The New Rules of College Sex

Don, very well stated!

Raslo, I can not agree more!

"By taking accountability away from people who make poor choices you leave the door open for more poor choices to be made."
I agree with you 100%. Hold rapists accountable so they don't think it's OK to do again.
I like your logic.

this particular case sounds consensual to me

Thats cute, but not what I was saying..

I thought I made my point clear enough. I pretty much spelled it out.
But logic has seemingly failed you, which is sad.. You see I am angry because young men are wrongly being labeled as rapists for having seemingly consensual sex.

The current definition for what qualifies as consent is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to be labeled a rapist because some drunk girl who came onto you at a party, felt bad about it in the morning.

That particular case was also fictional.

lol Logic has failed you. I was being sarcastic and generous in assuming you were capable of logical thought to begin with.

Except that it was NOT a case! It was a made up story in order to reinforce the writers assertions. That scenario never happened in real life. So to make that your test case is absurd, because you are not using reality in which to test your hypothesis.

THANK YOU! I was beginning to think I was the only one to see how stupid people were being using that case as a framework for their arguments. In fact such a tactic is called a "Logical Fallacy."

Keep on keepin on Almibry!!

Why personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you?

Blaino, Agreed!

This scenario happens in increasing numbers. Please research the facts before you speak.

The scenario outlined in the opening paragraphs of this article is a fiction. It is not a true account. If a writer wants me to take their opinion seriously then they need to start with something factual. If it is as easy to find, then she should have opened her article with a factual account. Since she chose not to, it casts doubt on the veracity of her claims.

I was just stating my opinion, and in my opinion, anyone who thinks that the world has completely shed sexism in the last 40 years isn't using critical thinking.*
I also think it's hilarious that you fail to notice that blaino accused me of lacking logic first.
Why don't you start throwing accusations at him/her now?
Oh wait, it's because s/he agrees with you.
*Edit: I should have said that "anyone who thinks sexism no longer exists because it's no longer overt" etc...

I do my best. +^'d
I'm soo very glad I'm not the only one who notices the little things, you know, like fact.

Do some research yourself and you'd see that legal consent cannot be granted while under the influence in any area of life, not just sex. Contracts can't be signed, confession can't be used as evidence, and consent cannot be given.
Look at it this way: if you don't know a person well enough to tell if they're sober, you don't know them well enough to know they aren't stark raving mad, so you really shouldn't sleep with them.
But I've always been a bit conservative in that area, and even though I sincerely doubt the ability of certain people to get laid without the aid of drugs or pyschosis, I don't think they should go raping drunks or retards.

Almibry I did accuse you of lacking logic, because of your comment that completely disregarded what I had to say. If you aren't going to address what I have to say in a respectful manner I won't extend the courtesy either.

And here again you are twisting my opinion to fit this distorted view of reality that you've been arguing. Not once did I say or even hint towards any belief that sexism has been erased from society.
I actually think I was arguing the opposite, sexism is thriving. Yet not in the traditional sense, I believe that men as well as woman are being degraded. But men are being segregated in very different ways. Where woman are being victimized, men are being criminalized.

Regardless of whether the situation in the article happened or it didn't, there is no doubt that innocent men are being subjected to this predatory/pervert/criminal stereotype.

So in your opinion a woman who had a few drinks is not capable of making any decisions but a man who had a few drinks must be responsible for his decisions and hers. I find that absurd.

Almibry, I disagree with you. In past 20 years the sexism is against men. Sorry you can not see that.

You have been watching too much of csi. Following your logic it would be useless to study any subject matter as it is full of scenarios and hypothetical examples. The scenario in this article is based on many examples of similar situations students face in colleges.

