<p>The Massachusetts numbers might be very confusing–stats probably spiked unexpectedly in the 1970’s when Bill Cosby was a grad student at UMass. </p>
<p>So, SoWhat, are you saying that the drunk people you have seen are amazingly good at directing their drunken advances only to other drunk people who respond to those advances? They are so drunk they are incapable of noticing that their partner has just become unconscious, but they are not so drunk that they start forcing themselves on people who do not welcome their advances? Drunk people do not make advances on people who will reject those advances? Hmm, that does not comport with my experience.</p>
<p>Wait until you are my age. You might change your mind on the last couple of questions. ;)</p>
<p>Is the girl on guy both drunk out of their minds and the girl taking an advantage an issue? Is it? I am asking you. I have never been that out of it.</p>
<p>The guy is so drunk he doesn’t know what is going on but he is still going to have sex. Is he shtuping stuffed animals? Plants? He just got lucky it was a girl? He knew it was a girl, right?</p>
<p>yada yada yada. </p>
<p>It doesn’t matter how many lay people come up with their “ideas” about assault, what it is or when you want to excuse it. Think about your perception what assault is.</p>
<p>Then the legal definition.
From Cornell Legal Information Institute:
Assault </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. No intent to cause physical injury needs to exist, and no physical injury needs to result. So defined in tort law and the criminal statutes of some states.</p></li>
<li><p>With the intent to cause physical injury, making another person reasonably apprehend an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Essentially, an attempted battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states.</p></li>
<li><p>With the intent to cause physical injury, actually causing such injury to another person. Essentially, the same as a battery. So defined in the criminal statutes of some states, and so understood in popular usage.
…</p></li>
</ol>
<p>SoWhat: This whole issue of college rape is one of middle and upper class suburbanites who raised kids in an antiseptic environment Ugh, more pronouncements. What, you knew some kid who-? You’re continuing to try to argue this from some select perspective. Doesn’t work on all of us.</p>
<p>He’s so drunk he doesn’t know what is going on but he is still going to have sex. He’s going to boink stuffed animals, or plants, or willing young women, but, astonishingly, never ever unwilling young women whom he is able to overpower, or who are unconscious. That is apparently the claim here. </p>
<p>I would love to see the responses to post 1796 by the rape victim advocates on this forum, especially alh, Cardinal Fang, D Stark (I think I know what his response would be), and Looking Forward. ;-)</p>
<p>The Yale process sounds stupid. The Yale guy is pretty quick to ascribe his not getting a Rhodes and not getting drafted by the NFL to this misconduct charge, though. The Rhodes, maybe; I have no knowledge of that process. But I don’t believe for one millisecond that he went undrafted by the NFL because someone somewhere whispered that he’d had a sexual misconduct claim laid against him. The NFL manifestly doesn’t care about having accused rapists playing football.</p>
<p>Who’s advocating rape?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh absolutely. I have seen many drank boys and girls making a complete fool of themselves approaching girls and boys respectively who were not interested, and then getting rebuffed. Often friends would take videos to rib them later. But I never saw any use of force, though sometimes someone or other would get upset and try to create trouble when friends would simply stop them. We all grew up memorizing No means No. What do you think we were, idiots? You seem to. That may be because you seem to keep some bad company of people who become mean drunks and force them on others. But you know, you shouldn’t project.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I keep trying to catch up with this thread before posting, but it’s become impossible.</p>
<p>SoWhat, this is BS. the War on Drugs was initiated by OUR parents’ generation. WE are the ones who were smoking all that pot and dropping all that acid and snorting that coke and doing those whippettes and so forth. I am in favor of legalization of all drugs, and I have frequently deplored the incredible debacle that you describe.</p>
<p>Similarly, you earlier made a statement that the idea that a woman who has been drinking cannot consent to sex was an idea of “second generation feminism” of the 70s. NO. Totally wrong. WE accepted our responsibilities for our own actions and embraced our sexuality and female empowerment. If we got drunk and went to bed with a guy and regretted it, we accepted it as a bad decision. The woman as eternal victim model complete with trigger warnings and micro-aggressions and frail flower who can’t be responsible for her own behavior and all of the rest of that stuff was invented by YOUR generation. Okay, I will admit that when I was in college in the 70s there were radical feminist lesbians who maintained that ALL heterosexual sex was rape. The rest of us rolled our eyes. Unfortunately, it seems that many of their intellectual descendants are now staffing collegiate offices that are in charge of determining sexual “crimes.”</p>
<p>I am as wildly irritated with those who are determined to say that because “Jackie’s” story as told in RS has inaccuracies that means that the entire thing is made up out of whole cloth and it totally invalidates all concern about sexual assault on campus (see op ed pieces in various right wing publications) as I am with those who persist in conducting witch hunts where no matter how patently ridiculous a woman’s story is gospel and all men are rapists unless proven otherwise and all idea of basic fairness is thrown out the window because the frail flower cannot be asked a question. (See cases at Yale, Occidental, Brown, U Mich, et al.) I AM LIVID.</p>
<p>This is, IMNSHO, the best article that has been published on this issue so far:</p>
<p><a href=“College rape: Campus sexual assault is a serious problem. But the efforts to protect women are infringing on the civil rights of men.”>http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html</a></p>
<p>I want to know of these guys are having sex with stuffed animals or real animals?</p>
<p>I am serious. How drunk are these guys? </p>
<p>I don’t like being touched when I don’t want to be touched. Women are assaulting guys? How big a problem is this? I don’t like women assaulting guys. How big a problem is this? </p>
<p>“Who’s advocating rape?” </p>
<p>People for whom it is a cause such as the attention-seeking author of the shoddily researched while highly provocative article that started this mess and her community of resource folks that were featured as experts. But, it blew up and now they’re all really mad at her.</p>
<p>Well, Just want to say re post 1796, I didn’t put it out there as “yet another falsely accused man” story. He claims the complaint was unfounded, but I wasn’t there to know either way. </p>
<p>I posted it rather because some posters (like Tv4Caster, I think?) were asking what happened at college tribunals, and this was an example (granted, one-sided) of the fact that yes, a person can end up in a position where an accusation or complaint is made, and he or she really has no way to respond to it. Witt even asked if the complaint could be made formal so he could have more information and defend himself, and was told he could not, only the complainant could.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, would you like such a process in other colleges? It’s accuser friendly … like you wanted, right?</p>
<p>sowhat: I am flagging that post where you call us rape advocates. I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. Some of us are serious about this discussion. Please be respectful or leave.</p>
<p>Well, SWDYDH, what ARE you saying? That some shouldn’t “project” but it’s fine and dandy for YOU to make sweeping assessments based on what you saw or didn’t? Truth by anecdote?</p>
<p>SWDY, I don’t like false accusations.
I have to go for awhile. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares if it is an issue or not, in the eyes of the law the two are equivalent. And please don’t pull the age stuff one me. Debate with reasons and nothing else. I can call you senile too, but that would be stupid, so I don’t do that.</p>
<p>And marie, the proper term is rape victim advocate. No one is advocating rape.
Except one poster’s hazy view of what constitutes consent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am just sharing my experience. No more or no less. You don’t want to know what goes on in college campuses?</p>