<p>sure, have whatever conversation you want. so far we have two men who are in a court case claiming to be falsely treated. </p>
<p>So far, we are still mainly discussing them.</p>
<p>Me? I’m out of here. </p>
<p>Carry on.</p>
<p>I was really trying not to get into this discussion, but the article about the Holy Cross student complaining that males and females are treated differently when both are drunk just makes me seethe – of course they are treated differently because different questions are asked about how alcohol influenced them. For the female victim (and I realize that the victim could be male, too, and the question would be the same), the question is whether alcohol has impaired her ability to consent to sex. For the male perpetrator, the question is whether alcohol has impaired his ability to engage in non-consensual sex. The fact that he was too intoxicated to realize the sex was non-consensual is irrelevant. Intoxication is rarely a defense to a crime–think of the drunk driver who is too drunk to realize that she is driving the wrong way down the interstate–should we excuse her because of intoxication?</p>
<p>The victim who did not consent to sex is of course treated differently than the person who committed the offense of engaging in non-consensual sex.</p>
<p>Proudpatriot, I was being humorous towards poetgrl because I got the impression she doesn’t want to talk about the mythological situation where men [are] falsely accused of rape" which as per your posts is not at all an urban legend. How can one have a productive dialogue if various issues are not discussed?</p>
<p>Actually, as far as I can see, this is the ONLY thing open to discussion here. I think you should continue to discuss this heinous outcome to your heart’s content.</p>
<p>I think, too, we should add in, just to be on topic, mistaken identity in murder trials, overturned cases in the new DNA era, hmmmmm… what other travesties occur in our search for justice? I’d be willing to get into the Patriot Act, for example, if that interests you. I think it effects all of our civil rights, in fact, men and women, which would be good.</p>
<p>There is no perfect process. None.</p>
<p>You are grasping at straws with your Patriot Act silliness. The possibility of false accusations in a sexual assault case is related to the topic of this thread. A process does not have to be perfect to be serviceable. But it should be fair.</p>
<p>“Seriously. Seriously. Oh my God, how ridiculous. If you have been victimized, you pick up that phone and call the cops immediately, and you make him pay.” @busdriver111</p>
<p>In any study of human behavior, whether it be Psych 101 or NOVA training (offering debriefings to emotionally traumatized after Columbine, Katrina, etc…), the most common reaction following something horrific is, in any order, shock, disbelief, denial, cataclysm of emotions (anger, shame, guilt, hate, rage). Why would you deny this person the human reaction of denial? She had a plan to deal with this attack while not “outing” herself and subjecting herself to the looks, the whispers, and possible retribution from her attacker and his friends. Some survivors of horrific acts feel that they give their attackers less power by not acknowleding that it ever happened, or “toughing it out”. They have been victimized; I believe it is their right to decide how they will deal with it. Clinically, there are paths that statistically will show the best outcomes, but people don’t live in clinics. I have not walked a mile in her shoes, so I would not begin to judge her or her actions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ridiculous “analogies” like the above are why the SAT needs to bring back the analogies section. First, two drunks getting into a fight is not analagous to two drunk people willingly groping one another. If a drunk “assaults” another drunk, then that is is assault, pure and simple. If a guy has sex with a willing girl and both are drunk, that is called “consensual” sex. If a guy has sex with an unwilling girl and both are drunk, that is called rape. That the consensual girl feels “assaulted” after the fact doesn’t change the facts of the consensus that existed at the time. There is no way that consensual sex is analagous to a fist fight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… and only she can answer that question and, it would seem, answer it after the fact. Unless you want to put referees in bedrooms determining that the girl’s ability is impaired (even when at the time she doesn’t know it or wouldn’t think so), how do you expect to answer the question you’ve posed? The issue is here not non-consensual sex at the time of sex – that is issue is pretty clear – the issue is consensual drunk sex (or even non-drunk sex) for which the “victim” has later regrets and brings forth charges. As far a trauma is concerned as the reason why girls, far after the fact, might bring accusations, part of the freshman class indoctrination has got to include lectures to girls saying that they must report rape (if they believe so) asap, otherwise they will have very little opportunity for justice.</p>
<p>I just don’t understand why someone would think it is wrong for parents to be concerned about the issue of drunk consensual sex that later turns to non-consensual sex because the girl was drunk and unable to give consent. No one is trying to discount the very real problem of sexual violence against women, but this is an issue that deserves to be examined also. I have both a son and a daughter and I am equally concerned about issues that affect them. Should I care less about a policy that could adversely affect my son because he is a white male and has some perceived advantage on college campuses? I do not understand why we expect young men to behave differently than young women. How can any logical person think it is ok for a girl to get drunk, go to a dorm room alone with a guy, have unforced sex with a guy, regret it in the cold light of day, accuse the guy of rape because she was drunk and unable to consent, and the guy is held responsible, with disciplinary action that will follow him the rest of his life!</p>
