Substitute for the word “rapists” the word “anti-semites” in 1930 or “segregationists” in 1950 to figure out why that would occur.
Indeed.
Substitute for the word “rapists” the word “anti-semites” in 1930 or “segregationists” in 1950 to figure out why that would occur.
Indeed.
Most reason*ing *people would first ask you to define “intoxicated”.
I’m afraid that doesn’t provide any answer at all to the question. Do Obama and other Democrats really believe that 1 in 5 female college students are raped, while simultaneously working very hard to increase the number of students and the amount of money going to colleges and universities? If so, it seems there should be a straightforward reason why this is so.
This isn’t remotely hard to figure out, unless you’re under the misapprehension that college students are raped in the special Rape Rooms set up in the gymnasium. Do you think that young adults who AREN’T in college have drastically lower rates of rape?
Colleges contribute, to be sure: the culture of cover-up on many college campuses is nothing less than horrifying, and it’s something that needs to change. But the likeliest cause of high rates of rape among college students is that college students are primarily young folks outside of adult supervision for the first time; for predators, it’s a perfect environment to commit their crimes. You’ll note also that a large number of rapes happen in other situations in which a lot of young adults gather as well.
It is a different study. Biden apparently pointed specifically to this one.
If a member of a college administration has knowledge about a claim of rape and doesn’t report it to the police, shame on them.
Nonetheless, prosecuting a rapist should not be the job of anyone on campus. Rape is a criminal act; it should be the job of the police. Any college student who has been assaulted should contact the police. If such a student instead tells someone on campus, that person should hand the matter over to the police. Investigating rape and putting the suspect on trial should be a police matter, not a matter for a college administration.
As Dr. Sommers points out, we don’t ask campus disciplinary boards to hold hearing when a student is accused of murder, arson, or any other serious crime other than rape. Campus disciplinary boards exist to deal with students caught cheating on the Calculus midterm or breaking a dorm window. Why should they deal with rape accusations rather than letting the criminal justice system do it?
That is not at all clear based on the links.
We don’t appear to be looking at the same place.
The rest is snipped since we’re looking at different surveys. The survey I linked to earlier seems to be much more clear in how it uses words like “consent”.
This all sounds good to me. But we also need to take into account the wishes of the victim. Some women don’t want to get the police involved for a myriad or reasons, including many good reasons (like previous bad experiences with police).
Since the term is being used in the context of saying what is or isn’t legal, one naturally assumes the legal definition in the relevant jurisdiction is being referred to.
Do you know of a jurisdiction in the US where it’s reasonable to disagree with the statement “An intoxicated person cannot legally consent to sex?”
The one I linked too seems to have superior methodology. Do you deny that one as well?
Did you read ITR champion’s post? he links to two Massachusetts court cases.
I pulled the quote from your link to a PDF in post 10. Where else should I be looking?
On page 17 (page numbers, not pdf pages) of this link, the survey lays out the definition of rape it uses:
“Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.” (bolding mine)
You’re right, as it turns out, that there are jurisdictions that don’t make it impossible to legally consent while intoxicated. And while I wouldn’t have made an equivalence between “intoxicated” and “under the influence of alcohol” myself, if I assume Sommers means to use them as equivalents, then I can see why she takes the following two statements to be, for all intents and purposes, in contradiction:
So I’ll concede that whole point assuming it’s right to interpret her charitably here.
The point remains that she exhibits an inability to read social research accurately, and is using her influence irresponsibly by speaking out as though authoritatively on matters she doesn’t understand. I call this “irresponsible” especially in light of her academic credentials, which would prima facie indicate to me that she knows better.
Yes, I’ve just replied to it.
I read “drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent” with the emphasis on the “unable to consent”, so whether one is drunk, high, drugged, or passed out, in all cases the question is about scenarios in which the questionee was “unable to consent”. That certainly implies “unwanted”, and while it’s putting the onus on the questionee to determine whether she was able to consent, at the very least it means about one in five women believe someone had sex with them when they were unable to consent. So it seems pretty reasonable to say, from that survey, that about one in five women believe they were raped.
But you know, that’s really a little too fast. Because she doesn’t say “Surely reasonable people can disagree, after all, just look at the definition of intoxication and consent in such-and-such jurisdiction.” Rather, she says “reasonable people can disagree, after all it renders some very common actions illegal.”
Given what she says and doesn’t say here, she seems to be making the argument, at best, that it’s reasonable to disagree about whether something is legal on the basis of the question of whether it should be legal. That’s a strange argument. Bricker regularly criticizes people for making that kind of argument around here–rightly so.
Anyway that’s on the best reading. What she’s really doing is completely unclear the more I look at it. That in itself is a pretty serious failing, given the credentials etc.
Anyway the point still remains about her apparent inability to understand how social science research works and her irresponsible use of her platform etc.
If someone complains of rape to a campus administrator, no evidence but the bare accusation (such as DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, admissions by the accused, etc.) is documented and entered into the record, and no conviction has resulted, how can you prove that it really happened and that the “victim” is not just having second thoughts about sleeping with that frat boy?
Someone at Podunk State once kicked me in the nuts and took $50 from my wallet. Do you believe me? Really? Why should you?
Such accusations should be taken seriously. Often they are not, which is why many women are afraid even to come forward. Taking it seriously would probably include interviewing friends and acquaintances of the accused to see if any other women would be willing to come forward.
False accusations of rape are bad, but they are not equivalent to rape.
Actually, it asked them if they received any completed or attempted penetration. So, they are measuring the frequency of self-reported rape and attempted rape. It looks like they are defining attempted rape as rape.
IOW, if a woman is drunk, and a guy comes on to her physically, and she pushes him away before anything actually happens, that’s still “rape”.