Colleges and sexual assault

[interchange]

So the study that RAINN uses has problems.

Here is the standards used.

(1) physical force or threat of physical force. Here I see no problem.

(2) being incapacitated because of drugs, alcohol, or being unconscious, asleep, or passed out. Here is the first problem. If you are drinking, taking drugs but still conscious, its still considered rape as being under the influence at any level, they argue that it prohibits valid consent. So if you and your girlfriend get drunk and have sex, and neither feels it was rape, by the definition of the study it is rape.

(3) coercive threats of non-physical harm or promised rewards. Here is the next problem, promised rewards. The threats is valid, so no problem there, but rewards are always there. My GF uses sex as an incentive to do things around the house she wants done. By that definition, she is a sexual victim.

(4) failure to obtain affirmative consent. Big problem here. I have woken up and mounted my GF, and she has done the same to me. By the paper's definition, we have both raped each other.

2-4 greatly inflates the stats on assault. No doubt there are times when 2-4 would be actual rape, but there are far too many times when it would not be. A big problem with these assault studies is the definitions they use.

https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/@ Files/Climate Survey/AAU_Campus_Climate_Survey_12_14_15.pdf

Do you disagree with this general statement: "[College sexual assault is] disturbingly common, disturbingly underreported, and very difficult, slow, and traumatic to prove in a court of law"?

The absolute numbers of the RAINN statistics aren't particularly relevant to me. I just put it there because it was the first reference google put up with some credibility. My hope was just visually showing that this is no small problem, not necessarily in precisely measuring it.

 

[realibrad]

Do you disagree with this general statement: "[College sexual assault is] disturbingly common, disturbingly underreported, and very difficult, slow, and traumatic to prove in a court of law"?

The absolute numbers of the RAINN statistics aren't particularly relevant to me. I just put it there because it was the first reference google put up with some credibility. My hope was just visually showing that this is no small problem, not necessarily in precisely measuring it.

The problem is the disturbingly common part, as that is a subjective statement. It would be true if it were 90% or 10%. What I care about is letting individuals make risk assessments and then have a legal system to deal with people infringing on the rights of others. Let me try and clear that up.

Alcohol is a major factor in assaults. If we were to ban sex with anyone who has been drinking, there would be little doubt that the rate would greatly drop. It would also be true that many people who enjoy having a few drinks and having sex would also be prohibited from doing so. Many I would assume would fine that an acceptable trade-off for themselves, but I would argue that it should not be made law as people should have the right to drink and have sex, even with the increased risk of sexual assault.

In an adult world, you have the right to make choices and some of those choices may increase your risk of being assaulted. If and when you are assaulted, the attacker should be prosecuted without doubt. The risk that someone took should not justify in any way being assaulted in terms of punishment. This system will give a rate of assault above 0% but also not stop people from making choices. There will no doubt be gray areas and we should use a jury in that case, which while imperfect would seem to be the best trade-off.

So, is it disturbingly common, in a sense yes I suppose. Rape is a horrible infringement and should never be taken lightly.

Do I wish it was reported more? Yes, and the reason being that it would likely reduce the rate. That said, its also true that in some cases the damage to the victim might be greater than the victim might want to take, and I can understand not wanting to report.

Is rape hard to investigate? Yes, but that is because inherently sexual relationships are complicated. Having a system where both sides are not heard would seem stupid in that case. Why would we not want to get more evidence to try and understand? If you admit its complicated then you need to make sure you have all information.

Its also true that some may feel they were raped and I would argue it would not be rape. There was a woman who had sex with a guy who said he was in the army. Turns out he was not, and she claimed it was rape because she had sex with him believing something that was not true, and that constituted rape. I completely disagree with that definition of rape, and I have no doubt she believing she was raped was hurt.

 

[interchange]

The problem is the disturbingly common part, as that is a subjective statement.

Of course it's subjective. The number of assaults will never be zero, nor will the number of false allegations and consequences to innocent people be zero.

Where you draw the line in saying that the degree of which it happens and the response inadequate is always subjective.