well he may have made it up to make a case but that isnt unusual and is done all the time, including by those whom we watch and listen to in the main stream media. but regardless, the story, even if made up could be an actual scenerio, one of which ive had my hand in, no pun intended, myself. so my comment is valid. p.s. she came willingly

not in my life

No, I'm saying both genders must be resposible. If you're is drunk, you shouldn't jump into bed with strangers. Aside from all the points covered so far, there is the added fact that condoms may not be used, your partner could turn out to be a psychopath, and it's not called "the walk of shame" for no reason. Even if you're aware enough to give consent, you might not be too proud of that night when you wake up.
And I didn't say anything about which gender is the victim when it comes to sexism. I think as far as sexual assault goes, the system is rigged against women and since there are so few women in posistions of power in our government there is an abscene amount of anti-women legislation, but in many other areas it's rigged against men. Though to be hones,t child support is the only anti-male issue that comes to mind and that's debatable.
I personally feel a bit sorry for how the sexual revolution has treated men because now they have to be the perfet father on top of being the perfect worker. The same impossible standard has been applied to women for much longer, but there is less support for men who want a satisfying career AND see their kids grow up.
Even taking that into consideration, I don't see how sexism is overwhemingly against men, though if you are a guy, I can see how you would feel that way.

Ok, I see where you are going... I agree both genders must be responsible, but this new standards forgive irresponsible women and punish a man for her irresponsible actions. Let's say they both had drinks, has sex, the next morning she is sober and is sorry for whatever happened last night. She is not held to any standards, while he is facing rape charges.

I disagree with you on your comment that there are "so few women in positions of power". Women are the most represented group.

I agree with you on the comment about how "sexual revolution has treated men". Men not only expected to be hard and dedicated workers, involved fathers, but must live up to their female partner's standards. The last one is the most controversial in my opinion. This is the root of many disillusioned relationships and supported by anti-male judicial system in family courts and in criminal cases.

I am making an assertion using the rules of Logic. The writer began with a premise that was a fiction. This is known as a logical fallacy. If there are that many cases, then use an actual case to open your argument. I am not declaring her conclusion to be either affirmative or negative. I am simply stating a fact, that when one beings their argument with a hypothesis that is a fiction, it calls into question the veracity of the argument itself.

That is undeniable. That you choose, and it is highlighted by the inundation of responses insinuating that the scenario actually happened (i.e. "whoa, that sounds like it was consensual to me!") to base your argument on a fictitious account is suspicious. THAT is my point.

It appears that you enjoy dissecting and analyzing writing style instead of analyzing the message and information this article provides.

It isn't about writing style, or have you even read anything I wrote? She starts her argument with a logical fallacy. This makes her argument suspect.

It takes two to tango, so if there is drunken sex, both parties are being irresponsible. Though I can see how the new rules could get women into trouble too, I honestly don't see it happening in equal proportions. And no one would be facing rape charges, at the most they would be facing expulsion.
Do me a favor and do some research on women in positions of power. Across the board (including CEOs, the Senate and Congress) women hold less than 20% of the "seats" and that's being generous.
"Most represented" my ass.
As for men being expected to live up to their partner's expectations, that's part of being in a relationship. I've dumped every single boyfriend I have ever had because they didn't meet my expectations. I didn't lower my standards to make ANYONE more comfortable, and now I have the man of my dreams. It was worth breaking a few dozen hearts to be able to give mine away so completely. I feel no pity for my ex-boyfriends. If they had been better people I would never have had to hurt them.
As for the judicial system being biased towards men? I'm not a lawyer or a sociologist so I can't pretend to know the reason for the disproportionate number of men in jail (and niether should you), except to guess that because of a ingrained social bias against women, courts may be more lenient because women are viewed as too childlike to understand what they've done wrong.
There is also evidence suggesting that judges/juries are less likely to convict a person of a crime if that person is attractive (unless that crime involves manipulation or fraud, then they are more likely to be convicted than an unattractive person), and women are seen as more attractive overall (in every society).

agreed. meeting a mate in a bar is a lousy choice. unless both parties intentions are to just hook up. long term relationships and bars usually dont go hand in hand

agreed if one party is extremely inebriated or passed out. but wheres the challenge in that? hey as this story is told on this post it appears consensual to me

some women and or men lie to either save embarrassment or as revenge. it isnt so cut and dry. as described in this particular case she was willing and he is guiltless.

Except that this is a Civil case and not a Criminal case. In all civil cases, including those tried in US Courts one only need a preponderance of evidence. Title IX has no bearing on Criminal prosecution of a rape.

You are wrong. Learn the facts. Your son may be next.

Explain to me how my response was wrong. Is the "preponderance" standard NOT the standard used in all civil cases in the United States? Is the Title IX procedure a criminal one as opposed to a civil one? If so, how? Will the student go to prison if found guilty in a Title IX proceeding? And finally, do you disagree that the standards for criminal prosecution of a rape case differ from those used in a Civil Case? If so, how.

hammywill, rape accusation is not a civil matter. Period.

