Drunk male, sober female, and yet he is still a "rapist" according to Amherst College

[Derec]

No. Feminism is about gender equality, not gender bias, or hating men, or any of that scary bogeywoman bullshit about feminazis plotting to expel men from college.

That may be the PR, but the reality is very different.

Right now colleges and universities are trying to craft and enforce new rules about sexual conduct on their campuses, and some students have suffered as a consequence.

Right now colleges and universities are engaged in a witch hunt against male students, fueled in no small part by politics who demand stricter rules and more expulsions despite mounting number of cases of wrongful or at least questionable expulsions.

It appears that sometimes sexual predators were allowed to remain on campus because the rules and process were poorly crafted and poorly enforced, and that sometimes innocents were suspended or expelled for the same reason.

These are not analogous situations. If there is not sufficient evidence "sexual predators" should not be punished. The present situation where burden of proof is so low innocent male students get expelled is a situation desired by feminists who are still not satisfied because still not accused male students get expelled (see Mattress Girl).

But that isn't because of feminism, it's the result of changing times, the need to address the persistent problem of sexual assaults and rape on campuses, and the impossibility of creating perfect tools that yield perfect justice every time.

Campus feminists and feminist politicians have been the driving force behind this manufactured "rape culture" witch hunt against male students. To say rules that make it more difficult for male students to defend themselves or draconian "affirmative consent laws" have nothing to do with feminism is highly disingenuous.

The rules I've seen wrt sex on campus have all been gender neutral. If the enforcement isn't, that's a problem.

The rules may have been written in a formally gender neutral fashion but they are applied very selectively. Drunk female == victim. Equally drunk male == rapist. See this case among others.
Occidental Expels Student for Rape Under Standard So Low That the Accuser Could Have Been Found Guilty, Too

The student, identified only as "John Doe," had sex with his accuser on September 8th, 2013, according to details of the case obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both Doe and his accuser had been drinking. By several accounts, the sex was consensual. The accuser sent Doe a text message beforehand asking him if he had a condom. She also texted a friend and clearly announced her intention to have sex with Doe.
After that night, the accuser spoke with several Occidental employees, including Danielle Dirks, an assistant professor of sociology. Dirks told the accuser that Doe "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports team], and was 'from a good family.'"
A week later, the accuser filed a sexual assault report against Doe.

Don't tell me this has nothing to do with feminism especially when the false accuser was convinced by a feminist professor that she was "raped" when in reality it was a consensual drunken hookup .

But if it is, and men like Charlie and Ben are treated with the same respect and consideration as females making similar claims, then the only problem that needs to be addressed is about the quality of the rules and the disciplinary process.

We have seen in numerous cases, at Vasser, Occidental, UGA, UND and others that the rules are very strict and selectively applied and that calling the "disciplinary process" kangaroo court is an insult to large footed Australian marsupials.

If the actual facts are that the student violated the Code of Conduct, it doesn't matter if the student is male and the alleged victim is female.

It matters that if both violate the code of conduct (by for example both being drunk) the female is treated like a victim and the male like a rapist even though they did exactly the same thing. It matters that the burden of proof is very low and that the ability of the accused to defend himself is significantly curtailed.
And it certainly matters that the codes of conduct recently adopted are way too strict such that most sexually active students run afoul of them. They are often not 100% sober when having sex and they do not solicit explicit consent for every new thing they do.

We need realistic codes of conduct, they need to be investigated while respecting due process and sensible burden of proof (preponderance of evidence is not it) and the rules must be applied to both genders equally. None of these things is the case presently.

It doesn't matter if there is enough evidence for a criminal prosecution. What matters is that the rules and disciplinary process are well crafted, just, and fair, and that they are consistently enforced.

The rules are neither just nor fair and they are very selectively enforced.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP states that Documents say that Jones had asked Doe to stop but that he had forcibly made her continue. . That is a description of rape. That has nothing to do with feminism or discriminating against men. The only relevant question is whether that is an accurate description of the actual event. Interestingly, Mr John Doe claims to be unable to remember anything about the incident.

And she raped him since he was drunk (he puked). Puking isn't just slightly drunk, it's plastered.

Puking may or may not be an indication of being plastered.

Why you don't think her potential rape of him is a relevant question is beyond me.

The basis for your straw man is beyond me.

 

[laughing dog]

If the only source for that claim is the accuser's say so that's hardly evidence.

