Why do some men commit rape?

tritium · 25-04-2016 10:19AM

NI24 wrote: »

Ah so you're ignoring evidence because it doesn't fit into your poor-men-are- always- being- accused- of- crimes- they- didn't- commit narrative. Let's just hope the next girl he ignores and continues on with actually takes him to court over it. Btw, the narrative is as follows: she says no, he penetrates her anyways, then he stops and asks if he put on a condom would it be okay. The bold part is the most important part of her testimony. I love how you continually ignore the fact that despite her saying NO, he continued on.

And if he does take the college to the cleaners over it and wins, it will just prove how easy it is for men to get away with rape. Assuming, of course, that the woman's testimony was truthful, which you do. The guy explicitly stated that she never said no, while she says she did, so someone isn't telling the truth. And I'm not at all surprised you don't think he deserves any of this-- going by the tone on this forum men can never commit rape in any circumstance whatsoever.

Funnily enough I would have said the most important part of her testimony was where she (repeatedly) says he didn't rape her. I'm conscious there's a difference in their testimony at the point you highlight- he indicates he stops straight away when asked (actually she also indicates this, the difference is she indicates she'd previously said they couldn't have sex because she didn't have birth control)

Strangely enough, when a person is adamant something didn't happen to them, and there's no indication they've been coerced into that view, I tend to believe them ahead of someone piecing together a story based on selective excerpts of an incomplete narrative.

LostinBlanch · 25-04-2016 10:25AM

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Could someone link me to the post or story you're all talking about? I've looked back a few pages but can't seem to see it.

Here you go, it's post #167

I just saw this on Reddit.

Basically a guy and girl engage in consensual sex, another girl finds out the next morning and surmises that because they guy is a prominent football player she's been raped and reports that to the University Authorities who then suspended him despite her saying that the sex was consensual.

This is going to a federal law suit. His lawyer states

In the federal lawsuit Neal is suing not only CSU-Pueblo, but also the U.S. Department of Education for its Title IX process.

“CSU-Pueblo has violated my client’s due process rights and engaged in gender discrimination in his wrongful suspension,” said Neal’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg. “There’s a mountain of evidence to prove my client’s relationship with the alleged victim was entirely consensual, including statements from the alleged victim herself.”

__________________

BoatMad · 25-04-2016 10:31AM

Whats strange is that NI24 seems to contend that if someone decides they were not raped. they should still be prosecution anyway.

Rape is a strange crime , there is little in the way of normal proof , thats exists in other criminal trials, there is typically merely the word of both individuals, there is almost never any third party evidence collaborating , as there would be in other criminal trials.

Consent can be very hard to determine in some cases and can be offered and withdrawn multiple times. Women to some extent , have an " illusion" of the chase " for example

Yes in some cases its clearly a straightforward crime, in some cases it is clearly not

Pawwed Rig · 25-04-2016 10:52AM

It would seem to me that advice that should be offered to someone who is being raped (from a legal perspective) would be to fight it for all they are worth. This may lead to an increase in violence in the situation but would be more 'provable' where a prosecution was sought. It would also remove all ambiguity from the situation for the perpetrator.
I am curious as to what advice is given. I have never been or heard of anyone getting any guidance. Any other violent assault it would seem obvious to me that you get away if you can, failing that you try to limit the damage to the best of your ability.
Not victim blaming here but genuinely curious as to what I should be telling my kids.

Tipperary Fairy · 25-04-2016 11:22AM

It seems odd. It says that she told him she didn't want to have sex without contraception and he went ahead anyway. It does say she said she said no. So if it happened in that order, then yeah technically it is kinda rape.

It's odd also that the flatmate decided just from seeing a hickey that she was raped, they have to have left something out there.

NI24 · 25-04-2016 11:09PM

tritium wrote: »

Funnily enough I would have said the most important part of her testimony was where she (repeatedly) says he didn't rape her. I'm conscious there's a difference in their testimony at the point you highlight- he indicates he stops straight away when asked (actually she also indicates this, the difference is she indicates she'd previously said they couldn't have sex because she didn't have birth control)

Strangely enough, when a person is adamant something didn't happen to them, and there's no indication they've been coerced into that view, I tend to believe them ahead of someone piecing together a story based on selective excerpts of an incomplete narrative.

So rape is no longer an action, but a state of mind huh? I think therefore I am. I don't think I was raped, therefore I was not.
So let's take your word for it that what he did was not rape and let's say it happens again. He's with a woman, she tells him no, he proceeds to do whatever the hell he wants anyways --as he did before--only this time the woman gets angry, leaves, and charges him with rape. It's the same exact scenario, the same action, only the reaction is different. So now what tritium? Does a person's reaction only count as proof this time?

BoatMad wrote: »

Whats strange is that NI24 seems to contend that if someone decides they were not raped. they should still be prosecution anyway.

