# Is it just me?



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Or is this starting to sound like Janet Cooke all over again?


----------



## SartoriaFiladelfia (Dec 2, 2014)

Regardless of whether or not the Fraternal men are guilty, this kind of reporting only hurts the reputations of men in Fraternities. The public image of a fraternity is not good: underage drinking, rape, drugs, and other debauchery. All too often "Concerned parents", the media, and the general public forget the mountain of charity work Greek Society members do.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^
Due respect, but if they are guilty, then the reporting would seem to be justified (I have read the entire 9,000 words, which is, as you suggest, a damning--and, if true, deserved--criticism of Greek culture). But, if they are not guilty, if this didn't happen, then this reporting is scandalous and the biggest journalistic screw-up since Jayson Blair.


----------



## SartoriaFiladelfia (Dec 2, 2014)

If they did it - they are horrible and do not really represent Greek Life as a whole. The individuals deserve to be punished, if true, but the entire system need not be attacked. 

The media just wants ratings and acknowledgement for its "Journalism"; if that means misconstruing the truth, trampling over the accused before due process has taken place, and spreading (mostly false) stereotypes about entire swaths of people is, then so be it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Not all media is created equal. There is responsible journalism and irresponsible journalism. As a whole, the craft is more self-policing than many and journalists do more good than harm.

This Rolling Stone piece is a good example. It's starting to fall apart, and in a very public way, and the media is the one holding the media accountable.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ this is the problem with sloppy journalism. No one knows the facts as of yet so it should be investigated, but in the meantime the media will obsess in its favorite topic; itself! Followed very closely of course with the latest cause celeb which now appears to be sexual assaults on campus. 

As this goes forward, no one will report on the reputations and lives that have been dragged through the mud due to one reporters urgency to scoop a story and make a name for herself.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I think you are catching on.

Facts don't matter.

If the story is false, all that what matters is how people feel about the story, the narrative, and the phony war on women.

Comments;


> This article highlights, for me, my unease with this latest "moral panic" we seem to be going through involving sexual assaults, or, more to the point, alleged sexual assaults. From the parade of women suddenly claiming to have been assaulted by Bill Cosby 30 years ago, to the woman who walks down the street in New York with a camera in front of her an a chip on her shoulder the size of a cinder block, complaining about men "harassing" her, to the claim that 1/3 of women have been sexually assaulted (how is that even possible?), it seems we are getting to a point where if a woman says she was assaulted or raped, then she must be believed without question.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Sorry, but this--and what SG says--is hogwash.

Name another profession in which practitioners are held as accountable by other practitioners as journalists are held accountable by other journalists. And it is accountability accomplished in a very public way. Go ahead--name a single profession. If you can think of one, you're a better person than me.

People who whine and moan and complain about the media and its foibles should try living without the media. They tend to be the same folks who are interested in current events, then damn the institutions that enable them to become educated on current events. Bizarre.

None of the alleged culprits were named in the RS piece (which is part of the issue here), so I'm having trouble understanding SG's assertion that reputations and lives have been dragged through the mud. If it turns out that the piece was wrong, then the biggest casualty is going to be Rolling Stone, which is as it should be. And if the media did as SG suggests and remained silent while powers that be conducted investigations, then Nixon would have finished his second term and VA hospitals would still be causing harm to veterans with no consequences. It would be nice if folks, at least once in awhile, gave the media the credit it deserves for making this country a better place. Is it perfect? No, not even close. But it's a heckuva lot better than media bashers would have us believe.



WouldaShoulda said:


> I think you are catching on.
> 
> Facts don't matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Insurance, Law, Medicine, Real Estate....


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

This whole narrative is more reminiscent to me of the Duke lacrosse incident than anything else. (BTW, no one should confuse "not guilty" with "innocent." The Dukies were not guilty, but they also were not in any way innocent.)

IMO, we've arrived at a point at which the definition of "rape" has become inexcusably elastic, in much the same way as "racism." Some women use "rape" to describe circumstances stemming primarily from their own poor choices and the misguided notion that "it's never too late to say no." My daughter and wife are more incensed over "date rape" charges than I am, pointing out that in nearly every instance the female had ample opportunities to cool things off before they got out of hand. As a result, we have this ludicrous allegation that one in three women have been "sexually assaulted."

