In Interviews With 122 Rapists, Student Pursues Not-So-Simple Question: Why?

[Jack]

What are the rape statistics for the COngo comparable to the rape statistics for US college. If they are close then likely there is something really bad in creation of these statistics and some party of the process, or many parts has fallen down. 1 in 4 ( or sometimes 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 is used) statistic is comparable to the numbers of rapes and sexual assault s in the Congo where rape is used as a weapon of war. Are US universities THAT infested with rapists? Or is there a narrative and political element being pushed here?

Really have no interest in comparing the US to some other place, in order to minimalize anything happening in the US. Think it's important for any private establishment to be allowed to have rules which protect their patrons and personnel, but also important they actually do it. It may speak volumes about the atmosphere of universities, that the government got involved in the first place to force them to adopt disciplinary policies with lower standards of proof than general law. What the government demands from universities isn't much different than what's commonly found in any workplace policy for violence and harassment. The average person has to adhere to different standards in the workplace to avoid disciplinary action than what is required to seek legal action in a criminal conviction. Don't see it as any different. Private universities must meet certain standards to receive government funding, and they also have the right to not meet those standards.

[Al Swearegen]

What are the rape statistics for the COngo comparable to the rape statistics for US college. If they are close then likely there is something really bad in creation of these statistics and some party of the process, or many parts has fallen down. 1 in 4 ( or sometimes 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 is used) statistic is comparable to the numbers of rapes and sexual assault s in the Congo where rape is used as a weapon of war. Are US universities THAT infested with rapists? Or is there a narrative and political element being pushed here?

Really have no interest in comparing the US to some other place, in order to minimalize anything happening in the US. Think it's important for any private establishment to be allowed to have rules which protect their patrons and personnel, but also important they actually do it. It may speak volumes about the atmosphere of universities, that the government got involved in the first place to force them to adopt disciplinary policies with lower standards of proof than general law. What the government demands from universities isn't much different than what's commonly found in any workplace policy for violence and harassment. The average person has to adhere to different standards in the workplace to avoid disciplinary action than what is required to seek legal action in a criminal conviction. Don't see it as any different. Private universities must meet certain standards to receive government funding, and they also have the right to not meet those standards.

.....and there I disagree. I believe that this is simply a want by some elements of society to create a narrative. I saw a similar and quite successful attempt by the same kind of outrage merchants to create a similar impression of Gamers being misogynists (aka "Gamergate). It is a political tool for ideological ends.

Is there a "problem" with rapes on University? That depends on what is meant by "problem". Problem, as in epidemic, as what these people have painted? Or problem as in it sometimes happens and it (like wherever else it happens) should not? I believe it to be the later. If that is the case and they simply want to portray it as the former, all they need to do is make up a statistic through very poor statistical approach, disseminate as the gold standard in the field, quote it over and over to the point where it becomes unquestioned and stoke the fires of outrage. The outrage becomes a weaponised political vehicle to enact change and it feeds itself. unquestioned and worst still any scepticism is dismissed as hate.
Why would people do this? Ideological reasons. There was very little truth behind Gamergate and unless you were particularly involved in Gmaergate or such narratives you would have no reason to doubt the veracity of such claims (I mean there is a wikipedia article which is backed by many "reputable articles" from "reputable sources" so who could doubt the claims).
Few people doubt the claims made that there is a rape epidemic on campus and policies do come into being.
Ideologically to those pushing the narrative the ends justify the means. Rape is bad. Rape has to be stopped by all means. Women must be saved from such horrific crimes. The unseen consequences are not nearly as important.
The problem is of course building a narrative that is false DOES have unseen and terrible consequences that ironically do NOT empower women and do not ultimately make anyone safer.
It empowers like minded people to be outraged over things not nearly as important because they see the University Admin is genuinely terrified to challenge such things. (Case in point is the Halloween costume furore and the riots when "unpopular" speakers come to visit and the like). Also young women at University are now living in terror of this rape epidemic thinking that one out of three (or one in 4 or one in 5) of them are going to be raped. Those that know better do not say differently because the narrative must be protected. This too says nothing of how it affects very average men attending and them being seen as potential rapists.

