child ruined on mere allegation of some misconduct? i doubt it.
    to clarify my point i would say that i generally agree with you but consider this. if society would be focused on “punishing alleged ...” and not on pursuing, investigating, and prosecuting rapists then in some cases it would violate rights of "alleged ..." and such abandoning of basic institutional safeguards could turn into violation of rights of all individuals. the notion of due process is a cornerstone of all democratic societies; read kafka's "trial" to see what could happen once it is removed.

  27. #27

    raf--I never said judicial procedure should be eliminated. I just said victims' access to it shouldn't be blocked.

    And yes, universities do have MUCH higher standards of behavior than the world at large. Going to a university (especially a good one) is a privilege. It can be revoked on much lower standards than a criminal conviction--see the plagiarism issue mentioned before. And, in all of the cases presented, the university DID find that there was significant evidence to meet their judicial affairs standards, they just did not take sufficient disciplinary action.

  28. #28

    LeftSidePositive wrote (#25):

    "if society is so focused on maintaining rapes as 'alleged' and putting up immense institutional barriers to pursuing, investigating, and prosecuting rapists to go from 'alleged' to 'convicted,' it is by definition a violation of victims' rights."

    LeftSidePositive is a female feminist leftist ideologue (or "FFLI"). I try to treat infestations of FFLIs by opening up a can of FLR (facts, logic and reason). Some FFLIs, however, are of the resistant strain and just won't bug off.

    Justice is so oppressive, isn't it, LSP?

  29. #29

    I go to a small liberal arts college in Illinois, where a lot of these same discussions are happening now. My good friend was accused of raping another student. He was immediately expelled and wasn't allowed any kind of appeal process, which I have my own troubles with. No one can know what happened in that bedroom except for the two of them, so I refrain from making judgments about what may or may not have happened as to honor everyone involved. However, to the point--his expulsion still hasn't helped the victim much, unfortunately. The high profile the expulsion created on our tiny campus of 1300 people has only made the experience more traumatizing for her (so I've heard from friends of hers). I don't know who she is, but since the incident happened, several other students have been putting up very large posters, some filled with rape statistics and some filled with hateful anti-Greek and anti-male sentiments. I've talked to rape and assault victims I know personally, and all of them I have talked to feel that the whole issue was approached insensitively. Now, every time they walk to class, they are reminded of the times they were assaulted.
    A little tangential, but I think it's interesting how different small schools work from larger universities.

  30. #30

    Let's highlight this very important point: "No one can know what happened in that bedroom except for the two of them, so I refrain from making judgments about what may or may not have happened as to honor everyone involved."

    This is EXACTLY the attitude that allows the "undetected rapist" to thrive. Yes, rape that does not involve lots of overtly violent injury is very difficult to study forensically. True, there isn't a "consent molecule." BUT, this kind of attitude that oh, let's just throw up our hands and give up on knowing IS WHY some men feel they can rape women with impunity. It's up to our whole society to address this issue...whether that's with forensics, with better investigation techniques, with psychological assessments, etc. But just saying, "we can't know who raped someone so let's just leave it at that" is not acceptable.

    By the way, what *was* the judicial process involved? Exactly how immediately was he expelled? The next morning? After a hearing? What did he claim happened? You say he couldn't appeal...but how was the decision arrived at in the first place?

    And, frankly, I don't think "someone might be reminded of it" is not an acceptable reason to limit on free speech, or to avoid prosecution/accountability for crime.

  31. #31

    LeftSidePositive, it seems to me that you have a very unusual (at least to me) understanding of the phrase "judicial process". what exactly is "judicial process" in your opinion?
    i would like to believe that we all agree on the point that rape and any form of sexual harassment or mere fear of it is unacceptable and should be eradicated from our lives. the problem is what methods shall be used in order to achieve this goal in a manner that is firm and fair to all concerned.
    what you are proposing (or seem to agree with) is getting dangerously close to an unacceptable practices of victimising people and punishing them for an alleged offences without a legal trial also known as lynching. and it seems to me that this cannot be perceived as fair in any circumstances whether the alleged offence is rape, murder or mere shoplifting.
    in other words, it is not the universities standards that i am concerned with but standards of their, as you call it "judicial procedures", their transparency and fairness towards all concerned no matter whether their claim to be victim or a perpetrator.
    btw, you are using caps again :-)

  32. #32

    Raf, universities NEVER need a criminal trial to expel someone, for any offense. If a university student cheats on an exam, they're expelled WITHOUT a criminal trial. If a student copies a paper, they're expelled WITHOUT a criminal trial. If a student steals from another student, the university metes out sanctions (which may include expulsion) WITHOUT a criminal trial. Why are you so determined that rape should be so much more difficult to respond to?

    In the last four posts (this one included), I've capitalized exactly 2.58% of the words I've used. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

  33. #33

    John Dias, if you are capable of any logic or reason I have yet to see it. All you do is cite methodologically flawed studies, spin ridiculous gender 1950s gender archetypes and call them "facts," and base your arguments off an incredibly poor understanding of legal definitions.

    Let's also remember that I've obliterated your position on every debate we've had, to the point that you're reduced to pathetically whining about how assertive women are.

  34. #34

    LeftSidePositive, 2.58%, are you serious? according to my calculations it was 2.64%. no, seriously i think you are right, it is a bit ridiculous. :-)
    as for the rest of your post, do you really think that plagiarising or cheating on exams and raping someone are comparable offences? do you really think that it is ok to treat similarly an alleged exam cheat and an alleged rapist?
    because in my opinion these are very different offences. and if i might be quite ok with some internal university procedures dealing with cases of exam cheating; i feel very strongly that the seriousness of offences against persons like rape cries for much more robust and impartial mechanism. and to respond directly to your post i would say that it should not be harder to respond to allegations of rape but such a response should come swiftly from appropriate and most suitable institution, namely law enforcement agency.

  35. #35

    raf, this is a classic avoidance mechanism. I'm sure you know how difficult it is to prosecute a rape. I'm sure you know that many DA's just don't bother, and tell victims to give up. I'm sure you know that rape kits go untested. I'm sure you know that the criminal justice system takes a very long time to handle almost anything.

    A university taking action in no way PREVENTS criminal law enforcement from enforcing the law as well. Universities have an obligation to punish the much more serious crime of rape AT LEAST as much as they do cheating. Law enforcement should also pursue an investigation seriously and lock a convicted perpetrator up, but in the real world that doesn't always happen. That doesn't excuse a university from failing to do their part to keep their campuses safe.

  36. #36

    avoidance mechanism? a classic one?! what do you mean? could you be more specific? because it seems to me that i am responding to your arguments much more directly than you are responding to mine.
    above all, universities do not have any obligation "to punish the much more serious crime of rape"! they are not there to punish any crime at all! as a matter of fact i do not understand what are you talking about? are you saying that it is ok to punish a crime without proper judicial supervision?! i'm sorry, i'm european and maybe that's why i cannot see how this could be considered ok. for me what you are advocating is some serious violation of basic rights of every citizen in a democratic society! and you are deluding yourself thinking that such a violation would make lives of rape victims any easier or that it would make rape disappear from our lives.
    yes, you are right the system does not work perfectly, as a matter of fact there are many things that could change but this calls for reform and improvement of that system and not for lynches.

  37. #37

    Raf, this is nonsense. Title IX very clearly states the Universities DO have the obligation to take action against rape. It's quoted in the article.

    As for: "above all, universities do not have any obligation “to punish the much more serious crime of rape”! they are not there to punish any crime at all! as a matter of fact i do not understand what are you talking about?"

    Yes, they do! Universities have Honor Codes. They have judicial affairs departments. They have a vital role in maintaining campus integrity and sanctioning the behavior of those that disrupt the campus environment and ethics.

    And, there is no basic right to go to a particular university. That is a privilege. You only get to go to a particular university if you meet their entrance requirements, you maintain their standards of academic achievement, and you uphold the standards of appropriate behavior within that community. Some universities even expel students for getting drunk or wearing revealing clothing--there is no requirement that a university (an independent academic organization) restrict its disciplinary measures within its organization to that which has been confirmed by criminal courts.

    The avoidance mechanism refers to the fact that you are advocating AGAINST taking a reasonable and helpful step to prevent impunity for rapists, because you claim that a more ideal action be taken, when you know full well that it can't be in many cases. It's "passing the buck."

  38. #38

    Local prosecutors are already vested with the responsibility of bringing charges against rape suspects, and they're armed with far more potent legal powers than merely suspension. Why not bring the charges to the attention of the local prosecutor or district attorney?

    The answer: because the charges are likely bogus on their face, which is why the prosecutor has elected not to step in. Otherwise, the whole sham of a university-led investigation wouldn't be necessary. The purpose of university-led investigations is not to ensure safety, because they cannot prevent a rape. Do you get that? A rapist can walk on to any college campus, whether permitted to be there or not. He or she need not be motivated by graduation, but rather a criminal intention. Suspension will not stop a rapist. That's why it's safe to assume that the real motivation behind these kangaroo courts is to give women unquestioned leverage to ruin an INNOCENT man's life (i.e. his reputation, and his academic prospects) at her leisure. Why would she do such a thing? There are a variety of reasons, chief of which are:

    1. Covering up shame arising from her own licentious behavior, such as public drunkenness or sexual indiscretion (both of which are frequent occurrences by women and men on college campuses).

    2. Punishing a man who has consensual sex with her, but later rejects her.

    3. Using the accusation of rape to make sense of a consensual sexual encounter that she was too drunk at the time to clearly remember.

    If there really was a rape, then why not report it to the criminal authorities, who have far more effective training at criminal investigations than some university employee who merely "hears both sides of the story?" The reason is to ensure that the accused receives a punishment no matter what the circumstances.

  39. #39

    And John Dias continues his disgraceful misinformation and rape apologism.

