There is a major storm brewing in UM athletics. Here’s a good summary of the events that precipitated the troubles. It gives both sides.
According to police reports and the student’s testimony, the student, who is part of the gameday operations at TCF Bank Stadium, drank five to six shots of vodka on the night of Sept. 1 before heading out of her apartment with her roommates toward Dinkytown.
She then went with two football players to the Radius, an off-campus apartment building. Though she said her memory was spotty, she recalled Djam in a common area asking her to go up to his apartment. She would later testify that she had no intention of having sex.
She said she felt panicked when Djam walked her into his bedroom, but later testified that he never pushed her, prevented her from leaving or said anything threatening to her.
Asked during a court hearing why she didn’t leave, she said, “I felt scared, trapped, isolated with someone I felt had power over me.”
At some point, they began having sex. The police report said “she doesn’t have a recall about how the sex acts started.”
After Djam, others followed. She told police she saw a line of men waiting to take turns.
“I was removing myself from my mind and my body to help myself from the pain and experience going on,” she testified.
She estimated there were at least a dozen men. “I was shoving people off of me,” she testified. “They kept ignoring my pleas for help. Anything I said they laughed. They tried to cheer people on.”
About an hour and a half later, she said, she was allowed to leave. She called her sister, who told her to go to the hospital immediately, where she was given a rape exam, while her mother made a report to Minneapolis police. The next day, an officer sat down with the student, who described her version of what happened.
On Sept. 8, police investigators Eric Faulconer and Matthew Wente interviewed Djam. He acknowledged having sex with the woman, but was adamant that it was consensual. As proof, he played them three separate videos, totaling about 90 seconds, taken that morning.
During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,” Wente wrote in his report. After viewing two additional videos, he wrote “the sexual contact appears entirely consensual.”
Police later interviewed four other players, who each said the sex was consensual.
We have an inebriated woman (that many vodka shots will get most women seriously drunk).
The woman says she was not interested in sex. The man says it was consensual. First point: It wasn’t. She was drunk.
This purportedly consensual encounter turned into a parade of football players lining up to have sex with the drunk woman. She says she was afraid and wasa shoving them away. He says it was consensual. Second point: outside of porn, women don’t generally agree to gang bangs. It is unrealistic to claim she agreed to that kind of unpleasant demonstration of male domination.
The next morning, she calls her sister for help, and she, her sister, and her mother go to a hospital, get a rape exam, and report the event to the police. He says she was playful and happy. These descriptions don’t line up at all well. Unless you take into account that the woman was surrounded by football players twice her size and would do anything to get away.
Remarkably, two policemen interview the accused rapist and completely accept his account that the rape was entirely consensual. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. If I were mugged by 10 big burly guys, and I reported it to the police, and they talked with the lead mugger who said, “yeah, that all happened, but it was consensual, and look, I even took a video of him playfully strolling away,” I wouldn’t expect the police to high five the guy and declare that his story checked out. But apparently I’m not obviously a slut who walks around begging for his wallet to be stolen, you know?
The police may have been ineffectual and basically colluded with the accused, but the university made a strong response, sorta. The office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action recommend that 5 of the players be outright expelled, and the others recieve one year suspensions; the university decided instead to suspend all 10 indefinitely from the football team, which isn’t much, but at least it’s something, and the woman has announced that she is satisfied.
Our privileged football players are not pleased, however, and have announced a general boycott.
After refusing to practice Thursday, Gophers players donned their maroon game jerseys and announced that they are boycotting all football activities — even their Dec. 27 bowl game, if need be — in protest of the University of Minnesota’s decision to suspend 10 teammates as a result of a September sexual assault allegation.
Those 10 suspended players stood directly behind seniors Drew Wolitarsky, Mitch Leidner and Duke Anyanwu — with the rest of the team arrayed behind them in support — as Wolitarsky read from a typed, two-page statement, laying out the players’ demands.
“The boycott will remain in effect until due process is followed and the suspensions for all 10 players involved are lifted,” Wolitarsky said.
Wolitarsky said the players want an apology from university President Eric Kaler and athletic director Mark Coyle, adding that the players “demand that these leaders are held accountable for their actions.”
But don’t hold the accused rapists accountable? That’s bizarre, to engage in a demonstration in the name of accountability by demanding that they don’t have to be held accountable for anything.
