Campus "rape", a clear indication the univsities are doing it wrong

[laughing dog]

No, Loren, it does not. What happened prior to entering the dorm room is not evidence of what happened inside the dorm room; and you have zero idea of went on in the dorm room.

As others have noted, it can sometimes take additional time for the full effects of ingested alcohol to be felt. She may have been barely borderline functioning during the walk to her room, yet unconscious after entering her room.

The two of them may have had more to drink after getting to her room, until she was passed out.

I am not suggesting either of those things happened or nothing happened. What I am saying... yet again... is that you CANNOT claim with any validity that YOU know what happened in that room on the basis of what was on the video from the bar.

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

T The sex occurred in the room. You don't know what happened in the room. You don't know if she said no in the room. You don't know if she was too drunk to consent when she was in the room. So what happened in the room has everything to do with the case..

Logically, anything that happened prior to them entering the room has no bearing on the case. Her actions on the tape are much more consistent with someone giving consent. But people hold their liquor differently, and it is possible she was too drunk to give consent because that does not require anyone to be passed out or falling down drunk.

But all of this has to do with the criminal case that a judge (not the police or the prosecutor) dismissed. Your OP is about the university doing wrong. However, at this point, you have produced no evidence or any factual reason to support the claim that the university is doing "wrong" in this instance.

In fact, you have wrongly claimed the police did not believe the woman. You have wrongly claimed that universities have binding agreements with students. You have wrongly claimed that it does not matter what happened in the room where they have sex. You have wrongly claimed it is not possible she did not consent. Do you realize your posts resemble typical rape apologist crap?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An no, I do not usually report to my partner when ejaculation is eminent and ask for permission. That would actually spoil everything for both of us. Frankly, I would feel more like a robot than a human being.

Strangely enough, I often do but partially as being playful, partially as trying to coordinate our orgasms. There's never any doubt it's going inside.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

T The sex occurred in the room. You don't know what happened in the room. You don't know if she said no in the room. You don't know if she was too drunk to consent when she was in the room. So what happened in the room has everything to do with the case..

Logically, anything that happened prior to them entering the room has no bearing on the case. Her actions on the tape are much more consistent with someone giving consent. But people hold their liquor differently, and it is possible she was too drunk to give consent because that does not require anyone to be passed out or falling down drunk.

But all of this has to do with the criminal case that a judge (not the police or the prosecutor) dismissed. Your OP is about the university doing wrong. However, at this point, you have produced no evidence or any factual reason to support the claim that the university is doing "wrong" in this instance.

In fact, you have wrongly claimed the police did not believe the woman. You have wrongly claimed that universities have binding agreements with students. You have wrongly claimed that it does not matter what happened in the room where they have sex. You have wrongly claimed it is not possible she did not consent. Do you realize your posts resemble typical rape apologist crap?

You're ignoring the facts as usual.

If she were claiming he forced her then what happened in the room would matter.

However, she's claiming too drunk to consent. The alcohol consumption happened before she entered the room. We have her signing him in--she's obviously not too drunk at that point and that's very soon before the supposed offense.

 

[laughing dog]

You're ignoring the facts as usual.

If she were claiming he forced her then what happened in the room would matter.

However, she's claiming too drunk to consent. The alcohol consumption happened before she entered the room. We have her signing him in--she's obviously not too drunk at that point and that's very soon before the supposed offense.

As usual, you are ignoring the actual content of the posts and making stuff up in your haste to defend your delusions. First, you cannot tell whether someone is "not too drunk" for consent from a video of them signing someone in. Second, that is not relevant as to whether or not she was "not too drunk" at the time they had sex.

I noticed you ignored half of my post. So I will repeat it here
You have wrongly claimed the police did not believe the woman. You have wrongly claimed that universities have binding agreements with students. You have wrongly claimed that it does not matter what happened in the room where they have sex. You have wrongly claimed it is not possible she did not consent. Do you realize your posts resemble typical rape apologist crap?

 

[Toni]

No, Loren, it does not. What happened prior to entering the dorm room is not evidence of what happened inside the dorm room; and you have zero idea of went on in the dorm room.

As others have noted, it can sometimes take additional time for the full effects of ingested alcohol to be felt. She may have been barely borderline functioning during the walk to her room, yet unconscious after entering her room.

