Warwick student rejects consent lessons.

BlaasForRafa · 16-10-2015 03:57AM

This video is worth a watch as to the current situation on american and canadian universities because what happens there inevitably winds up happening in Irish and UK universities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B08g2jvMRwg

DivingDuck · 16-10-2015 04:39AM

Hatless wrote: »

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.

Firstly, they are profoundly different things. In Europe, "Being a slut" is not a crime. Rape, however, is.

Secondly, there are many places where young people do indeed receive instruction on how not to be a slut. Consider Catholic schools where the contraception discussion is limited to "just abstain from sex", or the Purity Ball concept which continues to exist in the USA.

I can't understand how anyone would be offended by the existence of these classes. Considering the frankly terrifying statistics coming in from the US (which suggest that, at one college at least, nearly 20% of female freshmen have experienced rape or attempted rape during their freshman year), it's unsurprising that UK universities are trying to prevent the same from happening there.

There are numerous examples in the media where the guy in question, who was later found guilty of rape by the court, appeared to genuinely believe that he was not guilty of sexual assault and that the girl had been a willing participant. I think many of those guys could be helped by this seminar. I think girls who would be inclined to give a maybe when they really meant yes (or no) could be helped by it, too.

If someone feels it doesn't apply to them, then don't go. People within their rights to refrain from attending. But it's foolish for someone to assume that just because they don't need something explained to them means that absolutely everyone can grasp the same concept without assistance.

By the sound of things, the class seems to focus on opening a dialogue before there's any action, which can only be a good thing in my book. It doesn't sound like man-bashing. It discusses the unfair and lopsided stereotype that girls can't sexually assault guys, encourages both sides to be direct: not to give mixed messages, and not to interpret a no as a maybe.

How can anybody be offended by that?

Ficheall · 16-10-2015 06:04AM

I vaguely (if I can recall more clearly when I wake up fully, I'll update this) recall, while working in another uni in Birmingham about a year and a half ago, getting an email, sent to all staff, to fill in a quiz on some similarly common sense subject, and if the quiz were not answered or too many answers were wrong, you'd keep receiving emails etc.

I just answered the quiz because I was lazy, but I do remember being bothered at having to do it.

I don't know if that's any way similar, or if I'm imagining things, but if so, I can empathise with your man.

Needlederm · 16-10-2015 07:20AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

Firstly, they are profoundly different things. In Europe, "Being a slut" is not a crime. Rape, however, is.

Secondly, there are many places where young people do indeed receive instruction on how not to be a slut. Consider Catholic schools where the contraception discussion is limited to "just abstain from sex", or the Purity Ball concept which continues to exist in the USA.

I can't understand how anyone would be offended by the existence of these classes. Considering the frankly terrifying statistics edition.cnn.com/2015/05/20/living/feat-rape-freshmen-women-new-study/"]coming in from hich suggest that, at one college at least, nearly 20% of female freshmen have experienced rape or attempted rape during their freshman year), it's unsurprising that UK universities are trying to prevent the same from happening there.

There are numerous examples in the media where the guy in question, who was later found guilty of rape by the court, appeared to genuinely believe that he was not guilty of sexual assault and that the girl had been a willing participant. I think many of those guys could be helped by this seminar. I think girls who would be inclined to give a maybe when they really meant yes (or no) could be helped by it, too.

If someone feels it doesn't apply to them, then don't go. People within their rights to refrain from attending. But it's foolish for someone to assume that just because they don't need something explained to them means that absolutely everyone can grasp the same concept without assistance.

By the sound of things,hexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/so-whats-an-i-heart-consent-university-workshop-actually-like-317 class seems to focus on opening a dialore there's any action, which can only be a good thing in my book. It doesn't sound like man-bashing. It discusses the unfair and lopsided stereotype that girls can't sexually assault guys, encourages both sides to be direct: not to give mixed messages, and not to interpret a no as a maybe.

How can anybody be offended by that?

1 in 5 women in American colleges are not raped, if you read the actual statistics correctly you'll see it'd actually closer to about 1 in 250.