Explain to me how a Title IX hearing is a Criminal matter. Are you aware that people can also face Civil Charges and Damages in addition to and/or seperate from Criminal charges?

A Title IX hearing is a CIVIL hearing, not a Criminal hearing. Even if the subject of the hearing MAY be a criminal act.

You are completely off the mark. First of all, in an earlier statement you said:
"A Title IX hearing is a CIVIL hearing". Now you are argueing Civil vs. Criminal burden of proof. The fact is you are completely off the mark. Title IX is neither a Civil or a Criminal legal matter. Maybe it should be. I say it should only be a criminal matter for police, but it is not even a civil matter under Title IX. It is a private hearing with no due process rights nor a double jeopardy protection. If you read that article (twice if you have to), you will notice that Obama's administration is strong arming colleges to basicly rubber stamp:
1. Finding of guilt of any man accused of sexual misconduct.
2. Have him expelled for "sexual misconduct"
3. Make it virtually impossible for him to go to another college as a result!
4. Ruine his life without any trial, investigation, or Cour proceedings!
About your the juries doing whatever they want is not an arguement. That is not what juries are instructed to do. They must follow the law when rendering a verdict. The fact that some don't or give in to emotions and call that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a violation of the law and usually a violation of the judge's instruction. Are you sure you understand how the legal system woks?
Now, it is true that any idiotic prosecutor can indite, prosecute, and maybe convict a ham sandwitch before a dumbed up emotional jury, but that does not mean that is how the system was intended to work.
And your comparison or rape to murder is not valid. In a murder case you at least need a missing body and some circumstantial evidence to suggest a crime was committed. In rape, you don't anything other than some liar or some spiteful girlfriend to say you raped her. Almost all the men freed by the Innocence Project by DNA testing were wrongfully convicted of rape. FBI and Purdue University studies show that 50% of all rape claims to police are false! Imagine 50% of all murder claims being false? That would be absurd, but that is exactly what is happening with false rape allegations which more often than not destroy the lives of innocent men.

When I said it was Civil, I was attempting to differentiate it from a criminal matter. Apparently the subtleties of the English language escape you. Since when in the history of this country is one entitled to due process rights in private matters? (An issue I may agree with you on, but legally has never existed.)

Your interpretation of what Obama is "attempting" to do is your subjective opinion, which you are entitled to. However, because you believe a thing to be true does not make it an objective reality.

A Jury does NOT have to follow the law, and can in fact rule outside of the law. That is a LONG standing legal absolute extending back to the Magna Carta. It is called Jury Nullification.

Because a rape accusation is false, does not intrinsically mean the accuser was lying or a spiteful ex. There is a reason why eye witness testimony is shaky at best, and is usually never relied upon exclusively in any case. There is always corresponding circumstantial evidence.

Are you sure you are emotionally detached from this issue? You certainly seem hysterically intertwined with people absolutely agreeing with your suppositions.

I recommend you should stop watching tv. You seem to believe you are "know it all" while you are lost even in your own thought process. Please get help.

Could you please enlighten me as to where I am wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

Simple Google searches can yield a wealth of information for you to do INDEPENDENT research. Instead you choose to live in an echo chamber.

I have posted links to substantiate my argument since you think my information comes from TV. If you could source any rebuttal I would appreciate it. If not, then you are simply blowing hot air.

I am very familiar with jury nullification but in reality 1) majority of Americans have never heard about it or have no idea how to use it, and 2) jury listen to judge's instructions and judge NEVER makes a reference to jury nullification, in fact the instructions almost always just the opposite to what jury nullification is.

You should get involved and sit in as a court watcher to understand the reality.

I was thinking the same thing. From the article, the first thing Diane did was grab Jack's package, and that's assault.

I had that happen years ago. A woman came on to me while I was sitting at a bar. It turned out that she had just had a fight with her boyfriend and was trying to piss him off. I almost got drawn into the whole thing.

I can't wait until gender equality reaches the point where you could punch a woman in the face for pulling a dumbass stunt like that. Until then, I'm your guy... er.... You know what I mean.