The two of them may have had more to drink after getting to her room, until she was passed out.

I am not suggesting either of those things happened or nothing happened. What I am saying... yet again... is that you CANNOT claim with any validity that YOU know what happened in that room on the basis of what was on the video from the bar.

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

She claimed too-drunk-to-consent, shortly before the sex she demonstrated that was false.

She didn't claim she was forced, thus any speculation that she was forced is just feminist crap.

What happened in the room was whatever sexual activity and/or assault.

That is entirely relevant. That's the only thing that IS relevant.

As far as any of us knows, she changed her mind, he changed his mind, she passed out, whatever. We do. not. know. YOU do not know.

 

[Rhea]

I'm 60 now so I am kind of in the waning days of sex and familyhood. But if I were a young man today and wanted to start a family I don't know what I would do. I would probably have my future wife sign some sort of agreement saying the kids will really be mine and also an agreement that the sex to have the kids would not be interpreted as rape. Otherwise, if things go wrong (as they do 50% of the time) the woman will have all kinds of legal and criminal charges available to her at the divorce court to make sure the mans life is ruined.

You know, it's funny. Millions and millions and hundreds of millions of men who are not assholes never find themselves accused of rape. Billions of dating partners and marriage partners figure out this "mutual respect" thing without any trouble at all.

And a few can't seem to help but argue, "yeah women are sly bitches who are likely to accuse an innocent dude like me." I can't help but wonder whether you are as innocent as you claim when you look at sex and relationships like you do. It's so weirdly dysfunctional to think like that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Kidney "theft", a clear indication the hosptials are doing it wrong

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...kidney-theft.html

Yeah, it's the Daily Fail but they probably have the basic facts.

Summary: Victim accused doctor of stealing her kidney due to alcohol impairment. Oops--multiple security cameras show that she's the instigator by walking in the hospital and that she walked in the room where they steal kidneys. The police figured it out and dropped all charges. The hospital, though....

Hospital is reportedly conducting its own investigation and Doctor could still be fired.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

She claimed too-drunk-to-consent, shortly before the sex she demonstrated that was false.

She didn't claim she was forced, thus any speculation that she was forced is just feminist crap.

What happened in the room was whatever sexual activity and/or assault.

That is entirely relevant. That's the only thing that IS relevant.

As far as any of us knows, she changed her mind, he changed his mind, she passed out, whatever. We do. not. know. YOU do not know.

This is the elephant in the room which the media was too amateurish to even bother to check before printing the article. Without any of this, if she was intoxicated she was not of sound mind to make such a choice of course.

Unfortunately as a male the seat of the brain's thoughts and actions are in the seat of his pants in our modern society he is expected to override his compulsions with reasoning and respect.

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...kidney-theft.html

Yeah, it's the Daily Fail but they probably have the basic facts.

Summary: Victim accused doctor of stealing her kidney due to alcohol impairment. Oops--multiple security cameras show that she's the instigator by walking in the hospital and that she walked in the room where they steal kidneys. The police figured it out and dropped all charges. The hospital, though....

Hospital is reportedly conducting its own investigation and Doctor could still be fired.

This is an entirely different issue. A 29 year old factory worker goes to hospital for a urinary tract operation and finds one of her kidneys was removed.

First she did not consent to a kidney removal. However if the surgeons were correct and had no choice then that would have to be established.

Though not a medical person, if the same kidney was fit to use for another person then logically it could have remained with the patient. This is again an issue that is under investigation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...kidney-theft.html

Yeah, it's the Daily Fail but they probably have the basic facts.

Summary: Victim accused doctor of stealing her kidney due to alcohol impairment. Oops--multiple security cameras show that she's the instigator by walking in the hospital and that she walked in the room where they steal kidneys. The police figured it out and dropped all charges. The hospital, though....

Hospital is reportedly conducting its own investigation and Doctor could still be fired.

This is an entirely different issue.

Of course, it's different: it's kidney theft. Let's concentrate on the similarities.

A 29 year old factory worker goes to hospital for a urinary tract operation and finds one of her kidneys was removed.

You are omitting that in my story she walked into the room where they steal kidneys.