All I can say is good: no football scholarships for any of them, and if they miss some games, that’s sad for them, but has no effect at all on the primary responsibilities of the university — this is supposed to be an institute of higher education, not a football franchise, and I’d rather it be a place where our women students feel safe rather than one where big strong men get to do whatever they please. Someone needs to learn a little responsibility.
Especially since they’re complaining about getting punished very lightly for a serious offense.
It wasn’t consensual because she didn’t consent. Your points about alcohol and group sex are wrong, but they’re also irrelevant.
Quints: Really? Being drunk does not negate consent? In what world?
Um, Mr. Wolitarsky? Have you been going to class? Studying? Specifically, have you had any classes involving government or law or history? Regardless of your major, I’m sure that some of your core classes, core requirements, for any major, would include at least some coverage of law, history and government, right? The reason I ask is that DUE FUCKING PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED WHICH IS HOW THE SCHOOL ARRIVED AT THE PUNISHMENT (such as it is) and if you had been taking any courses dealing with law, history or government, YOU WOULD FUCKING KNOW THIS!!!
At the University of Missouri , African American football players boycotted to protest racist statements by the college president. And, on sports radio (I listen to sports radio because listening to Morning Edition leaves me screaming every time they allow conservative lies to go unchallenged) they were excoriated — callers and hosts demanded they lose their scholarships, be thrown off the team and/or ejected from the school. On the radio this morning, the Gopher boycott was mentioned, with support, but Mike and Mike said nothing about why the athletes were suspended. Players boycott to protest racism = bad. Players boycott to protest rapists being tossed from the team = good.
And as for the police, yet another he said/she said. And she is automatically considered the liar.
But remember, there is no rape culture predominant in the United States. Especially for football players.
Another quote from one of those supporting the boycott claimed that the players were found ‘not guilty by the law’. No, not even close. Charges were not brought because the prosecutors decided there was not enough evidence to convict. There were no findings of ‘not guilty’. When I read that last night, I thought, wow, what idiocy.
I agree with PZ, and said it to my laptop screen last night. Fine, get rid of the entire team. This blatant rejection of the actual system of due process on campus is — or ought to be — grounds for expulsion.
@Paul K, the survivor doesn’t say she was too drunk to consent, she says she didn’t consent. Not only that (which would be enough) she actively fought back and said no.
As someone who worked in a college bar for years, I know from experience that telling whether someone is drunk is not easy, not by the people serving the drinks, nor by the person drinking them. It makes no sense to trust anyone’s assessment of whether they were drunk or not. If these players knew that she had been drinking, that should have been enough to tell them that she was not able to give consent. That makes the ‘he said, she said’ argument bullshit.
This is not hard.
Seems to me UofM could expel the lot and replace them with deserving young men recruited from community colleges from around the Midwest. Or better yet, shitcan the whole program and put the $$$$$ into recruiting deserving STEM students for all around the Midwest.
The article says the football team has 120 people. Is there not a single one who is disgusted with their team’s support of rapists?
Some schools let their football program die, and they are still functioning schools as far as I can tell. I went to UCSB in the late ’70’s, and I survived without a football team.
https://thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu/2013/02/lack-of-gaucho-football-isnt-a-matter-of-principle-its-a-matter-of-price
Paul K @4:
Both colleges I attended (neither one of which still exist) required that I sign an agreement stating that I would abide by the decisions reached through the school’s internal disciplinary processes. Refusal to abide by decisions reached by the school’s processes was grounds for expulsion from the college. And, at the first school, one student refused to relinquish his parking pass (after repeatedly racing on the school’s roads) and was expelled.
So. Assuming that they signed an agreement along those same lines (I was in school in the mid to late 1980s, but I have to assume these agreements are still around — both Boy and Girl signed them for their colleges), expel them all. Let another school have the bowl game. Or have open tryouts and have an entire team of walk-ons (non-scholarship players) and have an absolute blast losing spectacularly.
Or, the school can knuckle under to the extortion and let them back on the team. Which is what will most likely happen.
Wait, a club breeding and supporting rapists is stopping all club activities in protest over these mild sanctions from outside powers? Oh no! I hope swift action is taken to remedy this terrible situation before the sun burns out.
