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

[laughing dog]

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encounter started consensually, and that it wasn't until John Doe started bragging about doing both roommates that SJ rescinded her consent.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.

I agree. And since no one has shown that Amherst has some policy relating "drunkeness" and "consent", all this flapping about "too drunk to consent" appears absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

 

[Toni]

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?

Derec seems to know all about that. Maybe you should ask him?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I doubt she considered that he wasn't in a state to consent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting read:

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

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

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/former_amherst_college_student.html

The suit further states that after the disciplinary process was finished, the student found text messages previously concealed by the victim, identified by a pseudonym as Sandra Jones, that admitted not only that she consented to the sex, but that she was a "moving force behind it," according to the Globe.

And the actual lawsuit he's filed:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...8jL/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article

Her story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it??

 

[Toni]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/former_amherst_college_student.html

The suit further states that after the disciplinary process was finished, the student found text messages previously concealed by the victim, identified by a pseudonym as Sandra Jones, that admitted not only that she consented to the sex, but that she was a "moving force behind it," according to the Globe.

And the actual lawsuit he's filed:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...8jL/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article

Her story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it??

His story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it?

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/former_amherst_college_student.html

The suit further states that after the disciplinary process was finished, the student found text messages previously concealed by the victim, identified by a pseudonym as Sandra Jones, that admitted not only that she consented to the sex, but that she was a "moving force behind it," according to the Globe.

And the actual lawsuit he's filed:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...8jL/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article

Her story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it??

His story was not consistent. Why should we believe any of it?

ETA: gmta

 

[laughing dog]

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/05/former_amherst_college_student.html



And the actual lawsuit he's filed:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...8jL/story.html?p1=Article_Related_Box_Article

Her story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it??

His story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it?

Because he is a white male and he is not a lying slut of a woman.

 

[laughing dog]

Her story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it??

Why should anyone care whether someone who writes "It's about punishing men for rape--never mind that the rapes that they're supposed to be punished for aren't happening." believes her story or not?

 

[Derec]

And since no one has shown that Amherst has some policy relating "drunkeness" and "consent", all this flapping about "too drunk to consent" appears absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

Funny how the very people who are championing such draconian policies when they result in male students getting expelled (even when both parties have been drinking like at Occidental or UGA) are discounting their "drunk can't consent" principles now.

 

[dismal]

And since no one has shown that Amherst has some policy relating "drunkeness" and "consent", all this flapping about "too drunk to consent" appears absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

Funny how the very people who are championing such draconian policies when they result in male students getting expelled (even when both parties have been drinking like at Occidental or UGA) are discounting their "drunk can't consent" principles now.

Yeah, I thought "drunks can't consent" was an Iron Rule of Truth and Justice not something whose wrongness depended strictly on whether it had been placed in a university's code.

 

[Derec]

Because he is a white male

And that is enough to condemn him in the eyes of many. See Duke Lacrosse where the innocent male students were presumed guilty because they were "privileged white males" and the false accuser was labeled as the more politically correct "poor black female" (even though as a stripper escort she wasn't exactly poor).

- - - Updated - - -

His story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it?

What is inconsistent? Did he change the story he told the investigators? Did he write yet third version about "fucking her" in a message to a friend? No, that was all her. But you still believe her because she has a vagina.

 

[Derec]

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.

Blackout is a failure of memory consolidation. It is not necessarily discernible from behavior. We talked about it before. It is funny how you and others will claim that "blackout" state in a woman should be enough to expel the male but not in this case.

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.

So he was able to consent because he's been even drunker on previous occasions?

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.

Even her message implies that he was significantly drunker than her. If the genders were reversed you'd insist that that was enough to expel him - why isn't it enough to expel her? Why was he expelled when he is the victim here?

Also, contrary to the claims by Derec in the OP, she never said the encounter was non-consensual from the beginning.

BS.

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 we have two stories she told the investigators and the third that she told a friend where she said she fucked him and makes no mention of him forcing himself on her. And yet you still believe her because feminism.

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 think her supposed believability has more to do with her having a vagina than anything else.

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

I guess universities operate under the principle: if in any doubt, expel the male student.

 

[Derec]

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.

