On-campus rape, the Greek system, and more
- Thread starter madviking
- Start date
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I think the public perception of the risks involved in recorded consent is pretty strong.
How many women do you think could be asked for recorded consent by a member of a fraternity without thinking "okay, if I do that every member of the frat will see it"? For that matter how many members of fraternities do you think would be participating in some sort of competitive trophy collecting, legal protection aside?
James Stuart
King
Which is why you break out the camera and have it be a fun little sex game, rather than a "hey, say you consent to sex on this video I'm taking. Just like a hostage! It'll be fun."
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Fun little sex games that involve a camera have a very bad reputation. Too many careers gone awry, too much fiction and nonfiction about blackmail.
James Stuart
King
"Baby, I promise I'll delete it after we're done."
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Seriously, would you buy that?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Requires a bit of perception shift, yes. But why would anyone but a loose woman be worried about prophylactics anyhow. See how that works? Eventually you need to turn the lens on the idiots that would stigmatize.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Maybe. But would the species die out before we got the lens refocused?
James Stuart
King
Considering the amount of women I've had let me do this is in the double-digits, either a lot of them do buy it, or they're simply looking for an excuse to let their hair down. My money's on the latter.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I've never been a camera guy myself, so I have to just go with your experience. Interesting bit of information there.
Man, I'm not one to judge this kind of thing, and I've done some stuff I'm not proud of... But telling girls you'll delete the video and then keeping it is not cool, specially if done to several girls...
James Stuart
King
Moderator Action: Inappropriate post removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
James Stuart
King
Actually, that was more of a joke than anything. Usually I just break out the camera and don't bat an eyelid. I don't think I've ever lied to a woman about deleting a video. If I did, it would be "no, I won't even watch it." Of course I'm going to watch the damn thing before I delete it. I'm not going to write an essay, then toss it in the bin before I read it.
Fair enough, nothing wrong there.
Yes, it's creepy. And basically worthless, since consent wouldn't necessarily be voluntary. Unless all the terms of the agreement are spelled out, like in a written contract, this sort of "consent" is nothing more than a signed blank cheque - which is something only an insanely naive or stupid woman would agree to.
Obviously Rolling Stone dug themselves a huge hole here, but I doubt they will get punished for it. I mean if the media got away with Iraq of course this won't touch them.
In general though the campus rape meme feels like a very forced narrative to me, let me explain.
We have no strong statistical figures to demonstrate this epidemic of non-reported rapes certainly no statistical way to compare that number to the number of false accusations. Depending on who you ask they simply wave their hands and claim one or the other is essentially zero. Which is unlikely in both cases.
Without undisputed statistical evidence we are left with narrative creation, which is exactly what this Rolling stone story is about. America is a very large country, with a lot of kids in college. Due to the law of large numbers we can find extremely upsetting events if we go looking for them.
The way the human brain works, and helped along by Twitter and the media we can create narratives out of a few examples. Even though they may or may not represent reality, we really can't tell without usable statistics.
These sorts of narratives can in fact create themselves, as you may recall the bath-salt face eating scare. Where it turned out once real research started happening was totally normal and not really a big deal. But in this case we have a political interest in the narrative which will fuel it far longer and obfuscate even more.
In general though the campus rape meme feels like a very forced narrative to me, let me explain.
We have no strong statistical figures to demonstrate this epidemic of non-reported rapes certainly no statistical way to compare that number to the number of false accusations. Depending on who you ask they simply wave their hands and claim one or the other is essentially zero. Which is unlikely in both cases.
Without undisputed statistical evidence we are left with narrative creation, which is exactly what this Rolling stone story is about. America is a very large country, with a lot of kids in college. Due to the law of large numbers we can find extremely upsetting events if we go looking for them.
The way the human brain works, and helped along by Twitter and the media we can create narratives out of a few examples. Even though they may or may not represent reality, we really can't tell without usable statistics.
These sorts of narratives can in fact create themselves, as you may recall the bath-salt face eating scare. Where it turned out once real research started happening was totally normal and not really a big deal. But in this case we have a political interest in the narrative which will fuel it far longer and obfuscate even more.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Threads like this do a fantastic job of convincing me people on the internet understand "innocent until proven guilty" even less than they do freedom of speech (and they constantly abuse that later concept).
At its heart, presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It's found some (limited) application outside that, but at its heart it's about the law. And its fundamental application in criminal courts
The principle often get quoted in threads such as this in a "people should not have to suffer any of the potential consequences of allegations made against until they're proven (beyond doubt)" sort of way. EG, "we should not accuse rapists publically because people will view them as (potential) rapist, and treat them differently as a result of the accusations."
But even the criminal system where the principle originate won't wait until guilt is proven beyond doubt before metting out consequences to accusations. One may be arrested, jailed, and even kept in prison for months if not years without guilt being proven beyond doubt. One will certainly have the allegations against them made public, as well as the evidence against them in most cases, without guilt being proven beyond doubt.
There is no right to not having allegations made against you (beyond libel/slander limitations, which are themselves restricted by free speech. There is no right to not suffering loss of reputation from these allegations (again, with the exclusion of libel/slander law).
Moreover, innocent until proven otherwise, as it exists, exists purely in the court of criminal law, where there is only one party whose guilt or innocence is in question, and where the victim's life and freedom are not at stake. It pointedly does not find application in civil procedure, because civil procedure is not about finding the defendant guilty or innocent, but generally about deciding which of two parties should bear the burden of a given fault. It's for this reason (as well as the resulting difference in the burden of proof) that in many jurisdiction a criminal court's decision is not binding on a civil judge.
