That’s a bit of a stretch then, to use clearly criminal situations like mentally ill and middle schoolers, to try and make a point on a thread about men fighting back against accusations that are suspect at best.
Let me get this right.
You get drunk, get in your car and injure someone – you’re held responsible.
You get drunk, assault someone – you’re held responsible.
You get drunk, text a guy soliciting sex, perform oral sex on him – you’re not responsible for your actions. He’s guilty of rape.
Is there anything other than being female and having sex where being drunk absolves you of all responsibility?
@AsleepAtTheWheel: Sure, anything where the law requires a specific mental state. Off the top of my head that includes conspiracy, attempt crimes, assault with intent, and contract formation.
I think the area on the continuum surrounding where the line should be drawn is a grey area. I said I would put the line between .2 and .3 (probably around 2.5). To me the grey area would be in that zone between .2 and .3 (which is why I listed that range). I put Jane at .1+
.
All the witnesses said she got even drunker between the time of having sex at 12-12:45 am and sitting on the couch in the common room at 3 am.
The report does not mention additional drinking but there were also times where she was in her bedroom alone and could have ingested alcohol. Even if she didn’t, though, it takes time for the alcohol to work its way into the bloodstream (which is why people are encouraged to eat before drinking since it slows down the absorption and spreads it out over time). All those drinks of vodka that she did straight from the bottle caught up to her after she and John had sex.
Sure, but once you admit (as I interpret you as doing) that there exists a state of drunkenness where someone can appear to consent, but not actually be able to consent, then saying she was very drunk but not that drunk is quibbling. If your rule is .2+, and she was a bit less than that… well, your rule is subject to interpretation, and even if they were implementing exactly your rule, they still might say she was .2+ even if you don’t. She was certainly in a state that those of us who don’t have your experience, and don’t know your fine gradations, would call very very drunk.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the fact that she was h-e-double hockey sticks bent on having sex with this guy. But in general I agree that a BAC above 2.0 is getting pretty drunk and most men and women who drink and have regret sex aren’t thinking in the moment about running out and getting their BAC tested and it might not be accurate if an hour or two or three or four have passed anyway.
It has to do with people who are hell-bent on having sex with you, and you have to say no: for example, 13-year-olds, some mentally ill people, some developmentally delayed people, people who you know have taken certain therapeutic drugs that alter their mental state.
Consider this hypothetical: a normal, healthy guy goes to the doctor’s office or clinic to treat some serious condition. In order to do the treatment, the doctor gives him set of drugs that are amnesiac, that put him in a mentally pliable state, and that also may have the side effect of increasing libido: essentially, date rape drugs, but for a therapeutic effect. At the office, before taking the drug, the guy notices a particularly friendly nurse.
The treatment is successful. The guy returns to the doctor’s office nine months later for a checkup, and is met by the friendly nurse, smiling and carrying a newborn. “This is your son,” she says. She explains that while he was at the office the last time, he was all over her, kissing her, dry humping her, following her into a different part of the office. So, given his clear consent, she had sex with him.
Nobody is going to think what she did was right. She should have known that whatever the guy did, he could not consent to sex. Sometimes, people can’t consent to sex, even if they appear to consent.
I think examples like the above that illustrate that the rules are applied equally to men and women are helpful.
so if the guy is also drunk, what happens CF?
he is still responsible and should know better?
@soccerguy315, yes. The guy is still responsible and he should have known better.
Real life…
Last paragraph… This is from OXY.
If the guy is drunk to incapacitation, then he can’t consent and the woman will be assaulting him if she sleeps with him. Was that the question?
Yep… looks like this might be tested soon at Amherst.
link: http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/2090107-doe-v-amherst-complaint.html
Male is drunk to the point of incapacitation (p.27). Female performs oral sex. Female claims rape over a year later. Male is expelled from school.
@soccerguy315, why was the guy kicked out of school?
What are Amherst’s rules on sexual assault?
Ok I found this…
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/05/29/amherst/4t6JtKmaz7vlYSrQk5NDyJ/story.html#skip-target1
I will read the link about the lawsuit shortly.
Thanks.
I read the report on the Amherst case. I’m unimpressed by Amherst’s investigation and procedures, to say the least.
John Doe says that he doesn’t remember what happened the night in question, and Sandra Jones said that they were engaged in consensual sexual conduct, she began performing oral sex on him, at one point she wanted to stop, and he physically forced her to continue by holding her head in position. IF she is describing the situation accurately, then, obviously, he assaulted her sexually, whatever other culpability either party might have. His being drunk is no excuse for him forcing her to have oral sex.
In his deposition, there is no mention of John Doe accusing Sandra Jones of sexual assault. Therefore the college would have no reason to investigate that allegation, however much merit it might have.
The deposition makes much of the idea that after the encounter, Jones didn’t behave the way the writer thinks a sexual assault victim is supposed to behave. That reasoning is crap. Her behavior afterwards is consistent with his claim that he couldn’t possibly have assaulted her (even though he doesn’t remember what happened, so in fact he has no idea whether he assaulted her), but it is also consistent with her claim that he did assault her.
Amherst threw him out because she accused him of forcing her to perform oral sex, he didn’t remember what had happened, and (presumably) they believed her. It’s a sexual assault to force someone to have oral sex, even if you are drunk when you force them.
I think John Doe’s defense was terrible.
However, with those texts that were discovered after the case was originally decided, I think Amherst should reopen the case.
Wow, if what is being claimed is true, Amherst really screwed this one up. It would/will be interesting to read the rebuttal. Amherst settled the last one confidentially, so I imagine that is what will happen again.
I think the texts are very troubling. The texts sent to the Residential Counselor should have been considered at the hearing. In view of the fact that they were sent right after the alleged incident. occurred, those texts should not suffer from memories being clouded due to the passage of time. I also think the text where both Jones and the Residential Counselor agreed that they “hated” John Doe should be considered especially if the counselor offered testimony against John Doe.
But to @soccerguy315’s post #352-- John Doe has not accused Sandra Jones of sexual assault and she is not named in the most recent complaint. So the question of whether Sandra Jones may have sexually assaulted him will likely never be addressed.
It sounded like she lied and said there wasn’t anything in writing at first. It’s unfortunate because she probably graduated while he has not. I don’t think there’s much anyone can do about her lies now but maybe he can get his diploma and an apology.
The investigation took place in 2013. How could the investigators have been so incompetent as to not have looked at social media? That’s Investigation 101: check social media for accuser and accused.