Actual sexual assault and rape are terrible crimes. It's a shame that the enormity of these crimes is being diluted by women who decided too late that they maybe shouldn't have had those last five drinks before retiring to that cute guy's bedroom.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Insurance, Law, Medicine, Real Estate....


You really think that the government is better at holding these professions accountable than journalists are at holding fellow journalists accountable? You think that lawyers are better at disciplining lawyers for wrongdoing? That doctors do a good job of disciplining other doctors?

I've got some ocean view property in Arizona you really should take a look at...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I agree that the term has become elastic. I also think that no means no, no matter when the woman says no. Granted, some women make poor choices, but that does not excuse forced sex. Ever. When a woman says no--even if she's drunk, even if she made a poor decision and went to his room, even if she backs out after a lot of heavy petting--and a man nonetheless forces himself on her, that's sexual assault. What would you call it?



MaxBuck said:


> This whole narrative is more reminiscent to me of the Duke lacrosse incident than anything else. (BTW, no one should confuse "not guilty" with "innocent." The Dukies were not guilty, but they also were not in any way innocent.)
> 
> IMO, we've arrived at a point at which the definition of "rape" has become inexcusably elastic, in much the same way as "racism." Some women use "rape" to describe circumstances stemming primarily from their own poor choices and the misguided notion that "it's never too late to say no." My daughter and wife are more incensed over "date rape" charges than I am, pointing out that in nearly every instance the female had ample opportunities to cool things off before they got out of hand. As a result, we have this ludicrous allegation that one in three women have been "sexually assaulted."
> 
> Actual sexual assault and rape are terrible crimes. It's a shame that the enormity of these crimes is being diluted by women who decided too late that they maybe shouldn't have had those last five drinks before retiring to that cute guy's bedroom.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> You think that lawyers are better at disciplining lawyers for wrongdoing?


Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut...



> More specifically, the Independent Counsel concluded that President Clinton testified falsely on three counts under oath in _Clinton v. Jones_. However, Ray chose to decline criminal prosecution in favor of what the _Principles of Federal Prosecution_ call "alternative sanctions". This included being impeached:
> "As a consequence of his conduct in the _Jones v. Clinton_ civil suit and before the federal grand jury, President Clinton incurred significant administrative sanctions. The Independent Counsel considered seven non-criminal alternative sanctions that were imposed in making his decision to decline prosecution: (1) President Clinton's admission of providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; (2) his acknowledgement that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court; (3) the five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine imposed on him by the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas; (4) the civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed on President Clinton by the federal court for violating its orders; (5) the payment of more than $850,000 in settlement to Paula Jones; (6) the express finding by the federal court that President Clinton had engaged in contemptuous conduct; and (7) the substantial public condemnation of President Clinton arising from his impeachment."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I agree that the term has become elastic. *I also think that no means no, no matter when the woman says no.* Granted, some women make poor choices, but that does not excuse forced sex. Ever. When a woman says no--even if she's drunk, even if she made a poor decision and went to his room, even if she backs out after a lot of heavy petting--and a man nonetheless forces himself on her, that's sexual assault. What would you call it?


Does the term 'vinegar strokes' have any currency in the USA?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Sometimes a blind squirrel finds a nut...


Back to the Clinton well, eh?

Journalists may be many things, but blind is not one of them. Accountability is always better accomplished in public than it is behind closed doors.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Does the term 'vinegar strokes' have any currency in the USA?


Rare, but the meaning is grasped. Heh, heh, I said "grasped."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Thank God for the Urban Dictionary!!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> I agree that the term has become elastic. I also think that no means no, no matter when the woman says no. Granted, some women make poor choices, but that does not excuse forced sex. Ever. When a woman says no--even if she's drunk, even if she made a poor decision and went to his room, even if she backs out after a lot of heavy petting--and a man nonetheless forces himself on her, that's sexual assault. What would you call it?


I'd call it cock-teasing, which is as dangerous a behavior now as it ever has been.