    I've already discussed in great detail the difficulty of getting the criminal justice system to take rape seriously, and to pursue an investigation. Only 40% of rapes are reported, and from there it's only a 40% chance of prosecution. Add to that invasive medical exams and fear of authority, many of whom can be extremely hostile to women. And you're telling me the only reason someone wouldn't report a rape is that it didn't happen? Without that key point, the rest of your conclusions fall apart completely. It's just your usual misogynistic victim-blaming bullshit.

    By the way, if someone is too drunk to remember the event (#3), they are not capable of giving consent, and thus any sexual act done to them IS RAPE.

  40. #40

    ok, let me "pass the buck" again. what you seem to be constantly trying to avoid is an issue of finding out who is "the rapist" and who is not. this issue is directly connected with mentioned by me notion of "basic right". in other words, i do not think that going to particular educational institution is anybody's right but i do think that presumption of innocence is such a right and that every individual have such a right to impartial and fair trial in the court of law, and not, as it was said earlier, "kangaroo court". (on the other hand this reminds me of a story from NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/nyregion/25courts.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)
    now, as you can see, i am constantly bragging about very basic rights in very general manner. that is because i am familiar with american law only to a very limited extent. however, you seem very well informed on these matters ("Title IX very clearly states the Universities DO have the obligation to take action against rape. It’s quoted in the article."). could you please be more specific and provide me with exact citation referring to relevant part of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. thank you.

  41. #41

    raf, the sanctions meted out by the school is totally different than the sentencing of the criminal justice system. The university can expel someone, but not lock them up. So, whether or not a university finds (by their standards of conduct, in conjunction with their obligations under Title IX) that a person violated the safety and integrity of the campus environment is not the same as finding someone guilty in a criminal trial. People are fired from jobs all the time for offenses that don't actually go to criminal trial (or they do later), because the independent organization/business couldn't function if it had to wait for the criminal justice system to enforce its personnel decisions.

    Title IX's general statement of purpose is: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" and sexual assault (and a lack of institutional attention to it) has been established as a form of sex discrimination.

    This is clarified by other laws such as Title XX, 1092, The Clery Act, named for a student who was raped and murdered:

    (8)
    (A) Each institution of higher education participating in any program under this subchapter and part C of subchapter I of chapter 34 of title 42 shall develop and distribute as part of the report described in paragraph (1) a statement of policy regarding—
    (i) such institution’s campus sexual assault programs, which shall be aimed at prevention of sex offenses; and
    (ii) the procedures followed once a sex offense has occurred.
    (B) The policy described in subparagraph (A) shall address the following areas:
    (i) Education programs to promote the awareness of rape, acquaintance rape, and other sex offenses.
    (ii) Possible sanctions to be imposed following the final determination of an on-campus disciplinary procedure regarding rape, acquaintance rape, or other sex offenses, forcible or nonforcible.
    (iii) Procedures students should follow if a sex offense occurs, including who should be contacted, the importance of preserving evidence as may be necessary to the proof of criminal sexual assault, and to whom the alleged offense should be reported.
    (iv) Procedures for on-campus disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual assault, which shall include a clear statement that—
    (I) the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a campus disciplinary proceeding; and
    (II) both the accuser and the accused shall be informed of the outcome of any campus disciplinary proceeding brought alleging a sexual assault.
    (v) Informing students of their options to notify proper law enforcement authorities, including on-campus and local police, and the option to be assisted by campus authorities in notifying such authorities, if the student so chooses.
    (vi) Notification of students of existing counseling, mental health or student services for victims of sexual assault, both on campus and in the community.
    (vii) Notification of students of options for, and available assistance in, changing academic and living situations after an alleged sexual assault incident, if so requested by the victim and if such changes are reasonably available.

    By the way: in future, do your own googling.

  42. #42

    in other words the universities have to make sure that there are some procedures which make appropriate authorities aware of potential incidents; make sure that the accuser and the accused are entitled to the same opportunities to have others present during a campus disciplinary proceeding and there are "options for, and available assistance in, changing academic and living situations after an alleged sexual assault incident, if so requested by the victim and if such changes are reasonably available."
    so what is the problem then? is it the number of those found responsible for alleged misconduct? or maybe (as someone said earlier) you really feel that justice is so oppressive? just because something is not the way you want it to be does not mean that it is unfair.
    btw, i asked you for citation because you seemed to be well aware of the content of the act and i did not see a point in looking for something that you already found. but in the future i will remember that some people prefer to keep their knowledge to themselves.

  43. #43

    Kooky Bird wrote (#39):

    And John Dias continues his disgraceful misinformation and rape apologism.

    It's not rape apologism if you're opposing false allegations of rape.

    Only 40% of rapes are reported

    I challenge that. If you know the number against which the percentage is applied, then why extrapolate at all?

    And you’re telling me the only reason someone wouldn’t report a rape is that it didn’t happen?

    I provided reasons why non-rapes could be mischaracterized as rapes. But here you've added another source of rapes, namely those that never get reported. By that standard of evidence, false allegations of rape also are vastly underreported. You can determine the merit of an allegation based on how law enforcement, prosecutors and juries weight the allegation. With 85 percent of rape allegations in the U.S. failing to result in a conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics), that tells you something about what people think when they're privy to the actual evidence of a particular case (rather than ideologues who issue blanket statements about how steeped we are in a "rape culture"). We're steeped in a statist culture, infused with an excess of sexuality and shame, and it's these factors that result in both false allegations of rape and genuine rapes.

    Without that key point, [false allegations are prevalent] the rest of your conclusions fall apart completely.

    Your conclusions are not based upon evidence, but rather your warped ideology that a victim exists wherever an allegation of victimhood exists (and sometimes, even when no allegation has been made -- sometimes even when the "victim" expressly refutes the allegation).

    It’s just your usual misogynistic victim-blaming bullshit.

    There's no rape victim where there was no rape. But you never consider that possibility (in runs contrary to your victim-based ideology.

    By the way, if someone is too drunk to remember the event (#3), they are not capable of giving consent, and thus any sexual act done to them IS RAPE.

    All caps! Oh no!!! Why don't they arrest and prosecute the woman, then? If both consented and both were drunk, why is the consenting man accused instead of the consenting woman?

  44. #44

    John Dias fails miserably (yet again!!) to understand the concept of a logical argument:

    "With 85 percent of rape allegations in the U.S. failing to result in a conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics), that tells you something about what people think when they’re privy to the actual evidence of a particular case"

    THIS IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Total fucking shitheads (yes, moderators, I do think that's necessary!) like you who think that "the actual evidence of a particular case" includes such victim-blaming bullshit as "what was the victim wearing?" "was she drinking?" "did she go on a date with him?" "did she have sex before?" "if she didn't fight 'hard enough' (whatever that means) she must have 'secretly wanted it'" and other patriarchal nonsense that has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with whether or not she consented to a particular sex act.

    Here is an excellent example of a blatantly (admittedly!) guilty perpetrator getting off the hook EVEN THOUGH THE VICTIM SAID "NO" REPEATEDLY.

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/28/sexist-beatdown-no-means-yes-not-just-for-frat-dudes-anymore/

    And then you have the effrontery to say that because our society fails to take rape seriously, and makes disgusting excuses for perpetrators, that this means that rape can't possibly be a serious problem? Talk about circular reasoning!

    Please shut the fuck up about "even if the 'victim' refutes the allegation." Do you think it's clever? No one here was ever convinced by that fallacy for a second. We have heard OVER and OVER again on these boards about how difficult it is for rape victims to come to terms with the word "rape." Posters here have been brave enough to share their very personal stories about what happened to them and why it's so hard to admit to oneself that one has been raped. NONE of these people deny that they were forced to have sex against their will, they had just been brainwashed and pressured by society (e.g. Whoopi Goldberg's "not rape-rape") that they don't deserve to call what happened to them rape. It DOES NOT MEAN that they are okay with what happened, and often these incidents lead to some very, very broken lives.

    As for #3--why can't you understand this? If she is too drunk to remember, she CANNOT POSSIBLY consent. Consent means you actually have sufficient faculties to make a decision. And don't give me the "he was drunk too." If both people were that drunk there wouldn't be any sex...just too passed-out drunk people.

  45. #45

    ok, i was just about to post this:
    "LeftSidePositive, john dias makes few very interesting points in relation to your quantitative claims (and their theoretical grounding); before i side with him i would like to hear your response, please (obviously if that's not too much trouble for you). but please be as direct as possible? thank you"
    but now, after i've seen your response (#44) i don't think i need any explanation whatsoever. you've explained FUCKING everything and maybe even more. john dias might have failed "miserably (yet again!!) to understand the concept of a logical argument" but you failed miserably in explaining why you think this is the case. thank you very much

  46. #46

    raf, your objection makes no sense. John Dias was making a very foolish circular argument (because our society doesn't take convicting rapists seriously, rape can't be a serious problem so therefore we don't have to take convicting rapists seriously).

    What exactly is unclear to you?

  47. #47

    Apparently it is a feminist act for a juror to vote for a guilty verdict in a rape trial; to do otherwise is to exude misogyny.

  48. #48

    John Dias, I hope this isn't too personal, but...are you white? If so, the chances of you ever being falsely accused of rape are even lower than they would otherwise be, and your chances of being falsely convicted are pretty much nil. If you're doing all this just because you're afraid of being falsely accused, you don't need to be. You're not in danger. You can stop.
    If, however, you're righteously getting up in arms about how racism in our society causes men of color to be falsely accused of crimes (black men in particular when it comes to rape), you might be able to make more inroads working with the anti-racism movement than the men's rights movement, which overwhelmingly tends to be rich white guys who are bitter about losing their advantages and privilege. Just a thought.

