Stanford man's account of being sexually assaulted

[ksen]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...anford-man-who-alleged-sexual-assault/384853/

Earlier this month, Stanford University senior Justin Brown published an opinion article in The Stanford Daily claiming that he was sexually assaulted by a female classmate. His account came amid an ongoing debate at Stanford about how best to handle allegations of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment. Those who hold that perpetrators of sexual assault escape with too little punishment have rallied around Leah Francis, who protested when a classmate she accused of "forcible rape" was found responsible in a disciplinary process, but permitted to return to campus upon completing "a five-quarter suspension, 40 hours of community service and completion of a sexual assault awareness program." She declared in an open letter, "Stanford did not expel the man who raped me.”

Emily Bazelon of Slate later reported that from 2005 to 2011, nine Stanford students were found responsible for sexual assault. One was expelled. "The other eight received suspensions ranging from one quarter to eight quarters," she wrote. "The average sanction for sexual assault at Stanford is a four-quarter suspension."

At the same time, Stanford has been faulted by a largely different group of critics for offering inadequate due-process to students accused of sexual misconduct. "In 2011, a male student was found guilty of sexual assault and suspended for two years after Stanford determined that his accuser had been intoxicated during a sexual encounter, violating Stanford’s sexual assault policy which states that one cannot consent to sex if 'intoxicated' to any degree," the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reported. The organization objected that the burden of proof needed to find guilt was changed in the middle of that student's case.

The op-ed that Justin Brown wrote describing an encounter with a female classmate does not fit neatly into either camp. He believes that Stanford has handled his allegation poorly and failed to properly discipline the accused. But he also insists that though she assaulted him, he does not want her expelled or suspended.

We haven't had a good campus sexual assault row discussion for awhile, so hear is something to kick one off.

 

[Derec]

If it can be shown that he consumed any alcohol that evening he is to be presumed to be incapable of consenting no matter what.
<Radfems, at least if they were consistent>

 

[Shadowy Man]

If it can be shown that he consumed any alcohol that evening he is to be presumed to be incapable of consenting no matter what.
<Radfems, at least if they were consistent>

This is what Justin himself wrote (emphasis mine):

I arrived at a party with a group of friends and struck up a conversation with a girl. We both were a bit drunk, but not to any dangerous levels, and slowly moved our conversation to the dance floor.

 

[Derec]

This is what Justin himself wrote (emphasis mine):

In one of the previous discussions there was a claim made by one of the feminist posters that if both parties are drunk the one complaining first (almost always the woman) is the "victim" while the other party is the "rapist".

 

[Shadowy Man]

Well, you should read Justin's account. He is very detailed. It's a good test on how equitable one is to see how one reacts to what he says and how they might rationalize the situation.

 

[dismal]

This is what Justin himself wrote (emphasis mine):

I arrived at a party with a group of friends and struck up a conversation with a girl. We both were a bit drunk, but not to any dangerous levels, and slowly moved our conversation to the dance floor.

Sounds like she was drunker so he's the rapist.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I don't believe this guy.

I can't relate to a situation where, drunk or sober, in order for me to do the right thing I have let a woman fondle me. If I were to tolerate making out and fondling just to gain cooperation, it would be because it wasn't unpleasant. If I really didn't want it, it wouldn't happen, period. Doesn't pass the smell test.

 

[laughing dog]

I wonder if a Ms. Brown had written a similar account with the same rationales Mr. Brown gave for his actions, I wonder if some the reactions would be the same.

 

[couch_sloth]

I think someone at Stanford University wasn't thinking very clearly when the came up with the rule that someone can't give consent for sexual contact if they are intoxicated to any degree. e.g. Some people are lightweights, and start to get a little goofy just after one or two drinks.
Even if the young man in question had agreed to sex as soon as she started to become aggressive, it still wouldn't have been consensual because he was a little intoxicated (?).

 

[credoconsolans]

If he was impaired by alcohol, it's rape because he couldn't consent.