Women need to understand that the narrative of "It's never too late to say no" may or may not be morally or ethically defensible, but it's dangerous as hell.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I'd call it cock-teasing, which is as dangerous a behavior now as it ever has been.
> 
> Women need to understand that the narrative of "It's never too late to say no" may or may not be morally or ethically defensible, but it's dangerous as hell.


If only the shoe could be on the other foot, how men's behavior would change.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Edwin Ek said:


> If only the shoe could be on the other foot, how men's behavior would change.


Really?

Would you have it that women are weak, muddle headed, capricious and incapable of rational decisions? Whilst men are calculating, predatory, manipulative and always utterly in control?

Some folk subscribe to a Weltanschauung which is so feminised that they might as well wear their balls in a bra.

Still, I urge such gentlemen: do not be ashamed! Reach out to Uncle Shaver via PM and I will recommend mental and physical exercise which will not only stimulate your testosterone but will also prevent you from appearing foolish in intelligent company.
:thumbs-up:

.
.
.

.
.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Perhaps a little time in a prison could help you understand the notion of consent from a woman's perspective.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Edwin Ek said:


> Perhaps a little time in a prison could help you understand the notion of consent from a woman's perspective.


How so Edwin?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Edwin Ek said:


> Perhaps a little time in a prison could help you understand the notion of consent from a woman's perspective.


The problem with consent is that some want to make it a moving target. 
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

Could you please explain to me what "consent throughout the sexual encounter" means?

The proposal would be that affirmative consent must be given. In writing? Verbal? How often? Every 5 minutes?

I'm not trying to diminish the impact of sexual or deny that it happens, but we have to recognize that college aged men and women are adults and can make choices for themselves without government stepping in as surrogate mommies and daddies.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I'd call it cock-teasing, which is as dangerous a behavior now as it ever has been.
> 
> Women need to understand that the narrative of "It's never too late to say no" may or may not be morally or ethically defensible, but it's dangerous as hell.


It's not so much whether women understand it. Men need to understand it. Doesn't make the woman any less foolish, nor does it make the man any less a rapist.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> It's not so much whether women understand it. Men need to understand it. Doesn't make the woman any less foolish, nor does it make the man any less a rapist.


Allow me to phrase this delicately: pleasant evening, return to apartment together, all manner of behaviour indulged, coitus commences for some protracted period, late change of mind, the next thrust makes a chap a rapist does it?


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ... the next thrust makes a chap a rapist does it?


Yes.
It has moved from two party consent to single party forced.

A beggar approaches and asks for charity. You pull out a wallet and hand over a dollar. The beggar sees the twenty left behind, grabs it in some unscrupulous manner and says thank you. Lines are drawn, decisions made and acted upon. An imperfect parallel, but at some point there is agreement and and some point there is not.

And let us not forget, the man can make that same late change of mind.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Allow me to phrase this delicately: pleasant evening, return to apartment together, all manner of behaviour indulged, coitus commences for some protracted period, late change of mind, the next thrust makes a chap a rapist does it?


Pretty much. Unfortunately. You can't have consensual sex if one party isn't consenting. Non-consensual sex is, by definition, rape. Does it make the woman a two-bit lying tease? Absolutely, it does. But it doesn't make the man any less a rapist.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

ChrisRS said:


> Yes.
> It has moved from two party consent to single party forced.
> 
> A beggar approaches and asks for charity. You pull out a wallet and hand over a dollar. The beggar sees the twenty left behind, grabs it in some unscrupulous manner and says thank you. Lines are drawn, decisions made and acted upon. An imperfect parallel, but at some point there is agreement and and some point there is not.
> ...


An imperfect, some would say thoroughly ridiculous, parallel indeed.

Let's try this instead, which would seem more apt- you are given permission to take a million pounds from someone's wallet but you take a million pounds and one penny. This makes you a thief?


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> This makes you a thief?


Again, yes.
32 above does bring in the shade of gray for discussion, but by the yes / no deterministic question asked, yes.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

ChrisRS said:


> Again, yes.
> 32 above does bring in the shade of gray for discussion, but by the yes / no deterministic question asked, yes.