  49. #49

    objecting to foul language makes no sense to you? well it makes sense to me. your explanation of the "circular argument" shows pretty well that you misunderstood the argument; but yet again it betrays tendency in your thinking to beg the question.

  50. #50

    Melissa, ever heard of the Hofstra case? Duke Lacrosse? There are numerous cases of men being falsely accused, and the male victims of such false allegations are racially diverse and come from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life.

    By the way, a fair trial and a just verdict are not "privileges" for any defendant.

  51. LeftSidePositive
    #51

    Oh, yay! John Dias thought up two false cases in the last FOUR YEARS. That's so significant!!

    No one is saying false accusations are non-existant; they are just very rare. Your default assumption that a victim is lying is disgusting, and is a major factor in why so few victims come forward. And then you have the nerve to say, "Oh, anyone who really is a victim could so easily report the rape to police and get a conviction."

    Furthermore, trials where questions like "was she thrown against the bed so hard that she bounced?" or "had she been drinking?" or "had she had sex before?" are considered more seriously than the fact that THE VICTIM SAID NO are not "fair trials." They are exercises in victim-blaming, and award disgusting privilege to men over women who society decides aren't "good enough" for human rights.

  52. LeftSidePositive
    #52

    raf, you'll actually have to make a claim about what you think I misunderstood in John Dias's argument. Just saying you think I misunderstood is not particularly convincing.

  53. #53

    at least i'm not swearing; see #47 for clues.

  54. #54

    Kooky Bird wrote (#51):

    Your default assumption that a victim is lying is disgusting, and is a major factor in why so few victims come forward. And then you have the nerve to say, “Oh, anyone who really is a victim could so easily report the rape to police and get a conviction.”

    Well, if punishment is sought against the accused, then basic notions of fairness and justice should afford the accused with the presumption of innocence, specifically because a particular allegation might be fabricated or inaccurate. The concept of justice does not work just for defendants; it also works for victims. Genuine victims get justice when the accused is punished, and innocent defendants get justice by avoiding punishment; that's justice. If you value justice, then you don't weight the story told by accusers any higher than the claim of non-guilt by defendants, and vice-versa. Ever visit the Supreme Court? There's a statue out in front of a blindfolded woman holding scales. The woman represents justice, the parties to a case occupy opposing sides of the scale, and the woman's blindfold prevents her from favoring one side over the other. That's why they say "justice is blind;" it refers to basic fairness, granting no undue advantage to either opponent. (Incidentally, I often get the feeling that feminists display the blindfolded women on their propaganda to imply that she is blindfolded due to an attacker or some form of violent coercion, which illustrates just how foreign the concept of justice is to ideologues like them.)

    Which is worse:
    a. A genuine victim's fear for her reputation if she reports her attacker?
    b. An innocent man's reputation being destroyed because of a false accuser's allegations?

    If justice is blind, then the answer is neither -- the reputation of the accuser and the accused are equally as valuable and worthy of receiving justice. So don't tell me that the accuser has it worse because he or she has to rouse up the courage to make the accusation at all; a falsely convicted defendant endures shame that is just as great (if not far greater).

    In my opinion, it is worse to convict the innocent than to let the guilty go free. That's why I emphasize giving defendants all of the rights available to the criminally charged, not because I am insensitive to the justice that victims seek. I just think that a victim's fear is not more important than a falsely convicted defendant's pain.

  55. LeftSidePositive
    #55

    Ah, I see raf has no actual point to make, and no plausible claim to make against my argument.

    And, really, you look incredibly stupid getting worked up about swearing--have you seen the language used on this blog (including by the writer!). We're grownups here. Too bad for you if you can't handle it. But, whining about strong language used for emphasis of salient points just shows that you are unable to deal with the points themselves.

    As for #47, I've already addressed in #44 and #51 why John Dias's absurd rantings about the predisposition of rape trials for the victim is ludicrous.

  56. #56

    @LeftSidePositive: Don't you know? It was your *tone*! And now you ruined the totally possible probability of having raf as an ally! Oh, had you just been demure, patient and submissive like it becomes a woman! Then raf might have been generous enough to lend you his ear.
    See also: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#hostile
    Point three "You're being hostile"

  57. #57

    raf is a women who used to live in abusive relationship and who does not think that swearing is a good way of communicating anything to anybody. as a matter of fact raf was arguing with LSP from the very beginning certain aspects of her commentaries and it was rather clear from the outset that there was no way of having raf as an ally in these matters. but yes you are right LSP was a bit hostile and simply rude but her arguments had some merits while you are just plain silly.

  58. LeftSidePositive
    #58

    Then why on earth is raf on this blog if they (since raf is "a women") are so offended by swearing and strong language?

    Pardon me, but the "oh & I'm a women, pity me" claim is a bit suspect since 1) it hasn't come up before in this discussion, and 2) the entire focus of raf's argument seems to be advocating eliminating avenues of aid to victimized people and casting excessive doubt upon them.

    Oh, and btw, I just noticed #42, it hadn't shown up before. The problem is not with the statutes as written, it is that they are not being followed, or that the disciplinary measures are not sufficient given the gravity of the offense.

    What's more, looking up and citing sources takes time and effort, even if you're reasonably familiar with the subject matter. It is simply rude to expect other people to do your research for you.

  59. LeftSidePositive
    #59

    John Dias,

    You're being willfully obtuse. The victim of a rape doesn't only "fear for her reputation," but going through a highly invasive collection of medical evidence (for which in many states she might be billed!), the trauma of reporting the event to authorities--both in reliving the event and in facing overt hostility from those who are supposed to protect her, the risk of being denied health insurance, and the upheaval of one's life that comes from pursuing a court case are all very significant barriers for many people.

    Furthermore, very few rape cases even GET to the prosecution stage. Of only *reported* rapes, only 40% get that far. How can you be so cavalier about not granting an "undue advantage" when often times rape kits won't even be tested, and District Attorneys will refuse to pursue a case if the victim was known to the attacker or if she had been drinking? I think the rapist *clearly* has an "undue advantage" in this whole procedure.

  60. LeftSidePositive
    #60

    Dorothy, that link you cited is BRILLIANT!!

    raf is also engaging in #1, expecting someone else to educate them!

  61. #61

    "How can you be so cavalier about not granting an 'undue advantage'

    Here's where I used the phrase "undue advantage" (in post #54):

    "That's why they say 'justice is blind;' it refers to basic fairness, granting no undue advantage to either opponent."

    Apparently, it is now cavalier even to insist on a general basis that justice be blind. Who is being cavalier?

  62. #62

    ok LSP, i am not getting worked up by your language and as a matter of fact the only one who seemed to be worked up is you. i simply refuse to talk to individuals who tend to get so easily worked up. the reason for this being that such worked up individuals tend to hear very little from what others have to say. not surprisingly you see only what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. thus, throughout my posts there is a single line of argument which is quite simply spelled out by john dias in #54. obviously you don't see that thread, but that's pretty much it; you might not agree with this notion of justice and i am glad to say, that i am totally indifferent to your opinion.
    furthermore i find some of your comments almost amusing: "...PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Total fucking shitheads..." and that's in your opinion is "strong language used for emphasis of salient points" and me whining about such a language "just shows that you are unable to deal with the points themselves". you know what, you are right i am totally speechless and i admit i am unable to deal with your points.
    don't be ridiculous, you sound like a rebelling teenager not like an adult.

  63. #63

    John Dias,

    That's what #59 was trying to tell you: "undue advantage" is already fundamentally a part of the system and it benefits THE RAPIST. I've already gone into why this is so, from victim-blaming defense attorneys and juries, investigational inertia and prosecutorial apathy.

    The rate of acquittal in rape trials is 42% (and that's only the ones that go to trial! The rate of the rapist walking free in all reported rapes is 76%). The approximate rate of false accusations is about 2%.

    SOMETHING IS FUCKED UP.

    And you seem to think that any effort to bring the other 74% (in reported incidents only, mind you!) of rapists to justice is giving rape victims an "undue advantage"? Fuck you.

  64. LeftSidePositive
    #64

    raf, grow up. You're commenting on a blog where the author uses "fuck" and "shit" regularly, and yet you're shocked--SHOCKED!--that others do too?

    You're a classic example of the "you're being hostile" derailer that Dorothy so brilliantly pointed out.

    And yes, John Dias is a total fucking shithead. I wholeheartedly stand by that assessment. This is a man who has claimed on various posts on this blog that only "forcible" rape is "real" rape, a man has no obligation to get consent from a woman he has sex with, that a man who has sex with a woman against her will should face no consequences if the victim didn't react in the "right" way (whatever the fuck that is!), that a victim who is too traumatized to call what happened to her "rape" (and we've heard from numerous victims why this is so hard to do) couldn't possibly have been raped and is therefore fine, that women predominately report rapes because of "regretted" sex, that a woman who is stock still or too terrified to scream or say no is "still trying to decide if she enjoyed it," and that when a woman is forcibly held down and violated against her will it's just "not her ideal sexual experience." "Total fucking shithead" does not even begin to approach (much less adequately describe) the offensiveness of those attitudes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling them (and the bigoted douchebag who airs them) what they are.

  65. #65

    LSP, you are a liar.

  66. #66

    John Dias, I don't particularly want to go back to that thread and copy-paste all those things you said (what a ridiculous waste of time...), but if you insist on claiming that LeftSidePositive, I will. So this is a no-win situation for you. Admit you said those thing, or I will go back and prove it.

  67. #67

    *if you insist on claiming that LeftSidePositive is lying about it, I mean.

  68. #68

    Melissa, just link to the post. Each and every post has the time and date linked to the precise post in question. Doing this provides maximum context, and disempowers you from distorting what was said. I welcome it, every single quote. I dare you to do so, and I stand behind my comments.

  69. #69

    For those curious, the vast majority of these statements come from the "Stroll in the Jungle" thread.

