or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things you just don't get
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Things you just don't get - Page 886

post #13276 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Depends what you mean by explain it ...
Basically, if it became law, it would change the standard state-owned colleges and universities use in determining whether a student has violated campus policies against sexual assault/rape/etc.

The general concept, as I understand it, is this: it's a violation of the policy unless the person you're groping or boaning has manifested consent in some affirmative fashion. I assume that it doesn't have to be verbal, but can also include grabbing your penor or making shadow puppets of people boaning. But presumably the proponents of this would say that the idea is to change from an environment where the starting assumption is that you can do whatever you want to a woman unless she actively resists or expresses clear objection, to an environment where the starting assumption is that everyone's physical integrity (or whatever buzzword gets used here) is to be respected unless and until they clearly indicate they want to do the wild thing with you.

 

Question: What if she's drunk and claims sexual assault? Or what if the woman is vengeful and decides to put you through this form of legal hell? Then isn't that her word against yours? We already know that if either happens, the defendant will be guilty by the court of public opinion.

 

Are we eventually going to have to sign contracts of consent in order to avoid litigation and criminal prosecution? Because the concept itself isn't hard to understand at all.. :facepalm:

post #13277 of 15124
Are you getting LD to do your homework? laugh.gif
post #13278 of 15124
Edited: I momentarily thought this was a CE thread. It's not so I edited my answer to Kira out. To Kira, keep the CE shit in the CE.
post #13279 of 15124

Aw, but I'll get called a misogynist..

post #13280 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kira View Post

Question: What if she's drunk and claims sexual assault? Or what if the woman is vengeful and decides to put you through this form of legal hell? Then isn't that her word against yours? We already know that if either happens, the defendant will be guilty by the court of public opinion.

Are we eventually going to have to sign contracts of consent in order to avoid litigation and criminal prosecution? Because the concept itself isn't hard to understand at all.. facepalm.gif
All legitimate and important questions. I haven't studied it, but I don't think the proposed law answers them. As I understand it, it would broadly change the operative question from "did she in some form or fashion say 'no'" to "did she in some form or fashion say 'yes'". How you determine that will depend in part on how individual campuses phrase their policies and how individual cases play out.
To be somewhat fair to the proponents of the legislation, some of those issues exist regardless of how you frame the question, right? Even under the "old" approach their are going to be cases where the facts are genuinely ambiguous, or where somebody is lying for whatever reason. Those often will come down to one person's word against the other's. (I note there is a reference to Harvard changing the standard of proof it will use to resolve such questions.)
As a practical matter, I certainly would expect such a change in approach to change the result in some of those genuinely ambiguous or factually conflicting cases, because the analytic tipping point would change.
But yeah, you may now want to videotape all your dates. (Or not, depending.) (And forgive the use of "you". I'm just being semantically lazy, not suggesting you're a borderline rapist trying to figure out what you can and can't get away with ... Although you might want to keep Harold on speed dial just in case.)
I think you get this, but just for the sake of clarity - this proposed law wouldn't change the legal analysis in actual criminal cases. It only directly affects student conduct standards and hearings administered by the schools themselves.

Your last point reminded me:

Yesterday my ex texted me to ask if I know a particular lawyer at a fairly well known firm. Apparently her friend is dating him, and he wants her to pay a monthly fee to his country club so he can take her golfing there occasionally. He wants her notarized signature on some document memorializing the agreement.
We lawyers are a classy bunch.
post #13281 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


