Rolling Stone "our trust was misplaced." UVA assault article retracted?

[swimmermom3]

Right, it is apples and oranges so I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the judicial process when that is pretty much irrelevant to the RS story.  Though one wonders what legal direction this situation would have taken had the facts not been questioned before the media had a chance to take it as far as they took the Duke LaCrosse case....

 

Was it good or bad that many people maintained a little healthy skepticism about the RS story, until a real investigation was done?

 

It's terrific if people maintained a little healthy skepticism about the RS story. If you looked at that story and said "Well, here's a piece of crummy journalism because of points a,b,c, and d," then kudos to you. Seriously. That's what we should be doing with our media.

 

If you looked at that story and said it was false because you think all young college women that drink are asking for it, that's a different kettle of fish.  (I am not referring to you here, SKL.)

 

SKL - I am a bit shame-faced to admit that I accepted that story at face value in spite of being uncomfortable about certain aspects. As someone with an undergrad degree in journalism I should darn well know better and I have had to ask myself why I did so.

 

There is so much to talk about here:

 

fact-checking and the media and our habits as readers/audience

assault prevention

false-accusation prevention

prevalence of alcohol on campus

societal attitudes

 

If we can keep this conversation going without derailing it, that would be great.

 

 

[BrookValley.]

I also added that not all false accusations are reported.

 

The rape/assault stats are based on confidential surveys with the intention of including people who did not report the incident as well as those who reported it and didn't get a conviction.  As far as I know, there are no comparable stats for false accusations.  "Has anyone ever falsely accused you of touching a woman in a way she didn't intend to be touched by you at that moment?"  I don't think there is data because society generally does not care about that, especially where the stakes are not very high.

 

Historically I don't think a high # of men's lives were ruined by false allegations.  But the trend is toward making men pay dearly for alleged actions regardless of proof.  I don't think we should encourage that trend.  Innocent men will suffer.  I don't accept the view that past statistics (or lack thereof) suggest the young men of the future are not at risk if we encourage this trend.

 

But I don't see anyone suggesting we not care about false allegations. Just that rapes going unpunished/unreported are a much larger problem.

 

FWIW, I have sons. I have also been involved in the case of a man being falsely accused. The alleged victim quickly admitted to lying when she was reminded that I was also present and could attest that she had an enjoyable and, more importantly, consensual experience (albeit one she was sorry her boyfriend found out about). :glare:  I still think the rape culture and the way we treat victims in this country is the bigger problem.

 

[SKL]

Can you provide evidence of this trend beyond the anecdotal?

 

Nobody is tracking the data (afaik), first of all.

 

Secondly, I'm concerned about the future with attitudes being currently expressed that, essentially, it is better to publicize unsubstantiated accusations than to maintain skepticism until facts are checked.  And no, I do not have evidence of the future.

 

Thirdly, I'm supposed to be preparing an urgent report for work, so I can't spend a lot of time on this.  I did find a lot of stuff in a google search, but I am not sure which sources would be considered good and I didn't want to get into a tit-for-tat over that.  (And no, none of them were Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.  At least one rather long blog post about false accusations was on a feminist blog.  As you also said, it actually hurts rape victims when false accusations come to light.)

 

Finally, as has been stated many times, I do not believe documented evidence is required to back up every opinion expressed on here.

[Word Nerd]

Can you provide evidence of this trend beyond the anecdotal?

 

Can you provide evidence of your claims in this thread beyond the anecdotal?

[Catwoman]

nm 

 

Edited April 10, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
This violates my very clear request above.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Can you provide evidence of your claims in this thread beyond the anecdotal?

Certainly. Just let me know what you need.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Thank you.

 

I interpreted the "you" as a personal insult rather than as a general "a person," and I apologize for over-reacting. (I do have a son, so that is why I read it as a personal comment.)

Not a problem and that was my fault for not making clear I was restating what I said in the previous post.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I also added that not all false accusations are reported.

 

The rape/assault stats are based on confidential surveys with the intention of including people who did not report the incident as well as those who reported it and didn't get a conviction. As far as I know, there are no comparable stats for false accusations. "Has anyone ever falsely accused you of touching a woman in a way she didn't intend to be touched by you at that moment?" I don't think there is data because society generally does not care about that, especially where the stakes are not very high.

 

Historically I don't think a high # of men's lives were ruined by false allegations. But the trend is toward making men pay dearly for alleged actions regardless of proof. I don't think we should encourage that trend. Innocent men will suffer. I don't accept the view that past statistics (or lack thereof) suggest the young men of the future are not at risk if we encourage this trend.

The difference is that of it was truly a false allegation there should be a record of some sort. And again you assert that there is a trend of some sort so could you at least tell us what you are basing that on?

[Bluegoat]

First, you are correct that part of the issue is that universities are trying to adjudicate sexual assault cases which should not be their role as university officials do not have the expertise or resources to do so fairly.  There is also an underlying issue of schools having a vested interest in keeping reports of sexual assault quiet as to not harm their reputation which makes the problem even worse.

 

Frankly the rest of your post is a hot mess and simply perpetuates a lot of common misconceptions.

 

1.)  Being groped is a form of sexual assault and women should not be expected to deal with it just because they are at a party or *gasp* drinking.

 

2.) Women choosing to engage in casual sex does not cause rape.  Men having sex with women who do not want to have sex, or cannot agree to have sex, is what causes rape.  If you don't understand that basic concept, please think about it again and again until you do.

 

3.) There is no body of evidence showing that it is "common" for women to claim rape after consensual sex.

 

4.) If a young man wants to avoid a possible claim of rape, one of the best defenses is to only engage in sexual acts with someone who gives informed, enthusiastic consent. 

 

You have introduced a lot of rhetoric here that I didn't use.

 

1) Being groped can be a form of sexual assault, sure.  The fact that it wasn't desired can make it sexual assault, though that doesn't seem to meet what we would normally consider the definition of a crime, which requires intent or at least negligence.  Unwnted groping could also be a result of a misunderstanding, for example.  But it is not rape, that is simply an incorrect thing to claim and an incorrect way to use that statistic, (which is generally considered on the controversial side anyway.)  Even to use it without pointing out that it includes a very wide range of incidents, and is in some cases based on the perception of the repoting person rather than any legal definition, is at best misleading and possibly manipulative use of statistics.  Ultimatly this sort of thing does not make people take sexual assault more seriously, it makes them dismissive. 

