Pretty sure Ikes just dug himself a trap then leapt in head first.

Spring it any time phill.

" “Walk a Mile in Her Shoes,” in which men walk around campus in high-heeled shoes to raise awareness of sexual assault."

**** me, when will people drop the high-heels idea.

Is there some alternate world where the cops always take every complaint at face value and never try to ascertain what actually happened?

Still waiting for the trap guys.

I remember having this same discussion in a large meeting in our dorm my senior year of college, over 20 years ago. It is unsurprising this is still a topic of discussion with little agreement and tons of gray area.

I recall that it was clear from the tone of the conversation in that room that most everyone, at least of those speaking up, felt "If you are drunk, and she is drunk, and you both engage in consensual sex, you are raping her", at which point I objected. I still object. People do dumb things when drunk, both men and women. And both are responsible for the decisions they make. If a girl drinks too much and wraps her car around a pole, we all agree she is responsible for the behavior. But if she gets drunk and wraps her legs around a guy, it's his fault? Why is it this guy's responsibility to assess her competency? Just like no means no, yes means yes. Especially considering the fact the in most of these cases he is also drunk, not making good decisions, and probably not capable of assessing her mental state or the truthfulness of her "yes". Both parties should share culpability for what happens, but we're putting the onus on a drunk guy to give a sobriety test to a girl grabbing his junk?

Now, if the girl in actually incapacitated, or unconscious, then yes, put the bastard in jail, of course.

The second paragraph seems incongruous with this thread at least, because I thought a lot of the potential difficulty in deciding these college cases arise when they are he said/ she said cases where witnesses are lacking.

I figure that witnesses corroborating the victims claims, in absence of witnesses supporting the accused, should easily get the accused thrown out of college close to 100% of the time, unless what the witnesses report don't indicate rape of course (which might have been the scenario in the cases alluded to by the author of the OP article).

If colleges routinely discredit witnesses corroborating the victim's account, then I would say that is a major problem, but that's probably not what the OP article author had in mind. Rather, he probably questioned the interpretations of those accounts, again, if there really were witness accounts in the cases he was describing.

Did you not read the nyt article. Witnesses or no witnesses it definitely does not lead to prosecution.

Ike - I guess you agree with the death penalty as well?

Nope

Glad thats the main take away you have from that article.

Try telling that to our friends who support voter id

But also, your argument isn't purely logical. You are assuming one person is breaking the law. You just choose to believe it must be the woman.

oh man just stop trying bro. If the woman was the one on trial she'd get the same 'innocent until proven guilty' consideration. Just lol lowkey

You still don't seem to get this:

"Rape is a crime where the question of a genuine victim is frequently the only question in dispute. Hope that helps you and author."

There's no question if someone died, and it's much easier to confirm that an object was taken than sex was had without consent. These are basic facts of how each crime works, not some indictment of the legal system.

Your assumption for the women is guilty until proven innocent. Men get innocent until proven guilty. Funny how that works. Lolikes

You dont seem to get it. Assuming the only question is whether the victim is genuine is the whole problem.

No. See: my last post directed to you.
This seems really hard for you to understand, but people have to be proven guilty before we put them in jail. Rape is fundamentally different crime than murder or robbery because the question is 'did consent happen', and that can be incredibly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. If person A claims person B raped them, but person B claimed they had consensual sex, then it's going to be difficult to prove one way or another without some sort of evidence outside of their account. This is due to the fundamental guarantees of our justice system, not some insidious form of discrimination.

If you can't admit the logical conclusion to your positions, that not everyone else's problem, that's all you.

lol, ok -- How 'bout, "Hollow 'fun' displays of sympathy that claim to raise awareness of rape using a gimmick that reinforces certain rape myths are not something we should encourage, that rapability is not correlated to (and therefore punishment for) outward markers of femininity. BOYS WEARING HIGH HEELS LAWL THOSE ARE GIRLS' SHOES"

It's not logical, de the post referenced in your quote.

I'm glad we both agree you aren't being logical..?

Sharpey, not sure if you saw this -- followup to your NYT story that was pretty interesting. The DA comes off as a worse person than if he'd said nothing.

lol

Yes the luscious hand wave was read and ignored. If you think that's an acceptable response it ain't.

LOL ikes has evaluated it and found it wanting, try again.

Do you have it in the form of a .pdf from a nobody?

The response to that nonsense is already posted. Try again fly bot.