No, dstark. A reasonable woman in her right mind, even if drunk, does not take off all of her clothes and get into bed with a man --other than one with whom she has an established relationship–if she is not interested in intercourse (including oral sex). Trust me. She may change her mind, in which case she either decides to go ahead despite waning enthusiasm, or she says no, I don’t want to after all, sorry. And gets up and puts her clothes back on, or turns over firmly onto her side or something similar. In the first case, SHE decided to go on and was not raped. In the second case, if he overpowers her and goes ahead, he has raped her.
If she wanted to just make out to start with she would keep her clothes more or less on and stay on top of the covers.
“if he has no intent he may get off.” You mean he has no intent, so he doesn’t have sex?
“if she made no effort to roll out.” Again, you cannot imagine a victim not being empowered to roll out?? Sheesh, a lot of guys could sure use that loophole.
This is about the victims who do later complain. Not the ones fine with whatever did happen.
The “college system” is NOT eliminating various details. Some may worry judgments are a slam dunk, I get that. But don’t see it as quite so.
No, I mean he has no intent to rape her and the two drunk students have sex but she didn’t really want to much although she said nothing and stayed there and maybe even hung out for a few days with his family afterwards such as the Stanford/Juneau case and he doesn’t even know he raped her until a week later when the cops call him and tell him what she is saying and his reaction is some version of huh?
And, yes, of course I can imagine a force situation developing, too. But, also agree with Consolation that if you decide to let him even though you’re not into it, that is a decision not a rape. And, it happens. But, all of this is really mute because these are the unprovable cases for the most part and maybe they are also not being reported to the cops much because there isn’t a heck of a lot they can do with them, anyway.
Don’t blame women as zombies. In all the talk and linking in 4500 posts, we know there are many reasons women may feel no option but to submit. That plainly isn’t consent. Submitting or enduring are not consent. and we’ve been talking about some impaired status.
Consolation, I would trust you, except young people are having oral sex and doing other things and not doing vaginal sex. This has been going on since …forever…
We have lawyers here. Unless laws and rules are specific and even then…laws are interpreted.
Decisions are handed out based on who the judge is, who sits on the jury, who the lawyers are.
So…we would get very different verdicts if consolation or momofthreeboys were the judges compared to alh and CF.
We may get less interpretation of the laws or rules if the laws or rules were more specific but we are never going to agree with momofthreeboys wanting a conviction first before we kick out a student, and people like me thinking that is ridiculous.
It’s transactional sex…just like a hoooker and someone who wants sex. Only with a hooker he asks, she says yes and then cash changes hands. Yes means yes is transactional - that’s why I’m not fond of it. If it’s good enough for men and women then it’s good enough for hookers and their customers. Which actually might not be such a bad idea - removes a chore for the police to round up all this transactional sex.
Consolation - I agree that it could possibly raise reasonable doubt in a jury’s mind. But I don’t think “reality check” is in order.
I think the girl in question slept in her underwear and it wasn’t some random guy, and I can easily understand that. In my bachelor days sometimes women friends would come visit me in my small apartment and we sometimes slept in the same bed. We’d often have a brief discussion like “Would you like me to sleep on the sofa? No, but I do/don’t want to fool around, etc.” If I wasn’t able to sleep then sometimes in the middle of the night I’d go the sofa because I was the guy and they were my guest. And that’s with everyone totally sober.
If a woman was going to my bed to sleep off a night’s drinking then the rules are different. They just are. Maybe she’s too drunk to ask for a t-shirt etc. to sleep in. Maybe I don’t want to be dressing her because that’s kind of creepy if we’re just friends. But it’s on me to take care of her, put some covers on her, and get her to bed. And it’s on me to let her have the bed and sleep on the floor or whatever.
I’m not saying that the girl here was or wasn’t raped. I have no idea. But if someone’s on a jury they need to have some life experience. Having a drunk girl who’s been out in the rain pass out in bed in her underwear or even naked without wanting to have sex is perfectly plausible in the right circumstances. It isn’t like seeing a UFO or something, and that wouldn’t be my mindset.
Oh, man. So if hookers state a price, he agrees and she gets in the car, college guys should be exempt from getting a yes because it might be confused with–??
Or you mean hookers should get off because everyone agreed…?
Transactional sex, fwiw, has to do with gifts exchanged in return for sex, different from “commercial” sex.