Is it true that rape happens? Yes. Is it true that it happens at heightened levels equivalent to the war rape in the Congo? no. Is university rape greater than those in other places in US? Unlikely. Is the policies and legislative and procedural efforts put in place based on false narratives warranted? No. Is the existence of such efforts causally related to any truth behind the narratives? No.

[Jack]

Don't really see it so much as a narrative, as much as seeing it as a high limelight policy change. It's in everyone's face because it's political news and thus national news, with government task forces, DOJ and CDC focus. If universities already had violence and harassment disciplinary policies similar to workplaces, or even if they had moved to adopt them without government intervention, it would be a non-issue. The fact they didn't does in fact say something about the lack of professional conduct that might have otherwise been allowed. Does the media sometimes hype campus sexual assault as more pervasive or important than anywhere else? Probably. Even if they didn't, would the fact it's a national political issue alone sometimes blow it out of proportion in the minds of the viewer? Probably.

[Lestat]

IMO jack you are mistaken. A policy change is not going to stop a rapist. A rapist doesn't give a shit that there is a law against comitting rape, so to assume they are going to give a rat's left bollock that somewhere changed a policy. For fucks sake, I'm no rapist and policies are nothing, they are irrelevant. Its bollocks made up by shitspeakers talking arse-leavings.

I generally take no notice of them whatsoever. And I sure as fuck don't need a 'policy' to tell me not to rape women. I was born knowing to fucking well rape women and children. (with the exception of 'statutory' of course, which is not worth the paper such laws are written on, as long as both male and female partner wish to be with each other and wish to get in bed with each other and fuck like rabbits. That is as different from real rape as chalk is from cheese)

[Jack]

IMO jack you are mistaken. A policy change is not going to stop a rapist.

These policies aren't about rapists, so you are the one who is mistaken. Some of these policies already existed but weren't being enforced. What started all of it was a congressional inquiry which found over a third of universities investigated to have no records of compliance for even reporting claims. The new guidelines laid down during the Obama administration have been rescinded by the Trump administration. Though one thing that isn't going to change, is the previously established policy of a government funded institution's responsibility to report and investigate allegations of violence and harassment.

[Lestat]

My bad, jack. Thanks for clarifying.

And what a surprise, regarding trump. Guy is as big a ginormous faggot cunt as theresa may. If those two ever had kids we'd have the fucking antichrist on our hands.

[Calandale]

A policy change is not going to stop a rapist.

Depends on the policy. If you make it a requirement that vaginae are weaponized....

[Jack]

And what a surprise, regarding trump.

It's been highly criticized and debated if the Obama era guidelines for burden of proof are unfair to the accused in denying due process. Though the process of a private establishment reviewing and taking action for internal policy infringements for any type of misconduct isn't a legal process, so not sure how debate that pans out.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Lots of virtual (+1)s for Jack for their last several posts in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_sexual_assault 

^ Interesting info. Lack of a standard definition of rape or sexual assault, lack of a standard methodology for gathering statistics, means that focusing on the veracity of the "one in three" type claims is meaningless and is largely avoiding the issue. If the college campus statistics include things like unwanted groping, and unreasonable pressure to engage in sexual activities, then one-in-three sounds reasonable. If one-in-three women are raped in a war zone, then that is likely to involve violent gang rape under very real threat of death, unlawful killings, serious physical injury, and so on. It is pointless to compare statistics that are gathered in such different situations with such massively divergent definitions of rape or sexual assault.

