Well many cases are like that. This case in particular is such a case where witnesses said they were both drunk and both willing participants. I say that it was most likely just a consensual hookup but if you insist it must have been some sort of sexual assault because they were drunk, then they are surely equally guilty.
Actually, Derec, I've linked and quoted witnesses who said that she was regretful and wanted to stop and witnesses who claimed she was drunk. I haven't seen anything that claimed that he was drunk. YU claims they were both willing. It seems that initially this was true. Whether or not this remained true, I cannot say because there isn't enough evidence in articles which rely entirely on Yu's point of view. Also, unless you have information to the contrary (in which case, please link and quote), we have no way of actually knowing that they were equally drunk.
I have stated previously the two conditions which would have made it rape:
1. If she wanted to stop and was prevented from doing so.
2. If she was too drunk to consent.
Do you disagree that these would be conditions which would make the sex rape?
In fact, actual studies have demonstrated that rapists are most often sober and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
What studies? Also, that is probably true for actual rapists. But there are also many consensual, mutually drunken hookups that are being called "rapes" because the girl regrets the sex the next day (or year) and cries rape. The cases I bring up are usually such mutually drunken hookups. As you said, "rapists are most often sober" and these guys weren't.
I've linked in this thread. Feel free to read the links.
Again: different levels of inebriation would lead to differing levels of capacity to consent, as you have admitted.
Nothing to admit here, as it is pretty non-controversial in the abstract. The problem arises from proving just how drunk they both were at a later date. In the Vassar case we have alleged witnesses (probably Walker's friends though) say that she "appeared drunk". Her appearing drunk is in no way evidence that she was "too drunk to consent" and Yu should not have been punished over that incident.
At least one of those witnesses was Yu's former girlfriend. So perhaps she was vengeful, perhaps there is just a huge conspiracy against Yu. But the witnesses were concerned enough to try to contact campus security when they saw her walking with Yu. That would indicate to me that she must have appeared to be really drunk.
Similarly in the Occidental case the witnesses say they were both drunk but also both willing. How one can construe the girl's victimhood and the guy's culpability from that requires some serious gender bias!
I know of no feminist nor any individual who claims that the responsibility is 'always on the man.' Certainly I have never made such a claim.
It's what the feminist opinions in these cases boil down to. If they are both drunk, the guy is punished and the girl declared a "victim". Without exception.
I call bullshit. For one thing, that is not my position.
Except for the witnesses.
No witnesses said she told him to stop and he didn't. None whatsoever!
His room mate said she wanted to stop and that she expressed regrets saying she wasn't ready for anything new. What hasn't been said is if she tried to leave and was prevented from doing so. But the articles rely only on Yu.
Later, Walker put a condom on Yu and they got down until his roommate unexpectedly showed up, after which Walker “began to lament about her ex-boyfriend and stated that she was not ready to jump into ‘anything new,’ ” then got dressed and left after noting how she “took Peter Yu’s virginity,” the suit says.
Seems like post-coital regrets and in is in no way evidence of non-consent. In fact, the language, that she "took" his virginity, implies active participation on her part. Look at the last three words - that is part of the lawsuit and is used as evidence for the plaintiff (Yu)!
Let's look at something else from the article:
she sent him a Facebook e-mail the day after their one-night stand saying she “had a wonderful time.”
This exculpatory evidence and should be enough to seal the lawsuit for Yu.
Sounds as though she wanted to stop.
At that point she had already stopped.
The article is told entirely from Yu's perspective and it isn't clear whether he attempted to stop her from leaving or forced her to continue to have sex, which would have been rape, just as if he wanted to stop and she did not, it would have been rape.
I don't see that possibility from the language used at all. She didn't tell him to stop, in fact it is pretty clear they were already finished when the roommate walked in.
They may have been finished but to me, it is not clear that was the case.
"Appeared to be drunk" is very vague and does not go at all into whether she was too drunk to consent. It does not say that she could barely walk, or unable to speak coherently etc. which would be indicative of extreme intoxication. She even managed to put a condom on him which requires the level of hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills lacking in severely intoxicated.
