Yes, that's true. Unfortunately one of the results has been a demand for lessening requirements of evidence etc, even to the point where some demand that accusations simply be always and automatically believed and then acted upon, and as harshly as possible.

When you look at it that way, what it amounts to is just more affirmative action. If enough women can't lift enough weight to be a firefighter, "obviously" the problem is that the firefighter requirements are sexist and must be lowered. The same thing has been happening regarding standards of criminal prosecution and evidence.

@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

@ArcticFox12 said:

I think false accusers deserve a SEVERE punishment. Perjury charges, a fine for the accused legal fees and a separate punishment that approximates what the falsely accused would have been subject too, if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied.

I think that would deter false accusers. If fine with anything that brings them to justice and protects the integrity of actual victims.

Also, I agree with Erica that the Due process should resemble our judicial system, not the kangaroo courts in place in many Universities.

Due process has different meanings at different levels of the judicial system. In lower-level cases including most if not all civil actions, "preponderance of the evidence" is all that is required. But that's not nearly enough for anything with as much life-changing potential as sexual assault charges. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" should be the standard there.* Which, as unfortunate as it might seem to many people, means that most if not all "she said/he said" cases would not meet the threshold for "guilt" if there's no additional real evidence. Other than what each of them told their friends, etc.

• (Sadly, many people get their lives seriously damaged or even ruined by some lower-level courts such as Justice Of The Peace where they can sentence people up to 6 months or even a year in jail, in addition to imposing large fines, plus sometimes handing other matters such as divorce and custody etc, yet the "judges" in those courts may not be required to have ANY legal training or experience. And nobody seems to be watching them much either, to make sure they actually do their job properly.)

I meant the highest levels where a decision by 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt is a requirement. The criteria for evidence , preponderance, as in civil cases, simply isn't good enough.

The main issue is, it's extremely difficult to prove sexual assault happened without concrete evidence and many women who are victims don't report immediately.

It's imperitive that women report immediately. And that they stand up for themselves and take action when threatened, whether it's saying NO in no uncertain terms, leaving, calling for help, or kicking the offender in the nads.

I really hope that you guys understand how terrifying it is for a woman to be physically dominated by a man and to feel threatened and helpless. I completely get that false accusations are appalling - they should NEVER happen and shame on anyone who does so. People who falsely accuse others should face consequences. But being assaulted, tormented, threatened and harassed and having no one believe you, or worse yet, having those in charge, who should be protecting you, just poo-poo it and sweep it under the rug is horrifying and unconscionable.

The issue is not understanding, sympathizing, empathizing... And if police or college officials or whatever decide to believe an accuser, that's one thing. And make provisions for therapy, etc. But it doesn't justify lowering standards of evidence etc in order to get convictions - criminal or otherwise - that wouldn't be justified in other situations based on the evidence available. We also don't lock up people just because someone accuses them of stealing. For one example.

@Gothish520 said:

@Lemons said:

Hearing this song by one of my favorite groups the other day made me think of this thread. I wonder what he would have said if she HAD minded sharing the night together?

Ha! I haven't heard that song in ages!

The one that gets me is "Baby it's Cold Outside" - talk about not taking no for an answer!

Lemons and Gothish. This one is for you. Please watch and report back to HR. https://youtu.be/4aWhn0Hc8ps

@znexyish said:

@Gothish520 said:

@Lemons said:

Hearing this song by one of my favorite groups the other day made me think of this thread. I wonder what he would have said if she HAD minded sharing the night together?

Ha! I haven't heard that song in ages!

The one that gets me is "Baby it's Cold Outside" - talk about not taking no for an answer!

Lemons and Gothish. This one is for you. Please watch and report back to HR. https://youtu.be/4aWhn0Hc8ps

Heh, heh. I know that one well. I mean, not because I've ever been in that situation. I don't date guys who wear sleeveless, striped shirts. Just because of my expansive musical knowledge.