The 1 in 5 nonsense is feminist propoganda.

tritium · 16-10-2015 07:40AM

Needlederm wrote: »

1 in 5 women in American colleges are not raped, if you read the actual statistics correctly you'll see it'd actually closer to about 1 in 250.

The 1 in 5 nonsense is feminist propoganda.

Of a variety that actually only makes non-feminists suspicious of any programme that may be influenced by such a mindset, regardless how well intentioned....

suicide_circus · 16-10-2015 08:10AM

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

This video is worth a watch as to the current situation on american and canadian universities because what happens there inevitably winds up happening in Irish and UK universities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B08g2jvMRwg

That video was not good for my blood pressure

Jon Stark · 16-10-2015 08:18AM

Medusa22 wrote: »

I disagree with his posting a photo of himself holding a sign that reads ''This is not what a rapist looks like'', unfortunately there is no way to identify what a rapist looks like, they don't wear signs and there is no certain ''look'', otherwise we'd be able to identify them for ourselves.

That is something that irritates me so much. There is no typical physical profile for a rapist and he's shown himself up to being a bit of an air head with that picture.

Personally I would feel a bit patronised about being asked to attend such a class, but Meh, if someone wants to arrange non obligatory classes let them at it.

TBH this just seems to me that a guy, who already contributed to a media outlet, saw his opportunity to finally achieve that dream of getting himself trending.

suicide_circus · 16-10-2015 08:25AM

Jon Stark wrote: »

That is something that irritates me so much. There is no typical physical profile for a rapist and he's shown himself up to being a bit of an air head with that picture.

Personally I would feel a bit patronised about being asked to attend such a class, but Meh, if someone wants to arrange non obligatory classes let them at it.

TBH this just seems to me that a guy, who already contributed to a media outlet, saw his opportunity to finally achieve that dream of getting himself trending.

The desire to get trending fuels a plethora of pathetic bullshít including these rape classes.

Jon Stark · 16-10-2015 08:31AM

They are most certainly Bullsh1t I'm not disagreeing.

silverharp · 16-10-2015 08:32AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

That video was not good for my blood pressure

if that kind of stuff comes over here, I will be telling my son to never date on campus that he is only one crazy girl away from having his life ruined.

osarusan · 16-10-2015 09:46AM

Azalea wrote: »

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

That would depend on the content of them surely.

If it is full of 'lets teach you men not to rape' then yeah, it's pointless, patronising and insulting nonsense. If it's similar to what I mentioned earlier, then it's probably worthwhile for some people.

blue note · 16-10-2015 10:04AM

DivingDuck wrote: »

I can't understand how anyone would be offended by the existence of these classes. Considering the frankly terrifying statistics coming in from the US (which suggest that, at one college at least, nearly 20% of female freshmen have experienced rape or attempted rape during their freshman year), it's unsurprising that UK universities are trying to prevent the same from happening there.

I'd be highly skeptical of that figure unless I heard some more about how they arrived at it. In fact, I'd assume it to be untrue unless I hears how they came to it.

It's probably something along the lines of "has a man ever tried to take you home with him while you were under the influence of alcohol?" if they answer yes they might categorise it as attempted rape even though it might have been two people who had a few drinks, the guys asks if the girl would like to come back with him. She says no and he waits with her until she gets in a taxi and says maybe they'll go for another drink sometime. And from that, he's an attempted rapist.

meeeeh · 16-10-2015 10:18AM

blue note wrote: »

I'd be highly skeptical of that figure unless I heard some more about how they arrived at it. In fact, I'd assume it to be untrue unless I hears how they came to it.

It's probably something along the lines of "has a man ever tried to take you home with him while you were under the influence of alcohol?" if they answer yes they might categorise it as attempted rape even though it might have been two people who had a few drinks, the guys asks if the girl would like to come back with him. She says no and he waits with her until she gets in a taxi and says maybe they'll go for another drink sometime. And from that, he's an attempted rapist.

Maybe reading the link you are commenting would help:

The study did not include the behavior of fondling or touching and did not include cases that involved an individual overwhelming a woman with arguments for sex or continually pressing for sex.