 

The idea that people are "expected to deal" with assault because they are drinking is really a strange way to put it.  Some situations are risky.  Drinking and driving is risky, drinking and signing contracts is risky, and drinking and negotiating sex with people you don't know is risky - and in the latter case it becomes risky well before the point where it becomes illegal.  If you allow or even cultivate and environment where these activities are expected, you can also expect that the problems associated with them will be more common.

 

We could, as I think one university has done, ban those kinds of parties.  But the fact is that many students, men and women, don't want that.  A lot of people like parties for drinking and hooking up, and lots of people don't really care about being groped by people at those parties and like to do some groping themselves.  Is there a way to stop people who don't want to be groped from ever having to put up with it under those circumstances?   I doubt it.  As long as there is a mix of people who want and don't want that kind of thing, it will happen.

 

2)  Would you also say rape culture doesn't cause rape, individuals do, or systemic racism doesn't cause racial crime, bad people do?  The context here is campus culture, particularly parties where a large component is drinking and casual sex.    That means there are all kinds of expectations about sex in that environment, that there is a group of people who are choosing to have pretty open sexual contacts, and a lot of them don't know each other.  There is far more scope for problems about sex under those conditions.  How do you decide f someone is too drunk to have sex with?  There isn't any kind of very exact legal definition.  Some people come with the express purpose of getting very drunk and having sex, some would do the same sober.  If you know someone, it is much easier to tell whether their behavior is normal or out of charachter.

 

Sex, drinking, and mixed expectations are a deadly combination.  There is a good reason that places that specialize in casual sexual encounters lay those things out so they are dead clear to everyone.  They make it clear what the expectations are for sexual touching and consent, and they can be far more strict than people at frat parties would like.  Quite a few have low or no tolerance for alchohol and drugs.  Some, like the gay club where I live, allow drugs and alchohol, and make it quite clear that if you come in you are likely to be groped - if you want to opt out, you have to ask someone to stop.

 

3) It doesn't matter if its common, I don't think - the point is there is a perception it is happening more frequently, and so people worry about it happening to them.  There also doesn't need to be evidence for it to be true.  Over the last few of years I have seen a big change in the kinds of these situations that I would say is significant.  Not cases where it seems like someone is lying on purpose, which is probably always going to happen but will be relativly uncommon.  But instead they seem to be incidents where the person by all appearances agreed to sex at the time, but decided later that they felt pressured or obliged in some way, and that is being described as rape.  I say a situation like that described in comment in a newspaper a number of months ago, and while it didn't really surprise me as I was aware of that perspective, I was surprised that really significant numbers of other people also thought that this was rape - of course it would never have been called rape in a court, but when that idea is incresingly advocated it is again not surprising that people feel worried about it.  "If I am not a mind-reader and don't realize that a woman feels pressured will I later be called a rapist?"

 

4) I don't know why people say "enthusiastic" about that?  It's very infantilizing of women.  Why can't women have sex they don't feel enthusiastic about?  Why should someone get to second guess my motives?  There are all kinds of reasons someone might choose to have sex they don't feel enthusiastic about.  And this idea that seems to have arisen that if a partner nags, or asks more than once before the woman agrees, it means rape, is crazy.  That is like saying the guy who calls asking for a charitable donation and nags untill I agree has stolen something from me.  He might be a selfish jerk, or insensitive, or even a manipulator, but that doesn't somehow negate my self-determination.  As far as the able - as I said, that is not as easy as some might think to determine.  Some legal opinions will tell you the woman has to be almost incoherent for it to be a factor.  Most campus women's advocates would set the bar far lower.  Some campus handbooks give the impression that even being tipsy is enough, which many women would take issue with when their proposition was refused.

 

Although my advice to the young man would probably amount to the same thing, put more clearly - don't get drunk and have sex with women you don't know at parties, especially if they are drunk as well. 

 

[ktgrok]

 

It's pretty common to hear now of women who consented to sex but decide later it was rape, like the rather bizarre situation with Lena Dunham which was a disaster for the man who was identified.  There have been a few incidents local to me recently which involved weird situations where the men involved were being treated badly - in one the women involved were also ignored as women's advocates seemed to take over the situation.  So I am not at all surprised that young guys are worried that if they even participate in that kind of social event, in what they think are the rules of engagement accepted by all, that they could later be charged with sexual assault.

 

Bolded part 1: No, it's not "common" or at least not as common as rape. Given how much rape victims are shamed, trust me, most women do NOT want to get into that scenario.

 

Bolded part 2: It is VERY easy not to be accused of sexual assault. Keep it in your pants. 

[Bluegoat]

It's not that people believe false rape accusations are unimportant or that the results aren't devastating. Speaking for myself, what I don't want to happen is the fear of false accusations and resulting actions to prevent them take us back to the dark ages (ten years ago) in sweeping actual rapes under the table.

 

Victims of sexual assault have to go through amazing hoops and often damaging hoops to get their rapist convicted. The majority of rape convictions come from stranger rape. There is no evidence that the assailant knew the victim. This makes the physical evidence more reliable. (Carr and Van Deusen, 2004).

 

The problem is that most rapes occur with acquaintances or partners/former partners.

 

If you bait the gentlest dog long enough, poking, prodding, tormenting, teasing, it's likely he is going to snap at some point. As a society, we have long done a very poor job in coping with the aftermath of rape. It's a building storm. You can only pretend for so long that it doesn't happen or that it only happens to "bad girls." Some of what you are seeing on campuses right now as a backlash is a result of neglecting the problem.  I think we need to overhaul the system before the backlash gets out of hand. Wringing our hands, and crying, "Oh those slutty girls are going to falsely ruin my poor boy," will get us nowhere.  Nor does forming some of these men's groups that purportedly are for protecting men against false accusations. The language on some of their sites is beyond misogynistic.

 

We need to change the system and we need to change our attitudes.

 

Some of this isn't really about police attitudes, or judges attitudes though.  In many cases, rape is a crime that happens in a private setting, without clear physical evidence that any crime happened.

