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

You really are sick, quibbling over slight details. Just because he abused 12 yr olds instead of 11 yr olds doesn't make it right.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia

Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia, an "abnormal or unnatural attraction." Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with prepubescent children. Pedophiles are usually men, and can be attracted to either or both sexes.

I have a lot of trouble believing that in todays climate that universitys will keep accusations of sexual assault that get guys thrown out private, or that other universities would even consider admitting them.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Time to get serious about sexual assault on college campuses

By MARY SANCHEZ
The Kansas City Star

If there were a medal of valor for members of Congress, Sens. Claire McCaskill and Kirsten Gillibrand would deserve it for their success in reforming the U.S. military. Thanks largely to their efforts, the armed services must radically change the way they investigate and prosecute sexual assault.

The senators dissected the chain of command, examined policies and procedures, and tackled a culture that was more inclined to protect accused sexual predators than to protect and vindicate the victims, who were usually female.

More than 30 new provisions are now in law. It is now a crime for a member of the military to retaliate against someone filing a complaint. Commanders may no longer overturn convictions. Dishonorable discharge is the very least that happens after a member of the military is convicted of sexual assault. The changes are monumental.

Now McCaskill and Gillibrand have turned their attention a scene where sexual assault is just as egregious and indulged with similar laxity by officials: college campuses.

This time, the sacred cows are fraternity row, university athletic departments and institutional prestige. Also at play are the public’s attitudes about young people, alcohol and sexual violence.

Much like the military, colleges and universities all too often react to sexual assault first and foremost to shield the institution, not to help the victims. A common complaint is that, when allegations are made, college officials hesitate to investigate or try to dissuade victims from filing criminal complaints. The senators aim to get campuses to increase reporting and change the ways they respond to sexual assault.

One in five women will be sexually assaulted while in college, according to “The Campus Sexual Assault Study,” a 2007 study conducted for the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice. The statistic by itself is an argument starter. Cite it and you’ll be accused of crusading against young men and of excusing the unladylike drinking of female coeds.

True, a drunk young woman is more gullible than a sober one. She can be counted on to make unwise choices. But that doesn’t mean she’s fair game to be assaulted.

What many don’t realize is that colleges and universities receiving federal funding are required by law to provide a safe campus for everyone, regardless of gender. And when they allow an administrative process that is barely a scolding to suffice, they permit attacks to carry on.

Studies cited by The White House Council on Women and Girls indicate that college attacks are often by serial offenders who use alcohol as a weapon to incapacitate their female victims. A 2002 study found that 7 percent of college men admitted to committing rape or attempted rape and 63 percent of these men admitted to committing multiple offenses, averaging six rapes each.

The study raises the question of whether predatory young men are emboldened by the fact that so many cases aren’t reported.

Mandated reporting of incidents is lax, federal staff to force cooperation isn’t sufficient, and too much confusion exists within university staff of their obligations under laws of equality such as the Title IX and the Clery Act.

The senators recognize these complications. Giving universities the incentive to do better is their goal.

To start, Sen. McCaskill sent surveys to 450 universities and colleges around the country, asking for input. She promised confidentiality and inquired about current practices.

Red flags went up immediately. So much so, that the American Council on Education, made available a free webinar to counsel campuses on how to answer. McCaskill wasn’t pleased and accused the council of helping colleges to dodge.

Yet nearly 200 colleges have returned their surveys, the senator’s office reports.

The senators also have the firm backing of the administration. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights in May released a list of 55 universities under investigation for violations in their handling of sexual violence and harassment complaints under Title IX.

College should be the launching pad to a solid, successful adult life. But nearly adult is not adult. And the trauma of abuse, especially mishandled, can lead to depression, drugs and alcohol to cope, or to dropping out of school.

For decades, universities have been sloughing off the dusty old responsibility of “in loco parentis.” Very well, but they have to live up to real responsibility — legal liability — before the scourge of sexual assault is under control.
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/16/5028183/senators-mccaskill-and-gillibrand.html

People are human, and humans lie, for lots of reasons and often.

all because he patted a girl on the ass at a party when he was at university.

Homophobia, like misogyny, is still terrible, just not as terrible as it was in, say, 1970. Finding ways to appreciate advances without embracing complacency is a delicate task. It involves being hopeful and motivated and keeping eyes on the prize ahead. Saying that everything is fine or that it will never get any better are ways of going nowhere or of making it impossible to go anywhere. Either approach implies that there is no road out or that, if there is, you don’t need to or can’t go down it. You can. We have.

We have so much further to go, but looking back at how far we’ve come can be encouraging. Domestic violence was mostly invisible and unpunished until a heroic effort by feminists to out it and crack down on it a few decades ago. Though it now generates a significant percentage of the calls to police, enforcement has been crummy in most places -- but the ideas that a husband has the right to beat his wife and that it’s a private matter are not returning anytime soon. The genies are not going back into their bottles. And this is, really, how revolution works. Revolutions are first of all of ideas.