The definition in this study solely included cases involving the threat of force or the use of force, or incapacitation so that a woman could not resist or consent, said Carey, the lead author.

Though the study was done at only one school and does not necessarily signal what's happening at colleges across the country, Carey says the body of evidence suggests a similar pattern on most campuses.

"There can be regional differences and there can be sub-cultural differences, and so we wouldn't expect that the data that we found in New York would be exactly the data that we might find in Arizona, but ... the more survey studies, the more assessments that we have out there that are sort of revealing somewhat similar findings, the more confidence that we have that it is a somewhat generalizable picture that we're seeing here."

That being said I think those courses are a bit of a nonsense.

silverharp · 16-10-2015 10:32AM

Maybe they should have classes for black people to not deal drugs or mugging, maybe one for Muslims to not become terrorists? It seems a logical extension

RWCNT · 16-10-2015 10:39AM

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Surely the dude who wrote the article is the one most guilty of the outrage and shrill hysteria here?

Along with everybody else deciding to jump on their beloved anti-feminism/PC brigade/gender studies soapbox and get all sensitive because they've decided to assume the whole thing is solely aimed at men.

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2015 10:46AM

silverharp wrote: »

Maybe they should have classes for black people to not deal drugs or mugging, maybe one for Muslims to not become terrorists? It seems a logical extension

It's about as logical an extension as people wondering whether anyone else here can answer for them whether they were raped or not. It shows that the people asking that question clearly do not understand rape, if they have to ask anyone else whether they were raped or not. If they personally don't want to claim they were raped, then their anecdotes about sexual assault are neither here nor there, and those same people asking whether they were raped, can only answer that question for themselves.

They shouldn't assume that what they would or wouldn't call rape, should be the standard that applies to everyone else. They can only apply their own standards to themselves.

zeffabelli · 16-10-2015 10:49AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's about as logical an extension as people wondering whether anyone else here can answer for them whether they were raped or not. It shows that the people asking that question clearly do not understand rape, if they have to ask anyone else whether they were raped or not. If they personally don't want to claim they were raped, then their anecdotes about sexual assault are neither here nor there, and those same people asking whether they were raped, can only answer that question for themselves.

They shouldn't assume that what they would or wouldn't call rape, should be the standard that applies to everyone else. They can only apply their own standards to themselves.

This is perpetuating the problem... Any kind of consensus on whatnot is... It's becoming more and more subjective...

This is unworkable.

meeeeh · 16-10-2015 11:00AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is perpetuating the problem... Any kind of consensus on whatnot is... It's becoming more and more subjective...

This is unworkable.

Yes and not. Rape inside of marriage for example was not defined as rape. That doesn't mean those who had sex against their will didn't feel violated. Not every sexual attack is equally bad but just because victims sometimes aren't aware they shouldn't be abused that doesn't mean crime happened. Especially important in case of minors and vulnerable people. Sometimes you can't rely just on victim's perception of the crime.

I do agree that line around consensus is becoming very blurred but it certainly can't be defined just by victim's feelings (that also includes buyer's remorse on the other side. Just because someone regrets it next morning it doesn't automatically mean it was rape).

tritium · 16-10-2015 11:16AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They shouldn't assume that what they would or wouldn't call rape, should be the standard that applies to everyone else. They can only apply their own standards to themselves.

Isn't that one if the major problems with respect to rape though? Whenever the latest set of "1 in 4 are victims" reports come out it inevitably comes down to how broadly you interpret the term. Would that number meet the legal standard of proof - hell no. Would that number represent to any degree only cases where the alleged rapist believed they were acting without consent - hell no. Would that number represent a lot of jesuitical gymnastics to get the 'right' answer, oftentimes yes. And the response is usually that the laws an ass (sometimes yes, sometimes no), we should lower the burden of proof and we should just believe any allegation, maybe even via a convenient kangaroo court.

Of course its as bad on the other side if the fence. A wall of noise to tell us women are bitches who make up stories to ruin lives. An equally distasteful penchant for bad statistics.

