When someone has sex to avoid being dumped...

Feminists point out that often a woman will have sex with a guy because she fears he will leave her if she does not. They say that is rape. I say she does not have a right to date who she wants and set the rules; rules should be mutually agreed on or else people are free to leave. There is give and take in life, and your only unilateral decision is which people you don't do the give and take with.

What do you say?

What if she is 18 and easily pressured? At what point is she adult enough to make her own decisions? Colleges love to make their own rules and expel people who don't follow them. They social engineer. And there are cases where you can see a woman is clearly not happy about being pressured and is being pressured into it. If his only threat is that he'll leave or pout, should that be expulsion worthy?

My state's legislature has a provision in the rape law that say it is rape if she "is in any state of mind at all that prevents her from being able to consent." Note how vague that is.


Many schools expel men if they have sex following a "yes" that is not "enthusiastic" or that resulted from coercion.

Hopefully but coercion, they mean serious threats, and not just "have sex with me or I'm breaking up with you." The policies are written vaguely, but I suspect the liberals who wrote them mean exactly that. He can break up with her and he may ask for sex, but he can't tell her how important it is to his pending decision to break up.

Hopefully by enthusiastic, they mean genuine, that she does not clearly have reservations she resigned to not saying no. Hopefully it does not mean she must be excitedly happy or else it is rape. If she says, "Oh, well, OK", that should count as a yes as long as her voice or gaze do not trail off so as to suggest the OK is not sincere.


Finally, if there is legal precedent for prostitution laws being OK, does that mean there also is legal precedent for laws against social pressuring a woman into sex?

 

Note: If a guy is not allowed to make an ultimatum, that makes it very easy for him to be used and lead on, often deliberately, by this person who wants him in the relationship by her rules and her wants. Understandably many guys get upset by this. They want to say, "If you don't find me attractive, say so, and I'll find someone else who does find me attractive." "But I do find you attractive." "Then show it. Sleep with me." The school then steps in and says this is sexual violence and grounds for expulsion. Who knows if the Violence Against Women Act already has something for this.


Often the guy in this situation is very financially invested in the woman at this point. While that does not entitle him to sex, I think it does entitle him to a definitive answer so he can avoid being led on further.

 

This actually seems like a violation of his free speech, if he can't propose those options.

Our society only cares if a woman "is taken advantage of". If a man is manipulated with the statement that "sex comes to those who wait and keep paying," and he becomes very invested and never given what he wants, and is perpetually frustrated and controlled because he does not want to walk away from his investment and possible reward, nobody cares.

Now, if she has no where else to go, I don't think he should be allowed to say, "sleep with me no or go out on the street." She should get 30 days notice at least.

 

Anyone who says that is wrong. It’s not a good situation and could be deemed exploitation on both sides of the coin but that doesn’t describe rape. I’m not convinced that is said by all (or even most) people who would identify as feminist though.

Do you have a link to that legislation? It’s not that I doubt the vagueness in itself but I do doubt that it refers to “her” so I’m not convinced it’s a direct quote.

There’s plenty wrong with how US colleges essentially try rape allegations independently and often instead of the appropriate authorities (including in that they’re permitted to do so at all) but I also think there is too much generalisation and rhetoric around the problems this raises and the wider problems it’s trying (albeit poorly) to address.

A massive assumption fuelled by political bias I‘d suggest. There’s already too much of that involved in this issue and zero justification for introducing yet more.

I’m not convinced there is a direct comparison and I don’t think there’s anything positive to gain from playing different things off each other in this way.

 

""""Feminists point out that often a woman will have sex with a guy because she fears he will leave her if she does not. They say that is rape."""


Could I see which feminist said that?

Did ALL feminists say that? Was there a person that ALL feminists designated as spokesperson for ALL feminists ?

Did someone anti-feminist say they said that?




"""Many schools expel men if they have sex following a "yes" that is not "enthusiastic" or that resulted from coercion. """

"not enthusiastic" is NOT "coercion". Coercion is coercion.



Colleges have a right to make their own rules.

Any confusion on whether it was rape or not would be straightened out in the investigation. Colleges do have an obligation to investigate any charges and report rape to authorities.

