College consent crisis: students forced or threatened into sex

CtevenSrowder

gauchesnell wrote: »

Good dont post again. Your attitude is appalling and should not be tolerated anywhere.

I repeat if you think you will be accused you are doing something wrong.

It is not funny.

The fact that you work in a university is of real concern. I truly hope you are not a lecturer.

gauchesnell

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The fact that you work in a university is of real concern. I truly hope you are not a lecturer.

No the concern is the attitudes being posted here.

Good god.

Someone thinking even in passing that they will eventually be accussed of something seriously needs to consider their behaviour.

It is not funny. That is in someones brain. I repeat what is the person doing to even think that.

I repeat the people carrying out the training have no agenda...what agenda could they have. Bizarre

mc25

https://usi.ie/campaigns/12244/

66 page report for anyone who wants to read it

gauchesnell

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The fact that you work in a university is of real concern. I truly hope you are not a lecturer.

the fact that some on here think universities have an agenda with consent training is weird.

I will again repeat - stop confusing law and university rules.

Feisar

gauchesnell wrote: »

No the concern is the attitudes being posted here.

Good god.

Someone thinking even in passing that they will eventually be accussed of something seriously needs to consider their behaviour.

It is not funny. That is in someones brain. I repeat what is the person doing to even think that.

I repeat the people carrying out the training have no agenda...what agenda could they have. Bizarre

I think it was the turn of phrase, the poster wasn't referring to their actions past or future specifically.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

double jobbing wrote: »

I asked the missus once about some similar stats I read once.

I'd say, currently, she has about 10 friends she socialises with to varying degrees of regularity.

Of these, probably 3 are her very best friends who would confide in her about anything etc.

Not to mention dozens more she would have grown up with but like us all has lost touch with down the years. School, college, estate she grew up on, et al.

In all those years, she can recall one, one girl, who she knows to have been a victim of sexual assault.

Yet most leftists on here would probably claim a majority, or a large minority, of women they know have been assaulted.

This story should be taken with a pinch, actually with a council road gritting truckful of early March salt.

Well, like you said, she has ten-ish friends, three close ones. Realistically it would only be the three and maybe a few of the ten who would confide in her about something like that. I’m not sure why you think acquaintances would tell her about something so serious. The odd woman will be vocal about something like that (like the Twitter woman yesterday) but most won’t. I was sexually assaulted at 19. I’ve told only three people - my husband and two friends. And I won’t be telling anyone else. And yes, I’m telling everyone here but I mean people I know personally.

gauchesnell

Feisar wrote: »

I think it was the turn of phrase, the poster wasn't referring to their actions past or future specifically.

bad turn of phrase

Feisar

gauchesnell wrote: »

bad turn of phrase

Not really, I'd say most here didn't take it the way you did. A lot of people post in a more conversational style rather than if they were in the debating society.

Rodin

Wibbs wrote: »

Difficult to do. Not so dissimilar to sexual assault cases themselves. With many if not most such cases unless the court sees clear documentary proof it boils down to which side do you believe.

In the Sil case they had cctv which directly contradicted the lying accuser's story.
Never should have gone to court

I'd sue the state if I were him.

Feisar

Rodin wrote: »

In the Sil case they had cctv which directly contradicted the lying accuser's story.
Never should have gone to court

I'd sue the state if I were him.

You'd wonder why the DPP went forward with the case?

Rodin

Feisar wrote: »

You'd wonder why the DPP went forward with the case?

Never should have.

Wibbs

gauchesnell wrote: »

I repeat the people carrying out the training have no agenda...what agenda could they have. Bizarre

gauchesnell wrote: »

the fact that some on here think universities have an agenda with consent training is weird.

As I asked earlier; in a consent class what agency is ascribed and expected of from women? Now you don't teach such classes, so fair enough, but if you don't why do you assume that there is no agenda, no slant to such classes? By your admission you simply don't know, but expect that there isn't one. I personally try not to solidly defend that which I don't know.

Feisar wrote: »

Not really, I'd say most here didn't take it the way you did. A lot of people post in a more conversational style rather than if they were in the debating society.

Plus some are more used to echo chambers of mutual agreement and tend to be more hair triggered by anything a bit off the range.

joseywhales

My anecdotal experience is that a lot of questionable sexual encounters, where participants are beyond the level of consent from both genders is very high.

I would have learned from such a class for sure.

However, I disagree with compulsory non academic courses at University level. Academia should stay in it's lane and maintain objectivity, teach critical thinking and academic subject matter, they should not have a role in solving societal issues. This was my experience, admittedly in science, the professors couldn't and shouldn't care less about the students beyond their understanding of the subject matter. Offering optional courses is absolutely a great idea.

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

I've experienced unwanted touching when extended the sign of peace at mass. Never reported it.

Some aunts of mine were notorious for unwanted touching. Non sexual BTW but very much unwanted.

First key finding on page one - this is extremely unambiguous and worrying. This is definitely very far away from "did someone say something you perceived as harassment" type of occurrence. I have to wonder were some taking the piss filling out the survey. If not then this is a shockingly high level of rape, as rape is what it is. Definitely wasn't like that back in the late 80s / early 90s.