 

That can account as well for why police ask about things like drugs early on.  If the victim was intoxicated, or the witnesses were, that is a real problem for evidence.  That isn't true only in rape or sexual assault, its generally the case that a drunk witness is not considered to be very reliable if there is no other evidence.

 

Most of the time, charges won't be laid unless there is a reasonable chance that there will be a conviction.  Even if they will be laid anyway, I think it is probably only fair to the victim that they be told what kind of chance there is, because it is likely to be a stressful process. 

 

These sorts of questions and the realities of conviction under those circumstances might feel like bias from the person who made the complaint, but in and of themselves i don't think that is really the case.  They are just a function of the way the justice system has to work.

 

[Bluegoat]

Who said anything about acceptable collateral damage?  We frequently have men who have been wrongly executed or who have been released after 30 years in prison for crimes they did not commit.  Yet we only hold certain sex crimes to a different standard.

 

 

I seriously doubt anyone here thinks that is acceptable either.

[Bluegoat]

Bolded part 1: No, it's not "common" or at least not as common as rape. Given how much rape victims are shamed, trust me, most women do NOT want to get into that scenario.

 

Bolded part 2: It is VERY easy not to be accused of sexual assault. Keep it in your pants. 

 

"Common to hear of" is not the same as "common" and I wasn't comparing it to the number of eople who are raped, since it wasn't something it would make any sense to compare.

 

I don't know of anyone who is tracking changes in social attitudes about rape, so i don't know what you could base the idea that it isn't an increasingly common perspective.  My anecdotal observation, which is all I think that any of us have, is that there has been a marked increase in the social acceptance of much wider definitions of rape, though I think it seems to be originating from a fairly small group of people.

 

As far as keeping it in your pants, sure, that would likely work.  It would surely give women that like to go to frat parties and hook up something to think about.  This I think is why many people think that some forms of modern feminism are a kind of neopuritanism.

[EmseB]

Bolded part 2: It is VERY easy not to be accused of sexual assault. Keep it in your pants.

I agree with this. Drunk people should not be having casual sexual encounters with other drunk people they don't know very well. There's no clear way to obtain consent in that very common scenario. I doubt very highly this part of college culture is going by the wayside anytime soon though.

[ktgrok]

http://rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

[EmseB]

http://rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

 

This doesn't address the scenario I was talking about where both people are drunk.  In the military, we were counseled that drunk people cannot give consent, and if one has sex with a drunk person they should be prepared for the consequences if the person later feels they were taken advantage of because they were drunk (even if they seemed willing at the time, or even if they gave consent at the time.  intoxication made it null and void.).

 

Consent is not complicated, I agree in all of the scenarios the author posted, it's easy peasy.  Unconscious is easy to figure out (STOP).  Declining tea at any point is easy to figure out (STOP).  One person inebriated is usually easy to figure out, especially if the victim is the one who was inebriated (STOP even if they want to continue).  With both people inebriated it becomes almost impossible to figure out because technically neither of them could legally consent.  I doubt there are a lot of college greek parties where even half the people are sober.  I also have to wonder...has the author never had a spontaneous cup of tea where it was obviously wanted, but not verbally verified in the affirmative?

 

Which is all to say why I put my comment above to agree with your assessment: Drunk people should not be having casual sexual encounters with other drunk people. As you said, it's easy, just keep it in your pants.

[swimmermom3]

http://rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

 

Katy, I loved that blog! Thanks for sharing it.

 

I did notice the tag "feminist" attached to it. Not sure how anyone gets there on that blog. She does make it very straight-forward.

[Bluegoat]

http://rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

 

I would not call this deep stuff.  "In cases where consent is obvious, it's obvious". 

 

It does not tell us anything about impaired consent.

 

It doesn't say anything about when everyone is impaired.

 

It doesn't tell us anything about when impairment is an issue only because it affects memory and perception questions.

 

It doesn't tell us anything about people who feel pressured, unable to express themselves, or like they are just doing it to get someone off their backs.

 

These are the kinds of cases that are really really hard to convict, and where a lot of questions get asked that make people feel like they are being judged.

[Bluegoat]

 

Which is all to say why I put my comment above to agree with your assessment: Drunk people should not be having casual sexual encounters with other drunk people. As you said, it's easy, just keep it in your pants.

 

In the end, this is what really bothers me about these discussions.

 

I really have no problem if people want to keep it in their pants, or if they want to have a lot of drunk sex and deal with the higher level of sexual assaults that are hard to do anything about, or with the higher level of negative sexual encounters that aren't assaults.  Or even if they want to go to sex clubs with a lot of rules to make sure eveyone does everything by the book.  Adults can suit themselves.

 

But there seems to be instead this weird double-standard that says the solution is for men to keep it in their pants, but that women cannot be told to keep it in their pants because that is an opression of their sexuality.

 

Not only does this seem unfair, and to set up a system that is going to create power differentials as bad as any sort of patriarchy, it seems wholly impractical.

[*Lulu*]

Just thinking loud here.....

 

If casual sex is more prevelant/common/accepted than in past generations wouldn't it follow that there would be fewer false allegations? The number of women feeling they need to justify their sexual encounters being lower should make the instances of "regret rape" lower, right?

 

Maybe things have changed a lot in the last decade. I just have trouble with the idea that a non-mentally ill person would put themselves through the messy, hurtful, and often demoralizing process of declaring herself the victim of sexual assault or abuse.

 

Do I believe that some women make false allegations in order to achieve some end?

 

Yes.

 

I also believe people are falsely accused of all sorts of crimes.

 

Sometimes it is mistaken identity.

 

Sometimes it is due to sloppy investigation.

 

Sometimes a sociopath wants to screw someone over.

[swimmermom3]

I would not call this deep stuff.  "In cases where consent is obvious, it's obvious". 

 

It does not tell us anything about impaired consent.

 

It doesn't say anything about when everyone is impaired.

 

It doesn't tell us anything about when impairment is an issue only because it affects memory and perception questions.

 

It doesn't tell us anything about people who feel pressured, unable to express themselves, or like they are just doing it to get someone off their backs.

 

These are the kinds of cases that are really really hard to convict, and where a lot of questions get asked that make people feel like they are being judged.