I didn't realize you were the decision-maker for Amherst.

Expelling male students with very little (or any) evidence and not allowing exculpatory evidence like her texts has everything to do with feminism. But thanks for confirming my prediction from the last sentence.

And you continue to jump to conclusions without evidence or thought. What she described is rape. Whether her story is believable or true is a different matter - as I wrote in my first post.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP states that Documents say that Jones had asked Doe to stop but that he had forcibly made her continue. . That is a description of rape. That has nothing to do with feminism or discriminating against men. The only relevant question is whether that is an accurate description of the actual event. Interestingly, Mr John Doe claims to be unable to remember anything about the incident.

So, you haven't heard his side of the story then. Don't you think it's a little out of line to assert that he's a rapist without that? He may have some undefined and surprising reason as to why the sex was consensual. Your approach of considering him guilty until proven innocent is wholly unjustified.

Is there some sort of blockage of reading comprehension here? Let's take this one step at time in order to deal with lack of reading comprehension in this thread. First, do you agree that her claim of being forcibly made to continue describes a rape? Second, do you understand what "the only relevant questin is whether the description is accurate or not" clearly is not assuming anyone of rape? Third, what could Mr. Doe's story about the event if he says he cannot remember?

 

[Derec]

First, do you agree that her claim of being forcibly made to continue describes a rape?

And, to paraphrase a German saying, if your aunt had a dick she'd be your uncle. What does that have to do with reality?
If you'd read the article you'd have seen that she changed her story. Initially she claimed he "raped" her from the beginning, then claimed he raped her after a "break in the action". And in the text message she admitted that she "fucked" him - no mention of being forced.

Second, do you understand what "the only relevant questin is whether the description is accurate or not" clearly is not assuming anyone of rape?

I think the evidence here is pretty clear that she is full of shit.

Third, what could Mr. Doe's story about the event if he says he cannot remember?

Common with very drunk people. Will the "drunk can't consent" crowd come out and call her a rapist who should be expelled?

 

[laughing dog]

And, to paraphrase a German saying, if your aunt had a dick she'd be your uncle. What does that have to do with reality?
If you'd read the article you'd have seen that she changed her story. Initially she claimed he "raped" her from the beginning, then claimed he raped her after a "break in the action". And in the text message she admitted that she "fucked" him - no mention of being forced.

You should take your own advice - what does have to do with reality?

I think the evidence here is pretty clear that she is full of shit.

I don't know if she is lying or mistaken or telling the truth. Neither do you. Her story is plausible but that does not make it necessarily true. I do think that the evidence in this thread is pretty clear that someone is full of shit.

Common with very drunk people.

It is, but that means we cannot possibly hear his side of the story since he literally has no recollection of the event in question.

Will the "drunk can't consent" crowd come out and call her a rapist who should be expelled?

Does Amherst have (or had at the time) such a policy about consent? If not, then she should not be expelled. If so, then it becomes a question about the level of drunkeness judged to make someone unable to consent.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Common with very drunk people. Will the "drunk can't consent" crowd come out and call her a rapist who should be expelled?

Did he bring up charges?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Not if she said stop and he refused to stop. Note: if genders were reversed, and he initiated and then wanted to stop and she refused, he would be the victim.

If A and B are engaging in sexual activity and A wants to stop and B refuses to stop, that's rape.

She claims she said "no" after she had begun having consensual sex with him.

Thus, by her own story, she took a puking drunk guy home and had sex with him. How is that not rape?

If the court established she refused or refused to continue after initial consent that is likely to be ruled as rape. Whether she took him home or not doesn't imply consent. So the court will have to examine all the aspects of such a case very carefully.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If the actual facts are that the student violated the Code of Conduct, it doesn't matter if the student is male and the alleged victim is female. It doesn't matter if there is enough evidence for a criminal prosecution. What matters is that the rules and disciplinary process are well crafted, just, and fair, and that they are consistently enforced.

I think you mean it shouldn't matter if the alleged victim is female. It clearly does matter. That is Derec's point.

 

[Rhea]

There's not a whole lot to go on, but I'm really confused as to how having sex with a puking drunk person, especially when you are apparently sober is not rape (by her on him).

He's the one so drunk he didn't remember.
Did he claim rape, by the way? or was he rather objecting to her claiming rape?

