Affirmative Consent

Law Professor Will Sue SUNY Over 'Affirmative Consent' Because It Doesn't Require Believing All Rape Victims

"Yes means yes" policies grant too much due process to the accused, says Wendy Murphy.


Law professor and victims-rights advocate Wendy Murphy says she'll sue the State University of New York (SUNY) if it uses the "affirmative consent" standard to adjudicate campus sexual-assault cases. Affirmative consent—the principle that absence of a "no" is not enough to suffice as sexual consent, which must rather be explicit and ongoing—was first foisted upon California colleges in September 2014 and has since spread to school systems across the country, including SUNY. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced in December that the statewide SUNY system was adopting an affirmative consent policy. 

Pursuant to the new policy, SUNY students wishing to avoid sexual assault charges must make sure to obtain "clear, unambiguous, knowing, informed, and voluntary agreement" prior to any sexual act. "Seeking and having consent accepted is the responsibility of the person(s) initiating each specific sexual act regardless of whether the person initiating the act is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol," the SUNY policy states. "Consent to any sexual act or prior consensual sexual activity between or with any party does not constitute consent to any other sexual act….Consent may be initially given but withdrawn at any time….Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated (which) includes impairment due to drugs or alcohol (whether such use is voluntary or involuntary), the lack of consciousness or being asleep, being involuntarily restrained if any of the parties are under the age of 17, or if an individual cannot otherwise consent." 

Hardly a lax sexual standard, no? In fact, many think policies like these go too far—porn star James Deen called California's affirmative consent policy "the dumbest fucking law I've ever heard of," which is only a tad more emphatic than many legal experts have been about their opposition. [Reason writers including myself have detailed our disapproval copiously.] But that's not Murhpy's beef with the policy. No, the ex-prosecutor thinks SUNY's affirmative consent standard is not tough enough.

Murphy told New York policy rag Capitol that the affirmative consent standard offers a lower level of victim protection than is required under Title IX, the federal law aimed at preventing sex-based discrimination in education (and the somewhat dubious rationale for the Department of Education's foray into campus-rape policies). Under Title IX, universities investigating sexual harassment or assault charges must consider whether the accused's actions were "unwelcome" and "offensive." From Capitol:

When college administrators evaluate an incident using affirmative consent, accused perpetrators are able to argue that they mistakenly believed they had obtained consent. Any weight given to the accused's "mistake" deflates the victim's right to determine that the activity was unwelcome, Murphy said.

"It's really this basic: Affirmative consent allows schools to rule against a victim, even in a clear case of misconduct, on the grounds that the offender made a mistake about the victim's consent," she said.

Apparently, under Murphy's formulation, the subjective impressions of those making assault claims are sacrosanct—if alleged victims say they saw an encounter as unwelcome, it was assault. But the subjective impressions of the accused (i.e., the perception that consent had been obtained and sexual activity was welcome) are so insignificant that they shouldn't even be considered. Murphy seems to literally be arguing that the accused should get no right to a defend themselves because doing so might actually work. Best just to kick out anyone accused of assault, lest we upset the delicate ecology of anyone's delusions! 

Murphy told Capitol she has "insider" contacts at SUNY who will alert her to any assault allegations adjudicated using the affirmative consent standard, and she already has a standard lawsuit at the ready when that happens. 

"Any school that determined whether an incident occurred by applying the affirmative consent standard is asking for trouble, because, number one, it's inconsistent with Title IX, and two, because it's a worse standard. It's an unconstitutional standard," she said. "My feeling is that it's a lawsuit that is going to be easy to win."

Is she right? Cuomo's office and SUNY say no way, and a federal education official told Capitol that the Department of Education does not require schools to use any particular definition of sexual consent. Yet Murphy has a history of winning cases against colleges. Complaints she brought against Princeton University and Harvard Law School over their handling of sexual assault cases resulted in the Office of Civil Rights finding these schools guilty of Title IX violations. 

NEXT: The Inevitable Sexual Assault That's Being Blamed on Fifty Shades of Grey

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know, if wasn’t for the fact that she’s probably a Lesbian some PUA should probably get her to have sex with him then immediately go to the cops and charge her with rape using that exact argument.