 

You are absolutely right, but I think it is a simple, easy place to start from especially since something like 50% of college males believe they are entitled to sex with an unconscious woman. I think we have to talk about the basics first. Again, I would also maintain that those same guys would scream "rape" if another guy assaulted them on their frat room floor while they were passed out.  They just don't get it or they refuse to get it. We have a lot of work to do.

 

 

[SKL]

In the end, this is what really bothers me about these discussions.

 

I really have no problem if people want to keep it in their pants, or if they want to have a lot of drunk sex and deal with the higher level of sexual assaults that are hard to do anything about, or with the higher level of negative sexual encounters that aren't assaults.  Or even if they want to go to sex clubs with a lot of rules to make sure eveyone does everything by the book.  Adults can suit themselves.

 

But there seems to be instead this weird double-standard that says the solution is for men to keep it in their pants, but that women cannot be told to keep it in their pants because that is an opression of their sexuality.

 

Not only does this seem unfair, and to set up a system that is going to create power differentials as bad as any sort of patriarchy, it seems wholly impractical.

 

Yes, it's quite confusing.  The advice I will give to my daughters would get me run out on a rail here on WTM.  Whether it reduces risk is beside the point.

[SKL]

 something like 50% of college males believe they are entitled to sex with an unconscious woman.

 

I would have to see both the question and the answers that produced that kind of data.

[*Lulu*]

In the end, this is what really bothers me about these discussions.

 

I really have no problem if people want to keep it in their pants, or if they want to have a lot of drunk sex and deal with the higher level of sexual assaults that are hard to do anything about, or with the higher level of negative sexual encounters that aren't assaults. Or even if they want to go to sex clubs with a lot of rules to make sure eveyone does everything by the book. Adults can suit themselves.

 

But there seems to be instead this weird double-standard that says the solution is for men to keep it in their pants, but that women cannot be told to keep it in their pants because that is an opression of their sexuality.

 

Not only does this seem unfair, and to set up a system that is going to create power differentials as bad as any sort of patriarchy, it seems wholly impractical.

Do you really think that most rapes occur with one or both parties in some way incapacitated or impaired?

 

I know those are the cases that most frequently make the press, especially currently, but do you truly think those cases are a good representation of sexual assaults committed?

 

Thanks to some time in group therapy I have heard lots of stories from lots of women across multiple racial and economic groups. Even in a college town only one young woman ever shared a story that would fit the criteria of dangerous behavior on her part, but it was her second time to be raped and it she was in therapy before it occurred.

 

This climate of the accuser being more reliable than the accused is very new. (And possibly not as much reality as it is perception based in a power shift away from the culture of victim blame.)

[Bluegoat]

Do you really think that most rapes occur with one or both parties in some way incapacitated or impaired?

 

I know those are the cases that most frequently make the press, especially currently, but do you truly think those cases are a good representation of sexual assaults committed?

 

Thanks to some time in group therapy I have heard lots of stories from lots of women across multiple racial and economic groups. Even in a college town only one young woman ever shared a story that would fit the criteria of dangerous behavior on her part, but it was her second time to be raped and it she was in therapy before it occurred.

 

This climate of the accuser being more reliable than the accused is very new. (And possibly not as much reality as it is perception based in a power shift away from the culture of victim blame.)

 

No, I don't think I suggested that.

 

They account for a significant number of campus rapes and assaults though, a good deal more than in the general population IIRC. I would have to look it up to get the exact number but something like half of campus sexual assaults involve intoxication by one or both parties. 

 

And they are often the ones which are legally contentious, because they are complicated - drunk witnesses aren't considered to be reliable, and questions around establishing consent become more complicated too.

 

ETA - which is to say an article that says that consent issues are simple and avoids all the complicated ones seems pretty useless to me.

[Bluegoat]

You are absolutely right, but I think it is a simple, easy place to start from especially since something like 50% of college males believe they are entitled to sex with an unconscious woman. I think we have to talk about the basics first. Again, I would also maintain that those same guys would scream "rape" if another guy assaulted them on their frat room floor while they were passed out.  They just don't get it or they refuse to get it. We have a lot of work to do.

 

Well, I think though that in the case of campus rape, alchohol really is one of the other major common denominators. 

 

 - Having looked it up, it does look like the number is 50%, typically both people, and sexual assaults were particularly associated with heavy rather than moderate drinking.  Sexual assaults involving alchol are usually among groups of aquaintances hanging out casually.  On campuses where there is less heavy drinking, there are fewer sexual assaults.

 

So I think as far as campus rape, it is a pretty significant factor.  And then it is often difficult to deal with those particular rapes because of the legal difficulties.  So to my mind, dealing with the social context could potentially make a significant difference. 

 

And I'm a little perplexed when people are unwilling to consider that because they have some ideological problem with saying that heavy drinking at parties is a risk factor because it goes against a certain feminist narrative about female sexual freedoms and male aggression.

[swimmermom3]

In the end, this is what really bothers me about these discussions.

 

I really have no problem if people want to keep it in their pants, or if they want to have a lot of drunk sex and deal with the higher level of sexual assaults that are hard to do anything about, or with the higher level of negative sexual encounters that aren't assaults.  Or even if they want to go to sex clubs with a lot of rules to make sure eveyone does everything by the book.  Adults can suit themselves.

 

But there seems to be instead this weird double-standard that says the solution is for men to keep it in their pants, but that women cannot be told to keep it in their pants because that is an opression of their sexuality.

 

Not only does this seem unfair, and to set up a system that is going to create power differentials as bad as any sort of patriarchy, it seems wholly impractical.

 

Bluegoat, do you think this is a prevalent belief or does it belong to a small, vocal minority?

 

I think it's fair to ask both sides to keep it in their pants, but if you object to the weird double standard here, then you also have to object to the double standard that requires women always be on the guard against rapists, but doesn't address men not raping women.

 

I am not really keen on my having the same right to go around grabbing guys' balls against their will and making appreciative noises anymore than I liked having it done to me. There is some "equality" that I don't need. On the other hand, why is that a young man that has many sexual partners is seen as "powerful" and virile, but a young woman with many sexual partners is seen as "slutty?" That is a prevalent and encouraged double-standard, no?

 

 

 

 

[swimmermom3]

Well, I think though that in the case of campus rape, alchohol really is one of the other major common denominators. 