Rape is a strange crime , there is little in the way of normal proof , thats exists in other criminal trials, there is typically merely the word of both individuals, there is almost never any third party evidence collaborating , as there would be in other criminal trials.

Consent can be very hard to determine in some cases and can be offered and withdrawn multiple times. Women to some extent , have an " illusion" of the chase " for example

Yes in some cases its clearly a straightforward crime, in some cases it is clearly not

So body language is enough to exonerate rape, but not enough to accuse? Well, isn't that convenient.

NI24 · 25-04-2016 11:14PM

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

It seems odd. It says that she told him she didn't want to have sex without contraception and he went ahead anyway. It does say she said she said no. So if it happened in that order, then yeah technically it is kinda rape.

It's odd also that the flatmate decided just from seeing a hickey that she was raped, they have to have left something out there.

It's absolutely a big if. According to the article, she said "although I told him no, he ended up penetrating me anyway...and I told him to stop." That ellipse puts a big question mark over what happened. What did she tell investigators in between those statements?

Pat Mustard · 26-04-2016 01:47AM

Link

Colorado State University-Pueblo suspended a male athlete for years after he was found responsible for sexually assaulting a female trainer. But the trainer never accused him of wrongdoing, and said repeatedly that their relationship was consensual. She even stated, unambiguously, "I'm fine and I wasn't raped."

Says it all, really.

NI24 · 26-04-2016 05:39AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Link

Says it all, really.

Not even close Pat. All of those that disagreed with me were hanging their entire argument on what was written in the article and specifically what the girl said. An article that took quotes out of context, that didn't even give a quote to what the third party friend actually said to investigators, and which quoted the girl as saying, "although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me..." and then she asked him to stop and he did so. So she may have said she wasn't raped, but what she told investigators, was, in fact, a rape.

Basically, in order to support their conclusion of his innocence, you went searching for evidence, instead of searching for the evidence and then coming to a conclusion. Also, you think a blog post which, once again, is full of theory and speculation and opinion actually constitutes fact? I'm laughing so hard it hurts.

If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that he was denied his constitutional rights (according to your link) then the entire argument could have ended right then and there. Case closed, nothing to see here. If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that the article left out pertinent parts of the story, such as what occurred between her first no and his penetrating her. If only they came to the conclusion he was innocent because the guy and girl gave conflicting testimony so who can you believe?
But no. First their conclusion was reached, and then they set about finding evidence to reach their conclusion. No bias there I'm sure.

tritium · 26-04-2016 07:26AM

NI24 wrote: »

Not even close Pat. All of those that disagreed with me were hanging their entire argument on what was written in the article and specifically what the girl said. An article that took quotes out of context, that didn't even give a quote to what the third party friend actually said to investigators, and which quoted the girl as saying, "although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me..." and then she asked him to stop and he did so. So she may have said she wasn't raped, but what she told investigators, was, in fact, a rape.

Basically, in order to support their conclusion of his innocence, you went searching for evidence, instead of searching for the evidence and then coming to a conclusion. Also, you think a blog post which, once again, is full of theory and speculation and opinion actually constitutes fact? I'm laughing so hard it hurts.

If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that he was denied his constitutional rights (according to your link) then the entire argument could have ended right then and there. Case closed, nothing to see here. If only those that came to the conclusion he was innocent had based that conclusion on the fact that the article left out pertinent parts of the story, such as what occurred between her first no and his penetrating her. If only they came to the conclusion he was innocent because the guy and girl gave conflicting testimony so who can you believe?
But no. First their conclusion was reached, and then they set about finding evidence to reach their conclusion. No bias there I'm sure.

Funnily enough (not really) you've done exactly what you accuse everyone else of and selectively taken quote(s?) From the article to justify your position while conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't support your view.

tritium · 26-04-2016 07:34AM

NI24 wrote: »

So rape is no longer an action, but a state of mind huh? I think therefore I am. I don't think I was raped, therefore I was not.

As I said earlier, I generally believe the alleged victim ahead of the possee of social engineers who want to tell them how they *should* think. I guess I'm just not a fan of newspeak

So let's take your word for it that what he did was not rape and let's say it happens again. He's with a woman, she tells him no, he proceeds to do whatever the hell he wants anyways --as he did before--only this time the woman gets angry, leaves, and charges him with rape. It's the same exact scenario, the same action, only the reaction is different. So now what tritium? Does a person's reaction only count as proof this time?

Read the damn article- he didn't do "whatever the hell he wants". Not even his partner claims that yet you insist on hanging your coat on a single line of the report that fits your agenda. Strangely you're happy to ignore every other thing said by the lady in that article that doesn't support your view.

So body language is enough to exonerate rape, but not enough to accuse? Well, isn't that convenient.