Great point.

guys are always willing, at least when it comes to women. so rape isnt even in the equation. seductive women are hot!

jack didnt run and most single guys wouldnt. unless they were gay

wow alms. in my opinion a man should never raise his hand to a woman. unless in self defense. grabbing his package doesnt count!

What a load of BS. So you're saying you're attracted to every woman out there and you're always willing? That is not true for most normal guys who actually think with more than just their penis. Of course I shouldn't expect reasonable responses from you anyways. You are an antagonist on here....

Any unwanted physical contact is considered assault. YOU may not care if some random chick starts grabbing you, but someone else might, and they should have the right to defend themselves (without being arrested and charged with something afterwards), even if they have a penis and they're being assaulted by someone with a vagina.
Some women deserve a good ass beating and I'd hate to have to take care of them all myself.

Men can be raped and/or assaulted by other men.

Or women... Where have you been? Have you missed all the teachers having sex with teen male students?

Absolutely they can, and I have seen it! I have seen numerous cases where female teacher went to prison for having sex with their students.

i know right? and equally as disgusting

wow guess youre not a progressive, congrats! i think that most men would welcome an aggressive advance from a woman, and most men would laugh it off without even considering it assault as long as she were pretty. but none the less i still hold to a man should never raise a hand to a woman except in self defense. now if some pansy male or one who is dedicated to his significant other prefers not to accept such a sexually aggressive advance from a woman then he has every right to "defend" himself. but striking a woman for any reason other than to protect oneself from bodily harm is out of the question for most caring, sensitive modern males. i think in the case of package grabbing most men can defend themselves by simply walking away with a thanks but no thanks muttered. no raising of hand necessary.

no not every woman, only the pretty ones. and most normal men would accept willingly aggressive advances from a pretty woman. guess youre not normal and since me and my penis were minding our own business and you attacked me it appears you are more antagonistic than i. btw, my penis thinks for himself and is on his own. peace.

Could not most men do this in every similar situation? Why is it only refrain from violence where a woman is concerned? Why not make the same attempt to refrain from violent response in all cases except where absolutely necessary?

most normal men prefer not to have their junk grabbed by another male and if done so by another man he is open for an aggressive but not fatal response. its a whole different ball game, no pun intended. although there is a level of equality that should be shared between men and women not everything is or should be equal. there are certain ways men should respond to a woman and certain ways a man should respond to a man and visa versa

uni here you are shouting again without any facts.

As a card carrying union socialist 'educator', can you expect anything less from uni?

What pisses me off is that any attempt to shift the focus away from women being solely responsible for preventing rape is immediately torn to shreds. We're not trying to teach men ways to prevent rape so they can protect women, it's an attempt to end the culture of rape. Imagine if we tried to end drunk driving related deaths by telling everyone to refrain from driving during happy hour because you Might get hit by a drunk driver, or telling people to stay inside unles they're wearing SUV proof armor because they might get hit by a drunk driver.
And I can't believe they would use stastistics from the DOD from 1973 through 1987. It was legal to rape your wife until 1976. There was no such thing as "stalking" or "date rape" until the late 80s. American women are still steeped in the culture that you're not supposed to like sex unless you're a slut, and if you do like sex, then you're a slut and you should expect to be raped.
What pisses me off the most is the fact that conversations about sex ALWAYS revolve around what's safe and what's not safe, when it should be like every other physical activity: go over the rules then start having FUN!

The article was written by a woman..
I fail to see how it is "male rights propaganda"

That is a hair brained comment that does nothing but divert away from the premise of the article. You are as many members on current like to say nothing but a "troll."

Back in the day before women were allowed to have jobs outside of secretarial work, their job was to enforce "proper" behavior within their families. That mostly consisted of making sure your kids got the proper education: boys learned everything, girls learned the arts, how to read (but nothing too heavy), and how to be a good wife. The most important part of being a "good" wife was to be virginal, pure and innocent. Since women were/are second class citezens, she had no place telling a male how he should behave, even if he was only 9 years old. So really, the only power they had was over their daughters and servants. It was the mother's job to make sure her daughters (and sometimes her friend's daughters) conformed to that "good wife" ideal. If a woman was raped, the punishment was to make the man who raped her, marry her. If a woman did anything sexual without her parent's permission, she was an outcast because it lessened her value when it came time to auction her off to whichever family would take her. These ideas are less than 3 generations old so it's perfectly understandable that there are still women out there who feel they need to keep America's daughters pure.
And that means they're plenty of women out there advocating for the wrong set of social norms. It's a bit silly to think there are no women out there who hate other women just because they have the "lesser" set of genitals.

