A more honest article on the college rape mess

[Metaphor]

Her description sounds like a drug was put into her very first drink. Since it's the next day, have the police done a toxicology report?

If the toxicology report came up negative (no drugs), would you go to trial? Would you convict?

Depending on how many hours have passed, most toxicology reports will not detect most "date rape" drugs. That is not conclusive proof she was not drugged. Moreover, she didn't claim conclusively that she was drugged, only that she immediately felt woozy.

She says she remembers saying "no" and pushing him off. He even confirms that part but didn't believe she really meant it. She says she blacked out. He says she later consented.

Chances are extremely high that official action won't go beyond questioning and releasing him. It is highly unlikely that the complaint will result in a prosecution, but it might make the news.

Who do you believe?

I don't know who to believe. Indeed, I would prefer to be agnostic on a situation with so little evidence. If you say 'I don't know', you can't be wrong.

I do know that if I don't know what to believe, I would not convict someone on that basis. "I don't know what to believe" does not equal "Beyond reasonable doubt".

 

[Sabine Grant]

A woman goes shopping with her best friend's boyfriend because said boyfriend has request her help to choose the best surprise birthday gift for the girlfriend. While shopping, they stop for luch. He insists on paying because she was helping him. After shopping, he asks if she would mind stopping by his place to drop off the packages before he drops her back home. Once in his apartment, he offers her a drink, and she accepts...

According to her police report the next day, she started feeling woozy and even remembers jokingly asking if he drugged her drink. She remembers him making a pass at her, and that she pushed him off telling him "no" but laughing while she did it, trying to keep the situation from getting awkward. She remembers him getting more aggressive but by then she was having trouble fighting him off because her body felt like a rag-doll. She doesn't remember anything else until many hours later waking up in his bed with most of her clothing off, and clear indications that she'd had sexual intercourse.

According to him, after a few drinks he made a pass at her and while she did initially push him off she did so in a flirting manner, clearly playing "hard to get" rather than really meaning "no". He continued making advances until she consented and then they had sex. She slept in his bed all night, and left the next morning without any objections.

Who do you believe?

Her description sounds like a drug was put into her very first drink. Since it's the next day, have the police done a toxicology report?

Victims of drug facilitated rapes and sexual assaults or "date rape drugs" would need to go to a medical facility FIRST and FOREMOST for a rape kit and resulting blood test in order to secure evidence that they were administered a drug rendering them either heavily sedated or causing temporary paralysis or both. Without such evidence gathered in the course of a medical examination and tests, such victims are basically SOL. The problem remains that most victims of any rape have sustained a trauma which is bound to impair their ability to think and plan rationally. I know that I was unable to think rationally let alone the extremely confusing emotions I experienced.

There is a series of "do" and " do not" that every rape victim ought to know :

1) Do : Immediately call someone for help. If calling a rape crisis center, volunteers are trained to instruct victims as to what they need to do next.

2) Do not : wash/shower, change clothes.

If the toxicology report came up negative (no drugs), would you go to trial? Would you convict?

The "go to trial" would be a decision made by a Prosecutor based on charging the accused party. The more evidence, the stronger the case. Without evidence regarding the victim's claim she was administered a "date rape" drug, IMO a case too weak to prosecute. Keeping in mind that a victim either heavily sedated or rendered unable to physically defend herself (paralysis causing drug), there will be no defensive wounds on her body. (bruises, lesions etc...).

 

[RavenSky]

All it causes me to do is to restate what I have been saying for years: that we need to (1) shift our cultural perspective away from celebrating drunken hook-ups, and (2) redefine "rape" to include degrees similar to what we have for murder.

It does not cause me to rethink the fact that being drunk interferes with a person's ability to give consent.

I agree that rape is a crime that varies in severity and, like murder, it would be useful to have more and less severe forms codified.

But, you're avoiding the question. When two people too drunk to consent hook up, are they both rapists and rape victims?

One of my sisters used to steal money from my mother all the time. Many times, she would spend the evening drinking with my mother until my Mom was drunk to the point of passing out, then money would go missing. She would insist my mother gave it to her, but my mother would insist she didn't... or at least didn't remember doing so. My sister also flat out snuck behind my mother's back to steal, so there was no question whatsoever that this was a genuine pattern of theft - but my mother also always refused to press charges. Sometimes she would be furious with my sister, sometimes mad at herself, sometimes insist she would have given my sister the money anyway. But to any outside observer, it was crystal clear that my mother was not actually consenting to giving my sister the money.

