The pendulum has swung way too far. Sexual crimes are wrong. But, crying rape among college students has gotten way too far out of hand. Morning regrets aren’t a reason to cry rape for being drunk and horny. Having a few drinks and going home with a guy isn’t rape, it’s part of college life should you chose to drink and socialize.
The stupid rape shield laws need to be abolished as well. If you want to prosecute someone in court and you’re over 18 years old, you need to be named in the lawsuit as the accuser. The morning after regrets and blatant money grabs would surely drop if this was the case.
I don’t think the California law, as written, is the best way to deal with this issue.
I don’t think the OP of this thread, as a victim-blaming jerkoff asshole who often makes unsubstantiated accusations about “money-grubbing” women even in cases where there is no evidence of such behavior, is the right person to be raising this issue.
“Horny” implies the person wanted sex. However being drunk means a person has low resistance and are easily pressed into sex. That’s not the same as wanting it. I agree with the law.
Is there really any statistically nonnegligible phenomenon of people tending to “cry rape” simply because they later regret sex that they knowingly consented to?
That doesn’t make sense to me. Generally, as far as I can tell from my own experience and that of anybody else I’ve ever shared such observations with, sex that you knowingly consented to and later regretted is not sex that you want to draw other people’s attention to in any way. Certainly not by throwing around criminal accusations.
That’s not to say that people don’t occasionally make false accusations of rape. But AFAICT the accusers in such cases generally didn’t have sex at all with the accused: they were simply out to get the accused for some reason.
Why on earth would anybody who could freely consent to sex, without being punished for having sex, decide after the fact to falsely accuse their sex partner of rape simply because they “regretted” the sex?
And why would anybody “regret” consensual sex, anyway? Because it wasn’t very good? Because your partner was actually less appealing than you thought? Because you forgot to take precautions against pregnancy/STDs? Because one or both of you were cheating on somebody else?
Why would anybody in any of those circumstances be even slightly tempted to exacerbate the situation by portraying it as a full-blown case of criminal assault?
Until somebody provides some actual evidence about such alleged trends, I’ll remain very skeptical that there is actually any significant problem of “women lying about ‘rape’”.
Colleges and universities have proven themselves spectacularly unable to investigate and prosecute sexual assault cases, trampling the rights of victims and accused.
Such cases (in fact, all violent crimes/accusations of same) should be referred to trained and qualified persons employed by law enforcement agencies, whether municipal, county or state. Not the campus police or faculty committees.
Dear Old U. has no business trying to adjudicate these matters, unless it’s to suspend or expel someone convicted of a crime.
*The suggestion has been made that students participating in sexual liaisons should first sign a contract stipulating agreement by both parties. Ideally this should be a standardized document, specifying the acts to be performed, witnessed by a (sober) third party and filed with supervisory personnel before any such activity takes place.
This law is a boon to young men. In their immaturity they assume the misconstrued burden of having to be the initiator. And they cross the line from initiator to aggressor.
Think of it as a reverse-Lysistrata law. If women want it, now they have to own that they want it. That’s what the MRAs have been demanding all along. So what’s their beef now?
It’s a bad law, like most laws passed in the aftermath of moral panics are. But, seriously, you know, the Victorians were right. The easiest way to not fall afoul of this new law is the simple expedient of abstaining from intercourse. Not starting women blaming.
Great. So, before you leave the party, you sign the contract, then, an hour later, and a little more sober, you change your mind, and he makes some offensive remark that makes him a lot less attractive. Sorry, he says, got consent in writing, and forces the matter.
Not to get off topic, but are we going to see a law stating that if a drunk adult consents to sex, it’s not “real” consent because of the alcohol, even if there’s proof of consent?
The law specifies that the two must consent to move forward without being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. If the “Yes” was under the influence, then it is not really a “Yes”.
Still, after all is said and done, it will end up being he-said/she-said, his word against hers. So, I am not seeing what has changed.
But but but, the accuser in that case didn’t actually have sex with the accused: EXACTLY MY POINT!
The lonely Mayella tried to coax Tom into a sexual encounter (“she says what her pap do to her don’t count”), but he fled and her enraged father, who had caught sight of her embracing Tom, beat her up and insisted she accuse Tom of raping her.
A very far cry from a hypothetical drunk woman knowingly consenting to mutually desired sex and subsequently “regretting” it.
Simple. The contract must be fulfilled within a stated time period, and both (all?) parties must be proven sober by field sobriety testing (blood/breathalyzer analysis in doubtful circumstances). To ensure compliance, all acts would need to take place with a duly constituted, impartial committee of observers in attendance.
Really, you’re making things needlessly complex with these objections. :dubious:
I have had sexy times with a lot of people, and I’ve never been accused of rape. I think it might be because I’m not a rapist, but who knows? How can we be sure? I mean, if only there was a way to tell if someone actually wanted to have sex with you, but how do I language??