That's not a problem. I'm telling you to draw a line. Evaluate the numbers and mitigating factors and tell me whether you are personally disturbed by them. I personally have a hard time believing any reasonable American who has a real appreciation of the scope of the problem wouldn't classify it as disturbing.

This doesn't mean Title IX is the solution or part of it. That's a separate argument. But I don't find it worth having if you evade the horror of the problem because it's classification and precision are complicated and flawed. That is a piss poor approach.

 

[realibrad]

Of course it's subjective. The number of assaults will never be zero, nor will the number of false allegations and consequences to innocent people be zero.

Where you draw the line in saying that the degree of which it happens and the response inadequate is always subjective.

That's not a problem. I'm telling you to draw a line. Evaluate the numbers and mitigating factors and tell me whether you are personally disturbed by them. I personally have a hard time believing any reasonable American who has a real appreciation of the scope of the problem wouldn't classify it as disturbing.

This doesn't mean Title IX is the solution or part of it. That's a separate argument. But I don't find it worth having if you evade the horror of the problem because it's classification and precision are complicated and flawed. That is a piss poor approach.

Rape is horrible. Rape happening is horrible. Humanity is flawed and is capable of doing some horrific things. I also admit that rape is part of life. So while I think it's horrible, I'm not surprised. I also don't think it's at levels disturbing above what I think is a, for lack of a better word natural. We a humans are improving so my hope is that we improve in terms of rape to.

Rape is bad. We should take measures to reduce rape, but keeping in mind freedom. We should also not be so accepting of false attackers being punished. Rape like all crime should be investigated thoroughly. There are not many things worse than the violation of rape. I think most agree with that.

 

[interchange]

Rape is horrible. Rape happening is horrible. Humanity is flawed and is capable of doing some horrific things. I also admit that rape is part of life. So while I think it's horrible, I'm not surprised. I also don't think it's at levels disturbing above what I think is a, for lack of a better word natural. We a humans are improving so my hope is that we improve in terms of rape to.

Rape is bad. We should take measures to reduce rape, but keeping in mind freedom. We should also not be so accepting of false attackers being punished. Rape like all crime should be investigated thoroughly. There are not many things worse than the violation of rape. I think most agree with that.

You have said a lot of words in order to avoid answering my question. It's not ok.

 

[realibrad]

You have said a lot of words in order to avoid answering my question. It's not ok.

Then perhaps I have misunderstood your question. Can you state it again?

 

[interchange]

Then perhaps I have misunderstood your question. Can you state it again?

After looking at the data and mitigating factors, do you find the frequency of college sexual assault a disturbing problem?

 

[Jaskalas]

If one wants to get down to the core context of this subject... when two people are in bed together and one decides it's time to stop... what possible evidence will there be for a court of law? Merely the word of two people. That's the entirety of it in many such cases. This is why we find ourselves with a crusade to circumvent due process and undermine legal system(s) and legal protections.

Our backlash against the status quo is entirely based on protecting due process and to prevent people from freely harming others.

After looking at the data and mitigating factors, do you find the frequency of college sexual assault a disturbing problem?

Two wrongs do not make it right.

 

[interchange]

Two wrongs do not make it right.

I don't understand your reply to my question.

 

[realibrad]

After looking at the data and mitigating factors, do you find the frequency of college sexual assault a disturbing problem?

I thought I had answered this. Rape is bad, but not unexpected. I wish people did not rape, but the incentive to rape will be inherent to humanity for as far out as I can see.

I am going to assume at this point what you are asking is if I find it a problem worth trying to solve. If that is correct, I feel I have already addressed this as well, but I will do so again. I do not know that we are at a rate above the natural incentives. Rape is almost never a case of someone not knowing what they are doing is wrong. Almost universally its a case where someone thinks they can get away with it. We already have pretty harsh punishments and social taboos against rape. I am all for making a system were its easier to report and investigate claims. I also think we should be doing a better job of not ruining people's lives because of a claim.

Rape is a side effect of humanity sadly. We should be doing things to progress beyond that, and setting up a society to try and mitigate our unfortunate behavior, but not to the point where we end up doing more damage than the thing we are trying to treat.

