University of Minnesota thread

[dhappy42]

Yeah, dhappy42, you're trying to make an intellectual exercise or some socratic/sophist thing out of this and it's bullshit. Don't have a conversation about rape and talk about what "you believe" the law is. Educate yourself, because it's a horrific topic to be ignorant about.

I'm not ignorant about the topic.

The best thing you can do is stop having this conversation with men - though many of us are well-informed and well-meaning, and look into some of the resources put out their by survivors. I can point you in the right direction.

Thanks, but you're being patronizing. Or condescending. And sanctimonious.

Read about people's experiences and try to have some empathy and understanding and some real-world, real-life appreciation of how what is thought and felt and feared in these situations and their aftermaths.

And presumptuous. I empathize with the victim in this case. And I understand as well as you do how these horrible things happened to her.

 

[dhappy42]

Nothing you're saying is actually true, either legally or morally.

Okay, what I have I written that's legally untrue?

What have I said that you believe is morally untrue?

 

[SumnerH]

My "attitude" is simply this: rape is a legal term and, in nearly all cases, requires coercion, not simply lack of communication. And again, I'm not defending the men's behavior.

This is false. For instance, in Minnesota "rape" is not a legal term. The common law definition you cited earlier has long since been replaced in most states (I believe all states, but I'd have to run a full inventory to be sure) and is only of historical interest.

In Minnesota, the applicable legal term is "Criminal Sexual Conduct", which can be classified from 1st to 5th degree. None of the degrees require coercion, though it may be an exacerbating factor in some situations--for instance, to qualify as first degree criminal sexual conduct, there are 7 different criteria. Matching any 1 qualifies the crime; only 2 of the 7 require coercion or threat of force.

Note, too, that Minnesota is explicit in stating that consent requires an overt act to establish; the default is "no consent", even absent coercion, and attempts to resist are explicitly not required:

(a) "Consent" means words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. Consent does not mean the existence of a prior or current social relationship between the actor and the complainant or that the complainant failed to resist a particular sexual act.

How so? According to both the police and UM report, she didn't say no until sometime later, and even then didn't actually say "no" or "stop" to anyone in particular.

Because it's morally reprehensible to have sex with someone who's not freely and affirmatively consenting. The fact that you and other people think that the quoted is an important distinction is why we there's been a move toward stricter and more clearly defined laws of the "yes means yes" sort.

 

[dhappy42]

This is false. For instance, in Minnesota "rape" is not a legal term. The common law definition you cited earlier has long since been replaced in most states (I believe all states, but I'd have to run a full inventory to be sure) and is only of historical interest. In Minnesota, the applicable legal term is "Criminal Sexual Conduct", which can be classified from 1st to 5th degree.

Right, but even 5th-degree sexual assault in Minnesota requires nonconsensual contact. The police report describes the threesome (which is what I'm talking about) as appearing to be consensual. Even the victim is equivocal about whether the threesome was consensual or not. She said she participated because she didn't want to "cause a scene." No prosecutor in his or her right mind is going to try three men for rape -- or criminal sexual assault -- when there's a video showing the woman in threesome, laughing and joking with her attackers, and when the woman herself told police she wasn't sure whether she'd consented or not. I realize I've shifted the criterion from coercion to consent, but it's relevant. If there's coercion, there can't be consent. Without coercion, the question of consent becomes relevant.

Note, too, that Minnesota is explicit in stating that consent requires an overt act to establish; the default is "no consent", even absent coercion, and attempts to resist are explicitly not required...

What would be an example of an "overt act" that indicates consent?

Because it's morally reprehensible to have sex with someone who's not freely and affirmatively consenting

I 100% agree.

The fact that you and other people think that the quoted is an important distinction is why we there's been a move toward stricter and more clearly defined laws of the "yes means yes" sort.

I don't understand your comment. Saying "yes" or "no" is a very important distinction.

 

[SumnerH]

Right, but even 5th-degree sexual assault in Minnesota requires nonconsensual contact.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even require contact.

What would be an example of an "overt act" that indicates consent?

That's up to the jury to determine given the totality of the circumstances--it might be entering the room, putting on some Barry White, seductively undressing, and crawling into bed astraddle the partner. It might be moaning, grabbing them, and pulling them in toward her. Or not, if there's some other factor at play.

I don't understand your comment. Saying "yes" or "no" is a very important distinction.