All legitimate and important questions. I haven't studied it, but I don't think the proposed law answers them. As I understand it, it would broadly change the operative question from "did she in some form or fashion say 'no'" to "did she in some form or fashion say 'yes'". How you determine that will depend in part on how individual campuses phrase their policies and how individual cases play out.
To be somewhat fair to the proponents of the legislation, some of those issues exist regardless of how you frame the question, right? Even under the "old" approach their are going to be cases where the facts are genuinely ambiguous, or where somebody is lying for whatever reason. Those often will come down to one person's word against the other's. (I note there is a reference to Harvard changing the standard of proof it will use to resolve such questions.)
As a practical matter, I certainly would expect such a change in approach to change the result in some of those genuinely ambiguous or factually conflicting cases, because the analytic tipping point would change.
But yeah, you may now want to videotape all your dates. (Or not, depending.) (And forgive the use of "you". I'm just being semantically lazy, not suggesting you're a borderline rapist trying to figure out what you can and can't get away with ... Although you might want to keep Harold on speed dial just in case.)
I think you get this, but just for the sake of clarity - this proposed law wouldn't change the legal analysis in actual criminal cases. It only directly affects student conduct standards and hearings administered by the schools themselves.

Your last point reminded me:

Yesterday my ex texted me to ask if I know a particular lawyer at a fairly well known firm. Apparently her friend is dating him, and he wants her to pay a monthly fee to his country club so he can take her golfing there occasionally. He wants her notarized signature on some document memorializing the agreement.
We lawyers are a classy bunch.

 

Oh okay. The reason why I asked is because this may open a can of worms. It's disgusting on how colleges aren't strictly enforcing its policies on sexual harassment/assault. Not even the Ivy Leagues are immune to it. I hypothesize that the recent report will negatively affect the donations from alumni and businesses..

 

Ya'll sure are. :nodding:

post #13282 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kira View Post

Aw, but I'll get called a misogynist..

3/4 of your average CE posters are misogynists. You're perfectly safe.
post #13283 of 15124
I don't get ComiCon or whatever it is called.
post #13284 of 15124
What's not to get, you take a bunch of hot females in next to no clothes and get them to sell stuff to a bunch of guys who will never get close enough to touch the clothed parts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRoi View Post

Speaking as someone who flies a lot of long haul international (although in fairness, it's about 70% in business class), I can say that a few degrees of recline helps without a doubt. Even the difference between economy and economy comfort, which is literally a few extra degrees, is palpable.


I don't "mind" people putting their seat back, but when they don't put it back up when foods being served, I want to kill them.

Also on some Swiss flights you can't see the screen in the seat when the seat is back. facepalm.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

I don't get adults who go to Disney parks because they enjoy it.

Amusement parks are hell on earth, I truly hate them and I even hated them as a kid.
post #13285 of 15124
Betimes when I am coughing up a bunch of crud that is in my lungs (condition of cold), my body goes into its natural mechanisms full force to where I almost volmint (expel contents of stomach). How come the body does not know how to keep those two mechanisms separate hey I just want to cough the crud out of my lungs ain't need to clear out the stomach.

Sorry if this post is offensive to the Creator what fashioned my mechanisms, but I mean like come on, you know?
post #13286 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Incandescent View Post

Betimes when I am coughing up a bunch of crud that is in my lungs (condition of cold), my body goes into its natural mechanisms full force to where I almost volmint (expel contents of stomach). How come the body does not know how to keep those two mechanisms separate hey I just want to cough the crud out of my lungs ain't need to clear out the stomach.

Is it happening also with sexual fluids?
post #13287 of 15124
No lasbar, I don't think anyone's body functions like that.
post #13288 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by L'Incandescent View Post

No lasbar, I don't think anyone's body functions like that.

It is very strange, but when I manually mix up my own salad dressing (oil of olives, vinegar of red wines, mustard from Dijon, France) I feel this strange twitching in my penis. Must be the stirring action that causes such a sensation for some reason.
post #13289 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

It is very strange, but when I manually mix up my own salad dressing (oil of olives, vinegar of red wines, mustard from Dijon, France) I feel this strange twitching in my penis. Must be the stirring action that causes such a sensation for some reason.

Balsamic vinegar I hope..
post #13290 of 15124
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post

Balsamic vinegar I hope..
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, lasbar.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Things you just don't get