Everything you say is true, rhandco, but it’s not on point for Consolation’s claim. If you want to say that in actual fact male accusers of females are treated differently than female accusers of males, it’s incumbent upon you to produce at least one male accuser of females who was treated differently than female accusers of males. It’s not enough to compare the real treatment of female accusers to the fantasy treatment of imaginary male accusers.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_252.pdf says:
Median age 20-29 female weight is 149.4 pounds (129.1 and 138.4 pounds for age 18 and 19).
Median age 20-29 male weight is 176.5 pounds (172.7 and 168.9 pounds for age 18 and 19).
Median age 20-29 female height is 64.1 inches (64.2 inches for age 18 and 19).
Median age 20-29 male height is 69.4 inches (69.6 and 70.2 inches for age 18 and 19).
But it doesn’t matter how big and strong he is, or that he said yes, if he is drunk he should be presumed not to be able to consent.
Sorghum, that doesn’t make any sense. You’re conflating two things.
If he overpowered her because he was bigger and stronger than she was, then he raped her. It doesn’t matter how drunk he was. Intoxication is not a defense for rape. His “consent” is irrelevant.
It makes sense. If a male and female have both been drinking but neither is passed out or falling down drunk it is protectionism to assume that male is required to determine if the female is “too drunk.” To me, that makes zero sense and presumes that males have some super-power to make better decisions under all circumstances. I can’t go there. I’m not willing to accede that power to men. No one is talking about assault or “over-powering” someone or having sex with a passed out person, they are talking about two people that are climbing all over each other at some point, decide to have sex and one of them declares after the fact that they weren’t able to make a conscience decision about what they were getting into. In my world I’d never presume that the male has some divine power of knowledge about what my brain is thinking and if I’m having black-outs while drinking I’m probably well on my way to being an alcoholic and I need help and regret sex is the least of my worries.
A person is required to figure out whether another person is too drunk to have sex. I don’t know why you guys purposely misread the written rules published by colleges.
Here are [Yale’s rules about sexual misconduct.]( Welcome | Title IX at Yale) Please show me where it says that the rules about obtaining consent apply to males only:
As to what @momofthreeboys says, as usual persistently misunderstanding the rules:
Both of them were required to ascertain that the other one was not incapacitated. Both of them. The woman as well as the guy.
Some of you are asserting that if a college guy were to accuse a woman of having sex with him while he was incapacitated because of alcohol, his complaint would be dismissed on the grounds that she was not required to get consent from him. Please show me an example where this has occurred.
Well, the answer I have for this is something my Dad said to a government official about a private project he was working on. He got cited for not following a couple rules about something, and they wanted to level a hefty fine and sued him - went to arbitration.
When asked point blank by the administrator and arbitration board why he did not do X and Y, he responded, “Because when rules are stupid, only stupid people understand and follow them. The problem here is I am not stupid.” Cracked up the entire room.
After that, every time the government bureaucrat explained the rules, people were chuckling because they saw him as stupid because he understood it. Dad won as always and 4 or so months later the dumb rules were rewritten to match what my Dad did.
My point - just because there is a rule written down somewhere does not mean it makes sense and also does not mean we all just accept and follow like idiots.
OK, awc, you’re rewriting the Yale rules. How do you rewrite them?
Exactly. It is rather silly to presume that one person can devine what another person is thinking. They use indicators. Why would the other person “assume” that they don’t want to continue. As someone once said there’s a reason “ass” is in the word assume. Society, organizations, business can “write” down or proclaim certain things to be true, but it won’t be a process for very long if no one follows it or if it can’t be enforced or it violates essential laws of our country that the majority believe in. In the case of the OP there are people here who believe it never happened and people here who think it probably happened. People collect information and make their own determine…we are self determining mammals. No one can “determine” for me how I feel or what I am thinking which is why on surface I can’t accept that a “male” can determine whether or not I want to do something at one point or another. The “word” unambiguous as used with the word consent is well, rather, ambiguous without a piece of paper or a recording that allows a group of people to determine the actions of a third party don’tcha think. One person can say “well I wasn’t ambiguous i was clearly signaling that I didn’t agree” (short of getting up and leaving the bed only to be dragged phsyically back which is assault) and the other person can say “I didn’t think what was happening was ambiguous, heck they stayed all night and then texted me in the morning and said they had a good time.” Personally I don’t think we’ll ever go back in time where we as a society think men have devine power and I don’t think society will tolerate colleges and universities presuming guilt for very much longer. People keep dancing around the problem - alcohol and inhibition and inability to communicate between some of our “less socialized” young adults. But that isn’t what the original post was about - that was about whether a college violated a student’s rights.
