St. Louis Post-Dispatch drops George Will from rotation

Your ability to, as you put it, "fucking control" yourself is wholly irrelevant as regards this discussion. You still are vulnerable to your sexual partner retroactively reinterpreting your interactions with her. Even if, months later, your partner comes to conclude that her consent was not total, you could be brought before a college/university's disciplinary panel. You likely will not be afforded any counsel. You likely will not be allowed to question your accuser. You likely will not be given full access to any evidence against you. Further, those sitting in judgement against you will be using a "preponderance of evidence" standard, and in interpreting that evidence they'll have clear incentives to err on the side of your accuser.

But, hey, at least you'll feel good about yourself knowing you're above all that slut-shaming nonsense.

 

I think it's pretty clear that the definition of sexual assault has evolved, and that it's a good thing for the most part.

I'm all for folks having as much sex as they can, but both parties involved should have no question in their mind about whether their partner is fully consenting (and in a position to consent) to each and every sexual act. And, that consent must be clear every time sexual activity takes place.

Another thing here that is pretty clear is that this makes sex less "casual" And, that's not such a bad thing either, necessarily. But, for the last forty years, we've been making sex more casual. This is a change, and it sends mixed messages.

If this is the new standard, then we should stop sending young adults mixed messages about the casual nature of sexual activity.

 

This is one of those cogent arguments against college-campus jurisdiction being made without slapping all rape victims in the face that I was talking about earlier.

Whatever "slut-shaming" shtick you have going on is beneath you.

 

To interpret this as false accusation or a sign of innocence is to ignore just about all of the well documented post-rape emotional stages.

 

This discussion of what means "yes" is very '90s. Remember the jokes about a woman signing an affidavit before she'd sleep with you? doctorquant's post suggest men may just need that type of legal protection. Is requesting a notarized affidavit out of line?

 

I'd be more sympathetic to the "college justice is applied without due process or fairness" campaign if it wasn't so intimately tied in this thread to "Women should put up an enthusiastic fight or it's not sexual assault" horribleness.

 

Over the years I've gotten a kick out of economists puzzling, in a light-hearted way, over the fact that people don't have way more sex than they actually do:

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2005/05/why_dont_people.html

 

If you're suggesting that I've come within five light-years of that argument in any of my posts, then, wow, that's disappointing ...

 

I don't agree. Colleges and other institutions are playing catch-up because we apparently haven't adequately educated young males about sexual assault and it's become epidemic. Some people may not like the way in which definitions have been clarified, but they were always there. Sexual assault hasn't changed, nor has rape.

 

I don't know about all that, but you did link to a piece that explicitly said if women have the audacity to get drunk, they shouldn't be surprised if they get raped. Because, well, that's the way it is.

 

Yup. Also, nice of dq to leave out the second part of the quote when using the Swarthmore example. Yes, he stopped initially, but then went back and tried again. Just because she didn't fight and scream doesn't make it not rape.

 

Goddamit, do y'all even read? By the Swarthmore policy, even if he hadn't tried again, by the policy he'd committed sexual assault. Do you get that? That was my fucking point.