 

 - Having looked it up, it does look like the number is 50%, typically both people, and sexual assaults were particularly associated with heavy rather than moderate drinking.  Sexual assaults involving alchol are usually among groups of aquaintances hanging out casually.  On campuses where there is less heavy drinking, there are fewer sexual assaults.

 

So I think as far as campus rape, it is a pretty significant factor.  And then it is often difficult to deal with those particular rapes because of the legal difficulties.  So to my mind, dealing with the social context could potentially make a significant difference. 

 

And I'm a little perplexed when people are unwilling to consider that because they have some ideological problem with saying that heavy drinking at parties is a risk factor because it goes against a certain feminist narrative about female sexual freedoms and male aggression.

 

Alcohol is a huge problem in sexual assault on campuses.  I don't think anyone on this thread has denied that.

 

Who has been flaunting a feminist narrative about female sexual freedoms and male aggression on this thread? If someone expresses the idea that a drunk woman doesn't deserve to be assaulted, is that "feminist?" I would acknowledge that a woman who is drunk and is in the presence of drunk men is more likely to be assaulted.

 

So let's talk more about college drinking and men and women.  How many of the men in our personal lives can truly say that they have NEVER heard another guy say that they planned on/did get a girl drunk in order to have sex with her?  So if I say that I think placing the onus on the girl not to get drunk is not fair makes me a "feminist" (said like someone is licking dirt)?  How about teaching our guys that getting a girl drunk in order to increase your chances of "scoring" is kind of a crappy thing to do?  I think women should drink responsibly if they drink and I think guys should pour (if doing so or buying) responsibly.

 

Is it feminist to say that if a women who is drunk is responsible for putting herself in the way of being raped, then a man who drinks and rapes is equally responsible?

 

Let's go back to the Vanderbilt rape case.  The young woman went drinking with someone she thought was her boyfriend. They go back to the dorms and she becomes unconscious. Four guys assault her for 30 minutes, piss on her, and then dump her naked, unconscious body outside the dorm room face down. Five other guys walk past her, see her with the bruises on her back and do nothing.

 

Some of the guys are claiming they were too drunk to know what they were doing. If women have to be responsible for their drinking, then so do the men.

 

[SKL]

If women have to be responsible for their drinking, then so do the men.

 

 

I think people are just saying that if men have to be responsible for the consequences of drinking, then so do the women.  [Talking in general, not about the Vanderbilt case.]

 

Since the drinking age was raised to 21, drinking on campus is illegal for most of the students, so both genders should be abstaining.  If they don't, then IMO they bear responsibility for the choice to get stupid drunk.  (Now I will be accused of "slut shaming.")

 

I do believe there is gray area where both parties are drunk but not unconscious.  If the woman is too drunk to remember she didn't plan on having sex, maybe the guy is also too drunk to analyze the validity of her consent.  So don't get drunk.  And don't be with someone who is getting drunk.  Or at least admit that if you do, that is a risky choice.  Whether you are male or female.

 

I also think "keep it in your pants [or bra]" should apply to both genders too.

[SKL]

... if you object to the weird double standard here, then you also have to object to the double standard that requires women always be on the guard against rapists, but doesn't address men not raping women.

 

I've been in a lot of places over the years, but so far no place where men raping women is considered OK.

[swimmermom3]

I've been in a lot of places over the years, but so far no place where men raping women is considered OK.

 

I think we say this, but I don't think some of our young men are getting the message. I am not sure if this is in part due to social media, easier access to a broader range of pornography, movies like 50 Shades; I just truly don't know.

 

When we've talked about some of these cases around the dinner table, none of us can quite wrap our heads around high school and college students filming themselves sexually assaulting someone and then sharing it with their friends. You can only do that if you really don't think there are going to be any consequences for your actions. Of course drinking does probably make it seem like a better idea than it is.

 

One of the things I have been thinking about in these conversations has to do with mental health among young people. I don't know if because we have a young adult who has struggled with depression for seven years that we are hyper aware of it, but it seems to me that we are seeing significant numbers of young people, male and female, that are struggling emotionally. Put them in a college environment with excessive drinking and sexual immaturity and you have a powder keg situation.

 

[SKL]

I think we say this, but I don't think some of our young men are getting the message. I am not sure if this is in part due to social media, easier access to a broader range of pornography, movies like 50 Shades; I just truly don't know.

 

When we've talked about some of these cases around the dinner table, none of us can quite wrap our heads around high school and college students filming themselves sexually assaulting someone and then sharing it with their friends. You can only do that if you really don't think there are going to be any consequences for your actions. Of course drinking does probably make it seem like a better idea than it is.

 

 

We all hear about these videotaped rapes because of the media, but what % of men do this?  What % of men really think that is OK?  If you think the % is high, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

I mean, there are sociopaths out there and there always have been, but just because they exist does not mean our society thinks their morals or actions are OK.

 

[swimmermom3]

We all hear about these videotaped rapes because of the media, but what % of men do this?  What % of men really think that is OK?  If you think the % is high, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

I mean, there are sociopaths out there and there always have been, but just because they exist does not mean our society thinks their morals or actions are OK.

 

 

I don't know the percentage and I am really hoping it's not all that high, but the fact that we are seeing it over and over again with our young people concerns me.  I think Brandon Vandenberg rides the edge of sociopath, but what about his friends and the young men that walked by and ignored the situation? That's 9 young men and the additional friends who received the videos that participated or couldn't be bothered ethically to do anything. They must have been okay with their actions or lack thereof. I believe the guys in the dorm were all football players. This makes me ask questions about the culture of that particular group. Obviously as parents and as a society some of us are doing something wrong.

 

When we talk about protecting our sons against false accusations, I think we need to be talking about being linked by association because they knew something and did nothing or worse yet, they obstructed justice in order to protect the "bro code."

 

 

[swimmermom3]

We all hear about these videotaped rapes because of the media, but what % of men do this?  What % of men really think that is OK?  If you think the % is high, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

 

I mean, there are sociopaths out there and there always have been, but just because they exist does not mean our society thinks their morals or actions are OK.

 

 

I went in search of information for both of us.  So David Lisak did a study in 2002 and came up with something like 9 out of 10  campus rapes are committed by serial rapists, assigning roughly 6 rapes on average per rapist.