If you are asking at what rate would I find acceptable, I think that is a flawed question. The ultimate wish would be a rate of 0. We both seem to agree that is not possible. I would also say that if it were possible at the expense of other things already explained in the previous post, I would not try for that zero given the aforementioned trade-offs. Life is filled with instances where someone is going to have the ability to take advantage of another. I cannot see a world worth living in where all risk is adverted without also taking the joy out of life. So, there is no rate that I would find good, but there is a point where there is likely an equilibrium. I do not think we will ever know that point, and we need to always look at our policies to make sure that we are in as much balance as possible.

 

[realibrad]

I don't understand your reply to my question.

Saying that punishing people for the accusation of rape should not be an acceptable outcome of a system that is trying to help rape victims. I don't think that was a position you took though, and I believe he thinks it was.

 

[interchange]

Saying that punishing people for the accusation of rape should not be an acceptable outcome of a system that is trying to help rape victims. I don't think that was a position you took though, and I believe he thinks it was.

It is not. It is a more primitive attempt to evade my question.

 

[interchange]

I thought I had answered this. Rape is bad, but not unexpected. I wish people did not rape, but the incentive to rape will be inherent to humanity for as far out as I can see.

I am going to assume at this point what you are asking is if I find it a problem worth trying to solve. If that is correct, I feel I have already addressed this as well, but I will do so again. I do not know that we are at a rate above the natural incentives. Rape is almost never a case of someone not knowing what they are doing is wrong. Almost universally its a case where someone thinks they can get away with it. We already have pretty harsh punishments and social taboos against rape. I am all for making a system were its easier to report and investigate claims. I also think we should be doing a better job of not ruining people's lives because of a claim.

Rape is a side effect of humanity sadly. We should be doing things to progress beyond that, and setting up a society to try and mitigate our unfortunate behavior, but not to the point where we end up doing more damage than the thing we are trying to treat.

If you are asking at what rate would I find acceptable, I think that is a flawed question. The ultimate wish would be a rate of 0. We both seem to agree that is not possible. I would also say that if it were possible at the expense of other things already explained in the previous post, I would not try for that zero given the aforementioned trade-offs. Life is filled with instances where someone is going to have the ability to take advantage of another. I cannot see a world worth living in where all risk is adverted without also taking the joy out of life. So, there is no rate that I would find good, but there is a point where there is likely an equilibrium. I do not think we will ever know that point, and we need to always look at our policies to make sure that we are in as much balance as possible.

More words with no answer.

You are out to sea and your ship has sprung a leak. The captain of the ship says: gentlemen, we are taking on water at a rate of 80 gallons per minute, and we can bail water at a rate of 10 gallons per minute. Bailing water isn't going to work. We need to try something else or we will surely drown. We'll probably drown anyway, but damned if I'm going to bail water if it is no solution at all.

But you protest: we aren't really taking on water at 80 gallons per minute. How'd you come up with that number anyway? The flow rate depends on how much water there is already in the boat. And all kinds of other stuff. And I think you just did a calculation based on a small sample. The rate isn't constant. And you'd really need to total up all the water and how long the leak stopped to be accurate about the average rate, anyway. Plus, how do you know we can bail water at 10 gallons per minute? That also depends on what we use, how tired we are, and all kinds of other stuff. Frankly, I think you pulled that out of your ass anyway.

And the captain asks you: well fuck it all, you're right. I can't really accurately assess how fast we're taking on water or how fast we can bail it. But it seems pretty damned obvious to me that no matter how you work the numbers this boat is gonna sink. Do you agree?

And you come back with: well, I thought I answered that. Surely taking on water is bad, horrible, and the boat sinking really horrible. But boats sink, that's inevitable. And no matter how fast people can bail water, they'll never bail out all the water there is.

Damnit man, is the boat sinking or not?

 

[realibrad]

More words with no answer.

You are out to sea and your ship has sprung a leak. The captain of the ship says: gentlemen, we are taking on water at a rate of 80 gallons per minute, and we can bail water at a rate of 10 gallons per minute. Bailing water isn't going to work. We need to try something else or we will surely drown. We'll probably drown anyway, but damned if I'm going to bail water if it is no solution at all.

