Second (and I don't expect an answer but what the hell), Derec...do you believe that if a man attempts to initiate sexual activity with a woman and she says "no," is that sufficient reason for him to stop? Because you seem to be defending (fucking idiot) Limbaugh's position that a firm "no" is sometimes reason to proceed with pursuing sex anyway. No means no, except for Derec and Rush.
I would say in general that "no means no", certainly a firm no would. However, since girls are taught to play coy, playful demurring can be an invitation to proceed. Therefore it is bad to have very strict rules on only accepting certain formulations of consent (clear, verbal, unambiguous consent given at least half a dozen times when a new level of intimacy is initiated) as valid ignoring the real world is much more complex than that.
Finally, it is worth remembering that with regards to the college policy, we are talking about young people here who may not be sexually experienced or even generally knowledgeable, or alternately may be very experienced. So little 18 year old Tiffany from middle of nowhere America goes to her first big college party at Ohio State, has a bit too much to drink, and 4th year student Greg from Omega house valiantly offers to give her a ride home. He walks her into the dorm room and while she's not passed out entirely, she's incoherent and he takes the opportunity to grab whatever body part is falling out of her clothes and maybe even tries to go further.
It really depends on the level of drunkenness, both absolute and relative (i.e. are both people drunk or is a sober person taking advantage of a drunk one). College policies that want to prohibit any level of drunkenness are wrong. And when these policies are used to selectively go after guys who have sex with girls who have been drinking but not after girls who fucked drunk guys than they are doubly wrong.
This carefully constructed scenario is not at all what is happening in some of the cases that made in into news and resulted in (in my view wrongful) expulsions.
In one case (Vassar), it was the guy who was inexperienced. In fact he was a virgin. The girl (Mary Claire Walker) sent him a message saying that she "had a great time" but a year later decided she was "raped" and the guy was expelled.
In another case (UGA) the girl was by all accounts coherent (she was able to send coherent text messages) and ambulatory (was able to walk to and from his dorm room on her own) but the guy was still expelled just because the university had some anonymous witnesses saying that she was seen drinking earlier that evening.
In neither case were criminal charges ever brought. In one further dodgy case (UND) it was the girl who was charged with filing a false report but the guy was still expelled.
That, campers, is sexual assault. But not according to El Rushbo and apparently not according to Derec.
I would say it either is or is coming very close to one. However, the reality is that guys are being expelled for cases that are much weaker than this hypothetical one, and colleges keep making their policies more strict, which will no doubt result in even more innocent guys being expelled and their futures ruined.
No, when little Tiffany wakes up the next day next to Greg's used rubber and figures out something happened that maybe she didn't want to have happen, any legal action she takes at that point will be nothing more than a validation of the fact that there's a sinister feminazi campaign underway by "womyn" to emasculate all our stalwart college men.
Any legal action will be "he said she said" unless she has any real evidence.
If Tiffany is black, then she'd be a "ho" guilty of making a false rape charge. Right, Derec?
It has nothing with her race. Except that it will make her a darling of progressives (see Duke Lacrosse).