Yes, it is a huge distinction--that's the whole point. And the idea that "she didn't say no or fight back" should green-light sex is pretty fucked up:

In my opinion (and I think most legal definitions,) rape requires the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

And (justifying why it wasn't rape):

According to both the police and UM report, she didn't say no until sometime later, and even then didn't actually say "no" or "stop" to anyone in particular.

Once it's unclear that she's consenting, it's irrelevant whether she says no or stop to anyone in particular.

It's retrograde opinions like this which are making places rewrite the law yet again (despite already having embedded it into e.g. the definition of consent) to make it absolutely clear that affirmative consent is required. Thankfully that change continues despite people like you objecting to making what's pretty obviously the correct moral standard ("don't have sex with a partner who you aren't sure wants to" rather than "if you're not sure they don't want to, go ahead and fuck 'em") the law:

Schools may use an "affirmative consent" principle in sexual assault cases, requiring men to obtain unequivocal and clear assent from women before engaging in sexual activity, but that's a very problematic slippery slope for the legal system.

 

[dhappy42]

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even require contact.

Are you sure? I looked it up.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.341#stat.609.341.11

"For purposes of this section, "sexual contact" has the meaning given in section 609.341, subdivision 11, paragraph (a), clauses (i), (iv), and (v), but does not include the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the buttocks. Sexual contact also includes the intentional removal or attempted removal of clothing covering the complainant's intimate parts or undergarments, and the nonconsensual touching by the complainant of the actor's intimate parts, effected by the actor, if the action is performed with sexual or aggressive intent."

There's also a definition regarding masturbating and lewd exhibitionism in the presence of minors that I didn't mention because it's not relevant to this discussion.

That's up to the jury to determine given the totality of the circumstances--it might be entering the room, putting on some Barry White, seductively undressing, and crawling into bed astraddle the partner. It might be moaning, grabbing them, and pulling them in toward her. Or not, if there's some other factor at play.

Thanks. See any of that in this case?

Yes, it is a huge distinction--that's the whole point. And the idea that "she didn't say no or fight back" should green-light sex is pretty fucked up...

You're conflating two different things for some reason: saying "no" and "fighting back." And you're misstating my position. I'm not saying "not saying no" is a green light. And I'm not "justifying rape." You're begging the question.

Once it's unclear that she's consenting, it's irrelevant whether she says no or stop to anyone in particular.

Unclear to whom?

It's retrograde opinions like this...

You ought not criticize my opinions until you understand them and can correctly characterize them.

...despite people like you objecting to making what's pretty obviously the correct moral standard ("don't have sex with a partner who you aren't sure wants to" rather than "if you're not sure they don't want to, go ahead and fuck 'em") the law:

See? That's not my position at all.

 

[SumnerH]

Are you sure? I looked it up.
...
There's also a definition regarding masturbating and lewd exhibitionism in the presence of minors

Exactly.

Thanks. See any of that in this case?

I'm not familiar enough with this case to comment. I'm addressing your characterization of rape in general.

Unclear to whom?

Morally, once there's any doubt on the partner's part that she doesn't want to have sex. Legally, there's probably a reasonable person standard but you'd have to ask a Minnesota lawyer that question.

You're conflating two different things for some reason: saying "no" and "fighting back." And you're misstating my position. I'm not saying "not saying no" is a green light. And I'm not "justifying rape." You're begging the question.

You ignored the direct quotes I included. The most succinct encapsulation is here, where you say that in your opinion as well as what your understanding of the law it's only rape if there's force used or threatened:

In my opinion (and I think most legal definitions,) rape requires the use of force or the threat of the use of force.

And then later you repeat:

I understand that. I still believe that rape requires coercion of some kind.

The fact that in this day and age people can still believe this is reason enough to rephrase the law even more clearly to emphasize that consent requires overt words or actions on the partner's end to approve of things. The fact that the accused did not coerce them doesn't mean it's not rape. Even the fact that the victim didn't say no doesn't mean it's not rape. Consent must be affirmative.

 

[dhappy42]

I'm not familiar enough with this case to comment. I'm addressing your characterization of rape in general.

Well, there's your problem then.

Morally, once there's any doubt on the partner's part that she doesn't want to have sex. Legally, there's probably a reasonable person standard...

Yes.