I would suggest that anyone who can freely give of a million pounds should not fret over a single penny. To do so would be reflective of a wholly perverse mindset, and one which should not be encouraged.

Here's another shade of grey for you to consider: during those moments in which a partner has decided to withdraw 'consent' but prior to this being adequately communicated then is a chap still a rapist? The consent has been withdrawn so, by your logic, he must be.......


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Can consent be withdrawn at at anytime for all topics? If someone consents to military service can they opt out while in the middle of a 5 mile run in full gear? Or in battle? "Screw this, I'm going home"....


----------



## ChrisRS (Sep 22, 2014)

I agree with your suggestion and that is why I knew it was not a perfect parallel. Rights of material possessions and different than rights to self possession. As to the latter shade of grey, and only because you asked, I see a tree, forest and noise analogy. Consent (and the withdrawal of consent) must be communicated, verbally, physically, an obvious signal. 

Why do I think you and I agree on the major points of this discussion but seem to be taking delight in bantering back and forth.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Then, there is the "I was too drunk to withdraw consent and you should have known it!!" rule.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

ChrisRS said:


> Again, yes.
> 32 above does bring in the shade of gray for discussion, but by the yes / no deterministic question asked, yes.


Yes, it does, by definition, make you a thief. Kind of like the zillionaire who asks the woman if she'll have sex with him for $1 million. She says yes. What about five bucks? "What do you think I am?" the woman exclaims with indignation. "We've already established that," the man replies. "We're just talking about price now."

There are few bright lines in this world, but this is one of them.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Then, there is the "I was too drunk to withdraw consent and you should have known it!!" rule.


Indeed. Going off of the "I was too drunk to withhold consent" thought...That the guy is often drunk off his a*s as well often seems to be ignored. In this situation is it not perhaps a double rape? Shouldn't both parties press charges? After a few drinks isn't pretty much everyone too drunk to legally consent? Don 't men often drink more than women? If a restaurant bill was given to the cops showing 8 drinks for the guy but 5 for the woman, shouldn't the woman be charged?

How many guys have woken up to the after effects of the ever famous "beer goggles"? Would you have done the deed sober? No? Then you must have been raped/sexually assaulted, right? After a few pitchers that 2 foot fattie took full advantage of you, right?

Mistakes are made on both sides. I don't ever remember pressing charges on a woman because I regreted things from the night before. Trust me, I was most certainly drunker than any of them when it happened.:devil:

NOTE.... I am not referring to passed out drunk women being assaulted by (half)sober men. There is a big difference.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> It's not so much whether women understand it. Men need to understand it. Doesn't make the woman any less foolish, nor does it make the man any less a rapist.


Refusal to pull out midway through coitus is NOT rape.

Calling it rape cheapens the term.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I'm understanding of a woman deciding during the act that she wants to stop. That makes sense.

But to say that consent needs to not only be affirmative but continuous through the act is confusing. In other words, once the sexual act has begun there needs to be, at regular intervals, consent given by the woman? Her silence or passivity in the matter is not consent as it is not an affirmative act? 

And what the definition of a sex crime may actually be is somewhat open to interpretation. We think of violent rape as the gold standard of sex crimes; what most of us think of. On some campuses however, if a couple of coeds are dancing and one put his/her hands on the others buttock or begins to grind into her, then that qualifies as a sex crime.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ... to say that consent needs to not only be affirmative but continuous through the act is confusing.


Not only confusing, it's ridiculous.

If I asked my wife every fifteen seconds during sex whether she wanted to continue, I'd have big problems. She'd beat the crap out of me, and then divorce me.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

justonemore said:


> Indeed. Going off of the "I was too drunk to withhold consent" thought...That the guy is often drunk off his a*s as well often seems to be ignored. In this situation is it not perhaps a double rape? Shouldn't both parties press charges? After a few drinks isn't pretty much everyone too drunk to legally consent? Don 't men often drink more than women? If a restaurant bill was given to the cops showing 8 drinks for the guy but 5 for the woman, shouldn't the woman be charged?
> 
> How many guys have woken up to the after effects of the ever famous "beer goggles"? Would you have done the deed sober? No? Then you must have been raped/sexually assaulted, right? After a few pitchers that 2 foot fattie took full advantage of you, right?
> 
> ...