<p>“So, as I taught my daughters not to go to parties alone, not to put their drink down, to make sure if they went on a date somebody met the young man and knew who she was with, to never leave friends behind at parties, to call and get help if anybody was incapacitated, male or female, to, if possible, stay away from the drunken scene, to never do shots, to never go with a boy to his room if she or he had been drinking unless someone was with her, parents of young men should probably teach young men not to have sex with drunk girls and to keep themselves safe from such possibilities as mistaken drunkenness for true consent.”</p>
<p>I have taught my daughter and son the same things. I expect my daughter to be responsible for her own personal safety and you cannot behave in a responsible manner when you are impaired. But if she makes a mistake and ends up having drunken consensual sex, I also expect her to accept the consequences of her choices and not shift the responsibility for her actions to someone else, no matter how badly she feels about it after the fact. And it is wrong that any policy allows this blame to be shifted to the guy, simply because he is male.</p>
<p>I think, Proudpatriot, you would have to overturn the entire civil court system in order to get to the point of “fairness” you deem “right.”</p>
<p>Regardless, if you do not like the law, you can change it. Or try. In the meantime, whether posters on this thread like it or not, it is the law that a drunk woman CANNOT give sexual consent. One solution to this is to let your sons know that having sex with a drunk woman is not legal. Like it or not, there you have it. If it is incumbent upon young women to be smart and to keep themselves safe from repercussions of unfair situations (clearly rape is not fair.), then it is incumbent upon young men to be smart and to keep themselves from repercussions of what you deem an unfair law, as well.</p>
<p>However, I’m not grasping at anything. The Department of Justice, within the context of the civil courts, where, even OJ was found guilty, says this is the law and these are rules. In most states, by the way, it is also criminally illegal to have sex with a woman too drunk to consent to sex. I imagine, for a young man in such a state, the best policy is not to have sex with drunk young women.</p>
<p>Oddly, though people on here are authoritatively stating I am wrong, the fact is, this is an actual law. Not a personal opinion. </p>
<p>there are all sorts of laws I consider to be unfair, and others that others consider to be unfair. to say a law does not have to be perfect but has to be “fair” is to really misunderstand the law.</p>
<p>And in some respect if you take reporting criminal activity to the police out of the equation (NOT something I think should happen) we are expecting our colleges and universities to sort out drunken consensual sex from drunken non-consensual sex and a serial rapist from the boy sitting in class next to you. This is a point, putting the onus on the institution rather than the criminal justice system to sort out whether it’s criminal or whether it’s something relatively benign, I’ve repeated said I’m uncomfortable with this aspect.</p>
<p>Poetgrl:</p>
<p>This is not a matter of law. It is a matter of college policy. The law does not require a college to expel a man because a woman accuses him of rape during a drunken sexual encounter. Each college is permitted to make its own policy regarding this issue. The LAW is determined in court NOT by some university panel. Be very careful here because college rules are not laws.</p>
<p>What blood alcohol content level makes mutually consensual sex against the law? Two college students go out on a dinner date and share drinks and a bottle of wine but neither is “drunk”. Let’s say in this case that she suggests that they go back to his place. One thing leads to another and they have sex. The next morning she has regrets, feels violated and blames the alcohol. Did he rape her? Should he be punished by a review board at the college?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf[/url]”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf</a></p>
<p>It may well be that you consider this a matter of policy. And, of course, any college is free to refuse federal funds and federal grants and federal contracts. This includes federally supplied and guaranteed financial aid. But, if an institution chooses to accept any of the above, they are bound to follow these rules.</p>
<p>Most states consider an inebriated woman as being unable to consent to sex. States vary, and I’m not going to go through all fifty.</p>
<p>Feel free to change the policies set out by congress, the DOJ, and the local municipalities. In the meantime, however, any young man would be well advised to avoid sex with an inebriated young woman. Just as any young woman would be well advised to avoid the same with an inebriated young man. (Among a myriad of endless other things she must know in order to keep herself safe from predation on campus.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My thoughts exactly.</p>
<p>I think that one reason why these discussions keep focusing on the “both drunk but neither comatose, both willing at the time, she changes her mind later” scenario is liminality. People usually do’t want to discuss the middle ground on an issue–any issue–where they are in agreement in large part. In the case of campus rapes, people agree on the obvious cases, including but not limited to physical force, unconscious girl, etc. It is the things on the fringes that people want to discuss.</p>
<p>Personally, I have given up discussing the fringe cases in favor of focusing on attacking the heart of the problem. There are three ways to do that that I can see at this point: 1) raise kids to respect the innate worth and dignity of every human being, 2) educate them about sexuality and about how substances influence behavior, and get them to think outside of their own personal drives/needs to put themselves in the place of the other person, 3) report rapes to the police and investigate/prosecute them. Don’t brush them under the rug. Empower and support kids to feel that they can and should report, the sooner the better, but in any case as soon as they are ready.</p>