 

[dhappy42]

This discussion is pointless without agreeing on definitions of terms.

Here's 10 U.S. Code Sec. 920 - Article 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920

(a) Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—
(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—
(1) commits a sexual act upon another person by—
(A) threatening or placing that other person in fear;
(B) causing bodily harm to that other person;
(C) making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose; or
(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person;
(2) commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or
(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to—
(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; or
(B) a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person;
is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

 

[Marciano490]

Cool, guy, what's the relevance of the federal statute - which will likely be the last one to evolve - to this case in Minnesota?

 

[SumnerH]

Yeah, the federal statute is pretty archaic and not germane to the current state of rape laws in the US or to the case in Minnesota.

 

[dhappy42]

Cool, guy, what's the relevance of the federal statute - which will likely be the last one to evolve - to this case in Minnesota?

To Minnesota? None. SumnerH was commenting on rape "in general," so I proffered a general, federal definition.

Here's MN's sexual assault law:

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/minnesota-law/minnesota-rape-and-sexual-assault-laws.html

First Degree – Sexual penetration (vaginal, oral, or anal sex or any intrusion of the victim’s genital or anal openings by any part of the defendant or an object) of anyone or sexual contact with a person under 13 (intentional touching of victim’s bare genitals or anus by defendant or another’s genitals or anus with sexual or aggressive intent) in the following circumstances:

• The victim is under 13 years old and the defendant is more than 3 years older than the victim
• The victim is 13 to 16 years old and the defendant is 4 years older and in a position of authority over the victim (such as a parent, foster parent, psychotherapist, etc.)
• The circumstances placed the victim in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm to himself or herself or another
• The defendant was armed with a dangerous weapon or threatened the victim with the weapon
• The defendant causes injury to the victim and either uses force or coercion for sexual penetration or knows the victim is mentally or physically impaired
• The defendant is helped by another person to make the victim submit or the accomplice is armed with a weapon
• The defendant has a significant relationship (defendant is victim’s parent, stepparent, guardian, relative by blood, marriage, or adoption, or an adult who lives in the same house and isn’t the victim’s spouse) with the victim and the victim is under 16 at time of sexual penetration

Second Degree – Engaging in sexual contact (intentional touching of victim’s intimate parts, touching of another’s intimate parts by coercion, the touching can be over clothes) under any of the same circumstances as listed above under the first degree.

Third Degree – Engaging in sexual penetration under these circumstances:

• The victim is under 13 and the defendant is no more than 3 years older
• The victim is 13-15 years old and the defendant is more than 2 years older, but no more than 10 years older
• The defendant uses force or coercion to sexually penetrate the victim
• The defendant knows or should know the victim is mentally or physically incapacitated
• The defendant has a significant familial or living with relationship with the victim who is at least 16, but under 18 at the time of the sexual penetration
• The defendant is a psychotherapist of the victim when the sexual penetration occurred during a session or while the professional relationship existed. Also unlawful if a former patient/victim is emotional dependent on the therapist or the sex occurred by deception
• The defendant accomplishes the sex by means of deception or false representation that it has a medical purpose
• The defendant is a clergy, the victim isn’t married to him or her, and the sex occurs during a spiritual advice meeting
• The defendant is an employee or volunteer at a correction or juvenile facility and the victim is in custody or treatment there
• The defendant works for a special transportation service and has sex with the victim, who is a client before or after transporting him or her
• The defendant is a massage therapist and the victim used the services and the nonconsensual sex occurred during or immediately before or after the massage

 

[Marciano490]

And your point is?

 

[dhappy42]

Here is what I think are the relevant sections from MN law:

• The circumstances placed the victim in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm to himself or herself or another...
• The defendant causes injury to the victim and either uses force or coercion for sexual penetration or knows the victim is mentally or physically impaired

And the linked definition of "coercion": the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

 

[dhappy42]

And your point is?

That a reasonable discussion of the subject (any subject, really) requires an agreement on definitions. Otherwise, discussions decay into semantic arguments.

“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” -- Voltaire

Both the federal and Minnesota statutes define rape and 1st-degree sexual assault as requiring force, the threat of force, or coercion (except in cases of underaged victims, psychotherapists, doctors, massage therapists and some other things that aren't relevant to the UM situation.)