You raise an excellent point. Why, when two drunk youngsters have sex, is it only the male who is potentially liable to have a rape charge levied against him after they both sober up?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

32rnr old boy, unless I am in error I recall you advocating ('What's up with the TSA?' thread) the authorities taking nudie photos of and/or groping passengers about to board aircraft. Where's your consent now, eh?

ChrisRS my friend, your confirmation that withdrawal of consent must be communicated by 'an obvious signal' grants enormous latitude. Thank you.

More generally, supporting the wooly-minded notions which allow retrospective withdrawal of consent reeks of pusillanimous moral cowardice.

Excuse me one moment.

What's that Al?

You have something to say?

Well be my guest, please tell the members what is on your mind.


----------



## Anon 18th Cent. (Oct 27, 2008)

Shaver said:


> How so Edwin?


Because in prison men are often forced to perform sex acts that they don't want to do. Of course outside of prison walls the same can happen, but it is much rarer.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yea, it's just you.....

what's this thread about? 

Who is she or he?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> You raise an excellent point. Why, when two drunk youngsters have sex, is it only the male who is potentially liable to have a rape charge levied against him after they both sober up?


Forgive me, MaxBuck and Justonemore, but have either of you ever had sex? It doesn't sound like it.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Forgive me, MaxBuck and Justonemore, but have either of you ever had sex? It doesn't sound like it.


Forgive me. How does this play into drinking, consent, and liability?

I guess you meant it as some type of weird insult? I think I last heard something like that back in High School.

Or are you claiming men don't drink & get drunk to the point of not being able to legally consent?

Perhaps you actually think women are innocent & sweet versus being sexual creatures themselves?

Are you claiming that a man with a .01 is sober enough to consent but a woman with a .005 is too drunk to consent?

Or perhaps you think a drunk man has no rights while a drunk woman should be afforded every protection? A bit sexist isn't it?

For a man it's rape, for a woman it's still "oh that horrible man"... Feminism is pretty much just another special interests group that has sunk to the likes of blaming -ists & antis- for their own (mostly) made up problems.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> Forgive me, MaxBuck and Justonemore, but have either of you ever had sex? It doesn't sound like it.


No, don't believe I will forgive you. Not for awhile, at any rate.

Suggest you think about what you wrote here and perhaps edit it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Forgive me, MaxBuck and Justonemore, but have either of you ever had sex? It doesn't sound like it.





MaxBuck said:


> Suggest you think about what you wrote here and perhaps edit it.


I thought about how it could be edited to make it sound more funny, but I'm stumped!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> No, don't believe I will forgive you. Not for awhile, at any rate.
> 
> Suggest you think about what you wrote here and perhaps edit it.


If you can't grasp why men being raped by women is such a stupid, ridiculous notion, then it cannot be explained by anything short of virginity on your part. Sorry.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> Forgive me. How does this play into drinking, consent, and liability?
> 
> I guess you meant it as some type of weird insult? I think I last heard something like that back in High School.
> 
> ...


Methinks thou doth protest too much.

If you want to get laid and don't know how to go about it, you might consider a visit to Nevada, where brothels are legal. One of the ladies there will be happy to demonstrate the mechanics of sex so that you might have a better understanding of why men have the market cornered in the rape biz.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Refusal to pull out midway through coitus is NOT rape.
> 
> Calling it rape cheapens the term.


So, if a woman says no in unequivocal terms midway through the act and the man keeps going, that's OK? Sorry, but that's not OK. That's rape. What would you call it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> So, if a woman says no in unequivocal terms midway through the act and the man keeps going, that's OK? Sorry, but that's not OK. That's rape. What would you call it?


Sex is like football, once you've broken the plane, you're in!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Methinks thou doth protest too much.
> 
> If you want to get laid and don't know how to go about it, you might consider a visit to Nevada, where brothels are legal. One of the ladies there will be happy to demonstrate the mechanics of sex so that you might have a better understanding of why men have the market cornered in the rape biz.


Still no answer over further insults. I guess your limits on logic have been reached? Is it time for the mods to step in before you blow a gasket?