So the question is, what do we call this? By strict definition my sister took money without consent, therefore it was a theft. But if my mother chooses not to call it "theft" and chooses not to have police investigate it as a theft, what do we call it?

That is what we are faced with when you insist on pressing the point of a drunken hook-up wherein neither party chooses to call it "rape" and neither party chooses to press charges. If you are determined to have me, as a third party observer, label it I've stated repeatedly that "no consent = rape" under the current singular definition, and that "drunk = no consent"

But I've also stated repeatedly that the parties involve may know that (prior to getting drunk) they intend to have consensual sex later, or that they would have consented even if not drunk, or wouldn't have consented but choose not to report it as a rape. So what should we call it? And why do we - as thrid party observers - need to call it anything when we are not discussing "drunken hook-ups" that are NOT reported as rapes?

 

[RavenSky]

All it causes me to do is to restate what I have been saying for years: that we need to (1) shift our cultural perspective away from celebrating drunken hook-ups

I don't think Western culture in general 'celebrates' drunken hookups. The walk home the next day in the same clothes you were at the party in is not called the 'walk of shame' for no reason.

Rather, drunken hookups are probably like unprotected sex. Not a great idea but it's really enticing to people and so they're going to do it, whether it's 'celebrated' or not.

Went to the movies last night with my daughter - 22 Jump Street. There are at least two scenes depicting the "Walk of Shame". It was not depicted as anything to actually be ashamed about, rather as something to be amused by. The movie goes even further by having the police captain "high five" the undercover cop for having a drunken hook-up with the college girl.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you about whether our culture celebtrates drunken hook-ups. I think we as a society most certainly do.

 

[RavenSky]

Depending on how many hours have passed, most toxicology reports will not detect most "date rape" drugs. That is not conclusive proof she was not drugged. Moreover, she didn't claim conclusively that she was drugged, only that she immediately felt woozy.

She says she remembers saying "no" and pushing him off. He even confirms that part but didn't believe she really meant it. She says she blacked out. He says she later consented.

Chances are extremely high that official action won't go beyond questioning and releasing him. It is highly unlikely that the complaint will result in a prosecution, but it might make the news.

Who do you believe?

I don't know who to believe. Indeed, I would prefer to be agnostic on a situation with so little evidence. If you say 'I don't know', you can't be wrong.

I do know that if I don't know what to believe, I would not convict someone on that basis. "I don't know what to believe" does not equal "Beyond reasonable doubt".

Again, a case like this is not going to get to a jury, so no one is asking you to convict; and if by some weird quirk it did get to a jury I have no problem with you choosing not to convict on the facts as stated. As Sabine noted, there would also likely be no additional evidence in the form of bruising, physical trauma, defensive wounds, etc. It would come down entirely to her word against his.

What I am asking you (everyone) is "who do you believe". "I don't know" is, in my opinion, perfectly reasonable, too. We will see what some others respond.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In my experience, the false rape claim is very rare, although a lot of men will admit to sex with the woman, but dispute the rape charge. Of course, any woman knows the ordeal which awaits her, if she makes a formal charge. It's not a trivial thing for her or him. Are we to believe there are enough vicious and vindictive women walking the halls of our colleges(and other places) who will make a false charge because they want to ruin some man who found her attractive, for this to be a real hazard.

The answer is no. There are not enough women such as I described, to make sex with a college girl a hazard to man's life and ambitions.

Here is the plain hard truth. This is a problem caused by men, not women. This is very difficult for some men to handle, because they fear the power of a woman's sexuality, and the power of women in general. This is reality. Some people can handle it, and some cannot.

I do not live in fear of false rape charges. I do not live in fear of false charges of theft or murder either, though I know both happen. Knowing both happen and supporting fair treatment and legal protection for those who suffer such false accusations, and a presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and a fair hearing, does not mean that I fear the power of merchants or dead people. Nor does it mean I hate merchants or dead people.

 

[Bronzeage]

In my experience, the false rape claim is very rare, although a lot of men will admit to sex with the woman, but dispute the rape charge. Of course, any woman knows the ordeal which awaits her, if she makes a formal charge. It's not a trivial thing for her or him. Are we to believe there are enough vicious and vindictive women walking the halls of our colleges(and other places) who will make a false charge because they want to ruin some man who found her attractive, for this to be a real hazard.