HE says she put the condom on him. And no, it doesn't require that much coordination or fine motor skills.
We actually don't know what the entire body of evidence or testimony was presented against Yu. We have only his side of the story and even that does not make it clear that it was not rape: his room mate indicates she didn't want to start anything new (and the quote makes her sound pretty sloppy drunk) and other witnesses report her appearing to be drunk. You may be correct: he could have been treated unfairly but it is not possible for us to know given the very slim details in online articles told entirely from Yu's perspective.
The "not wanting to start anything new" was said after they had sex, not before. She can't retroactively withdraw consent. And there are plenty of red flags about this case - it being decided solely by her father's colleagues (she didn't want a student representative), him being not allowed to question witnesses, the case being brought a year after the fact.
You are vastly overrating the fact that the case was decided by professors who were her father's colleagues. Trust me. I've spent a fair amount of time around academics. Getting 3 to agree on anything is not easy.
Derec, it's actually a very serious issue, and one where much education needs to be done. Many of the childhood victims of sexual abuse by priests did not term what happened to them as 'rape' because they didn't believe that it could happen to a boy (in the case of male victims. Although they are not prominently featured in news articles, there are plenty of female victims as well) or that whatever a priest (or coach, or teacher or favorite uncle, etc.) did was ok. Even Mary Kay Letourneau's victim, aka her now husband, does not see that a 35 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old as rape but clearly, it is.
At the same time college girls are adults and thus merely having sex with them is not rape which makes it unlike these cases where we basically have adolescents being taken advantage of. I assume college girls would know if they were being raped or sexually assaulted, no matter what Ms. magazine or this article says.
The article is not from Ms Magazine and perhaps you would be actually better informed and in a better position to form an opinion if you read the article.
Adults--intelligent, well educated adults--often struggle with identifying assault as abuse because of the shame involved, because they may have grown up in abusive situations and see it as normal, because the assailant is otherwise a 'nice guy' or because they are dependent on the assailant. A lot of reasons. I've listened to plenty as I took people to ERs.
In many cultures, both men and women believe that a woman (or child) must submit to a man, regardless. And if the two are unmarried, it is her fault, even if she is a child. She is often severely punished.
Relevance to US college campuses?
People are people, Derec. Goes to the fact that our ideas of what is rape and who is at fault are evolving. We're not all on the same page.
In the U.S., the fact that men can be rape victims is just now gaining popular acceptance. Until about 20-30 years ago, in most states, a husband could legally force his wife to have sex and it was not deemed rape. I've known people who did not count beatings which resulted in black eyes, broken bones, etc. to be 'abuse.' He just lost his temper. I provoked it. And of course, male victims have an even harder time coming to grips with the fact that they are being abused.
The problem with marital rape is being able to prove it and possibility of false claims being used to punish the husband if the marriage is on the rocks.
Sadly, you think that is the problem. Not that one spouse might rape the person they are supposed to love and cherish and whose welfare should be first and foremost. Not the betrayal, not the harm done to the victim, to children, to society.
Vengeful females. THAT'S the problem. Got it.
Too many people still believe that if you dress a certain way, or drink too much or flirted with someone or if he bought you dinner or if you've had sex with him before or if you are married, then it cannot be rape.
It can be rape, but just because she was drinking does not make consensual sex into rape.
No, but 'too drunk' means no consent and that means rape. But thank you for at least admitting it can be rape.
A handsome athlete cannot be a rapist: don't all women want to sleep with him?
It certainly is a valid question. Not that he cannot be a rapist but that needs to be proven, not assumed. On the other hand, successful athletes are good targets for extortion.
Derec, there is not a man alive now or at any time in history that ALL women wanted to sleep with. The question would be why would a man who likely had so many options of willing partners choose someone who was unwilling or too drunk to resist?
That does happen. Sometimes they post Youtube videos boasting about it.
Even if she was passed out at the time, she surely wanted it.
Another thing that would need to be proven, not merely assumed. Do you have a case in mind?
Derec, if she or he was passed out, she or he was too drunk to consent. Period.