I'm not sure why the word of a Nevada whore is going to come before that of medical/scientific reasoning. Men can indeed be raped. Men can be coerced into sex. Men can be abused physically. Men can be abused psychologically. Men can be abused verbally. All fact. Nevada whore or no Nevada whore.

I guess a 2 minute websearch was just too complex for you before resorting to insults and idiotic comments?

In 2010, the largest survey of its type in the world - the US Centre for Disease Control's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey - found that the rates of men being forced to penetrate women over the previous year were identical to the rates of women reporting being raped.

OR......

A study done by the CDC found that 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they had been forced to penetrate someone else, usually a woman, had been the victim of an attempt to force penetration, or had been made to receive oral sex.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Male victims of sexual abuse by females[SUP][10][/SUP] often face social, political, and legal double standards.[SUP][11][/SUP] Some cases in the United States have received increased attention and sparked awareness within the population. Sometimes referred to as "made to penetrate" cases, male rape victims are forced to engage in penetration of the female without proper consent. Many times the male victims are under the influence of drugs or alcohol or being held in life-threatening positions. The case of Cierra Ross'[SUP][12][/SUP] sexual assault of a man in Chicago gained national headlines and Ross was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and armed robbery with a bail set at $75,000. In the case of a female being a victim of sexual assault, the male criminal could face up to a life sentence in prison, whereas the punishment for a female rapist is far less severe. A similar case includes James Landrith, who was made to penetrate a female acquaintance in a hotel room while incapacitated from drinking, while his rapist cited the fact that she was pregnant to advise him not to struggle, as this might hurt the baby.[SUP][13][/SUP] [SUP][14][/SUP]
Several widely publicized cases of female-on-male statutory rape in the United States involved school teachers raping their underage students. Federal law states that the age of consent in the United States is 18 nationally, but may range from 16-18 within differing states. Under federal law, any sexual encounters between adults and minors under the age of consent is considered sexual assault (see Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave).

Or... Perehaps you could have cited a journal article or 2? Something with research behind it?

- Many people do not believe that male rape by a female exists. However, penile erection can be achieved under emotional duress such as anger, fear, and pain even if the male does not wish it. (Greenberg, Bruess and Haffner, 576; Lips, 234)

Now what's that about a Nevada whore? Hmmm-. Should I take 32RNR's outdated, ignorant, uneducated, biased OPINION, over that of facts given by researchers, u.s. federal statistics, and even rape intervention centers themselves?

"FORGIVE ME" but I'm calling total BS on your part. Your bluffing, posturing and insults don't make up for fact and it is indeed fact that you are sorely missing. Perhpas if you didn't get your sex ed facts from Nevada whores you could participate a bit more fully?

Oh. By the way. I'm in Europe. Prostitution is legal pretty much everywhere here. Should I desire to cheat on my wife, why on earth would I go to some American dive in the middle of the desert? Perhaps you thought Switzerland was part of the U.S.? Or?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Wow. The CDC is even more screwed up than I thought.

Nothing like a gun to the head (go ahead, make fun) to get a guy in the mood...



justonemore said:


> Still no answer over further insults. I guess your limits on logic have been reached? Is it time for the mods to step in before you blow a gasket?
> 
> I'm not sure why the word of a Nevada whore is going to come before that of medical/scientific reasoning. Men can indeed be raped. Men can be coerced into sex. Men can be abused physically. Men can be abused psychologically. Men can be abused verbally. All fact. Nevada whore or no Nevada whore.
> 
> ...


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Wow. The CDC is even more screwed up than I thought.
> 
> Nothing like a gun to the head (go ahead, make fun) to get a guy in the mood...


And once again you resort to insults over offering any type of backing evidence to your statements. Can you not come up with anything at all to aid your argument? Perhaps something a little more substantial than "thinking" the CDC is "screwed up"?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

justonemore said:


> And once again you resort to insults over offering any type of backing evidence to your statements. Can you not come up with anything at all to aid your argument?


Yes.

