Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Claims of large scale victimization of women by men being at crisis level no matter how lacking in reality sure the hell open the river of government funding.

"abuser" blocked the " victims" path to the exit. No touching or threat of force is needed, natch. Going around is too much work to be expected from one of those victims I suppose.

I am sorry that I have not been more clear: this storyline that women are routinely being sexually abused by men is a fantasy sold for political gain. Most of what we call sexual assault is in fact confused consent, almost always with the young, who have usually been drinking, and it is fully the result of bad parenting. This is not a story about how men suck, though the feminists have made it such because it suits their agenda. This is a story about how young people have not been taught how to act, both men and women, and so they go out and mess around often ending in hurt feelings.

Actual rape-rape is more rare than it has been in several generations,

My current theory is that rape became a problem in the late 60's. The free love hippies had a policy that sex could not be withheld, that the girls had to have sex when the guys wanted it. The girls mostly went along with the scheme so it is hard to call that rape, the girls were always free to leave if they did not like the conditions of staying, but as the hippy movement died out and the men were used to having their way with women the sex quickly became rape. The feminists of the era jumped onto the rape problem and it was quickly tamped down, by the early 80's I did not see much indication that it was still a problem. " rape culture" was a blip, one that passed a long time ago. Perpetuating it has been very profitable for the feminists, and they are not about to let one of their best tools go without a fight.

rape culture" was a blip, one that passed a long time ago...

They have added such things as if you get into a verbal fight with your partner and used swear words you are guilty of domestic violence, in order to pump up the numbers for domestic violence also.

I think the two main rape enthusiasts here, just like the attention because negative attention is better than being ignored.

The cowards argue that any male can penetrate any female and she would enjoy the pleasure of his attention

A strange comment that I am sure does not apply to 99.999 or so of American men or EU men for that matter inspite of anti male claims such as 35 percents of college males would be rapists if they was of the opinion that they could get away with it.

Love the anti-male bullshit that the likes of Firefly can sell to women, back by phony surveys, who should know better.

Senators McCaskill and Baldwin host talk on campus sexual assault
05/19/14
By Meredith Clark

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill hosted a round-table Monday on campus sexual assault, the first of three that she and other Senate allies hope will lead to a better, more transparent process to prevent and respond to sexual assault, harassment and dating violence.

McCaskill, along with fellow Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin, of Wisconsin, asked for feedback from a group that included survivors, university officials and other stakeholders. The discussion covered a range of issues, including how schools can make the data they collect more accessible to students and prospective students, how to create more effective penalties for schools that violate laws governing campus safety and gender equity, and whether or not reporting crimes to law enforcement should be mandatory.

“If you want to solve this problem, make victims comfortable making that choice [whether to report] themselves,” Laura Dunn, executive director of SurvJustice and survivor of assault, said of mandatory reporting. Survivors, Dunn argued, need to see the system can work before they will feel comfortable coming forward regularly.

One way to do that, attendees agreed, would be mandatory anonymous campus climate surveys. The White House announced in April it would be asking schools to submit climate surveys, but they are not yet required to do so. The element of anonymity, advocates said, would make victims feel safer reporting than if they had to go to law enforcement.

Two laws, the Clery Act and the Campus SaVE Act, both aimed at making campuses safer and increasing transparency, were the main focus of discussion. Future meetings, planned for June, will focus on Title IX and on enforcement at the campus and criminal justice level.

The Clery Act, which was passed in 1990, sets requirements for schools to keep track of crime statistics and release an annual report on those statistics. However, different states do not have uniform sexual assault laws or definitions for certain things covered under the law, leaving many school administrators without clear guidance on what must be reported each year.

Sixteen states, McCaskill pointed out, have definitions of consent that do not include incapacitation, despite the fact that alcohol is often used as a tool by perpetrators of sexual assault. “I think that is one of the things we need to look at in this legislation – how can we incentivize states to update their definition of ‘consent,’” McCaskill said.

