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

[Arctish]

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

No, it isn't. But feel free to link to widely accepted feminist treatises you have actually read and can accurately summarize to demonstrate your point. Quote mines don't count.

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?

You have cases in which males were punished, but you don't have evidence the outcome was the result of misandry.

Suppose a college has a first-past-the-post system for identifying victims and alleged perpetrators, where the student who first reports a mutual drunken sexual encounter gets the benefit of the doubt? That's a system that could be exploited to a person's advantage, but it's gender neutral. Men like Charlie reporting they were mounted without consent would get the same consideration as women.

If men are more likely than women to commit sexual assaults (which they are), and women are more likely than men to come forward when they are the victim of a sexual assault (which they are), then men are more likely than women to face a disciplinary board as an alleged assailant, and women are more likely than men to go before one as an alleged victim. Simply pointing out that women are usually considered victims and men assailants doesn't prove anything about misandry being a factor. You have to show that gender bias is influencing the outcomes.

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.

Where is the evidence these rules are only being enforced against males? That is the central part of your claim. It needs more support than a scattershot of cases in which the only unifying factors are the guy got expelled and you blame feminists.

The Occidental College case looks like gender bias. Both students were drunk, and both texted about their intent to have sex, they were equals in their rule breaking. But even though it looks that way at first glance, there are other factors that have to be ruled out before I can say with certainty "yeah, that's gender bias, which I oppose BTW because I'm a feminist". How much did her status as a minor affect the charges and the outcome? Did she get victim status because she claimed it, and he didn't because he never reported being victimized? Has something like this happened before? If so, what was the outcome? You have to consider those factors before you can say there's evidence of men being unfairly disadvantaged at Occidental. And then you have to show evidence of the same unfairness at other colleges before you can say there's a pattern of gender bias in these systems. And then you have to show how it derives from feminism before you can say the feminists are to blame.

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.

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

You should interpret is as "You're not the boss of me" with the Malcolm in the Middle theme song playing in the background.

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".

You know that thing I said about reading and comprehending what feminists write? This is a prime example of what happens when you don't. It has been pointed out to you several times that this particular quote mine comes from a character in a work of fiction. Accusing Ms. French of misandry based on those lines of dialog is like accusing J.K.Rowling of racism because one of her characters once called another character a filthy mudblood.

rolleyes indeed!

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.

Okay, so I listed some of the facts of the case and you responded with quibbles and blaming everything on feminism. What is the point here? Are we going to argue whether the legal age for drinking should be lower or if schools should be required to report adults who have sex with minors on campus? That topic should have it's own thread. But if we're going to discuss unequal treatment of students then let's focus on that.

I agree that the treatment of both students was unequal despite their rule breaking behavior being pretty much the same. I would like to know why.

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?

No it doesn't.

1) All you have shown are the results of apparently flawed systems. You haven't presented the means necessary to separate out the results of a flawed gender-neutral system from a flawed gender-biased system or a well functioning gender-biased system. Why was she treated as a victim? Is it because she is the one who reported being victimized, or because she was a minor and he was an adult? Did she get leniency in exchange for cooperating with the board as it investigated the alleged sexual misconduct? You haven't shown which, if any, of these possibilities affected her status in the eyes of the disciplinary board.

2) Saying something is the result of feminism without showing decent evidence that feminism affected the outcome is like saying "God did it". That's an explanation that only satisfies the believers.

3) What you are describing is misandry, not 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.

That sounds like a good reason to be sober when choosing your sex-buddies.

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!

You just agreed that Ben was raped because his consent was coerced but now you're saying reluctant consent counts as valid consent. So if Ben described what he was feeling as "reluctant" rather than "feeling coerced" , does that make the encounter okay in your book? The reason for his reluctance, in this case his fears for what might happen if he said no to the woman who slashed her legs before breaking into his home to demand sex, are no obstacle to the sex being considered consensual?

Suppose we use the term "unencumbered" to denote an agreement to have sex free from coercion, trickery, and manipulation. Ben did not actually want to have sex with his ex- but he feared a worse outcome if he didn't. His consent was affirmative but not unencumbered. Does that mean he really did consent, or that he really didn't?

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"?

She used that as an example of pressure tactics and coercion to force a non-consenting person into performing or allowing sex acts they don't want. If a couple must both contribute to pay the rent or cooperate to get themselves to work each day, a threat by one to end the relationship is a threat to make the other homeless or jobless or both. That's some serious leverage.

"Do what I want or else....." where the "or else" is a very unpleasant outcome is coercion.

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"

In the sense of it being gleeful and energetic? No.

In the sense of it being given without coercion, trickery, or other unethical behavior tainting the genuineness of the consent? Yes. I don't think it's an ideal situation to have having college administrators trying to decide where consent ends and non-consent begins, but I do think it's necessary. Administrators have to at least try to identify the sex offenders and get them off campus, and evaluating the quality of the consent they claim to have been given is part of the process.