The answer is no. There are not enough women such as I described, to make sex with a college girl a hazard to man's life and ambitions.

Here is the plain hard truth. This is a problem caused by men, not women. This is very difficult for some men to handle, because they fear the power of a woman's sexuality, and the power of women in general. This is reality. Some people can handle it, and some cannot.

I do not live in fear of false rape charges. I do not live in fear of false charges of theft or murder either, though I know both happen. Knowing both happen and supporting fair treatment and legal protection for those who suffer such false accusations, and a presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and a fair hearing, does not mean that I fear the power of merchants or dead people. Nor does it mean I hate merchants or dead people.

That is a noble position to take. No one can fault you for that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're simply assuming she's telling the truth.

Remember, most of these cases involve women who have been drinking--just how accurate will their memories be? Maybe they did say yes. (And in some of these cases others agree they said yes.)


Furthermore, I've actually seen people's memory of events change when their behavior was too contrary to how they normally are. No harm came from the changed memories but it did happen. I certainly can understand a woman who normally wouldn't have said yes later deciding she didn't say yes.

I'm not assuming she is telling the truth. I am stating the facts. It doesn't matter what she remembers, anymore than it matters how much a drunk driver remembers of how much alcohol he consumed before getting in the car. If a man has sex with an impaired person, he risks committing rape, just like the driver risks committing driving while intoxicated.

Drunk driving is illegal.

Drunk sex is not illegal. She doesn't get to decide the next morning if she said yes last night.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A woman goes shopping with her best friend's boyfriend because said boyfriend has request her help to choose the best surprise birthday gift for the girlfriend. While shopping, they stop for luch. He insists on paying because she was helping him. After shopping, he asks if she would mind stopping by his place to drop off the packages before he drops her back home. Once in his apartment, he offers her a drink, and she accepts...

According to her police report the next day, she started feeling woozy and even remembers jokingly asking if he drugged her drink. She remembers him making a pass at her, and that she pushed him off telling him "no" but laughing while she did it, trying to keep the situation from getting awkward. She remembers him getting more aggressive but by then she was having trouble fighting him off because her body felt like a rag-doll. She doesn't remember anything else until many hours later waking up in his bed with most of her clothing off, and clear indications that she'd had sexual intercourse.

According to him, after a few drinks he made a pass at her and while she did initially push him off she did so in a flirting manner, clearly playing "hard to get" rather than really meaning "no". He continued making advances until she consented and then they had sex. She slept in his bed all night, and left the next morning without any objections.

Who do you believe?

The blood test. Drugged--rape. Otherwise, her story isn't consistent.

 

[RavenSky]

A woman goes shopping with her best friend's boyfriend because said boyfriend has request her help to choose the best surprise birthday gift for the girlfriend. While shopping, they stop for luch. He insists on paying because she was helping him. After shopping, he asks if she would mind stopping by his place to drop off the packages before he drops her back home. Once in his apartment, he offers her a drink, and she accepts...

According to her police report the next day, she started feeling woozy and even remembers jokingly asking if he drugged her drink. She remembers him making a pass at her, and that she pushed him off telling him "no" but laughing while she did it, trying to keep the situation from getting awkward. She remembers him getting more aggressive but by then she was having trouble fighting him off because her body felt like a rag-doll. She doesn't remember anything else until many hours later waking up in his bed with most of her clothing off, and clear indications that she'd had sexual intercourse.

According to him, after a few drinks he made a pass at her and while she did initially push him off she did so in a flirting manner, clearly playing "hard to get" rather than really meaning "no". He continued making advances until she consented and then they had sex. She slept in his bed all night, and left the next morning without any objections.

Who do you believe?

The blood test. Drugged--rape. Otherwise, her story isn't consistent.

How is it not consistent?

 

[Arctish]

I'm not assuming she is telling the truth. I am stating the facts. It doesn't matter what she remembers, anymore than it matters how much a drunk driver remembers of how much alcohol he consumed before getting in the car. If a man has sex with an impaired person, he risks committing rape, just like the driver risks committing driving while intoxicated.

Drunk driving is illegal.

Non-consensual sex acts are also illegal.

She doesn't get to decide the next morning if she said yes last night.

Neither does he.

 

[Bronzeage]

I'm not assuming she is telling the truth. I am stating the facts. It doesn't matter what she remembers, anymore than it matters how much a drunk driver remembers of how much alcohol he consumed before getting in the car. If a man has sex with an impaired person, he risks committing rape, just like the driver risks committing driving while intoxicated.