But you protest: we aren't really taking on water at 80 gallons per minute. How'd you come up with that number anyway? The flow rate depends on how much water there is already in the boat. And all kinds of other stuff. And I think you just did a calculation based on a small sample. The rate isn't constant. And you'd really need to total up all the water and how long the leak stopped to be accurate about the average rate, anyway. Plus, how do you know we can bail water at 10 gallons per minute? That also depends on what we use, how tired we are, and all kinds of other stuff. Frankly, I think you pulled that out of your ass anyway.

And the captain asks you: well fuck it all, you're right. I can't really accurately assess how fast we're taking on water or how fast we can bail it. But it seems pretty damned obvious to me that no matter how you work the numbers this boat is gonna sink. Do you agree?

And you come back with: well, I thought I answered that. Surely taking on water is bad, horrible, and the boat sinking really horrible. But boats sink, that's inevitable. And no matter how fast people can bail water, they'll never bail out all the water there is.

Damnit man, is the boat sinking or not?

No, the issue is not the way you are trying to frame it. Its not that there is just a problem with the measurement. There is also the problem that the current "solution" actually has a negative trade-off. As I already explained, my issue is not with the rate as much as how we are viewing this. My issue is that the solutions we are coming up with have trade-offs, and in this case the trade-off is that innocent people are too easily accused and thus have their lives ruined. In your analogy trying has no negative as it could help or it may not, but you cannot know. In reality we know that our current solution is hurting innocent people. I addressed all of this already though.

Given your recent response, it does indeed seem that you are asking for a specific rate which is silly. I already said I don't know what the perfect balance is, but that does not mean we should do nothing. Right now there is an emphasis on the alleged victims to the detriment of the accused. In my opinion, the balance is unnecessarily hurting those accused. Simply accusing a student is enough to ruin a life and there is very little the accused can do about it. I completely agree that the victims should be accommodated but not at the expense of the accused until there is guilt.

Why you think I am saying we should do nothing is confusing and insulting. The premise you are putting forth is that because we cant know the rate, that we should let rape go unchecked. What I am actually saying is that the rate might not qualify as needing extreme measures, but certainly important enough to attempt to stop. While the act of rape grotesque, it does not appear to qualify as needing to take extreme measures. One such measure I already talked about, which was banning sex after consuming alcohol.

So in summary...

Rape is bad. We should try and do things about rape, but we are not at the point where it would seem to require extreme measures. We should make sure to protect alleged victims and those accused until we have evidence of guilt.

 

[Exterous]

I just think it's weird that conservative-sympathetics never seemed to care about any side of this issue until measures were made to start addressing actual investigation and punishment of rampant rapes on campus, and of course their primary focus rests on the 2% or so of the falsely-accused being unfairly punished for the sake of punishing actual rapes.

Since the measures were introduced in 2011 to little if any opposition I think its tough to say that anyone was focused on false accusations at that time. One of the core issues here isn't the % of false accusations but that the accused is punished even if there is no accusation at all. I mean I would hope we can all agree that there is a serious problem in an environment where a college can expel an accused party when; the supposed victim vehemently denies there was sexual assault, the accused denies it, the police can find no evidence of wrong doing and the issue was only brought up because college policies require certain non-involved third parties to report certain instances or investigate all reportings regardless of context or potential validity. (These make up a substantial number of investigations. For example about 1/3 of Yale investigations are third party initiated)

Boermeester, who kicked the game-winning field goal for USC in the Rose Bowl, was suspended from USC, then barred from campus and from meeting with USC's athletic trainers or members of the football team. The school also barred Boermeester from contacting Katz, she said.

Katz said the Title IX office made her feel “misled, harassed, threatened and discriminated against,” and caused her to hire an attorney.

“The Title IX office’s response was dismissive and demeaning,” she said.

In the statement, Katz said she is coming forward now to clear Boermeester’s name and lobby for change in the Title IX office’s investigative procedures.

