15% of UT undergrad women victim of rape. Fake News?

[Crockett]

Guy: "If you do not have sex with me, I will physically remove myself from this room and you will never see me again."

Girl: "I agree to have sex with you in order to prevent you from leaving me at this moment."

These folks need a romance coach ... or at least read a few cards in the young love section of the Hallmark store.

 

[djimaplon]

And yet again, the Liberal ignores the actual argument and dismisses any facts or reality. "Optics" are not an argument. "A bunch of men" must be wrong. An anecdotal event involving Clayton Williams must be a universal truth.

Once again, jumping to conclusions and to your crutch of ad homenin, or maybe I am mistaken and you aren't saying that with disdain. Please indicate where I said a bunch of men must be wrong? You wont find it because I didnt say it. Is it possible for a bunch of men to have a discussion and arrive at some truths, sure. That does not discount that optics are indicative of incomplete representation and a lack of depth.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

What do you think about the optics of defining "rape" so broadly that the term loses practically all meaning?

 

[iatrogenic]

Once again, jumping to conclusions and to your crutch of ad homenin, or maybe I am mistaken and you aren't saying that with disdain. Please indicate where I said a bunch of men must be wrong? You wont find it because I didnt say it. Is it possible for a bunch of men to have a discussion and arrive at some truths, sure. That does not discount that optics are indicative of incomplete representation and a lack of depth.

I fail to see the ad hominem. The "optics" are indicative that men cannot discuss facts concerning rape? Conversely, having women involved is necessary to discuss facts about rape? Heck, since facts are dependent on being male or female, could facts also be dependent on ethnicity since all ethnicities suffer from that crime? I did not realize that facts about rape differed according to your gender. By your argument, there are no such thing as facts, just opinions. What does "lack of depth" actually mean when it comes to facts? Do percentages differ if more women discuss the statistics of rapes? Do women add depth to empirical results?

 

[djimaplon]

I fail to see the ad hominem. The "optics" are indicative that men cannot discuss facts concerning rape? Conversely, having women involved is necessary to discuss facts about rape? Heck, since facts are dependent on being male or female, could facts also be dependent on ethnicity since all ethnicities suffer from that crime? I did not realize that facts about rape differed according to your gender. By your argument, there are no such thing as facts, just opinions. What does "lack of depth" actually mean when it comes to facts? Do percentages differ if more women discuss the statistics of rapes? Do women add depth to empirical results?

This is just empirical observation of your posts, but it appears to me that anyone that doesn't agree with you, you label a "liberal"; it appears that is not a good thing in your mind nor most of the posters of this board.

I didnt say the facts differ according to one's gender or ethnicity, keep building straw men. But what are facts dependent upon? So you are saying facts are not dependent on observation or experience? Are you so omniscient/omnipresent that you yourself have all the facts, or cant conceive the idea that you don't know what you don't know. I might be more convinced of the objectivity of this board if it didn't routinely dismiss facts that don't fit to a particular paradigm. Sadly, I guess there really is no wisdom in the most quotable line from TKAM.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

that all (or virtually all) people within the relevant identity have the same interests and largely think alike and without questioning the agenda of that identity's self-ordained leadership.

And maybe more importantly, that they understand your circumstance better than you do. Even if you personally aren't aggrieved, rest assured there are plenty of people who are really suffering even if you don't actually see it.

My point is I am sure you understand the optics of a bunch of men talking about rape.

It seems as if your "point" was to take a shot with no actual usefulness to the discussion. You started by implying very strongly that women's opinions were being excluded from the discussion, which is not only ridiculous but also assumes you know that everyone on this board is male. You seem to have an issue with unidentified people on the internet having this discussion, and you tried to shame the group. You then add:

"You wont find it because I didnt say it. Is it possible for a bunch of men to have a discussion and arrive at some truths, sure. That does not discount that optics are indicative of incomplete representation and a lack of depth."