Drunk driving is illegal.

Drunk sex is not illegal. She doesn't get to decide the next morning if she said yes last night.

Everyone knows drunk driving is illegal, but the act of getting drunk impairs a person's judgment and they commit a crime. That seems straightforward enough.

Drunk sex is not illegal, but sex with a person who is unable to consent is illegal. The act of getting drunk impairs a person's judgment and they commit a crime. In either case, "I was drunk and I didn't know what I was doing," is not sufficient defense.

Of course, my premise is not valid, if we accept the idea a man is entitled to have sex with any woman who does not actively object, and lack of resistance is considered consent.

 

[laughing dog]

Drunk driving is illegal.

Drunk sex is not illegal. She doesn't get to decide the next morning if she said yes last night.

Everyone knows drunk driving is illegal, but the act of getting drunk impairs a person's judgment and they commit a crime. That seems straightforward enough.

Drunk sex is not illegal, but sex with a person who is unable to consent is illegal. The act of getting drunk impairs a person's judgment and they commit a crime. In either case, "I was drunk and I didn't know what I was doing," is not sufficient defense.

Of course, my premise is not valid, if we accept the idea a man is entitled to have sex with any woman who does not actively object, and lack of resistance is considered consent.

You forgot "or if the man thought no meant yes".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The blood test. Drugged--rape. Otherwise, her story isn't consistent.

How is it not consistent?

One drink wouldn't impair her enough to explain it.

 

[Toni]

How is it not consistent?

One drink wouldn't impair her enough to explain it.

Not all rape drugs would still show up in a blood test, the more delay if she wasn't sure what happened, the less likely it would show up. If the drug was not detectable, it doesn't mean it wasn't given. And if she was drugged, it was rape, no matter the results of the test.

 

[Sabine Grant]

One drink wouldn't impair her enough to explain it.

Not all rape drugs would still show up in a blood test, the more delay if she wasn't sure what happened, the less likely it would show up.

If I recall correctly Rohypnol (illegal in the US) can still be detected for 72 hours. All the drugs falling under the category of "drug facilitated sexual assaults" can vary in their degree of concentration in the blood as well as urine(if the victim drank plenty of fluids) as well as depending on how much time has passed between administration/absorption and her reporting to a medical facility to get a rape kit. That is why any victim should report to an ER without any delay.

If the drug was not detectable, it doesn't mean it wasn't given. And if she was drugged, it was rape, no matter the results of the test.

The issue is that a test result showing traces of the said drug is necessary for the Prosecution to build a solid case that the victim was NOT able to consent and was indeed the victim of a drug facilitated sexual assault.In absence of such physical evidence, it comes down to "her word against his". Keeping in mind again that other physical evidence such as defensive wounds on the victim would be absent. The purpose of using such drugs is to render the victim unable to resist and defend herself.

The same would apply to an alcohol facilitated sexual assault. The Prosecution would have the burden to present evidence that the victim was not able to consent. The moment the "not able to consent" is established by the Prosecution, the case falls under the category of a drug facilitated sexual assault.Alcohol is considered part of the "drugs" falling in the category of drug facilitated sexual assaults.

Going back to mutual drunk hook ups, certainly a case can be made that the involved accused party was not in a clear/ sound mental state and should not have been expected to process " she is drunk and not able to consent".

 

[Toni]

Not all rape drugs would still show up in a blood test, the more delay if she wasn't sure what happened, the less likely it would show up.

If I recall correctly Rohypnol (illegal in the US) can still be detected for 72 hours. All the drugs falling under the category of "drug facilitated sexual assaults" can vary in their degree of concentration in the blood as well as urine(if the victim drank plenty of fluids) as well as depending on how much time has passed between administration/absorption and her reporting to a medical facility to get a rape kit. That is why any victim should report to an ER without any delay.

Of course. But of course, many rape victims are not thinking clearly, are in varying degrees of shock and disbelief, particularly when their attacker was someone they knew and trusted. This is a major factor in the delay of reporting. And of course, the victim must have quick access to an ER, which isn't always the case, and must also be able to convince the ER to perform the needed exam and tests. Without insurance, this can be problematic in some locales, although it should not be.

If the drug was not detectable, it doesn't mean it wasn't given. And if she was drugged, it was rape, no matter the results of the test.