“Matt Boermeester did nothing improper against me, ever,” Katz said. “I would not stand for it. Nor will I stand for watching him be maligned and lied about.”

http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/l...-unfairly-girlfriend-says-20170730-story.html

Title IX compliance has been stretched so far that students who even resemble rapists are barred from housing and campus jobs:

a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away.

https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/

 

[interchange]

No, the issue is not the way you are trying to frame it. Its not that there is just a problem with the measurement. There is also the problem that the current "solution" actually has a negative trade-off. As I already explained, my issue is not with the rate as much as how we are viewing this. My issue is that the solutions we are coming up with have trade-offs, and in this case the trade-off is that innocent people are too easily accused and thus have their lives ruined. In your analogy trying has no negative as it could help or it may not, but you cannot know. In reality we know that our current solution is hurting innocent people. I addressed all of this already though.

Given your recent response, it does indeed seem that you are asking for a specific rate which is silly. I already said I don't know what the perfect balance is, but that does not mean we should do nothing. Right now there is an emphasis on the alleged victims to the detriment of the accused. In my opinion, the balance is unnecessarily hurting those accused. Simply accusing a student is enough to ruin a life and there is very little the accused can do about it. I completely agree that the victims should be accommodated but not at the expense of the accused until there is guilt.

Why you think I am saying we should do nothing is confusing and insulting. The premise you are putting forth is that because we cant know the rate, that we should let rape go unchecked. What I am actually saying is that the rate might not qualify as needing extreme measures, but certainly important enough to attempt to stop. While the act of rape grotesque, it does not appear to qualify as needing to take extreme measures. One such measure I already talked about, which was banning sex after consuming alcohol.

So in summary...

Rape is bad. We should try and do things about rape, but we are not at the point where it would seem to require extreme measures. We should make sure to protect alleged victims and those accused until we have evidence of guilt.

I'm asking only to qualitatively agree on the scope of the problem without any judgment on existing or possible measures to address it.

Is college (specifically) sexual assault a big freaking deal or not? One where the criminal justice system fails miserably at addressing? Does the frequency of assault, and lack of reporting of assault disturb you?

Just answer yes or no.

 

[realibrad]

I'm asking only to qualitatively agree on the scope of the problem without any judgment on existing or possible measures to address it.

Is college (specifically) sexual assault a big freaking deal or not? One where the criminal justice system fails miserably at addressing? Does the frequency of assault, and lack of reporting of assault disturb you?

Just answer yes or no.

It would be stupid to answer yes or no because that would not be my answer.

What I think you intend to ask is if college sexual assault is larger and or unique beyond rape in general. The answer, which I already answered is no. Empirically rape is more likely to happen while not in college. That said, it's also something that should further be addressed, just not at the expense of the accused.

The fact that you ask me if I qualitatively agree is confusing as I have already said I disagree with the numbers given. Asking if it's a "big" problem is subjective and not qualitative in a useful way.

Also, as for the question as to if the justice system deals with rape poorly, I would say it's light-years ahead of the college system. It's not perfect, but far better for sure.

The last part I have answered three times already. Lack of reporting means justice is less likely to be served, but I can understand why it happens. I'm not going to tell anyone that they have to, just that I wish there would. Frequency is sad sure, but not unexpected. We need to not be complacent, but also not unrealistic.

I don't think repeating is going to help, so please ask better questions.

 

[Jaskalas]

After looking at the data and mitigating factors, do you find the frequency of college sexual assault a disturbing problem?

Two wrongs do not make it right.

I don't understand your reply to my question.

The plain answer is yes, there is a problem when humans prey on one another.

But that's not where the discussion ends. "What do we do about it?" And I say, not what we currently do. Not where we flagrantly harm the accused without solid evidence. People deserve a due process and a court of law, not a lynch mob, not witch trials. That's how I answer beyond your question and to the next, more pointed part of the discussion.

 

[interchange]

@realibrad @Jaskalas this will likely be my last post here as I won't have time for AT today, nor does it seem like your defenses are cracking.

Saying that rape is more likely to happen when not in college is a disgusting way to diminish this problem. You are more likely to get into an accident as an adult than as a teenager. So I guess insurance rates for teens shouldn't be sky high, right? College is an especially vulnerable time for sexual assault, and people are co-located with an institution that allows for the possibility of addressing the problem in some systematized fashion. To ignore this vulnerability and platform for intervention intentionally and point the finger only at rape in general would be asinine. This doesn't mean that Title IX is solution, part or whole. I have never asserted that.