The Campus SaVE Act (Campus Sexual Violence Elimination) was added to the 2013 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act. It sets standards for how schools deal with internal investigations and disciplinary proceedings, from training officials involved in the process to setting evidence standards and ensuring confidentiality.

President Obama created a White House task force in January to look at campus sexual assault and violence and ordered them to issue recommendations within 90 days. That task force, led by Vice President Biden, released its report on April 29. In addition to the recommendations and model policies and protocols for schools to follow, the government has created a website, NotAlone.gov, that includes resources for students looking for information about their schools or about filing a Title IX complaint.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/mccaskill-campus-sexual-assault-roundtable

Editorial How to deal with the campus sexual assault crisis
By Times Editorial Board
May 12, 2014

Not too long ago, a woman who was sexually assaulted on campus might understandably have felt that her experience was, if not unique, at least uncommon. Colleges, worried about their reputations, often downplayed such incidents, sweeping rape accusations under the rug, underreporting assault allegations or failing to take meaningful action against perpetrators..

Today, however, it would be difficult for a student anywhere to be unaware of the issue. There are few schools in the country — big or small, public or private — that are not agonizing over how best to address what is increasingly seen as an epidemic of sexual assault. Even President Obama has taken on the subject, asserting at a news conference in January that an estimated 1 in 5 women is sexually assaulted in college. Usually the crime is committed by someone she knows, often by someone who has done it before.

This month, the U.S. Department of Education said it was investigating no fewer than 55 institutions of higher learning for possible mishandling of sexual assault complaints; that includes two schools in Los Angeles — Occidental College and USC — as well as UC Berkeley. The same week, a White House task force released its first report, a general overview that emphasizes measures to prevent assault, flags some of the confusing reporting protocol and offers a checklist for drafting a comprehensive policy to prevent sexual misconduct. Misconduct includes not just sexual assault — which is non-consensual sexual contact or intercourse or an attempt at it — but also sexual harassment, dating violence, stalking and intimidation.

These are important steps toward changing a pernicious culture that for many years allowed students — overwhelmingly female students — to be victimized without effective recourse. But addressing sexual assault is complicated. Schools are not law enforcement agencies; they're not set up to conduct investigations or hold trials or render verdicts, yet they are required to do so under federal law. In establishing procedures to deal with sexual assault, they must be sure that victims are treated with respect, that complaints are taken seriously and pursued vigorously — and that the due process rights of the accused are not abridged.

There are some overarching principles that should guide any school's investigation into an allegation of sexual assault or misconduct. Any school panel should be trained before investigating and sitting in judgment on a student's complaint. Everyone on the panel needs to understand certain basic realities: For instance, that a previous sexual relationship does not imply consent or preclude a finding of sexual violence. And that sex with a person who does not consent — or cannot consent — is unacceptable.

There is nothing wrong with having students on the panel, but we are troubled by the idea of allowing a majority of members to be students. Do students, even if they're trained, have the maturity and life experience to dominate such a serious proceeding?

The rights of the accuser and the rights of the accused must be protected equally. Both should have the same opportunities to present witnesses and evidence, to have lawyers and to appeal, among other things. These hearings can result in a student being expelled, a severe punishment that can cripple a person for years. Of course, someone proved to have committed sexual assault should face a long suspension or expulsion, to protect the campus community.

In many cases, victims prefer confidentiality, and that wish can and should be respected during the counseling process that most schools offer. But victims who want to take a complaint through a school disciplinary process should have to come forward in the course of that process just as they would in a criminal proceeding. The accused have a right to know who is accusing them.

Colleges are required to investigate and take action in cases of sexual assault. Nevertheless, it is to everyone's benefit if serious crimes are also brought to the attention of the police and investigated. Victims of sexual assault sometimes don't want to go through the emotionally wrenching process of a criminal investigation and trial, but it is important and should be encouraged.