    1. Her argument is only about Title IX, not actual criminal rape charges.

      1. Thin edge of the wedge, slippery slope, etc.

        Affirmative consent is being proposed as the standard for criminal charges, as well, you know.

        1. Correct. It’s the psychotic feminist wet dream: essentially all PIV sex to date is rape.

      2. Nonsense and drivel. The proceedings of college sex tribunals are subpoenaed for use in criminal trials.

  2. OT – Poll: Only 47 Percent Think Obama Loves America…..s-america/

    I’m thinking that would be the same 47% Romney referenced a few years back

    1. Why didn’t those people just punt on that question like Wisconsin governor and Ray Guy award finalist Scott Walker?

      1. You think the response rate was 100%? lol

        1. My comment was meant more as a joke than an analysis of their survey methodology

          1. Mine was 100% serial.

    2. Why the hell would anyone think that?

    3. Huh, the other 53% probably don’t even have college degrees.

    4. Those numbers are way off…..I heard it was only 8%!

    5. I honestly don’t care one bit if he loves America or not and have no opinion on the matter. Good intentions are worth jack shit. And if he hated America, but implemented policies I think are good, that would be just fine.

      1. I honestly don’t care one bit if he loves America or not and have no opinion on the matter.

        It would actually be kind of awesome if he woke up this morning like, “WTF have we done to America?!?!? I hate this place!”

    6. The overlap of the other 53% with the loons believing Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate must be enormous.

  3. It’s really this basic: Affirmative consent allows schools to rule against a victim

    Yep, that is what it’s all about.

    1. Victims like that poor stripper who got raped by lacrosse players:

      “Former prosecutor Wendy Murphy supplied the case with some of the most inflammatory claims and supported Nifong’s withholding of evidence saying, “Nifong should be rewarded for respecting the defendants’ rights by not leaking the type of evidence that could help him personally respond to criticism.” Murphy said “I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth.””…..il_2006.29

      1. I bet if I dug through the historical edits, I’d find “fame whore” on her wikipedia page.

      2. My own statistics speak to the truth.

        She’s the dunphy of the victim’s advocate world.

      3. Judging by my own statistics, at least 50% of rape claims are false.

        1. So, only half of the people who have accused you of rape are telling the truth?

          1. Well, he’s not Warty, it can’t be 100%!

          2. And you’re just another false rape accuser.

      4. “My own statistics speak to the truth.”

        My anecdote is vastly more important than your facts.

      5. I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way.

        If you take the accusation at face value and throw away all contrary evidence, then yes, you will never have any reason to doubt a rape charge.

        1. For her to know they’re not false, she would most likely have to have been in the room when the rapes happened and not done anything, which constitutes aiding and abetting. Arrest her!

    2. Let’s reserve the term “victim” for actual proven victims. Otherwise they are just accusers.

      1. I didn’t want to mess up the exact quote by putting in scare quotes around “victim”

        1. I was speaking in general terms, not specifically directed at you.

  4. These people want the ironclad, unassailable ability to absolutely take the woman’s claim as fact.

    1. All men should be subject to automatic and immediate conviction based on nothing more than the word of a woman. This is what these lunatics actually believe.

      1. That’s exactly what she says:

        Any weight given to the accused’s “mistake” deflates the victim’s right to determine that the activity was unwelcome, Murphy said.

        She’s not even trying to hide the ball.

        “Conviction first, trial later. Oh, hell, what’s the point of a trial? Off with their heads!”

        1. It’s pure legal subjectivism. She literally believes that a person herself determines whether they were the victim of a crime. Historically, either the crime happened or it didn’t regardless of what the alleged victim said happened; what the alleged victim said could influence what you believe to be true, but not what actually is true. Not anymore though.

          Sadly, I think Wendy’s views are only going to get more common. Hell, she’s teaching the next generation of lawyers right now.

        2. Somebody get a scanner. She’s definitely a Cardassian spy.

  5. Murphy told Capitol she has “insider” contacts at SUNY who will alert her to any assault allegations adjudicated using the affirmative consent standard, and she already has a standard lawsuit at the ready when that happens.

