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

[Tom Sawyer]

He seems to be saying he could have pushed her off of himself and been more forceful but he chose not to or couldn't see the choice at the time. He could have prevented a rape and only endured a sexual assault, but chose not to or just felt too powerless to push a girl who maybe only weighs 120lbs away from his groin. Is it because he is a pacifist or because he "felt powerless"? I don't know. Either way. It sounds like he had an opportunity to prevent the rape but didn't because of psychology or ideology or maybe something else he is hiding. Yes, I'm reading between the lines, and maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it sounds to me.

There are other hints in other parts of that article that nudged me in this direction too.

I really don't see a whole lot of difference between this and the position that a girl was too worried about keeping her job to fight back against her boss or is frightened about becoming a social outcast if she tries to push the quarterback off her. The fear of the consequences of fighting back against the rape causes them to choose to not take some actions which could have potentially prevented it. The notion that they should just always resist violations against their person regardless of the consequences and therefore they could have stopped the rape and are hiding something and aren't really victims is demeaning.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting you and you're not making that argument, please explain how this situation would be different than the other situations I mentioned.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Huh? It is clear from everything we know about this case is
- she admitted in text messages that the sex was consensual
- he was very drunk, drunk enough that if he was female it would be enough to deem him "unable to consent". But of course, there is a double standard.
- the falsely accused male student did not receive due process in the kangaroo court that had no interest in justice, merely in expelling male students whether he is guilty or not.

WRONG
1. She admitted to having consenual sex with him. She also admitted that he forced her to continue against her will. That is 2 separate things. TWO THINGS. They didn't happen at the same time and one does not override the other because they are TWO THINGS that she says happened.

2. It is not at all clear from any evidence we have seen that he was "very drunk" or "unable to consent." You have no evidence of this. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS!

3. It is possible that the male student did not receive the necessary due process. He claims that he wasn't allowed to gather evidence. Maybe he was but he simply failed to do so. It is possible that he is innocent. It is also possible that he is guilty. There is so little evidence that we internet people have been exposed to that we simply can't know with certainty. That does not mean the purpose of the hearing is or was to "expel male students whether they are guilty or not." You are imagining that.

You're assuming she's telling the truth. We don't think she is.

 

[Jokodo]

WRONG
1. She admitted to having consenual sex with him. She also admitted that he forced her to continue against her will. That is 2 separate things. TWO THINGS. They didn't happen at the same time and one does not override the other because they are TWO THINGS that she says happened.

2. It is not at all clear from any evidence we have seen that he was "very drunk" or "unable to consent." You have no evidence of this. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS!

3. It is possible that the male student did not receive the necessary due process. He claims that he wasn't allowed to gather evidence. Maybe he was but he simply failed to do so. It is possible that he is innocent. It is also possible that he is guilty. There is so little evidence that we internet people have been exposed to that we simply can't know with certainty. That does not mean the purpose of the hearing is or was to "expel male students whether they are guilty or not." You are imagining that.

You're assuming she's telling the truth. We don't think she is.

No, you're assuming that she's lying while zorq, along with everyone else on "the other side", is just pointing out the implication of what if she isn't.

 

[prideandfall]

You're assuming she's telling the truth. We don't think she is.

No, you're assuming that she's lying while zorq, along with everyone else on "the other side", is just pointing out the implication of what if she isn't.

and that's different from LP and company just pointing out the implication of what if she is how, exactly?

every single one of these threads is so entertaining to read, watching it come down to a 20+ page screaming match of one side belligerently demanding that the facts as the "victim" tells them must be the undeniable truth, while the other side belligerently demands that the facts as the "perpetrator" tells them must be undeniable truth.
there's something deliciously ironic about the fact that all of you, from laughing dog to derec to athena to dismal to tom and back again, are really making essentially the exact same argument in exactly the same way, you're just picking different teams to be rooting for.

 

[Jokodo]

No, you're assuming that she's lying while zorq, along with everyone else on "the other side", is just pointing out the implication of what if she isn't.

and that's different from LP and company just pointing out the implication of what if she is how, exactly?

every single one of these threads is so entertaining to read, watching it come down to a 20+ page screaming match of one side belligerently demanding that the facts as the "victim" tells them must be the undeniable truth, while the other side belligerently demands that the facts as the "perpetrator" tells them must be undeniable truth.
there's something deliciously ironic about the fact that all of you, from laughing dog to derec to athena to dismal to tom and back again, are really making essentially the exact same argument in exactly the same way, you're just picking different teams to be rooting for.

That was my second post in this thread, if that. I'm not actually involved in these discussions anymore. So that's a very poor pick on your side if that's what you want to get off your heart.

But it's very telling that LP is saying "you're assuming" in a reply to a post that explicitly acknowledges that several different scenarios are plausible, while making clear within the same 11-word post that he's assuming one specific scenario.