The only accusation of rape is by a group of people that weren't actually present. Actually even they haven't tried to push rape, they've gone for a softer sounding offence, presumably to make the kangaroo courts conclusion look more reasonable (facepalm)

NI24 · 26-04-2016 08:20AM

tritium wrote: »

Funnily enough (not really) you've done exactly what you accuse everyone else of and selectively taken quote(s?) From the article to justify your position while conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't support your view.

Oh really tritium? How exactly have I done that? If her story is to believed as you have believed it, she told investigators that she told him no, and he penetrated her anyway. That's rape, there's no disputing that. IF that's what happened.

Wibbs · 26-04-2016 08:24AM

tritium wrote: »

As I said earlier, I generally believe the alleged victim ahead of the possee of social engineers who want to tell them how they *should* think. I guess I'm just not a fan of newspeak

Oh god so much this. Damn near every "scientific" with the feminist agenda survey into the subject does the same thing, all the way back to the Koss study that gave us rape stats in US colleges that if true would have been like the fall of Carthage every time the dorm lights went out. It and subsequent calls for attention on the matter did inform however. US colleges became so fearful of the issue(naturally) they set up procedures and facilities to report and help victims of this crime and what they found was a) the levels were significantly lower than first reported and b) slightly lower than outside the college gates. Oh and US government studies show the crime itself is falling in incidence since the 90's. Better reporting, more victim support, better education on consent and DNA evidence seem to have been factors.

Strangely you're happy to ignore every other thing said by the lady in that article that doesn't support your view.

On any such contentious subject when hysteria follows and heels get dug in this is almost a given. Look at both sides of the current EU migrant crisis. You hear talk of "rape culture", for me there is also a fair chunk of rape hysteria going on too.

NI24 · 26-04-2016 08:28AM

tritium wrote: »

As I said earlier, I generally believe the alleged victim ahead of the possee of social engineers who want to tell them how they *should* think. I guess I'm just not a fan of newspeak

Oh good. Then when the alleged victim told investigators that she told him no and he penetrated her anyways I'm assuming you realize she was raped.

tritium wrote: »

Read the damn article- he didn't do "whatever the hell he wants". Not even his partner claims that yet you insist on hanging your coat on a single line of the report that fits your agenda. Strangely you're happy to ignore every other thing said by the lady in that article that doesn't support your view.

I'm going to ignore the abusive command at the beginning of your post and advise you to read the article again (I'm sure the mods will be taking action for that little tantrum that you threw, but then again probably not). The reason they charged him with rape was because of the words that came directly out of the woman's mouth. If you read the article, which is painfully clear at this point that you did not, you will realize that they suspended him on her words. In fact, the article states that he was charged with rape because of the initial penetration. I'm not the only one who is hanging my hat on this line.

Btw, it's very obvious why you keep insisting on not answering certain questions. You and I both know that if you answered them honestly, your argument would fall flat on its face.

Maguined · 26-04-2016 08:52AM

NI24 wrote: »

Oh good. Then when the alleged victim told investigators that she told him no and he penetrated her anyways I'm assuming you realize she was raped.

If someone says yes to consent to sex and then changes their mind to no and expresses no does that mean the other person can carry on as they originally said yes?

People can change their consent at any time, she did not want to have unprotected sex but she consented to protected sex.

You seem to be the focused on the technical instead of the nuance of intimated relations so if you only care about technical aspects out of interest do you believe it is possible she raped him as at no point in her story did she ask him for his affirmed consent?

NI24 · 26-04-2016 08:59AM

Maguined wrote: »

If someone says yes to consent to sex and then changes their mind to no and expresses no does that mean the other person can carry on as they originally said yes?

People can change their consent at any time, she did not want to have unprotected sex but she consented to protected sex.

You seem to be the focused on the technical instead of the nuance of intimated relations so if you only care about technical aspects out of interest do you believe it is possible she raped him as at no point in her story did she ask him for his affirmed consent?

Are you being serious? She said no, he ignored her, then she changed her mind. The initial no is what counts. And what if she hadn't changed her mind? It still wouldn't matter because he ignored her initial no. As you say, she did not want to have unprotected sex, he ignored that, plowed ahead, and then she changed her mind. Why did he ignore that? The article doesn't explain why he ignored her. In fact, according to him, she never said no in the first place. Funny how that gets left out again and again and again and again and again.

Pat Mustard · 26-04-2016 09:39AM

NI24 wrote: »

that didn't even give a quote to what the third party friend actually said to investigators, and which quoted the girl as saying, "although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me..." and then she asked him to stop and he did so. So she may have said she wasn't raped, but what she told investigators, was, in fact, a rape.

That's what somebody else said, who wasn't there. That's called hearsay evidence, which is generally inadmissible in court, due to its inherent unreliability. It's called the rule against hearsay.

In fact, the lady herself had this to say about that other person and her hearsay evidence:

"One of the other Athletic Training students screwed me over!...She went behind my back and told my AT advisor stuff that wasn’t true!!! I’m trying so hard to fix it all."

