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

[fromderinside]

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.

You don't seem to understand. Let me start with ?Viagra only enables blood flow in the pelvic region, the mind isn't involved, but the new female desire enhancer is entirely focused on cognitive function. When I say a drunk woman can't say yes is because her cognitive function is impaired whilst the male's primitive nervous system is enough to get the penis going, but, because he is drunk he can't say no. The problem is turning on and turning off. Women's sexual behavior is almost entirely cognitive whilst a males sexual function works with almost no cognitive function at all.

You pose a false definition of rapist since it is dependent on with how women, not men, operate.
(1) rape - Point a drunk male at a drunk woman and you usually get a man undressing and fucking a helpless woman.
(2) gray - Point a drunk woman at a drunk man and you usually get a man undressing and fucking a helpless woman.
(3) hookup - Point a horny sober male at a sober horny woman and you get both undressing the other and consensual sex.
(4) rape - Point a horny sober man at a sober unwilling woman and you get a woman being undressed and fucked by a man.
(5) no action - Point a sober unwilling man at a unwilling drunk woman and you get two people walking away from each other
(6) gray - Point a sober horny woman at a drunk man and you get a woman and a man undressing each other and fucking.

The problems is with the similarity of drunk man being similar to drunk women. Drunk women have no cognitive defenses. Drunk men are sub cognitively primed for the fuck. Or put another way a drunk man will usually fuck if he is not restrained whilst a drunk woman will not fuck unless she can't physically resist. Since men are primed and usually physically dominant drunk men will fuck no thinking required.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

BS. Why are there thousands of analysed rape kits in major cities if there is always due diligence.
There is always need to process and decide. Setting aside unalysed kits is not justice since there is no evidence presented after an acknowledged event. No indication the man was innocent can be claimed.

 

[TSwizzle]

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.

A busybody femi-nazi counseled her into believing she was forced into sex is more likely.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

You have to understand upon what Viagra is acting (pelvic blood flow) versus the just approved female desire, misnamed Female Viagra, drug is acting (frontal cortex areas associating sex and desire).

 

[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.

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.

no, i didn't miss that part, and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point i was making.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

You have to understand upon what Viagra is acting (pelvic blood flow) versus the just approved female desire, misnamed Female Viagra, drug is acting (frontal cortex areas associating sex and desire).

o... kay?

 

[Arctish]

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.

A busybody femi-nazi counseled her into believing she was forced into sex is more likely.

Those are two separate cases.

The OP incident took place at Amherst. That's where a male student allegedly forced a female student to continue to give him oral sex after she pushed away and tried to stop. The Occidental College incident is the one where an underage female student experiencing stress and anxiety over having had sex while drunk sought advice from friends and school employees. It might involve a feminist but I highly doubt the bogeywoman was involved.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

But they are always sons and quite often brothers. so once again FAIL!!!!

 

[Arctish]

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.

I also agree that allegations of rape should be handled by the police and courts. If there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a criminal trial the case should be closed.

Meanwhile, the college or university should proceed with their disciplinary process providing there is evidence a student violated the Student Code of Conduct. If the college has a "No raping other students" clause in it's Code, and all students have agreed in writing to abide by that Code, then a student suspected of raping another student is also suspected of violating the Code. That alleged breach of the agreement between college and student must be investigated, and if found to be true, the student will face the consequences spelled out in the Code of Conduct.

The criminal proceedings and the college disciplinary proceedings are two separate things. One is not dependent on the other. The college doesn't have to wait for the criminal process to conclude before it can proceed with its own internal disciplinary process, and the cops don't have to wait and see what the college does about an alleged Code of Conduct violation before they proceed with a criminal investigation.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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?

Marilyn French, a prominent radical feminist: "All men are rapists and that's all they are"

Or how about this article by a radical feminist in the aftermath of the UVA false rape claim.
Why I Don’t Want To Hear Both Sides Of Rape Cases
What actually happened doesn't matter. What matter is that men are blamed even when innocent.

Why I Still Believe Rape Survivors

Again, damn the evidence as long as men are blamed. If any man says he didn't do it he is not "a real man" but a "boy". The possibility that the woman might be lying is not even acknowledged.

You have yet to prove that all feminist, most feminists, or even a significant minority of feminists are just out to get men at any and all costs. You used one quote, outside of any context, to show how evil feminists are. You List accounts of false allegations or allegations believed to be false and say ... what exactly? That rapists are a figment of the collective imagination of society? women? feminists?

You scour the internet looking to find Op Eds that you believe prove whatever point you are trying to make and say AH HA!!!! EVIL FEMINISTS ARE OUT TO GET MEN!!!

Tell me Derec, if you manage to convince the world of your beliefs, then what? what do you think should be done with all the radical feminists? What is your endgame?

FAIL!!!!!

 

[fromderinside]

o... kay?

Erections are hard to disregard by guys when girls are available Its even harder for guys whose inhibitions are reduced when drunk. Whilst girls gotta get their desires up by finding reasons somehow.

 

[laughing dog]

no, i didn't miss that part, and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point i was making.

Yeah, you did miss that part, because it basically shows your "point" was a vacuous straw man.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

A busybody femi-nazi counseled her into believing she was forced into sex is more likely.

Did you pull that out of your ass, or do you have some actual reality-based reason to bring that up in this case?

 

[prideandfall]

no, i didn't miss that part, and that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the point i was making.