    If this weren’t public sector education, that alone would be a fireball offense. Instead, she’ll probably get tenure.

    1. Fireable*

      1. “Fireball offense” just sounds cool.

        Let’s define it!

        1. Slipping someone authentic Thai food when they were expecting the Americanized version?

        2. Mixing a drink that calls for regular whiskey with Fireball cinnamon whiskey?

        3. +1 Shinkuu Hadouken

    2. Murphy is not a SUNY prof.

      1. It says she is a law prof… I just assumed it was at the school she was targeting.

    3. she has “insider” contacts at SUNY who will alert her to any assault allegations adjudicated using the affirmative consent standard, and she already has a standard lawsuit at the ready when that happens

      That sure sounds like barratry to me, which used to cost people their licenses.

      1. I had to look up barratry:

        the offense committed by people who are “overly officious in instigating or encouraging prosecution of groundless litigation” or who bring “repeated or persistent acts of litigation” for the purposes of profit or harassment. It is a crime in some jurisdictions.

        I hope she gets sued as well, based on allegations from others that she sexually assaulted them, and that defending against it bankrupts her. That would be justice.

  6. Jesus. This really shows the insanity of using Title IX to prosecute sexual assault a all.

    No such defense is available for crimes perpetrated against victims because of their race, religion or other characteristics protected under other federal discrimination laws, so affirmative consent creates a “second class” for women, she argued.

    But there are defenses that involve saying you didn’t commit the underlying crime involved in a racially biased attack or something. Her problem is that you aren’t allowed to defend yourself against the crime of sexual assault because she has mentally built in “bias attack” to the idea of rape itself. What the motherfuck.

    1. They’re not using Title IX to prosecute sexual assault. They’re using Title IX similar to how tort law can hold a business owner liable for not taking care to prevent harms from third parties on their premises.

      1. Yeah, I’m one of the few people here who knows that.

        My point stands that she doesn’t want to allow people the ability to refute the existence of the event that leads to the allegedly biased environment.

        1. Oh, agreed. I’m not a big fan of this kind of affirmative duty to protect from actions of third parties generally because, as this example shows, the boundary of what satisfies the duty can expand and expand.

        2. That wasn’t what I got.

          I think if the accused can demonstrate “we did not have sex” or “I have never been in the same room as my accuser” they can get off.

          I got the impression that if they had engaged in sexual intercourse, the claim of the accused “I thought I had affirmative consent” triggered (ha!) this condition that Murphy feels is unacceptable.

          So it’s not the existence of the event that’s irrefutable, it’s the context of the event once the event has been demonstrated to have occurred.

          Or, I totally misunderstood. That happens sometimes, too.

      2. Bo, if you have a chance, give this a read.

        I think it puts to bed this whole idea that these universities are noble business owners protecting themselves from landowner liability.

        It’s very clear from the DoE OCR’s Dear Colleague letter that the schools are simply following the DoE’s lead on Title IX. It’s not a liability thing, or else they wouldn’t hold kangaroo court for things that occurred off campus.

        1. I understand that, when I analogized this to third party tort liability I did so on purpose because the latter is imposed on the owner by law.

          1. The owner is still required to be found negligent. There must be a foreseen harm , a duty to mitigate, and a decision not to mitigate the harm. Where is the college’s duty to mitigate off-campus sexual violence coming from? How are these tribunals mitigating this harm?

            Your analogy just doesn’t fit particularly well.

    2. Spot on, Nikki. What she really wants is for there to be no good faith defense whatsoever, making every sexual contact a potential assault based on the female partner’s whim after the fact.

      1. making every sexual contact a potential assault based on the female partner’s whim after the fact.

        Pretty much. They want to be able to get any man thrown out of school at any time at the mere word of any woman the poor bastard was dumb enough to have sex with.

        The only thing you can do to try and protect yourself as a male college student these days is remain celibate the whole time. And even then if some cunt wants to blatantly lie, you better make sure you have an ironclad alibi at all times, 24/7.

        1. You don’t need to have sex with an accuser for her to accuse you of rape. The only thing you can do is either not attend a coed school, or if you do want to attend without the sword of Damocles over your head, you’ll need to surgically remove your dick, arms and legs… all the rapey parts.