 

In answer to your question about what percentage do this, it seems like percentage is small. Now, as to your other question about what percentage think this is okay, that's a bit trickier to work with. Sarah Edwards published a report last December that came up with results that showed of the college men she surveyed that approximately 32% of them would have intentions to force a woman to have sexual intercourse if no one ever knew and there were no consequences. To go back to one of your earlier questions about how surveys like this were worded, when Edwards changed the question format from "forcing" to actually using the word "rape," the numbers dropped to somewhere around 13%. From what I could tell after looking through tons of articles, there have been some issues with regards to Edwards's results, but they pretty much reflect the same numbers in the Malamuth study in 1981 which cited numbers from 21-35%.

 

 

[Corraleno]

Since the drinking age was raised to 21, drinking on campus is illegal for most of the students, so both genders should be abstaining.  If they don't, then IMO they bear responsibility for the choice to get stupid drunk.  (Now I will be accused of "slut shaming.")

 

Yes, a woman who chooses to drink too much bears responsibility for getting drunk. If she passes out, pukes, embarrasses herself, and misses class the next day because she's too hungover — totally her fault.

 

Getting sexually assaulted while drunk? NOT. HER. FAULT.

 

It's possible to be totally sh*t-faced falling down drunk and not be sexually assaulted. It's not possible to be sexually assaulted without someone actually assaulting you, therefore the person who is 100% responsible for sexual assault is the person carrying out the assault. 

 

No one is going to accuse you of slut-shaming unless you're implying that if a woman chooses to get drunk then she bears part of the responsibility if she's assaulted. You're not actually suggesting that, are you?

[Hyacinth]

Yes, a woman who chooses to drink too much bears responsibility for getting drunk. If she passes out, pukes, embarrasses herself, and misses class the next day because she's too hungover — totally her fault.

 

Getting sexually assaulted while drunk? NOT. HER. FAULT.

 

It's possible to be totally sh*t-faced falling down drunk and not be sexually assaulted. It's not possible to be sexually assaulted without someone actually assaulting you, therefore the person who is 100% responsible for sexual assault is the person carrying out the assault. 

 

No one is going to accuse you of slut-shaming unless you're implying that if a woman chooses to get drunk then she bears part of the responsibility if she's assaulted. You're not actually suggesting that, are you?

 

Is it slut-shaming to say something along the lines of this: "If a woman chooses to get drunk, then she bears part of the responsibility of increasing her risk of assault"?

 

Does that make sense or is it still blaming the victim?

 

I agree that the rapist is 100% responsible for commiting rape. No rapist, no rape. Similarly (though certainly less serious), if a thief swipes my sunglasses from my car, the thief is the person 100% responsible for the crime.

 

On the other hand, I can decrease the risk of that crime taking place (not eliminate it, mind you) by locking my car doors.

 

Maybe that's a poor analogy; I certainly don't want to minimize the trauma of rape. I'm just trying to clarify for myself the victim-shaming concept.

 

Thanks for the conversation.

[SKL]

I don't know the percentage and I am really hoping it's not all that high, but the fact that we are seeing it over and over again with our young people concerns me.  I think Brandon Vandenberg rides the edge of sociopath, but what about his friends and the young men that walked by and ignored the situation? That's 9 young men and the additional friends who received the videos that participated or couldn't be bothered ethically to do anything. They must have been okay with their actions or lack thereof. I believe the guys in the dorm were all football players. This makes me ask questions about the culture of that particular group. Obviously as parents and as a society some of us are doing something wrong.

 

When we talk about protecting our sons against false accusations, I think we need to be talking about being linked by association because they knew something and did nothing or worse yet, they obstructed justice in order to protect the "bro code."

 

Yes, I agree that we probably need to overtly tell our sons that they need to stand up for what is right, in addition to doing what is right.

 

[SKL]

No one is going to accuse you of slut-shaming unless you're implying that if a woman chooses to get drunk then she bears part of the responsibility if she's assaulted. You're not actually suggesting that, are you?

 

What I'm saying is that if a woman chooses to get drunk, she may be partly to blame if there is confusion over whether she wanted to have sex - or, whether she would have wanted it had she been sober.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I'd rather nobody, drunk or sober, have casual sex on campus, ever.  I'd also rather nobody drank illegally and nobody got stupid drunk on campus.  I will be told I must live in reality and that those things are going to happen.  So I will say that inebriation is going to cause confusion and bad choices, and that is reality too.  Blame for bad choices can't be presumed based on gender.

 

Do we need security cameras in shared spaces to make sure nobody goes there without accountability?

[unsinkable]

I've been thinking that we tell our children that if they are assaulted or raped, it is nothing they did. That the fault of the crime is entirely the perpetrator's.

 

And yet, it's been implied more than once...if our sons don't want to be accused falsely of rape, all they have to do is keep it in their pants.

 

False Rape Accusation is a crime. It is fault of the perpetrator, not the victim. It can/could happen with no physical contact at all. IOW, someone can keep it in his pants and still be the victim of a crime.

[Joules]

I agree with this. Drunk people should not be having casual sexual encounters with other drunk people they don't know very well. There's no clear way to obtain consent in that very common scenario. I doubt very highly this part of college culture is going by the wayside anytime soon though.

I'm very fond of the "designated brain" concept. I went through a tough time my senior (college) year and a group of us started going out drinking on Friday night. The first time we all drank, and getting home was a bother, so after that we took turns being the designated driver and left the other cars on campus. Over the weeks, I realized that the designated driver was also the designated brain for the evening, saying things like, "You are SO not going home with her," " Let me check that receipt," "Crosswalk, dude," and "Yep, you can drive home now." We certainly socialized and had a good time, but someone played the guardian angel each night. I've talked to my ds about this.

[DesertBlossom]

Is it slut-shaming to say something along the lines of this: "If a woman chooses to get drunk, then she bears part of the responsibility of increasing her risk of assault"?

 

Does that make sense or is it still blaming the victim?

 

I agree that the rapist is 100% responsible for commiting rape. No rapist, no rape. Similarly (though certainly less serious), if a thief swipes my sunglasses from my car, the thief is the person 100% responsible for the crime.

 

On the other hand, I can decrease the risk of that crime taking place (not eliminate it, mind you) by locking my car doors.