No, wait, make that after.
What a … bunch of arrogant … !
There have been several sex scandals in the U of M sports world over the past few years. When the new athletics director, Mark Coyle, was hired, he said he’d clean things up; that there would be consequences. Maybe they mean it, but we’ll see. The fact that this suspension happened at all says they want to do something different.
These boycotting players, to my mind, make it easy: They had to have signed some kind of agreement to follow ethics standards, especially in light of the other things that have gone on. Defying this decision is just unacceptable. Well, to me it is. But this is not just a sports team. It’s Football.
Still, I have an idea that these players think they are acting in the same way the U of Miss. players did. That ploy might work, because people are idiots.
they are not called meat heads for nothin’
uncle frogy
OK, first off, there waz a duzin fooball plaers who clame it was consensal, and one wuman who sez it waz not. Who ya gonna beleive? And as fur the byers remorse and the hospitil visut, whoo ya gonna beleive? And ‘course UofM makes a LOT a money offa fooball, and not much fum a student, so who ya gonna beleive?
When a sober person initiates sexual contact with a drunk person, that should be considered statutory rape.
The whole point of age of consent laws is that when an adult initiates sexual contact with a child, the fact that the child didn’t consent is so manifestly obvious that the law simply precludes trying to argue it. The same should apply when a sober person initiates sexual contact with a drunk person, yet many cops/judges/juries/commenters somehow think that the victim being drunk justifies the rape.
Forget about the alcohol. If there is a lineup of guys waiting their turn, it’s not consensual. You know how a lot of men complain about consent and that one day they’ll need a signed document? In this case, yes. A signed document is the only way I’ll believe there was maybe consent.
Crystal Clear Consent
The start of any rational discussion about situations like this rape.
The office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action recommend that 5 of the players be outright expelled, and the others recieve one year suspensions; the university decided instead to suspend all 10 indefinitely from the football team
So this is kinda like “sharia law” for sportsball players?
/ducks
“She said she felt panicked when Djam walked her into his bedroom, but later testified that he never pushed her, prevented her from leaving or said anything threatening to her.”
This is exactly the situation which makes affirmative consent laws necessary. She was raped, but if she never tried to stop him (being too afraid to), legally he can’t be prosecuted. Assuming he acted in good faith (I don’t think he did), if he had (or more importantly, wanted) to get a “yes” from her, this sort of thing wouldn’t have happened. Hopefully, one day we’ll look back on this sort of thing the same way we view efforts to make marital rape illegal, but sadly, at least in Minnesota, we’re not there yet.
“She estimated there were at least a dozen men. ‘I was shoving people off of me,’ she testified. ‘They kept ignoring my pleas for help. Anything I said they laughed. They tried to cheer people on.”
This is obviously rape. I’m not going down the “no woman would ever consent to this” line of reasoning because it’s very paternalistic to assume for somebody else what they do or do not want to do. She said no, she tried to stop them, and they mocked her pleas for help. How much she drank is irrelevant at this point. If she says no, it’s rape. Pretty much everybody but Warren Farrel can agree to that.
Victim drunk, no consent. What will happen to attendance if and when the football “franchise” shuts down. True test of the schools scholarship? Will women flock to an institution where they are safe?
This, this, this.
I don’t care how many porn videos you watched in which exactly that happened. Porn is fiction.
+++
Taking videos of seemingly happy women leaving/chatting is the new get out of jail free card and I wouldn’t be surprised if rapists share that sort of advice. And police buy it. Because it’s not like you’d act all happy to appease somebody who has power and control over you. It’s not like you’d try to make him feel safe so you can get away before you’re raped by another 10 guys.
It’s the same as police advising victims not to fight back so they don’t escalate the violence and then dismissing the whole thing because she didn’t fight back.
I find these facts to be concerning, but I am not willing to write off the athletes yet. Simply because the way these rape accusations are handled is so incredibly troubling.
1) defendants are not allowed to question the accuser at the hearing, or depose them prior to it.
2) the victim impact statement is heard before deciding guilt
3) the defendant isn’t allowed to see the accusations, or the facts they are based on
4) the defendants isn’t allowed legal counsel
5) the prosecutor is part of the group that votes on guilt.
