Post: #1

A long article written in 2008 reveals the origins of feminist victimology so widely seen on college campuses today.

Did not come up on forum search so I'm assuming its not a repost.

Quote:It’s a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from the alleged campus rape epidemic—but no one calls. Could this mean that the crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.

The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But the movement is an even more important barometer of academia itself. In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university’s intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both. While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at antirape rallies, in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys. The academic bureaucracy is roomy enough to sponsor both the dour antimale feminism of the college rape movement and the promiscuous hookup culture of student life. The only thing that doesn’t fit into the university’s new commitments is serious scholarly purpose.

The campus rape industry’s central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years (completed rapes outnumbering attempted rapes by a ratio of about three to two). The girls’ assailants are not terrifying strangers grabbing them in dark alleys but the guys sitting next to them in class or at the cafeteria.

This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm. By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the “rape culture.” A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were “co-survivors”; “survivors” existed in a larger “community of survivors.”

An army of salesmen took to the road, selling advice to administrators on how to structure sexual-assault procedures, and lecturing freshmen on the “undetected rapists” in their midst. Rape bureaucrats exchanged notes at such gatherings as the Inter Ivy Sexual Assault Conferences and the New England College Sexual Assault Network. Organizations like One in Four and Men Can Stop Rape tried to persuade college boys to redefine their masculinity away from the “rape culture.” The college rape infrastructure shows no signs of a slowdown. In 2006, for example, Yale created a new Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center, despite numerous resources for rape victims already on campus.

If the one-in-four statistic is correct—it is sometimes modified to “one-in-five to one-in-four”—campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No crime, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20 or 25 percent, even over many years. The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in America, was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults per 100,000 inhabitants—a rate of 2.4 percent. The one-in-four statistic would mean that every year, millions of young women graduate who have suffered the most terrifying assault, short of murder, that a woman can experience. Such a crime wave would require nothing less than a state of emergency—Take Back the Night rallies and 24-hour hotlines would hardly be adequate to counter this tsunami of sexual violence. Admissions policies letting in tens of thousands of vicious criminals would require a complete revision, perhaps banning boys entirely. The nation’s nearly 10 million female undergrads would need to take the most stringent safety precautions. Certainly, they would have to alter their sexual behavior radically to avoid falling prey to the rape epidemic.

None of this crisis response occurs, of course—because the crisis doesn’t exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results—very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

Koss’s study had serious flaws. Her survey instrument was highly ambiguous, as University of California at Berkeley social-welfare professor Neil Gilbert has pointed out. But the most powerful refutation of Koss’s research came from her own subjects: 73 percent of the women whom she characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped. Further—though it is inconceivable that a raped woman would voluntarily have sex again with the fiend who attacked her—42 percent of Koss’s supposed victims had intercourse again with their alleged assailants.

On one hand you have universities warning students about the horrors of rape culture, on the other you have student organizations at prestigious universities (i.e. Brown, Tufts, Princeton) promoting promiscuity.

The rest of the article is here

Post: #2

As someone who's on a college campus, I can speak from experience about this. I've talked about my 'extended orientation' experience with the campus rape and so on and so forth. I've been told that "having more than 1 drink eliminates her ability to consent." I've heard the "1 in 4/5 women are raped," and so and and so forth. Believe me, they make an industry just terrifying people into not having sex unless you're both stone cold sober.

As I've said over at RoK, the primary issue with these presentations is the assumption that men always have agency, whereas women don't constantly have agency. If I'm blackout drunk, I don't have agency. If I'm drunk, period, I probably don't have agency. There's a difference between being raped (i.e. completely non-consensual) and making a poor choice while you're drunk.

The issue is, however, that with the alarmist statistics and a lot of other nonsense, women are able to shout "RAPE!" even when they were drunk and made a stupid decision. If you're both drunk, the idea of "consent" becomes even hazier. If only she is drunk... then yeah, you're probably going to get hit with the "rape" charge, even though it may have been completely consensual at the time. Then, add in the new rule of consent, that a "soft yes isn't a yes." Well, what's a "soft yes?"