The "court of public opinion" is not a criminal court. The court of public opinion does not deal with the life and freedom of one accused, but with the reputation of both the accused and the accuser. And while a reputation of potential rapist may have more consequences than a reputation for making false claims of rape, both are profoundly harmful, so neither should be given lightly.
In short, the presumption of innocence under no circumstances justify the notion that rape allegations should not be made public ; it doesn't justify treating the allegations as false either. It could arguably justify not referring to the accused as guilty or a rapist until they've been found so, but that's about as far as it find application.
Yes, being falsely accused of rape blows. So does being falsely accused of lying about being raped. Both of them will absolutely have people who remember your name looking at you nastily and not trusting you for years and years.
----------------
(As to the case at hand: having not read, and having no intention to read the actual RS article because I find what I have found of their conduct to be awful, I can't say to what extent the original article was a presumption of innocence issue, though the decision not to contact the assaulters does raise question marks in terms of journalistic ethics.
I'm given to understand that evidence has surfaced that call elements of her testimony in question. Reporting on the issues that surfaced with her testimony and the answers of the fraternity involved would have been legitimate ; a retraction calling her untrustworthy is a naked attempt to throw her to the wolves to cover their own mistakes.
At its heart, presumption of innocence is a legal principle. It's found some (limited) application outside that, but at its heart it's about the law. And its fundamental application in criminal courts
The principle often get quoted in threads such as this in a "people should not have to suffer any of the potential consequences of allegations made against until they're proven (beyond doubt)" sort of way. EG, "we should not accuse rapists publically because people will view them as (potential) rapist, and treat them differently as a result of the accusations."
But even the criminal system where the principle originate won't wait until guilt is proven beyond doubt before metting out consequences to accusations. One may be arrested, jailed, and even kept in prison for months if not years without guilt being proven beyond doubt. One will certainly have the allegations against them made public, as well as the evidence against them in most cases, without guilt being proven beyond doubt.
There is no right to not having allegations made against you (beyond libel/slander limitations, which are themselves restricted by free speech. There is no right to not suffering loss of reputation from these allegations (again, with the exclusion of libel/slander law).
Moreover, innocent until proven otherwise, as it exists, exists purely in the court of criminal law, where there is only one party whose guilt or innocence is in question, and where the victim's life and freedom are not at stake. It pointedly does not find application in civil procedure, because civil procedure is not about finding the defendant guilty or innocent, but generally about deciding which of two parties should bear the burden of a given fault. It's for this reason (as well as the resulting difference in the burden of proof) that in many jurisdiction a criminal court's decision is not binding on a civil judge.
The "court of public opinion" is not a criminal court. The court of public opinion does not deal with the life and freedom of one accused, but with the reputation of both the accused and the accuser. And while a reputation of potential rapist may have more consequences than a reputation for making false claims of rape, both are profoundly harmful, so neither should be given lightly.
In short, the presumption of innocence under no circumstances justify the notion that rape allegations should not be made public ; it doesn't justify treating the allegations as false either. It could arguably justify not referring to the accused as guilty or a rapist until they've been found so, but that's about as far as it find application.
Yes, being falsely accused of rape blows. So does being falsely accused of lying about being raped. Both of them will absolutely have people who remember your name looking at you nastily and not trusting you for years and years.
----------------
(As to the case at hand: having not read, and having no intention to read the actual RS article because I find what I have found of their conduct to be awful, I can't say to what extent the original article was a presumption of innocence issue, though the decision not to contact the assaulters does raise question marks in terms of journalistic ethics.
I'm given to understand that evidence has surfaced that call elements of her testimony in question. Reporting on the issues that surfaced with her testimony and the answers of the fraternity involved would have been legitimate ; a retraction calling her untrustworthy is a naked attempt to throw her to the wolves to cover their own mistakes.
So in your opinion it's only "arguable" that someone should not be called a rapist when there is no proof? I don't know what to say.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, but it's also a human decency concept, specially on stuff as sensitive as rape. Let's face it, if you're publically accused of pretty much anything you can clear your name later on, including murder and corruption. But if you're accused of rape or, even worse, paedophilia, you're done forever. Specially in societies which are hysterical about all things sexual, such as the US. So yes, people shouldn't be accused of rape lightly, because the acusation itself is tremendously harmful.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty is a legal concept, but it's also a human decency concept, specially on stuff as sensitive as rape. Let's face it, if you're publically accused of pretty much anything you can clear your name later on, including murder and corruption. But if you're accused of rape or, even worse, paedophilia, you're done forever. Specially in societies which are hysterical about all things sexual, such as the US. So yes, people shouldn't be accused of rape lightly, because the acusation itself is tremendously harmful.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
Weren't people complaining about that for Gitmo detainees? Not sure what the point of this paragraph is. Is it "it's justified because the legal system does it too" or "that's just the way it is, deal with it"?
I recommend people read the first article I posted the link to. It told the story of a college student who was accused of rape and afterwards unable to go to any accredited university. He didn't just suffer from a lower standard of proof than in criminal law. Significant evidence in his favor was ignored, he he didn't have equal representation in the tribunal as his accuser and while under investigation he had to keep a certain distance from the accuser which severely curtailed his ability to study there.
Also, the article mentions how the hysteria of rape on campus comes from very bad statistics.
Also, the article mentions how the hysteria of rape on campus comes from very bad statistics.
Similar threads