6) the first vote on gulit I said made before the defendant is even allowed to present any evidence, if he is allowed to at all.
7) The defendant isn’t allowed to see the evidence against him
Frankly I don’t know what happened, and while I may tend to think it was rape, no one has even been forced to prove it. The entire disciplinary system is a kangaroo court masquerading as an impartial tribunal. And that tribunal I made of the most partisan and biased people the school has, who are primarily concerned with the schools good name and reputation not true or innocence.
It’s exactly these problems that lead UofM to loose a civil rights law suit over these same sorts of issues earlier this year. It isn’t a major problem with almost all Title IX tribunals. Schools have obviates their obligation to act as impartial tribunals. So the athletes being pissed about the process if not the result doesn’t surprise me at all.
In a roundabout way, this hearkens back to the harassment policy wars of 2012 — if a woman is harassed, assaulted or raped, and does not immediately call the police, it never happened. No administrative alternatives to harassment (asking someone to leave a conference, asking the individual to stay away from her, anything short of an arrest) are allowed. All or nothing.
Here, she did call the police, she did get the exam. But, now the bar is even higher — the police, for whatever reason, do not press charges, then it is over no matter what. Never mind that there are behaviour standards in place for students — athletes or not — which can be applied even though no one was charged. If I am a student of UofM, and I cheat on a test, I could be expelled, right? I wouldn’t be arrested, but I could be administratively expelled. If I am a student at UofM, and I do donuts on quad, I could be expelled, right? Not arrested, but administratively punished.
Same old same old. Vacula and his ilk would be right at home with the Golden Gophers.
No, it is the administrative punishment system agreed to by the students and the administration.
Nope, this wasn’t a court of law. More like arbitration process, where other rule apply.
MRA’s are the ones who think all decisions made by people in rape cases, at blogs, convention organizers, or college administrations, must follow the rules of criminal law. There is no possibility of jail time the college process, which makes it different.
Ogvorbis,
You might be right, except that since UofM is a state school it is still required to provide a modicum of due process rights. If you think this is an isolated case you are wrong, the entire higher education system is in convulsions trying to figure this out.
In one case I know of the schools Head of Public Relations was a permanent voter on the board that determined ‘responsibility.’ During discovery in a federal lawsuit it became clear that the PR heads primary voting concern was how the case looked in the press. Unsurprisingly the offended student won quite a large settlement.
Title IX issues are a major problem and UofM is currently embroiled in a series of federal lawsuits claiming the school violated students Due Process rights. The fact that this time it’s the athletes’ that are raising the issue just adds volume to an otherwise silent problem.
I find it very concerning that amongst a group that is generally so reflexive to argue against state power in some areas completely dismisses them in this one.
And I find it very disturbing you are so tied up in the rights of the atheletes, that you ignore the plausible testimony of the person who was repeatedly sexually violated.
Too many MRA’s hide behind what they consider due process, and the concept that the testimony of somebody with a penis trumps that of somebody with a vagina everyday of the year.
Show us the evidence that women lie more about being raped, than the rapist lie about it being consensual sex. Our previous discussions on the issue have shown that men lie more than women.
Here’s some food for thought for stumble (who is stumbling badly).
Google search for “men who admit to rape if it isn’t called rape”. About 1/3 of all men.
That is something that needs to be taken into account by those making the decisions about disciplinary action.
Nerd,
That’s the second or third time I have been called or sneered that I am a MRA, and frankly it’s exactly that predisposition that is part of the problem. So just a quick run down on me…. I am an attorney who takes victim cases pro bono because women shouldn’t be charged for legal advice when they need help after a rape, I have worked as a child abuse victims rights advocate since I started law school, have acted as a big brother to victims since I was 14, volunteer and donate to rape coulceling and advocacy groups heavily, and as a prosecutor was tenacious is prosecuting rapists. But sure call me out for demanding that INDIVIDUAL defendant is actually guilty instead of just assuming that since 1/3 of all men admit to rape these particular men are rapists in this particular circumstance.
You are openly advocating a system whereby if someone is accused they are determined guilty, with no requirement that the accuser put on any facts to support their case. That is utterly bullshit, it is the state that has to prove its case. Sure in this type of case the requirement to prove an offense is ‘more likely than not’ instead of in a criminal case where it is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ but they still have to prove it.