 

[zorq]

He seems to be saying he could have pushed her off of himself and been more forceful but he chose not to or couldn't see the choice at the time. He could have prevented a rape and only endured a sexual assault, but chose not to or just felt too powerless to push a girl who maybe only weighs 120lbs away from his groin. Is it because he is a pacifist or because he "felt powerless"? I don't know. Either way. It sounds like he had an opportunity to prevent the rape but didn't because of psychology or ideology or maybe something else he is hiding. Yes, I'm reading between the lines, and maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way it sounds to me.

There are other hints in other parts of that article that nudged me in this direction too.

I really don't see a whole lot of difference between this and the position that a girl was too worried about keeping her job to fight back against her boss or is frightened about becoming a social outcast if she tries to push the quarterback off her.

The woman stands to lose her job if she resists her boss. She stands to be physically beaten if she pushes the quarterback away. These are threats to the woman directly from her attacker. The man in the Cracked article at no point mentions feeling threatened. The only thing he mentions that he stands to lose by resisting is the chance she will accuse him of assault if he somehow hurts her and remains completely unscathed while resisting. That is a really weird thing to be worrying about when you are being sexually assaulted IMO.
Maybe just maybe I might look bad?

If a large dog jumped up and started licking you in face and humping your leg in an unwelcome way would you hesitate in pushing the dog away in case you happen to injure it and the owners sue you? I don't think so. You might hesitate if you thought the dog might attack you if you pushed it away because that is actually a threat to you. The woman in the cracked article apparently didn't offer any threat to the man at all. She didn't restrain him. She didn't brandish a weapon. She didn't overpower him. She didn't offer blackmail or bribes. She apparently just ignored his requests to stop and started straddling him.

The fear of the consequences of fighting back against the rape causes them to choose to not take some actions which could have potentially prevented it. The notion that they should just always resist violations against their person regardless of the consequences and therefore they could have stopped the rape and are hiding something and aren't really victims is demeaning.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting you and you're not making that argument, please explain how this situation would be different than the other situations I mentioned.

It is the LACK of consequences that he was facing that really makes me question his apparent decision to not resist. It is just fishy.

 

[Jokodo]

I really don't see a whole lot of difference between this and the position that a girl was too worried about keeping her job to fight back against her boss or is frightened about becoming a social outcast if she tries to push the quarterback off her.

The woman stands to lose her job if she resists her boss. She stands to be physically beaten if she pushes the quarterback away. These are threats to the woman directly from her attacker. The man in the Cracked article at no point mentions feeling threatened. The only thing he mentions that he stands to lose by resisting is the chance she will accuse him of assault if he somehow hurts her and remains completely unscathed while resisting. That is a really weird thing to be worrying about when you are being sexually assaulted IMO.
Maybe just maybe I might look bad?

If a large dog jumped up and started licking you in face and humping your leg in an unwelcome way would you hesitate in pushing the dog away in case you happen to injure it and the owners sue you? I don't think so. You might hesitate if you thought the dog might attack you if you pushed it away because that is actually a threat to you. The woman in the cracked article apparently didn't offer any threat to the man at all. She didn't restrain him. She didn't brandish a weapon. She didn't overpower him. She didn't offer blackmail or bribes. She apparently just ignored his requests to stop and started straddling him.

The fear of the consequences of fighting back against the rape causes them to choose to not take some actions which could have potentially prevented it. The notion that they should just always resist violations against their person regardless of the consequences and therefore they could have stopped the rape and are hiding something and aren't really victims is demeaning.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting you and you're not making that argument, please explain how this situation would be different than the other situations I mentioned.

It is the LACK of consequences that he was facing that really makes me question his apparent decision to not resist. It is just fishy.

Sorry, but NO!

Not really sorry, actually, just NO!

If you fail to resist it's still rape, whether you fail to resist because you fear the consequences if you do, or whether you fail to resist because you're too overwhelmed by the situation to act coherently at all, and even if it was really one thing and you rationalise it as being the other. It just doesn't matter why you didn't resist, because lack of resistance doesn't make it consensual.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're assuming she's telling the truth. We don't think she is.

No, you're assuming that she's lying while zorq, along with everyone else on "the other side", is just pointing out the implication of what if she isn't.

We figure she is lying because the facts fit a regret case better than they fit a rape case.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But it's very telling that LP is saying "you're assuming" in a reply to a post that explicitly acknowledges that several different scenarios are plausible, while making clear within the same 11-word post that he's assuming one specific scenario.

I'm not assuming either side is telling the truth (after all, he's saying he doesn't remember--we have nothing from him to be telling the truth about!) I'm looking at what evidence we have and it fits regret better than rape.

