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

[Toni]

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.

Ah, I understand now: your idea of justice is simply revenge. As enlightened and thoughtful as your screen name would suggest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

She says she fucked him, not that he raped her. This is a regret and cry rape case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Where do you get the 10% are investigated?

If there are plenty of rapes out there why are they bothering with cases as bad as this one? Enforcers wasting their time on crap cases is normally a sign of a lack of good cases for them to be spending their time on. (Note that the drug war is a different situation: They often spend their time on crap in order to steal. The crap cases often have the best loot.)

Furthermore, even if most rapes go unaddressed that's no reason to punish those who aren't guilty. Punishing innocent men does nothing to stop rape.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

College students are rarely husbands or fathers.

 

[laughing dog]

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

She says she fucked him, not that he raped her. This is a regret and cry rape case.

That is your interpretation of the situation, because, of course, everyone is rational and accurate and sober when they text.

 

[Arctish]

*sorry, I accidentally posted a work in progress*

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

She says she fucked him, not that he raped her. This is a regret and cry rape case.

We don't know that this means not raped, which is why our court system needs to sift through the evidence

 

[Toni]

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.

What is chilling is the fact that after a sexual assault, the victim can indeed seek to minimize what happened, can be in active denial, can seek to hide what happened out of shame, guilt, fear.

Whether any of this applies in this particular case is something for an actual investigation to uncover.

 

[zorq]

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

She says she fucked him, not that he raped her. This is a regret and cry rape case.

A weird thing happend to me last night. I ate a burrito. But that's not the weird part. I ate the burrito AND I threw the burrito in the garbage can! I told my sister how I ate the burrito but I didn't mention the part where I threw it in the trash. How is that possible? How did I manage to have two activities involving one burrito in the same evening? Why would I only mention eating the burrito to my sister?

It doesn't matter. I'll just go off and worship the god of the miraculous "two activities in one night" phenomenon.

On a related question, Did the woman in this OP engage in consentual sex with the man or was she raped by him?

Show

Why not both?

 

[crispy]

She says she fucked him, not that he raped her. This is a regret and cry rape case.

A weird thing happend to me last night. I ate a burrito. But that's not the weird part. I ate the burrito AND I threw the burrito in the garbage can! I told my sister how I ate the burrito but I didn't mention the part where I threw it in the trash. How is that possible? How did I manage to have two activities involving one burrito in the same evening? Why would I only mention eating the burrito to my sister?

It doesn't matter. I'll just go off and worship the god of the miraculous "two activities in one night" phenomenon.

On a related question, Did the woman in this OP engage in consentual sex with the man or was she raped by him?

Show

View attachment 3199Why not both?

Ah yes, consentual rape!

 

[Arctish]

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.

That may be the PR, but the reality is very different.

No, the reality is that feminism is a subcategory of human rights activism. It is all about human beings being valued, respected, and treated as equals regardless of genetic differences. Mismatched chromosomes don't entitle a person to any more or any fewer rights than matching ones.

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.

Right now colleges and universities are engaged in a witch hunt against male students, fueled in no small part by politics who demand stricter rules and more expulsions despite mounting number of cases of wrongful or at least questionable expulsions.

Hyperbole aside, do you have any evidence of a witch hunt? All I've seen you post are arguments that assume your conclusion: male students are being expelled from college for sexual misconduct therefore witch hunt. Your argument ignores the fact that all students at a school must adhere to the same Student Code of Conduct, and that most of them have no trouble doing so.

Just because you don't like the rules doesn't mean the process of enforcing them is a witch hunt.

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.

These are not analogous situations. If there is not sufficient evidence "sexual predators" should not be punished. The present situation where burden of proof is so low innocent male students get expelled is a situation desired by feminists who are still not satisfied because still not accused male students get expelled (see Mattress Girl).

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.

Campus feminists and feminist politicians have been the driving force behind this manufactured "rape culture" witch hunt against male students. To say rules that make it more difficult for male students to defend themselves or draconian "affirmative consent laws" have nothing to do with feminism is highly disingenuous.

