Wow.

Yes there are different physical actions, but each and every one use some sort of "force".

You're insane. I was defining the ends of a range from brutal rape to date rape where the woman was too drunk to consent but allowed it - which doesn't make it not rape. That you guys want to pretend one is not more traumatic than the other because "rape is rape" is your problem. It's not trivializing that form of date rape to say I think it is less traumatic than being falsely accused of rape, considering I've said many times ITT I'd probably kill myself if falsely accused.

The woman did not "allow" **** you *******

Why are you throwing out this red herring anyway, Fold?

Jesus, come off your ****ing semantic high horses you idiots! How else am I supposed to say she wasn't held down and forcibly brutalized because she was drunk, but that is by definition not consent? You guys need to breath and wipe the foam off your mouths.

Lol, says the person who just entered the conversation and has no clue what he's talking about.

I'm done here, when I have guys with fancy colored names calling me expletives with impunity because they have no ****ing clue how to step back and talk about something unemotionally, and they've already apparently temp banned others they don't agree with for that action - this conversation is spoiled. Peace.

Lol with the faux moral outrage.

Yes a woman can allow sex while drunk. She can verbally consent to sex while drunk. She can even initiate sex while drunk. That does not mean she cannot still be a victim of rape, if the partner knew that she was so drunk as to be incapacitated, and incapable of consent.

By definition she cant consent if she is incapable of consent.

Guys, guys. Namecalling isn't allowed in this thread. I'm sure someone will come along and be issuing bans shortly. At least he didn't use the word 'stupid', or there would be hell to pay!

So, is it 100% impossible to do a thorough investigation of a rape allegation without shaming the victim and that's why we're against having a higher standard of proof than 50.000something1%? Or are cops and the legal system just really bad at their jobs?

Also, what kind of investigations are colleges actually doing to kick people out of school? What evidence are they collecting? And how did the people mentioned in the OP and other parts of the thread get expelled if there was a thorough investigation and they didn't actually do it? What other evidence was there other than the accusation? It's gotta be pretty close to 'zero' if they were later found to be completely innocent right?

Also, lol at "name an example of a guy found guilty of rape who is actually innocent". Like, do you think the college disciplinary hearing releases a report saying "yeah, this bro is actually innocent but, ya know, this is how it goes."

hahahahahaha omg i'm dying

No one thinks that all men have zero regards for women's rights. Most of us do. I'm sure that you do. Here's the thing though: rapists don't.

The whole breathalyzer thing seems to suggest that guys who are committing rape by having sex with a woman too drunk to consent don't know what they are doing. Sure, they might not recognize that its rape, but they sure as hell are aware that they are with a girl that is quite drunk and that her drunkenness is what will allow them to have sex with her.

The sort of guy who will take a girl being too drunk as an opportunity to rape her isn't going to look at some poster that explains about date rape and change his views. He's going to laugh his ass off with his buddies about "dyke bitches" and how they think any sort of non-lesbian sex is rape.

I said verbally consent. For ex. a girl who is drunk could say the word yes, but be too inebriated to even know what she is saying. If the guy knows she is that wasted, it doesn't matter if she says yes or not - she can't give true consent and he shouldn't touch her.

Almost 3 days and still waiting.

Hey, dude, make no mistake, you've offered some tremendously reprehensible views here. And you've also made clear that you have literally NO ****ING IDEA what you're talking about, your ignorance is complete and total. (did you ever go to college?)

But I gotta make absolutely clear: you don't get to pretend to be the logical one. Not here. Not ever. Your biases tending towards the imaginary plight of the wrongfully accused bro doesn't make you more logical. It just makes you ****ty.

And stop whining. It's unmanly.

Oh Matty is even more of a reader than revots. Probably got like 2 books about misandry on his bookshelf! Serious, scholary stuff, too.

Why not just put the standard of proof at 50.0000000000000000000000001% for everything? I mean, gotta get those criminals off the street and we can't hold the cops and lawyers to a high standard of investigation and criminal proceedings or anything like that. And we'll only be wrong half the time!

Does misandry mean "to advocate for fair investigations and proceedings for all parties involved"? Because if so, I don't have 2 books on the subject, but it does sound like an important thing for a civilized society so maybe you should buy 1 or 2, brochacho.

Stop owning Fly with reason, my experience is it only yields butthurt sarcasm from him. It's sad. Much more fun to engage him at his own game; frothy emotional rants! Just be careful to not take as much liberty as he does in Alta with the name calling, you'll catch a ban quicker than he will every time.

I'm of the opinion that a college bro recognizing that sex with his girl might be considered rape would at least slow him the Hell down, which in itself will prevent some rape when some reconsider.

And I disagree with you regarding how dudes would respond, but I've got no real evidence barring my own perception of human nature. Sure, some would laugh about it, but others (majority IMO) wouldn't.

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard for most civil cases and some criminal cases. I know revots phrased it like it was weird that the US Department of Education "forced" colleges to use it, some sort of dyke conspiracy, but that's a HIGHER bar than typical internal school/employee discipline, which is generally doled out ad hoc. Seriously did any of you misandrists actually go to college? It would explain a lot. FoldNDark apparently thinks they publish like a list of accused rapists and so everyone knows, DiB thinks that only if bros knew the girls were drunk they'd not **** them, it's just nonsense.

LOL "owned me with reason" good there, champ. Matt, this is that thing where you have no idea what's going on. Just like before.

Like
It's a little ****ing weird that you're just asking this now. The thread was about you guys demanding changes, but apparently you don't know how it works today, and you want those changes to solve a problem that you apparently can't show exists.

You're the one claiming the system is unfair. You should be telling us the answers to these questions. That you don't know, that you're asking us, and that despite your ignorance you're still getting fired up about how unfair the system is to accused rapists.... That says a lot about where you're coming from.

1. How do you know people in the OP got expelled?

2. How do you know the people in the OP didn't actually do it? FWIW, if you had READ the OP you would see that Sokolow pretty much conceded that they did it, but he wanted a technical legal defense to protect them from discipline.

Wow, a frothless post! All it took was IDing reality for you aka pointing out how you typically respond to reason with frothy emotion.

Well done Fly. You're still calling people misogynists for wanting rapists tried somewhere besides kangaroo court, but baby steps. Baby steps.

DudeImBetter- You continue to absolutely not follow the discussion. Like when you brought up this 'kangaroo court' argument and drugsarebad asked you if you thought colleges were preventing people from going to the police, that should've been it for that train of thought. You apparently had a misconception about how it worked, that misconception was corrected by someone who had the barest minimal knowledge level, but instead you've doubled down on how great of an idea your "no punishment by colleges" policy would be.

Nobody is ****ing fooled by this ****. You think you're being clever when you try to recast it as the normals not taking rape as seriously as you are, but that **** don't fly. People who are smarter than you see right through that act.

Fly, in what jurisdictions and under what circumstances is preponderance of the evidence the standard of proof in criminal cases?