Stanford University's sexual misconduct review process, which the school overhauled several years ago, offers some smart ideas about how to run a fair hearing. All complaints of sexual misconduct are first investigated by a trained judicial officer on staff, who then makes a decision on whether a complaint should go on to a review panel. The rights of the accuser and the accused are meticulously spelled out and are comparable. Whatever advisors, information or opportunity to explain that the accuser gets, the accused gets as well. Although the accuser and accused are never in the same room during the hearing, when one is speaking before the review panel, the other is allowed to listen in on a telephone line — and email questions to the panel members. That way they don't have to face or address each other but may hear and respond to each other's assertions. The decision of the panel and the punishment it decides on can be appealed by either student. From 2010 to 2013 at Stanford, 12 complaints were sent on to a review panel, and in seven, the accused student was found responsible.

The 1-in-5 figure cited by Obama is based on a 2007 study and has been criticized for sampling only two large, unnamed universities. The fact is that much more study is needed to understand the prevalence of campus sexual assault. One of the best recommendations in the White House task force report is a call for schools to undertake a "climate survey" of all their campuses. The task force offers a blueprint for how to proceed. Survey techniques should be comparable across the country.

A school can't manage a problem if it doesn't know the extent of it

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-campus-sexual-assault-20140513-story.html

There is nothing wrong with having students on the panel, but we are troubled by the idea of allowing a majority of members to be students. Do students, even if they're trained, have the maturity and life experience to dominate such a serious proceeding?

26. What if I get the person who assaulted me in trouble? I don’t want that person to get removed from campus.

Answer: Individuals are responsible for their own conduct and need to face the consequences, which may, but do not always mean, getting kicked off campus. By coming forward, you are helping to prevent sexual assault from happening to other community members in the future.

which is why every male who goes before it will be doomed. There will be no interest in justice, that is universal justice, they will be seeking the misnamed "justice for the victim".....who is in actual fact the alleged victim.

The entire scheme is rigged to **** over men.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/gender-madness-on-columbias-campus