Why do you both take a very specified context and generalize it and only answer about your feelings about the general case? You are running away from it. It's BS and automatically discounts your objections to Title IX. Which is a shame because they are independently valid objections worthy of consideration in a broader context.

 

[Ancalagon44]

@realibrad @Jaskalas this will likely be my last post here as I won't have time for AT today, nor does it seem like your defenses are cracking.

Saying that rape is more likely to happen when not in college is a disgusting way to diminish this problem. You are more likely to get into an accident as an adult than as a teenager. So I guess insurance rates for teens shouldn't be sky high, right? College is an especially vulnerable time for sexual assault, and people are co-located with an institution that allows for the possibility of addressing the problem in some systematized fashion. To ignore this vulnerability and platform for intervention intentionally and point the finger only at rape in general would be asinine. This doesn't mean that Title IX is solution, part or whole. I have never asserted that.

Why do you both take a very specified context and generalize it and only answer about your feelings about the general case? You are running away from it. It's BS and automatically discounts your objections to Title IX. Which is a shame because they are independently valid objections worthy of consideration in a broader context.

I'm not even sure it is more likely to happen on campus. From what I have heard, the 1 in 5 number usually trotted out is absolute BS with no basis in reality.

There was a Canadian university that reported on its reported cases of sexual assault. Because the numbers for the most recent year were lower than expected, they said they thought underreporting had increased.

Basically what they are saying is that the number of reported sexual assaults did not fit their expectation, therefore the number must be wrong.

Just so we are clear, I am not saying that sexual assault is under reported - clearly it is. What I am saying is that for one to say that a decrease in reported sexual assaults from one year to the next is due to underreporting increasing, one must have evidence for that other than just the numbers decreasing. They had no evidence. It was just that the numbers did not fit the narrative that they wanted to create, therefore the numbers were wrong.

Anyway, back to the point. One rape is one rape too many - whether it occurs on college campus or in the workplace. I have not seen any convincing statistical studies that indicate the prevalence of rape on American college campuses is dramatically higher than any other environment. And, one needs to punish those responsible for any crime, including rape, without prejudicing the rights of the innocent. Title IX has been shown to prejudice the rights of the innocent over and over and over again.

 

[glenn1]

I'm asking only to qualitatively agree on the scope of the problem without any judgment on existing or possible measures to address it.

Is college (specifically) sexual assault a big freaking deal or not? One where the criminal justice system fails miserably at addressing? Does the frequency of assault, and lack of reporting of assault disturb you?

Just answer yes or no.

You seem to think that answering "yes" to that question must inevitably lead to support of handling cases as they have been recently. Ends don't justify the means no matter how much of a "big freaking deal" a subject is or how much it "disturbs" you. Hopefully you have the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand and accept when you ask a virtue signalling question like that and someone says "yes, but...."

 

[realibrad]

I'm not even sure it is more likely to happen on campus. From what I have heard, the 1 in 5 number usually trotted out is absolute BS with no basis in reality.

There was a Canadian university that reported on its reported cases of sexual assault. Because the numbers for the most recent year were lower than expected, they said they thought underreporting had increased.

Basically what they are saying is that the number of reported sexual assaults did not fit their expectation, therefore the number must be wrong.

Just so we are clear, I am not saying that sexual assault is under reported - clearly it is. What I am saying is that for one to say that a decrease in reported sexual assaults from one year to the next is due to underreporting increasing, one must have evidence for that other than just the numbers decreasing. They had no evidence. It was just that the numbers did not fit the narrative that they wanted to create, therefore the numbers were wrong.

Anyway, back to the point. One rape is one rape too many - whether it occurs on college campus or in the workplace. I have not seen any convincing statistical studies that indicate the prevalence of rape on American college campuses is dramatically higher than any other environment. And, one needs to punish those responsible for any crime, including rape, without prejudicing the rights of the innocent. Title IX has been shown to prejudice the rights of the innocent over and over and over again.