@Gothish520 said:

@ArcticFox12 said:

@Knixon said:

@ArcticFox12 said:

I think false accusers deserve a SEVERE punishment. Perjury charges, a fine for the accused legal fees and a separate punishment that approximates what the falsely accused would have been subject too, if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied.

I think that would deter false accusers. If fine with anything that brings them to justice and protects the integrity of actual victims.

Also, I agree with Erica that the Due process should resemble our judicial system, not the kangaroo courts in place in many Universities.

Due process has different meanings at different levels of the judicial system. In lower-level cases including most if not all civil actions, "preponderance of the evidence" is all that is required. But that's not nearly enough for anything with as much life-changing potential as sexual assault charges. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" should be the standard there.* Which, as unfortunate as it might seem to many people, means that most if not all "she said/he said" cases would not meet the threshold for "guilt" if there's no additional real evidence. Other than what each of them told their friends, etc.

• (Sadly, many people get their lives seriously damaged or even ruined by some lower-level courts such as Justice Of The Peace where they can sentence people up to 6 months or even a year in jail, in addition to imposing large fines, plus sometimes handing other matters such as divorce and custody etc, yet the "judges" in those courts may not be required to have ANY legal training or experience. And nobody seems to be watching them much either, to make sure they actually do their job properly.)

I meant the highest levels where a decision by 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt is a requirement. The criteria for evidence , preponderance, as in civil cases, simply isn't good enough.

The main issue is, it's extremely difficult to prove sexual assault happened without concrete evidence and many women who are victims don't report immediately.

It's imperitive that women report immediately. And that they stand up for themselves and take action when threatened, whether it's saying NO in no uncertain terms, leaving, calling for help, or kicking the offender in the nads.

I really hope that you guys understand how terrifying it is for a woman to be physically dominated by a man and to feel threatened and helpless. I completely get that false accusations are appalling - they should NEVER happen and shame on anyone who does so. People who falsely accuse others should face consequences. But being assaulted, tormented, threatened and harassed and having no one believe you, or worse yet, having those in charge, who should be protecting you, just poo-poo it and sweep it under the rug is horrifying and unconscionable.

I agree with Fox ,Women(and Men) should report immediately. We should be mindful, like you said that there's severe trauma ,shame and fear that comes with being a victim of sexual assault. Many victims are petrified by fear and afraid to report, that we can't help with anything other than counseling.

Also there needs to be some kind of revision to expedite how rape kits are processed because from what I've read a lot of rape kits sit on shelves waiting to be tested for far longer than they need to be .

Yes, the non-testing of rape kits is definitely a problem. It may not make as much of a difference as some think, though. If the issue is not "we had sex" but "he forced me" etc, a rape kit if only proving DNA connection etc, doesn't really provide evidence on issues of consent, force, and so on.

@znexyish said:

@Gothish520 said:

@Lemons said:

Hearing this song by one of my favorite groups the other day made me think of this thread. I wonder what he would have said if she HAD minded sharing the night together?

Ha! I haven't heard that song in ages!

The one that gets me is "Baby it's Cold Outside" - talk about not taking no for an answer!

Lemons and Gothish. This one is for you. Please watch and report back to HR. https://youtu.be/4aWhn0Hc8ps

OMG z, how do you find this stuff?? I haven't heard that song in forever! It's a good song, but the video? Yikes. She looks about 16 and he looks at least 10 years older. No bueno.

What about that current Oscar contender, "Call Me By Your Name?" Seems like it's trying to get by on the Kevin Spacey excuse, "but I'm gay, so that makes it okay." It's disgusting coming from HIM, why isn't it disgusting in the movie? Especially given the timing.

Meanwhile, in terms of illicit love songs, this one isn't explicit enough to be certain it's "illicit" - or even technically illegal - but I like the song a lot better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzfh7sLwYaw

@znexyish said:

@Gothish520 said:

@Lemons said:

Hearing this song by one of my favorite groups the other day made me think of this thread. I wonder what he would have said if she HAD minded sharing the night together?