NI24 wrote: »

Not even close Pat. All of those that disagreed with me were hanging their entire argument on what was written in the article and specifically what the girl said. An article that took quotes out of context,

It appears that you are the one who is taking matters out of context in an attempt to make the story fit with your own narrative of events.

If we swallow your narrative, the woman did not consent, was raped, had consensual sex with the rapist again, said that she was not raped, made no complaint to college authorities or police at any stage, and continued to assert that she had consented the whole time.

Sounds highly unlikely.

Alternatively, the only way that she could have been telling the truth about consent after having said no is that she gave non verbal consent. This fits her story that she consented and was not raped.

More importantly, her story doesn't match your story.

Maguined · 26-04-2016 09:42AM

NI24 wrote: »

Are you being serious? She said no, he ignored her, then she changed her mind. The initial no is what counts. And what if she hadn't changed her mind? It still wouldn't matter because he ignored her initial no. As you say, she did not want to have unprotected sex, he ignored that, plowed ahead, and then she changed her mind. Why did he ignore that? The article doesn't explain why he ignored her. In fact, according to him, she never said no in the first place. Funny how that gets left out again and again and again and again and again.

I have had sex with women where in the heat of the moment they have mounted me before I had a condom on. I told them before we started that I wanted to use a condom but people do get caught up in the moment so I stopped them and reminded them and got a condom. Do you believe I was raped by these women? Do you believe if I went to the police these women should go to jail as rapists?

I believe he got caught up in the moment, he shouldn't have but he then got control of himself and stopped and as per the woman herself she believes it was consensual.

I will ask you again since you skipped it but do you believe this woman also raped this man seeing as she never asked his consent?

Lemming · 26-04-2016 10:03AM

Maguined wrote: »

I have had sex with women where in the heat of the moment they have mounted me before I had a condom on. I told them before we started that I wanted to use a condom but people do get caught up in the moment so I stopped them and reminded them and got a condom. Do you believe I was raped by these women? Do you believe if I went to the police these women should go to jail as rapists?

Just to chase this one up, I'd like NI24 to provide an answer to the above ^^. Should be interesting.

Wibbs · 26-04-2016 10:23AM

Lemming wrote: »

Just to chase this one up, I'd like NI24 to provide an answer to the above ^^. Should be interesting.

Just filter it through the "women are always victims and men are always the victimisers" machine and chances are you'll have the guts of your answer without the need for waiting.

NI24 · 27-04-2016 05:20AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

That's what somebody else said, who wasn't there. That's called hearsay evidence, which is generally inadmissible in court, due to its inherent unreliability. It's called the rule against hearsay.

Did you actually read the article? Let me quote it for you directly. The girl, not the friend, told investigators and I quote directly, "Although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me....then I told him to stop, and he did, and then asked if a condom yada yada yada." But please, don't let direct quotes get in the way of your smug lecturing.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Alternatively, the only way that she could have been telling the truth about consent after having said no is that she gave non verbal consent. This fits her story that she consented and was not raped.

Except the article doesn't provide that information. It doesn't tell us what she said happened between her first no and his penetrating her so you're filling in the gap with speculation. And that, my friend, is inadmissible in court.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

More importantly, her story doesn't match your story.

More importantly, her story doesn't match the guy's. Because it was her version of events, not his, which got him in trouble. By all means, continue to ignore the most pertinent part.

NI24 · 27-04-2016 07:50AM

Maguined wrote: »

I have had sex with women where in the heat of the moment they have mounted me before I had a condom on. I told them before we started that I wanted to use a condom but people do get caught up in the moment so I stopped them and reminded them and got a condom. Do you believe I was raped by these women? Do you believe if I went to the police these women should go to jail as rapists?

I believe he got caught up in the moment, he shouldn't have but he then got control of himself and stopped and as per the woman herself she believes it was consensual.

I will ask you again since you skipped it but do you believe this woman also raped this man seeing as she never asked his consent?

I'll answer your hypothetical if you answer mine first. The one I gave tritium some posts back, but for some reason he ignored. I believe I repeated it, so when someone can answer that question, I'll go ahead. But I'd just like to add, she didn't need his consent because he never said no. She however, did say no. In fact I directly quoted her saying it.

Maguined · 27-04-2016 08:06AM

NI24 wrote: »

I'll answer your hypothetical if you answer mine first. The one I gave tritium some posts back, but for some reason he ignored. I believe I repeated it, so when someone can answer that question, I'll go ahead. But I'd just like to add, she didn't need his consent because he never said no. She however, did say no. In fact I directly quoted her saying it.

Just to be sure is this the question you are asking?

NI24 wrote: »

So rape is no longer an action, but a state of mind huh? I think therefore I am. I don't think I was raped, therefore I was not.
So let's take your word for it that what he did was not rape and let's say it happens again. He's with a woman, she tells him no, he proceeds to do whatever the hell he wants anyways --as he did before--only this time the woman gets angry, leaves, and charges him with rape. It's the same exact scenario, the same action, only the reaction is different. So now what tritium? Does a person's reaction only count as proof this time?