It is not possible to frighten a man into the act of penetration. That's common sense. I don't care how many studies you produce that say otherwise. It's kind of like that old line from Richard Pryor: "Who are you going to be believe, me or your lying eyes?" I'm going to go with my, as they say, training and experience when it comes to this, not what is contained in an academic study.

Is it possible for a woman to drug a man then rape him after he has lost consciousness? Well, I can't say, never having had that happen to me. I suppose it is possible, at least on a theoretical basis. I'm pretty confident that if this has occurred, it is not a widespread problem. Certainly not widespread enough to derail a discussion on the very real issue of how to handle male-on-female sexual assault. So, if you want to say gotcha, well, say gotcha.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Obviously this is yet another case of the exception proving the rule false!!


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Yes.
> 
> It is not possible to frighten a man into the act of penetration. That's common sense. I don't care how many studies you produce that say otherwise. It's kind of like that old line from Richard Pryor: "Who are you going to be believe, me or your lying eyes?" I'm going to go with my, as they say, training and experience when it comes to this, not what is contained in an academic study.
> 
> Is it possible for a woman to drug a man then rape him after he has lost consciousness? Well, I can't say, never having had that happen to me. I suppose it is possible, at least on a theoretical basis. I'm pretty confident that if this has occurred, it is not a widespread problem. Certainly not widespread enough to derail a discussion on the very real issue of how to handle male-on-female sexual assault. So, if you want to say gotcha, well, say gotcha.


If you want to turn a blind eye to a reality greater than your own "experiences", then no one can stop you from doing so. Just as long as we agree that it's a self imposed ignorance. The numbers and facts are on my side, you have only opinion based on your limited personal experience.

Based on all this you'll forgive me for being a bit suspect as to your idea of "common sense".

To my knowledge sexual violence was the topic of the thread. Adding further proven facts on the topic derails nothing. Of course as the OP you could have made your desired direction a bit clearer than a one liner & a link versus crying later.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This just in (and back to the original point of the thread): 

Rolling Stone has backed away from the story. Inexplicably, however, it has not been taken down from the website. As inexcusable as not interviewing the alleged perpetrators before initial publication--that in and of itself merits termination of the editor and others responsible for allowing the story to see print.

Shocking that a publication would have run a story like this and acceded to the request of an anonymous victim to not seek out the other side.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

What's more shocking is that a great institution would act in such a way toward its student body based on a story whose own publisher is about to pretend never occurred.

By the way, when did rolling stone magazine become serious journalism?

P.s. Do we even know that "Jackie" was real or is this a Stephen Glass moment?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> What's more shocking is that a great institution would act in such a way toward its student body based on a story whose own publisher is about to pretend never occurred.
> 
> By the way, when did rolling stone magazine become serious journalism?
> 
> P.s. Do we even know that "Jackie" was real or is this a Stephen Glass moment?


My money is on Stephen Glass. And my guess is that some heads at RS will, as they say, roll. Absolutely inexcusable that you would allow the subject of a story to dictate how a story will be reported. Giving anonymity to the "victim" is dangerous enough, but to grant anonymity while not doing everything you can to buttress and corroborate the account of the alleged victim is just shocking. And yes, RS has produced some darn good journalism over the years. Ask McChrystal.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> If you can't grasp why men being raped by women is such a stupid, ridiculous notion, then it cannot be explained by anything short of virginity on your part. Sorry.


I never said a word about "men being raped by women."

Get off your high horse long enough to avoid ascribing to others things they've not said. Insults are bad enough, but this is highfalutin BS.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> This just in (and back to the original point of the thread):
> 
> Rolling Stone has backed away from the story. Inexplicably, however, it has not been taken down from the website. As inexcusable as not interviewing the alleged perpetrators before initial publication--that in and of itself merits termination of the editor and others responsible for allowing the story to see print.
> 
> Shocking that a publication would have run a story like this and acceded to the request of an anonymous victim to not seek out the other side.


Unless it is your beloved NYT doing a hit job is against FSU football players, then you apparently have no problem with the alleged perpetrators or the even the police being interviewed.....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Unless it is your beloved NYT doing a hit job is against FSU football players, then you apparently have no problem with the alleged perpetrators or the even the police being interviewed.....


Wha...???