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.

Preponderance of evidence is the standard in civil actions, which the Obama Administration correctly pointed out. It's the same one used when an employer fires an employee for cause, or when the Boy Scouts kick out a scoutmaster for homosexuality.

It might not be the best standard. But if the standard is too low it should be raised for in all such cases, not just the ones affecting men attending college. That requires changing the laws that govern those parts of the civil code.

 

[zorq]

She is discussing the testimony in the transcript not the verdict.

Are you saying that the actual testimony of the accuser and the victim mean nothing in this case? Are you so convinced you know what happened that you don't even care what the accuser and the victim actually have to say about the matter?

I meant to write "accuser and accused" apologies for any confusion.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

And SHE has consistently said that she initially consented, then later told him to stop.

Why do you assume she is lying and he is telling the truth?

She either lied two times or more or she has been telling one big lie. The two lies I guess are considered acceptable lies.

I think this has been discussed before, but colleges should not be investigating this. They need to turn it over the legal jurisdiction and then expel the person if they are found guilty in a court. The legal system doesn't have an image to protect while the college does so they are biased.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

He's said he doesn't remember....yet clearly does remember some details. Inconsistently, yes, but that's not surprising

I read the transcript, and that's not what I saw. It was a third person who supposedly said he said this even though the person lost their notes and didn't record the interview. He was consistant with I don't remember what happened but people told me that we hooked up.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Definition of rape gets hazy in the context of relationships, well-developed or not.

A few months months ago a girl I know bummed a ride home from an ex-boyfriend so she wouldn't have to haul her groceries halfway across town. He figured it would be a good opportunity to talk her into getting back together with him, so he drove out to the shittiest gang-infested neighborhood he could find and parked there while spending an hour and a half pressuring her to admit that she still had feelings for him and trying to badger her into taking him back. Once it became clear that she'd be walking the rest of the way through the ghetto at 11PM if she didn't get his cooperation, she dropped the hard line, agreed to talk it out, and he wound up pressuring her into giving him a blowjob in the car.

Nobody was more surprised than she was when the police charged the guy with rape and kidnapping. It turns out that consent under duress -- namely, the implicit threat of being dropped off 5 miles from home in a bad neighborhood -- isn't really consent as far as a prosecutor is concerned. But SHE didn't know that, and spent like two weeks begging her boyfriend to forgive her for "slipping up" and having an indiscretion with her ex, etc, etc.

It's worth remembering that the easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the victims that they brought it on themselves. There are echoes of that in her text messages, IMO; it would be interesting to see how the rest of that conversation went face-to-face.

I think this has been discussed before, but colleges should not be investigating this. They need to turn it over the legal jurisdiction and then expel the person if they are found guilty in a court. The legal system doesn't have an image to protect while the college does so they are biased.

That is an extremely good point.

 

[RavenSky]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

And SHE has consistently said that she initially consented, then later told him to stop.

Why do you assume she is lying and he is telling the truth?

She either lied two times or more or she has been telling one big lie. The two lies I guess are considered acceptable lies

Well I guess if you are going to accept third party recollections and/or media reports of her own words in place of her actual words, then yes she must be a big fat liar who lies...

And so is he. And since he is a big fat liar who lies (by the standard you apply to her) he must be a rapist because he fully admits (by the standard you apply to her) that he raped her and then ran out of the room.

 

[RavenSky]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

He's said he doesn't remember....yet clearly does remember some details. Inconsistently, yes, but that's not surprising

I read the transcript, and that's not what I saw. It was a third person who supposedly said he said this even though the person lost their notes and didn't record the interview. He was consistant with I don't remember what happened but people told me that we hooked up.

In this you are correct. And if you actually read the transcript you will admit that basically the same thing happened to SJ - a university investigator interpreted SJ's statements during an interview to mean one thing while SJ repeatedly confirmed and clarified something else.

I don't believe that JD changed his story. I don't believe SJ did either. I also believe that if you are going to dismiss the third party recollections of a witness to JD's statements, you can't then turn around and maintain that third party recollections of what SJ said are infallible.

 

[Toni]

I think this has been discussed before, but colleges should not be investigating this. They need to turn it over the legal jurisdiction and then expel the person if they are found guilty in a court. The legal system doesn't have an image to protect while the college does so they are biased.

That is an extremely good point.

I agree, up to a point. I do think that rape cases should be legally prosecuted. However, police departments and prosecutors are often loathe to bring charges in a case they do not think they can win at trial--even if they are certain that the victim was raped by the accused, and that it was indeed rape.

It is extremely hard to get a rape conviction if the two people had a prior or ongoing relationship, and worse if drugs or alcohol was involved. Yet that is precisely the circumstance of many acquaintance rapes: the victim and rapist knew each other, alcohol was involved.