So body language is enough to exonerate rape, but not enough to accuse? Well, isn't that convenient.

Yes I believe your above example would be rape, she says no and he continues and she was not happy during the entire encounter. The difference between us seems to be you taking a very black and white linear approach. Yes he penetrated her when she said no and that was wrong but I believe life is more nuanced. As I said in my example people get carried away with themselves when especially in highly passionate situations like sex. He made a mistake but then correct himself by stopping and getting a condom and she then consented and was happy with the encounter and then was happy to repeat it again in the future.

Similarly to my situation which happened twice in my life I believe the women I was with technically made a mistake because they knew I wanted to use a condom but got carried away with themselves in the heat of the moment but then when I pointed it out to them we got a condom and we continued on. So since you do not seem to recognise nuance in these situations and only the technical do you believe those two women raped me? Do you believe those two women should be punished by law and if they went to prison do you believe that would be justice?

If that was not the example you were referring to then you can point out whatever you specifically want and I will try and answer it.

NI24 · 27-04-2016 08:24AM

Maguined wrote: »

Yes I believe your above example would be rape, she says no and he continues and she was not happy during the entire encounter. The difference between us seems to be you taking a very black and white linear approach. Yes he penetrated her when she said no and that was wrong but I believe life is more nuanced. As I said in my example people get carried away with themselves when especially in highly passionate situations like sex. He made a mistake but then correct himself by stopping and getting a condom and she then consented and was happy with the encounter and then was happy to repeat it again in the future.

Similarly to my situation which happened twice in my life I believe the women I was with technically made a mistake because they knew I wanted to use a condom but got carried away with themselves in the heat of the moment but then when I pointed it out to them we got a condom and we continued on. So since you do not seem to recognise nuance in these situations and only the technical do you believe those two women raped me? Do you believe those two women should be punished by law and if they went to prison do you believe that would be justice?

If that was not the example you were referring to then you can point out whatever you specifically want and I will try and answer it.

Yes , that's the example. I also gave other examples which got ignored because the answer doesn't suit others' agendas. I don't believe "I got carried away" is a good enough excuse. It certainly wouldn't fly in a court of law. And we truly don't know what body language she projected at that particular moment because the article doesn't provide the information. And that's what the outrage at his "guilty" verdict is based on --the article provided.

Furthermore, he never went to prison for what he did, he was suspended from school. If he was denied his constitutional rights as he says, then the investigation will be relaunched and statements taken again. Also, I'm not quite sure why he told something different to investigators and why I'm the only one questioning it. tritium said he was "conscious" of the fact that they had different stories, but of course, he took it no further than that, and yet that point where their stories diverge is exactly the reason he was suspended.

Maguined · 27-04-2016 08:28AM

NI24 wrote: »

I'll answer your hypothetical if you answer mine first.

I answered your hypothetical question but you didn't answer mine?

If you don't believe people can get carried away with themselves and that cannot forgive a mistake do you then believe I am a rape victim and two women deserve to go to jail for raping me despite the fact I considered both to be consensual?

NI24 · 27-04-2016 08:35AM

Maguined wrote: »

I answered your hypothetical question but you didn't answer mine?

If you don't believe people can get carried away with themselves and that cannot forgive a mistake do you then believe I am a rape victim and two women deserve to go to jail for raping me despite the fact I considered both to be consensual?

I did answer your question. What part didn't you understand? Yes, I think if you told them no, and conveyed through your body language no, that they committed an act of rape. That's what I mean by "wouldn't fly in court". As in, court of law. If you want to forgive them, that's fine, but if your case, unbeknownst to you, gets sent to investigators, then it's the duty of those investigators to follow through. Much like domestic abuse, child abuse, and a whole host of other crimes. And the level of assault committed gets taken into consideration.

Maguined · 27-04-2016 08:54AM

NI24 wrote: »

I did answer your question. What part didn't you understand? Yes, I think if you told them no, and conveyed through your body language no, that they committed an act of rape. That's what I mean by "wouldn't fly in court". As in, court of law. If you want to forgive them, that's fine, but if your case, unbeknownst to you, gets sent to investigators, then it's the duty of those investigators to follow through. Much like domestic abuse, child abuse, and a whole host of other crimes. And the level of assault committed gets taken into consideration.

Apoliogies your answer seemed to be specifically about the reported case and not towards my situation.

I do not believe it would in any wany be justice to send women to jail when I consented to the encounter. They made a mistake of passion that was easily corrected. I did not consent to unprocted sex so once protection was sorted I consented to what happened after similar to what happened in the reported case.