One of my closest friends at the college was blackout drunk and had sex with a girl. He was really in no condition to consent in the least, and he "blacked in" in the middle of banging this girl. His friends know, but he won't go to the authorities, because he knows that they won't lift a finger for him.

Post: #3

(01-05-2014 09:22 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  If I'm blackout drunk, I don't have agency. [...]

One of my closest friends at the college was blackout drunk and had sex with a girl. He was really in no condition to consent in the least, and he "blacked in" in the middle of banging this girl. His friends know, but he won't go to the authorities, because he knows that they won't lift a finger for him.

I want to push back against the idea that just because one is blacked out, one is incapacitated and incapable of consent. Being blacked out simply means that your brain is not laying down long-term memories. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are incoherent or incapable of making decisions.

People black out at different levels of intoxication; some people can be hailing a cab, giving their address, paying the driver, speaking more or less normally, and remember none of it the next day. You can't tell when someone is blacked out.

I don't mean to get on you in particular, Truth Teller, I've seen this all over and it is something the men's community really needs to fight against. The common perception is, If I don't remember the sex, I was raped. I don't know if that is what they are teaching you at college, but I don't think that standard is correct legally or morally.

For instance, in my home state of Washington, 2nd degree rape can occur when a person is incapable of consent due to mental incapacitation, where incapacitation is defined as a "condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause." So the standard is understanding the nature and consequences of intercourse, not whether you remember it later.

I'm not suggesting guys rely on some technicality to plow completely blotto, barely-conscious girls. But I've had sex with a fuck-buddy who completely did not remember it the next morning, and it certainly was not rape.

I repeat: the standard is whether a person is capable of consenting, period. We have to push back against this blackout shit.

P.S. Just for comparison, I checked the law in California. The relevant sections seem to be that rape occurs "Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused;
[or]
A)Was unconscious or asleep.

(B)Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

Again, memory has nothing to do with it. In fact, this language is even stronger than Washington's, turning as it does not on whether the person understands the nature of the act but on whether they are so intoxicated as to be incapable of resisting.

But I should say, this is based on a quick Google and no one should take it as legal advice!

Post: #4

(01-05-2014 10:45 PM)Ryre Wrote:  I want to push back against the idea that just because one is blacked out, one is incapacitated and incapable of consent. Being blacked out simply means that your brain is not laying down long-term memories. It doesn't necessarily mean that you are incoherent or incapable of making decisions.

People black out at different levels of intoxication; some people can be hailing a cab, giving their address, paying the driver, speaking more or less normally, and remember none of it the next day. You can't tell when someone is blacked out.

I don't mean to get on you in particular, Truth Teller, I've seen this all over and it is something the men's community really needs to fight against. The common perception is, If I don't remember the sex, I was raped. I don't know if that is what they are teaching you at college, but I don't think that standard is correct legally or morally.

For instance, in my home state of Washington, 2nd degree rape can occur when a person is incapable of consent due to mental incapacitation, where incapacitation is defined as a "condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause." So the standard is understanding the nature and consequences of intercourse, not whether you remember it later.

I can definitely understand that, but in Virginia, where I also go to college, the law states the following:

Quote:A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.

Now, I can't find a solid definition of "mental incapacity" in the Code of Virginia, so it's open to interpretation. This is the fundamental issue with a lot of the rape laws.

With the law you refer to, the point of "understanding the nature or consequences" can be twisted into "I was drunk so I couldn't appreciate them." More often than not, it has been. While I agree that you can act completely normally while blacked out, I would argue that you're not capable of understanding the nature or the consequences.

I'm not a lawyer, but my feeling is that it's better to err on the side of safety due to the fact that if a woman insinuates that you raped her, you're screwed.