 

[Marciano490]

Ok, great. So the recruit blocked the door. The woman was afraid they'd be upset if she refused, so she tried to just get it over with. Sounds like coercion to me. I know you think the fact that she's smiling or joking is relevant, but it's really not. 20 years ago, you probably would've credited testimony that a woman got wet or 'moaned' during a rape. There's literally no discussion to be had here, legally or morally and if I had any power on this forum, I'd at least block you from this thread. This place is better than having opinions like yours bandied about, and it's only because we're so male-dominated that people get kicked off or given time outs for using the n or f word, but have free rein to spout of the far more pernicious shit you're doing here.

 

[SumnerH]

Here is what I think are the relevant sections from MN law:

• The circumstances placed the victim in reasonable fear of imminent physical harm to himself or herself or another...
• The defendant causes injury to the victim and either uses force or coercion for sexual penetration or knows the victim is mentally or physically impaired

And the linked definition of "coercion": the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

Neither of those tests applies to every prong. Most plainly, 609.3451 S1(1) (which I'm sure you've read since we were talking about it earlier) says that "A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree...if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact."

That's it. Unless the victim has given consent (which must be overt under the definition), sexual contact is illegal. There's no need for them to be coerced, threatened with violence or to fight back, or to say no. There's no exception for spouses. There's no exception if they wear a short skirt, walk down a dark alley, or order lobster at dinner.

 

[The Needler]

Neither of those tests applies to every prong. Most plainly, 609.3451 S1(1) (which I'm sure you've read since we were talking about it earlier) says that "A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree...if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact."

That's it. Unless the victim has given consent (which must be overt under the definition), sexual contact is illegal. There's no need for them to be coerced, threatened with violence or to fight back, or to say no. There's no exception for spouses. There's no exception if they wear a short skirt, walk down a dark alley, or order lobster at dinner.

That section is also a misdemeanor and is not the rape equivalent statute.

As an observer, I would note that there is a very long history in this country by those in power - white men - of failing to believe and grant justice to rape victims, and a nearly as long history of rushing to justice both within the legal system and outside (think lynch mobs) when the question is whether black men raped a white woman. With that in mind, the definitive opinions of white men (and I'm guessing that's who's writing here) who did not conduct interviews or get access to all the evidence should be taken for what they're worth.

 

[dhappy42]

So the recruit blocked the door. The woman was afraid they'd be upset if she refused, so she tried to just get it over with. Sounds like coercion to me.

Okay. Not to me. Nor to the police and prosecutors, apparently.

"...the county attorney’s office is declining to file any charges. There is insufficient, admissible evidence for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either force was used or that the victim was physically helpless as defined by law in the sexual encounter. This office will have no further comment on the case.”

I know you think the fact that she's smiling or joking is relevant, but it's really not.

I disagree. It suggests, if not proves, that the sex was consensual. The police came to the same conclusion. "...the sexual contact appears entirely consensual." You may not find that persuasive, but it is certainly relevant.


20 years ago, you probably would've credited testimony that a woman got wet or 'moaned' during a rape.

Me? No. That's a ridiculous and disgusting accusation. And why are you trying to make this about me?


There's literally no discussion to be had here, legally or morally and if I had any power on this forum, I'd at least block you from this thread.

Okay, it's more than obvious that the discussion has bottomed out when people start engaging in personal attacks, mischaracterizing arguments, maligning people's characters, etc. Some people apparently believe that the police, prosecutors and I share a monstrous, misogynist pro-rape "attitude." It's a preposterous claim, but I'll stop posting on the subject. If someone cares to attack me personally in the thread, I might respond, but other than that, I don't think there's any reason to continue.

 

[dhappy42]

Neither of those tests applies to every prong. Most plainly, 609.3451 S1(1) (which I'm sure you've read since we were talking about it earlier) says that "A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the fifth degree...if the person engages in nonconsensual sexual contact."

Sure. In fifth-degree misdemeanor sexual assault. I don't think rape is a misdemeanor charge.

 

[SumnerH]

That section is also a misdemeanor and is not the rape equivalent statute.

There is no rape statute in Minnesota. The matter of degree affects the punishment, but it's all legally criminal sexual conduct.

(And 5th degree can be up a felony with up to 7 years in prison, depending on priors)

 

[The Needler]

There is no rape statute in Minnesota. The matter of degree affects the punishment, but it's all legally criminal sexual conduct.