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2012/11/when-it-comes-to-campus-sexual-assault-charges-being-not-guilty-is-not-good-enough/


When it comes to campus sexual assault charges, being not guilty is not good enough
CommentsPermalink Posted by College Insurrection Tuesday, November 27, 2012 at 11:


Campus administrations struggle to effectively deal with sexual assault cases, either adopting extreme “zero tolerance” approaches or essentially sweeping the matter “under the rug”.

Minding the Campus contributor KC Johnson details a troubling case of an exonerated student who continues to be “on trial” by a tag-team consisting of the original accuser, Office of Civil Rights lawyer, and an activist media minion.

The Office of Civil Rights’ mandated procedures for investigating sexual assault are tilted heavily against the accused party. The institution can hire “neutral fact-finders” who produce the equivalent of a grand jury presentment, deny the accused an advisor of his choice, add witnesses that the accused student does not request, forbid the students from cross-examining his witnesses, and judge the student according to a 50.00001 percent preponderance of evidence standard, an approach that mocks even the pretense of due process.

It is remarkable, then, that one such accused student at the University of Virginia was exonerated of the charges brought against him. Unfortunately, what happened next was unsurprising.

The accuser hired an outside attorney–none other than controversial victims’ rights lawyer Wendy Murphy–and filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights. Murphy’s argument, as expressed to c-ville.com, comes close to saying that a failure to convict amounts to an OCR violation. “The preponderance standard is simple,” she told the newspaper. “When her accusations are deemed credible, and his denials are not described with the same glowing terminology, she wins.” But under the UVA system, the investigators (serving as the equivalent of a grand jury) have the authority to deem an accuser’s claims “credible.” For the OCR even to consider such an absurd claim would be highly problematic.

The second disturbing element of this story comes from the article itself. Penned by Graelyn Brashear, the article often appears as little more than a press release for Murphy. Even though the accuser publicly reiterated her allegations through a posting on Murphy’s facebook page–which Brashear notes, was “widely circulated among students,” c-ville.com kept her identity secret.

Nor does Brashear inform her readers about what the UVA procedure actually entails. Beyond referencing the shift toward a preponderance of evidence standard (which the reporter comes close to celebrating, describing universities lacking the standard as “holdout schools,” even as she notes concerns from FIRE and the AAUP), Brashear doesn’t reveal that accused students can’t have an attorney cross-examining witnesses, that the university considers the equivalent of a grand jury or the police as “neutral,” or that the university is willing to abandon even a circumscribed right to cross examine regarding some witness statements. Given that most people outside the academy (indeed, most academics) have little knowledge about the details of campus due process, it seems likely that readers of Brashear’s article came away with the belief that the campus judicial system resembles not the Kafka-like system envisioned by the OCR but instead the Law and Order rules that most citizens at least somewhat understand.

Most troubling, here’s how Brashear described Murphy: “Wendy Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law and a frequent media commentator on issues of women’s rights, has a reputation as a firebrand. ‘I’m an activist with my feet in the courts,’ she said. Her battle cry is blunt: ‘The law is designed to facilitate and perpetuate violence against women and children,’ she said.”

Virginia is a member of the ACC, and, of course, Murphy has some experience with handling allegations of sexual assault at an ACC school. In the Duke lacrosse case, the ubiquitous media commentator repeatedly made false statements of fact about the case (nearly 20 of them in 2006 alone) coupled with myriad unsubstantiated claims and bizarre interpretations of law. These statements weren’t made in secret–and they received widespread attention, including from the American Journalism Review.

Yet Brashear mentions none of this, and instead treats Murphy as a wholly credible figure. Imagine, for instance, if the intro paragraph had at least acknowledged that Murphy had a record of playing fast and loose with the truth on claims of campus sexual assault: “Wendy Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law and a frequent media commentator on issues of women’s rights, has a reputation as a firebrand, although in at least one high-profile campus matter, the Duke lacrosse case, she repeatedly misstated both factual items and questions of law, always in such a way that favored the accuser in that case.”

Such a portrayal, it seems, isn’t what cville.com thinks its readers should receive.

Till then be careful out there. Pick you friends and women with care.

The Yale Daily News, unfortunately, doesn't appear up to the task. In an editorial last Friday, the paper complained of the "University's ineffective and embarrassing response to sexual violence, as we learned that those guilty of sexual assault remain on our campus." Had the editors actually read any of the Spangler reports, or Yale's own policies, and discovered that at Yale, being found "guilty of sexual assault" doesn't mean the same thing that it does anyplace else in New Haven?

The editorial asserted that "the preferred punishment for nonconsensual sex at Yale must be expulsion." Again, keep in mind that Yale's definition of "intimate partner violence" includes threatening your roommate with "economic abuse." The "preferred punishment" for such an offense, according to the student newspaper, "must be expulsion." Expulsion for withholding money from a girlfriend or causing her worry? That ought to satisfy the "activists."

- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2013/09/another_anti-male_move_at_yale.html#sthash.ja7MgIkD.dpuf