          1. Tongue too. Tongues are rapey rapey.

    3. Also, according to that logic, only women can be raped? I thought affirmative consent was gender neutral?

      I hope the first case she gets “tipped off” about involves an upperclassman female preying on an innocent female freshman (maybe even throw in the sorority angle for some nonsense about power structures)

      1. No, not at all. Men can be raped, but unless there is a wider anti-male climate, women are allowed to refute the charge without violating men’s Title IX rights.

        1. The wider anti-male climate on a college campus should be pretty easy to demonstrate, given these insane anti-male rules, and the existence and writings of gender-studies grievance departments.

          1. Of course, that assumes an impartial proceeding, which is laughable.

        2. Men can be raped, but unless there is a wider anti-male climate, women are allowed to refute the charge without violating men’s Title IX rights.

          I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe a broad “anti-(fe)male climate” is a prerequisite for Title IX actions. I’m pretty sure single instances of discrimination are violations, regardless of the broader climate.

          So allowing women to advance defenses that are prohibited to men would be a Title IX offense in each case. And, as a policy or even practice, it would be solid evidence of that wider anti-male climate, anyway.

        3. Pretty sure there is a wider anti-male climate; I live on a campus so my lived experience infallibly confirms this.

    4. Ironically, the affirmative consent law is supposed to be gender-neutral, so it only creates a second class for women if it is specially enforced for female victims (as it’s feminist creators intended it to be used). And needless to say, the law really makes a second class for men by making it easier to find them guilty than alleged perpetrators of other crimes, or of the other gender.

  7. Ha! Sucks for those nerds. Me? I have my handy dandy Male Privilege Card right he…

    *wind blows card out of hand and it falls down a sewer drain*

    Oh, goddammit…

  8. And Justice for Some

    I’m guessing I don’t qualify as “some” in her world.

  9. SUNY students wishing to avoid sexual assault charges must make sure to…

    …look off-campus. In this environment I wouldn’t even look at another student.

    1. “must make sure to..” Transfer elsewhere?

  10. Good grief. How many times can this shark be jumped?

    1. As many times as the rape obsessives can make it be jumped.

      1. How many times can this shark be jumped raped?

  11. So, with affirmative consent, I guess Christian Grey with his contract is perfectly safe from prosecution?

    1. Nope. Consent has to be “continuous and on-going.” Signing a one time contract or a Sheldon Cooper-esque “relationship agreement” wouldn’t cut it.

      1. “Do you wish to continue? Press or say 1 for yes, or 2 for no.”

        Do this every 30 seconds.

        1. 30 seconds is more than enough time to revoke consent and therefore be raped.

          As I understand, for it not to be rape, the woman has to hold a dead-man’s switch for the duration of the act, and if she lets go of the switch, an alarm goes off and the man must stop. You may wonder, does stop mean halt, or pullout? Doesn’t matter, both staying in without permission or pulling out without it probably constitute a kind of rape anyway.

          The fun thing is, even the woman manages to express consent as is necessary to make the act legal, after the fact, she can always say that she didn’t want to do something, but consented to it out of fear; and because no longer does she have to show that her fear was reasonable, fear itself constitutes ‘unintentional coercion’ on the part of the male, and therefore, it’s rape.

          1. Men have been convicted of rape for failing to pull out within five seconds. Madness.

  12. Is this the same “Title IX” that I thought I heard about on the news the other day being used as an excuse to create “hundreds” of new girl sports teams in NYC schools?

    Is there anything it can’t do?

    1. There isn’t.

    2. Yeah, until not long ago, I thought Title IX only applied to athletics. THat’s how it’s historically been used most, anyway. I was really confused the first time I saw it brought up in the context of sexual assault. (And I still think it’s a reeeeaaaaallll stretch to use it this way.)

      1. Wait…it isn’t just about athletics? I just assumed it was being used for non-athletic arguments in a totally dishonest way, as per the usual MO for the obsessives crowd.

        1. “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

          1. So, these kangaroo courts with presumption of male guilt violate the Title IX rights of men.

            1. They don’t have to treat victims and offenders equally, just men and women. As long as they treat women accused the same there may be no issue of that

            2. That is correct.

      2. It’s been used for sexual harrassment for a while, Franklin was in 92 and Davis 96

      3. (And I still think it’s a reeeeaaaaallll stretch to use it this way.)