The issue is that a test result showing traces of the said drug is necessary for the Prosecution to build a solid case that the victim was NOT able to consent and was indeed the victim of a drug facilitated sexual assault.In absence of such physical evidence, it comes down to "her word against his". Keeping in mind again that other physical evidence such as defensive wounds on the victim would be absent. The purpose of using such drugs is to render the victim unable to resist and defend herself.

The same would apply to an alcohol facilitated sexual assault. The Prosecution would have the burden to present evidence that the victim was not able to consent. The moment the "not able to consent" is established by the Prosecution, the case falls under the category of a drug facilitated sexual assault.Alcohol is considered part of the "drugs" falling in the category of drug facilitated sexual assaults.

Going back to mutual drunk hook ups, certainly a case can be made that the involved accused party was not in a clear/ sound mental state and should not have been expected to process " she is drunk and not able to consent".

Of course there issue is whether the prosecutor believes s/he can build a case and of course various forensic evidence is key. However, even if there is insufficient forensic evidence to convince the prosecutor to bring charges, the fact remains that the woman in the scenario was indeed raped.

 

[Sabine Grant]

If I recall correctly Rohypnol (illegal in the US) can still be detected for 72 hours. All the drugs falling under the category of "drug facilitated sexual assaults" can vary in their degree of concentration in the blood as well as urine(if the victim drank plenty of fluids) as well as depending on how much time has passed between administration/absorption and her reporting to a medical facility to get a rape kit. That is why any victim should report to an ER without any delay.

Of course. But of course, many rape victims are not thinking clearly, are in varying degrees of shock and disbelief, particularly when their attacker was someone they knew and trusted. This is a major factor in the delay of reporting.

I have been there, so I know by personal experience that I was unable to think in any rational manner. As I mentioned somewhere else, let alone all the conflicting emotions I also experienced considering I knew and trusted the man who drugged me and raped me.

And of course, the victim must have quick access to an ER, which isn't always the case,

I mentioned somewhere else (we have several rape topic threads going so not sure which one) that the victim is to call someone for help immediately.

and must also be able to convince the ER to perform the needed exam and tests.

Upon reporting of a patient claiming to have been the victim of a sexual assault, ER personnel are mandated by law to do a rape kit and contact the Police. I am not aware of ER personnel refusing to do a urine or blood test on a patient reporting it was a drug facilitated sexual assault.

Without insurance, this can be problematic in some locales, although it should not be.

That would be very rare incidences of ER personnel refusing to provide emergency care to a non insured patient reporting a sexual assault. In such very rare incidence, the victim only needs to call the Police and they will make that rape kit happen.

The prevalent cause for delay is always about the victim being in a state of shock and essentially having no knowledge of what she is supposed to do.

If the drug was not detectable, it doesn't mean it wasn't given. And if she was drugged, it was rape, no matter the results of the test.

The issue is that a test result showing traces of the said drug is necessary for the Prosecution to build a solid case that the victim was NOT able to consent and was indeed the victim of a drug facilitated sexual assault.In absence of such physical evidence, it comes down to "her word against his". Keeping in mind again that other physical evidence such as defensive wounds on the victim would be absent. The purpose of using such drugs is to render the victim unable to resist and defend herself.

The same would apply to an alcohol facilitated sexual assault. The Prosecution would have the burden to present evidence that the victim was not able to consent. The moment the "not able to consent" is established by the Prosecution, the case falls under the category of a drug facilitated sexual assault.Alcohol is considered part of the "drugs" falling in the category of drug facilitated sexual assaults.

Going back to mutual drunk hook ups, certainly a case can be made that the involved accused party was not in a clear/ sound mental state and should not have been expected to process " she is drunk and not able to consent".

Of course there issue is whether the prosecutor believes s/he can build a case and of course various forensic evidence is key. However, even if there is insufficient forensic evidence to convince the prosecutor to bring charges, the fact remains that the woman in the scenario was indeed raped.

What I brought up regarding " the involved accused party was not in a clear/sound mental state" (mutual drunk hook ups) would be a case built by the Defense. If the Prosecution's case is built on " she was too drunk to consent", the Defense case can also be built upon the accused party being too drunk to be able to consent to having sex. Consent is expected from BOTH parties. When both parties are drunk and deemed unable to consent, why eliminating one party from that status? Because one of them formulated an accusation of rape and the other party equally unable to consent did not?