[Al Swearegen]

Lots of virtual (+1)s for Jack for their last several posts in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_sexual_assault 

^ Interesting info. Lack of a standard definition of rape or sexual assault, lack of a standard methodology for gathering statistics, means that focusing on the veracity of the "one in three" type claims is meaningless and is largely avoiding the issue. If the college campus statistics include things like unwanted groping, and unreasonable pressure to engage in sexual activities, then one-in-three sounds reasonable. If one-in-three women are raped in a war zone, then that is likely to involve violent gang rape under very real threat of death, unlawful killings, serious physical injury, and so on. It is pointless to compare statistics that are gathered in such different situations with such massively divergent definitions of rape or sexual assault.

...and what do you base the belief that 1 in 3 sounds reasonable? A feeling? An educated guess? A Want to believe College Aged men are predators? What exactly?

Maybe....and this IS a guess...there is little real basis to base any of this on?
The way I see it (and I acknowledge I could be terribly wrong) I think that there is a want to conflate too many things and exaggerate and overgeneralise and when pushed back on to misconstrue the position AND not take responsibility for any shortcomings of incorrectly pushed narratives.

If I say, "rape is terrible". There is really nothing to disagree on. "If I say that women should not be sexually assaulted". There is no real argument. If I say "Society ought to do its best to protect women from rape". That too sounds reasonable. If we say "Women at university will sometimes be the victim of sexual assault". That is not really going to be something that could be argued.

However, if armed with this, you decide that because women do sometimes experience sexual assault at university that the system is inherently bad and they let this happen and that all men are potential rapists and are involved in enabling a rape culture on campus...then THIS position is certainly contentious.

So what do they do they use their academic capital to push this narrative, organise activism against this threat and "codify" or "quantify" this threat through a bogus study using very poor methodologies and through your academic network and Progressivism approach, have it widely disseminated and referenced over and over and over in journal after article after thesis and to the point where it becomes "established truth". Keep fanning the flames and use the outrage and fear to affect political and legislative change.

IF questioned the position you take against any naysayers is always back to the reasonable positions of

If I say, "rape is terrible". There is really nothing to disagree on. "If I say that women should not be sexually assaulted". There is no real argument. If I say "Society ought to do its best to protect women from rape". That too sounds reasonable. If we say "Women at university will sometimes be the victim of sexual assault". That is not really going to be something that could be argued.

With no reference to your ACTUAL narrative push:

However, if armed with this, you decide that because women do sometimes experience sexual assault at university that the system is inherently bad and they let this happen and that all men are potential rapists and are involved in enabling a rape culture on campus...then THIS position is certainly contentious.

It allows you to counter with a variety of claims of ignorance, misogyny, lack of empathy towards women and the like and it ALL FEELS true. Why? Because the first position IS reasonable but THAT is NOT what they are promoting nor ideologically their intent and the facts are NOT established truth. It is all narrative and ideologically driven.

The worst thing is I believe that MOST people are taken in by the BS and believe the feigned genuineness and believe what they are doing is from a moral place and questioning this is harmful. However, the ones pushing it know damn well that this is not genuine nor honest BUT also have the moral indignation of a fundamentalist preacher. They believe whatever else comes of any lie or falsity is ultimately a good thing because it "brings awareness", because it "empowers women", because it "strikes out at the Patriarchal power structures and the men within these spaces from prospective male student to male Dean, who by virtue of their existence are suppressing and are a threat to women".

Of course, the kinds of people that peddle this kind of thing does increase the political and cultural capital to their ideology and the smart ones can capitalise on this by getting power via money and fame and such, but there are with all false narratives going to be bad outcomes BECAUSE it is based on an unreality and thus some of the outcomes are going to be in response to a falsity and not the truth. Such as the terrible kangaroo courts without defence on accused men from Title 9 and the resulting law suits due to wrongful dismissal and hi profile rape epidemic outrage cases judged in the court of public opinion like Duke La Cross that turn out to be complete bullshit. THAT will not matter to the ideologues because the narrative and the underpinning ideology is far more important that any harm it causes and they can scream misogyny if questioned. 

