Ohio State: must have "sex agreement" to avoid assault charges

[Simeon_Strangelight]

There is a simple solution:

All men should boycott universities with draconian policies like these. Let them become all-girl- & homosexual- schools. They will feel an impact in their wallets alright and the girls won't like that either, since usually they are the ones unable to live without male presence.

This ever more resembles Goerge Orwell's 1984 - and the hypocrisy of it all! Rampant promiscuity, tax-sponsored high-level-escorts for all leaders of any G8 or G20 meeting (they cannot even abstain for several days - came out in a Canadian newspaper and they brushed it off as business-expenses), orgies happening at the highest political and business levels with underage hookers (known cases in France, Italy, Berlusconi, Czech prime minister, - those are the known orgies with pics) - but yeah - let us rather focus on young heterosexual males trying to get laid in a humble and simple way.

 

[Seth_Rose]

Damn, looks like I graduated from there just in time.

I can't imagine OSU being the spearhead for this movement. There's gotta be other schools that started this first, but maybe I'm wrong...

 

[The Lizard of Oz]

The federal government is forcing all colleges to take actions of this kind or risk losing federal funding. It all started with the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter in 2011 when a Department of Education official named Russlynn Ali sent a letter to university administrators essentially declaring that they must use the ludicrous "preponderance of evidence" standard in adjudicating sexual assault claims, or run afoul of Title IX regulations. The screws were tightened again this year with laws being passed in Congress (driven by Democratic hags like Claire McCaskill but enjoying plenty of support from Republican white knights) that essentially require colleges to implement regulations of this kind.

That being said, the Ohio State formulation and the requirement of agreeing on the "why" is particularly absurd and egregious. But these things are sprouting up everywhere, and every college is obliged to implement a misandrist policy of this kind in one way or another.

 

[whatday]

There is a simple solution:

All men should boycott universities with draconian policies like these. Let them become all-girl- & homosexual- schools. They will feel an impact in their wallets alright and the girls won't like that either, since usually they are the ones unable to live without male presence.

When we decide on which university all men will be boycotting, let me know, man.

I'll enroll immediately, hehehe.

 

[MikeCF]

A mistake that people sometimes make is to look at an absurd law or regulation like this, and think, "this is so insane that it can never be enforced -- why, it makes everyone a criminal! So it's irrelevant and nothing to worry about".

Wrong. The imposition of absurdly overbroad laws that render everyone a criminal or a lawbreaker does not mean that they will never be enforced -- rather, it means that they will be enforced at the whim and discretion of the bureaucrats and those charged with enforcing such laws. In effect, the existence of such overbroad regulations gives bureaucrats absolute power and discretion -- clearly, such regulations cannot be enforced on everyone, so they will be enforced whenever and wherever they please. It puts people at the mercy of the administrative authorities and leads to arbitrary and capricious rule. It effectively makes a society corrupt and lawless. That is why dictatorial and authoritarian states always write such sweeping and overbroad laws, which can then serve as a tool to be used whenever and wherever those in power decide to use it.

That is why, in addition to their evil and anti-human substance, the very unrealistic and absurdly overbroad nature of these regulations is a terrible evil in itself. They must be fought by all means available.

This. Written laws exist to bind the discretion of flawed human beings. We strike to be a nation of laws, not of men.

The new turned is to make everything a crime, leaving absolute discretion over our lives and liberties to flawed men and women.

 

[Ingocnito]

What is this? The 17th largest by enrollment in the USA. This is pretty big stuff. As an Ohioan, this will cast a cloud over one of the better party schools in the nation that many friends of mine attended.

It's one thing to separate church and state, but to allow state to influence sexual relations is a recipe for uproar and disaster. Casual sex is essentially a crime. "Um, the sex occurred detective because she grabbed my cock and started deep-throating it, here open your mouth I'll show you what I mean."

What creates psychopaths that walk into movie theaters, schools, et al and open fire? Bullshit like this is a big catalyst, or will be anyways I predict.
:wtf:

 

[Merenguero]

What is this? The 17th largest by enrollment in the USA. This is pretty big stuff. As an Ohioan, this will cast a cloud over one of the better party schools in the nation that many friends of mine attended.

It's one thing to separate church and state, but to allow state to influence sexual relations is a recipe for uproar and disaster. Casual sex is essentially a crime. "Um, the sex occurred detective because she grabbed my cock and started deep-throating it, here open your mouth I'll show you what I mean."

What creates psychopaths that walk into movie theaters, schools, et al and open fire? Bullshit like this is a big catalyst, or will be anyways I predict.
:wtf:

Wikipedia has it as third in enrollment behind Arizona State and the University of Central Florida. I agree with the rest of your post, though.

 

[Rutting Elephant]

I'm not a lawyer, but several posts raise the specter of selective prosecution as I understand it.

In order to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution, a defendant must show both "(1) that others similarly situated have not been prosecuted, and (2) that the prosecution is based on an impermissible motive, i.e. discriminatory purpose or intent." Id. at 475 (emphasis added). See also United States v. Bourgeois, 964 F.2d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 1992). The impermissibly discriminatory purpose or motive must imply "that the decision-maker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because or, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. The identifiable group is typically a race, religion, or group of persons exercising a constitutional right." Gutierrez, 990 F.2d at 476 (citations omitted).

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title4/civ00138.htm

 

[Simeon_Strangelight]

There is a simple solution:

All men should boycott universities with draconian policies like these. Let them become all-girl- & homosexual- schools. They will feel an impact in their wallets alright and the girls won't like that either, since usually they are the ones unable to live without male presence.

When we decide on which university all men will be boycotting, let me know, man.

I'll enroll immediately, hehehe.

I am considering enrolling in some for-interest medical studies at a university in Kiev and I am not expecting any rape-laws put in place. Heh. The pussy is of course an added bonus, but they do offer English Courses and many students are flying from different countries to study there. I wonder why?