Look I get it, too many people have dismissive about complaints for too long. But that isn’t an excuse to throw out our entire concept of Justice. Otherwise why don’t we just torture these students until they confess. Surely that way we would get to the truth.
I wonder what the *scans Fetlife feed* nontrivial minority of women who do voluntarily participate in group sex feel when they read this shit.
@Azkyroth (#30)
Well, I should hope that that nontrivial minority would know better than to conflate a “gang bang,” which is one multi-partner activity, with “group sex,” which covers a huge range of multi-partner activities.
Azkyroth
Now, if said community takes consent serious then they would be just as horrified about what’s being described here as the rest of us.
You think these women would oppose explicit, written documentation of consent if the opportunity were offered or suggested? I’ve always regarded members of such communities as more interested and invested, than the average person, in defining, obtaining, and ensuring ongoing, enthusiastic consent (not always, of course, and there are notable exceptions). Or is “this shit” you’re referring to only what PZ wrote about it being unlikely (but not impossible) for a woman to seek out and actively participate in group sex?
Although, to be clear, written statements of consent (whether thought to function as contracts or as testaments) are subject to the same objections as the videos these men claim are definitive proof of something: any such statement can be coerced, and consent is non-negotiable, an ongoing and conditional process subject to withdrawal or extension or alteration at any time and for any reason.
Quit pretending the methods used in criminal justice system is the only way to come to a reasonable conclusion in such situations, especially when nobody will be jailed or deprived of normal freedoms. While you are trying to sound reasonable, you are wearing blinders. Private groups can set up their own systems for making determinations in these cases. I have no problem with that. Apparently you do.
Nerd,
Believe it or not state universities are not private institutions. If this were Bob Jones University then things would be different. But arms of the state are required to provide at least a modicum of Constitution protections. Just like public schools can’t engage in religious indoctrination but private schools can. See the difference? There are other examples I could use.
Federal courts have consistently held that Universities must provide minimum procedural protections. Which as recently as earlier this year UofM was found to have violated. No they don’t have to be the same protections, as the criminal justice system, but they must exist.
Except, of course, for rape victims, q.e.d.
They are not acting for the public in this case, nor is anybody being thrown out of the university.
Maybe you need to read the contracts that athletes must sign to receive scholarships or even be on a team. Certain rules must be followed for one to participate in various sports. They must be spelled out of course. Infractions are subject to decision by the coaches and the athletic department without having to follow criminal justice procedures, and the procedures used should verify the facts (in this case, the athletic department and/or university attorneys probably had the police reports). The decision usually involves suspension from competition (as in this case), or even being thrown off the team. Notice the players are not suspended from attending the university, just representing the university on the football field.
The only people who must follow criminal justice procedures is the criminal justice system. All others can follow other rules if they are agreed to.
In the old “hand grenade” thread, many folks, mainly MRAs, said we couldn’t make up our minds without going through a court of law type decision, and since there wasn’t one, we couldn’t call it a rape. The evidence that was presented was clear and convincing enough we could actually call it a rape, as it didn’t involve Crystal Clear Consent, and for an opinion, we weren’t required to use Criminal Justice Standards.
‘During an 8-second clip, the woman “appears lucid, alert, somewhat playful and fully conscious; she does not appear to be objecting to anything at this time,”’
The problem is, a woman pushing and shoving a guy away screaming ‘no’ is often taken by some to be simply being playfully ‘hard to get’ – this subjective assessment of the video clip really says nothing. And we’re talking 8 seconds. I’m sure that you can find at least 8 seconds of footage of interaction between a woman and a rapist that seems more or less normal, because rapists aren’t creeps jumping out of bushes but manipulative ‘normal’ seeming people.
@Paul K
So, are you saying that anytime a man and a woman have sex, and the woman had something to drink beforehand, it was non consensual??
Paul K
16 December 2016 at 12:34 pm
As someone who worked in a college bar for years, I know from experience that telling whether someone is drunk is not easy, not by the people serving the drinks, nor by the person drinking them. It makes no sense to trust anyone’s assessment of whether they were drunk or not. If these players knew that she had been drinking, that should have been enough to tell them that she was not able to give consent. That makes the ‘he said, she said’ argument bullshit.