[Lestat]

The claim that 'all men could be rapists', aside from the purely mechanical possibility of acting thus due to possession of a penis, is misandry and propaganda at its worst. I KNOW I could never rape a woman. Even someone like faye kane, an autistic genius chick who is, in her own words, someone who really wants to be raped, tortured and used as a fuck-hole for a gang of rapists.

If I were to meet her, I physically could not do it. Even if it did mean losing any chance of gaining her respect. The capacity to rape just isn't something that exists in me. I KNOW me, because I AM me, so I'm pretty well qualified to make such a statement when it refers to me specifically. And I just couldn't do it. I'm not talking about any of that 'statutory rape' bollocks, but the act of forcing myself on a woman is as abhorrent to me as a thing can be. If I were to meet another, I'd do exactly the same thing I did to the last one (who was a convicted paedophile as well), and stamp him into a bloody pulp that would have to be transported to the hospital in a jar. Animal cruelty, abuse of those who cannot defend  themselves, bullying, and rape, those are the things that push the big red button in my psyche marked 'do not push', generally because it results in an unthinking, unyielding explosion of brutality towards the perpetrator that just doesn't stop until at the very most generous on my part, serious and enduring bodily harm has been inflicted such as the recipient is likely enough to spend the rest of their existence in a wheelchair, being fed by a tube in their stomach. Once that button gets pushed, the result is invariably a real fucking mess. The red mist comes down, and more red mist is made from what used to be the filthy, disgusting little piece of sewage responsible for said big red button being pressed. It happens very rarely indeed, thankfully. But in such an enraged state, the only way that I'll stop is either others forcibly restraining me or the target being crippled or potentially even killed. I  REALLY don't like sex abusers. And there are very, very few limits as to what I will not do to one if I get the opportunity to do it.

If 'all men' are rapists, does that make me something other than a man? I don't think so. I treat most people with exactly the treatment they earn according to their conduct towards me. With the bias set to treating someone well, unless they first begin to treat me otherwise/try to do so. Does that sound to anyone like a man who (ignoring statutory age limits) would ever take from a woman by force? (obviously men are a nonentity in that sense, since I'm not a faggot to begin with). Do I sound like a potential rapist? I know I am a man...but a rapist-to-be? fucking christ no.

Also, duke la cross? I do not comprehend the name-drop. Never heard of the bugger. As far as the court of public opinion goes however, fuck that. And fuck the tabloid bell-suckers who'd host such an abomination. I should know. Its been inflicted on me, when the filth raided me (I was charged with nothing, I should add) and the tabloid media (the sun, aka toilet paper for tramps and hobos when they get truly desperate) were there on scene immediately, so MUST have been called by the filth themselves. 'Trial' by public opinion is out and out wrong, regardless of what someone may or may not have done. IMO the names of all arrested MUST be kept silent and secret until or unless they are convicted of a crime in a court of law. Otherwise the lives of the innocent can be ruined, people could and have got death threats due to the 'court' of public opinion, despite having in actuality done nothing wrong. If someone is wrongfully accused of being a rapist, child fucker etc. and it gets out to the public, it doesn't MATTER if they are cleared. There will still be people who want them dead, and some of those willing to make that happen if they can.

There seems an awful lot of focus on misogyny, but misandry appears almost ignored. It is one rule for one gender and quite another rule for the male. Every woman would get sympathy and assistance, but if a man is subject to the male equivalent of the exact same thing, where, then, are the defenders of the innocent who have been made to suffer?

[Gopher Gary]

A policy change is not going to stop a rapist.

Depends on the policy. If you make it a requirement that vaginae are weaponized....

My vagina's so lethal it's banned in eight countries. 

[Lestat]

Which ones :lol:

I imagine the UK is one of them, given their really  shitty weapon-carry laws.

[Calandale]

A policy change is not going to stop a rapist.

Depends on the policy. If you make it a requirement that vaginae are weaponized....

My vagina's so lethal it's banned in eight countries. 

FUCK TRUMP

[Gopher Gary]

My vagina's so lethal protective eyewear is required for use.