<p>
</p>
<p>I could be mistaken but I don’t think they are suspended. I believe their social activities are the only things that have been suspended. And as I posted earlier they are still having parties, they just aren’t having them in the frat house. They aren’t being kicked out. There is zero effect on them other than having to go to a brother’s off campus house to have their party. Again, as far as I know. </p>
<p>Cons, another poster brought up the idea drunk sex somehow has it’s own allowances. Some of it was, oh, well, he didn’t have intent because he was blotto, too. Or the idea she may not have been able to agree but what the heck, they had sex, so why blame him. Many have had tipsy sex, sure. The technical consideration is when she is mentally unable to agree. maybe incoherant, maybe passed out or close. Not that you or I or some other poster looks back on some fun, loose decisions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The accused person has to have gotten consent. The accuser says that the accused person didn’t get consent. The accused person says they believe the accuser consented. What does the accuser say happened that indicated consent?</p>
<p>If the only thing the accused person brings to me is, “S/he didn’t say No,” then I decide for the accuser. Positive consent is required. It doesn’t have to be a Yes-- it could be enthusiastic cooperation, or something else. But “She didn’t say No,” is not enough.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. I don’t want to be teaching adults that sex acts including penetration don’t need the use of an erect penis. Really! What do you think people of a certain age did before Viagra?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the “men are different” is grounds to claim that men can’t be raped by women, why even have gender neutral rape laws? Just be explicit. Say that a woman can never rape a man and then go from there, consent be damned. It’s all a fig leaf anyway, right? Men are such horndogs that if a woman shows some skin they will start lapping.</p>
<p>Disgusting. And sexist.</p>
<p>Let me be very clear about this, because some people are misinterpreting what I say. An accusation of rape, with no supporting evidence, should not be enough for any college discipline. Not expulsion, and not any other sanctions either. It’s sad, but if a guy rapes a woman, and there is no corroborating evidence, nothing but her bare accusation, that slimy SOB is going to get away with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not think people have any problem with consent, and I do not believe they do not find it tough. What people are having trouble with is holding two people in the same state to completely different standards. Logically, that makes people uncomfortable and back off.</p>
<p>The example in Post #1994 does hold two people in the same state to different standards. People instinctively get that dichotomy and go, “Huh?”</p>
<p>My one counsel sees all this as a way to get higher rape conviction stats using an act that has been occurring since alcohol and drugs were invented / discovered, i.e., drunk or high sex between two drunk or high parties. </p>
<p>He posited this scenario to me (paraphrased): </p>
<p>Mental capacity can be viewed, as a continuum ranging from totally able to make decisions to totally unable to make decisions. We could mark the continuum with a scale in descending numbers left to right from 100 (able to take decisions lucidly) to 0 (incapacitated). Each person is always somewhere along that graph. </p>
<p>Now, if two people VOLUNTARILY drink or do drugs together and both people, who each started out at 100 on the scale, are now both at 40 on the scale, and they have sex, why does charging one with rape make more sense over the other person, as both are functioning at the same mental capacity AND both got there on their OWN volition and no one forced anyone to drink or do drugs? </p>
<p>OK, let’s take this example above and say instead of two people who started at 100 and voluntarily and happily got to 40 on the scale, it is now two mentally-challenged adults who were born that way and they too are at 40 on the scale. However, they are at 40 all the time. And it turns out one night, these two mentally-challeged adults have sex, does it make sense to charge one with rape and not the other, as both are functioning at the mental capacity? </p>
<p>His answer: This happens all the time in hospitals for the mentally-challenged and no he knows have ever been charged with rape. If we are not charging one set of people functioning at 40 with rape, why are we instituting a policy to treat another set of people functioning at the same point on the scale differently? And remember, the adults in the initial example BOTH VOLUNTARILY got drunk or did drugs, there was no coercion, and both now have the same mental capacity as the people in the second example. </p>
<p>He continued: Now I bet you that people are going into say but if you get drunk and kill someone you will still get charged with a crime. Sounds like a good argument except that it turns out that both people were drunk, both voluntarily got drunk, and both ended up playing with a knife (both sets of prints are all over the knife and knife case) and one person stabbed the other person, while stumbling around, and no one has a clue what occurred. Is this sufficient enough to charge the one person with murder even though both parties test in the range of 2.2 blood alcohol level?</p>
<p>SWDYDH, please quit with the attitude you know more or have something to teach older adults. Many of us are in the age group before the threat of dread, life threatening diseases.</p>
<p>And tv4, a male (or female) physical response can be the result of stimuli despite emotions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t remember CF ever saying that the girl didn’t do that. Even if the girl did it wouldn’t change the outcome at all.</p>