<p>It is not just me that considers this issue a matter of school policy. If you take the time to read what you posted you will see that while compliance with Title IX is mandatory, colleges have quite a bit of leeway in implementing Title IX. There is nothing in Title IX which requires schools to have a specific policy, just that whatever the policies are must conform to Title IX.</p>
<p>Of course this is an issue where there is much gray area. People drink. People have sex. Having sex with someone who is unable to give consent is a crime (not just a matter of school policy) however, simply being drunk does not mean a person cannot give consent. How drunk must a person be to be unable to consent to sex? Intoxication is a spectrum. I know that for me, two drinks changes my mood, but is not enough so that I cannot consent to any activity. What is the tipping point and how would a person know what that tipping point is?</p>
<p>This is an important issue on college campuses and should not be taken lightly. However, it is not an issue which is always a sexual assault (although there are times when it clearly is sexual assault). I think that schools should have policies that protect women from sexual assault. I also think that schools should have policies that protect men from false accusations. Either extreme is harmful to the college community.</p>
<p>“In any study of human behavior, whether it be Psych 101 or NOVA training (offering debriefings to emotionally traumatized after Columbine, Katrina, etc…), the most common reaction following something horrific is, in any order, shock, disbelief, denial, cataclysm of emotions (anger, shame, guilt, hate, rage). Why would you deny this person the human reaction of denial? She had a plan to deal with this attack while not “outing” herself and subjecting herself to the looks, the whispers, and possible retribution from her attacker and his friends. Some survivors of horrific acts feel that they give their attackers less power by not acknowleding that it ever happened, or “toughing it out”. They have been victimized; I believe it is their right to decide how they will deal with it. Clinically, there are paths that statistically will show the best outcomes, but people don’t live in clinics. I have not walked a mile in her shoes, so I would not begin to judge her or her actions.”</p>
<p>I don’t think this is about judging someone, nor denying her anything. She did what she wanted, at her pace, though I don’t think waiting so long was helpful for her. But talking about it to one’s girls makes it a learning situation, and possibly helpful to them. My opinion is that we should convince our girls to just skip the shame and guilt portion, maybe go straight to rage, we’d have far healthier women. There are few things worse that having been gravely wronged…and doing nothing about it. Encouraging women to marinate in their guilt and discomfort so they can take care of these issues at their own pace is, in my opinion, very disempowering. It allows the perpetrator to continue getting away with it, putting others at risk. It makes it harder to prosecute, and the woman keeps on suffering.</p>
<p>It should be clear to women what course to pursue. Scream, fight, attack, call the cops. Bring this out of the darkness and do it right away. It’s not like it is shameful for college kids to have sex any more, that is happening all over the place. It is always better to be strong and brave, even if it is not the easy thing to do, than to submit quietly to humiliation and self doubt.</p>
<p>busdriver11:</p>
<p>I agree that the young woman at Amherst did what she wanted. She is entitled to do as she wanted. However, she cannot turn around months later and make it Amherst’s fault that things shook out the way they did. I feel bad for her because there is no way for her to have anticipated the ways she would be affected.</p>
<p>proudpatriot, I can’t comment on whether it is legitimate that Amherst is somehow at fault for how things for turned out for this young woman. We are only hearing her side of the story, and to me, this sounds like someone who has serious emotional problems. Who thinks that she was emotionally abused for 17 years, and therefore was strong because of it, which sounds really off. She seems to think of herself as a very strong woman, but her actions are those of a person who considers herself perpetually a victim. No one can foretell the future, but if I was a betting woman, I would suspect this girl will find herself in situations where she feels victimized for decades. I hope not. It is impossible to judge whether everything she says is completely accurate and the school was purposefully at fault, or merely the usual big bureaucracy, with an issue being that she was unable to advocate for herself. This is one person’s view of what happened to them, and I’d guess you’d get a completely different picture if you read the school records, which are certainly private. </p>
<p>The point is, you don’t depend upon the college to make everything better and comfortable for you. They are not your parents. If you are victimized, you call the police immediately. End of story.</p>
<p>Busdriver11:</p>
<p>I think the saddest part of this young woman’s story is that she did not have family to help her through this very difficult time in her life. I am sure that there are things the school did wrong. However, when they are faced with an accusation after the fact and a seriously ill young woman the administrators did what they thought was the right thing. I am not sure that everything they die (based on her article) was actually the right thing but you must remember they had a suicidal young woman with no family on their hands. First and foremost they had to ensure that she lived.</p>
<p>I agree with your statement that if you are the victim of a crime you call the police. If you don’t call the policy you can’t complain months later that nobody did anything about the crime. Even if that decision came to you at great personal cost there is simply no way to prove that a sexual assault happened months later if the crime is not reported in a timely fashion. That doesn’t mean people don’t believe her. I do believe her. But people are not convicted of a crime simply because someone says that it happened with no actual proof that it happened. </p>
<p>Ladies-let’s make a vow that if we are victims of sexual assault we will call the police immediately.</p>