That's why I said rape equivalent. They can call it what they will, but rape or rape equivalent requires penetration. "Grabbing them by the pussy," for example can and should be criminal conduct, but under the model penal code, common law, and the more modern state statutes that are based on these historical laws, it's not rape or a rape equivalent.

When a Minnesota prosecutor makes his closing argument in a first degree case, I can assure you 100 times out of 100 he'll tell the jury the defendant committed rape. And if he does so in a fifth degree case, he's looking at a mistrial.

 

[jcd0805]

Okay, it's more than obvious that the discussion has bottomed out when people start engaging in personal attacks, mischaracterizing arguments, maligning people's characters, etc. Some people apparently believe that the police, prosecutors and I share a monstrous, misogynist pro-rape "attitude." It's a preposterous claim, but I'll stop posting on the subject. If someone cares to attack me personally in the thread, I might respond, but other than that, I don't think there's any reason to continue.

I don't get the attacks on you either, it's like if you're not saying all those players are guilty as sin and should be locked up and the key thrown away then you're a fan of rape and hate women. I think you've done a fine job of trying to explain why you feel this would've been a tough case to prosecute, it's really sad that you're not allowed to express without people twisting it to be your a horrible woman hating man who doesn't understand anything the way everyone else apparently does.

 

[uncannymanny]

Literally zero people have said those things. But yeah!!!

 

[mauf]

Why the fuck are you emoting all over this thread? Spare me your barroom barrister act and go find an expert source on Minnesota law on rape and sexual assault (it's likely a Google search away) if you seriously think the facts as alleged don't constitute felony sexual assault -- which is what ordinary people call "rape" (at least on the facts alleged here).

I suspect there were no criminal charges here because (a) a trial would have been brutal on the victim, even more so than in most rape cases; and (b) it might have been difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which defendants were guilty of rape.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

This thread sucks.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

And presumptuous. I empathize with the victim in this case. And I understand as well as you do how these horrible things happened to her.

No, you don't.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I suspect there were no criminal charges here because (a) a trial would have been brutal on the victim, even more so than in most rape cases; and (b) it might have been difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which defendants were guilty of rape.

Yeah, this. I think that even those of us who feel that there should be a conviction would agree that the evidence seems to indicate that, at the start of the event, the victim was indicating consent. She seems to have had too much to drink, which means that that consent becomes questionable at best, but the long and short is that this young woman would really be run through the wringer in a trial.

I think that dhappy struggles to let the bone go even after he has been proven wrong and even, at times, willfully ignorant. But some folks are going too far in the attacks on him. Relax everyone.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I think that dhappy struggles to let the bone go even after he has been proven wrong and even, at times, willfully ignorant. But some folks are going too far in the attacks on him. Relax everyone.

The vitriol is understandable, of course. While dhappy hasn't given us any evidence to suggest he's an alt-right "women owe me their bodies" piece of trash, he is a living embodiment of why rape culture exists and persists despite all the good work so many people do to combat it.

He's so caught up in being technically right about something that he's completely missed the fact that people aren't trying to discuss the laws in Minnesota (or elsewhere) as they exist. (Those laws are inadequate and are artifacts of a time when people genuinely believed it was impossible to for a man to rape his wife.) What people have been trying to discuss is that a young woman was demoralized, dehumanized and in every sense of the word that matters, was raped.

That dhappy is more concerned with technical correctness than the fact that our culture still allows for a woman who is too intoxicated to remember if or when she consented, or if or when she said no to be taken advantage of sexually by 10+ men and for none of them to face criminal charges is a frustrating reminder of how much further we have to go.

 

[Marciano490]

Yeah, this. I think that even those of us who feel that there should be a conviction would agree that the evidence seems to indicate that, at the start of the event, the victim was indicating consent. She seems to have had too much to drink, which means that that consent becomes questionable at best, but the long and short is that this young woman would really be run through the wringer in a trial.

I think that dhappy struggles to let the bone go even after he has been proven wrong and even, at times, willfully ignorant. But some folks are going too far in the attacks on him. Relax everyone.

I've struggled with this, and I know a lot of people do in this climate, but how do you talk to someone you think is espousing dangerous and wrongheaded ideas? I know folks are cutting relatives out of their lives, or mocking or shouting or protesting. I really try to converse and understand other people's points of view, but after awhile - if you think someone is saying something that puts people at risk (and I've read and discussed this issue a lot and truly believe without trying to be mr. white knight goodie two shoes evolved man that his views do), is it wrong to try a more forceful approach?

