Yes, and yes.
I know but wouldn’t it be great if it could be like TV shows where some detective says “you didn’t hear this from me, but…”
I wouldn’t be totally against that. I don’t know, however, how to reconcile the side of me that is glad that John Doe could go to a college and not have his past follow him, with the side of me that says someone like Jesse Matthew should have had his past follow him.
I’ll give you that one since I believe that most women tell the truth about being raped. I guess my Pollyannish side thinks that Police and Prosecutors have the Public’s best interests at heart and since that is how the system is supposed to work that it must be like that.
I think it is page 41 talks about the police response. 
Multiple people say Jane was too drunk.
I am sure John was very drunk.
Show me the rule at OXY that says if two people both can’t consent there is no punishment.
Show me. There are rules on page 1 and 2.
@consolation, I did not give a reason Jane had PTSD…I was thinking more along the lines Jane is suffering and has suffered enough.
These students mentioned in the report had training on sexual assaults. I guess the training came up a little short.
If I was a guy, wait, I am a guy. Control the drinking. You don’t have to get so wasted. Pay attention to who you are having sex with. We talk about the risk the women have. Guys, you have risk too. You might be having sex wih somebody, who if you knew for more than 10 minutes, you wouldn’t touch. Oh…and if you have sex with somebody and you aren’t sure she consented…expect to have some problems.
But I don’t CARE what the misbegotten rules at Oxy are.
I care about justice.
I could not have said it more perfectly myself!
There is only one problem, however. If I was a guy (either sober or drunk) and a girl was all over me; dry humping me; kissing me; texting me that she wanted to have sex; asking me if I had a condom; sneaking back to my room after I said I wanted to have sex; you know what? I would be damn sure she had consented.
@consolation, i’m going to remember your justice comment.
John and Jane went through sexual assault training. They knew the rules. John was drinking from 1 PM on…
She knew the rules too. And if the rules meant that she had no responsibility for her actions, and she was counting on that–which I do not think is true–then she didn’t have an ethical bone in her body.
But I don’t think that’s what happened.
@consolation, John knew the rules. He put himself at risk.
Jane didn’t win. She lost.
I think Emma doesn’t care about rules. Emma likes to push boundaries. Emma Sulkowicz cares about justice. @consolation, I am glad you support her cause and don’t care about rules.
I think Emma cares about self-promotion at this point. Her actions have zero to do with justice.
Maybe…
Artists do stretch boundaries.
@dstark Let me ask you a question. Actually, a couple of questions, and I would love everyone to answer these.
Where do you draw the line between intoxication and incapacitation? Here is the continuum: (even though everyone handles their alcohol differently there are still ranges that the medical community says generally corresponds to the following (B)ehaviors and (I)mpairments.
What approximate level of BAC do you think Jane had during sex with John, and then a few hours later while sitting on the guys lap downstairs?
BTW- drunk driving is generally .08 in many states.
Personally I put my line between .2 and .3
Point 3 is where “loss of understanding” starts.
Point 2 is “partial loss of understanding”.
I put Jane at .1 to .199 when she had sex with John. That range includes behaviors like “over-expression” and the possibility of vomiting. Impairments include staggering and slurred speech. Notice how all the impairments that are listed are muscularly and reaction related.
I would put her at .2 to .3 at 3 am when she was clearly more intoxicated according to all the witnesses. I doubt she was up at the high end of the range since she was not unconscious.
I have no idea…
The investigators and the school decided the case. They know more about the case.
The investigators decided nothing. The report specifically says that they are not allowed to render an opinion.
I want to know what your opinion is.
Where do you draw the line and where would you put Jane at the time of sex based on the testimony.
I answered your question.
TV4, if I understand correctly you say she got drunker after the sex. I’m sorry to get technical, but if she threw up so her stomach was empty, and then she was having sex so she didn’t drink any more, how would she be getting drunker? Maybe I missed something; i didn’t pore over the report.
But more to the point, you seem to be conceding that there’s a point where Jane (or John) would be an active participant in the sex, but would be too drunk to consent. You don’t think Jane was at that point. She was close, but not there. But then, if that’s your position, you would be criticizing Oxy for being on the wrong side of a close decision. Their rule would be correct, in this view, but it was misinterpreted in this particular case. And that’s not much of a criticism. To be sure, the decision was consequential, but it was a gray area.
What if she was 13 years old, and all over you? Then you would be sure that she wanted to consent, but you would know that she couldn’t consent no matter what she did, and you’d be in a world of trouble if you had sex with her.
What if she was in the hospital, under the influence of some strong therapeutic drug that you knew sometimes had the side effect of making people amorous, and she was all over you? Then you should realize that she couldn’t consent, and you could be in a world of trouble if you had sex with her.
What if she was seriously developmentally delayed, and she was all over you? Then you would think twice about whether she could consent, no matter what she was doing. You could be in a world of trouble if you had sex with her.
The same is true of someone who is very very drunk, and all over you. You’d better think twice about whether she can consent. You could be in a world of trouble if you had sex with her.
And if all these people were guys instead of females, the same would be true. Sometimes people can’t consent, and you have to take responsibility if you have sex with them.
Being 13 has nothing to do with college kids having sex. In many states that is rape as in those states the 13 can never consent. In many states depending on the circumstances having sex with someone who is mentally ill is also illegal. I don’t think an adults drinking of their own volition is the same thing - not at all the same thing as the examples you are using. Apples and pears. It might be repugnant to think that drunk people actually have sex. It might be repugnant to you to think that women (and men) drink and get horny… but it’s not always illegal.
Uhhhhh…yeah.
@momofthreeboys: I think Cardinal Fang’s point is that just because someone appears into it doesn’t mean you should go for it. You also have to assess whether they even have the capacity to make the decision. Admittedly in the Oxy case, from what we know, it appears she did have capacity, but as a general point I think it’s true.