    John Dias, if you're going to claim I'm lying, actually try to defend what you said, what you meant, and how it's different from what I attributed to you.

    You've claimed I was lying before, when you claimed my quotations of you were taken out of context on the "Style Tips from Men's Rights Activists" thread. When I actually challenged you to actually make a case for how I had misrepresented you:

    "HOW, exactly, did the statements I quoted from you inaccurately state your position as a Men’s Rights Activist? "

    you completely disappeared from that thread like the miserable coward that you are.

    In short, you have shockingly misogynistic and victim-blaming, rape-enabling attitudes, but you try to pose as a "reasonable person" to insidiously spread your hateful views. Unfortunately, you've shown your true colors and we will not refrain from showing how toxic and misinformed your world view is.

  70. #70

    "Unfortunately, you’ve shown your true colors and we will not refrain from showing how toxic and misinformed your world view is."

    Now if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

  71. #71

    Oh, looky here, ladies and gentlemen!! John Dias has absolutely no case to make for how he seems to think I've misrepresented his positions!!

    I'm soooooooo surprised!!

  72. #72

    Gotta love that classic rightwing technique of "you took me out of context!!" when the context is actually not in the least bit exculpatory, or, in fact, *worse.*

    Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh do this all the time, so the cleverness is kinda gone (if it was ever there to begin with).

    You see, if someone's words actually are taken out of context, the rest of the statement helps their case, and it's really easy to state what the exculpatory context was. For instance, the following is legitimate:

    Misinformed person: Al Gore said he invented the internet!!

    Informed person: No, that was taken out of context. What he actually said was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system." You see, he was talking about providing the economic and legislative support to make it happen, not doing the networking himself.

    The following, however, is not legitimate:

    Informed person: Rush Limbaugh said that the only reason Democrats care about the crisis in Darfur just to keep black people voting for him.

    Dittohead: But you're taking him out of context!! Don't you listen to his show?!?!?!? You can't know what he really meant if you don't listen to all three hours! You're just part of the liberal media trying to persecute all conservatives!

    Notice the total lack of mitigating factors, and the mysterious "context" somehow never shows up...

  73. #73

    "him" in the second scenario above was supposed to be "them." Sorry about that.

  74. #74

    The thread is right there for anyone to read. Being permanently online, with each and every comment linked, all you have to do is take people to the comment in question. Just post the link! What's so hard about that?

    It's not my job to prove a negative -- to "prove" that I am NOT a bad, bad person. You have made a positive claim, so you support it. The evidence is right there, isn't it? What's so hard about linking precisely to the post in question? Are you afraid that people would say, "Oh, so THAT'S what LSP is quoting from! What's so bad about that?"

    The burden is on YOU, Kookybird. And it's not a hard burden to meet. Just post the link.

  75. #75

    Okay, then. As LeftSidePositive and Melissa have done all the work so far, I think it's only fair that I go and find the quotes.
    I'll start with the ones that women who are too afraid to call what happened to them rape - simply haven't been raped.

    John Dias January 14th, 2010
    2:27 am

    "the issue is that the women involved didn’t consider them rape! [...] who are you to suggest otherwise?

    [..] some research inflates rape figures by disempowering women of the right to describe their own experiences in their own terms."

    John Dias January 14th, 2010
    2:48 am
    "Again, I think that you ought to cut out the ideology and let the women involved described their experiences for themselves."

    John Dias January 14th, 2010
    4:53 am
    "They didn’t think it was rape because it wasn’t rape."

    I really liked this one without all the fancy additions of "let the women decide themselves". (Because, actually let John Dias decide!)
    On to "real rape" vs. "a rather iffy experience":

    John Dias January 14th, 2010
    11:11 am

    "If it’s not such a traumatic experience that you would be affected by it, nor that other (more reasonable, less politically polarized) women would even CALL it “rape,” then why in those particular situations is it as serious to lump in the experience with that of women who were violently beaten and forcibly raped?

    It seems to me that it’s reasonable to conclude that forcible rape — which leaves lifelong scars (and for some, causes life-threatening injuries) — has nothing in common with the Melissa experience. Call it “gray rape” or whatever you like, but you’re conflating a rather iffy experience with the real thing."

    John Dias January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    "I reject your assertion that there is a one-size-fits-all definition of rape, which in your view is whatever the feminist zeitgeist says it is."

    And the last one for now, his answer to "Survey question B and C:
    Survey question B:

    Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you don, etc.) to make you?
    Have you had sex acts (and or oral intercourse or penetrations by objects other than the penis) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down) to make you?

    John Dias January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    "What bothers me about these two questions is that they assume that consent is not given because the desire did not exist. If the man holds the woman down but she doesn’t say no to him in some way during the entire act — if she doesn’t express her lack of consent — then how is he to know that he’s acting contrary to her wishes?

    Men can’t hear what women don’t say. This may be why 3/4 of the supposed rape victims did not consider it fair to describe the experience as rape, because most of them were interacting with acquaintances rather than strangers (possibly a boyfriend or a date), and even during the act may have been trying to decide whether they enjoyed it or not. Deciding after the fact that they didn’t want to, or didn’t prefer being held down, still does not necessarily constitute a moral crime"

  76. #76

    You just can't do it, can you, Dorothy? Simply provide a link to the original post, so that people can read the entire thread for themselves, and make their own judgments. What are you afraid of? Why are you hiding this?

  77. #77

    John Dias, you know perfectly well that posting too many links can lead a post to be rejected.

    You're following the classic Rush Limbaugh trope of "you have to read the ENTIRE thing!!!!" When you know perfectly well that what you said is indefensible, and there was ABSOLUTELY NO mitigating context.

    Thanks, Dorothy, for taking the time to copy & paste. I appreciate it.

  78. #78

    For those curious, here is a link to the post where most of these appeared:

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/01/13/rape-analogy-redux-the-stroll-in-the-jungle-theory/

    You can just do a search function for the time stamp (which Dorothy so diligently provided) and then see the whole thing quite easily.

  79. #79

    I leave analysis of John Dias's pathetic attempts to evade accountability to cracked.com:

    http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/

    "3. The Backtrack

    If you can't unsay something you just realized is horribly wrong, the next best thing is to claim you never said it. This is an extremely ballsy maneuver on a forum without an edit function, and usually forces reliance on the old, 'Oh, you just misinterpreted what I said' maneuver."

    (emphasis mine)

  80. #80

    apparently the formatting tags for emphasis were mistyped, so there's no emphasis. I intended to underline:

    This is an extremely ballsy maneuver on a forum without an edit function

    Which this clearly is, since I have to make a separate post to address my typos!! (argh...)

  81. #81

    Kooky Bird wrote (#77):

    "You know perfectly well that posting too many links can lead a post to be rejected."

    I know that posting a comment containing more than X number of links can send the post into a moderation queue. In fact, I posted a link-laden response to your sanctimony just yesterday, backing up my words with links to the precise posts in question, and it's still not showing up. Either it got deleted or Amanda Hess just doesn't care to remove it from the moderation queue.

    I don't know why you are trying to accuse me of evasion; the internet is a pretty transparent way to demonstrate something. You just provide a link early on, and you can even provide a link to a specific post. If you're concerned about providing too many links in a post (usually 3 or more is too many), then split it up into separate posts. Bottom line, if you want to criticize someone as viscerally as you did to me, it can only enhance your credibility if you provide people with the evidence to the comment that you're criticizing. It's so easy, and by delaying (or refusing), you're expecting all readers to just take your word for it -- not only on the completeness of your quoting, but also on the interpretation. How is anyone to know whether I really said that, or in the way that you claim? Just link!

    Now that you have provided the link (only after I had to goad you), I now challenge you to defend your statements of fact. I grant that you can make statements of opinion (i.e. saying that I'm a misogynist, saying that my opinions are "indefensible"), but opinions generally require no defense. You, however, made some true/false statements in your little rant in post #64 here in this thread:

    a man has no obligation to get consent from a woman he has sex with

    I've never advocated that anyone -- male or female -- should overpower someone against their expressed objections; that is clearly rape. I've also never advocated that someone should sexually take advantage of
    a person who is helpless to resist or object (such as a paralyzed, passed out, or sleeping person); that would clearly be rape too. But it was you who claimed several times in the Jungle thread that it's rape (of course, in all caps) if verbal consent is not expressed prior to the onset of sexual activity. People have sex all the time without verbally expressing their consent. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is a lack of consent (although lack of consent is possible); it just means that in such a situation consent was not expressed verbally. You've expressed your opinion that society expects too much of women, and that it's unfair to ask her merely to say "stop" or "no" or "don't" if she's unwilling. So by following your logic, incarceration for rape should result even when both consenting parties don't express their consent verbally, and more specifically, that it should be the man's job to get consent and it is the man's fault if neither party expressed consent to the other; therefore in your scenario, only the man is incarcerated. Why? In your scenario, it only matters whether the man obtains consent; you've indicated in previous posts that two drunk people couldn't possibly have sex, even though impairment due to intoxication is a matter of degree and physiology. So a drunk woman who has sex with a passed out man is impossible to you; you put the full onus on the man for every sexual encounter. But anyway, back to your accusation above; I have never made such a claim. You just mischaracterized my words in your usual kooky, dishonest way. It is for this reason that I accuse you of lying. It's one thing to perceive something through your own subjective experience and honestly attempt to describe it, but here you've deliberately distorted the truth.

    that a man who has sex with a woman against her will should face no consequences if the victim didn’t react in the “right” way

    Prove to me where I've ever said that men who have sex with an objecting party deserve impunity.

    that a victim who is too traumatized to call what happened to her “rape” (and we’ve heard from numerous victims why this is so hard to do) couldn’t possibly have been raped