 

Maybe that's a poor analogy; I certainly don't want to minimize the trauma of rape. I'm just trying to clarify for myself the victim-shaming concept.

 

Thanks for the conversation.

 

I agree with this, and yet I've seen enough of these types of conversations to know that this is a really unpopular opinion.

 

Swimmermom3 mentioned a study that said 32% of college men would force a woman to have sex if no one ever found out about it. I'm appalled by that number. That's horrible. Something is going wrong  in our society when such a large percentage of men think that's acceptable. It's disgusting.

 

I hate to make assumptions, but I'm going to assume that men like that are probably more likely to congregate at those kinds of drunken parties. As a woman, would I go into a place where more than 30% of the men in the room might be willing to take advantage of me if the conditions were right? Hell no!  I wouldn't go, but if I did, I sure as heck wouldn't be drinking. I believe that a woman has the right to get passed out drunk on the floor with zero risk of being assaulted, But the sad, terrible and disgusting truth is, that's just not reality.

 

 

While we (as a society) do need to be teaching our boys to do better, I also think it's appropriate to be teaching our daughters that there are sick, perverted people out there and that there are things they can do to protect themselves and reduce their risk of assualt. 

 

As for men protecting themselves again false accusations-- I also think that's a real concern. My DH used to teach junior high and made sure he was never alone with any of his students. He had no reason to believe that any of them would want to falsely accuse him of something, but it's good practice to protect yourself from a situation where someone might have the opportunity to.

[Reefgazer]

I understand that sometimes speaking out gets you a big fat nowhere. But not speaking out is just not an option if these predators are going to be brought to justice. Going to some half-baked magazine and complaining to the media is not really speaking out; going to the police and filing the report and being tenacious is the only thing that will ever truly bring those predators to justice. I understand the nature of rape is such that it is difficult to prosecute. But the fact it is difficult to prosecute still doesn't mean our criminal justice principles should be abandoned. We wouldn't abandon those justice principles in another type of crime that was difficult to find evidence, where it was difficult to find witnesses for, or difficult to prosecute.

 

The backlash on campus toward finding someone guilty of rape without any real evidence is really going to harm rape cases in the future, because people will see a man "convicted" on campus without any evidence and start to doubt all rape accusations. I agree that colleges should not be in the position of deciding these matters. I think colleges should not be in the position of deciding the guilt or innocence of someone accused of rape. Those cases should *automatically* be turned over to the local police; I mean automatically and without exception; there should be no internal campus review of felony crimes at all. That's not to say that the alleged victim shouldn't be offered counseling services by the college; they should. But if they're unwilling to press charges they need to understand that this case will not legally go forward. The colleges should be prohibited from expelling students who have not been proven guilty in a court of law. The federal government has put colleges in an untenable position by requiring them to report and *do something* about alleged rapes, while at the same time our justice system holds tight to the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Those are two opposing ideas; you can't *do something* about a specific crime that you have no evidence for. But I am all for prevention and education on the matter.

 

Karen, I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I want to believe that speaking out, pressing charges making perpetrators known for what they are will make a difference. I used to believe that, but sadly, I just don't anymore and that's primarily because of the "issues within the justice system" that you refer to.

 

I think even with good science, a lot of cases of real rape are difficult to prove, especially on college campuses where alcohol and potentially date rape drugs are used. It really becomes as "he said, she said" situation. The use of DNA often means nothing because all he has to say is that it was consensual, rough sex. In fact, that's what happened in the Vanderbilt case. We'd like to think that the victim would recognize the assault and immediately pursue legal channels, but again, that seldom happens for many reasons. In the Vanderbilt case, the lead assailant was the victim's boyfriend. That girl would never have known that she had been raped if university officials hadn't gone through surveillance tape looking for evidence of another problem. The footage of the guys hauling an unconscious girl down the hallway and into a room,caught their attention. Never mind that the guys also videoed the "event." Few rape victims get that "lucky" in having that much evidence.

 

The backlash you are seeing on campuses has a lot to do with long time injustices going overlooked. It's well-documented that administrations have discouraged young women from filing charges even when there is probable cause to believe their stories, often because of the very thing you and SKL are concerned about, they don't want to damage a young man. The system has long worked in favor of the male. We accept rape as an outcome because we are afraid of "making a mistake." There is something very twisted in that thinking.

 

That said, I am not in favor of the "all men are guilty until proven innocent approach," anymore than I am in favor of the "all young woman are liars and out to ruin the guys" approach. On university campuses, we need to probably remove the college from the equation and involve the police immediately. This may have effects that we don't like such as reduced reporting and the alleged assailants being treated with less leniency than they currently are in the system.

 

I also think that if you believe strongly in the "innocent until proven guilty" tenet, then you must be willing to have it work both ways. Our justice system is an amazing one ideologically in many respects, it can be lacking in it's implementation.

 

[LucyStoner]

There is a lingering false equivalency problem in this thread.

 

Yes, false accusations are a problem and a crime but yes, it happens far less often than women actually being raped and abused. These are not equivalent problems when it comes to magnitude. There's no end of sources to corroborate this. It greatly minimizes the problem in our culture to conflate these two issues as being the same.

[SKL]

Nobody said the two issues are the same.  Someone implied that it is worth increasing the risk of one in order to theoretically reduce the risk of the other.  I disagreed.  False accusations harm the accused, and they also harm real rape victims by indirectly damaging their credibility.

[unsinkable]

There is a lingering false equivalency problem in this thread.

 

Yes, false accusations are a problem and a crime but yes, it happens far less often than women actually being raped and abused. These are not equivalent problems when it comes to magnitude. There's no end of sources to corroborate this. It greatly minimizes the problem in our culture to conflate these two issues as being the same.

It's not a false equivalency problem if I want ALL CRIME to be diminished as much as possible and if I want my world to be a better place.

 

I have a grasp of the numbers, thank you very much, and I try to live my life recognizing the humanity behind those numbers, that each human being is valuable and worthy and not just a part of a bigger group or a smaller group.

 

I completely capable of wanting justice for all victims, and working for justice for all victims, no matter how big the category they fall into.