Ha! I haven't heard that song in ages!

The one that gets me is "Baby it's Cold Outside" - talk about not taking no for an answer!

Lemons and Gothish. This one is for you. Please watch and report back to HR. https://youtu.be/4aWhn0Hc8ps

That was Roy Moore's prom song.

@CalabrianQueen said:

That was Roy Moore's prom song.

Not at the prom for his actual high school class. But I'm sure he requested it at all the proms he went to later.

That was Roy Moore's prom song.

Not at the prom for his actual high school class. But I'm sure he requested it at all the proms he went to later.

This exchange made me spit out my coffee laughing . Kudos.

Should I bother to even bring up Scott Baio? Oy vey!

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Gothish520 said:

Should I bother to even bring up Scott Baio? Oy vey!

Please proceed...

Would love to hear your opinion.

Yikes, where to start.

First, this is putting all politics aside and noting that, while I've always liked (or at least had no problem with) Scott Baio, it's not like he was my favorite actor or anything. Although, there was a time when I just loved Charles in Charge.

I've heard Nicole's radio interview from 2013. She states that she and Scott "messed around" when she was a minor during the show's run, (up to third base action) and that she was 17, almost 18 when she decided to lose her virginity to Scott. She says it was her idea, and that afterward he asked if she wanted to go to dinner and she said no. She had started dating another guy and did not want to be a virgin when they had sex - she wanted to "pop her cherry" so she would enjoy sex with her current boyfriend without worrying about losing her virginity to him. I don't really understand that reasoning, but whatever. I guess she figured she did everything else with Scott, why not that? I don't know.

Anyway, the radio guy has stated that after the on air interview, Nicole was visibly upset and said the situation was more traumatic than she had let on during the interview. She had already said on-air that she was young and didn't know any better. Perhaps rehashing it brought up some old feelings.

It's entirely possible that things happened the way Nicole says they did. It's also entirely possible that Scott felt everything was consensual. BUT, if she was under the legal age of consent in California, then what he did was wrong, regardless of whether Nicole wanted it or not. In the interview, she stated things started when she was 16. I guess now she's claiming that it went as far back as 14.

I haven't seen Megyn Kelly's interview yet. Off to watch it and report back!

@Gothish520 said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Gothish520 said:

Should I bother to even bring up Scott Baio? Oy vey!

Please proceed...

Would love to hear your opinion.

Yikes, where to start.

First, this is putting all politics aside and noting that, while I've always liked (or at least had no problem with) Scott Baio, it's not like he was my favorite actor or anything. Although, there was a time when I just loved Charles in Charge.

I've heard Nicole's radio interview from 2013. She states that she and Scott "messed around" when she was a minor during the show's run, (up to third base action) and that she was 17, almost 18 when she decided to lose her virginity to Scott. She says it was her idea, and that afterward he asked if she wanted to go to dinner and she said no. She had started dating another guy and did not want to be a virgin when they had sex - she wanted to "pop her cherry" so she would enjoy sex with her current boyfriend without worrying about losing her virginity to him. I don't really understand that reasoning, but whatever. I guess she figured she did everything else with Scott, why not that? I don't know.

Anyway, the radio guy has stated that after the on air interview, Nicole was visibly upset and said the situation was more traumatic than she had let on during the interview. She had already said on-air that she was young and didn't know any better. Perhaps rehashing it brought up some old feelings.

It's entirely possible that things happened the way Nicole says they did. It's also entirely possible that Scott felt everything was consensual. BUT, if she was under the legal age of consent in California, then what he did was wrong, regardless of whether Nicole wanted it or not. In the interview, she stated things started when she was 16. I guess now she's claiming that it went as far back as 14.

I haven't seen Megyn Kelly's interview yet. Off to watch it and report back!

I heard about that but according to his lawyers , based on her account of what happended ,she was over the age of consent when they "messed around".

Im not sure about the specific letter of the law in California though.