Warwick student rejects consent lessons.

Tarzana2

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I did.



Not necessarily, I'd say the accuser is at more of a disadvantage as it is difficult to prove. Now, I think that people accused of rape should be afforded anonymity unless they are found guilty. But I think this kind of case is difficult to prove, so people who didn't get consent have probably gotten away with in the past too, as well as people making false accusations because they regret that one night stand. It's a tricky area.

It is an incredibly tricky area, but if I did get worked up it's to do with what are essentially witch trials that have occurred on many college campuses in America and elsewhere, where the exact scenario I've specified has led to males being labeled as rapists and kicked out of college.

Believe me, I'm not saying that a guy who has sexual intercourse who didn't or is unable to give consent isn't a rapist, but it's really not as clear cut as that otherwise.

Plryty

Anita Blow wrote: »

I'm only saying this in the context that I've seen a lot of SU campaigns recently targeting males have sex with women on nights out and who push the narrative I've described.

It's a case of self justified existence. Student unions 99% of the time are ignored by the student population because they don't actually do anything of benefit to the campus population except legal & grant aid.

Call a spade a spade. These type of campaigns often amount to a power play. Something tells me this class won't be calling gays potential rapists in need of learning about consent. The type of people who set them up tend to be narcissists or people with inferiority complexes looking for validation in their social standing, they often have no history of helping the likes of rape victims through charity raises, or being involved in that sphere at all. They use these campaigns as an outlet for trying to control or take power through a cause that on the surface many support. Be it "men don't be a rapist" campaigns, transgender support for Bruce, wearing a sexist shirt campaigns etc.

This line of thinking on consent has already resulted in ridiculous cases in California, whereby male college students have been targeted as rapists because they have misread a social cue by a woman they were trying to chat up & leaned in to kiss her. Not all men are expert seducers, it's a learning curve to differentiate body signals and speech in terms of sexual attraction. I can't imagine many women fawning over their partner asking them "I am now planning to have intercourse with you, do you consent" in the heat of the moment

zeffabelli

Let's call a spade a spade.

This is puritanical evangelicalism, masquerading as the protection of women, directing the law into deciding what is acceptable sex.

osarusan

Are we at a nice frothy rage yet?

Dimithy

suicide_circus wrote: »

Feebleminded gender studies types with a penchant for outrage and shrill hysteria becoming parodies of themselves. Gotta love it.

Definitely none of that in this thread...

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

Are we at a nice frothy rage yet?

It's more likely the people running these classes are in a nice frothy rage TBH. People like this generally are. A lot of the time they're people angry at life and feel like victims but choose to blame one gender, race class or whatever for their problems.

Dimithy

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's more likely the people running these classes are in a nice frothy rage TBH. People like this generally are. A lot of the time they're people angry at life and feel like victims but choose to blame one gender, race class or whatever for their problems.

It's more likely the people against these classes are in a nice frothy rage TBH. People like this generally are. A lot of the time they're people angry at life and feel like victims but choose to blame one gender, race class or whatever for their problems.

steddyeddy

Dimithy wrote: »

It's more likely the people against these classes are in a nice frothy rage TBH. People like this generally are. A lot of the time they're people angry at life and feel like victims but choose to blame one gender, race class or whatever for their problems.

I'm not against them I just wouldn't go to one. Like I wouldn't go to a class teaching me not to rob, murder or beat children.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's more likely the people running these classes are in a nice frothy rage TBH. People like this generally are. A lot of the time they're people angry at life and feel like victims but choose to blame one gender, race class or whatever for their problems.

It's more likely we don't know.


We don't know how they were invited (specific invitations or blanket invitations).

We don't know if the are gender specific invitations or sessions.

We don't know what the content is.

But the assumptions about these things we don't know have been almost uniformly the same. That's the outrage I'm talking about.


I have no idea what that specific session is about, but I do know somebody who went to one in London. My cousin actually.

A big part of it, according to him, was aimed at reassuring freshers who might be without family or friends and feeling a bit lonely or insecure, and wanting to fit in and make friends and so on, that even if they'd kissed somebody, even if they'd agreed to go back to somebody's house, even if they'd gone back to somebody's house, even if they'd agreed to have sex, even if they were in bed, and about to have sex....that it was still ok to change their mind, and not give in to pressure to have sex. That it wasn't something they should feel they should do or have to do.

I'd say that there are some first-years who would find that worthwhile.

But hey, like I said, outrage. It's more fun.

tritium

Dimithy wrote: »

It's more likely the people against these classes are in a nice frothy rage TBH. People like this generally are. A lot of the time they're people angry at life and feel like victims but choose to blame one gender, race class or whatever for their problems.