        It’s simply a fig leaf for the agenda of rad fems to justify their crusade. It doesn’t have to actually be logical or relevant, just twistable. Every radical movement I am familiar with has used some flimsy legal pretext as justification for their often abhorrent actions, from Stalin as the pre-eminent scholar on Leninism on down.

        1. It would be logical and relevant if schools were organizing rape campaigns or something.

          1. The unequal availability of Roofies for wymynz must change!

        2. Yup. The Bush admin did the same in order to occupy Iraq, then to give itself permission to try to loot the Iraqi oil fields.

      4. How students fuck is now regulated under Title IX.

      5. For it to be applied in sexual assault cases, I would you’d have to prove that male victimization was treated more serious;y than female victimization. That is of course laughable, it’s actually the opposite. Male victims don’t have any where near comparable resources or procedures as women. Equality is redefined as “we don’t have enough more than men.” Kind of like how the UN considers is a form of ‘gender inequality’ when a country has the same life expectancy for men as women.

    3. I hear it’s not great at drawing paid customers to softball games.

      1. You know, the differential popularity if women’s sports was a reason behind Title IX, not an argument against it. If women’s sports were that popular no such law would’ve been thought necessary

        1. That’s because its proponents falsely assumed the differential popularity was due to discrimination, whereas in fact it (like most things) is almost certainly due to innate differences between males and female.

          And of course, I’ve yet to see Title IX be used to get more men into nursing programs.

    4. Bring back college wrestling:'(

  13. The consent must be “clear, unambiguous” but she’s worried defendants can escape by saying they mistakenly thought they had consent?

    1. Yes, having effectively lowered the mens rea required from negligence to strict liability, feminists now want to lower it further. Since there is nothing lower, they now have to argue that anything an accused student wishes to say in his defense should be dismissed as irrelevant.

  14. Wendy Murphy is insane. I’m not using that as a pejorative term. I mean that she likely belongs in an institution.

    Also, OT, the FCC officially voted to approve the “net neutrality” rules. I’m evil and I “don’t get it” for saying that government control over the internet will lead to higher prices, less innovation, and, quite possibly, censorship. I’m not sure they have an argument other than “Government good, corporations bad”.

    1. As if there’s a difference.

  15. Title IX requires an incident be evaluated for whether it was “unwelcome” and “offensive,” Murphy explained. Unwelcomeness is subjective, so it can be determined only by the victim; offensiveness is both subjective and objective, so it can be determined by the victim as well as observers.

    Solipsism is no way to run a railroad.

    1. But it is a way to run a university!

      1. You’ve been sitting in on my school-wide faculty meetings again?

  16. what is rape?

    is it a violent sexual assault or is it regretting your drunken coitus the next day?

    cuz if it’s the latter, then we need to modify the punishments which are based on the assumption it’s the former.

    1. what is rape?

      Baby, don’t hurt me?

    2. is it regretting your drunken coitus the next day?

      I can’t believe how many times I was raped in my 20s…

    3. Rape is whatever the alleged female victim says it is. At least according to nut jobs like Wendy Murphy.

      1. I can accept that. But if they are going to change the definition then the consequences are on the table too. 20 years in prison? not for that sweetie.

        1. How else are they supposed to keep the prisons packed full of men to ensure better job opportunities for women on the outside?

        2. No, the consequences will not be on the table.

          Feminists keep reminding us that sex is something trivial and virginity is a social inconvenience, yet the severity of the evil of rape has somehow only increased.

  17. OT

    The ghost gunner CNC mill is now $1500 for new orders. I knew I should’ve gone the introductory order rate of $1000 when it was offered months ago.

    At this price, I’ll probably just wait for the 7.62 version assuming the BATFE hasn’t killed Cody by then.

  18. Does anyone else see the irony of a strident rape crusader like Murphy having fucking Bill O’Reilly, out of all people, pen the forward to her book?