 

[MENTION=51921]HonestJoe[/MENTION]
Idaho separately defines and punishes male rape and female rape. Female rape is simply called rape, whereas male rape is called male rape:
https://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH61SECT18-6101.htm
Idaho rape law is in constant flux. Every time I google the page, it has been changed. The part I objected to is gone now. However, no where does it say it is rape if he proceeds beyond a "no". It says it is rape if she resists, or if she fails to resist because of fear or incapacitate.
I'm hoping if I add a "no means no" clause (allowing any word a reasonable person would interpret as no), it will take the wind out of these "yes means yes" people's sails. Also, it could be an improvement by itself.


[MENTION=64619]FoxHastings[/MENTION]
No, not all feminists. Not even most feminists. Just some vocal ones at sites like thinkprogress.org, who say affirmative consent does not go far enough because sometimes yes means no.


Private schools may do whatever they want. Public schools may not deny students their constitutional rights, including their right to free expression and free speech and privacy, unless it conflicts with a different right, property rights, and even then courts may define a trade off between the two. Public schools may not unilaterally decide to favor one right to the exclusion of others.

 

""""No, not all feminists. Not even most feminists. Just some vocal ones at sites like thinkprogress.org, who say affirmative consent does not go far enough because sometimes yes means no.""""


Then don't worry......or make a fuss....

 

I think the ones who run the college tribunals do think all of this counts as rape. That is the problem with activists. When they can't get their way through the legislative process, they become judges and police officers and use their discretionary power to enforce their own laws.

 

Uncle Ferd says it don't work...

... he has sex alla time...

... but the womens leave anyway.

 

Extreme feminists run college tribunals ? Your fear has caused you to see what isn't there.....

 

It definitely depends on the school. Some (actually many) are strongly against the accuser. Mine, from its very broad definition of sex misconduct, seems to strongly favor the accuser. This is because of their $850 million lawsuit they loss.

 

I think if a guy is very pushy and persistent about asking for sex, that could go into the harassment territory. It would take far more of it to count in a dating situation than in a coworker situation, but still possible. However, I don't think it is rape unless he threatened more than just the end of the relationship.

 

C'mon, you have no statistics or proof of any of that....there are no ""Extreme feminists run college tribunals """

 

I've read reports of some where the Title 9 officer admitted she was only looking for reasons to expel him and ignoring as irrelevant any facts that could be construed as innocence. I've also read some sex misconduct rules that are extremely harsh to the touch initiators, basically guaranteeing they are guilty. No matter how many times they ask permission, she can withdraw consent silently leaving him guilty. She has no obligation at all to indicate to him that her consent has been withdrawn.

 

Lost track of your point but """I've read reports of some where""" just doesn't cut it. Who is "she" ? Who is the "him"? What "sex misconduct rules" ? Do the courts use "some misconduct rules"?? WHOSE "sex misconduct rules" ? Your neighbor's?

 

Technically it is more like prostitution. She is having sex in exchange for something she wants. For some it is money; for others it is having money spent on them.

 

The school's sex misconduct rules.
The school tribunal decides based on questions the school official allows to be asked.
The schools keep trials secret. No one can get info on how the trial went.
The stories are from students who were found responsible and told judges what happened. Right wing sites cover far more such stories, often protecting the name of the accused.
Men accused of rape want to keep their names private, and schools want to keep their dealings private. So, it is hard to investigate this stuff. Lawyers can't sue over the rules unless they get a plaintiff with standing, which they have no way to find.

 

You probably mean "some" feminists, as in less than 5% of them.

Jeez...

 

I still have lost track of your point......I think you want to blame feminists for something but not sure what...

 

I'm starting to realize that most feminists are likely very fair and sane, and that it is just the 5% of crazy ones who have infiltrated school Title 9 positions. They get in as a condition of settling huge lawsuits. I realize there also are schools that are very unfair to women.

 

#Yesallfeminists

 

You do realize a school has no Authority to legislate rule of law, and can only decide conduct on school property, Right ?

 

You do realize this thread is over two months old and I don't give a damn, my dear.....

 

I never in my life heard such a silly thing.

 

Girls are fools if they think easy sex will win hearts. It's the opposite which keeps 'em keen long enough to fall in love and be dumpless. The girls who have men falling over themselves to marry them are the ones who don't easily give out. Men are hunters, and the chase is EVERYTHING. Fail to recognise that and you fail at the hetero mating game. Yes .... I said game. Pretending it isn't will make you nice friends, but that's about it.