    This is the single biggest whopper of all; you are absolutely lying here. I never said that women "couldn't possibly" have been raped if they didn't verbally object; I just don't believe that it's usually all that plausible. You don't usually just "find yourself" totally naked if you're scared out of your wits; there are exceptions of course, but that's the point. The greatest indication that you lied on this point, however, relates to the fact that I was referring to a college survey conducted by feminist researcher Mary Koss and published in 1988. In the Jungle thread, I linked to it, and we had a discussion on it there. In that study, 3/4 of the so-called "victims" (as designated by Koss) specifically indicated that they had NOT been raped. It doesn't get any clearer than that! If they were too scared to object to sex at the time, then while responding to the survey at a later date, wouldn't they feel comfortable indicating that they had been raped? Instead, they responded that they had not been raped. That pretty much nails it right there; they were not rape victims. And here you are STILL questioning whether they mentally consented; they provided their answer, right there in the survey. That is the single biggest bone-headed lie that you've told during that discussion and subsequently, and you continue to malign my character even now. It is you who have a lack of integrity. You.

    that women predominately report rapes because of “regretted” sex

    I have stated that this is a motivation for false allegations of rape, yes. Where it happens, my comment applies to it. Where it doesn't happen (i.e. where a genuine rape victim exists), my comment doesn't apply. I'm not the only one who has posited this motivation, by the way. In the early 1980s, there was a study commissioned by the U.S. Air Force in which scores of women who had made allegations of rape were interviewed about it. Of those, a significant portion openly admitted that they had fabricated the allegations. Of that number, one of the chief reasons cited for making the fabrication was precisely that they felt shame about their consensual encounter (or would feel shame if an affair were discovered by their spouse or boyfriend). This was the cited reason why the non-victim woman in the Hofstra case accused her sexual partners of raping her; she had just had an orgy with them and she wanted to cover up for it because she had a boyfriend (and because it was a pretty raunchy orgy at that). Only when video footage of the event surfaced -- indicating her enthusiastic participation in the alleged "rape" -- did it become obvious that she was lying. Feminists on Feministing.com and Pandagon.net subsequently lamented the so-called "rape culture" that made her so ashamed for her sexual activity that she felt "compelled" to lie about it with a false allegation. I suppose that you're condemning these hardline feminists too, because they were making the same commentary as I was (namely, that some women fabricate rape allegations because they regret a consensual experience afterward).

    that a woman who is stock still or too terrified to scream or say no is “still trying to decide if she enjoyed it,”

    Prove to me that I made such a statement referring to non-consenting women. In fact, I was referring to consenting women (again, they had subsequently indicated their consent in the 1988 Koss survey results) and it was you who attributed non-consent and fear to them. You just can't stop lying.

    when a woman is forcibly held down and violated against her will it’s just “not her ideal sexual experience.”

    Prove to me that I was referring to women who were forcibly held down against their objections. I do acknowledge that some women get off on being held down; sometimes they even verbally request it. In such a situation, there would need to be trust established. If sufficient trust existed, being held down could eventually occur on a routine basis between two consenting adults who enjoyed a sexual encounter of that type. It is a lie for you to misquote me as though I had said that they were forced, that they were unwilling, and that they had expressed their objection and that despite all that, somehow it was acceptable for someone to impose their will on them. Prove to me otherwise. The burden is on you, and the thread in question is now available for all to see.

    You will be exposed for the liar you are.

  82. LeftSidePositive
    #82

    Okay, John Dias…I'll quote you chapter and verse. Be advised, though, that since I've gone to all the time to cite these, I have saved this to a word document so anytime you try to claim on this forum you're not a rape apologist, I will be able to destroy your credibility in under 30 seconds.

    Unless otherwise indicated, all these come from the "Stroll in the Jungle" thread and may be found at:

    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/01/13/rape-analogy-redux-the-stroll-in-the-jungle-theory/

    I've put my summaries in bold, and your actual quotations underneath, and when they apply to two assertions, I have posted them in both places.

    Epic smackdown in 3… 2… 1...

  83. LeftSidePositive
    #83

    This is a man who has claimed on various posts on this blog that only “forcible” rape is “real” rape

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    11:11 am
    It seems to me that it’s reasonable to conclude that forcible rape — which leaves lifelong scars (and for some, causes life-threatening injuries) — has nothing in common with the Melissa experience. Call it “gray rape” or whatever you like, but you’re conflating a rather iffy experience with the real thing.

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    2:24 pm
    If it were truly rape (as I define rape, that is, forcible rape) then there would be scarring and other physical evidence.

  84. LeftSidePositive
    #84

    a man has no obligation to get consent from a woman he has sex with

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    What bothers me about these two questions is that they assume that consent is not given because the desire did not exist. If the man holds the woman down but she doesn’t say no to him in some way during the entire act — if she doesn’t express her lack of consent — then how is he to know that he’s acting contrary to her wishes?

    Men can’t hear what women don’t say.

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    3:01 pm
    Positive consent, eh? So you’re just fine with carrying out a criminal prosecution against a man who was never told “no” or “stop.” You see, I’m not fine with that; I consider it an injustice. I think that it’s unreasonable to impose incarceration just because someone didn’t obtain expressed legal consent prior to the onset of sexual activity.

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    4:59 pm
    In my opinion, asking to stop is more crucial (to justice, and to safety) than asking to begin.

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    8:15 pm
    If, however, there is no resistance, you can proceed. This assumes that you are doing all the assertive actions and that she is merely passively sitting there, acting as the sexual gatekeeper.

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    1:20 pm
    the victim of injustice — the alleged rapist who was unjustly accused, arrested, prosecuted, and socially vilified because he misread the signals before him, never having obtained explicit verbal consent.

    Here, in fact you SPECIFICALLY DISAGREE with someone who thought for a moment you spoke in favor of consent:
    K
    January 15th, 2010
    2:34 pm
    John, I really love how when a “male” name restates an argument that FOUR SEPARATE “FEMALE” NAMES HAVE BEEN MAKING FOR TWO FUCKING DAYS, suddenly it’s all, “Yes, of course I would never want to fuck anyone who didn’t want me to fuck them. What a valid and well-stated argument.”
    Dick.

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    2:36 pm
    No, K. You missed the last statement in my comment: “That requires sensitivity to their needs, and an awareness of WHETHER THEY’RE ENJOYING THE ENCOUNTER. (emphasis in original)

  85. LeftSidePositive
    #85

    that a man who has sex with a woman against her will should face no consequences if the victim didn’t react in the “right” way

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    3:01 pm
    Positive consent, eh? So you’re just fine with carrying out a criminal prosecution against a man who was never told “no” or “stop.” You see, I’m not fine with that; I consider it an injustice. I think that it’s unreasonable to impose incarceration just because someone didn’t obtain expressed legal consent prior to the onset of sexual activity.

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    4:59 pm
    In my opinion, asking to stop is more crucial (to justice, and to safety) than asking to begin.

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    2:06 pm
    If sex occurs and neither party…
* asked the other for permission
* expressed their denial of permission
    …why then should responsibility for the encounter be placed squarely on the man’s shoulders?

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    3:36 pm
    Let me clarify once and for all:
    The Alleged Victim Should Bear Responsibility For Expressing Non-Consent, not the other way around.
    (emphasis in original)

  86. LeftSidePositive
    #86

    that a victim who is too traumatized to call what happened to her “rape” [see below for parenthetical...] couldn’t possibly have been raped and is therefore fine

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    11:11 am
    If it’s not such a traumatic experience that you would be affected by it, nor that other (more reasonable, less politically polarized) women would even CALL it “rape,” then why in those particular situations is it as serious to lump in the experience with that of women who were violently beaten and forcibly raped?

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    1:37 pm
    If the study’s designated rape victims say that they weren’t raped, AND if they had sex with the person that the study bogusly designates as the rapist, then the primary reason for them doing so is because the original act was never rape to begin with.

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    This may be why 3/4 of the supposed rape victims did not consider it fair to describe the experience as rape, because most of them were interacting with acquaintances rather than strangers (possibly a boyfriend or a date), and even during the act may have been trying to decide whether they enjoyed it or not. Deciding after the fact that they didn’t want to, or didn’t prefer being held down, still does not necessarily constitute a moral crime

  87. LeftSidePositive
    #87

    (and we’ve heard from numerous victims why this is so hard to do)

    Toysoldier
    January 14th, 2010
    11:34 am
    Sexual violence does not necessarily work in black and white terms. A person (female or male) can experience what qualifies legally as rape and yet attempt to write it off. The person could go for years thinking nothing of it, believing that the act had no real impact. However, if one were to look at that person’s life, one would likely find a host of failed relationships, difficulty with trusting people, various social interaction issues, drug abuse, sex addiction, co-dependency, etc. A person does not have to call the act “rape” in order for the act to have an impact. A person does not even have to acknowledge the act had an impact for it to actually harm the person’s life.

    Melissa
    January 14th, 2010
    10:49 am
    John, yes of course I know that a lot of the women in the study (and a lot of women in the world) don’t necessarily call their experiences rape, even if they were. This is not me underestimating women or taking away their ability to define their own experiences–indeed, for a lot of people, not using the word “rape” can be a coping skill. Sometimes the thought of having been raped is simply too horrible to deal with, and some recovery (this period can take days, months, years, or forever) is necessary before a person can even handle using that word. The fact is, there are a lot of people (really, A LOT of people) who take many years to actually be able to use the “R” word to describe their experiences, even when it is the only valid and accurate descriptor.
    
For example, I know a man who was raped by a woman. He was extremely drunk and only half conscious, and she had sex with him anyway. Having sex with someone who isn’t fully conscious is rape, full stop. There can be no arguing that point. However, when he told me about it, his exact words, after describing the incident were “I don’t know if it was rape, but…yeah.” To any outside observer…of course it’s rape. But you can’t begin to understand the emotions that go into defining an experience as such.