29% of females, 10% of males, and 28% of non-binary students reported non-consensual penetration by incapacitation, force, or threat of force during their time in college.

Wibbs

mc25 wrote: »

https://usi.ie/campaigns/12244/

66 page report for anyone who wants to read it

Thanks for that M. Having an oul perusal of it now. I do note on page 24 the highlighted front and centre quote that kicks off with: Nights out are generally full of harassment from unwanted stares to dancing behind you to grabbing at you and even trying to force you to get with them or their friend. Now the forcing isn't elaborated upon and any force is bad, however "unwanted stares" are classed as harassment in the mix. Yep, looking. Look too long at someone and you're a harasser. Dance in their general vicinity and bejaysus.

Page 21 we have: "I have definitely been in situations where the guy probably thought it was consensual, but it 100% wasn't" OK, very much not good. However were you struck dumb, incapable of action, of personal agency? If he thought it probably was consensual, and probably suggests you weren't sure, why? Probably suggests little or no communication going on. Communication is a two way process, so why does the guy have all the agency and you none? If I find myself in any situation in life where I don't want to do something, I quite simply state I don't want to do that thanks. Simples. Apparently this is beyond some. I certainly don't do something I don't want to do and then bitch about the person who suggested it.

And here in page 40 is similar to the original 80's "study" into sexual assault on US campuses: "I believe that many students don't even think or want to believe that they were in fact sexually assaulted". Whatever about trauma in the cases of people who actually were sexually assaulted, someone quite rationally believing that they weren't sexually assaulted doesn't follow that they were and it is no way close to being "in fact". It's supposition on the part of an outsider. That's akin to a Guard calling to your door telling you that in his opinion you were in fact burgled, yet you know you weren't.

On page 61 on Self selection of participants there is the suggestion of some selection bias and a lack of a "weighted approach". That more students who were assaulted(and that casts a wide net) were more likely to respond, but they dismiss that by suggesting that maybe those who were also sexually assaulted might be too ashamed to come forward. I also noted another bullet point that said it wasn't a college issue, but a culture one. I smell rape culture folks. Yeah great "study", no slants at all.

suicide_circus

I suspect that if you were to dig deep into the psychology behind things like consent classes, its not really about student safety at all.

It's all about the long march through the institutions.

I went to one of the two major universities in Dublin in the mid 2000s. With a few exceptions such as the school of business and some science depts, the place was largely run by Marxists. Actually thats not quite fair, i'm talking specifically the teaching staff.

I can't say for sure whether being a Marxist means you want to stay in academia or if remaining in College forever turns you into one.


I think it's about control. Re-education. Give me the boy and I'll give you the comrade.

Of course it's the SUs which actually push for things like consent classes and SUs only have room for one school of thought.

olestoepoke

Make college students watch the first time Marriane and Connal had sex in normal people. This is how it should be.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

First key finding on page one - this is extremely unambiguous and worrying. This is definitely very far away from "did someone say something you perceived as harassment" type of occurrence. I have to wonder were some taking the piss filling out the survey. If not then this is a shockingly high level of rape, as rape is what it is. Definitely wasn't like that back in the late 80s / early 90s.

In US studies into campus sexual assault and outside campus sexual assault rates they find that universities appear to have rapes and sexual assaults that would not be out of place in an active war zone, yet the incidence outside campuses is significantly lower and rape itself as a crime has been falling in the stats since the 80's. DNA testing made a big difference in catching the bastards.

Nermal

gauchesnell wrote: »

the fact that some on here think universities have an agenda with consent training is weird.

Everyone has an agenda. Something they generally teach you at university.

TomTomTim

suicide_circus wrote: »

I suspect that if you were to dig deep into the psychology behind things like consent classes, its not really about student safety at all.

It's all about the long march through the institutions.

I went to one of the two major universities in Dublin in the mid 2000s. With a few exceptions such as the school of business and some science depts, the place was largely run by Marxists. Actually thats not quite fair, i'm talking specifically the teaching staff.

I can't say for sure whether being a Marxist means you want to stay in academia or if remaining in College forever turns you into one.


I think it's about control. Re-education. Give me the boy and I'll give you the comrade.

Of course it's the SUs which actually push for things like consent classes and SUs only have room for one school of thought.

I had an EU law lecturer in one of Dublin's well regarded institutions whose first port of call was to tell us that he was a Communist. I'm not sure how or why it was relevant, but it was clearly very relevant to him.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

In US studies into campus sexual assault and outside campus sexual assault rates they find that universities appear to have rapes and sexual assaults that would not be out of place in an active war zone, yet the incidence outside campuses is significantly lower and rape itself as a crime has been falling in the stats since the 80's. DNA testing made a big difference in catching the bastards.

When did this jump to war zone levels of sexual assaults happen? It certainly wasn't like that back in the early 90s - I went to some wild parties but that kind of thing didn't go on much as far as I could see. Maybe I was blind to it or maybe the circles I moved in didn't have much of it.