There is something refreshing about you. The rest of feminists here give lip service to equality and pretend they are not automatically taking the woman's side but you come right out and admit your own sexism.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

And of course her claiming something is enough because women never lie about rape and thus must be automatically believed? Right?

 

[laughing dog]

And that is enough to condemn him in the eyes of many. See Duke Lacrosse where the innocent male students were presumed guilty because they were "privileged white males" and the false accuser was labeled as the more politically correct "poor black female" (even though as a stripper escort she wasn't exactly poor).

You've ridden that ridiculous hobby horse so often, I'm surprised you still think it has any traction whatsoever.

- - - Updated - - -

And since no one has shown that Amherst has some policy relating "drunkeness" and "consent", all this flapping about "too drunk to consent" appears absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

Funny how the very people who are championing such draconian policies when they result in male students getting expelled (even when both parties have been drinking like at Occidental or UGA) are discounting their "drunk can't consent" principles now.

Even funnier is your flaccid attempts to get a rise with such strawmen. She says she was forced to have sex - that is a claim of rape. There is conflicting reports as to the level of alleged inebriation of the man and of the woman. But, I don't know of too many people who think any level of drunkeness excuses forced sex.

So, the only question is what really happened. Apparently Amherst found her story more credible than his defense. Only time will tell what sort of traction that lawsuit will generate.

 

[Rhea]

There is something refreshing about you. The rest of feminists here give lip service to equality and pretend they are not automatically taking the woman's side but you come right out and admit your own sexism.

I like the way you completely skip over all the posts that disprove this preposterous strawman. I notice you never responded to my post. Did that help you cling to your claim that "all feminists" do this and that?

 

[Toni]

And that is enough to condemn him in the eyes of many. See Duke Lacrosse where the innocent male students were presumed guilty because they were "privileged white males" and the false accuser was labeled as the more politically correct "poor black female" (even though as a stripper escort she wasn't exactly poor).

- - - Updated - - -

His story is not consistent. Why should we believe any of it?

What is inconsistent? Did he change the story he told the investigators? Did he write yet third version about "fucking her" in a message to a friend? No, that was all her. But you still believe her because she has a vagina.

He's changed his story, yes.

Genitalia has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. Not mine, not theirs.

In fact, please find a quote that says I believe her and not him. I haven't formed any particular opinion at all, in fact.

Except that it is possible for a very drunk person to force sex--that is: rape someone who is not drunk. Or less drunk.

 

[Derec]

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.

And yet feminism is all about giving women special right, privileges and protections based on them being female.

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.

I have posted plenty of cases. For example the case at Occidental where a male and a female student had sex but the male student got expelled after a radical feminist professor convinced the female student she was raped. Or how about the Vassar case? Or the UND case? And plenty more.
Or how about pronouncements by feminists in defense of Jackie Coakley the UVA false rape accuser?

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

First, rules should make sense. The rules that deem any alcohol consumption (by a female) as inability to consent are stupid. Affirmative consent rules that put so many rules on consent that hardly anyone is following the letter of them are stupid.
Also rules should be applied consistently. When you have draconian rules and you only enforce them against male students than that is definitely a witch hunt against male students.

That has nothing to do with feminism.

I interpret the tongue as a tacit admission that it's about feminism after all.

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

And yet only the male student was punished. Feminism at work.

2) the female student was still a minor

She was "one month shy of her 18th birthday" according to Esquire. Obviously that makes the male student a rapist. Because feminism.

3) both students were falling-down drunk

And yet only the male student got punished. Because of feminism.

4) they texted each other about their intentions to have sex, and had the presence of mind to use a condom

Which clearly shows that the male student is a rapist and the female student a victim of rape according to feminism. After all, as Marilyn French, a prominent feminist, said "all men are rapists".

5) the female student experienced stress and anxiety following the encounter and sought advice from multiple sources

According to feminism, a female is entitles to retroactively withdraw consent at any time after the encounter if she in any way feels bad about what had happened.
And of course, one of the sources she sought advice from is a well known radical feminist professor (Danielle Dirks) who offered truly bizarre reasons why the male student is a rapist, including him having been a valedictorian.

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

Calling her "underage" is pretty ridiculous here. They were basically the same age. If he was just below 18 and she just above it, he'd still be the one expelled. Because feminism.