And in the middle real victims in all sides are used to feed the mill. No-one particularly gives a **** about them apart from advancing a particular position. Hell we have people who would never believe they were assaulted elevated to victims and assured of their need to be traumatised. We have a gender war placing everyone in a neat role whether they want it or not. Could we maybe, you know, the not crazy extremists, try to have a discussion and come to a position where the other side isn't the enemy and it's not about winning?

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2015 11:17AM

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is perpetuating the problem... Any kind of consensus on whatnot is... It's becoming more and more subjective...

This is unworkable.

It's not becoming any more subjective than it was already objectively defined by the laws in whatever jurisdiction you're in. It's completely workable within those laws, and has been for some time now. If a person is questioning whether they were the victim of sexual assault or rape (seems to be particularly men bringing up this point?), then they're asking the wrong people. Instead, they should have made a report to the authorities, and investigating officers would then decide whether to arrest the other person (not the person who thinks they have been a victim of sexual assault or rape) on suspicion of sexual assault or rape.

That's how it works, and if the same posters here asking the question weren't just trying to raise a meaningless point based on their misunderstanding of rape, then they are evidence that some form of education is necessary.

Call me a cynic, but I personally think those posters have to be taking the piss purely to jump on the outrage bandwagon that this same idiot in the OP is on.

zeffabelli · 16-10-2015 11:28AM

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes and not. Rape inside of marriage for example was not defined as rape. That doesn't mean those who had sex against their will didn't feel violated. Not every sexual attack is equally bad but just because victims sometimes aren't aware they shouldn't be abused that doesn't mean crime happened. Especially important in case of minors and vulnerable people. Sometimes you can't rely just on victim's perception of the crime.

I do agree that line around consensus is becoming very blurred but it certainly can't be defined just by victim's feelings (that also includes buyer's remorse on the other side. Just because someone regrets it next morning it doesn't automatically mean it was rape).

The problem is these rape by fraud laws that are coming in ...

Married men who fail to disclose their marital status... Is that rape?

I have four glasses of wine, my consent is invalidated, sorry but I just refuse to accept that.

The language around rape discussions is black and white and now the lines are blurred ....

bodice ripper · 16-10-2015 11:32AM

A male friend of mine was living with a few self-proclaimed feminists, he was the only male in the house. I went to visit him, and in the kitchen above the table they had pasted up a bunch of feminist pamphlets; including a particularly massive "no means no". I had some go at them for that. All that bull**** posturing served only to undermine their point and insult my friend.

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2015 11:47AM

tritium wrote: »

Isn't that one if the major problems with respect to rape though? Whenever the latest set of "1 in 4 are victims" reports come out it inevitably comes down to how broadly you interpret the term. Would that number meet the legal standard of proof - hell no. Would that number represent to any degree only cases where the alleged rapist believed they were acting without consent - hell no. Would that number represent a lot of jesuitical gymnastics to get the 'right' answer, oftentimes yes. And the response is usually that the laws an ass (sometimes yes, sometimes no), we should lower the burden of proof and we should just believe any allegation, maybe even via a convenient kangaroo court.

Of course its as bad on the other side if the fence. A wall of noise to tell us women are bitches who make up stories to ruin lives. An equally distasteful penchant for bad statistics.

And in the middle real victims in all sides are used to feed the mill. No-one particularly gives a **** about them apart from advancing a particular position. Hell we have people who would never believe they were assaulted elevated to victims and assured of their need to be traumatised. We have a gender war placing everyone in a neat role whether they want it or not. Could we maybe, you know, the not crazy extremists, try to have a discussion and come to a position where the other side isn't the enemy and it's not about winning?

I think we'd last about ten minutes tritium tbh

Seriously though, I do agree with the general point you're making about gender wars and the agenda pushing, and I do agree with you about the college kangaroo courts, disciplinary hearings, whatever anyone wants to call them. I do agree with the general point you're making, but we both know as soon as it comes down to a question of funding and finance, it's no longer a question of shaking hands and agreeing, so much as lying, cheating and spinning whatever narrative suits us in order to get the funds we need, and to hell with anyone else.

zeffabelli wrote: »

The problem is these rape by fraud laws that are coming in ...