You're basically not "saying" anything. What exactly is your issue? What do you have to contribute to the discussion without just sitting there throwing rocks at "men" (presumably) who have the gall to present unfavorable optics to you on an internet discussion board?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yeah, because objectivity certainly rules this forum. You know that objectivity is but an ideal, one worth striving for but rarely achieved. My point is I am sure you understand the optics of a bunch of men talking about rape. I am sure old Clayton Williams had a similar forum when he uttered his quip. Clarification (forum being a bunch of men, not to imply that anyone here is or is not supportive of the quip, though I would hope not)

The forum isn't objective (nor would it be if women were involved in the discussion), but the definition of rape is. Yes, I know there's an optics issue of men discussing rape, but is that based on truth? I don't think so. First, men can be and sometimes are rape victims. Second, I've never bought into the premise that not being part of a certain political identity means you have less right to discuss a particular issue. People's views should be considered and judged on the merits, not on who they are. Besides, how does one craft such a "hierarchy?" Does a man who's a rape victim "outrank" a woman who isn't? What about a man who isn't a rape victim but whose wife, mother, or sister is? It gets absurd.

And I think such a hierarchy actually gives Clayton Williams' comment more credibility than it deserves. It wasn't wrong because it was uttered by a man. (Otherwise, it would be less wrong if a woman had said it.). It was wrong because it was wrong on the merits. It wouldn't have mattered who said it.

 

[nashhorn]

Wow, had an old girlfriend that once told friends we broke up cause she wouldn't. Wasn't real reason but does that mean if she (we) had I could have been accused of rape? Holy S***.

 

[iatrogenic]

This is just empirical observation of your posts, but it appears to me that anyone that doesn't agree with you, you label a "liberal"; it appears that is not a good thing in your mind nor most of the posters of this board.

I didnt say the facts differ according to one's gender or ethnicity, keep building straw men. But what are facts dependent upon? So you are saying facts are not dependent on observation or experience? Are you so omniscient/omnipresent that you yourself have all the facts, or cant conceive the idea that you don't know what you don't know. I might be more convinced of the objectivity of this board if it didn't routinely dismiss facts that don't fit to a particular paradigm. Sadly, I guess there really is no wisdom in the most quotable line from TKAM.

It seems that making sense of your statement-

"My point is I am sure you understand the optics of a bunch of men talking about rape. I am sure old Clayton Williams had a similar forum when he uttered his quip. Clarification (forum being a bunch of men, not to imply that anyone here is or is not supportive of the quip, though I would hope not)"

has become a great mystery that shall remain unsolvable, so please unwrap your thoughts and grace me with your meaning. I can hardly wait for the pronouncement. As Prodigal states, to the great unwashed, your basically not saying anything (of relevance).

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

What do you think about the optics of defining "rape" so broadly that the term loses practically all meaning?

I ask again because I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts here. Because to me the optics of mangling the meaning of a word or phrase in the attempt to enhance a weak (if not nonexistent) argument are exceptionally poor. Those optics bring into focus the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of the researchers, not to mention the same negative qualities displayed by the article's author and for good measure, by Senator Huffman, who seems to be trying to solve the problem via the force of law. Given the law and penalties outlined below, don't you think it is exceptionally important to have an agreed upon definition of "rape"?
_____________
Article begins...my comments in red.

Fifteen percent of undergraduate women at the University of Texas at Austin have been raped, according to a UT System study that will be released in the coming weeks.

Texas Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, revealed this statistic during a Senate State Affairs committee hearing Thursday, during which four bills pertaining to sexual assaults on campus were discussed.

In a statement from the University, J.B. Bird, director of media relations, confirmed the figure and defined rape in the context of the report as rape “either through force, threat of force, incapacitation or other forms of coercion such as lies and verbal pressure.” No problem with force, threat of force, or incapacitation, but "other forms of coercion" is an exceptionally gray area to write in to a law. Bird said the full report will be a comprehensive approach to sexual assault and misconduct at 13 institutions across the System. The sample size and information about data collection was not made available Thursday.

“These findings, which reflect problems endemic to our society, are highly disturbing,” Bird said in a statement. “UT-Austin is committed to addressing sexual misconduct by speaking about it openly and developing programs and initiatives to end sexual violence, change behaviors and discipline offenders.”