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

I've struggled with this, and I know a lot of people do in this climate, but how do you talk to someone you think is espousing dangerous and wrongheaded ideas? I know folks are cutting relatives out of their lives, or mocking or shouting or protesting. I really try to converse and understand other people's points of view, but after awhile - if you think someone is saying something that puts people at risk (and I've read and discussed this issue a lot and truly believe without trying to be mr. white knight goodie two shoes evolved man that his views do), is it wrong to try a more forceful approach?

I think, after a while, just saying "you truly don't know what you are talking about, and need to stop" is probably a better path. Implying that he hates women - and he may - or going as far as Snodgrass is above seems a bit over the top to me.

 

[Marciano490]

I think, after a while, just saying "you truly don't know what you are talking about, and need to stop" is probably a better path. Implying that he hates women - and he may - or going as far as Snodgrass is above seems a bit over the top to me.

That was said. I think on a couple separate occasions I asked him to stop and consider what he was saying. I'm not arguing you're wrong, or that Snod and I are right. I don't think being "right" here or winning is important. What's important is changing people's hearts and minds so that dhappy and his friends and his progeny have the type of discussions and thoughts where they don't subject women to any unwanted sexual contact. If an intellectual approach isn't working and pointing out the flaws and dangers of an argument aren't working, then maybe it becomes time to let someone know exactly how they're coming across and exactly what the potential ramifications of their viewpoints are and have been. Or, maybe not.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Yep. I don't think dhappy is maliciously pushing for the continuation of rape culture, but his actions and words in this thread do push in that direction. It's a side effect, rather than a driving force, but that's what makes it so dangerous and so frustrating.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Yep. I don't think dhappy is maliciously pushing for the continuation of rape culture, but his actions and words in this thread do push in that direction. It's a side effect, rather than a driving force, but that's what makes it so dangerous and so frustrating.

This and Marciano's post are both very reasonable, but you did make some personal jabs at the guy and how he felt about the victim that were a bit, to me, overstated. If you want to say "your opinions on this are enforcing rape culture." Well, yeah, I don't disagree. But it is possible for the guy to have empathy for the victim and some (misguided) opinions on the case.

I re-read the police report last night and I have to admit, while I think that it was clear that these guys should be prosecuted, defining exactly who should be prosecuted is complex.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This and Marciano's post are both very reasonable, but you did make some personal jabs at the guy and how he felt about the victim that were a bit, to me, overstated. If you want to say "your opinions on this are enforcing rape culture." Well, yeah, I don't disagree. But it is possible for the guy to have empathy for the victim and some (misguided) opinions on the case.

That was just me poking fun at the misuse of the word empathy (rather than sympathy) given his insistence on agreeing to technical definitions.

I re-read the police report last night and I have to admit, while I think that it was clear that these guys should be prosecuted, defining exactly who should be prosecuted is complex.

It's certainly complex. Complex enough that no charges have been filed. This is an enormously messy situation and it sucks that it was possible for it to happen in the first place. I have an infant son at home and if I ever find out he's been a part of a situation like this, I'm going to consider it an enormous failing on my part.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

That was just me poking fun at the misuse of the word empathy (rather than sympathy) given his insistence on agreeing to technical definitions.



It's certainly complex. Complex enough that no charges have been filed. This is an enormously messy situation and it sucks that it was possible for it to happen in the first place. I have an infant son at home and if I ever find out he's been a part of a situation like this, I'm going to consider it an enormous failing on my part.

If your infant son is tag teaming co-eds then you have a very different set of problems than moral terpitude.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

If your infant son is tag teaming co-eds then you have a very different set of problems than moral terpitude.

Yeah, sloppy phrasing on my part. Turnabout is fair play.

 

[SumnerH]

moral terpitude

Wrong U of M.

 

[twibnotes]

I don't get the attacks on you either, it's like if you're not saying all those players are guilty as sin and should be locked up and the key thrown away then you're a fan of rape and hate women. I think you've done a fine job of trying to explain why you feel this would've been a tough case to prosecute, it's really sad that you're not allowed to express without people twisting it to be your a horrible woman hating man who doesn't understand anything the way everyone else apparently does.

Seconded.

