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

[Derec]

Yet another example of how our society has lost its mind on "rape".
Former Amherst student challenges school's sexual assault conviction

Doe’s complaint, argues the expulsion was the result of “a deeply flawed investigatory and disciplinary process.”

Additionally, it reads, the action was taken “during a period of relentless and well-publicized accusations against Amherst for failing to protect female students against sexual assault.”

The complaint also alleges that “after the disciplinary process had run its course, the plaintiff discovered, and submitted to the college, irrefutable, documentary evidence–text messages previously concealed by the complainant–which disclosed that the very night the sexual encounter occurred, the complainant admitted that not only had she consented to the sex, but that she was its moving force.”

I wonder what "evidence" they had for his guilt other than her say-so. 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.

Jones’ original complaint alleges the oral sex had been nonconsensual the entire time. However, she later told an investigator that she performed oral sex willingly at the beginning and it became nonconsensual “’on a break’ during the sex act,” per Doe’s complaint. Documents say that Jones had asked Doe to stop but that he had forcibly made her continue.

So she changed her story and they still expelled him.

Here is her text message:

So he was puking, she "took care of him" and had sex with him. But somehow he "raped" her because feminism.

And of course Obama/Biden 2011 decree is directly responsible for things coming to this ridiculous juncture.

The appendix also outlined that cases would be judged on a preponderance of evidence; this differed from the previous standard: clear and convincing evidence of guilt.

I have said when this disastrous edict was first enacted that it will result in a much greater chance of false positives, of innocent men neing expelled. We are witnessing now the fruits of this ill-conceived, illiberal and frankly sexist policy.

But none of this will dissuade the usual suspects from insisting false rape allegations are not a problem, that colleges are not biased against men or sink to personal insults.

 

[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.

 

[TSwizzle]

There a chilling quote in there from Jones where she is not quite ready to think of what happened as rape. No doubt after some "counseling" she was persuaded that she was raped by an extremely drunk guy who couldn't tell the difference between New York and New Year.

 

[Axulus]

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.

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

 

[Arctish]

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

I agree. Did he attempt to press charges or at least report her to the school? Was he ignored, or told he was wasting his time?

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

It's very relevant. The process should be the same for males, females, straights, gays, and in-betweens. The Code of Conduct requirement for sober consent should be enforced in a completely gender-neutral way.

If he was puking drunk and she had sex with him, she should be expelled. If he forced her to give him oral sex when she wanted to stop, he should be expelled, too.

 

[Axulus]

Do we know the details of her story on how he allegedly forced her to continue? Was there any physical evidence consistent with that force?

 

[Toni]

It is possible for a drunk male to rape a sober female. Or sober male, for that matter.

Where sobriety/inebriation or other impairment comes into play is when the act is predicated on the fact that the impaired individual is unable to consent or to effectively advocate for him/herself or to escape the situation.

A and B are at a party where A has been drinking heavily and B has not imbibed or is unimpaired. B wishes to have sex with A. A is unable to effectively say no, or to escape the situation. B has sex with A. B has just raped A.


C and D are at a party and C has been drinking heavily while D has not. C wishes to have sex with D. D does not wish to have sex. C forces D to have sex. C has raped D, despite C being inebriated.

Gender isn't the deciding factor. What is the deciding factor is if either party is unable to give effective consent and also whether force was used to compel a sex act.

 

[Derec]

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.

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

- - - Updated - - -

Gender isn't the deciding factor.

Except in every case it's the male who gets expelled and the female who gets treated as the "victim" no matter the actual facts. As with laughing dog, thanks for conforming my prediction.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

 

[Arctish]

If the only source for that claim is the accuser's say so that's hardly evidence. Expelling male students with very little (or any) evidence and not allowing exculpatory evidence like her texts has everything to do with feminism.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

Except in every case it's the male who gets expelled and the female who gets treated as the "victim" no matter the actual facts.

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.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

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

If there were 2,3 or 4 drunks having a gang bang, did she rape them? One can also puke when they are sober or even after drinking a little. Puking is essentially the discharge of noxious chemicals which can be triggered off by a variety of reasons.

 

[dismal]

It is possible for a drunk male to rape a sober female. Or sober male, for that matter.

Yes, yes it is.

But what does this comment have to do with this thread?

By any and all standards that have been espoused on this forum this woman raped this man.

Right?

 

[Toni]

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

- - - Updated - - -

Gender isn't the deciding factor.

Except in every case it's the male who gets expelled and the female who gets treated as the "victim" no matter the actual facts. As with laughing dog, thanks for conforming my prediction.

You're welcome. I am glad you finally get that if one person says stop, the other must stop, regardless of whether it is a male and a female, two males or two females--or to be inclusive more individuals of either sex or intersex individuals.

 

[Toni]

It is possible for a drunk male to rape a sober female. Or sober male, for that matter.

Yes, yes it is.

But what does this comment have to do with this thread?

By any and all standards that have been espoused on this forum this woman raped this man.

Right?

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.

 

[Derec]

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.

There is no evidence she wanted him to stop. In fact, in her text message she said that she fucked him (note that she admits to an active role!), not that he raped her.

Besides, you were among those on here who proclaimed "drunk can't consent". By your own standards, he could not consent and thus she is a rapist even if he never asked her to stop. I disagree with your premise on principle, but if you want to go that way, sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose as well. And that's precisely not what we are seeing from colleges and universities - we see a very selective application of these draconian sex rules.

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

The thing is, you want to take her word for it. You want him (as he unfortunately and unconscionably was) expelled on nothing more than her say-so.

 

[Derec]

I am glad you finally get that if one person says stop, the other must stop, regardless of whether it is a male and a female, two males or two females--or to be inclusive more individuals of either sex or intersex individuals.

That part was never in dispute. The issues in dispute have always been
a) proving that sexual assault took place. The Obama/Biden decree is disastrous because it lowers the burden of proof and reduces the ability of the accused to defend himself, thus greatly increasing the chance of a false positive, i.e. innocent men getting expelled
b) defining any level of intoxication as inability to consent, but only for females.

 

[dismal]

Yes, yes it is.

But what does this comment have to do with this thread?

By any and all standards that have been espoused on this forum this woman raped this man.

Right?

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?

 

[Derec]

If there were 2,3 or 4 drunks having a gang bang, did she rape them?

I do not agree with it, but if we apply the standard of requiring "sober consent" in a gender neutral fashion then yes, she has. Of course, colleges do not apply that rule in a gender neutral fashion.

One can also puke when they are sober or even after drinking a little. Puking is essentially the discharge of noxious chemicals which can be triggered off by a variety of reasons.

Not unless there is some other underlying issue like a stomach virus or food poisoning. I do not see any indication any of these were present here.

 

[Bronzeage]

Puking guys are hot, so she probably wanted it.

We have yet to settle the philosophical question of how much does self inflicted impairment diminish responsibility in these matters. It only took about 50 years from the invention of the automobile, till we decided driving while intoxicated did not relieve a person of any responsibility for any injury or damage.