    1. Falafel!

    2. Did he, or did he lie to her and only said he wrote it?

      1. It was really you, wasn’t it. Hmmm, a forward to her book written by SugarFree… feel free to steal this idea…

      2. Are you saying he forward-raped her? He fraped her? Is that more or less severe than preface-rape (or prape)? Or corrigendum-rape (where you correct someones work without their consent), also called crape. Mmm, I haven’t had crepes in a while.

    3. I first saw that as “having fucked Bill O’Reilly”. Which is also possible, I suppose.

  19. Has anyone one come up with a permission form yet that an be used prior to coitus between two or more people? Must be witnessed and notarized, of course. Perhaps thumb prints can be attached on appendix A. Like the from I have to fill out when I see a new doctor regarding existing conditions, it can list acts which are and are not allowed.

    1. Doesn’t matter. Consent can be withdrawn “at any time”, so even after-the-fact next day regret is rape.

      1. Post facto withdrawal of consent! Nice catch!

      2. Yes. Even videos showing great enthusiasm on the woman’s part can be quickly flicked aside if the woman claims she was forced to act enthusiastically.

    2. Many years ago I found a mimeographed (that’s how long ago it was) contract for a woman to sign affirming that she was engaged in consensual behavior and therefore her partner could not be charged under the Mann White Slavery Act.

      I guess it was a relic from the Sexual Revolution when women wanted to be protected from government interference with their lives.

      1. when women wanted to be protected from government interference with their lives.

        As opposed to now, when many want government to manage every aspect of their lives for them.

        1. I herd lots of womynz want gubmint “out of my vagina”. But it’s hard to deny that just as many womynz want the government to stuff money into their vagina.

    3. There will never be a clear and verifiable way to obtain consent.

      The whole point is arbitrary power.

  20. I just got paid usd6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over usd 9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,,,,,,

  21. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $85 every hour on the laptop . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $17746 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check out the post right here……..

  22. Best just to kick out anyone accused of assault with a penis

    FTFY. That’s what a lot of these assclowns really want.

    1. No, they don’t want to kick them out.

      They want to subjugate them.

  23. What a cunt this bitch is. Fuck her.

    1. With or without “continuous, unambiguous consent?”

      Actually I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that she’s secretly a submissive in an underground BDSM club. Kind of like how so many anti-gay crusaders turn out to be secretly gay.

  24. I still wonder why saying “no” to something you don’t want is such a terrible burden.

    1. I certainly heard it a lot during my long-ago youth.

    2. Why simply say “no” when you can gain legal leverage?

      1. Because you aren’t an asshole?

  25. Law Professor Will Sue SUNY Over ‘Affirmative Consent’ Because It Doesn’t Require Believing All Rape Victims

    She teaches law to the next generation of lawyers. We are fucked.

  26. Fun Fact: Wendy Murphy is a former New England Patriots Cheerleader

  27. Women should be outraged by this. The essence of Murphy’s argument is that women are too weak and too fucking dumb to make their own decisions about their sex lives. What would happen to a man who declared that women aren’t capable of handling even the most basic parts of adult life?

    1. How many people would turn in their dignity and adulthood in a heart beat for a little security and a bit of power over others? A lot apparently.

  28. Why is Title IX involved in how people fuck?

    It seems that there are simply no human interactions considered *private* at a public university – any and every human interaction is to be regulated by the state.

    Beautiful little islands of true theocratic totalitarianism, waiting to engulf the country, then the world.

  29. What Murphy is missing is that due process requires an inquiry into whether a defendant’s mistake of fact was reasonable or not.

    Her approach does, indeed, leave the defendant with absolutely no defense at all against a bare assertion, no matter how ludicrous, that consent wasn’t really given. There’s nothing the defendant can say.

    Yet another foul, hateful creature who has somehow gotten a level of influence and visibility.

    1. Good comment.

      Once you realize that Murphy is a deeply committed sexist, you understand her.

    2. Keep in mind that feminists believe there is a horrid, monstrous patriarchy/rape culture constantly breathing down women’s necks; women are raped and murdered en masse every day; life as a woman is like living in a warzone.

      Given that, they believe that a woman is always reasonable in fearing a man. By definition, a woman’s fear of a man cannot be unreasonable, in their worldview.