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Wha...???


This from your FSU thread. The original NYT article you linked to contained no quotes from any of the football players, the TPD, or the FSU PD. Or any mention of them being contacted and them denying comment.



32rollandrock said:


> Nope. Not seeing any difference at all. Both strike me as well-researched and fair. And damning.





vpkozel said:


> Really? Perhaps I missed it in the original article you posted, but where did they have quotes from the FSU or Tallahassee PD? Or even saying that they requested information but they had declined comment?
> 
> And honestly, how in the world do you know if they were well researched or not? Exactly how knowledgeable are you on these specific situations to be able to tell that?
> 
> Tell me, would you have bumped this thread if there had been new findings or events that were not in line with your thinking?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Here is a link to the way the subject should be handled, with everyone named and all sides interviewed--interesting that this one hasn't gotten much national attention: https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/o...f/2014/11/canzano_her_name_is_brenda_tra.html

What's interesting about this is the light it sheds on grey areas that exist even today. In the above case, there doesn't seem much doubt that her allegations are true. Yet, she didn't press charges at the time.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Yikes. This will stop or the thread will be closed.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Here is a link to the way the subject should be handled, with everyone named and all sides interviewed--interesting that this one hasn't gotten much national attention: https://www.oregonlive.com/sports/o...f/2014/11/canzano_her_name_is_brenda_tra.html
> 
> What's interesting about this is the light it sheds on grey areas that exist even today. In the above case, there doesn't seem much doubt that her allegations are true. Yet, she didn't press charges at the time.


I agree that is a very well done article. Perhaps the NYT should make it required reading for its reporters.... :aportnoy:

I hope Riley and OSU both allow her to speak to the young men on their teams.

But this is a double edged sword. I have good friends who were falsely accused of rape and subject to all manner of misreporting, jumping to conclusions, and downright harassment by the UNC newspaper. And when the facts exonerated them, nary a retraction to be seen.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Yikes. This will stop or the thread will be closed.


Not sure what the concern is...


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The nasty gutter level personal insults that have flown all through here and could be getting infractions on all sides of the fight.

No more crack's about anyone's sex life or manhood from either side. If I have to close the thread, I may infract the next person.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Then there is this gem...



> Regardless of how factual Jackie's story may be, who's to say there isn't a sexual assault problem?
> 
> Also, the purpose of the article was to show how sexual assault is a problem at colleges. The journalist who wrote it was looking for a victim she could tell the story through. Maybe she should have chosen someone else, but we shouldn't let the problems with Jackie's story overshadow the sexual assault problem.
> 
> That's what's happening however. Everyone is more concerned with a few pieces of misinformation than the fact that female students are being sexually assaulted. Even if Jackie wasn't, there are other students in the story, the school, and other colleges across the country who are victims.


https://blog.timesunion.com/highsch...etting-attention-for-the-wrong-reasons/45678/

Is it me or is this sounding like the Dan Rather phony Bush service document doesn't matter line??

If things really are that bad, one shouldn't have to make up a load of crap!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Then there is this gem...
> 
> https://blog.timesunion.com/highsch...etting-attention-for-the-wrong-reasons/45678/
> 
> ...


We can't say whether things are this bad or not. I recall, many years ago, a story about a fraternity initiation ritual at the University of Washington in which sheep, according to the official police report, became "overheated and agitated." That was all that came to public light at the time with a lot left to the imagination. Here are links to a couple stories about it: https://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900125&slug=1052653 https://news.google.com/newspapers?...HUzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZfADAAAAIBAJ&pg=5689,2719777

What, exactly, happened has never been revealed, although there has been, as I understand, a good deal of insinuation made, and understandably. I don't profess to know what happened. I am, however, dumbstruck by the notion that college students would allow themselves to be smeared with peanut butter and whatever else was involved in the presence of sheep that were in some degree of distress when police arrived. I can't fathom wanting to belong to an organization that does that, but lots of people, apparently, want to belong to organizations that do things like this. Again, neither you nor I will ever know what happened to those sheep or what is happening today on college campuses. But lordy.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That's easy, just interview the sheep.

Sloppy journalism strikes again!!


----------