First she did not consent to a kidney removal.

and we don't know that the woman in the op consenting to sex. She may have consented to moderately naughty touching and kissing. See that's the similarity you did not notice. It's similar to walking in a hospital or walking in the kidney stealing room. So, the woman in my story may have consented to walk in a room but it doesn't mean she's consented to further things.

It's really terrible that you made me explain the parody. Now you must be thrashed with a wet noodle until you apologize.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...kidney-theft.html

Yeah, it's the Daily Fail but they probably have the basic facts.

Summary: Victim accused doctor of stealing her kidney due to alcohol impairment. Oops--multiple security cameras show that she's the instigator by walking in the hospital and that she walked in the room where they steal kidneys. The police figured it out and dropped all charges. The hospital, though....

Hospital is reportedly conducting its own investigation and Doctor could still be fired.

This is an entirely different issue. A 29 year old factory worker goes to hospital for a urinary tract operation and finds one of her kidneys was removed.

First she did not consent to a kidney removal. However if the surgeons were correct and had no choice then that would have to be established...

And unless she was unconscious and literally bleeding out and there is absolutely no way to get consent from a next of kin or power of attorney in time, removing the kidney without her consent would be a SERIOUS ethics violation and possibly a crime. Otherwise, the doctors HAVE to get your consent for the next part of the operation, provided you are of sound mind and are not under the effects of anasthesia or controlled substances. That people sometimes withdraw their consent for life saving procedures is actually a fairly common problem in hospitals, especially when children are involved.

On the other hand, there are very few circumstances where raping an unconscious woman would be justified due to emergency necessity. I mean, I suppose if a giant demon orgy suddenly broke out all around you and you know for sure that the demons would rip you apart and eat you if you weren't taking part in the fun. But Random Unexpected Flesh Eating Demon Orgy Out of Nowhere is pretty hard to prove in a court of law...

 

[RavenSky]

No, Loren, it does not. What happened prior to entering the dorm room is not evidence of what happened inside the dorm room; and you have zero idea of went on in the dorm room.

As others have noted, it can sometimes take additional time for the full effects of ingested alcohol to be felt. She may have been barely borderline functioning during the walk to her room, yet unconscious after entering her room.

The two of them may have had more to drink after getting to her room, until she was passed out.

I am not suggesting either of those things happened or nothing happened. What I am saying... yet again... is that you CANNOT claim with any validity that YOU know what happened in that room on the basis of what was on the video from the bar.

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

You HAVE to be fucking with us for LOLZ

The ONLY thing that matters is what happened IN THE ROOM!!!

She claimed too-drunk-to-consent, shortly before the sex she demonstrated that was false.

"shortly before" is what doesn't have any bearing on the case

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're ignoring the facts as usual.

If she were claiming he forced her then what happened in the room would matter.

However, she's claiming too drunk to consent. The alcohol consumption happened before she entered the room. We have her signing him in--she's obviously not too drunk at that point and that's very soon before the supposed offense.

As usual, you are ignoring the actual content of the posts and making stuff up in your haste to defend your delusions. First, you cannot tell whether someone is "not too drunk" for consent from a video of them signing someone in. Second, that is not relevant as to whether or not she was "not too drunk" at the time they had sex.

I noticed you ignored half of my post. So I will repeat it here
You have wrongly claimed the police did not believe the woman. You have wrongly claimed that universities have binding agreements with students. You have wrongly claimed that it does not matter what happened in the room where they have sex. You have wrongly claimed it is not possible she did not consent. Do you realize your posts resemble typical rape apologist crap?

If she's able to sign him into her dorm she's not too drunk to consent. Too drunk to consent is a pretty high bar.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't care what happened in the room, it has no bearing on the case.

She claimed too-drunk-to-consent, shortly before the sex she demonstrated that was false.

She didn't claim she was forced, thus any speculation that she was forced is just feminist crap.

What happened in the room was whatever sexual activity and/or assault.

That is entirely relevant. That's the only thing that IS relevant.

As far as any of us knows, she changed her mind, he changed his mind, she passed out, whatever. We do. not. know. YOU do not know.

No, you do not know. The problem is you are arguing the wrong thing--she never claimed he forced her. The claim is too drunk to consent, which the signing in refutes.

 

[RavenSky]

If she's able to sign him into her dorm she's not too drunk to consent.

Bullshit.