 

[zorq]

The woman stands to lose her job if she resists her boss. She stands to be physically beaten if she pushes the quarterback away. These are threats to the woman directly from her attacker. The man in the Cracked article at no point mentions feeling threatened. The only thing he mentions that he stands to lose by resisting is the chance she will accuse him of assault if he somehow hurts her and remains completely unscathed while resisting. That is a really weird thing to be worrying about when you are being sexually assaulted IMO.
Maybe just maybe I might look bad?

If a large dog jumped up and started licking you in face and humping your leg in an unwelcome way would you hesitate in pushing the dog away in case you happen to injure it and the owners sue you? I don't think so. You might hesitate if you thought the dog might attack you if you pushed it away because that is actually a threat to you. The woman in the cracked article apparently didn't offer any threat to the man at all. She didn't restrain him. She didn't brandish a weapon. She didn't overpower him. She didn't offer blackmail or bribes. She apparently just ignored his requests to stop and started straddling him.

The fear of the consequences of fighting back against the rape causes them to choose to not take some actions which could have potentially prevented it. The notion that they should just always resist violations against their person regardless of the consequences and therefore they could have stopped the rape and are hiding something and aren't really victims is demeaning.

Now, if I'm misinterpreting you and you're not making that argument, please explain how this situation would be different than the other situations I mentioned.

It is the LACK of consequences that he was facing that really makes me question his apparent decision to not resist. It is just fishy.

Sorry, but NO!

Not really sorry, actually, just NO!

If you fail to resist it's still rape, whether you fail to resist because you fear the consequences if you do, or whether you fail to resist because you're too overwhelmed by the situation to act coherently at all, and even if it was really one thing and you rationalise it as being the other. It just doesn't matter why you didn't resist, because lack of resistance doesn't make it consensual.

I never said it wasn't rape. I fully acknowledged the rape. What I said was I was surprised. I said it sounds fishy. If there is no GOOD reason not to resist then WHY didn't you resist? If a three year old toddler tries to pull your wallet out of your pocket do you steal the wallet back from the toddler or do you just let them take your money just in case the toddler's parents see you touching their child and assume you are a pedophile?

 

[Arctish]

But it's very telling that LP is saying "you're assuming" in a reply to a post that explicitly acknowledges that several different scenarios are plausible, while making clear within the same 11-word post that he's assuming one specific scenario.

I'm not assuming either side is telling the truth (after all, he's saying he doesn't remember--we have nothing from him to be telling the truth about!)

What about his claim that he can't remember?

I'm looking at what evidence we have and it fits regret better than rape.

Only in your mind, and only because of your implicit assumption that sexual encounters that start out consensual remain consensual throughout. Without that assumption, the facts best fit the scenario that he and she got together willingly, but their encounter ended badly when she was no longer willing to continue with it. She said he used force to make her continue, and you have no factual reason to disbelieve her, only non-factual ones.

 

[zorq]

WRONG
1. She admitted to having consenual sex with him. She also admitted that he forced her to continue against her will. That is 2 separate things. TWO THINGS. They didn't happen at the same time and one does not override the other because they are TWO THINGS that she says happened.

2. It is not at all clear from any evidence we have seen that he was "very drunk" or "unable to consent." You have no evidence of this. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THIS!

3. It is possible that the male student did not receive the necessary due process. He claims that he wasn't allowed to gather evidence. Maybe he was but he simply failed to do so. It is possible that he is innocent. It is also possible that he is guilty. There is so little evidence that we internet people have been exposed to that we simply can't know with certainty. That does not mean the purpose of the hearing is or was to "expel male students whether they are guilty or not." You are imagining that.

You're assuming she's telling the truth. We don't think she is.

Where am I assuming she is telling the truth?

I don't see it. I see Derec assuming additional meaning in a text message that isn't necessarily there. I see Derec making assumptions about things he has no actual evidence of (the degree of intoxication of the accused man). I see Derec assigning motives to the college expulsion hearing that are not at all evident.

Show me my assumptions. I have shown you Derec's.

 

[laughing dog]

No, you're assuming that she's lying while zorq, along with everyone else on "the other side", is just pointing out the implication of what if she isn't.

and that's different from LP and company just pointing out the implication of what if she is how, exactly?

every single one of these threads is so entertaining to read, watching it come down to a 20+ page screaming match of one side belligerently demanding that the facts as the "victim" tells them must be the undeniable truth, while the other side belligerently demands that the facts as the "perpetrator" tells them must be undeniable truth.
there's something deliciously ironic about the fact that all of you, from laughing dog to derec to athena to dismal to tom and back again, are really making essentially the exact same argument in exactly the same way, you're just picking different teams to be rooting for.

If your intent was to present an educational message to the participants, it really helps your case if it shows an inkling of recognition of what posters have actually posted. Better luck next time.