I am in no way saying that the number did not fit my expectations therefore its wrong. I am flat out saying that how they define rape is wrong and thus what they measure is wrong. I did a log explanation already, but ill do a short one again.

Here are the criteria for how they define sexual assault.

(1) physical force or threat of physical force
(2) being incapacitated because of drugs, alcohol, or being unconscious, asleep, or passed out
(3) coercive threats of non-physical harm or promised rewards, and
(4) failure to obtain affirmative consent.

1 leaves no room for debate and I agree with it. 2-4 I have big problems as many consensual situations can happen in those, and yet the researchers believe lack of consent is inherent. 4 is probably the most absurd as 2 and 3 are usually reasonable. 4 means you need to get explicit consent, and I can tell you most sexual acts people do not get affirmative consent for. If I tried that with my GF she would get annoyed real quick and shut it down.

As for rape being more or less likely, all big studies have found that college is "safer" than outside. Does not mean its "safe", its just that rape is less likely. Even the link he posted says that.

 

[Paratus]

I'm asking only to qualitatively agree on the scope of the problem without any judgment on existing or possible measures to address it.

Is college (specifically) sexual assault a big freaking deal or not? One where the criminal justice system fails miserably at addressing? Does the frequency of assault, and lack of reporting of assault disturb you?

Just answer yes or no.

It was a valiant effort but for certain folks sexual assault, sexism, racism, etc is to much a hypothetical problem to them to ever unequivocally state it's wrong. I think someone they have a prior emotional attachment to would have to suffer in their direct view before the equivocations would stop.

 

[realibrad]

@realibrad @Jaskalas this will likely be my last post here as I won't have time for AT today, nor does it seem like your defenses are cracking.

Saying that rape is more likely to happen when not in college is a disgusting way to diminish this problem.

It was not an attempt to diminish the problem. It was to respond to your question about college rape and that as a problem relative to rape in general. College kids are safer in college than outside. That is an empirical fact. I am confused as to how that could be disgusting because it in no way implies inaction which I clearly explained.

You are more likely to get into an accident as an adult than as a teenager. So I guess insurance rates for teens shouldn't be sky high, right? College is an especially vulnerable time for sexual assault, and people are co-located with an institution that allows for the possibility of addressing the problem in some systematized fashion. To ignore this vulnerability and platform for intervention intentionally and point the finger only at rape in general would be asinine.

Logical fallacy. Car insurance and getting into accidents while driving have no relation to sexual assault. Its true that young people are vulnerable in many ways, but the data shows they are less likely to be sexually assaulted vs outside of college. That does not mean that college is fine and we should move on, but it does not mean that its a problem larger than rape in general. Rape is a problem but its also true its less of a problem in college. Its not a large difference, but its an empirical difference that has been measured. Lets do something about rape in all areas, as rape is horrible.

This doesn't mean that Title IX is solution, part or whole. I have never asserted that.

Which is why I never claimed you did, and I don't see where others have either, but maybe I missed it.

Why do you both take a very specified context and generalize it and only answer about your feelings about the general case? You are running away from it. It's BS and automatically discounts your objections to Title IX. Which is a shame because they are independently valid objections worthy of consideration in a broader context.

You need to explain this, because I cannot understand you point here. Rape is general and rape in college is more specific. I have addressed the broader issue as well as the more specific issue. I have also explained why I believe we should also focus on the totality of the situation so as not to ignore the harm on all sides.

 

[interchange]

You seem to think that answering "yes" to that question must inevitably lead to support of handling cases as they have been recently. Ends don't justify the means no matter how much of a "big freaking deal" a subject is or how much it "disturbs" you. Hopefully you have the emotional and intellectual maturity to understand and accept when you ask a virtue signalling question like that and someone says "yes, but...."

No I'm explicitly saying that answering yes does not require you to support the current solution. I've been pretty clear that I have major reservations about Title IX, and if data to this point doesn't clearly support efficacy in achieving its aims, I would switch my position to a clear advocacy against it.

This is not a virtue signaling question. I do not think we can debate the intent or evaluate the merits of Title IX or any other measure unless we can first define the scope of the problem and agree to that.