How to tell they didn’t consent, for dummies:
(1) You asked them and they didn’t say YES!
or (2) They are extremely drunk. It’s not that they had a few drinks; we’re talking puking and stumbling here, or unconscious.
There, that wasn’t difficult, was it?
It’s difficult six months later when the two of them are telling different stories and there is no evidence at all either way…
If a male and female drunk driver (who would both be impaired but not incapcitated since they are able to operate vehicles) crash into each other, the rule should be that the male driver is always at fault for the crashl. Sounds reasonable.
Women have no duty while impaired but conscious to express consent or non-consent. Stupid. If you don’t want the sex, SAY SOMETHING. DO SOMETHING. Don’t just lay there and hope/expect that DOE OCR will make everything OK for you. Sheeeeeesh!!!
But the guy (also impaired but conscious) needs to navigate through a law school exam hypothetical to determine if he’s gonna get lucky that night.
I propose we lower the drinking age to 16. But raise the legal age for driving and sex to 21. That would make a lot more sense than this whole stupid policy cluster**** about campus sexual assault.
I didn’t realized law school exams were so easy!
Not one single person, including me, has said it’s OK to have sex with someone who is passed out or puking and falling on the floor so stop with the exclamation marks please. It really doesn’t support any argument because no one is arguing with you about that.
Great…I like what CF wrote. If we just follow those two rules…
The guys are going to win almost all the 50/50 cases. You will get some biased trubunals and some guys will get screwed. That is how the justice system works. The justice system is far from perfect because the justice system is made up of humans.
The guys are going to win almost all of the 50/50 cases which means women end up with the short stick.
Even better idea.
Let’s ban booze but legalize pot for college kids. The data shows that stoners don’t rape and crash cars nearly as much as drunkards do.
Mom3 – I’m talking about kids who are IMPAIRED. Not unconscious. Walking and talking and frisky, but hammered. Really hammered. Hammered enough to be blacked out the next day. Hammered enough to be double (or more) over the impairment standard for driving. Hammered enough for the conscious girl to be too woozy or tired to say anything or do anything. But the guy in a similar state has to be a law student. Stupid beyond belief. Stupid to think that seminars about Taylor and Pat (such hilarious non-gender names they use!) are gonna make a difference with some hammered kids in a dorm at 3 am.
I’m not talking about unconscious, which is a small portion of the incidents and not in dispute. I’m talking about two hammered kids, which is most of these incidents. Which to me is quite similar to two drunk drivers crashing into each other. But only one is deemed responsible.
Is this hard to figure out?
Maybe those who want to have sex will drink a little less so they won’t drink to the extremely drunk stage and get in trouble.
Stop arguing against a straw policy, and start engaging reality. Nobody is saying that that a guy cannot be the victim of sexual assault if he was too drunk. Nobody is saying that. You are just wasting time arguing against a policy that nobody has advocated. If someone is advocating that bad policy-- well, it’s a bad policy and they should get rid of it. But nobody on this thread has given me an example of an institution that has such a policy, so I will continue to believe there is no such institution.
Yes, yes, I know that somebody somewhere brought up an alleged case where a woman representing Duke allegedly said that a guy would have to get consent and a woman not. But we don’t have the context of that remark-- she may have been talking about a case where the woman was not an active participant. If someone is being raped, of course they didn’t give consent. One doesn’t have to give consent in order to be raped; that’s the point.
Wrong, as usual. Several people on this thread and others have faulted Occidental for determining that the guy had sex with the woman without her consent. It is undisputed that she was puking and stumbling.