This is not hard.
@ PaulK
So, are you saying that anytime a man and a woman have sex, and the woman had something to drink beforehand, the sex was non-consensual???
Paul K
16 December 2016 at 12:34 pm
As someone who worked in a college bar for years, I know from experience that telling whether someone is drunk is not easy, not by the people serving the drinks, nor by the person drinking them. It makes no sense to trust anyone’s assessment of whether they were drunk or not. If these players knew that she had been drinking, that should have been enough to tell them that she was not able to give consent. That makes the ‘he said, she said’ argument bullshit.
This is not hard.
Here we use Crystal Clear Consent as the basis to determine proper consent. If the woman consents to sex before drinking, and continues consent after drinking, it is consensual sex. If the consent is only after drinking, her judgement could be impaired due to the alcohol.
COULD BE impaired – not necessarily is impaired, or not impaired. So if a man and woman go out on a date, have two drinks, and then decide to have sex, the correct move for the man would be to not have sex because the woman didn’t pre-consent before having her drinks?
Crystal Clear Consent. Any mood altering drug, which includes alcohol, is considered impairment.
Ergo, Clear Consent cannot be given.
You have nothing we haven’t heard before from those who try to take advantage of women with drugs.
So, what is your real game?
@gryphon, you can safely ignore NerdofRedhead – they don’t know what they’re talking about. Here’s the relevant standard to this case. It’s quite similar to many other university policies. If a person is too intoxicated to know what’s going on or has lost control of their body, then they are unable to consent.
In terms of ethical behavior – be absolutely sure that your sex partner really wants to have sex with you – before, during and after sex. Crystal Clear Consent does not say that having sex after drinking alcohol is bad.
gryphon,
As others have said, the alcohol is not even the most important tell here. But, yeah, it’s an issue. And your two drink argument, which I suppose is supposed to make me think, wow, he’s got a point, doesn’t work. Yes, the man should definitely consider ‘not having sex’. So what? All people deserve careful consideration of their feelings and intentions, and alcohol can make them cloudy.
Quints at 45:
Here’s the actual wording from your link, as regards alcohol and other drugs. Consent cannot be given when: ‘There is incapacitation due to the influence of drugs or alcohol.’ Not quite the same as ‘too intoxicated to know what’s going on or has lost control of their body.’ Determining how impaired someone’s judgment is when alcohol is involved is not at all easy, so anyone contemplating sex needs to be very careful, as in full of caring, when they’re with someone who’s been drinking. Just because someone is able to talk doesn’t mean they are ready to make important decisions.
What tends to disturb me, as a rape victim myself, is how many men want to push as close to the line as they can get, becoming frustrated when we don’t respond with some simple formula of how many drinks.per kg or some such goofiness. There are So Many Factors that go into impairment, such a measure is impossible.
Crystal Clear Consent is not difficult: if you’re not sure, then by definition it’s not Crystal Fucking Clear, is it? And then it’s no, if you’ve any decency.
But wouldn’t the alcohol also make the man cloudy? Where both parties have voluntarily consumed alcohol, why would the responsibility not not fall to both parties? The legal standards are all over the place on this issue, so what is the basis for your view that where both parties have voluntarily consumed alcohol, the responsibility is only the man’s?
Exactly why Crystal Clear Consent, which Quints takes issue with, requires the decision to have sex come when all parties are sober. Drinking can occur, but either party may withdraw consent at any time. This clears up all attempted diversions of trying to determine how impaired a person is, and whether the consent is freely given without duress, which can be difficult. Which is why it is Crystal Clear.
Crystal Clear Consent was developed after the infamous “Hand Grenade” thread, which involved someone using a well-known rapist technique to incapacitate a woman. That technique was defended by the ‘pitters.
@gryphon, sure all parties have the ethical duty to ensure they’re only having sex with people who really want to have sex with them. From an empirical standpoint, more men sexually assault women (and men) than women do, so it makes sense to talk about men not raping.
@qwints. Agreed, I’ve simply never heard of “Crystal Clear”. I know it’s not a legal standard, so was curious about its parameters and origins. It seems to be a sensible if aspirational, bright line moral standard, though unworkable in most instances as a legal standard.