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

The rules may have been written in a formally gender neutral fashion but they are applied very selectively. Drunk female == victim. Equally drunk male == rapist. See this case among others.
Occidental Expels Student for Rape Under Standard So Low That the Accuser Could Have Been Found Guilty, Too

The student, identified only as "John Doe," had sex with his accuser on September 8th, 2013, according to details of the case obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Both Doe and his accuser had been drinking. By several accounts, the sex was consensual. The accuser sent Doe a text message beforehand asking him if he had a condom. She also texted a friend and clearly announced her intention to have sex with Doe.
After that night, the accuser spoke with several Occidental employees, including Danielle Dirks, an assistant professor of sociology. Dirks told the accuser that Doe "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports team], and was 'from a good family.'"
A week later, the accuser filed a sexual assault report against Doe.

Don't tell me this has nothing to do with feminism especially when the false accuser was convinced by a feminist professor that she was "raped" when in reality it was a consensual drunken hookup .

That has nothing to do with feminism.

There is a more informative article on the Occidental College incident here. The facts of the case include
1) both students were below the legal age for alcohol consumption
2) the female student was still a minor
3) both students were falling-down drunk
4) they texted each other about their intentions to have sex, and had the presence of mind to use a condom
5) the female student experienced stress and anxiety following the encounter and sought advice from multiple sources
6) the college was required by law to report the incident to authorities upon discovery of the sexual encounter due to the girl being underage
7) both students had attended a student orientation presentation that emphasized the importance of consent but the presentation may not have been clear enough that even drunk idiots could understand where the lines are drawn.

So here's my opinion on the Occidental College incident: they both should have been cited for underage drinking, each faced the disciplinary board for having non-consensual sex with a fellow student, and both been subject to the same consequences for committing the same offenses. He probably didn't know she was underage and he was only slightly older, so I don't think the State should go after him for having sex with a minor. I think they both should have been suspended for the rest of the semester, but allowed to remain students and eligible for student loans, etc. provided they each wrote an essay demonstrating their understanding of what affirmative enthusiastic sober consent means, and how to know when they have it.

However, if there is evidence one of them used force or coercion on the other before or during the encounter, as there is in the case presented in the OP, then the consequences for that student should be more severe. At the very least, the use of force merits expulsion.

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.

We have seen in numerous cases, at Vasser, Occidental, UGA, UND and others that the rules are very strict and selectively applied and that calling the "disciplinary process" kangaroo court is an insult to large footed Australian marsupials.

Do you agree that Charlie was raped? Do you agree that Ben's consent was coerced? Do you agree that in neither case was there affirmative enthusiastic sober consent, and therefore the sex was non-consensual?

Please answer these questions. I get the feeling you don't want to talk about Charlie and Ben because, while you've focused on gender equality in this thread, what you really want is for the requirement for affirmative enthusiastic sober consent to be abandoned. I think you want guys to be able to mount sleeping drunks, or to pressure girls into allowing sexual contact even though they've already declined and expressed a desire to leave, and have it be considered a sexual triumph, not a sexual transgression.

Am I wrong?

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 matters that if both violate the code of conduct (by for example both being drunk) the female is treated like a victim and the male like a rapist even though they did exactly the same thing. It matters that the burden of proof is very low and that the ability of the accused to defend himself is significantly curtailed.
And it certainly matters that the codes of conduct recently adopted are way too strict such that most sexually active students run afoul of them. They are often not 100% sober when having sex and they do not solicit explicit consent for every new thing they do.

We need realistic codes of conduct, they need to be investigated while respecting due process and sensible burden of proof (preponderance of evidence is not it) and the rules must be applied to both genders equally. None of these things is the case presently.

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.

The rules are neither just nor fair and they are very selectively enforced.

I agree that the rules should be sensible. I think the requirement for affirmative enthusiastic sober consent is very sensible. It's certainly a lot more sensible than a standard based on "s/he didn't say no".

I also agree that investigations should be handled fairly, and a reasonable burden of proof should be met. But I don't think it helps to conflate what government and courts do and what private businesses and institutions do. Due process has to do with the rights of a citizen facing criminal charges. But students facing a college disciplinary board for violating the Code of Conduct are not being charged as criminals, and what is being decided is not based on criminal law. So while rape is a crime, colleges do not prosecute students for rape. Instead, the enforce their Codes of Conduct. And that enforcement is based on the students agreeing in writing to abide by the Code of Conduct while they are students at that college, and affirming in writing that they understand that failure to abide by the Code may result in consequences up to and including expulsion.