I think it's great that posters on sosh want to ensure that this place doesn't become a misogynistic locker room, but DHappy didn't write anything that warranted the attacks he received. Seemed to me he was trying to answer a fair question: "why weren't these guys (who we all seem to agree behaved deplorably and disgustingly) charged with a crime?"

Sosh is never worse than when a gang of posters bash on someone to make themselves feel morally superior.

 

[Marciano490]

Seconded.

I think it's great that posters on sosh want to ensure that this place doesn't become a misogynistic locker room, but DHappy didn't write anything that warranted the attacks he received. Seemed to me he was trying to answer a fair question: "why weren't these guys (who we all seem to agree behaved deplorably and disgustingly) charged with a crime?"

Sosh is never worse than when a gang of posters bash on someone to make themselves feel morally superior.

Your last line is remarkably unself-aware. You elide all of dhappy's posts and tie them up in a naive, innocent little bow, and the ascribe poor motivations to others? It's not about feeling morally superior. At all, and that's such a facile, reductive way to express solidarity with the wrong side of the argument.

I'd argue that SoSH is never better than when posters come together to show people with retrograde opinions that they're wrong. The way this place did with homosexual and misogynistic language. I think that's more important that stats, titpics and bad jokes.

 

[twibnotes]

Your last line is remarkably unself-aware. You elide all of dhappy's posts and tie them up in a naive, innocent little bow, and the ascribe poor motivations to others? It's not about feeling morally superior. At all, and that's such a facile, reductive way to express solidarity with the wrong side of the argument.

I'd argue that SoSH is never better than when posters come together to show people with retrograde opinions that they're wrong. The way this place did with homosexual and misogynistic language. I think that's more important that stats, titpics and bad jokes.

We disagree on what went on here. In my view, DHappy was reviewing the facts of the case and trying to assess why the players weren't charged. He was then told that he was somehow contributing to rape culture.

I'd agree with your last paragraph generally - just don't see where the evidence is that DHappy harbors retrograde opinions. Further, if you want to take the high road, best to avoid ad hominem attacks, which are almost always part of the ganging up process on this site.

 

[Marciano490]

I agree regarding ad hominems. I discussed above why I ultimately went that route. I think we definitely disagree about dhappy's approach and that informs why we ultimately disagreed as to the proper and proportional response.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

I'd agree with your last paragraph generally - just don't see where the evidence is that DHappy harbors retrograde opinions.

The opinion that rape requires force or the threat of force isn't retrograde?

 

[twibnotes]

The opinion that rape requires force or the threat of force isn't retrograde?

This is exactly the kind of "gotcha!" BS I'm talking about. Many of you piled on to DHappy for this view in spite of his protests. Look at post 106 for instance ("I'm not saying not saying no is a green light"). In my view he was trying to explore the law and how rape is defined. Instead of exploring that, he had to be told his views are harming millions of women. Some of you would rather attack than explore common ground.

Edit: you yourself pointed out that DHappy was arguing a different point (a technical one) while the rest of you were talking about a horrible dehumanizing act. DHappy seems to agree with you on the fact that the act was horrible and dehumanizing, so in a sense you were piling on bc he had the nerve to want to discuss a separate matter (the technical, legal one).

I just think it's disappointing when posters on here draw unfair conclusions about another poster and his or her character. I think that happened here, and it stinks and it sucks.

 

[Marciano490]

This is exactly the kind of "gotcha!" BS I'm talking about. Many of you piled on to DHappy for this view in spite of his protests. Look at post 106 for instance ("I'm not saying not saying no is a green light"). In my view he was trying to explore the law and how rape is defined. Instead of exploring that, he had to be told his views are harming millions of women. Some of you would rather attack than explore common ground.

I'd argue the common ground isn't important or anything to be celebrated here. It's the establishment of and movement onto new ground that is. I truly believe that it's harmful that people think that as long as they don't use force or don't hear a no or a sincere no it's not rape. A lot of people think that. A lot of people continue to think that because of conversations that sound a lot like the one dhappy was trying to have. That strikes me as very dangerous. Just like it's dangerous when people talk about going to bars or parties because there'll be drunk girls there. Believing that doesn't make me feel morally superior or good at all.

