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

[laughing dog]

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).

It might. Perhaps his memory will return. But none of that is relevant to the observation that her description that she was forced to have sex against will is a description of rape. That does not make that description accurate. That does means she is necessarily telling the truth.

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

I suggest you try thinking.

 

[Toni]

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.

Actually, I don't know what happened. My posts were very general on purpose:

If A wants to have sex and B says no and A forces sex, it's rape.

If A wants to have sex and B is too drunk to consent and A has sex with B, it's rape, although I will add that it is extremely difficult to prove, especially re: criminal charges.

If A and B are having sex and B says stop and A refuses to stop, it's rape.

It is entirely possible for a drunk person to forcibly rape a sober person.

 

[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?

Her claim is that she wanted to stop and he forced her to continue. That would be rape.

Take out the gender and substitute A and B. Forcing continued sexual contact after sex has begun is rape. I don't know that it's ever actually tried or convicted but.

It is complicated by the apparent facts that she initiated sex and he was drunk. If that's the end of the story, she should face disciplinary proceedings. If he forced her to continue, he should. Likely both should. If he forced her to continue, that would be forcible rape and is illegal. It would be hard to convict and I doubt there would be charges brought, but legally, it would be him raping her.,

 

[dismal]

It is complicated by the apparent facts that she initiated sex and he was drunk.

That's not a "complication" that's a rape, right?

She confessed to it. There are texts that corroborate it.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

The underlined statements logically contradict each other. Wishing to have sex with someone is nothing but another way of saying that one consents to sex with someone. According to the entire premise of "too drunk to consent" as stated in your first underlined premise, Person C cannot wish to or consent to have sex with person D, due to being intoxicated. IOW, any sexual act while intoxicated in not a willful one, thus cannot possibly be rape by that person.
This is the inherent absurdity that follows from the first premise, which ignores actual desire, will, and all actions and words conveying such, and instead deems all that irrelevant if the person is intoxicated. By the "too drunk to consent" logic, sex between a drunk and a non-consenting sober person is always sex between two non-consenting persons, and thus not rape by anyone.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Read the text messages. That's not a rape victim.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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???

Really. It's about punishing men for rape--never mind that the rapes that they're supposed to be punished for aren't happening. Since the court system has this strange notion of proof they aren't being convicted because these aren't rapes in the first place. Thus go with a kangaroo court and bypass the pesky 4th amendment. Same thing as the TSA and the drug war. Same thing as DUI checkpoints. Same thing as the immigration checkpoints.

 

[ksen]

When will this holocaust end!?

 

[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.

The underlined statements logically contradict each other. Wishing to have sex with someone is nothing but another way of saying that one consents to sex with someone. According to the entire premise of "too drunk to consent" as stated in your first underlined premise, Person C cannot wish to or consent to have sex with person D, due to being intoxicated. IOW, any sexual act while intoxicated in not a willful one, thus cannot possibly be rape by that person.
This is the inherent absurdity that follows from the first premise, which ignores actual desire, will, and all actions and words conveying such, and instead deems all that irrelevant if the person is intoxicated. By the "too drunk to consent" logic, sex between a drunk and a non-consenting sober person is always sex between two non-consenting persons, and thus not rape by anyone.

The key difference is that in the second example, the drunk person FORCED sex on the other person. We aren't talking about sex between two people, one of whom was drunk and the other sober, the drunk one being too drunk to give legal consent.

In the second example that I gave, the drunk person forced sex on the non-drunk person. Not talked them into it: FORCED.

A drunk person can commit murder, robbery, arson, assault, all sorts of criminal acts, including rape.


A drunk person can force sex on another person.

Being drunk is not a get out of jail free card to commit sexual assault.

 

[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.

Read the text messages. That's not a rape victim.

The text message is not a person. In the real world, when person X forces person Y to have sex, it is rape.

 

[fromderinside]

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

Late to the game. Its not relevant because he can't get pregnant.

 

[laughing dog]

The underlined statements logically contradict each other. Wishing to have sex with someone is nothing but another way of saying that one consents to sex with someone.

That is simply not logically true. One can wish to have sex with X but not consent to have sex with X.

 

[fromderinside]

From the OP



REALLY???

Really. It's about punishing men for rape--never mind that the rapes that they're supposed to be punished for aren't happening. Since the court system has this strange notion of proof they aren't being convicted because these aren't rapes in the first place. Thus go with a kangaroo court and bypass the pesky 4th amendment. Same thing as the TSA and the drug war. Same thing as DUI checkpoints. Same thing as the immigration checkpoints.