If he was really that drunk and she was really that sober - it wasn't okay for her to have sex with him (or even oral sex). It would be rape, right?
If it was initially consensual (and he was sober enough to consent) and then she said stop and he did not, then that would be him as rapist.

Her text message is pretty damning. "I fucked him" Not he fucked me, or even we fucked. But I fucked him. It just sounds like not something a rape victim would ever ever say.

Although, there is the self-blaming that happens so often, maybe it's an artifact of that. But it seems she needs to explain that because on the surface that's not what a person would assume.

I dunno, more data would have to appear to make me think she was the only victim in the story...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, you haven't heard his side of the story then. Don't you think it's a little out of line to assert that he's a rapist without that? He may have some undefined and surprising reason as to why the sex was consensual. Your approach of considering him guilty until proven innocent is wholly unjustified.

Is there some sort of blockage of reading comprehension here? Let's take this one step at time in order to deal with lack of reading comprehension in this thread. First, do you agree that her claim of being forcibly made to continue describes a rape? Second, do you understand what "the only relevant questin is whether the description is accurate or not" clearly is not assuming anyone of rape? Third, what could Mr. Doe's story about the event if he says he cannot remember?

Well, you're basing your conclusion on one side of the story without considering the possibility of some kind of undefined and improbable mitigating action which just makes it look like rape but is actually something else. That's just a reflection of your ideological bias and letting your preconceptions and biases rule your reason. Why not wait to see what the guy's attorney eventually argues? It is quite possible he might surprise you (and me).

I really don't see how you can justify coming to even a preliminary conclusion here.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is there some sort of blockage of reading comprehension here? Let's take this one step at time in order to deal with lack of reading comprehension in this thread. First, do you agree that her claim of being forcibly made to continue describes a rape? Second, do you understand what "the only relevant questin is whether the description is accurate or not" clearly is not assuming anyone of rape? Third, what could Mr. Doe's story about the event if he says he cannot remember?

Well, you're basing your conclusion on one side of the story without considering the possibility of some kind of undefined and improbable mitigating action which just makes it look like rape but is actually something else.

Based on a fair reading of ld's posts, he hasn't concluded anything regarding who's story is correct.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, you're basing your conclusion on one side of the story without considering the possibility of some kind of undefined and improbable mitigating action which just makes it look like rape but is actually something else.

Based on a fair reading of ld's posts, he hasn't concluded anything regarding who's story is correct.

Really not related to the point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

She claims she said "no" after she had begun having consensual sex with him.

Thus, by her own story, she took a puking drunk guy home and had sex with him. How is that not rape?

If the court established she refused or refused to continue after initial consent that is likely to be ruled as rape. Whether she took him home or not doesn't imply consent. So the court will have to examine all the aspects of such a case very carefully.

I think that the point that he's making is that regardless of whether or not he raped her, she clearly and definitively raped him - according to how rape has been defined in these cases in past threads. She had sex with a drunk student and therefore needs to be expelled.

 

[ksen]

Common with very drunk people. Will the "drunk can't consent" crowd come out and call her a rapist who should be expelled?

Did he bring up charges?

Did he even know sex had occured?

 

[ksen]

Based on a fair reading of ld's posts, he hasn't concluded anything regarding who's story is correct.

Really not related to the point.

You know what else is really not related to the point?

Hitler.

/thread

 

[AthenaAwakened]

From the OP

Probably none, but the whole point is to increase the number of expelled male students - whether they are guilty or not is not important to feminists.

REALLY???

 

[Ford]

Was browsing "What's New?"

Saw post title with word rapist in quotes. Bet myself a million dollars I knew who the author of OP was. I won!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Based on a fair reading of ld's posts, he hasn't concluded anything regarding who's story is correct.

Really not related to the point.

It is, seeing you are saying he making a conclusion. ld hasn't concluded anything.

Was browsing "What's New?"

Saw post title with word rapist in quotes. Bet myself a million dollars I knew who the author of OP was. I won!

Dude, that can't even be considered a bet.

 

[dismal]

She claims she said "no" after she had begun having consensual sex with him.

Thus, by her own story, she took a puking drunk guy home and had sex with him. How is that not rape?

If the court established she refused or refused to continue after initial consent that is likely to be ruled as rape. Whether she took him home or not doesn't imply consent. So the court will have to examine all the aspects of such a case very carefully.

*woosh* that one went right over your head.

Drunk people are not able to consent. She raped him.