I don't believe it would even get to a court of law. If the department of prosecutions came to me about these situations I would tell them I was not raped, I consented and I believe that would be the end of it and no prosection would take place. If it did go ahead I would hope a jury would not find these women guilty and I would testify for their defence.

I don't believe a conviction would be justice at all.

tritium · 27-04-2016 09:01AM

Just to put this to bed NI, I didn't address your hypothetical because (I) maguiined pretty much covered it off fairly easily (ii) the second part of the hypothetical is a bit odd frankly, you're assuming a person who by both parties accounts actually actively affirms consent turns into a feral rapist when the moon rises (men are bad mkay....) And (iii) as I noted there's a subtle but important difference in the two accounts which means we're very much in he said/ she said territory (even though they both have the same overall message, I.e. no rape happened) which at least warrants a degree of scrutiny against any other evidence. In this case the most compelling other evidence is the other parties vehement and repeated insistence that no rape happened. Strangely the college felt here that one disputed aspect of the account constitutes a preponderance of evidence in spite if every other element disagreeing with it. Its not clear why exactly they felt one parties account was so much more credible than everything else but I'd speculate it may well have been a mix of fear of not covering their ass and the fact that it was easier to victimise a man here

Pat Mustard · 27-04-2016 09:28AM

NI24 wrote: »

Did you actually read the article? Let me quote it for you directly. The girl, not the friend, told investigators and I quote directly, "Although I told Grant no, he ended up penetrating me....then I told him to stop, and he did, and then asked if a condom yada yada yada." But please, don't let direct quotes get in the way of your smug lecturing.

Okay, that's what the investigator's report said.

NI24 wrote: »

Except the article doesn't provide that information. It doesn't tell us what she said happened between her first no and his penetrating her so you're filling in the gap with speculation. And that, my friend, is inadmissible in court.

No it isn't speculation. She said that she consented.

There are two possiblities:

1. The woman did not consent, was raped, had consensual sex with the rapist again, said that she was not raped, made no complaint to college authorities or police at any stage, and continued to assert that she had consented the whole time.

2. The woman said no but still consented. She said that she consented. She said that she was not raped.

Which one of the two possibilities is it? Because the first one is very unlikely.

NI24 wrote: »

More importantly, her story doesn't match the guy's. Because it was her version of events, not his, which got him in trouble. By all means, continue to ignore the most pertinent part.

Both her version and his version say that she was not raped and that she consented. That is the salient point. You continue to ignore that point. That's just obtuse.

The woman says that she consented but you say that she didn't.

Your entire point is that she said no, therefore it was not possible for her to consent afterwards. It's just rubbish.

smash · 27-04-2016 09:34AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Your entire point is that she said no, therefore it was not possible for her to consent afterwards. It's just rubbish.

It's a daft point isn't it.

@N124 : You seem to believe that once she said no, she couldn't change her mind. Do you then also believe that if someone says yes, they can not revoke their consent?

NI24 · 28-04-2016 04:55AM

tritium wrote: »

Just to put this to bed NI, I didn't address your hypothetical because (I) maguiined pretty much covered it off fairly easily (ii) the second part of the hypothetical is a bit odd frankly, you're assuming a person who by both parties accounts actually actively affirms consent turns into a feral rapist when the moon rises (men are bad mkay....) And (iii) as I noted there's a subtle but important difference in the two accounts which means we're very much in he said/ she said territory (even though they both have the same overall message, I.e. no rape happened) which at least warrants a degree of scrutiny against any other evidence. In this case the most compelling other evidence is the other parties vehement and repeated insistence that no rape happened. Strangely the college felt here that one disputed aspect of the account constitutes a preponderance of evidence in spite if every other element disagreeing with it. Its not clear why exactly they felt one parties account was so much more credible than everything else but I'd speculate it may well have been a mix of fear of not covering their ass and the fact that it was easier to victimise a man here

Cover their ass over what? They investigated a claim. If nothing showed up, then it would have been over and they'd have done their job. You also said that where their testimonies diverge warrants a degree of scrutiny. But why? If, as you say, they have the same stories, then its a moot point. I'll pose my hypothetical for you one more time. Like in the first case, the girls says she doesn't want to have sex, he ignores it and penetrates her anyways. So she tells him to stop, as in the first time, and he does but he's already committed the act. So she charges him with rape. According to you, that's not rape, but how? He did the same thing as he did before, only her reaction to it is different. He penetrated without consent.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 04:56AM

Maguined wrote: »

I don't believe a conviction would be justice at all.

With all due respect, your feelings are irrelevant, as it becomes the duty of the court, not the victim, to prove the crime.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 05:05AM

Pat Mustard wrote: »

No it isn't speculation. She said that she consented.

At what point she consented is what's being contested. The article does not provide that information.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Which one of the two possibilities is it? Because the first one is very unlikely.