 

[zorq]

Ah yes, consentual rape!

Maybe you are just joking, but for clarity, let me explain. I was suggesting that it is possible to have consentual sex with one person AND be raped by that same person in the same night.

Just like it is possible to for a person to have consensual sex with one person and be raped by different person in the same night.

 

[dismal]

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

She says she fucked him, not that he raped her. This is a regret and cry rape case.

I figure she -- being aware of modern day progressive rape doctrine -- knew she had raped the guy, knew she had sent a text incriminating herself in the rape of him, and figured her best way to get out of it was to claim he raped her because vagina trumps penis in the rape believability code.

And seeing the speed at which "progressives" here abandon their supposed principles about alcohol and consent it worked.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

NO. She admits initiating the event. then, she claims she decided she didn't want to continue and the drunken bastard's penis refused to stop. Rape in my book.

 

[dismal]

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

NO. She admits initiating the event. then, she claims she decided she didn't want to continue and the drunken bastard's penis refused to stop. Rape in my book.

Yes, I agree she clearly raped him by the well-documented standards of this forum. Of course she is entitled to a fair trial where she can offer her defense, but the evidence seems pretty conclusive.

 

[fromderinside]

NO. She admits initiating the event. then, she claims she decided she didn't want to continue and the drunken bastard's penis refused to stop. Rape in my book.

Yes, I agree she clearly raped him by the well-documented standards of this forum. Of course she is entitled to a fair trial where she can offer her defense, but the evidence seems pretty conclusive.

Uh, drunken penises have no say in rape. If she, being sober, says she changed her mind and didn't want to continue he doesn't have a counter since his only witness is his penis.

Look at things properly. If she is drunk she can't say yes, but if he is drunk his penis can't say no.

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting read:

https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/amherst-hearing.pdf

https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/amherst-expulsion.pdf

 

[fromderinside]

Don't confuse them with facts.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/amherst-expulsion.pdf

So, as a white male, how can I spin this to assert that I'm being oppressed?

 

[ronburgundy]

Yes, I agree she clearly raped him by the well-documented standards of this forum. Of course she is entitled to a fair trial where she can offer her defense, but the evidence seems pretty conclusive.

Uh, drunken penises have no say in rape. If she, being sober, says she changed her mind and didn't want to continue he doesn't have a counter since his only witness is his penis.

Look at things properly. If she is drunk she can't say yes, but if he is drunk his penis can't say no.

If she cannot say yes when drunk, then neither can he, which means he did not willingly engage in sex, which makes it impossible that he forced his will for sex (which by law he could not have had) onto her.

A rapist must be someone that willingly engages in sex with a person that is not willing. By the "too drunk to consent premise", he did not willingly engage in sex either, and his actions indicating that he did are made null and void by the fact of his intoxication.

 

[RavenSky]

Interesting read:

https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/amherst-hearing.pdf

https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/amherst-expulsion.pdf

What I found most interesting were the inconsistencies between his insistance that he has no memory of the night because he was so drunk he was blacked out, and witnesses indicating that he didn't appear to them to be blacked out. He says that his roommate told him he'd "hooked up" the night before, but the roommate's testimony at the hearing doesn't say that. He talks about the walk across campus and how disjointed his memory of it is, but his buddy in the commons room (who acknowledges he was not with him earlier in the night and therefore has no idea how much the guy may have had to drink) says that he'd seen John Doe black-out drunk before, but didn't think he was that drunk on that night.

And contrary to her being sober, she (& others) testifies that she was "tipsy" drunk. She doesn't claim "black-out" drunk, but doesn't claim "sober" either.

Also, contrary to the claims by Derec in the OP, she never said the encounter was non-consensual from the beginning. She always maintained that the encounter started consensually, and that it wasn't until John Doe started bragging about doing both roommates that SJ rescinded her consent. That seems very very plausible to me, and not at all the type of testimony we would expect to see from someone with "morning after regrets".

I will say that both of them seem very believable to me. It would have been a very difficult decision.