 

[ZiprHead]

Oh god. Here we go again...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If he was impaired by alcohol, it's rape because he couldn't consent.

Bear in mind that she was drunk as well, so by not fighting off the rape successfully, he raped her too.

That's something that all rape victims should keep in mind. A large number of them are rapists, so we shouldn't feel too sorry for them.

 

[dismal]

If he was impaired by alcohol, it's rape because he couldn't consent.

Bear in mind that she was drunk as well, so by not fighting off the rape successfully, he raped her too.

That's something that all rape victims should keep in mind. A large number of them are rapists, so we shouldn't feel too sorry for them.

But she was drunk-er, so he's rapy-er.

 

[Arctish]

Bear in mind that she was drunk as well, so by not fighting off the rape successfully, he raped her too.

That's something that all rape victims should keep in mind. A large number of them are rapists, so we shouldn't feel too sorry for them.

But she was drunk-er, so he's rapy-er.

He said "no". She continued to pressure and coerce him for sex until she had her way with him She's way rapy-er.

 

[dismal]

But she was drunk-er, so he's rapy-er.

He said "no". She continued to pressure and coerce him for sex until she had her way with him She's way rapy-er.

No, she was drunk.

Incapable of consent, and apparently incapable of noticing the guy she was making out with was a whiny bitch.

 

[Arctish]

He said "no". She continued to pressure and coerce him for sex until she had her way with him She's way rapy-er.

No, she was drunk.

Incapable of consent, and apparently incapable of noticing the guy she was making out with was a whiny bitch.

Being drunk is an explanation, it's not an excuse. Drunk driving, drunk babysitting, drunk dialing, drunk sex, drunk whatever = risky and likely to end badly.

 

[dismal]

No, she was drunk.

Incapable of consent, and apparently incapable of noticing the guy she was making out with was a whiny bitch.

Being drunk is an explanation, it's not an excuse. Drunk driving, drunk babysitting, drunk dialing, drunk sex, drunk whatever = risky and likely to end badly.

Stanford's policy is no sex with drunk people period. There is no loophole where if you find yourself making out with a drunk girl you can say "no" and she's fair game after that.

 

[Arctish]

Being drunk is an explanation, it's not an excuse. Drunk driving, drunk babysitting, drunk dialing, drunk sex, drunk whatever = risky and likely to end badly.

Stanford's policy is no sex with drunk people period. There is no loophole where if you find yourself making out with a drunk girl you can say "no" and she's fair game after that.

Who says anyone is fair game, ever? Sheesh, talk about rapey!

If Stanford's current policy says no sex with drunks, ever, then that's where they draw the line. Their students should know that crossing that line has consequences, even if they're just trying to be kind. Hopefully, Stanford's policy isn't needlessly brutal, but even if it is, students agree to abide by the rules or they don't go to Stanford.

 

[dismal]

Stanford's policy is no sex with drunk people period. There is no loophole where if you find yourself making out with a drunk girl you can say "no" and she's fair game after that.

Who says anyone is fair game, ever? Sheesh, talk about rapey!

If Stanford's current policy says no sex with drunks, ever, then that's where they draw the line. Their students should know that crossing that line has consequences, even if they're just trying to be kind. Hopefully, Stanford's policy isn't needlessly brutal, but even if it is, students agree to abide by the rules or they don't go to Stanford.

Stanford's policy is right there in the link. Consent is not possible with any degree of intoxication.

 

[Arctish]

Who says anyone is fair game, ever? Sheesh, talk about rapey!

If Stanford's current policy says no sex with drunks, ever, then that's where they draw the line. Their students should know that crossing that line has consequences, even if they're just trying to be kind. Hopefully, Stanford's policy isn't needlessly brutal, but even if it is, students agree to abide by the rules or they don't go to Stanford.

Stanford's policy is right there in the link. Consent is not possible with any degree of intoxication.

Okay then. If two Stanford students have been drinking, any sexual contact between them will be deemed non-consensual by the university. So they're both in violation of the Student Code of Conduct for sexing while drunk even though one was being demanding and the other was being kind.