Huffman said these figures are unacceptable and presented Senate Bill 576 during Thursday’s hearing in order to increase transparency and be able to accurately state how many instances of sexual assault are occurring on campuses.

SB 576 would require all university employees, whether public or private, and student organization leaders to promptly report knowledge of “sexual harassment, sexual assault, family violence or stalking,” to the school’s Title IX office. How the hell can you attempt to hold somebody responsible for not reporting "other forms of coercion" when you cannot define what other forms of coercion are?

A revised version of the bill would impose severe penalties for failing to report instances of sexual assault. University employees who knowingly fail to report an assault would face termination of employment and a Class B misdemeanor. If an employee is intentionally shown to conceal the incident, they could face a Class A misdemeanor. Leaders of student organizations, such as fraternity and sorority presidents, would be suspended for at least a year or face expulsion. Again, the penalties are fine if you can objectively define sexual assault. But are you going to expel, fine, and possibly jail somebody for not turning in a frat brother who is trying to talk a girl (who isn't incapacitated) out of her panties?

 

[iatrogenic]

I ask again because I'm genuinely curious about your thoughts here. Because to me the optics of mangling the meaning of a word or phrase in the attempt to enhance a weak (if not nonexistent) argument are exceptionally poor. Those optics bring into focus the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of the researchers, not to mention the same negative qualities displayed by the article's author and for good measure, by Senator Huffman, who seems to be trying to solve the problem via the force of law. Given the law and penalties outlined below, don't you think it is exceptionally important to have an agreed upon definition of "rape"?
_____________
Article begins...my comments in red.

Fifteen percent of undergraduate women at the University of Texas at Austin have been raped, according to a UT System study that will be released in the coming weeks.

Texas Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, revealed this statistic during a Senate State Affairs committee hearing Thursday, during which four bills pertaining to sexual assaults on campus were discussed.

In a statement from the University, J.B. Bird, director of media relations, confirmed the figure and defined rape in the context of the report as rape “either through force, threat of force, incapacitation or other forms of coercion such as lies and verbal pressure.” No problem with force, threat of force, or incapacitation, but "other forms of coercion" is an exceptionally gray area to write in to a law. Bird said the full report will be a comprehensive approach to sexual assault and misconduct at 13 institutions across the System. The sample size and information about data collection was not made available Thursday.

“These findings, which reflect problems endemic to our society, are highly disturbing,” Bird said in a statement. “UT-Austin is committed to addressing sexual misconduct by speaking about it openly and developing programs and initiatives to end sexual violence, change behaviors and discipline offenders.”

Huffman said these figures are unacceptable and presented Senate Bill 576 during Thursday’s hearing in order to increase transparency and be able to accurately state how many instances of sexual assault are occurring on campuses.

SB 576 would require all university employees, whether public or private, and student organization leaders to promptly report knowledge of “sexual harassment, sexual assault, family violence or stalking,” to the school’s Title IX office. How the hell can you attempt to hold somebody responsible for not reporting "other forms of coercion when you cannot define what other forms of coercion are?

A revised version of the bill would impose severe penalties for failing to report instances of sexual assault. University employees who knowingly fail to report an assault would face termination of employment and a Class B misdemeanor. If an employee is intentionally shown to conceal the incident, they could face a Class A misdemeanor. Leaders of student organizations, such as fraternity and sorority presidents, would be suspended for at least a year or face expulsion. Again, the penalties are fine if you can objectively define sexual assault. But are you going to expel, fine, and possibly jail somebody for not turning in a frat brother who is trying to talk a girl (who isn't incapacitated) out of her panties?

Perhaps this initiative is due to Baylor's problems, but yes, both the definition and statistics behind the proposed law should be examined very closely. Other forms of coercion, lies and verbal pressure sound like B.S. reasons, and would lead to more Duke Lacrosse type situations.

 

[Htown77]

These folks need a romance coach ... or at least read a few cards in the young love section of the Hallmark store.

I decided to opt for a pithy, clear version of the type of conversations alluded to in the UT report which, in real life, almost certainly did not match what I wrote.