So if it's unlikely it isn't true? Sorry that doesn't cut it. Strange things happen, it could have happened here. Stockholm syndrome is unlikely, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. *Okay, I'm editing this part to say that if it's unlikely it's not proof of guilt, however, there may be more to her statement that made it likely. We simply don't know from the information provided in the article. Also, he was never charged with a crime, he was suspended from school.

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The woman says that she consented but you say that she didn't.

I'm saying that consenting after the act of rape is committed is irrelevant. Once it's committed, that is the "salient point". Perhaps she said she didn't want to have sex, but she still wanted to fool around and then he penetrated her. She made her intentions clear, but qualified it with, hey, let's do other stuff, but he ignored that and penetrated her. He's still guilty of sexual impropriety in that scenario, which is probably why he was never charged. But this is merely speculation. We'd have to read her statements.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 05:15AM

smash wrote: »

It's a daft point isn't it.

@N124 : You seem to believe that once she said no, she couldn't change her mind. Do you then also believe that if someone says yes, they can not revoke their consent?

I didn't say she couldn't, I said that the article doesn't provide enough information to tell us at which point she consented and that article is what people were basing their outrage on. An article that does not, in fact, prove his innocence. If the act was already committed, then her consenting afterwards makes no difference.

So that daft point is why I don't automatically assume he's innocent after he was found guilty, and that daft point, among other things she may have said in her statement, is why he was suspended in the first place. Guess whose opinion matters here? I'd say the ones doing the investigating. The court of public opinion, or in this case, the gentlemens club, is not the court to use. And I have a feeling if we used that same standard to charge a man you would be screaming bloody murder and rightly so.

This lawsuit he files will put to rest, once and for all, what happened that night and in what order. Then, and only then, can we determine if he was falsely suspended. If, as he says, his constitutional rights were violated, then the investigation will be relaunched, testimony taken again, and then they'll decide whether or not to charge him.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:17AM

Maguined wrote: »

Well there is no jury. He was not found guilty of any crime. No report of a crime has been made to the police. This is the problem with the Title IX process where the preponderance of evidence is no longer beyond reasonable doubt but rather more likely than not. People are getting kicked out of college without a criminal conviction so they are suing the colleges.

Except, if you'll recall maguined, the first three reactions made no mention of this. It was "what the...", the friend should be thrown in jail, and didn't you read the article? they agreed it was consensual. No mention whatsoever of his constitutional rights. If that's what the outrage was about, it would have been mentioned.

Maguined · 28-04-2016 08:29AM

NI24 wrote: »

Except, if you'll recall maguined, the first three reactions made no mention of this. It was "what the...", the friend should be thrown in jail, and didn't you read the article? they agreed it was consensual. No mention whatsoever of his constitutional rights. If that's what the outrage was about, it would have been mentioned.

I did read the article, it mentioned the below?

“CSU-Pueblo has violated my client’s due process rights and engaged in gender discrimination in his wrongful suspension,” said Neal’s attorney, Andrew Miltenberg. “There’s a mountain of evidence to prove my client’s relationship with the alleged victim was entirely consensual, including statements from the alleged victim herself.”

What exactly due you think the lawsuit is about then?

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:33AM

Maguined wrote: »

I did read the article, it mentioned the below?

What exactly due you think the lawsuit is about then?

I know you read the article. I was quoting tritium's response to me when he said, "Didn't you read the article? They agreed it was consensual." And whoever made the comment of throwing the friend in jail based on a secondhand summary of her testimony to investigators.

Maguined · 28-04-2016 08:40AM

NI24 wrote: »

I know you read the article. I was quoting tritium's response to me when he said, "Didn't you read the article? They agreed it was consensual." And whoever made the comment of throwing the friend in jail based on a secondhand summary of her testimony to investigators.

If you want to discuss Tritiums points then quote him and reply to him but this is just getting messy if you want to quote me (in response to Orgasphon) but are actually discussing Tritiums points which are unrelated to what I said (in response to Orgasphon).

It will just mire the discussion in confusion.

Lemming · 28-04-2016 08:44AM

NI24 wrote: »

Cover their ass over what? They investigated a claim.

I think you'll find that US campuses are terrified of losing their federal funding which was a direct threat leveled at them for failing to comply with the remarkably wooly, vague, and abstract directive that is Title IX put before them. Thus a) the bar for investigation & due process is incredibly low so as to be seen to be doing something and b) it encourages "results" for the sake of being seem to be doing something rather than doing it right.

So yes, the college authorities literally are covering their asses.

smash · 28-04-2016 08:45AM

I'd like to congratulate NI24 for turning this thread in to a complete mess... :rolleyes:

/slow clap

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:45AM

Maguined wrote: »

If you want to discuss Tritiums points then quote him and reply to him but this is just getting messy if you want to quote me (in response to Orgasphon) but are actually discussing Tritiums points which are unrelated to what I said (in response to Orgasphon).

It will just mire the discussion in confusion.