Is the victim required to continue to live in the same dormitory and attend the same classes as the rapist if the victim does not wish to drop out of school? What responsibility does the university have to provide a safe environment for its students? Doesn't 'hostile environment' apply to institutions of higher learning as well as the work place?

Suspension and expulsion are far less serious than a criminal conviction.

 

[Toni]

Definition of rape gets hazy in the context of relationships, well-developed or not.

A few months months ago a girl I know bummed a ride home from an ex-boyfriend so she wouldn't have to haul her groceries halfway across town. He figured it would be a good opportunity to talk her into getting back together with him, so he drove out to the shittiest gang-infested neighborhood he could find and parked there while spending an hour and a half pressuring her to admit that she still had feelings for him and trying to badger her into taking him back. Once it became clear that she'd be walking the rest of the way through the ghetto at 11PM if she didn't get his cooperation, she dropped the hard line, agreed to talk it out, and he wound up pressuring her into giving him a blowjob in the car.

Nobody was more surprised than she was when the police charged the guy with rape and kidnapping. It turns out that consent under duress -- namely, the implicit threat of being dropped off 5 miles from home in a bad neighborhood -- isn't really consent as far as a prosecutor is concerned. But SHE didn't know that, and spent like two weeks begging her boyfriend to forgive her for "slipping up" and having an indiscretion with her ex, etc, etc.

Just curious: Exactly how did the police get involved?

It's worth remembering that the easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the victims that they brought it on themselves. There are echoes of that in her text messages, IMO; it would be interesting to see how the rest of that conversation went face-to-face.

The next easiest way to get away with rape is to convince the police that the victim brought it on him/herself and wanted it. If that doesn't work, there's always the jury.

The rest of the conversation would have been interesting, I agree.

 

[dismal]

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

It is not that he is "changing his story" he is saying that while he does not remember it he does not believe he is capable of forcing himself on a woman.

And in any case this sort grasping at straws in the name of victim blaming is absurd. The facts are pretty clear, this woman took a drunk guy home and performed a sex act on him. This is acknowledged in her own texts to her friends. That's rape.

Having read his complaint, it looks to me as it this case looks like it will cost Amherst a lot of money. They took a victim of sexual assault and punished him with all of the exculpatory evidence establishing he was the victim being withheld.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

And SHE has consistently said that she initially consented, then later told him to stop.

Why do you assume she is lying and he is telling the truth?

I have a hard time picturing a rape victim saying they fucked the person--especially without any indication of a lack of consent.

Without a good explanation for the text message this looks very strongly like a regret case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Definition of rape gets hazy in the context of relationships, well-developed or not.

A few months months ago a girl I know bummed a ride home from an ex-boyfriend so she wouldn't have to haul her groceries halfway across town. He figured it would be a good opportunity to talk her into getting back together with him, so he drove out to the shittiest gang-infested neighborhood he could find and parked there while spending an hour and a half pressuring her to admit that she still had feelings for him and trying to badger her into taking him back. Once it became clear that she'd be walking the rest of the way through the ghetto at 11PM if she didn't get his cooperation, she dropped the hard line, agreed to talk it out, and he wound up pressuring her into giving him a blowjob in the car.

Nobody was more surprised than she was when the police charged the guy with rape and kidnapping. It turns out that consent under duress -- namely, the implicit threat of being dropped off 5 miles from home in a bad neighborhood -- isn't really consent as far as a prosecutor is concerned. But SHE didn't know that, and spent like two weeks begging her boyfriend to forgive her for "slipping up" and having an indiscretion with her ex, etc, etc.

Surprised? I didn't think of the kidnapping charge but I realized this was rape before reading the paragraph where you said she was surprised at the prosecutor charging him.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is an extremely good point.

I agree, up to a point. I do think that rape cases should be legally prosecuted. However, police departments and prosecutors are often loathe to bring charges in a case they do not think they can win at trial--even if they are certain that the victim was raped by the accused, and that it was indeed rape.

It is extremely hard to get a rape conviction if the two people had a prior or ongoing relationship, and worse if drugs or alcohol was involved. Yet that is precisely the circumstance of many acquaintance rapes: the victim and rapist knew each other, alcohol was involved.

Is the victim required to continue to live in the same dormitory and attend the same classes as the rapist if the victim does not wish to drop out of school? What responsibility does the university have to provide a safe environment for its students? Doesn't 'hostile environment' apply to institutions of higher learning as well as the work place?

Suspension and expulsion are far less serious than a criminal conviction.

Please change your username to Edwin Meese. He didn't believe in innocent until proven guilty, either.

 

[laughing dog]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

And SHE has consistently said that she initially consented, then later told him to stop.

Why do you assume she is lying and he is telling the truth?

I have a hard time picturing a rape victim saying they fucked the person--especially without any indication of a lack of consent.