  30. She probably considers “To Kill A Mockingbird” to be a tragedy.

  31. I think my comment (reproduced below) caused them to close comments on the article. Although it was posted for a time it has since been deleted.

    Read this to understand who the (unbelievably naive or biased) author is relying on:

    SUNDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2006
    The Wendy Murphy File

    Key Summary:
    “On at least 18 occasions over the past nine months, Murphy has made demonstrably untrue statements. She also has engaged in a pattern of wholly unfounded speculation and has routinely denigrated due process.”

    Wendy Murphy invented facts in support of an effort to jail three people for the majority of their lives over something that simply didn’t happen. Wendy Murphy is a liar, an example of what’s wrong with America, and an embarrassment to decent people everywhere.

  32. ‘Twould seem that Murphy wants to help lay the groundwork for the next campus massacre. Bold words on my part, and never before imagined, but this appears to be in the making when you ruin an innocent young man’s life early on and leave with nothing to lose.

    Murphy is not a feminist. She is a sexist, and feminists ought to be ashamed of her. Her history is of vehemently condemning male violence while consistently trying to ignite it.

    See more about Murphy in:

    “For Feminist Writers: Distinguish Between Feminism and Feminists!” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..feminists/

    1. I bet she also believes in unlimited lenience for women who abuse their children (mostly their sons); and what do you know, some of those abused kids grow up to be rapists.

      Between making it easier for women to get away with violence toward children, systematically incentivizing single mother households, and emasculating and or imputing inferiority onto men at every turn, feminists have arguably done more to create the current generation of rapists, abusers, and otherwise angry men than any other group around.

  33. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha? I do……

  34. “Murphy seems to literally be arguging that the accused should get no right to a defend themselves…” Arguging? The word does sound as I imagine Ms. Murphy would sound as she expelled her opinions, but I suspect that this is an example of poor editing. I am not sure how to interpret “to a defend themselves” except perhaps as a poor attempt at rendering an Italian accent.

    BTW, I put this comment into Microsoft Word and ran its spelling and grammar review before posting. I suggest that _Reason_ writers do something similar.

    1. I cursorily looked at three articles today, and all three had an obvious spelling error in the first or second paragraph. Someone needs to ask Brian Doherty what a ‘spincter’ is.

      1. ENB, as a representative of the millennial generation, rejects your grammatical conventions.

        But really, Reason does let a lot of typos slip through.

  35. Simple answer.
    All men should file title ix rape allegations immediately after having sex with a co-ed.
    “I withdrew my consent and she kept on…I couldn’t stop because of my biology. I feel used and dirty now.”

    Le that cunt put that in her pipe and smoke it!

  36. From this, the next thing has got to be a standard release form, probably in duplicate or triplicate, “Affirmative Consent to Sexual Conduct,” replete with signature and date lines. They’ll probably deign not to include an insistence on confirmatory notarization.

    1. As a notary public, I have a big bag of money that says these forms should be notarized. **wink wink**

  37. Okay, fine. If Wendy Murphy wants to convict people without a fair trial, I urge men at SUNY to reply to her bringing a lawsuit by charging her with sexual assault. A few hundred charges should keep her busy enough that other falsely-charged people can still get the closest thing to a fair trial still available. Not a bad trade off: one person sacrificed with false charges so that thousands of other innocent people can still get a microscopically fair trial.

    Never met her? Doesn’t matter. Didn’t make physical contact with her? Doesn’t matter. Didn’t live in the same city? Doesn’t matter. Each of these settings have been enough to ruin an innocent man’s life. All that matters in this case is that Wendy Murphy is screwing with your human rights without your consent. What a hateful, demented psychopath she is.

  38. Wendy Murphy raped me. Police – go arrest her.

  39. Rapists will lie about what happened. Instead of all or nothing, innocent or expelled, I recommend a pragmatic penalty she can levy on her word if we at least know they were in the same bedroom. What penalty is high enough to discourage rape [not get justice] but low enough to not overly harm the rarely accused innocent? It would have to have no public record, no expulsion or being kept from work, but have, say, 12 hours in jail per night with work release for 30 nights. If there were a 100% chance of him getting it on her word, would that discourage rapists?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.