 

[twibnotes]

I'd argue the common ground isn't important or anything to be celebrated here. It's the establishment of and movement onto new ground that is. I truly believe that it's harmful that people think that as long as they don't use force or don't hear a no or a sincere no it's not rape. A lot of people think that. A lot of people continue to think that because of conversations that sound a lot like the one dhappy was trying to have. That strikes me as very dangerous. Just like it's dangerous when people talk about going to bars or parties because there'll be drunk girls there. Believing that doesn't make me feel morally superior or good at all.

But I don't think you were arguing the same point. I suspect the thread could have been quite different had you said something like:

"DHappy - you seem like a reasonable guy - maybe we are talking about diff things here. You're talking law...I'm talking about what's right. Do we agree that rape should be defined as any sex that is non consensual?"

Based on his posts, I strongly believe he would have agreed. He was talking about what the cops and would be prosecutors thought they saw in the case.

Incidentally, I am very much on your page, Marciano, when it comes to treatment of women. The things that went on in this case are sickening and shameful. It makes me nauseous when I see James Winston playing on Sunday's (I read that case and at a bare minimum, he seems like a scumbag). I just don't like it on sosh when, in my judgment, posters try to catch someone in a misguided post and drill them into the ground. As a person with non-left leaning political views, I've been on the receiving end, and it just makes you want to do less soshing...and I fucking love this place.

 

[Marciano490]

I agree, but I feel like there were a lot of posts back and forth trying to clarify what he meant and the implications of what he was saying. Maybe it was poor wording or explaining on his part, but after awhile I decided he didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt. You seem willing to give him a longer rope. Totally fair.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

This is exactly the kind of "gotcha!" BS I'm talking about. Many of you piled on to DHappy for this view in spite of his protests. Look at post 106 for instance ("I'm not saying not saying no is a green light"). In my view he was trying to explore the law and how rape is defined. Instead of exploring that, he had to be told his views are harming millions of women. Some of you would rather attack than explore common ground.

Edit: you yourself pointed out that DHappy was arguing a different point (a technical one) while the rest of you were talking about a horrible dehumanizing act. DHappy seems to agree with you on the fact that the act was horrible and dehumanizing, so in a sense you were piling on bc he had the nerve to want to discuss a separate matter (the technical, legal one).

I just think it's disappointing when posters on here draw unfair conclusions about another poster and his or her character. I think that happened here, and it stinks and it sucks.

Post 106 does not explicitly state that he does not believe force or the threat of force is required for a rape to occur. In fact, since he originally posted that it was, in fact, his opinion that for rape to occur in a criminal sense, force or the threat of force is required, there are 9 more posts by him where he either reiterates this opinion, or posts links to definitions that support that opinion. If he doesn't hold that opinion, he's done nothing to give us any indication that this isn't the case. All he did in that post was claim that people didn't understand his position (without any attempt to clarify), which he then continued to support by quoting laws.

But let's look past that since you seem to think that stating it was his opinion and then backing up that opinion by repeating it and copying and pasting legal definitions that included that language multiple times doesn't mean he actually holds that opinion. He also suggested that the men who came into the room after she supposedly said to stop sending people in could not have committed rape if they didn't know she'd said no. He suggested that by agreeing to a gangbang with several individuals, the onus was on her to make it clear that others were not entitled to sex with her as well. He suggested that unless she was incapacitated by her level of intoxication her appearing to be actively engaged in the encounters means she was capable of giving consent.

These ideas are all retrograde in that all of them put the responsibility for not being raped on the woman rather than the responsibility of not raping on the men. They are archaic and damaging concepts regardless of whether he finds the acts themselves deplorable or not. That's what I'm responding to. He's made it pretty clear he doesn't think what happened was okay. But insisting it is not rape because the legal definition of the act(s) provide a way to argue it is not since they are so terribly out of date is an exercise in embracing technicalities. The laws in any state where this situation was not legally a "rape" (sexual assault/criminal sexual misconduct/etc) need to amended or rewritten. Any focus on the legal side of this situation should be focused on that, not on whether it's technically correct to call it a rape in a legal sense.

 

[Rick Burlesons Yam Bag]

Did Michigan consent to what Florida State is doing to them right now?

 

[twibnotes]

Did Michigan consent to what Florida State is doing to them right now?

I think they didn't prepare since harbaugh was just flying around interviewing for NFL jobs

Anyway, don't celebrate too much - this horrific performance by mich makes one wonder just how good the suckeyes are