I had no expectations, but I'm glad you watched it anyways.
So I think her main point is that whether or not it's a crime is basically entirely based on the women's state of mind after the incident, not during the incident. We let the woman decide if she consented or not after the fact.
I think the most common example is after drunk sex where the girl was enthusiastic about the sex at the time, but an argument could be made that she was "too drunk" to consent. After sobering up, if the girl likes the guy she slept with, then she will say it was consensual, but if she doesn't like him she will say the guy manipulated and raped her.
IIRC in that video Karen brought up that in one study of campus sexual assault, about half of the "victims" did not report feeling violated.
The fact is, many women have sex when they are "too drunk" to consent and are completely happy about it. Still some other women will do the same thing and claim to be victimized. It's simply not consistent. We need to hold women accountable for their actions while drunk. Unless the guy used physical force or threats or she was so intoxicated as to be unaware of what was going on, I don't think it's rape.
It might be unethical, but it's nowhere close to rape. Calling it such cheapens what real rape victims go through.
The situation is that the accuser and the accursed both tell the same story, being together that night, and having sex with each other. The only difference between the stories is that one person says it was consensual, and the other one says it was not. There's no space for other people in that story, and the woman was conscious the thole time.
No, I did not ignore the reasons you gave, I just did not accept them and instead showed why I think that all but one of the reasons you gave are powerfully, incredibly, idiotically, (What, the word I wanted to add is blocked? Bummer.) wrong, and explained why I think the other one is unethical.
The real idiocy in all of this is of course that the people who would usually probably spout "Believe the victim!" are suddenly all against "believing the victim" when the victim and the perpetrator both tell the same story.
Truly baffling, but I guess if your standard of evidence requires you to disbelieve both sides involved, even though they tell you the same thing, then there's not much use in having a discussion. Because I think that's utterly stupid and a waste of resources. If both sides tell you the exact same thing, and that story is plausible, and there's no reason to believe the accuser and the accused are both lying (which might be the case in a situation where the victim suddenly takes back the previous story to clear the accused, but not here), then there's absolutely no reason to draw in the rape kit, because it will just give you the information you already have.
Okay, since you're fairly new here from the Civ section of the board, you get a pass for not knowing a few things:
You should really stop saying this.
Racist.
I imagine it would, assuming the laws consider being intoxicated as "unable to consent". In California this is the case.
The reason that false rape accusations are important is that they are particularly nasty to get slapped with, and many studies have shown that the false accusation rate for rape is much higher than for other crimes. The fact that rape cases pretty much boil down to "he said she said", and that the defendant is limited in their ability to defend themselves (rape shield laws) makes it particularly heinous. Even if not convicted, the accused's reputation will be seriously damaged, and they could lose their job. On university campuses which follow the recently implemented "preponderance of the evidence" standard, the accused are basically denied their due process rights and could be kicked out of their university.
Forgot to post this earlier:
I say "imagine" only because I have never been at a rape trial myself. According to the laws of California the scenario I outlined would have a standing in court, yes.
I disagree. Like rape itself, false accusations of rape are often not reported, so it's really not that clear cut.
