I agree wholeheartedly. Young people are experimenting with sex and experimenting with alcohol, often simultaneously. They may understand the mechanics of the physical reactions, but they grossly underestimate the emotional after effects of both, especially when magnified by the campus fishbowl.
The young woman in the UCSD case was severely conflicted. She wanted some-sex, but not SEX. She convinced herself that some-sex was OK, but SEX wasn’t. Her messages to her boyfriend were mixed to the point of schizophrenia. Despite her religion’s prohibition, she gave herself a free pass on the alcohol. She planned a booze and some-sex “sleepover.” Even packed her PJ’s. Yet she was shocked, shocked that her bedmate could have misunderstood her intention.
Why not? There is no objective standard for incapacitation. College women are allowed to claim that they were incapacitated after months, sometimes years after the actual incident. There is no BAC testing done. Why can’t men start to claim that they were stone cold drunk after the fact without any backup evidence whatsoever? Why wouldn’t you just “believe the victim” in such cases when men complain about being raped?
It was sexual misconduct that violated the schools conduct standards. Period.
“Should such a female rapist be removed from the campus not just because she violated rules, but because she is a threat to all the poor delicate roses aka males who can’t control their drinking, their libido when drunk, and the ability to say no.”
She should be sanctioned as per the conduct manual. Period.
May be women should do the same too? Remember mattress girl? She slept with all the male friends of her boyfriend per her messages to her alleged rapist.
It’s telling that you can’t bring yourself to say either that it is rape (which it isn’t, not per any sane person’s judgment) or not (as the laws label such behavior as rape).
@momrath, that was so Alice in Wonderland. We can suspend you and start discipline actions but you can’t get any information as it under investigation, punishment first and verdict afterwards.
This is why men should stay away from women with religious and other hangups. Plenty of open minded women out there who enjoy NSA sex just as much as men.
I wouldn’t just believe the victim in either case. And neither do colleges, which is why SDSU Jane Roe was not found to be incapacitated, though she said she was.
It’s not telling at all. It is an irrelevant question. It is SEXUAL MISCONDUCT that is defined in the conduct manuals and that is the behavior that is sanctioned by universities. You don’t like the conduct standards at a university @JohnDoe4? Then simply enroll a different university with a conduct standard that is more to your liking.
You are trying to tie together criminal definitions and proceedings with university conduct standards and procedures. They are apples and oranges.
Great! So let men file their claims en masse and let the colleges sort it out as you clearly believe the tribunals are doing a great job Cardinal Fang! It will be fun to see how the victim’s rights advocates react to that.
Mom12345, Is it rape when a woman has sex with a man who is stone cold drunk? Yes or no? Is such a woman a threat to society? Why are you avoiding this simple question?
Let them file. @al2simon is right that people shouldn’t maliciously entrap other people into raping them in order to generate reports, but if a guy was incapacitated, and a woman had sex with him, and he wants to file, he should file. Why would you imagine I would have a problem with this?
What laws and behavior are you speaking of? The 2 examples you gave in a previous post of a couple having drinks at a restaurant or a husband arriving home from work, having a few cocktails and having sex with his wife is not criminal conduct. No one has said this. Re-read my post #547.
I am not avoiding your questions. If my D decides to throw caution to the wind and engages in a sexaul encounter with an intoxicated man then she runs the risk of him filing a sexual assault charge against her. If the college finds after an investigation that he did not have the legal capacity to consent then she is out of luck. And yes the school’s conduct code might define her as a rapist. She and I have to live with that.
Should she be thrown off campus because she poses a threat? According to the school she should and there is nothing that I as a parent can do about that. I may know that my D just made one bad mistake but that’s not how the school looks at it. They have a student body to protect and she took advantage of someone so compromised by alcohol that they could not legally consent to sex.
Of course you wouldn’t, as you want all rapists out of campus, right? Male AND female. Per the CA law that you so fondly quote all the time, when women have sex with stone cold drunk men (and they do, despite your claim to the contrary as you personally wouldn’t) they are rapists. You are with me in saying that such rapist women (a huge majority of female undergraduates) do not belong in campus which needs to be a safe place for men.
I am not with you in saying that a huge majority of female undergraduates have had sex with an incapacitated guy, and I wonder where you are getting your statistics from.
@JohnDoe4, I’m reposting my response to your irrelevant question, which you might’ve missed. I’m not avoiding your question, I posted why it’s irrelevant already.
It’s not telling at all. It is an irrelevant question. It is SEXUAL MISCONDUCT that is defined in the conduct manuals and that is the behavior that is sanctioned by universities. You don’t like the conduct standards at a university @JohnDoe4? Then simply enroll a different university with a conduct standard that is more to your liking.
You are trying to tie together criminal definitions and proceedings with university conduct standards and procedures. They are apples and oranges.
Harvestmoon, so let’s say your daughter makes that mistake, and I come and ask you, hey, I heard that your daughter is a rapist who terrorizes men on campus? Would you enthusiastically answer to the affirmative, or would you say that even though the school’s code of conduct defines and treats her as such, the code of conduct is braindead, and that she is just a kid who was experimenting with alcohol and sex like so many millions of kids who went through college over the past several decades?
In the two examples I talked about, the man can easily say that his judgment was impaired by the alcohol. After all, as many (and in particular one) on this forum like to point out, alcohol affects different people in different ways. So the man can define it as rape. Since only the subjective belief of the “victim” counts when it comes to rape (“believe the victim”!) the man hence has been raped and the woman is a rapist. This is how it works in college campuses when women claim to be raped and this is the direction OCR took campuses towards.
Of course that’s not how it works in real life as adults take responsibility for their actions, their level of drunkenness, their libido, and their ability to say no. If they complain regardless juries simply don’t believe them. College kids are adults. Don’t you think they should be treated the same way?