Sarcozies

eviltwin wrote: »

I went to a consent class in college this year. It wasn’t compulsory but a good few people attended and I found it interesting. It was run by the RCC but was very gender neutral and had a section on lgbt abuse.

I’d always thought consent classes in college were a waste of time but in the question and answers part some of the stuff asked was shocking, most of the room thought the age of consent was 16 and a frightening number of people didn’t think it was rape if you were dating.

If it wasn't so sad you'd laugh at calling a consent class in a country that says a woman cannot rape a man as 'general neutral'.

Gruffalux

A few things I think -
Grouping all forms of unwanted sexual attention together is a bad idea. It cruelly undermines those who suffer the really bad stuff and makes hysterics out of those who inflate the inappropriate annoyances into a trauma when a roar or a swift slap in the nuts would have cooled anyones unwanted attentions.
Porn. Ubiquitous. Grotty. Violent. Abusive sex being a major kink. Whats all that gruesome gorno gonna do in the long run to the psyche of lads and lassies? Why are you watching that creepy sh1t? Get a hobby!
Drink. Drugs. For fcuk sake don't get totally spannered when out and about with randomers.
Devaluing of sexual dignity. Eg there are 100s of Irish University students signed up to sugar daddy sites in Ireland. 1000s even. Work in a fast food restaurant, ye wallies, and don't screw rich geezers/gals for stupid money. Put proper value on yourself.
Neuroticism - I once had the bewildering experience of sitting next to 2 young wans in a cafè in Dublin where over the course of 30 minutes they went full potato and crazily inflated a sad story about a sticky consensual mess with a hapless young fella at a party into all out full sirens rape. It was pretty scary to witness.
Having put a few through college I have heard a lot and most of it was as a result of being complete dribbling lunatics at the time. Cop the hell on.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

First key finding on page one - this is extremely unambiguous and worrying. This is definitely very far away from "did someone say something you perceived as harassment" type of occurrence. I have to wonder were some taking the piss filling out the survey. If not then this is a shockingly high level of rape, as rape is what it is. Definitely wasn't like that back in the late 80s / early 90s.

It probably was like that in the 80s and 90s, but you just didn't see it. Nobody sees it, that's how it manages to continue.

I had thought from those figures that maybe "incapacitation" was taking the lion's share of those incidents, but nope. About 25% in total report pentration by force or threat of force.

That's insane.

Although logically it would make sense that students would be a target for predators. Even ignoring the fact that they're young & attractive, you have 60,000 young people are year emerging into a world of total freedom. Sexually & socially inexperienced, naive and gullible. Often completely inexperienced in dealing with large social gatherings that aren't family weddings.
Then they're placed into a sexually charged, highly anonymous, and very unstructured social situation, devoid of many of their normal safety nets; parents, siblings, close friends. And left to fend for themselves.

It would be interesting to know how many students report being attacked in first versus subsequent years.

It may very well be that there's a cohort of predators who hang around college campuses knowing that they can operate with relative impunity amongst the first years, especially on a big night out.

Indeed, looking at page 26 of the report, they ask the question of "have you ever been assaulted" and break it down by year. From those figures it seems apparent that a considerable number of first years get assaulted, a smaller number of additional people then experience assault in their second year, and by the third year there's no real change. Which would seem to confirm that as people mature socially and sexually, they become less of a target.

Which speaks to the value not only of consent classes for incoming kids, but it suggests that a wider sexual/social programme might be necessary to try and help them spot the signs of a potential rapist/abuser (75% of students assaulted say they knew their rapist), as well as ways to avoid being a target.

1800_Ladladlad

Reeves has been pictured doing this in many pictures. To some its hyper PC maybe, but you cant be too safe.

img

Protect Keanu Reeves at all costs.

biko

Consent classes is a good idea, even if it just telling the students what the legal definitions are around sexual offences.

2u2me

mc25 wrote: »

https://usi.ie/campaigns/12244/

66 page report for anyone who wants to read it

Page 6 key definitions:

The terms 'sexual violence', 'sexual assault' 'sexual misconduct' and 'sexual harrassment' are used throughout this report.

The terms 'sexual violence' and 'sexual misconduct' are used in the report to refer to non-consensual behaviour, including unwanted touching, attempted or completed penetration.

[Sexual] harrassment is used to refer to sexist or sexual harrassment, unwanted efforts to establish a sexual relationship, and harrassment via electronic communication.

"Sexual misconduct" is a term most frequently used in the ARC3 survey content, and is the term used to refer to most examples of sexual violence in this report.

The SES used behaviourally-specific questions to ask about non-consensual sexual activity. The terms 'assault' and 'rape' were not used in the questions.

2u2me wrote: »

In past surveys people were never asked "Were you raped", "Were you sexually assaulted" because such direct question are known to yield low numbers.

Eric Cartman

"unwanted efforts to establish a sexual relationship " to me reads as "anyone I'm not attracted to hitting on me in any way" , correct me if I'm wrong here but thats a seriously broad church of 'everything is assault'

KaneToad

"While the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) is not based on a representative sample, the number of responses considered sufficient indication of a serious problem"

The sample is not representative of the population. It is a self selecting, online sample.