That's because you insist in remaining ignorant about the actual specifics of the case. Ms. Doe does not deny she had consensual sex with Mr. Doe. She claims they consensual sex, but after he suggested she have sex with others, she said no and wanted to stop. Then she claims he forced her to continue.

In addition, it is alleged that Mr. Doe said (or it was interpreted by someone that he said) that he have, in essence, raped her.

I think it is a hard stretch to judge this as a case of regret. Since both parties were inebriated, one or both may be misremembering what actually happened.

 

[prideandfall]

the thing i find most interesting about this whole case, and the responses over the last 14 pages, is the assumption basically everyone has that if a woman is drunk she is incapable of consenting to sex and so any sex that happens if she's drunk is automatically rape of her... but if a guy is drunk it means nothing and any sex that happens if he's drunk he held 100% responsible for anything and everything that takes place, including the nuanced and layered interpretation of consent at the beginning middle and end of a sexual engagement.

 

[dismal]

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

What changed in his story??

She changed her story, however, and even then it doesn't match reality.

Reading some of the links provided, he's variously expressed dismay and fear that he forced himself on her and also claims he has no recollection of the events. There are other discrepancies. You're a big boy: you can read links.

He has consistently said he doesn't recall the events. The dismay and fear are about the allegations of what he did.

And SHE has consistently said that she initially consented, then later told him to stop.

Why do you assume she is lying and he is telling the truth?

I have a hard time picturing a rape victim saying they fucked the person--especially without any indication of a lack of consent.

Without a good explanation for the text message this looks very strongly like a regret case.

Not only did she say she fucked him, she immediately started texting another dude to come over and hook up with her and he did and they did.

Also her main concern about the incident in the immediate aftermath seemed to be her roommate finding out she'd blown her roommate's drunken boyfriend.

None of which has much to do with the fact she unquestionably by her own admission raped him.

 

[TSwizzle]

the thing i find most interesting about this whole case, and the responses over the last 14 pages, is the assumption basically everyone has that if a woman is drunk she is incapable of consenting to sex and so any sex that happens if she's drunk is automatically rape of her...

That truly is frightening. A girl goes out of an evening, has a few drinks in the bar, hooks up with a random bloke, back to his place, have sex and she takes the "walk of shame" back to campus. What used to happen was she would tell her girlfriend "OMG, I git shit faced and had a one night stand" and the girlfriend would say something like "Oh you silly goose, I hope you used protection" or "good for you, I stayed in last night and watched crap tv". But not now, the femi-nazis have created the "rape culture" bullshit and her friend is obliged to frog march the girl to the police station to report a rape and have the cops at the guy's door before he's had time to have a cup of coffee.

 

[dismal]

the thing i find most interesting about this whole case, and the responses over the last 14 pages, is the assumption basically everyone has that if a woman is drunk she is incapable of consenting to sex and so any sex that happens if she's drunk is automatically rape of her...

That truly is frightening. A girl goes out of an evening, has a few drinks in the bar, hooks up with a random bloke, back to his place, have sex and she takes the "walk of shame" back to campus. What used to happen was the she would tell her girlfriend "OMG, I git shit faced and had a one night stand"

That's kinda what happened here except he was the drunk one and she decided she was raped 18 months later. And instead of doing the walk of shame she called another guy over to hook up.

 

[Toni]

I agree, up to a point. I do think that rape cases should be legally prosecuted. However, police departments and prosecutors are often loathe to bring charges in a case they do not think they can win at trial--even if they are certain that the victim was raped by the accused, and that it was indeed rape.

It is extremely hard to get a rape conviction if the two people had a prior or ongoing relationship, and worse if drugs or alcohol was involved. Yet that is precisely the circumstance of many acquaintance rapes: the victim and rapist knew each other, alcohol was involved.

Is the victim required to continue to live in the same dormitory and attend the same classes as the rapist if the victim does not wish to drop out of school? What responsibility does the university have to provide a safe environment for its students? Doesn't 'hostile environment' apply to institutions of higher learning as well as the work place?

Suspension and expulsion are far less serious than a criminal conviction.

Please change your username to Edwin Meese. He didn't believe in innocent until proven guilty, either.

Please learn to read.

There is NOTHING that I wrote that suggests that I don't believe in innocence until proven guilty.

 

[laughing dog]

the thing i find most interesting about this whole case, and the responses over the last 14 pages, is the assumption basically everyone has that if a woman is drunk she is incapable of consenting to sex and so any sex that happens if she's drunk is automatically rape of her... but if a guy is drunk it means nothing and any sex that happens if he's drunk he held 100% responsible for anything and everything that takes place, including the nuanced and layered interpretation of consent at the beginning middle and end of a sexual engagement.

Apparently you missed the part where she claims he forced her to have sex - that is the issue. Not whether someone was drunk since had been drinking to some extent.