[Reefgazer]

Let me be clear on something before I comment here. I'm not necessarily doubting the statistics that you included in this quote, but I have a question about their source. I want to know where the data about unreported rapes comes from. Specifically, how can you know if the rape occurred if it was never reported or went to trial or never subjected to any legal scrutiny? Including unreported rapes by definition is to include an accusation that has not been examined yet. The method of collecting this data is also important, as far as reliability and accuracy goes, and I don't really see any way to determine how the data was collected; the link appears to be dead. I don't understand how we can be sure of the accuracy of the data. Of course, in the context of any one individual rape this is an irrelevant point, but it does become relevant when we discuss the likelihood of our sons being accused as opposed to our daughters being assaulted.

Only a small percentage of rapes are ever even reported, let alone "make the news." Unless you believe that 20-25% of all men in college have been falsely accused of rape, then the statistics make it quite clear that being the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault is far more common than being falsely accused of rape. In fact, many of the men who actually committed rape were never accused of it, because the women did not press charges, for all of the reasons that swimmermom3 listed.

[Reefgazer]

Thank you for this this data; it appears to be much better defined than the previous statistics that have been tossed around here.

 

<p>Cat, maybe there is enough fear talking on both sides that we aren't hearing what the other is saying.SKL did seem to think it was just as likely that there be a false report as an actual assault. I responded because I felt like that was an attempt to minimize rape. Perhaps I was wrong and her point was that we don't know the number of false allegations anymore than we can know the actual number of rapes?Slate has a good article on false reports: "Crying Rape: False Allegations Exist and They are a Serious Problem." There are many aspects of this article that I find disturbing and I would ask that readers not think that everyone on the left side of the political fence believes that we should automatically accept all rape accusations as the truth. I think that line of reasoning belongs to a small, vocal, extreme group at the far end of the spectrum.I also wanted to bring to the table some numbers that are on University of Michigan's website. The information is for their "Judicial Resolution Officers.""Understanding the Perpetrator"The numbers from this article may make more sense than the 1 in 4 stat because they are more clearly defined and come from several different studies. Summary of Carr, J.L. and VanDeusen, K.M. (2004) Risk Factors For Male Sexual Aggression on College Campuses. J. Family Violence 19(5): 279-289.

• Surveys have consistently reported that college men acknowledged forced intercourse at a rate of 5-15% and college sexual aggression at a rate of 15-25% (Koss, Gidycz, and Wisniewski, 1987; Malamuth, Sockloskie, Koss, and Tanaka, 1991).

• The national survey of rape conducted by Koss et al. (1987) revealed that 1 in 12 college men committed acts that met the legal definition of rape, and of those men, 84% did not consider their actions to be illegal.

• In a large study of college men, 8.8% admitted rape or attempted rape (Ouimette & Riggs, 1998).

• Cross-cultural studies of rape and studies of rape-prone versus rape-free campus cultures identify the following factors as contributors to sexual violence:

• sex-role socialization
• rape myths
• lack of sanctions for abuse
• male peer group support
• pornography
• all-male membership groups such as fraternities and sports teams

[SKL]

As another poster pointed out, the number of women who are raped will not equal the number of men who have raped, because there are repeat rapists who rape an average of 6x each.  (There are also women who have been raped more than once, but hopefully not an average of 6x each.)

[Word Nerd]

In 2014, RAINN provided pages of recommendations on reducing rapes on college campuses to a White House task force, and the document is worth reading.

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, do you think this is a prevalent belief or does it belong to a small, vocal minority?

 

I think it's fair to ask both sides to keep it in their pants, but if you object to the weird double standard here, then you also have to object to the double standard that requires women always be on the guard against rapists, but doesn't address men not raping women.

 

I am not really keen on my having the same right to go around grabbing guys' balls against their will and making appreciative noises anymore than I liked having it done to me. There is some "equality" that I don't need. On the other hand, why is that a young man that has many sexual partners is seen as "powerful" and virile, but a young woman with many sexual partners is seen as "slutty?" That is a prevalent and encouraged double-standard, no?

 

I think it comes from a small minority, but it is becoming more widely accepted among some groups, and I think what I find more worrying is that some of its talking points are being promoted as fact rather than an interpretation, and the people who are promoting the perspective are putting themselves forward as the representatives and gatekeepers of women's interests.  People who disagree are being told they are secret misogynists or apologists for rape culture.  people who question whether rape culture is even a thing are accused of being "part of the problem".

 

What you are describing is actually not a double standard.and I don't think it is even entirely true.  Protecting oneself from malicious behavior or risk is not equivalent to being asked not to do illegal immoral things.

 

We also expect men to make decisions to protect themselves from risk.  Does anyone tell men who are into the gay club scene that they have no responsibility to protect themselves from risk, including the risk of violence?  Sexual violence is not at all unheard of in that context.  Or that all men should be careful about the kinds of places they go and activities they are involved in if they are risky?  I think we probably expect that more of men than of women.  And it isn't that we say they can't do risky things, or that they deserve it or it is their fault if they are victimized in some way - but we expect them to do it with their eyes open, as adults who know that some choices are riskier than others. 

 

No one so far as I know says that it is ok for anyone to rape anyone, and there is a fair amount of attention given to sexual crimes against women.  Sexual assault of men by women and other men is given pretty sort shrift though - the latter in particular is generally ignored, believed to be impossible, or ridiculed.

 

I think the groping culture is pretty classless, but for whatever reason some people like it.  I Personally don't think it was a bad thing that it was once something of a social taboo, but it seems to have been a freedom demanded by the sexual revolution.  I think the gap between virile and slutty is fast going the way of the dodo though - among millenials it seems to be that both men and women are pretty much looked at similarly.  I think some women - and probably men too - find it can actually be opressive, they feel trapped in that.  I don't think that is necessarily some sort of double standard though - I think perhaps it is a reality that the sexual revolution failed to anticipate that people can feel trapped in freedom of sexual expression as well, because they perceive it as an expectation.  Even back years ago when I was in the army, the sexual aggressivness and behavior of the female soldiers was comparable to that of the men, and I think plenty of the things that they did could have easily been considered assault.

 

I think in part the problem with this becomes one of social norms.  If you have two groups of people who have different expectations for what is an appropriate interaction, it isn't going to work well, and there doesn't seem to be any good way to decide one set of expectations is better than another.  So you are left telling people to just avoid places where they don't like the behavior.