Yeah, you did miss that part, because it basically shows your "point" was a vacuous straw man.

... okay seriously, if you're going to bother to post replies to me, will you at least do me the basic courtesy of having the remotest fuck of a clue as to what you're talking about?
what you said has absolutely no bearing or relationship whatsoever to what i said, and this second reply is simply proving you have zero understanding of what you're talking about or responding to.

if you have some kind of commentary on the odd social dichotomy between the perception that inebriation robs women of agency while simultaneously doing nothing to the agency of men, by all means please make a statement about it.
but this utter bullshit you've spewed across two posts now serves no function aside from you flapping your noise hole.

 

[laughing dog]

Yeah, you did miss that part, because it basically shows your "point" was a vacuous straw man.

... okay seriously, if you're going to bother to post replies to me, will you at least do me the basic courtesy of having the remotest fuck of a clue as to what you're talking about?
what you said has absolutely no bearing or relationship whatsoever to what i said, and this second reply is simply proving you have zero understanding of what you're talking about or responding to.

The inebriation is irrelevant to the issue of rape. She is not claiming she could not consent because she was drunk. Amherst did not rule she was too drunk to consent. Hence the inebriation is irrelevant. Furthermore most of the posts have nothing to do with the drunkenness. Normally, one might ask why a rational and intelligent poster would think it relevant to persist in defending inaccurate and false comments, but your posts make that question moot.

 

[prideandfall]

The inebriation is irrelevant to the issue of rape.

the inebriation being irrelevant to rape is irrelevant to my statement in the first place.

She is not claiming she could not consent because she was drunk.

i never said she was or remotely suggested it. in fact, i never said a single god damn thing about the particulars of this case.

Amherst did not rule she was too drunk to consent. Hence the inebriation is irrelevant.

this is also bears not one shred of relevance to my posts.

Furthermore most of the posts have nothing to do with the drunkenness. Normally, one might ask why a rational and intelligent poster would think it relevant to persist in defending inaccurate and false comments, but your posts make that question moot.

at this point you are literally just hallucinating random crap to word-salad at, you're not even on the same planet as anything i've said.
you should just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[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?

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.

You have a hard time imagining a situation wherein a sexual encountered started out consensual and then turned into a rape? Or are you having a hard time imagining that any woman would be bluntly honest about how events unfolded?

As to the alleged text messages, I find it HIGHLY suspect that JD somehow did not have these texts messages at the time of the hearing, but amazingly has them now. You will have to produce evidence (not his say-so in a lawsuit against the university) that the text messages are genuine before I would consider them at all.

 

[Arctish]

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.

You have a hard time imagining a situation wherein a sexual encountered started out consensual and then turned into a rape? Or are you having a hard time imagining that any woman would be bluntly honest about how events unfolded?

Good questions.

As to the alleged text messages, I find it HIGHLY suspect that JD somehow did not have these texts messages at the time of the hearing, but amazingly has them now. You will have to produce evidence (not his say-so in a lawsuit against the university) that the text messages are genuine before I would consider them at all.

I could be that there was no way to compel disclosure when this was just a disciplinary hearing but now that it's a lawsuit the former student's lawyers got a judge to order both students to turn over any records of communications between them. How that will figure into the lawsuit remains to be seen. The college cannot compel disclosure of private communications. Does that mean it cannot enforce its Code of Conduct in cases where such communications might be relevant? Or can the college proceed in good faith with what it is allowed to compel students to provide, such as testimony before the disciplinary board?

 

[laughing dog]

Never mind.

 

[RavenSky]

As to the alleged text messages, I find it HIGHLY suspect that JD somehow did not have these texts messages at the time of the hearing, but amazingly has them now. You will have to produce evidence (not his say-so in a lawsuit against the university) that the text messages are genuine before I would consider them at all.

I could be that there was no way to compel disclosure when this was just a disciplinary hearing but now that it's a lawsuit the former student's lawyers got a judge to order both students to turn over any records of communications between them. How that will figure into the lawsuit remains to be seen. The college cannot compel disclosure of private communications. Does that mean it cannot enforce its Code of Conduct in cases where such communications might be relevant? Or can the college proceed in good faith with what it is allowed to compel students to provide, such as testimony before the disciplinary board?

good point

 

[Derec]

You have a hard time imagining a situation wherein a sexual encountered started out consensual and then turned into a rape?

Do you have any evidence that this is what happened here?

1 Or are you having a hard time imagining that any woman would be bluntly honest about how events unfolded?

Or are you having a hard time imagining that any woman would be lying about how events unfolded?

As to the alleged text messages, I find it HIGHLY suspect that JD somehow did not have these texts messages at the time of the hearing, but amazingly has them now.

Where does it say that he didn't have them then? It's much more likely the college kangaroo court simply didn't care about them, preferring to go with the politically correct outcome of expelling the male student. One of the complaints about these tribunals is precisely that they tend to ignore exculpatory evidence.

You will have to produce evidence (not his say-so in a lawsuit against the university) that the text messages are genuine before I would consider them at all.

You will have to produce evidence she is even denying their authenticity before proving they are genuine is even relevant.

 

[Derec]

Erections are hard to disregard by guys when girls are available Its even harder for guys whose inhibitions are reduced when drunk. Whilst girls gotta get their desires up by finding reasons somehow.

Erections are an involuntary physiological response and not a proof of consent. Do you think a woman's clitoris getting erect is a proof of consent too?