Married men who fail to disclose their marital status... Is that rape?

I have four glasses of wine, my consent is invalidated, sorry but I just refuse to accept that.

The language around rape discussions is black and white and now the lines are blurred ....

But you're under no obligation to personally accept that your consent is invalidated whenever. You can even pull a Chrissie Hynde or a Grace Dunham if you want, and nobody can say boo to you, you're an adult.

But, you wouldn't be able to say to someone else that they could still consent after four glasses or whatever it is (I'm guessing you're alluding to the BAC standard?), because they never agreed to the same standards as you hold for yourself.

zeffabelli · 16-10-2015 12:08PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think we'd last about ten minutes tritium tbh

Seriously though, I do agree with the general point you're making about gender wars and the agenda pushing, and I do agree with you about the college kangaroo courts, disciplinary hearings, whatever anyone wants to call them. I do agree with the general point you're making, but we both know as soon as it comes down to a question of funding and finance, it's no longer a question of shaking hands and agreeing, so much as lying, cheating and spinning whatever narrative suits us in order to get the funds we need, and to hell with anyone else.

But you're under no obligation to personally accept that your consent is invalidated whenever. You can even pull a Chrissie Hynde or a Grace Dunham if you want, and nobody can say boo to you, you're an adult.

But, you wouldn't be able to say to someone else that they could still consent after four glasses or whatever it is (I'm guessing you're alluding to the BAC standard?), because they never agreed to the same standards as you hold for yourself.

Chrissy Hynde was publicly shamed for her own self assessment and on these boards too.

Can you see the problem... It creates far too much instability of meaning....

No you're right I can't assess the effects of four glasses of wine on someone but aren't you still responsible for your words and actions regardless of how drunk you are?

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2015 12:28PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Chrissy Hynde was publicly shamed for her own self assessment and on these boards too.

She was because she knew she would court controversy for her shyte talk - "I'm not saying anything controversial, am I?", knowing full well that what she was putting out there in the public domain would cause controversy. She wasn't shamed for her self-assessment, she was condemned for thinking her self-assessment could be applied to anyone else but herself.

Can you see the problem... It creates far too much instability of meaning....

I can only see a problem for those people who choose to put their own satisfaction above the welfare of someone else. Of course that has every chance of coming back to bite them, but most people know where the line is between what they want, and who they choose to use to get it. There's no instability of meaning there at all, just the difference between a layman's understanding of consent, and the concept of consent within a legal context related to criminal offences against another person.

No you're right I can't assess the effects of four glasses of wine on someone but aren't you still responsible for your words and actions regardless of how drunk you are?

Not necessarily, which is why I'd never encourage anyone to believe anything so definitive, especially when it comes to sex. Being drunk in and of itself isn't illegal, nor does it make a person in any way responsible for someone else's actions. If a person is going to make a point about personal responsibility - it starts with the person themselves, rather than suggesting the other person should be responsible for themselves, in an attempt to divert responsibility for their own actions from themselves.

zeffabelli · 16-10-2015 12:33PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She was because she knew she would court controversy for her shyte talk - "I'm not saying anything controversial, am I?", knowing full well that what she was putting out there in the public domain would cause controversy. She wasn't shamed for her self-assessment, she was condemned for thinking her self-assessment could be applied to anyone else but herself.

I can only see a problem for those people who choose to put their own satisfaction above the welfare of someone else. Of course that has every chance of coming back to bite them, but most people know where the line is between what they want, and who they choose to use to get it. There's no instability of meaning there at all, just the difference between a layman's understanding of consent, and the concept of consent within a legal context related to criminal offences against another person.

Not necessarily, which is why I'd never encourage anyone to believe anything so definitive, especially when it comes to sex. Being drunk in and of itself isn't illegal, nor does it make a person in any way responsible for someone else's actions. If a person is going to make a point about personal responsibility - it starts with the person themselves, rather than suggesting the other person should be responsible for themselves, in an attempt to divert responsibility for their own actions from themselves.