In a letter dated August 1, 2000, to Columbia’s Board of Trustees, FIRE painted a scenario that involved a student nearing graduation who is accused of having committed “date rape” in his freshman year. (Complainants have five years from the date of the alleged incident to file a complaint.) The accused student would be denied every basic right of due process guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, a gag order would be imposed that would make it impossible for him to conduct an independent investigation or even to name his accusers to an attorney he consulted. The policy states, “Breaches of the confidentiality of the proceedings . . . will constitute separate violations of the Sexual Misconduct Policy.”
After the hearing has been conducted in secrecy, the adjudicating panel—consisting of two deans and a student, all specially trained in sensitivity to sexual misconduct—pass judgment. The accused could be expelled and denied a diploma, thus negating years of his life and perhaps ruining his career. The latter comment is not an exaggeration. For example: at its discretion, Columbia could tag all documents and transcripts relating to the defendant with a notation indicating “criminal misconduct.” Those mislabeled would have difficulty in bringing a libel or malicious-prosecution suit against the university owing to the confidentiality rule by which information such as the identity of witnesses might be withheld.
The draconian treatment of those accused of sexual misconduct was justified on the grounds of protecting women from violence. In the past, officials at Columbia University have been bitterly accused of obstructing women who attempt to bring charges of rape or similar abuse against male students. Some of the complaints may well be legitimate. Specifically, SAFER and a few other “anti-violence” groups wanted to streamline the process by which defendants in such cases were brought to “trial.” To dramatize their objections to what they called “red tape bureaucracy” that hindered prosecution, SAFER orchestrated an ongoing protest by which students put strips of red tape on books, backpacks, clothing, and around their wrists.
Student groups also contended that the rate of rape on Columbia’s campus was being intentionally underreported by the administration to make the university “look good in U.S. News and World Report,” which considers crime rates in its ranking of American universities. SAFER pointed to St. Luke’s Roosevelt Hospital, which is rumored to deal with three to eight cases of rapes from Columbia each month. St. Luke’s did not confirm that rumor, however, and others at Columbia, such as Maura Bairley, program coordinator for the Rape Crisis Center, believe that the underreporting is simply part of a national trend and not because of corruption in the administration. Nevertheless, with “Take Back the Night” marches and similarly shrill tactics, SAFER was able to title its press release “Students Force Columbia University to Pass Precedent-Setting Sexual Misconduct Policy.”
In the face of criticism from FIRE and voices such as the Wall Street Journal, Columbia’s administration has vigorously defended its policy. Concerning the suspension of due process, J. J. Haywood, the interim program coordinator for the Office of Sexual Misconduct and Prevention, has maintained that the hearing is merely a “fact-finding, informal, educational procedure.” The policy concurs and states, “The hearing is not an adversarial courtroom-type proceeding.” This description is repeated verbatim in Exhibit A of the report issued by the Task Force on June 19. Nevertheless, on the basis of these hearings, Columbia can place a student on “probation, suspension or dismissal, and may include a prescribed educational program” such as gender sensitivity training. At a meeting to vote on the measure, astronomy professor James Applegate rejected the idea that a hearing with such punitive power could be “non-adversarial,” especially when adjudicating accusations of rape.
Columbia’s administration also points out that the university is a private institution and the courts have upheld its right to determine which procedures are appropriate to serve its needs. In short, students have no right to expect constitutional protections from university procedures. Private or not, it is the government, which means the taxpayer, that will foot much of the bill for Columbia’s experiment with gender justice. As part of their report, the Task Force mentioned that grant funding to finance a full-time officer responsible for disciplining sexual misconduct was available from the Department of Justice. The on-campus gender crusader is estimated to cost $125,000 of taxpayer money in the first year. Yet according to Patricia Catapano, who chaired the Task Force, “The courts only have said that Columbia . . . has to have fundamental fairness” because it is a private institution.
The Force of Moral Suasion
In response, FIRE has called the policy both “unfair and inaccessible,” going so far in its rhetoric to compare the proceedings to “a court in Nazi Germany.” FIRE declared, “As a moral concept . . . due process protections are essentially the fundamental principles of fairness, principles that every college and university—public or private—should apply to its own actions, whether or not they are required to do so by law.” No one is denying the right of Columbia to enforce its private policies, though the issue of having those policies supported by tax dollars introduces a distinct grayness into the situation. Critics rather are bringing the force of moral suasion to bear on Columbia by casting a cold light of publicity on procedures that deny basic standards of decency to male students accused of sexual misconduct.
Apart from the denial of due process, critics raise other disturbing issues, including these:
Columbia is an educational institution. As such, it oversteps its authority by adjudicating criminal matters such as rape and sexual assault. Just as it would not prosecute cases of murder, it should not hold hearings on other criminal misconduct, but rather restrict itself to determining “guilt” in less serious cases.