    As for me, during my rape I certainly knew what it was. I was in shock…all I could think was that I couldn’t believe that this person who I’d trusted was raping me. By later that night, I’d convinced myself not to say anything, for fear of making him mad. By the next day, I’d convinced myself it wasn’t THAT big of a deal…(after all, it’s not like he was a stranger jumping out of the bushes with a knife, he was someone whose apartment I’d entered on my own free will.) By a week later, I’d convinced myself it wasn’t rape. And by a week after that, I’d blocked out the memory that I had ever considered it rape. It wasn’t until over a year later that it all came rushing back one day. I think I subconsciously knew when I was ready to handle the events of that day in full force. But I was a rape victim for a year and a half without calling myself one.
Those are just two stories. There are millions. There are millions of situations, and millions of reasons why a rape victim might not use that word. That doesn’t, however, change the reality of what happened.

    Wren
    January 14th, 2010
    2:27 pm
    I was raped and no it was not a “traditional” rape. A trusted friend raped me while I was passed out in my own bedroom. We lived in the same house, but were never intimately involved, we were just friends. I played the self blame game for a long time – I was drunk, I should have locked my bedroom door, I should have fought or screamed, etc. I also didn’t know what to call it for a long time – after all he was my friend, it occurred in the safety of my own room, he didn’t have a knife, and I didn’t fight. But in spite of that, it was RAPE. He entered my room without my consent, he used my body without my consent, and just because I was so drunk and terrified that I was unable to fight or scream, doesn’t mean that I consented to it or wanted it.

    […]

    It is exactly because of people like you that women often do not know what to call what happened to them. They can’t match their experience up to your definiton of “traditional” rape. There is also the issue that for many women, saying it was makes it all real, it makes it a lot harder to run away and hide from the horrible truth. Healing from rape is a long hard process, and for many people the first step on the path to healing is in fact denial and minimization. If you tell yourself it didn’t happen or it wasn’t that bad or it wasn’t really rape, then you think you don’t have to deal with the after effects. After all, if nothing happened, then there is nothing to heal from, right? It’s when the aftermath of rape becomes so bad – the inexplainable depression, or the fear of sexual touch, or the nightmares and flashbacks- that many women have to be truthful with themselves and acknowledge it for what it is.
    I have talked to many other survivors who describe horrible rapes, even what you label “traditional” rape, who refuse to use the word “rape”. They cannot bring themselves to say it. Are you telling me that they are stupid or not socially aware or that it didn’t happen? Just because a survivor doesn’t know how to name their experience, or can’t emotionally bring themselves to the point where they can acknowledge it was rape, doesn’t change the fact that they were indeed raped. The facts are simple: PENTRATION WITHOUT CONSENT IS RAPE.

    Chris
    February 25th, 2010
    2:39 am
    If an experience is traumatic enough, someone may not realize it immediately. I have not been raped, but I am dealing with PTSD following my service in Iraq. When I returned home, I felt fine, and I seemed like a normal 22 year old guy. A year later, I began having nightmares and recalling repressed memories. I began abusing drugs and alcohol, and watched my life fall apart around me for the next four years, the entire time denying that I was affected by my experiences.
    It wasn’t until someone very close to me, herself a victim of “traditional rape,” sat me down, and shared with me the exact same feelings that I was having that I realized that I had PTSD. The thing is, her experiences seem so much more traumatizing than mine.
    My point is that you cannot begin to imagine how something that might not appear traumatizing to you can be traumatizing. I hope that you never have to experience something that is so horrible, but don’t minimize something that happens based on how someone perceives it or appears to perceive it in the immediate aftermath.

  88. LeftSidePositive
    #88

    that women predominately report rapes because of “regretted” sex

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    1:55 pm
    Melissa, if she didn’t enjoy it and he did (a plausible scenario, to say the least) then she could think of it as rape while he wouldn’t.

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    2:24 pm
    Women can misread a man’s interest (or wishfully think that it’s there) merely because sex occurred. Thereafter, she retroactively decides that she has been “used” because he shows no subsequent interest in her. This provides her with all the reason she needs to claim that her prior (entirely consensual) sexual encounter with him is now rape.

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    2:40 pm
    To clarify, if either party (put typically the woman) retroactively decides that they didn’t enjoy the consensual sex, the line can thereafter be blurred in their mind between consensual and non-consensual, despite the fact that there was mutual consent.

    from "When Rapists Graduate and Victims Drop Out" at http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/02/24/when-rapists-graduate-and-victims-drop-out/
    John Dias
    February 27th, 2010
    7:59 pm
    There are a variety of reasons, chief of which are:
    1. Covering up shame arising from her own licentious behavior, such as public drunkenness or sexual indiscretion (both of which are frequent occurrences by women and men on college campuses).
    2. Punishing a man who has consensual sex with her, but later rejects her.

  89. LeftSidePositive
    #89

    that a woman who is stock still or too terrified to scream or say no is “still trying to decide if she enjoyed it”

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    This may be why 3/4 of the supposed rape victims did not consider it fair to describe the experience as rape, because most of them were interacting with acquaintances rather than strangers (possibly a boyfriend or a date), and even during the act may have been trying to decide whether they enjoyed it or not. Deciding after the fact that they didn’t want to, or didn’t prefer being held down, still does not necessarily constitute a moral crime

  90. LeftSidePositive
    #90

    and that when a woman is forcibly held down and violated against her will it’s just “not her ideal sexual experience.”

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    What bothers me about these two questions is that they assume that consent is not given because the desire did not exist. If the man holds the woman down but she doesn’t say no to him in some way during the entire act — if she doesn’t express her lack of consent — then how is he to know that he’s acting contrary to her wishes?

    On the thread "Style Tips from Men's Rights Activists" at http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/02/01/style-tips-from-mens-rights-activist/

    John Dias
    February 1st, 2010
    8:01 pm
    You neglected to mention that the statements that you quoted from me[*] referred to women who specifically clarified to the survey taker that they had NOT been raped. What you quoted from me was speculation about reasons why they would have considered their consensual experience as less than ideal, while not going so far as to describe it as rape.

    *The statement to which he refers was: “most of them were interacting with acquaintances rather than strangers (possibly a boyfriend or a date), and even during the act may have been trying to decide whether they enjoyed it or not. Deciding after the fact that they didn’t want to, or didn’t prefer being held down, still does not necessarily constitute a moral crime.”

    It is also important to keep in mind that IN THAT VERY POST he was referring to women who had answered "yes" to the question:

    "Have you had sex acts (and or oral intercourse or penetrations by objects other than the penis) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down) to make you?" THOSE are the experiences he's describing as "less than ideal."

    John Dias
    February 2nd, 2010
    1:39 am
    Why am I “scary” because I point out that non-rape victims claim that they are non-rape victims, and yet are unsatisfied with the way a particular encounter progressed even though they don’t call it rape?

  91. #91

    And now I will address your non-sequiturs that you use to try to defend yourself above.

    The vast majority of these rely on the cheap rhetorical trick of weaseling a variation of the phrase "against their expressed objections" into everything, when that is in fact wholly irrelevant. For one thing, I never discussed rape "over someone's objections." That's just a strawman that you put up.

    I said "you wrote X" and then you're saying "LIAR!! I never wrote Y or Z!!!" Total non-sequitur.

    More importantly, rape DOES NOT DEPEND on whether or not the victim was "clear enough" because you absolutely DO NOT get default access to another person's body. Many other posters have discussed at length why it is very hard to say "no" in various situations, and you have ignored them.

  92. #92

    So, now for specifics:

    "I’ve never advocated that anyone — male or female — should overpower someone against their expressed objections; that is clearly rape."

    That's not what I said. I said you don't believe a man has an obligation to GET CONSENT. No mention of "expressed objections." None. I was clearly referring to your sense of entitlement to make assumptions about women's bodies. I've quoted your statements above, and you clearly state (repeatedly) that a man can make assumptions about consent, and has no responsibilities to be sure about the consensual status of the act.

    I’ve also never advocated that someone should sexually take advantage of
a person who is helpless to resist or object (such as a paralyzed, passed out, or sleeping person)

    Actually, that's not true. You seem very much in favor of taking advantage of those rendered helpless by intoxicating substances. First, on the "Stroll in the Jungle" thread, you said:

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    2:25 pm
    [Survey question]Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?

    Your response: A woman can get drunk or high on her own volition, regardless of whether someone gives her the substances. The man in question can also partake of the same substances. If sexual activity then ensues, and both are under the influence, and if the MAN regrets it later, does this constitute a violation of the law by the woman?

    Where you clearly conflate have sex WHEN SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT TO with "regretting it later" and totally ignore the fact that the survey question is referring to someone who is rendered helpless by chemicals.

    And, on this very thread, you use the scenario of someone being helpless because of alcohol intoxication as an example of charges that "are likely bogus on their face":

    John Dias
    February 27th, 2010
    7:59 pm
    3. Using the accusation of rape to make sense of a consensual sexual encounter that she was too drunk at the time to clearly remember.

  93. #93

    And, now, to debunk your misrepresentations of my statements:

    But it was you who claimed several times in the Jungle thread that it’s rape (of course, in all caps) if verbal consent is not expressed prior to the onset of sexual activity.

    No, I said:

    LeftSidePositive
    January 16th, 2010
    2:08 pm
    We are saying that if you have sex without verbal consent, you are LIABLE TO BE CHARGED WITH RAPE. If she did want it, you’re ok, but if you didn’t ask and she says she didn’t want it, you have no proof of consent. And, we have pointed out many situations where people may persuade themselves they have consent, but are actually intimidating others to have intercourse against their will.