Post: #5

(01-05-2014 10:55 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  I can definitely understand that, but in Virginia, where I also go to college, the law states the following:

Quote:A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.

Now, I can't find a solid definition of "mental incapacity" in the Code of Virginia, so it's open to interpretation. This is the fundamental issue with a lot of the rape laws.

With the law you refer to, the point of "understanding the nature or consequences" can be twisted into "I was drunk so I couldn't appreciate them." More often than not, it has been. While I agree that you can act completely normally while blacked out, I would argue that you're not capable of understanding the nature or the consequences.

I'm not a lawyer, but my feeling is that it's better to err on the side of safety due to the fact that if a woman insinuates that you raped her, you're screwed.

I totally agree. That's why we have to push back against this. Mental incapacity, like the terms in the laws I cited, is basically going to be up to the jurors' common sense. If it becomes conventional wisdom in the community that black out=mental incapacity, then that will effectively become the legal definition.

But ever before it gets to a jury, the conventional wisdom affects what gets reported as rape in the first place. If blackout=rape, we get ridiculous shit like this letter to Dear Prudence at Slate:

My husband is kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving. However, I feel like I must divorce him....After coming back from a friend’s wine tasting we went to bed and he started to kiss me. I liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it....am I right about feeling abused?

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_...buse_.html

Fortunately Prudie had the sense to talk this idiot back into reality. But I think about the average young woman waking up after a perfectly enjoyable, consensual hookup with fuzzy memories. The more the black=rape falsehood gets established, the more likely she is to call the police...perhaps even duty-bound as a feminist and a good citizen to do so. Or she goes to her girlfriends and says, "I can't really remember what happened with Ryre last night," and they, just being responsible friends, talk her into calling the police.

This idea needs to be killed with fire.

Post: #6

(01-05-2014 11:38 PM)Ryre Wrote:  I totally agree. That's why we have to push back against this. Mental incapacity, like the terms in the laws I cited, is basically going to be up to the jurors' common sense. If it becomes conventional wisdom in the community that black out=mental incapacity, then that will effectively become the legal definition.

But ever before it gets to a jury, the conventional wisdom affects what gets reported as rape in the first place. If blackout=rape, we get ridiculous shit like this letter to Dear Prudence at Slate:

My husband is kind, supportive, funny, generous, smart, and loving. However, I feel like I must divorce him....After coming back from a friend’s wine tasting we went to bed and he started to kiss me. I liked it and went along, only to wake up in the morning and remember only half of it....am I right about feeling abused?

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_...buse_.html

Fortunately Prudie had the sense to talk this idiot back into reality. But I think about the average young woman waking up after a perfectly enjoyable, consensual hookup with fuzzy memories. The more the black=rape falsehood gets established, the more likely she is to call the police...perhaps even duty-bound as a feminist and a good citizen to do so. Or she goes to her girlfriends and says, "I can't really remember what happened with Ryre last night," and they, just being responsible friends, talk her into calling the police.

This idea needs to be killed with fire.

Fair enough, I can understand where you're coming from. I've been blacked out and absolutely fine. I've also been blacked out and done ridiculous shit (like rolling in a carpet). Just because you're blacked out doesn't mean you're incapable of doing every day tasks (I've been on a computer while drunk).

If we go with the PC, feminism idea of "consent," then practically all forms of intercourse are rape, because "consent" isn't simply "yes." Rather it's a myriad of adjectives, some of which make it sound as though you really can't have sex, ever.

Post: #7

We don't appear to have a master thread on the campus rape hoax, so I'll stick this here. Apparently, a company called Vertiglo Software is developing a campus rape app called Lighthouse and looks like they want universities to purchase it and provide it to their students. Their marketing slide show is here. The company is probably exaggerating about being "data partners" with all those organizations at the end. The app allows students and administrators to record details of alleged incidents as they occur.

I think the company stands to make some good money on this app because campuses will purchase it to make it look like they're doing something about "campus rape." But, of course, their students won't bother using it for the most part.