Communication is two ways and alcohol makes meaning very unstable. Ask anyone who grew up in an alcoholic home.,

And sex too... There are no greater paranoiac semiologists than lovers .... Always wondering what things mean ... Obsessing over text messages... Emails...

Gifts...

Mix alcohol and sex together ... Hmmmn .... No wonder they come up with that dumb rule.

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2015 12:57PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

Communication is two ways and alcohol makes meaning very unstable. Ask anyone who grew up in an alcoholic home.,

And sex too... There are no greater paranoiac semiologists than lovers .... Always wondering what things mean ... Obsessing over text messages... Emails...

Gifts...

Mix alcohol and sex together ... Hmmmn .... No wonder they come up with that dumb rule.

I'd to google the meanings of half the words in that post tbh, hate it when you go all existentialist on me

;)

When people grow up with a sense of entitlement, any rule that impinges upon their sense of entitlement is going to be considered a dumb rule, or someone else's fault that person got drunk and threw themselves at them so it was ok to take advantage of the fact that they were looking for sex too, how very convenient.

Except when the next morning the person who was looking for sex the night before, is now looking to accuse the other person of sexual assault or rape. Do we then say to that person -

"Well you weren't complaining last night either when you were getting what you wanted, it's only now when you're accused of something that you're experiencing buyers regret!".

Because that's what's usually said about a person who makes a claim against another person, that they're only 'crying rape' after the fact, or that they're having 'buyers regret'.

Curiously enough, the vast majority of people in society don't experience any of these issues where they are paranoid about being accused of sexual assault or rape. It's only a minority that get their knickers in a twist every time they perceive an infringement upon their sense of entitlement.

zeffabelli · 16-10-2015 01:11PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd to google the meanings of half the words in that post tbh, hate it when you go all existentialist on me ;)

When people grow up with a sense of entitlement, any rule that impinges upon their sense of entitlement is going to be considered a dumb rule, or someone else's fault that person got drunk and threw themselves at them so it was ok to take advantage of the fact that they were looking for sex too, how very convenient.

Except when the next morning the person who was looking for sex the night before, is now looking to accuse the other person of sexual assault or rape. Do we then say to that person -

"Well you weren't complaining last night either when you were getting what you wanted, it's only now when you're accused of something that you're experiencing buyers regret!".

Because that's what's usually said about a person who makes a claim against another person, that they're only 'crying rape' after the fact, or that they're having 'buyers regret'.

Curiously enough, the vast majority of people in society don't experience any of these issues where they are paranoid about being accused of sexual assault or rape. It's only a minority that get their knickers in a twist every time they perceive an infringement upon their sense of entitlement.

The only answer to this is to stay away from drunk people.

Goodbye fun. It was nice knowing you.

One eyed Jack · 16-10-2015 01:26PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

The only answer to this is to stay away from drunk people.

Goodbye fun. It was nice knowing you.

Well no, the only answer to it really is not to put yourself in a position where you could be accused of sexual assault or rape, and somehow there are billions of people the world over who manage to do just that, and then there are the likes of the idiot in the OP who get their knickers in a twist and miss the point of the exercise completely. He could just as easily have ignored it and carried on with his -

special feeling you get when logging into Facebook and find someone thinks you’re cool enough to invite to their event. Is it a house party? Is it a social? All the possibilities race through your mind. Then it hits you. You tap the red notification and find you’ve been summoned to this year’s “I Heart Consent Training Sessions”. Your crushing disappointment quickly melts away and is overcome by anger.

If he gets angry about that, he'd want to step back from social media for a while. That's like me getting upset about emails for penis enlargement pills - I don't need them either, but I'm not going to get angry about the message or soapbox on social media about it. I'll simply delete the message and get on with my life.

smash · 16-10-2015 01:45PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well no, the only answer to it really is not to put yourself in a position where you could be accused of sexual assault or rape, and somehow there are billions of people the world over who manage to do just that, and then there are the likes of the idiot in the OP who get their knickers in a twist and miss the point of the exercise completely.

It's an utterly pointless exercise!

What is society coming to when you're labelled guilty until taught how to be innocent?

Warwick student rejects consent lessons.

Comments