You know, given that these classes aren't actually aimed at known sex offenders, but rather at people who are essentially innocent, your post reads a lot like victim blaming

That or a damn lazy cut and paste attempt at a soundbyte......

Dimithy

tritium wrote: »

You know, given that these classes aren't actually aimed at known sex offenders, but rather at people who are essentially innocent, your post reads a lot like victim blaming

That or a damn lazy cut and paste attempt at a soundbyte......

You're going to have to tell me exactly who I have been victim blaming? Victims of what?

tritium

osarusan wrote: »

A big part of it, according to him, was aimed at reassuring freshers who might be without family or friends and feeling a bit lonely or insecure, and wanting to fit in, that even if they'd kissed somebody, even if they'd agreed to go back to somebody's house, even if they'd gone back to somebody's house, even if they'd agreed to have sex, even if they were in bed, and about to have sex....that it was still ok to change their mind, and not give in to pressure to have sex.

I'm sure many people doing this are well intentioned, but the way you describe it there it actually for some reason feels kind of creepy/cultish. Its not that the message isn't in itself reasonable, more the eerie need to hammer home the emphasis especially for people who were lonely or insecure.......

Lord PuppyMcSnuggle of Cuddleshire

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not against them I just wouldn't go to one. Like I wouldn't go to a class teaching me not to rob, murder or beat children.

Yeah it's like we just have to repeat "men are rapists and oppressors" enough times and eventually it'll be seen as true. Let's just carry on and behave as though this is true and eventually it'll be internalised.
Cults seem to love that whole "original sin" thing.

You know what really is needed in many colleges? Classes on how to drink within your own limits and not above that. Sensible alcohol consumption.

tritium

Dimithy wrote: »

You're going to have to tell me exactly who I have been victim blaming? Victims of what?

So someone receives an invite they object to because it paints them as needing to understand consent better, cause you know, they just don't get it, they just don't listen. And they object to this because frankly, they're pretty sure that's not true. But somehow they're the ones who are sad and angry at the world.

Right?

FortySeven

Why is it that being blind drunk is not a defence when having non consented sex yet is considered as a factor when the question of being able to consent comes up?

steddyeddy

osarusan wrote: »

It's more likely we don't know.


We don't know how they were invited (specific invitations or blanket invitations).

We don't know if the are gender specific invitations or sessions.

We don't know what the content is.

But the assumptions about these things we don't know have been almost uniformly the same. That's the outrage I'm talking about.


I have no idea what that specific session is about, but I do know somebody who went to one in London. My cousin actually.

A big part of it, according to him, was aimed at reassuring freshers who might be without family or friends and feeling a bit lonely or insecure, and wanting to fit in and make friends and so on, that even if they'd kissed somebody, even if they'd agreed to go back to somebody's house, even if they'd gone back to somebody's house, even if they'd agreed to have sex, even if they were in bed, and about to have sex....that it was still ok to change their mind, and not give in to pressure to have sex. That it wasn't something they should feel they should do or have to do.

I'd say that there are some first-years who would find that worthwhile.

But hey, like I said, outrage. It's more fun.

Actually they held something similar in Dublin. That's a good idea. Keep feminists away from the organising and it can be taken seriously IMO. Again I'm not outraged.

osarusan

tritium wrote: »

So someone receives an invite they object to because it paints them as needing to understand consent better, cause you know, they just don't get it, they just don't listen.

Do we know that people (like the student from the OP) were invited because somebody else felt they needed to understand consent better?

I don't think we do.

Maybe he was specifically invited - then he'd have every reason to be angry at being painted in such a light.

But, as mentioned earlier, it could have been a blanket invitation to everybody who was a facebook 'friend' or similar. If that is the case, his anger and disgust is fairly groundless I'd say, at the invitation itself at least, rather than the concept of the session itself.

Azalea

The reaction to him - as if he's some sort of misogynistic maniac - really lets feminists down, and worse again, galvanises the "gender war". I'm a woman and it would be like me getting angry about some initiative that demonises women, and then being considered a feminazi purely based on that justifiable reaction.

His annoyance is completely understandable in my opinion.

osarusan

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually they held something similar in Dublin. That's a good idea. Keep feminists away from the organising and it can be taken seriously IMO. Again I'm not outraged.

No, your posts have been balanced.

But there are a number of posters happy to paint this as yet another example of 'males-being-blamed' without any evidence that I can see.

Dimithy

tritium wrote: »

So someone receives an invite they object to because it paints them as needing to understand consent better, cause you know, they just don't get it, they just don't listen. And they object to this because frankly, they're pretty sure that's not true. But somehow they're the ones who are sad and angry at the world.

Right?