    Then you claim:

    So by following your logic, incarceration for rape should result even when both consenting parties don’t express their consent verbally

    Who is bringing charges in this scenario? If a person brings charges, it's *really* unlikely that they were consenting. How do you know they consented if they didn't express it? A person has every right to bring charges against someone who used their body without their explicit consent.

    and more specifically, that it should be the man’s job to get consent and it is the man’s fault if neither party expressed consent to the other; therefore in your scenario, only the man is incarcerated. Why? In your scenario, it only matters whether the man obtains consent;

    Absolutely, thoroughly, TOTALLY untrue:

    LeftSidePositive
    January 14th, 2010
    4:08 pm
    "John–yes, women DO have responsibilities to get consent. If a man has already asked you “Will you have sex with me?” I think he is giving consent by any possible interpretation. If the woman is the one initiating the sex act (which she is often socialized not to do, but it is a possibility), then yes, she does need to make sure it’s ok with the man."

    That comment WAS ADDRESSED TO YOU. Can you even read?!

    AND

    LeftSidePositive
    January 15th, 2010
    3:14 pm
    If a wife initiates and/or continues a sex act on her husband without his consent, then yes, of course she’s guilty of rape. Why is that so difficult to understand?!
    The women on this thread have said over and over again that women DO have the responsibility to get consent.

    you’ve indicated in previous posts that two drunk people couldn’t possibly have sex, even though impairment due to intoxication is a matter of degree and physiology.

    No, I said too drunk to be able to know what's going on and unable to consent.

    LeftSidePositive
    February 28th, 2010
    9:11 pm
    As for #3–why can’t you understand this? If she is too drunk to remember, she CANNOT POSSIBLY consent. Consent means you actually have sufficient faculties to make a decision. And don’t give me the “he was drunk too.” If both people were that drunk there wouldn’t be any sex…just too [sic] passed-out drunk people. (emphasis added)

    Simple reading comprehension...this is not saying that anyone with a BAC over .08 is unable to consent; it is saying that if both parties were too drunk to consent, they'd be too drunk to DO anything.

    So a drunk woman who has sex with a passed out man is impossible to you

    Melissa already addressed this so I didn't have to:

    Melissa
    January 14th, 2010
    2:37 pm
    If a man gets too drunk to consent to sex and a woman violates him anyway (whether or not she’s under the influence), then of course it’s rape.

    twice, actually:

    Melissa
    January 14th, 2010
    10:49 am
    For example, I know a man who was raped by a woman. He was extremely drunk and only half conscious, and she had sex with him anyway. Having sex with someone who isn’t fully conscious is rape, full stop.

    but I mentioned it as well:

    LeftSidePositive
    January 16th, 2010
    2:09 am
    If a person is so drunk that they don’t know what is going on, they are in no position to give consent–consent is impossible, therefore to have sex with someone (male or female) in that condition is rape. If BOTH parties were so drunk as to not know what was going on, no sex would happen at all…you’d just have two passed out people doing nothing. (emphasis added)

    LeftSidePositive
    January 16th, 2010
    2:09 am
    If a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, it doesn’t matter if the pedestrian’s BAC is 0.26 and the driver is 0.09, the person behind the wheel, who did the damage and caused the injury/fatality is guilty.
    Similarly, in a sexual encounter, the person who is getting on top of the other, pulling off clothes, and making the sex happen is the responsible party.

  94. #94

    Here, you weasel in the word "objecting" again, and try to claim it's a valid argument:

    Prove to me where I’ve ever said that men who have sex with an objecting party deserve impunity.

    I never said anything about an objecting party. I said "against her will." Being willing (or unwilling) is a state of mind, and you don't have to voice objections to be unwilling.

    I said that holding someone down WITHOUT CONSENT is rape, and you quoted that and replied:

    John Dias
    January 14th, 2010
    3:01 pm
    Positive consent, eh? So you’re just fine with carrying out a criminal prosecution against a man who was never told “no” or “stop.” You see, I’m not fine with that; I consider it an injustice. I think that it’s unreasonable to impose incarceration just because someone didn’t obtain expressed legal consent prior to the onset of sexual activity.

    Observe--you want impunity for people who USED FORCE to have sex with someone who didn't want to, because (as you said later):

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    3:36 pm
    Let me clarify once and for all:
    The Alleged Victim Should Bear Responsibility For Expressing Non-Consent, not the other way around.
    (emphasis in original)

    Observe: if the victim didn't react in the "right" way, John Dias thinks the perpetrator bears no responsibility, and shouldn't be incarcerated.

  95. #95

    I really can't tell if the next rant is you being deliberately intellectually dishonest, or if you really are this dense:

    "I never said that women “couldn’t possibly” have been raped if they didn’t verbally object; I just don’t believe that it’s usually all that plausible."

    Um, basic reading comprehension fail. I said your claim was they "couldn't possibly" have been raped IF THEY DIDN'T CALL IT RAPE. There was no mention of verbal objections in that sentence, it's an entirely different topic.

    But, by the way, the not "all that plausible" line is complete victim-blaming and morally repulsive.

    I love the fact that you call this the "single biggest whopper of all" and then say EXACTLY THE SAME THING that I accused you of in trying to claim I lied that you said it:

    In that study, 3/4 of the so-called “victims” (as designated by Koss) specifically indicated that they had NOT been raped. It doesn’t get any clearer than that!

    and

    Instead, they responded that they had not been raped. That pretty much nails it right there; they were not rape victims. And here you are STILL questioning whether they mentally consented; they provided their answer, right there in the survey.

    Let's review this again, shall we? I said one of your revolting, misogynistic views was "that a victim who is too traumatized to call what happened to her “rape” (and we’ve heard from numerous victims why this is so hard to do) couldn’t possibly have been raped" and then you repeat that same sentiment (twice!) and say I was lying about it?! This is nonsense!!

    Also, I've quoted in GREAT detail how victims have said you're wrong about this. Over and over and over again.

  96. #96

    Also, regarding the above topic, here is the numerous takedowns I've done of your absurd viewpoint that someone who doesn't use the word "rape" to describe their experiences couldn't have been raped:

    LeftSidePositive
    January 14th, 2010
    10:52 am
    It’s not at all a question of “intelligence” or “social awareness”–it’s a question of how terms have been defined or used in their environment, which may NOT be the correct definition…most people on the street don’t know the correct definition of depression, OCD, first amendment rights, conflict of interest, or the symptoms of a stroke. This doesn’t mean that they are inherently stupid, it just means that their sources of education or information are not accurate with respect to how they use these terms, and it’s just the same with rape–Rob, John Dias, numerous advice columnists, and many others routinely give people totally inaccurate information with regard to rape.

    LeftSidePositive
    January 14th, 2010
    1:50 pm
    John–there is a legal definition of rape. If the act that occurred fit the legal definition of rape, then it was.
    Again, a very significant number of people (yourself included) do not understand what the legal definition of rape is. If you don’t know what your first amendment rights are, how can you tell if they have been violated? If you don’t know the symptoms of a stroke, how can you tell if you or a family member is having one? If you don’t know what the word rape means, how could you know to call it that?

    LeftSidePositive
    January 14th, 2010
    2:01 pm
    Answering yes to one or more of these questions MEETS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF RAPE and therefore, whether or not a woman knows what the legal definition of rape is, THE ABOVE ACTS ARE RAPE.

    LeftSidePositive
    January 14th, 2010
    3:34 pm
    Rob–not to speak for Melissa, but from my point of view:
    We are not saying that women don’t understand if they’ve given consent or not (if that were the case, they wouldn’t answer the question positively on the survey!). We are saying that they don’t understand that the LACK OF CONSENT ITSELF CONSTITUTES RAPE. Women have been told (and/or erroneously believe) that it was her fault for being drunk, she didn’t fight hard enough, she wasn’t thrown onto the bed hard enough, she wasn’t dressed “properly,” it was her fault because she went to his apartment, it was her fault because they were on a date, she wasn’t “allowed” to say no because she had kissed him or had sex with him or someone else before, blah, blah, blah… In these situations she is perfectly clear on the fact that she didn’t want to have sex (and in many situations has told him so), she just doesn’t know if she is “allowed” to seek help or if others will take her seriously.

    (from Style Tips from Men's Rights Activists)
    LeftSidePositive
    February 2nd, 2010
    2:10 am
    And, as for your pathetic naming preoccupation (very offensive to the women who have shared their stories on this blog and the difficulty that they had coping with their rapes!): if I am conducting a study on tuberculosis in a population, I wouldn’t rule someone out just because they called their disease “consumption” or “scrofula” or “Pott’s disease” or “wasting disease” or “the white plague.” They likely wouldn’t know the official name or definition of the disease. My criteria would be, do they fit the official definition of tuberculosis? That is, are they infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis?
    Similarly, in discussing rape, many women do not know what the legal definition of rape is. They are forced to have sex against their will, and they are afraid to call it rape, or they think they don’t “deserve” to call it rape, or they feel guilty that they were to scared to fight hard enough, etc., etc. That doesn’t change the fact that these experiences meet the legal definition of rape, and therefore, are rape.

    (from When Rapists Graduate and Victims Drop Out)
    LeftSidePositive
    February 28th, 2010
    9:11 pm
    Please shut the fuck up about “even if the ‘victim’ refutes the allegation.” Do you think it’s clever? No one here was ever convinced by that fallacy for a second. We have heard OVER and OVER again on these boards about how difficult it is for rape victims to come to terms with the word “rape.” Posters here have been brave enough to share their very personal stories about what happened to them and why it’s so hard to admit to oneself that one has been raped. NONE of these people deny that they were forced to have sex against their will, they had just been brainwashed and pressured by society (e.g. Whoopi Goldberg’s “not rape-rape”) that they don’t deserve to call what happened to them rape. It DOES NOT MEAN that they are okay with what happened, and often these incidents lead to some very, very broken lives.

    And yet you keep bringing up this canard and think it has weight? It's just looking pathetic!

  97. #97

    Moving on to other lies:

    In the early 1980s, there was a study commissioned by the U.S. Air Force in which scores of women who had made allegations of rape were interviewed about it.