Will do. Btw, his lawsuit is twofold. If title such and such violates constitutional rights, then he wins that part. But it doesn't mean no crime was committed.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:46AM

smash wrote: »

I'd like to congratulate NI24 for turning this thread in to a complete mess... :rolleyes:

/slow clap

Ah, silly old me actually looking at the facts and pointing out the flaws in a supposed piece of journalism. How dare I!

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:49AM

Lemming wrote: »

I think you'll find that US campuses are terrified of losing their federal funding which was a direct threat leveled at them for failing to comply with the remarkably wooly, vague, and abstract directive that is Title IX put before them. Thus a) the bar for investigation & due process is incredibly low so as to be seen to be doing something and b) it encourages "results" for the sake of being seem to be doing something rather than doing it right.

So yes, the college authorities literally are covering their asses.

Ok now I see what he's saying. If that is what they're doing than that's not only unfortunate, but illegal. I didn't realize funding was dependent on the amount of crimes it exposed.

Lemming · 28-04-2016 08:50AM

NI24 wrote: »

Ok now I see what he's saying. If that is what they're doing than that's not only unfortunate, but illegal. I didn't realize funding was dependent on the amount of crimes it exposed.

Drop the sarcasm. I never said it was dependent on numbers; I said it was dependent on their being seen to be complying with Title IX (or failing to in that regard).

The colleges have not been issued any guidance on what constitutes failure to comply nor on how to approach dealing with Title IX, simply that failure (or being seen to fail at any rate) would result in federal funding being withdrawn.

The result has been throwing male students under a proverbial bus under the most dubious of circumstances whilst reducing what is a serious crime into a petty blogging scandal. The whole approach by college campuses utterly trivialises what rape is and sends out the wrong message; on the seriousness of the crime, that it's not a crime so the police wont be involved, and that the bar of evidence is so low that you can destroy someone else's life literally on accusation alone if you are the right gender.

Maguined · 28-04-2016 08:52AM

NI24 wrote: »

Will do. Btw, his lawsuit is twofold. If title such and such violates constitutional rights, then he wins that part. But it doesn't mean no crime was committed.

No of course not. Sure crimes get committed all the time but without prove there is no conviction. If he was convicted of this crime in a court of law he would not be able to sue. However he is allowed sue because there was no complaint made to the police, that would require the woman to press charges which she has not as she considers it consensual.

There are literally hundreds of lawsuits ongoing right now over students suspended from college due to Title IX resulting in their due process being denied.

smash · 28-04-2016 08:55AM

NI24 wrote: »

Ah, silly old me actually looking at the facts and pointing out the flaws in a supposed piece of journalism. How dare I!

You're not looking at the facts, you're picking apart an article to find anything to suit your agenda and allocate blame.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:56AM

Maguined wrote: »

No of course not. Sure crimes get committed all the time but without prove there is no conviction. If he was convicted of this crime in a court of law he would not be able to sue. However he is allowed sue because there was no complaint made to the police, that would require the woman to press charges which she has not as she considers it consensual.

I don't think that's necessarily true. If the school launches its own investigation and finds evidence of a crime, then I think they have the authority to hand it over to police and the police are required to follow through. I know that in domestic abuse cases, if a third party calls in the crime, and there is evidence of abuse, someone has to go to jail.

NI24 · 28-04-2016 08:59AM

smash wrote: »

You're not looking at the facts, you're picking apart an article to find anything to suit your agenda and allocate blame.

Her recollection of events and subsequent statement to investigators is indeed fact. Their contrary version of events is fact. So much so that it was pointed out in the article. So save the blame for yourself.

Maguined · 28-04-2016 08:59AM

NI24 wrote: »

Ok now I see what he's saying. If that is what they're doing than that's not only unfortunate, but illegal. I didn't realize funding was dependent on the amount of crimes it exposed.

That is why there are hundreds of students suing colleges because it is illegal. The problem is that Title IX is not a new law. It is an old law from the 70's that was introduced to stop gender discrimination. However it's use was reinterpretted years ago as basically saying colleges were not supporting gender equality as women were being sexually assaulted on college so a threat as made that if a college failed to stem sexual assault they had failed their Title IX responsibilities and so the college would lose state funding.

The preponderance of evidence was also then changed which is a violation of due process.

Maguined · 28-04-2016 09:02AM

NI24 wrote: »

I don't think that's necessarily true. If the school launches its own investigation and finds evidence of a crime, then I think they have the authority to hand it over to police and the police are required to follow through. I know that in domestic abuse cases, if a third party calls in the crime, and there is evidence of abuse, someone has to go to jail.

The college investigators will ask the victim if they want to involve the police. However even if the person does not and is not going to press for criminal charges the investigators still conclude their own investigation and as the preponderance of evidence is so low and they fear losing federal funding it is simply easier for them to assume people are guilty and suspend them.

Why do some men commit rape?

Comments