Columbia may punish those found guilty of a criminal offense, but it is not only outside its purview to determine criminal guilt, it is also outside its ability. For example, the university does not maintain a crime lab to analyze the evidence on which a judgment of rape often hinges. Only the judicial system can properly adjudicate criminal guilt. Only afterward should the university consider imposing additional penalties on those found guilty.
Complainants are free to pursue redress through the courts and the university will delay hearings until the court process is completed. However, the report of the Task Force states that the verdict of the court “shall in no way limit the powers of any Dean to take any summary action with respect to the matter that he or she deems appropriate.” Even if the accused is found not guilty of rape or has the charge dismissed as frivolous, the university may proceed with a hearing and find him guilty. The university’s posture invites accusations that could not be supported by a balanced examination of evidence and witnesses.
Although advocates of the policy might sincerely believe that they are protecting victimized women, Columbia’s hearing will not produce this result. Jaime Sneider, a sophomore at Columbia College, wrote in the Columbia Daily Spectator (December 2, 1999), “If our legal system is as flawed as proponents of this new sexual misconduct policy would have us believe, then the problem can’t be corrected by instituting a new sexual misconduct policy . . . . Injustice will proliferate by establishing a University court that avoids the checks and balances of civil liberties.”
Advocates contend that victims of sexual violence are uncomfortable sitting in the same court room as perpetrators and must be shielded from the emotional trauma. This attitude is an outright denial of a woman’s competence to operate as an adult within society and its institutions. It treats women as infants who cannot function on the same level as men.
The Sexual Misconduct Policy comes on the heels of another harassment scandal that hit the Columbia campus last year. The legal scholar George P. Fletcher was accused of creating a hostile gender environment for women when he asked a question on a criminal law exam. It concerned an actual case in which an anti-fertility zealot destroyed the fetus of a pregnant woman who later expressed gratitude to the man for doing so. Law School Dean David Leebron informed Fletcher that the question might be “unlawful” to ask. FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have addressed what they call “a terrible assault against academic freedom.” Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and a law professor, stated, “At stake in this situation are not only free speech and academic freedom, but also women’s dignity and equality.”
A difficult struggle for due process and gender sanity on American campuses lies ahead. Advocates of the new Sexual Misconduct Policy seem determined to have it set a precedent for universities across the nation. In a SAFER press release, co-coordinator Nikki declared, “We believe this new policy will have national impact as other schools look to it to model their own Sexual Misconduct Policy.” An intercollegiate conference is being planned to “discuss campus sexual misconduct policies and strategies for reform.” As SAFER states in an “Agenda” published on its Web site, “Many other schools are trying to improve their policies and we are in a great position to help them.”
It is to be devoutly hoped that the course of sexual misconduct policies within academia does not parallel the spread of sexual harassment policies. One of the first definitions of academic sexual harassment—and still a touchstone—was formulated by researcher F. J. Tilly and published in a 1980 Report of the National Advisory Council of Women’s Educational Programs. According to Tilly’s incredibly inclusive and vague definition, sexual harassment in academia is “the use of authority to emphasize the sexuality or sexual identity of a student in a manner which prevents or impairs the student’s full enjoyment of educational benefits, climate, or opportunities.”
Universities across the nation scrambled to adopt this new form of gender correctness. Less than a decade later, in September 1989, Harvard University issued a guideline that pushed the definition of sexual harassment farther by removing any connection between behavior and intent. In the section “Sexism in the Classroom,” the Harvard guideline cautioned against innocent remarks. “Alienating messages may be subtle and even unintentional,” the guideline observed, “but they nevertheless tend to compromise the learning experience of both sexes . . . . For example . . . calling only upon women in a class on topics such as marriage and the family.”
The rapid spread of sexual harassment policies has ruined the careers of good professors, disadvantaged male students, lowered the quality of an academic education, and silenced free speech on American campuses. And it has done so with little opposition from intimidated faculties. Sexual misconduct policies may wreak the same havoc on the principle of due process and fairness in university proceedings.
There is reason to believe that the political correctness juggernaut is being halted. A press release last fall from Curt Levey of the Center for Individual Rights announced that the University of Oklahoma had agreed to review its sexual harassment policy “to prevent violations of the First Amendment.” The university’s agreement was part of a settlement it reached with Professor David Deming, who had been threatened with harassment proceedings for a letter he wrote to the campus newspaper.
FIRE executive director Thor L. Halvorssen and his organization are important factors in continuing to turn the PC tables around. Halvorssen has vowed to wage an unwavering campaign against Columbia’s new Sexual Misconduct Policy. The Columbia Spectator (www.columbiaspectator.com/) quoted him as saying, “If the trustees don’t listen, we are going to take this to the alumni. And if the alumni doesn’t listen, we will go to the parents. Do not rule out mass mailings to the parents by FIRE.” Hopefully parents will care as much for the well-being of their sons as they do for that of their daughters.
SHARE THIS

ASSOCIATED ISSUE