Remember the night I posted in the "drunk" thread when I did not realize how potent Everclear is, and couldn't understand why I was so very very very drunk?

I managed to type the entire post without mistakes, but I was passed out cold minutes later

 

[J842P]

If she's able to sign him into her dorm she's not too drunk to consent.

Bullshit.

Remember the night I posted in the "drunk" thread when I did not realize how potent Everclear is, and couldn't understand why I was so very very very drunk?

I managed to type the entire post without mistakes, but I was passed out cold minutes later

Yeah, I don't actually know what the legal standard is, but one can clearly be "too drunk" as far as I would consider it, and still be able to do things like sign a piece of paper, enter in a door code, or even successfully drive home across the county. I have done all of those things when I had no business doing anything but going to sleep.

 

[Rhea]

No, you do not know. The problem is you are arguing the wrong thing--she never claimed he forced her. The claim is too drunk to consent, which the signing in refutes.

You know, it seems to me that there are THOUSANDS of men out there paying fines and losing their licenses who would argue that the fact of their operating the car _proves_ that they were not too drunk to drive. Some of them even claim this _after_ killing people.

Typically we are willing to say, "bullshit. Just because you can sign your name does not mean that you are capable of making good judgment decisions."

Moreover, a date-rape drug, or later shots administered after arrival or just before arrival could change the equation between the lobby and the room.

Why are doods so unwilling to admit that their judgment of women may be off and they may not be as welcome as they think they are?

 

[laughing dog]

If she's able to sign him into her dorm she's not too drunk to consent.

As has been explained many times by many people, you are wrong. It is possible that she was too drunk to consent by the time she was in the room.

I notice that you are ignoring all the relevant posts about that actual topic of the OP: that universities are doing these investigations wrong. However, in this thread, you have wrongly claimed the police did not believe the woman. You have wrongly claimed that universities have binding agreements with students. You have no idea what USC is investigating or who. You have no idea how USC is doing its investigation. And, you have no idea what the outcome of the investigation is.

So, on what factual basis do you base your claim about USC doing "it wrong"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, you do not know. The problem is you are arguing the wrong thing--she never claimed he forced her. The claim is too drunk to consent, which the signing in refutes.

You know, it seems to me that there are THOUSANDS of men out there paying fines and losing their licenses who would argue that the fact of their operating the car _proves_ that they were not too drunk to drive. Some of them even claim this _after_ killing people.

Typically we are willing to say, "bullshit. Just because you can sign your name does not mean that you are capable of making good judgment decisions."

Moreover, a date-rape drug, or later shots administered after arrival or just before arrival could change the equation between the lobby and the room.

Why are doods so unwilling to admit that their judgment of women may be off and they may not be as welcome as they think they are?

If we applied DUI standards to sexual consent there would be a lot more such cases.

 

[Terrell]

You know, it seems to me that there are THOUSANDS of men out there paying fines and losing their licenses who would argue that the fact of their operating the car _proves_ that they were not too drunk to drive. Some of them even claim this _after_ killing people.

Typically we are willing to say, "bullshit. Just because you can sign your name does not mean that you are capable of making good judgment decisions."

Moreover, a date-rape drug, or later shots administered after arrival or just before arrival could change the equation between the lobby and the room.

Why are doods so unwilling to admit that their judgment of women may be off and they may not be as welcome as they think they are?

If we applied DUI standards to sexual consent there would be a lot more such cases.

Good point. By that standard a 120lb woman would likely be too drunk to drive after 2 drinks in an hour.

Here, one drink equals 1.5 ounces of 80 proof liquor (40% alcohol), 12 ounces of beer (4.5% alcohol), or 5 ounces of wine (12% alcohol).
http://www.businessinsider.com/drinks-before-driving-if-bac-is-05-2013-5

Article is about lowering DUI standards from .08 to .05. Charts for male & female drunkenness towards the bottom of the page.

 

[TSwizzle]

Moreover, a date-rape drug, or later shots administered after arrival or just before arrival could change the equation between the lobby and the room.

None of that happened in this case.

Why are doods so unwilling to admit that their judgment of women may be off and they may not be as welcome as they think they are?

What nonsense is this ? It should be the other way round. Why do so many chicks get fall down drunk and hit on guys they wouldn't normally hit on ?