Anyway, I am not sure why it matters whether men or women discuss this totally bogus report with clearly incorrect methodology. Does the fact men or women are discussing it make it any more or less bogus? Same with the bogus UVA report. Did men or women discussing the article make that reporter's methods any less incorrect?

I am all for better security at the university to stop real instances of rape, like Haruka Weiser's case. I am not for following any bogus reports that moronically declare consensual sex to be rape. If a report using a proper methodology finds 15% of girls have been raped, I would certainly be alarmed and would not dismiss such a report. However, looking at the methodology of this report, not only would I dismiss the report as bogus, I would like to see every paid employee involved in generating such garbage fired for wasting taxpayer and my tuition dollars I am paying 7% interest on. If UT wants to hire someone who can actually define rape to do a report, fine with me. If UT is going to spend money and time on reports with moronic methodology, they can go f*** themselves when they call me for more $.

I guess not all UT grads are paying back student loans, but man it pisses me off the s*** this university wastes money on. Would be nice if UT grads actually cared about throwing bums like Fenves out instead of blindly supporting UT in the legislature.

 

[Phil Elliott]

In the end, UT is a *government* school, just like all public universities.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/northeast-tarrant/article141676774.html

So at what point do we start calling these stories "rape?" Story after story of a pretty, 20-something teacher starting a sexual relationship with a middle-school or high school boy. Someone who clearly would have no issue attracting someone of a more appropriate age, but she decides to hook up with a child because she can control him or somehow gets to relive the time when SHE was in high school and part of the popular group, or whatever twisted psychosis is going on.

I'm a whole lot more concerned with this than I am some college girl who gets "talked into" doing something stupid.

 

[Seattle Husker]

These stories qualify as rape but simply are less concerning to me likely because I remember fantacizing about an attractive teacher as a HS student. If only I had the opportunity......

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/northeast-tarrant/article141676774.html

So at what point do we start calling these stories "rape?" Story after story of a pretty, 20-something teacher starting a sexual relationship with a middle-school or high school boy. Someone who clearly would have no issue attracting someone of a more appropriate age, but she decides to hook up with a child because she can control him or somehow gets to relive the time when SHE was in high school and part of the popular group, or whatever twisted psychosis is going on.

I'm a whole lot more concerned with this than I am some college girl who gets "talked into" doing something stupid.

 

[Mr. Deez]

These stories qualify as rape but simply are less concerning to me likely because I remember fantacizing about an attractive teacher as a HS student. If only I had the opportunity......

And they're less concerning to everybody for the same reason. Most people assume that the boy had the time of his and wasn't harmed. Accordingly, these teachers rarely get into major criminal trouble. They lose their jobs, but they're not doing serious jail time. Of course, if you flip the genders, the male teacher would get 20 years in the slammer.

 

[Seattle Husker]

And they're less concerning to everybody for the same reason. Most people assume that the boy had the time of his and wasn't harmed. Accordingly, these teachers rarely get into major criminal trouble. They lose their jobs, but they're not doing serious jail time. Of course, if you flip the genders, the male teacher would get 20 years in the slammer.

Yep. Of all the inequalities in life, this is near the bottom of those I feel have to be rectified.

 

[mchammer]

I wouldn't minimize the issue at all. If you forcibly rape somebody, the death penalty should at least be on the table. However, the problem is that the feminists who raise the issue have blown their credibility with deceptive definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" and fake rape stories (See Lena Dunham, Duke lacrosse story, Rolling Stone's dalliance in libel, etc., etc.) in order to drive a false narrative and a political agenda. Honestly, I think they're doing a tremendous disservice to real rape victims.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

Without doing any research, I guarantee there is more than one of the accused who will never have a normal life and career as a result of this awful event. I hope she burns in Hell.

 

[guy4321]

Why isn't she in jail?

 

[Crockett]

Why isn't she in jail?

God's Grace ...or maybe Nancy Grace.

 

[ViperHorn]

Why isn't she in jail?

She is - for murdering her boyfriend.