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.

I think it is the feminists and college administrators are the idiots because their sexual encounter was consensual by any reasonable definition of the term.

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.

And the fact that he was the only one punished while she is treated like a "victim" doesn't strike you as the fault of feminism?
I would add: her identity should be made public so other men are warned off. After all, you should not put your dick in crazy.

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.

Except that there is no evidence that the male student used "force or coercion" in the OP (Amherst) case.

Do you agree that Charlie was raped? Do you agree that Ben's consent was coerced?

If the stories are true, sure. Neither of them consented.

Do you agree that in neither case was there affirmative enthusiastic sober consent, and therefore the sex was non-consensual?

According to the stories, there was no consent, period. I do not think we should be requirement for "sober consent" because many sexual encounters involve alcohol but that doesn't mean they are non-consensual (passed out or close to passed out people are a different case). I also do not think "enthusiastic consent" is a reasonable requirement. Should criminal justice system and university administrators really be given the power to judge whether a sexual encounter was entered into enthusiastically enough? Where is the cut-off?
No, the only requirement should be whether consent was given or not.

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.

Can't I want both? Yes, gender equality is a huge factor here because the rules are applied in a very sexist fashion. But there is also a huge problem with draconian riles like this in the first place.
Charlie and Ben didn't consent, period. Yet, let's say a third guy, Eric, actually consented. But he had a beer or two. Was he raped? Certainly he wasn't completely sober. Or let's say Eric consented but reluctantly. Was he raped because his consent wasn't "enthusiastic" enough? That's just silly!

I think you want guys to be able to mount sleeping drunks,

Nonsense. A sleeping drunk can't consent. That has nothing to do with ridiculous requirements for "sober enthusiasm" and much less with applying such unrealistic rules to males only.

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.

What kind of pressure? If a woman changes her mind and consents that is still consent. In the infamous Ms. Magazine "study" the radical feminist "researcher" Mary Koss included cases where a guy threatened to end the relationship if she didn't sleep with him as "rape". Do you agree with it? Should men be required to remain in sexless relationships lest they be deemed "rapists"?

Am I wrong?

Yes. Very much so.

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".

No, I think they are the very opposite of being sensible, for reasons I outlined above. But let me repeat the most obvious one: do you really want criminal justice system or college administrators to be in the business of judging whether a sexual encounter was "enthusiastic"

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.

You are forgetting that most colleges had a reasonable burden of proof ("clear and convincing proof") before Obama administration forced them to use "preponderance of evidence", which is not a reasonable burden of proof.

- - - Updated - - -

He's changed his story, yes.

In what way? And why do you ignore the fact that she changed her story twice.

Genitalia has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. Not mine, not theirs.

BS.

Except that it is possible for a very drunk person to force sex--that is: rape someone who is not drunk. Or less drunk.

How when it was impossible for him to consent to the sex to begin with?

 

[Derec]

I like the way you completely skip over all the posts that disprove this preposterous strawman. I notice you never responded to my post. Did that help you cling to your claim that "all feminists" do this and that?

Rhea what is your opinion on fromderinside's clearly sexist notions about men and women and rape?

 

[Derec]

Even funnier is your flaccid attempts to get a rise with such strawmen. She says she was forced to have sex - that is a claim of rape. There is conflicting reports as to the level of alleged inebriation of the man and of the woman. But, I don't know of too many people who think any level of drunkeness excuses forced sex.

The only thing that's flaccid here is your apologetics for college administrators who expel male students without any evidence. There is no reason to believe her claim of being forced into sex whatsoever. On the other hand, there is plenty of reason to think she is lying. Her conflicting statements. Her admission to a friend that 'she fucked' the male student.

Only time will tell what sort of traction that lawsuit will generate.

Hopefully it will be costly enough to Amherst to effect a change in policy. But I also think the federal government should be sued. After all, it is their ridiculous and sexist "Dear Colleague" decree that caused so many wrongful expulsions in the first place.

 

[Derec]

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.

Pretty much whatever a rape accuser says it can be shoehorned into being consistent with "she was really raped" by feminists.
Just like Christian apologists cam shoehorn every Bible verse into being consistent with their denomination's doctrine.