St. Louis Post-Dispatch drops George Will from rotation

[MisterCreosote]

That is ridiculous.

A common denominator in these cases is alcohol, often copious amounts, enough to render the young woman incapacitated.

You know what THE common denominator in EVERY rape case is? A ****ing rapist.

You are making an assumption that every one of these cases is a rape, because one side says it is a rape (often many weeks or months after the fact).

Not sure if that's what you believe, but that's how you come off.

I'm inclined to believe that more often than not because very few rape accusations are dismissed for being false. They're dismissed on technicalities. Also, see my comment above about the THREAT of force.

And, I'm a man. I know how men think, feel and sometimes act. The difference is I can ****ing control myself, even if (GASP!) a woman is drunk in my vicinity.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Whew. Well, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that.

You're working under an idea of what rape is that I don't think matches the reality from college activists anymore.

 

[BTExpress]

And, even though it does, bringing that up as a primary factor in sexual assaults once again takes the blame off the assaulter (as if men can't ****ing control themselves around drunk vulnerable women).

You know, it is possible for someone to shoulder part of the blame WITHOUT removing it from someone else.

Let's say my kid is an unbuckled passenger in my car and another car runs a red light, slams into us and throws my kid out of the car, killing him. The car who ran the red light IS RESPONSIBLE for the accident. But I'M RESPONSIBLE for my kid's death for not seeing to it that he was buckled up.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Right. We all know car crashes are activities meant to be consensual.

Also, would stricter seat-belt laws get people to stop running red lights?

 

[User 11148]

And, I'm a man. I know how men think, feel and sometimes act. The difference is I can ****ing control myself, even if (GASP!) a woman is drunk in my vicinity.

Your ability to, as you put it, "****ing 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 ****-shaming nonsense.

 

[YankeeFan]

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.

 

[MisterCreosote]

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.

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 "****-shaming" shtick you have going on is beneath you.

 

[MisterCreosote]

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.

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.

 

[Walter Lippmann]

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?

 

[RickStain]

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.

 

[User 11148]

I'm all for folks having as much sex as they can ...

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

We need not just reasons, but rather gains-from-trade-defying reasons. I can think of a few:
1. The long-run lifestyle costs of being "more open to sex" involve a loss of integrity and control. (OK, but I know many married couples, not all of whom hate each other, who don’t seem to have much sex.)
2. The average utility of sex is high but the marginal utilities are falling off a cliff. You just don’t want any more. But how many people are at this margin?
3. Freud was right and we are all repressed. The will is not unitary and the utility-maximizing part is not always in control.
4. There has been a market failure, but the Internet is remedying it. People are having more sex and this will only go up.
5. Sex stops being fun when you do it to close a gap between your marginal utilities. It requires spontaneity or some other quality inconsistent with the classical model of the consumer and the equation of marginal rates of substitution.
6. Sex isn’t as much fun as the studies indicate. Perhaps people lie about their quality of their sex or remember only the better experiences.
7. People want their sex to consist of peaks, rather than seeking to maximize lifetime utility. Tom Schelling once told me this is why he did not listen to Bach more.
8. The market-clearing price for more sex is positive, and people feel shame about paying too explicitly; see also #5.
9. We are biologically programmed to "stick to our guns," rather than just kiss and make up; read more here. Or perhaps your wife has read my earlier post on why it is hard to avoid torture.
10. People are having sex in other ways. Maybe that is really good too.
11. Everyone else is having sex all the time — Michael Vassar simply doesn’t know about it.
12. You’re all addicted to reading blogs.
My wife’s question: "Should you be flattered or insulted that you are considered an expert on this?"

 

[User 11148]

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.

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 ...

 

[cranberry]

In what way has the definition of rape been vastly broadened?

Without getting into the Will column specifically, this is happening for sure. Here is a Philly Mag follow-up piece on the Swarthmore incident at the heart of Will's column.

http://www.phillymag.com/news/2014/04/28/sexual-assault-campus-rape-swarthmore/#disqus_thread

It talks to the lawyer who has been at the vanguard of the new policing of sexual-assault claims (victim's advocate type). Here's what he said (not necessarily about Swarthmore case but about the pattern):

Okay, so I’m all fired up again. In the last two weeks, I’ve worked on five cases all involving drunken hook-ups on college campuses. In each case, the male accused of sexual misconduct was found responsible. In each case, I thought the college got it completely wrong. … Some boards and panels still can’t tell the difference between drunk sex and a policy violation. … Surely, every drunken hook-up is not a punishable offense. … ”

And here's the student handbook:

Relying on non-verbal communication can lead to misunderstandings. Consent may not be inferred from silence, passivity, lack of resistance, or lack of an active response alone. A person who does not physically resist or verbally refuse sexual activity is not necessarily giving consent.

That sounds like a vastly broadened definition of rape -- she doesn't say "no," she just doesn't have a whole lot of enthusiasm toward "yes."

That link is a good one.

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.

 

[MisterCreosote]

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.

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 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.

 

[dreunc1542]

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.

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.

 

[User 11148]

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.

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 ****ing point.

 

[Walter Lippmann]

 

[User 11148]

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.

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.

OK, so how do you reconcile, intellectually, your confidence in your ability to control yourself with your assertion that women's consent is conditioned on the omnipresent fear of violence posed by men? Given that fear, who's to say that, despite all of your best intentions and efforts, your sexual partner won't come to the conclusion that her inherent fear of you -- not anything you said or did -- led to her non-consenting consent?

 

[RickStain]

Through unambiguous communication.

The fact that someone can lie at some point later doesn't change the rules or laws in any way. That is a present possibility in just about anything.

 

[RickStain]

Alternate answer: By secretly filming all sexual interactions