@Nerd, I’m not taking issue with Crystal Clear Consent. I’m saying you are misrepresenting it. It does not “requires the decision to have sex come when all parties are sober.” Like CatieCat said, it’s about involved being crystal clear that the other person really wants to have sex.
So, if the consent needs to be crystal clear, does the withdrawal of the consent also need to be crystal clear?
@49, gryphon
Hey now, let’s not be partial in our analysis. People have to be responsible when they’re sober too! :P
@54, gryphon
No. I don’t think that makes sense. Give me a second and I’ll explain…
gryphon, #54
The mask slips!
The mask slips?
What do you mean by crystal clear withdrawal of consent? For me, simply a verbal “I don’t want to now” by either is sufficient.
@54, gryphon
What we’re dealing with is a binary reality: either the person wishes to consent or does not.
But our detection of ultimate reality is imperfect. So we can be more clear or certain that one is the case rather than another, or less sure.
So we’re talking about a spectrum of certainty. And saying that consent needs to be crystal clear means it has to be at one extreme on the spectrum. Not in the middle.
And saying that withdrawal of consent needs to be crystal clear means it has to be at the other extreme on the spectrum. Not in the middle.
Now unfortunately it’s difficult to continue this analysis because you left out a crucial detail when you said:
The detail you left out is: in order to…what? What is it, exactly, that we need this to be clear for?
Depending on what we need it for, the answer could be different.
For example, if we just need it in order to be completely sure that consent was withdrawn, then yes obviously you need clear indication of that. By definition.
But we don’t need crystal clear signs of lack of consent (or withdraw of consent) in order to judge someone for proceeding as if there is consent. The middle ground, between the two extremes, is somewhere we ought to stay away from. Precisely because of the uncertainty, and thus risk.
It is not moral to take such a risk. See?
@Nerd of Redhead
I agree – that type of verbal statement is unequivocal and clear. I’m not necessarily sure what I mean – I’m just trying to understand the standard. I guess, some form of nonverbal signal of withdrawal – would that suffice?
Fine, I’ll play along for a bit.
gryphon, #60
Non-crystal clear withdrawal (whatever that may be) rules out crystal clear consent.
It’s simple. Pick something that you’d consider a non-crystal clear signal of withdrawal and ask yourself whether the presence of that signal still indicates crystal clear consent.
gryphon, #60
What in the world would make you think it wouldn’t/shouldn’t? Think about what you’re saying here.
@gryphon, if somebody you are having sex with does or says something that makes you think that want to stop having sex, stop having sex and ask them about it. Your phrases “need to be” and “suffice” are putting the burden on the person who doesn’t want to have sex, which is what Saad was reacting to.
gryphon @60:
If a person is not sure if consent has been withdrawn or not, and that person still continues, that person may or may not be a rapist but, by continuing when unsure, that person has shown that they are willing to be a rapist. In other words, if you are not sure if your partner wants to continue, and you cannot get a clear answer, it is time to stop. Yes means yes. No means no. Not sure means no. Maybe means no. No answer means no.
I don’t understand how the concept of consent can be unclear. An individual of his or her own free will and understanding either consents or does not. If the consent is for sex and the sex is going to be at all worthwhile, that really ought to be pretty obvious. Do these guys really want to have sex with a woman who is lukewarm on the subject?
@saad – I’m just trying to understand a standard that I’ve never heard of. No need to get testy with someone who’s trying to understand.
@qwints – when someone has previously signaled that sex is okay, shouldn’t the burden be on that person to make clear if they’ve changed their mind? Why should the burden be on the other person to discern if their partner has subtly withdrawn consent?
gryphon:
Because you don’t want to rape a woman?
@a_ray
The concept of consent is obviously clear, it’s the standard for communicating that consent which I’m asking about.
@ogvorbis
I wouldn’t want to rape anyone. Very unhelpful response. Very little brains indeed…
Gryphon, have you ever had sex? Because in my experience, it works best when both people involved really care about the pleasure of the other. That means you pay attention to how the other person is feeling–and if they aren’t really enjoying themselves and partaking ENTHUSIASTICALLY, then you are doing something wrong.
