As previously stated, you often bring up case after case of supposedly false rape claims in every single thread about rape and frequently talk about both being drunk so it was mutual rape.
Well many cases are like that. This case in particular is such a case where witnesses said they were both drunk and both willing participants. I say that it was most likely just a consensual hookup but if you insist it must have been some sort of sexual assault because they were drunk, then they are surely equally guilty.
In fact, actual studies have demonstrated that rapists are most often sober and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
What studies? Also, that is probably true for actual rapists. But there are also many consensual, mutually drunken hookups that are being called "rapes" because the girl regrets the sex the next day (or year) and cries rape. The cases I bring up are usually such mutually drunken hookups. As you said, "rapists are most often sober" and these guys weren't.
Again: different levels of inebriation would lead to differing levels of capacity to consent, as you have admitted.
Nothing to admit here, as it is pretty non-controversial in the abstract. The problem arises from proving just how drunk they both were at a later date. In the Vassar case we have alleged witnesses (probably Walker's friends though) say that she "appeared drunk". Her appearing drunk is in no way evidence that she was "too drunk to consent" and Yu should not have been punished over that incident.
Similarly in the Occidental case the witnesses say they were both drunk but also both willing. How one can construe the girl's victimhood and the guy's culpability from that requires some serious gender bias!
I know of no feminist nor any individual who claims that the responsibility is 'always on the man.' Certainly I have never made such a claim.
It's what the feminist opinions in these cases boil down to. If they are both drunk, the guy is punished and the girl declared a "victim". Without exception.
Except for the witnesses.
No witnesses said she told him to stop and he didn't. None whatsoever!
Later, Walker put a condom on Yu and they got down until his roommate unexpectedly showed up, after which Walker “began to lament about her ex-boyfriend and stated that she was not ready to jump into ‘anything new,’ ” then got dressed and left after noting how she “took Peter Yu’s virginity,” the suit says.
Seems like post-coital regrets and in is in no way evidence of non-consent. In fact, the language, that she "took" his virginity, implies active participation on her part. Look at the last three words - that is part of the lawsuit and is used as evidence for the plaintiff (Yu)!
Let's look at something else from the article:
she sent him a Facebook e-mail the day after their one-night stand saying she “had a wonderful time.”
This exculpatory evidence and should be enough to seal the lawsuit for Yu.
Sounds as though she wanted to stop.
At that point she had already stopped.
The article is told entirely from Yu's perspective and it isn't clear whether he attempted to stop her from leaving or forced her to continue to have sex, which would have been rape, just as if he wanted to stop and she did not, it would have been rape.
I don't see that possibility from the language used at all. She didn't tell him to stop, in fact it is pretty clear they were already finished when the roommate walked in.
Which directly goes to whether she was too drunk to consent. I haven't read any witness testimony that they were equally drunk.
"Appeared to be drunk" is very vague and does not go at all into whether she was too drunk to consent. It does not say that she could barely walk, or unable to speak coherently etc. which would be indicative of extreme intoxication. She even managed to put a condom on him which requires the level of hand-eye coordination and fine motor skills lacking in severely intoxicated.
We actually don't know what the entire body of evidence or testimony was presented against Yu. We have only his side of the story and even that does not make it clear that it was not rape: his room mate indicates she didn't want to start anything new (and the quote makes her sound pretty sloppy drunk) and other witnesses report her appearing to be drunk. You may be correct: he could have been treated unfairly but it is not possible for us to know given the very slim details in online articles told entirely from Yu's perspective.
The "not wanting to start anything new" was said after they had sex, not before. She can't retroactively withdraw consent. And there are plenty of red flags about this case - it being decided solely by her father's colleagues (she didn't want a student representative), him being not allowed to question witnesses, the case being brought a year after the fact.
Derec, it's actually a very serious issue, and one where much education needs to be done. Many of the childhood victims of sexual abuse by priests did not term what happened to them as 'rape' because they didn't believe that it could happen to a boy (in the case of male victims. Although they are not prominently featured in news articles, there are plenty of female victims as well) or that whatever a priest (or coach, or teacher or favorite uncle, etc.) did was ok. Even Mary Kay Letourneau's victim, aka her now husband, does not see that a 35 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old as rape but clearly, it is.
At the same time college girls are adults and thus merely having sex with them is not rape which makes it unlike these cases where we basically have adolescents being taken advantage of. I assume college girls would know if they were being raped or sexually assaulted, no matter what Ms. magazine or this article says.
In many cultures, both men and women believe that a woman (or child) must submit to a man, regardless. And if the two are unmarried, it is her fault, even if she is a child. She is often severely punished.
Relevance to US college campuses?
In the U.S., the fact that men can be rape victims is just now gaining popular acceptance. Until about 20-30 years ago, in most states, a husband could legally force his wife to have sex and it was not deemed rape. I've known people who did not count beatings which resulted in black eyes, broken bones, etc. to be 'abuse.' He just lost his temper. I provoked it. And of course, male victims have an even harder time coming to grips with the fact that they are being abused.
The problem with marital rape is being able to prove it and possibility of false claims being used to punish the husband if the marriage is on the rocks.
Too many people still believe that if you dress a certain way, or drink too much or flirted with someone or if he bought you dinner or if you've had sex with him before or if you are married, then it cannot be rape.
It can be rape, but just because she was drinking does not make consensual sex into rape.
A handsome athlete cannot be a rapist: don't all women want to sleep with him?
It certainly is a valid question. Not that he cannot be a rapist but that needs to be proven, not assumed. On the other hand, successful athletes are good targets for extortion.
Even if she was passed out at the time, she surely wanted it.
Another thing that would need to be proven, not merely assumed. Do you have a case in mind?