    I've already debunked this. You said (on the "Jungle" thread, of course) that this "study" was based on pseudoscientific lie detector tests:

    John Dias
    January 15th, 2010
    1:47 pm
    Well Melissa, you’re acting as though rape allegations are universally accurate, but sometimes accusations are made specifically because of their incendiary nature. In the early 1980s, there was a study conducted by the U.S. Air Force in which they interviewed hundreds of women who had claimed that they were raped, and an alarming portion of these women — 27 percent — indicated that they had fabricated the allegations. Usually they didn’t just volunteer the fact that they had lied, but admitted it when they had been caught, having taken a lie detector test and failing it at certain points.

    And I refuted you:

    “Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists.[21][22] Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, critics maintain that rather than a “test”, the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test’s average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.[23] Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph’s accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of “failing” the polygraph. In the 1998 Supreme Court case, United States v. Scheffer, the majority stated that “There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable” and “Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors’ knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion…”[24] –Wikipedia

    You then claim: "they were making the same commentary as I was (namely, that some women fabricate rape allegations because they regret a consensual experience afterward)"

    No, you do not say SOME women. The operative word in my accusation was "predominantly." You say that the 85% of rapes that don't get convictions are "likely bogus on their face." The actual rates of false convictions are VERY low, and you are trying to claim that the majority of women who try unsuccessfully to bring justice to their rapists are being bitter, vengeful or dishonest in their allegations:

    John Dias
    February 28th, 2010
    7:42 pm
    You can determine the merit of an allegation based on how law enforcement, prosecutors and juries weight the allegation. With 85 percent of rape allegations in the U.S. failing to result in a conviction (Bureau of Justice Statistics), that tells you something about what people think when they’re privy to the actual evidence of a particular case

  98. #98

    More willful misrepresentation of the Koss study:

    Prove to me that I made such a statement referring to non-consenting women.

    You said this about women who reported they had sex when they didn't want to because of force or threats:

    Have you had sex acts (and or oral intercourse or penetrations by objects other than the penis) when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down) to make you?

    You even QUOTED that very survey question and responded:

    most of them were interacting with acquaintances rather than strangers (possibly a boyfriend or a date), and even during the act may have been trying to decide whether they enjoyed it or not. Deciding after the fact that they didn’t want to, or didn’t prefer being held down, still does not necessarily constitute a moral crime

    Continuing on debunking your most recent rant, and disgraceful distortions of consent:

    In fact, I was referring to consenting women (again, they had subsequently indicated their consent in the 1988 Koss survey results) and it was you who attributed non-consent and fear to them.

    No, they did NOT indicate their "consent." They answered yes to one or more of three questions that ALL began with "have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to." This by definition means they DID NOT CONSENT.

    The fact that they didn't have the courage/insight/emotional strength/legal awareness to call the incident "rape" is wholly irrelevant to the fact that they DID NOT CONSENT. Even by your own (very twisted and scary) scenario, if they *were* "still trying to decide" "during the act" that means, by definition, that they DID NOT CONSENT.

    You just can't stop lying.

    No, YOU just can't stop willfully misunderstanding the definition of consent, and desperately clinging to this tired old trope about "didn't call it rape."

  99. #99

    Prove to me that I was referring to women who were forcibly held down against their objections.

    Again, I never said ANYTHING about "against their objections." This is your twisted, victim-blaming, self-entitled, and TOTALLY INACCURATE definition of rape. (It's also a cheap strawman argument to claim I'm lying.)

    I said against her WILL, not OBJECTIONS. Will is a state of mind, like I said before, and these women answered that they were made to have sex when they didn't want to, the very definition of "against their will."

    I do acknowledge that some women get off on being held down; sometimes they even verbally request it.

    May I remind you that you specifically referred to women who were "still trying to decide if they enjoyed it." SOME women may like to be held down, but this is in no way relevant to those who DID NOT verbally request it, and reported that they had sex WHEN THEY DIDN'T WANT TO.

    You will be exposed for the liar you are.

    No, you have been exposed as a pathetic weasel and hypocrite.

  100. #100

    Ergo, John Dias is a total fucking shithead.

    Q.E.D.

  101. #101

    that's pathetic

  102. LeftSidePositive
    #102

    raf, I'm choosing to believe you're referring to John Dias's disgusting attitudes & misinformation.

  103. #103

    LeftSidePositive, you're freakin' awesome. :)

  104. LeftSidePositive
    #104

    Thanks, Melissa!!

  105. #105

    LSP: I didn't want to have to call you out on your lying, because it was irritating for me to do so. But I chose to do it even though I didn't want to. I didn't consent!

  106. #106

    John Dias--I showed very, very conclusively that I was right and you are totally, absolutely, ridiculously wrong. You failed to prove any "lie" at all--in fact, you REITERATED exactly the same loathsome attitudes that I attributed to you.

    I can see that you have absolutely no case to defend yourself or your appalling, misinformed, and misogynistic attitudes and so you're reduced to incredibly lame (and insulting) analogies about rape.

    Choosing to do something is in fact consent, unless no viable alternatives are open to you (i.e. duress/coercion). This is simply not the case on an internet forum, which you read voluntarily and may close at any time.

    Furthermore, this isn't even the first time you've tried to equate the demonstration of your intellectual inadequacy with rape victims' horrific experiences. As I said the first time I saw you try to make this "argument":

    Blogs with comment sections are open forums to freely express opinions. Women’s bodies are not open vessels to freely have sex with. --Stroll in the Jungle, post #338

    Let's point out yet again that I have destroyed you and your hateful and absurd mindset on every single debate we've held. So much for your illustrious "facts, logic, and reason"!!!

  107. #107

    "I was right and you are totally, absolutely, ridiculously wrong."

    "...you have absolutely no case to defend yourself or your appalling, misinformed, and misogynistic attitudes..."

    "...your intellectual inadequacy..."

    "...I have destroyed you..."

    Are you okay? Seriously, I don't mean that pejoratively. You "strike" me as a particularly emotionally unbalanced, angry, frustrated and hateful personality. Your obsession with dominance-seeking and your frequent use of emotional aggression (against me, anyway) make me think that you're projecting the worst of your own abusive attitudes onto others. I'm not belittling you or your arguments when I simply state that I think that you could use some sort of professional therapy or spiritual guidance, from whoever you trust to provide it. You simply don't seem like an emotionally healthy person to me.

  108. #108

    John Dias: we had a debate. You lost. If you hadn't lost, you would still have something constructive to say about the facts I presented to you, and my deconstruction of the fallacies in your argument. Instead, you are now reduced to whining about confident and empowered women, as you do each and EVERY time I point out all the holes in your positions.

    And, yes, I'm apparently emotionally unbalanced. It's sooooo unreasonable to be angry at someone who belittles rape victim's experiences, who thinks someone being forced into sex is "still trying to decide if she enjoyed it," and who makes arrogant and indefensible statements like "the alleged victim should bear responsibility for expressing her non-consent."

    Oh, I forgot...I'm a woman, and therefore I'm not allowed to be angry at you. Also, any competitive nature or assertiveness absolutely shows that my feminine psyche is deeply troubled, because heaven forfend I should enjoy success!! Clearly, I need "spiritual guidance" because there must be something wrong with me to care passionately about equality and human rights.

    In the course of arguing with you, I have chosen to be fairly aggressive in my language. This is a conscious decision because you are absolutely beyond the pale in the hatefulness of your attitudes and in the willful obtuseness of the claims you make (especially after they have been debunked multiple times; see above). This isn't "emotional aggression"--it's standing up for oneself and one's rights (which, news flash, women have too!!). Go back to the "Stroll in the Jungle" thread, and you can see a pretty clear escalation of my rhetoric, because your appalling statements warrant it, and it is quite appropriate to be forceful in one's language to make a point that needs to be made.

  109. #109

    "John Dias: we had a debate. You lost. If you hadn’t lost, you would still have something constructive to say about the facts I presented to you, and my deconstruction of the fallacies in your argument."

    You don't declare yourself the winner of a debate if you truly are the "winner." Speaking of winning, who wins if we simply have differing values? Did you change my opinion? Anyone's opinion? If so, to what degree?

    I am not responding because you can't behave yourself in a debate. Being a woman does not entitle you to be abusive, and if your positions were really as merited as you think they are, you shouldn't need to become emotionally aggressive at all.

    When you calm down, I'll engage. But I won't encourage your abusiveness.

  110. #110

    It's not a difference of opinion. Your opinions are repulsive and deny people's human rights. I'm certainly not going to pretend that's within the spectrum of reasonable debate. Your beliefs are hurtful and hateful, and I am sure as hell not going to tiptoe around that point.

    My points are well-substantiated and clearly presented. That's "behaving myself in a debate" a hell of a lot more than your non-sequiturs, willfully obtuse "arguments," and endless repetition of easily-debunked fallacies. And, like I told raf, this is a blog where salty language is used regularly. Acting "shocked" about it just shows you're whining since you can't think of anything else to defend your positions, because your positions are wrong, disgusting, and misinformed, as I have comprehensively demonstrated above.

  111. #111

    Ha, John Dias is pathetic. "Calm down" and "behave yourself?" Because you provided conclusive evidence for you assertions? Honestly I might have a little more respect if he just owned his misogyny. This whining about how he can't talk to you because you're being "emotionally aggressive" (what does that even mean?) somehow makes him look worse than saying "Yeah, I do think rape is the victim's fault, what of it?"

  112. #112

    @Jess: Please see post #81 in this thread.

  113. #113

    John Dias--Ooooh, post #81, really?! Is there a post #81 where you say something coherent, reasonable, and accurate? Because on my computer post #81 is a whole lot of total nonsense that I easily shredded in posts #91-#99...

    Absolutely NONE of your claims in post #81 stood up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.
...