If all you care about is your own pleasure, might I suggest partnering with your dominant hand.
gryphon, #65
It’s not some obscure standard. It’s how decent people interact with each other. You follow this mode of interaction with humans all the time. If someone indicates in the slightest of ways that they prefer not to take part in something, that signal registers with you and you double-check. Why is it all of a sudden some foreign concept to understand?
You can’t seriously ask that question and act surprised when you get a reaction like mine.
Gryphon: “…it’s the standard for communicating that consent which I’m asking about.”
Persistent and ongoing enthusiasm and enjoyment?
@67, gryphon
If you want a helpful response, you’re going to have to complete your question. In order that what?
Without this piece of info, it’s impossible to determine what “burden” there is!
And I thought I already gave a helpful response.
gryphon
If you are willing to continue sexual activity when you are not absolutely certain the other person is still wllling, you are willing to rape.
No. Because every person has an ethical duty to only have sex with people who want to have sex with them. If you fail to notice that a sex partner wants to stop having sex, that it is a bad outcome. You should try to avoid that bad outcome.
There are lots of things that are good ideas for people to do in order to get their needs and wants met during sex, but nothing they do or don’t do can remove their sex partner’s ethical duty.
*Like, complete the sentence:
“in order to _________, shouldn’t the burden be on that person to make clear if they’ve changed their mind”.
“If we’re trying to _________________, why should the burden be on the other person to discern if their partner has subtly withdrawn consent?”
We’ll get different answers depending on what we are trying to do.
gryphon @67:
Well, you ignored my previous in which I stated:
So I figured you might respond to a more direct statement. Right now, you are the one asking, in effect (not a direct quote), “Hey, if she says yes and changes her mind but doesn’t make it crystal clear to me that she changed her mind, I can continue and it won’t be rape, right?” Willingness to continue when you are not sure if your partner wants to makes you willing to rape.
Wow. Since when did asking questions justify vitriolic insults? I suppose it’s my own fault for thinking that intelligent discourse might be possible online. I hope you’re all proud of your inability to help someone who’s curious expand their understanding. Assholes.
Yes and especially NO are perfectly clear to anybody who is listening. What more do you want?
NO means stop all sexual activity at this point. There is no way you can continue and not have it be rape.
What we see is an asshole trying to find wiggle room to not stop when asked.
Your questions aren’t intelligent, and show no thought of what is meant by consent.
@76, gryphon
What vitrolic insults? I don’t see any…
Also, you’re the one who said “very little brains indeed”. If someone responded in kind, that seems reasonable.
I’m pretty sure that was the standard JAQing off followed by the predictable flounce.
I’m not at all trying to find wiggle room – you just assume I must be because I’m asking questions – just questions. You’re all fucking idiots.
@Saad, you called it at 56.
Gryphon, I’ve yet to see an insult directed your way, let alone a vitriolic insult.
I see frustration at your seeming inability to parse fairly straightforwared sentences in English, but perhaps your ability to comprehend is inhibited by your eagerness to take offense?
gryphon:
If you are searching for the grey areas between consent and non-consent when it comes to sex, you are expressing a willingness to rape. Your ‘Just Asking Questions’ is starting to head in that direction. If this is not what you intend, you may want to reconsider what your questions are.
Yes means yes. No means no. Maybe means no. Silence means no. Incapacity means no. Not sure means no. If anyone ignores no, or maybe, or silence, or incapacity, or not sure, they may be committing rape. If they continue past that point, they may be committing rape. And at the very least, are showing a willingness to rape.
When I answered your question with
I was pointing out, more graphically, what I had stated before (and you ignored).
I’m assuming the ‘vitriolic insults’ are where people are saying that if gryphon continues having sex when the presence of consent is now in question, that gryphon has shown themself willing to be a rapist.
This makes me think that such situations have occurred in gryphons past.
It always amazes me that some men are so enthusiastic about arguing precisely where the line is, so that they can dance as close as possible to it…and then my feeling is that the vehemence of their boundary defining is entirely so that if they “accidentally” slip one toe (or other appendage) over that line, they can then defend themselves by pointing to the thoroughness of their previous rules lawyering.
What amazes me is the seeming eagerness of folks like Gryphon to admit that the women they have sex with really just aren’t that into them. It leads me to suspect that they don’t hear “Yes! Yes!” very much. Maybe they have tiny hands.
Quote two insults gryphon. Copy/paste, easy peasy.