<p>Another view is instead of focusing on men for saying and doing anything to get some, adult females could take the responsible lead to help young females be teaching young females not to be gullible and to fall for all the crap that guys say and do. </p>
<p>This way females are not waiting around for males to change. And the best part of that is then it irrelevant what men do, as the females would be smarter and ahead of the men and would not fall for lines etc. </p>
<p>I know this might seem like a novel thought around here - actually getting up and taking care of the issue in a way that the females are always in control.</p>
<p>Yes, I know this will be called victim blaming in advocates’ eyes. However, in other people’s eyes, such as mine, it is called taking charge of a situation and finding a way to solve it without depending or waiting on others. Try it - it works every time it is tried.</p>
<p>And when and if the men catch up behaviorally, then it would be a twofer. </p>
<p>The simple is yes, it is hard, if BOTH people are intoxicated. Why is that simple concept so hard to get? </p>
<p>If BOTH the male and female are drunk, there is good chance NEITHER person understands if the other wants to have sex with the other. They are just doing it. They are drunk, and they have having sex when they are drunk. Just like some people walk to the fridge and get food when they are drunk and never remember even doing it. And yes, I have personally been in that situation where both the female and I could not tell you jack about what we did and why, but we darn sure did it thanks to Johnny Walker. And none of us was warped enough to call that rape. </p>
<p>As for the gray area example - again, if BOTH the male and female are drunk, they CANNOT discern gray areas, so there is nothing they see necessary to get out of simply by asking the other party. The only thing they probably ask the other party is for another drink. </p>
<p>What I am mystified at is why it is so hard to understand that two intoxicated people do have “trouble understanding” the other person and usually cannot recognize the difference between a “gray area” and a glaring green light. Such is life when drinking (add drugs in there, as well).</p>
<p>I would go as far as to say that being fully drunk is not even necessary for this “trouble understanding” and recognizing “gray areas” line to be crossed for both males and females. Just a couple drinks can do for both males and females and presto, sex happens. </p>
<p>And the Yes means Yes law will not help here because, if there were an audio recording or video, the amount of yeses coming out of BOTH intoxicated persons’ mouths would make the law moot.</p>
<p>And yes, I know the argument that a drunk person cannot consent, so the yeses do not mean consent. But BOTH male and female are drunk and people are tired of hearing if both are drunk then guy and ONLY the guy is at fault if sex took place. Yeah right, right up until it is the drunk girl who starts taking the guy’s clothes off; saw that happen with my own eyes, as the guy was more useless than her and he needed help. We left at that point. That was 1982, and it was not rape, and she was not stupid enough to call it rape either.</p>
<p>The text exchange between “Drew” and Jackie’s friends seemed odd to me too. My speculation is that Jackie encouraged her friends to contact “Drew” because she – acting as “Drew” – wanted to get a message to “Randall.” (I am indebted to the internet for adding the expression “catfishing” to my meagre cyber vocabulary.) </p>
<p>I think the point made by @TatinG that even before the night of September 28, Jackie was making things up is important. Why she fabricated a dark and complex tale, is unknown. I don’t know that we’ll ever know her motivations, or that we need to, but I think it’s important to trace the evolution of her story over the course of two years so that we can avoid overreacting on several counts.</p>
<p>Possibly, the story Jackie told Eramo around May/June of 2013 was far less brutal than the story Erdely published in November 2014. During the intervening year, according to several reports, Jackie became a visible and vocal advocate for victims of sexual assault, their spokesperson in many respects. We don’t know at what point the forced oral sex story morphed into the premeditated fraternity gang rape. Her story – in whatever iteration she chose to tell it – became her street cred as an advocate, not just with students but with the administration. I don’t know how we can separate Jackie’s credibility from what she told RS, reaffirmed to the WaPo and presumably told her father. The RS story is Jackie’s story: the two are conjoined.</p>
<p>If challenging and questioning RS’s account is perceived as “trashing,” “skewering” or “crucifying” Jackie, then so be it. The article managed to trash, skewer and crucify UVA quite effectively. The fraternities I think were collateral damage. Some of the ideas put forth to make fraternity – and all campus – parties safer environments are worth examining, but this isn’t what concerns me.</p>
<p>The real target was the university, and by extension other universities that are perceived as under-reacting to an alleged epidemic of rape.</p>
<p>If Jackie’s pattern of enabled falsification is that taken at face value it substantiates the thought progression that we’re now seeing all over the country:
The assumption that colleges have inadequate processes for dealing with sexual assault victims, which leads to 2) The implementation of powerful government mandated, college run tribunals, which leads to 3) The denial of due process for the accused and ridiculous intrusive regulation of students’ sexual interaction.</p>
<p>For violent crimes, like rape – however you want to define it – we don’t need a secondary parallel justice system that applies only to college students. To me this is like superimposing sharia law on top of a country’s legal system, enforced by self-proclaimed arbiters with quasi legal skills, a strongly biased agenda and inconsistently applied severe penalties.</p>
<p>Arbiters like Ezra Klein who says “men need to feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter” and justifies conviction in what he calls ambiguous and unfair cases because of the power of deterrence. This is exactly how sharia works: Draconian punishments deter effectively.</p>
<p>
How the heck does Ezra Klein – or anyone – know that they happen very, very rarely? We’re just getting starting on the impact of these kangaroo courts. There’s no predicting how many falsely accused will be denied due process.</p>
<p>If our law enforcement and legal system are inhospitable to rape victims, then let’s work on improving how police and courts handle rape cases. In bypassing the courts in favor of Title IX mandated tribunals that investigate, judge and penalize violent crime is pushing colleges down a very slippery slope, especially when standards of guilt are arbitrary and collateral damage is so widely and casually accepted.</p>
<p>The grey area is why this thread is 154 pages long. The part in the CA law that states that affirmative consent is not valid if the accused knew or would be reasonably expected to know that the consent wasn’t valid. By the way, does this apply only to college kids or to all? It brings this right back to how drunk is too drunk to consent? How affirmative does the consent have to be and how far does that consent extend? I believe that most men know when consent is not given and also would not take advantage of a woman that does not consent or is incapacitated. Unfortunately, the men that would take advantage would also be more likely to lie.</p>
<p>I simultaneously think that most women know the difference between waking up with a hangover and regretting the encounter and waking up and knowing they were raped. The grey area is the “sloppy” and very affectionate drunk girl who is enthusiastic but later realizes/decides she was too drunk to consent. Or where consent is given and then withdrawn and whether the man understands that and accepts it and stops. Not clear how this gets beyond “he said she said”. Where is that line? It seems to me that an addendum to the law would be that once consent is given, it must be withdrawn clearly. Not saying that agreeing to “make out” is an agreement to move on to sex, but if there was consent to sex and the women changes her mind as is her right, she has to communicate that clearly. </p>
<p>Much2learn not sure where anyone has said that boys can do or say anything and not be accountable. I don’t think anyone posting here believes that.</p>
<p>Momrath nailed it when she said "If Jackie’s pattern of enabled falsification is that taken at face value it substantiates the thought progression that we’re now seeing all over the country:
The assumption that colleges have inadequate processes for dealing with sexual assault victims, which leads to 2) The implementation of powerful government mandated, college run tribunals, which leads to 3) The denial of due process for the accused and ridiculous intrusive regulation of students’ sexual interaction."</p>
<p>Victims need to take ownership of their terrible predicament and go to the hospital to have their blood checked for rape drugs and to have a rape kit done. Ugly, yes, but if you care about proving you were raped and you care about bringing the perpetrator to justice, then it’s what has to happen. The fact that someone is traumatized is not reason enough to not follow reasonable procedures related to one’s protection. If you are involved in a serious car accident and are injured, you go to the hospital for treatment and/or an evaluation for possible injuries, no matter how shaken up or in shock you are. It’s the same thing. For a while, there were some outrageous whiplash cases with huge settlements, some of which were totally bogus. But then the system wised up and started to toughen standards. It is now understood that after an accident, you should go to the hospital to be given a check over so if an injury shows up in a few days, you have documentation it’s legit and occurred due to the car accident. It’s unfortunate we can’t trust in people’s honesty and memory, but we can’t. We simply can’t allow people to wait years to report a crime, long after the evidence is destroyed and memories are sketchy, and expect an accusation to stick. </p>
<p>“And yes, I have personally been in that situation where both the female and I could not tell you jack about what we did and why, but we darn sure did it thanks to Johnny Walker. And none of us was warped enough to call that rape.”</p>
<p>What a class act you are; now tell us about reverse cowgirl again, why don’t you. </p>