In the real world that might work al, but some of these kids had sexual relationships before they ended up in bed together and do you really think colleges need to be adjudicating this kind of behavior? I don’t…I think they ought to send the kids to counseling and keep them away from each other. This is light years away from someone having sex with someone who is passed out or giving roofies to some poor person.
By the way, I’d bet money that at some point if the California law goes any further, prostitution will come up. What’s the difference other than an exchange of money and without video cameras and undercover cops who is to say money exchanged hands? “But officer I asked her if she wanted sex and she said yes.”
Not really but I’m intelligent enough to understand the legal concept of a transaction. Go sleep on it and then come back and tell me why I’m wrong. Because if you can figure out the difference, I bet you’ll tell me!
Just because it’s not your reality doesn’t mean it’s not anyone’s.
Beds are also used for sleeping. I bike tour with male friends. We normally camp, but sometimes we’ve been riding all day in the pouring rain and we are delighted to find some motel. Often enough, there’s only one room available. (And although money is not tight for me, it certainly is tight for many other cycle tourists, so people usually get one room even if there is more than one person.) Having cycled all day in the pouring rain, I’d be freezing. If it had been a few days of camping in the rain, I wouldn’t have any dry clothes to put on. I’d be sharing that bed with my friend, and in no way would I be consenting to sex.
My son enters tournaments for a certain event he competes in. He and his buddies get one motel room for a bunch of guys. They share beds, because they’re cheap. They are not consenting to sex with one another.
People sometimes travel with friends. If they’re cheap, they share beds.
If you say that women can’t do these things in groups of mostly men, you’re saying that men are allowed to be cheap, but because men can’t be trusted not to rape women, women aren’t allowed to bike tour, to compete, to travel in the same way men are. Men can’t be trusted not to rape their friends, companions, fellow competitors.
It’s cold in Alaska. She’d been running around all day in the pouring rain. He offered her a place to stay.
From Richard Shannon, executive vice president for health affairs at UVa,
The McLeod case is significant to me because it includes so many of the due-process violations and bias issues that show up in most of the lawsuits filed by students who claim to have been wrongfully accused and penalized by their colleges. Because Duke should have tightened up their procedures after the Lacrosse fiasco, this trial will be high profile (unless they settle out of court). That the accused is an athlete, a fraternity member and a foreigner brings together threads that are common through the 20 cases that I’ve been following.
To me, this case is as different from the Duke “roofie” case, and the Vanderbilt football players case as apples to pineapples. The police are investigating the roofie case using their whole arsenal of investigative tools, we’re likely to know the truth sooner rather than later, and the alleged perpetrators can be tried and if guilty punished.
A few of the violations cited by McLeod are listed below. If you read some of the other filings you will see the same violations again and again, reinforcing that colleges are simply not equipped, trained or capable of investigating and deciding felony sexual assault cases.
Of special significance is the role of Celia Irvine, the “independent” investigator tasked by Duke to investigate and report to the committee. Since many colleges are now adopting the model of a single investigator who is not affiliated with the colleges, it will be interesting to see how McLeod’s case against Irvine (who is named as a defendent) plays out.
Irvine wasn’t licensed or qualified as an private investigator (by North Carolina standards) and there is some question whether her investigation was really independent or if she was restricted by instructions from the University. She relied heavily on anonymous witness (whom the accused couldn’t cross examine) and she failed to interview key witnesses (who could have testified to the accuser’s state of incapacitation), did not properly document the witness telephone interviews (no recordings or transcript) and did not appear at the hearing. In other words, the accused wasn’t able to respond to or rebut Irvine’s report or question her at his hearing. “As a result, McLeod’s attorneys point out, the student was convicted on the basis of ‘indirect double-hearsay’ evidence.”
The deciding factor was not whether consent was given (according to McLeod it was), but rather whether the accuser was capable of giving consent because she “had reached an incapacitating level of intoxication.”
The “no contact order” applied to both McLeod and the accuser. The accuser violated it and lied to Duke’s investigator about her actions.
This argument is incoherent. Why would “But officer I asked her if she wanted sex and she said yes,” be more of a defense against a prostitution or john charge now than formerly? It’s not like ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, no couples talked about having sex before they had sex. It has always been the case that one way to find out if someone wanted to have sex was to ask them. It’s just that 30 years ago, they didn’t do it by text message.
Fang Jr just walked in, so I asked him if two people sharing a bed in a motel room when they were at an out-of-town tournament would be construed by him or his friends as consent to sex. I’ll quote his reply: “No, that would be an insane conclusion that no one would think.”