college folks need to be more responsible. forced rape is never acceptable but both women and men need to party responsibly and stick together to avoid date rape. sometimes rape is cried but is unfounded. i live in a college town and shit sometimes happens and sometimes goes unreported but i have never heard or read of the guy being sanctioned. law enforcement in my community take allegations quite seriously and investigate thoroughly. if the allegations are found to be false then the innocent walk

i like sex and sluts. whats the problem?

Ok that was the case some time before the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's..

I think that it's a bit silly to label an informative article bringing light to a serious issue as propaganda. On the sole premise that it doesn't agree with radicle feminist agenda.

Why is it so hard to believe that some men are being wrongly accused of rape?
Why is it that women can drink and come onto men, have seemingly consensual sex, and still be the victim?

I agree with your opinion 100%. Thank you for commenting.

I can tell I'm not going to convince you of anything and I've tired of talking to you already.
Have an interesting life.

Except that the story she used to introduce her article was fictitious. It did not happen in truth. By it's very nature that makes her article propaganda.

I wonder if you would call it a propaganda if this tragedy touched your life.

I call it propaganda because it is. Or are you saying that the story she used to open the article actually happened? If so, please cite the case so I can research it.

Will you get over that god damned hypothetical from the article I care 0% that it wasn't a real situation. It being real or not is of no consequence because real situations much like that hypothetical DO happen, and real young men are wrongly accused of rape.

All you have been on about in this forum is that the situation presented was fake, WE GET IT.

Apparently you do not get it. It speaks to the veracity of the author. Starting your argument with a fictional case seriously damages your credibility.

If there are so many instances of such things occurring, then why not open your article with an ACTUAL case?

Are you SURE you get it?

Just go back to sleep and pray this travesty does not touch your life.

I am a male rape victim. This topic has already touched my life thank you very much.

Sorry to hear you are a victim of rape. Now I understand why you are having a hard time looking at the whole picture putting aside your own experience.

"Back in the day before women were allowed to have jobs outside of secretarial work, their job was to enforce "proper" behavior within their families."
Back in what day what that? You mean back when Queen Elizebeth, Queen Victoria, and Queen Catherine the Great lead the super power nations of their day? You are reciding baloney feminist propoganda. Women who wanted to succeed did succeed in very competitive business and governement careers long before the 60's feminist movement. Do some history checking. The only difference between now and then was their professional accomplishments were based on merits not feminist whining of discrimination and for the lowering of standards.

"Back in the day" as in any day before the 80's, and I'm not a feminist. They want to tell me how I should and should not behave down to how to wear my pubic hair and I (personally) think that's no one's business but my own.
And just because there are instances of women in power before then, they are the exception, not the rule (as they are today, as a matter of fact but now people at least play lip service to the fact that females are just as capable as males). Do you think those women stayed at home playing babymaker because they didn't have the potential to be anything else? Nevermind, I hardly expect you to be honest about that one.
Do you realize that in the 70's many businesses wouldn't serve women the same way they wouldn't serve blacks? It was only because of the feminist movement that we've put that behind us and sexist propaganda that allowed us to forget.

True. And I believe everyone (men and women) must be held to higher standards of innocent until proven guilty and striker "clear and convincing" evidence not "more likely than not" standard of evidence.

Unlike popular belief man also fall victims of Domestic Violence but men do not have the protection of the law or law enforcement. There is predominant aggressor guidelines that too often send men to jail or asked to leave their house even when men called 911 because he was a victim of physical violence committed by his wife or girlfriend.

dude what the hell is wrong with you. Do you really think saying things like that is the most productive thing to do? do you realize your contributing dogshit to this discussion and this country? Take a look in the mirror

Sorry, this is not so anymore.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/fact_sheet_sexual_violence.pdf
The new guidelines are "more likely than not" standard of evidence, rather than the stricter "clear and convincing" evidence.

If not for an occasional splash of ice water,.....I would have remained stuck in the bottle for some time myself !
( thank GOD for the "shrinkage" factor. )