Oh right, wasn't aiming anything at the guy in the OP directly.
I just thought it was fun generalizing, and assigning motivations to a group of people i don't know in an attempt to make them seem unreasonable, and thus any argument they put forward not worthy of your time.

Dimithy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually they held something similar in Dublin. That's a good idea. Keep feminists away from the organising and it can be taken seriously IMO. Again I'm not outraged.

What gives you the idea that there were no feminists involved?

tritium

osarusan wrote: »

Do we know that people (like the student from the OP) were invited because somebody else felt they needed to understand consent better?

I don't think we do.

Maybe he was specifically invited - then he'd have every reason to be angry at being painted in such a light.

But, as mentioned earlier, it could have been a blanket invitation to everybody who was a facebook 'friend' or similar. If that is the case, his anger and disgust is fairly groundless I'd say, at the invitation itself at least, rather than the concept of the session itself.

Hatless in the post below yours explained it pretty well. By all means have an open event around issues of consent, but when you start inviting folks to a meeting to ' explain' consent there's something a bit, well, off. Because of course much as different groups would like to pretend its so simple, the evidence says its not. Most people can get the easy ones. Comatose girl/ sober guy, no question. Clear no taken as a yes, obvious! What about the not so easy ones: both parties hammered and drunkenly up for it? What about where neither party really remembers very much the next morning? Frankly, without a team of QCs present anyone trying to give a definitive answer on those ones is an idiot!

osarusan

tritium wrote: »

Hatless in the post below yours explained it pretty well.

It explains the reaction pretty well - but not his apparent insult and anger.

As I said, if he was specifically invited, yeah, he should be angry.

But if everybody on some hundreds-long list on facebook was invited, he really shouldn't be, any more than I should take it personally and get angry when I see that TV ad with the guy who has since died from cancer telling people to stop smoking when I already don't smoke and how stupid do you think I am that I need to be told that.

Paramite Pie

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I doubt anyone would argue that alcohol consumption alone invalidates consent. Someone has three drinks and that makes their consent invalid? Hardly. It's referring to people who are clearly very worse for wear and barely conscious or coherent.

That's an unfair bias that men are taking home barley conscious girls, one that's not based on the facts.

A person doesn't have to be barely conscious/coherent to forget the events of their night out.

http://time.com/3635960/drinking-blackout/

When someone blacks out, it means that while they appear to be awake, alert and intoxicated, their brain is actually not making long-term memories of what’s happening. If a person experiencing a blackout is asked what happened to them just 10 minutes ago, they will have no idea.

Awake & alert it says. Clearly going by your own statement you wouldn't recognise someone able to consent either. We need to tackle the myth of guys taking home unconscious girls that some women seem to have. It's not as straightforward as you claim. This law is referring to any gaps in your night out -- which let's face it most students have.

It's a real grey area and a legal and moral minefield.

Tarzana2

Deleted User wrote: »

It is an incredibly tricky area, but if I did get worked up it's to do with what are essentially witch trials that have occurred on many college campuses in America and elsewhere, where the exact scenario I've specified has led to males being labeled as rapists and kicked out of college.

Yes, I agree, it is terrible, I couldn't believe it reading about that Columbia University case. Nobody should be kicked out of college when nothing is proven.

Dimithy

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes, I agree, it is terrible, I couldn't believe it reading about that Columbia University case. Nobody should be kicked out of college when nothing is proven.

I still struggle to understand why the University investigates these kinds of things. Surely that should be left to the police? The people who's job that is.

How does a University, or college, have the resources or expertise to investigate something like that?

AllGunsBlazing

Requesting permission to come aboard.


Please sign to consent here......

Azalea

osarusan wrote: »

It explains the reaction pretty well - but not his apparent insult and anger.

As I said, if he was specifically invited, yeah, he should be angry.

But if everybody on some hundreds-long list on facebook was invited, he really shouldn't be, any more than I should take it personally and get angry when I see that TV ad with the guy who has since died from cancer telling people to stop smoking when I already don't smoke and how stupid do you think I am that I need to be told that.

I can understand why a guy would be pissed off by the consent classes existing in the first place though.

All I'm doing is putting myself in their shoes and imagining classes on "Not being a slut" or something.

This stuff is just helping exacerbate tensions between the genders (which I am convinced social media has the main role in causing) and is grist to the mill for "red pill" types too, perfect ammunition for them.

Tarzana2

Paramite Pie wrote: »

That's an unfair bias that men are taking home barley conscious girls, one that's not based on the facts.

Well, that depends on each individual case. It may well be the facts in some instances. You can't make a blanket statement like that, as every case will differ. It's not unfair or biased if it's what happened.