Wow. 50% of rapes aren't reported, 10% of reported rapes are investigated, and only about half of those result in discipline of any sort. Yeah lets stop this trickle. It might diminish agency among fuckin' dicks.

 

[rousseau]

At what point do rape threads on Talk Freethought stop having any use other than to kill people's free time?

 

[Ford]

At what point do rape threads on Talk Freethought stop having any use other than to kill people's free time?

They serve a very important purpose. I don't have to subscribe to the "daily false rape claim" email from the He Man Woman Haters Club. I don't even have to spend any time searching the interwebs for stories about fake rape. I just come here and good 'ole Derec has done all the work already!

Of course when I say "false rape" and "fake rape," that's kind of redundant, because as we learn with each one of these threads, rape is just a claim made by angry feminists looking to destroy unsuspecting college students.

 

[dismal]

At what point do rape threads on Talk Freethought stop having any use other than to kill people's free time?

They serve a very important purpose. I don't have to subscribe to the "daily false rape claim" email from the He Man Woman Haters Club. I don't even have to spend any time searching the interwebs for stories about fake rape. I just come here and good 'ole Derec has done all the work already!

Of course when I say "false rape" and "fake rape," that's kind of redundant, because as we learn with each one of these threads, rape is just a claim made by angry feminists looking to destroy unsuspecting college students.

There's no false rape claim here. The girl admits it.

 

[Jokodo]

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?

I remember having puked on two beers. Not having eaten properly for 24+ hours and all that.
I don't puke after ten beers. So puking is not a reliable indicator of anything other than puking.

 

[ronburgundy]

The underlined statements logically contradict each other. Wishing to have sex with someone is nothing but another way of saying that one consents to sex with someone. According to the entire premise of "too drunk to consent" as stated in your first underlined premise, Person C cannot wish to or consent to have sex with person D, due to being intoxicated. IOW, any sexual act while intoxicated in not a willful one, thus cannot possibly be rape by that person.
This is the inherent absurdity that follows from the first premise, which ignores actual desire, will, and all actions and words conveying such, and instead deems all that irrelevant if the person is intoxicated. By the "too drunk to consent" logic, sex between a drunk and a non-consenting sober person is always sex between two non-consenting persons, and thus not rape by anyone.

The key difference is that in the second example, the drunk person FORCED sex on the other person. We aren't talking about sex between two people, one of whom was drunk and the other sober, the drunk one being too drunk to give legal consent.

In the second example that I gave, the drunk person forced sex on the non-drunk person. Not talked them into it: FORCED.

No, their behavior merely resembles "force" just like sexual behavior and words can look exactly like willing participation when drunk, but by the first premise, they are not, no matter what it looks like. "Force" presumes an intention to exert one's own will onto the other person. But a drunk person's actions are presumed to be independent of their true intentions and will, thus they cannot be thought of as having a will to have sex, thus cannot possibly have forced that will on anyone else.

A drunk person can commit murder, robbery, arson, assault, all sorts of criminal acts, including rape.

I agree, but that is because I reject the absurd "too drunk to consent" premise which logically says otherwise. It says people are incapable of acting according to their own will when intoxicated. Their bodily acts, words, etc., are no longer under their control, thus they are more like a person with temporary insanity or severe mental impairment. The consent revealing actions dismissed by the premise are not merely passive acts but highly active, act-initiating, and even verbally demanding actions. IF these are deemed to outside of willful control in terms of consensual sex, then use of force is definitely not possible, since it requires not only execution of one's own will, but recognition of another's will and decision to act against it. All that requires more cognitive faculty than merely agreeing to sex.

Being drunk is not a get out of jail free card to commit sexual assault.

It shouldn't be, but if it is a "get of your consent to engage in sex" card, then it is also a get out rape free card.

 

[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???

Really. It's about punishing men for rape--never mind that the rapes that they're supposed to be punished for aren't happening. Since the court system has this strange notion of proof they aren't being convicted because these aren't rapes in the first place. Thus go with a kangaroo court and bypass the pesky 4th amendment. Same thing as the TSA and the drug war. Same thing as DUI checkpoints. Same thing as the immigration checkpoints.

Because why? Feminists have no husbands, fathers, brothers, sons? So men are just rounded up off the street and imprisoned for rape and all the feminists in the world rejoice?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That is the dream.