<p>I love how it’s the supposed “strong social conservative” who talks like this. Gays are icky and women belong in the home, but it’s ok to schtup some strange chick when you’re both hopped up on Johnny Walker. </p>
<p>In my opinion, affirmative consent is a good thing to teach all kids: heterosexual and LGBT. I really don’t see the downside. If we care enough, I believe we can make it the norm like we have made condom use the norm. I would like to think concern for the feelings of a sex partner could be a norm as well. I really don’t care for this idea that sex is only about self-fulfillment, about getting what you want without concern for the other person. I think we can teach our kids to be better than that. Maybe that is not what posters mean, but that is what I am reading. If you care about the person you are in bed with, why on earth can’t you find out whether they really want to be there? If you suspect they think this is the beginning of a relationship, and you aren’t interested in that relationship - why on earth don’t you get out of bed and leave them alone? This just seems like simple human decency to me.</p>
<p>Or put another way, what’s the appeal of having sex with someone whom you aren’t particularly interested in and / or who isn’t particularly interested in you? </p>
<p>Yes, it CAN be both ways. In the case of Brown, for example, he can both have assaulted the officer in his vehicle AND have run away, unarmed, then turned around and staggered some steps back, and the officer could have chosen not to execute him on the spot. For that matter, the officer could have chosen not to accost him for jaywalking in the first place. Brown was no angel. Neither is the officer. What most people wanted was a TRIAL, to have due process, to have the legal system do its best to find out what happened.</p>
<p>In Jackie’s case and all others, what most of us want, I think, is a REAL investigation, due process, not a kangaroo court run by activists OR for the accusation to be swept under the rug and the accuser dismissed as a liar before it is even investigated.</p>
<p>alh: I completely agree with you on that, and it’s almost exactly what I preached to my kids. But I think it’s not a great basis for a legal system, nor for a quasi-legal system of administrative punishments at a college. Those are really fine judgments to make, and it would take experience to make them well. And even with experience, there will be some kind of error rate.</p>
<p>Grey area? It’s been a few decades, but in my late teens and twenties, I had a few “dates” that ended with wrestling and even bruises. From conversations at the time, many other women did, too. I suspect the grey area is very small, and really more black and blue.</p>
<p>JHS: I agree. I’m just trying think how we can educate our kids so as to avoid having to use any legal system. And realizing that isn’t going to be totally possible. But I think we can do a whole lot better than we do now. Changing campus culture through education rather than punishment just seems a more positive way to go and much more effective in the long run.</p>
<p>Yes, this is an interpretation that might make sense. As a practical matter, how common is it for an 18-year old to have more than one cellphone number, though? That would be odd, to me. </p>
<p>If the cellphone message has been preserved, then the number can be traced by law enforcement to determine the cellphone Drew’s identity. He is not necessarily the same Drew that assaulted Jackie, though. </p>
<p>“By the way, does this apply only to college kids or to all?”</p>
<p>The new California law is only applicable to college campuses in Cali that accept state financial aid. California’s Penal Code remains in effect for the general population.</p>
<p>Mamalion: Sorry you went through that, but that was not my experience or the experience of my friends. Are you saying these incidents amounted to rape? Do you think the men should have been jailed or expelled from school? Are you saying you (or your friend’s) were beaten in order to get away? Were these incidents reported?</p>
<p>What makes you think that all this isn’t being done behind the scenes, and it just isn’t being breathlessly announced at press conferences, until the entire story is in? I mean, we’re not the only ones who can piece together clues.</p>
<p>mom2and, I am not saying the incidents were rape. I am saying wrestling was part of dating in the 70s, not a “normal” part of dating, but not a surprise. Bruising probably should have been reported as assault, but I doubt anyone would have cared, and the reporter probably would have been told she led him on. There was not the language of “date rape” then, and no one had a way to systematize the abusive behaviour.</p>
<p>I’m surprised you and your friends never had that experience. I have five sisters, and to varying degrees, we experienced this “dates.” One of my sisters had her finger broken on a date.</p>
<p>This is in response to bays comment about two cell phone numbers. Now maybe we need so what here lol. I think that it is possible for some wifi devices to have phone numbers associated with them that you don’t have to pay a monthly fee for them. I think you can send text messages to the old non phone iPods for example. </p>
<p>Since the photo of Drew that was transmitted turned out to be a high school classmate of Jackie’s that barely knew her, perhaps the sender was a high school friend of Jackie’s who was in on Jackie’s ruse to attract Randall. </p>