<p>SoWhat, the laws regarding rape are gender neutral (except for the obvious differences in body parts) but rape accusers are almost all women. If I’m the college tribunal, and a guy comes to me with solid evidence that a woman penetrated him without his consent, or put his **** in her mouth without his consent, you bet I’d throw her butt out of college. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that women can’t rape men. I do believe that the overwhelming number of rapists are men, however. You keep bringing up hypothetical cases of men accusing women of rape, but real cases of men accusing women of rape are few and far between.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I thought. That’s exactly what will happen too, even in cases where the woman is sober and the man is drunk. If the woman claims rape, there was no verbal Yes, and the woman says that the man’s perception of Yes in deed was false, the man gets … well … effed, and not in the a good way.</p>
<p>OK, last question. What would you do if the the man accused of being raped? Just flip the genders. </p>
<p>I can bet you that no Tribunal would ever kick out the girl. That’s because the law is not gender neutral. But I would like to know what you would. As that would also help in the discussion about sexual assault - unwelcome touching - and how to deal with huggers and kissers, and, my personal favorite, grinding.</p>
<p>You of course understand that because these Tribunals are not going to act in a gender neutral manner there will be plenty of cases where the boys will be able to sue under Title IX for discrimination based on gender, and the whole system will come crashing down. </p>
<p>There’s data available about how many complaints have the male as victim. Someone can pull it up, but it’s far, far less than male to female. A shred in comparison. </p>
<p>READ TITLE 9, SoWhat.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who says she hasn’t. Alcohol isn’t allowed in dorms etc where the student isn’t 21 (maybe even any rooms?). When students are caught there are consequences. I don’t see or hear of any ragers occurring on campus. If so I promise you she would go after them as well. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that is true for every other campus crime I can think of. You know your roommate stole your jewelry because you saw her take it, but she denies it and no one can find it; she gets away with it. Your roommate kicks you in the head in your room but it leaves no marks and he denies it; he gets away with it. Is it fair or just? Not to you, but that is the way our system works. </p>
<p>People know this stuff happens, even when you can’t prove it, which is why we caution people to protect their valuables, take self-defense classes, ask to have your roommate changed or move off-campus to avoid the perpetrator. There are many criminal situations where the SOB is going to get away with it. </p>
<p>Post #2065 says it all. If that’s the standard all rape surveys follow, the incidence of rape would go down by some 80%, per what I decifer from the CDC survey. Also, any mom or dad silently reading this thread would do well to understand that if they can somehow teach their kids to drink responsibility (drugs is a whole 'nother issue) they will be on far safer grounds when it comes to rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not me. I have been to bars lately with lots of UVA kids and I have been to apartment parties lately. I’ve been told about frat parties by my child and their friends who were in frats. But, no, I have not been to one. </p>
<p>“I am saying that there is a difference between clear and convincing evidence, and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.”</p>
<p>Fang – you are correct that those are two different legal standards. But per the DOE “advice” colleges are not allowed to use the clear/convincing standard that most schools had previously used. The Feds advise (i.e. require) schools to use the even lower preponderance of the evidence standard. </p>
<p>I don’t think that it is OK to (i) have major offenses and major punishments (i.e. expulsion), (ii) handled in fake college courts, that use (iii) the lowest available standard of proof. </p>
<p>Fake college courts are only OK if they involve low level offenses, lower level punishments and lower level (but still reasonable) due process.</p>
<p>If you want to deal with high level offenses/punishments, then you need high level due process. As a lawyer myself, I think it is a fool’s errand to try to pump up fake college courts. Just use the real courts instead.</p>
<p>SWDYDH -
You quoted Cardinal Fang, and still claim not to understand her clear language. Are you tired?</p>
<p>Your last 2 paragraphs are pure speculation. </p>
<p>Earlier you posted:
</p>
<p>Your premise is that there are 100 cases of rape, but the first 80 you list (#2 and #3) sound like casual campus hook-up sex. It’s hard to see what your point is here. </p>
<p>I think it would help her prove her case. That is what we are discussing. How we prove or disprove rape</p>
<p>Clearly you’re in the know, TV4caster. I stand corrected. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would you need solid evidence? Just because a boy is the accuser here? All you need is whether the girl got an enthusiastic Yes, right? And the girl has to prove it, not the boy. If not, you should kick the girl out. Fair?</p>
<p>My point is simply this, drunk sex where no one said no is not rape, but if Yes means Yes becomes the standard, both genders can play at the game. How many drunk girls get enthusiastic yes before jumping on a boy you think?</p>
<p>Also, you were earlier so disgusted by a boy pawing or slobbering all over a girl. If a drunk girl jumps on a boy and paws him and gives him big wet kisses she is a sexual assaulter, right? </p>