<p>
</p>
<p>Well, many guys wouldn’t push themselves on someone no matter if they were falling-down drunk. For these people, the risk of false accusation is greater, however minute you may think it is. And I don’t know how anyone could really ascertain such statistics of false accusations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No doubt about it. But being falsely accused is a much different crime than being raped. The point being, that unless one believes that rape can be wiped out globally (I do not), then “that’s the way life is” is advice that will continue to be reserved only for the women, and it makes sense that it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And many guys would, and you can’t tell the good ones from the bad ones while they are sober. And all of them, the good guys and the bad guys, are positive they are good guys. Look at all these rape accusations, and all how the rapists deny their crimes even when they are caught dead to rights. Even the serial rapists don’t think of themselves as rapists-- they think that forcing alcohol down an 18-year-old’s throat until she is incapacitated, then raping her, counts as seduction.</p>
<p>A lot of guys can’t distinguish non-consent when they are very drunk. Necessarily, that’s going to include some of our sons, and we should warn our sons. There’s nothing wrong with making sure she consents. </p>
<p>Why do people actually find getting drunk pleasurable? Seriously. I just don’t get it. My H and I have been drunk maybe 5 times in our life. The feeling of a hangover … awful, atrocious. I can at least see a little buzzed, but actual drunk to the point of not knowing what’s going on, or making decisions one wouldn’t make normally? What on earth is the appeal?</p>
<p>Heh, search me. Beer tastes awful to me, and I honestly cannot tell the difference between most craft brews and Budweiser despite all the rave reviews and fans that the former gets.</p>
<p>Then again, I also can’t stand the taste of coffee which made business school fun! </p>
<p>(I also don’t really ‘get’ smoking either, but that’s neither here nor there.)</p>
<p>I guess my original point is that we treat false accusations of rape as something that society is principally responsible for dealing with. No one (sane) says to someone who was exonerated after being framed or falsely accused of any crime that they should just “been smart”; we treat them as if they just had their rights violated because, well, that’s what happens. It is strange to me that we treat rape victims different than this. </p>
<p>Pretty much any discussion of sexual violence becomes about alcohol and how drinking alcohol is stupid and going to parties is stupid. It doesn’t even so matter if alcohol is even a factor in any given case; in the UVA case that this discussion sprang from for example, the student in question wasn’t drunk and didn’t even like drinking, but somehow that doesn’t change the discussion one iota, does it??</p>
<p>I think part of it might be the just world fallacy; we need to believe that sexual violence usually happens to people who make stupid decisions or who screw up our own lives, so that’s why our discussions of the topic tend to stop there. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t encourage people to be safe and responsible, but we shouldn’t think that this is alone going to deal with the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of my friends suggested to her college son that he get the consent on video with his phone. In this day and age, consent is not hard to document this way, or by text message from the woman.</p>
<p>I personally, would have a problem with this type of documentation, as I have always considered sexual activity to be intensely private. But I suppose if you cannot trust the man to do right with the evidence, then you probably shouldn’t be having sex with him in the first place. </p>
<p>Actually, I think that plenty of people felt that the guys in the infamous Duke case were “to blame” in some sense for living in a way at that and other off-campus houses–lots of drinking, frequent raucous partying, a rep for arrogant misogyny, hiring strippers–that made them believable targets for a rape accusation. </p>
<p>I guess I’m straight-laced in this regard, but I can only despise men who hire or patronize strippers and other “sex workers.” I don’t find the Chippendales amusing or appealing either. I think it’s just vulgar and demeaning for all concerned.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell that to Occidental College. Apparently sending a text to friends saying you are going to have sex, texting the guy to ask if he has a condom, and, if memory serves, texting friends afterwards to say that you had sex does not equate to evidence of consent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point. </p>
<p>What I hope is that some guys, asking they think is a perfunctory question about her consent, will discover that she doesn’t consent, and stop. </p>
<p>Does anyone think that asking a woman if she consents is going to make her stop consenting if she was already agreeable? </p>
<p>Those are good points, Consolation and CF, which show us that taken to its logical conclusion, it is literally impossible for a man to ever prove he obtained reliable consent before having sex.</p>
<p>There’s one easy way- ask her. If she says yes, she consented, there is your proof. It’s a foolproof way, and it works in almost every case!</p>
<p>yes. But there is no question that Jackie did not consent to sex, nor did some guy mistakenly believe her drunkenness to be consent, which is, really, a very, very rare occurrence, frankly. Women know the difference between a drunk hook up and rape. They really do.</p>
<p>The actual facts about acquaintance rape are that the women are raped. If you need to see more evidence of what young women consider to be rape, take a look at the other RS article full of rape accounts by young women at UVA. Not one of them includes this particular scenario.</p>
<p>Rape is a violent act, and college women know the difference. I know it is an unbelievable act. I know that the parents of the seven young men involved would be heartbroken to find this is what their boys considered to be a fun party activity. Im sure they would say, “He would never do that.” or maybe not. I don’t know.</p>
<p>I mean, I can’t imagine anyone would be proud of their son joining a street gang and participating in gang rape. this violence is no different than that.</p>
<p>But, honestly, rape is not the accidental drunken hook up people like to talk about on here. It’s a forcible criminal violation and women honestly do know the difference.</p>
<p>Not if she is too inebriated. It doesn’t work then. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s gonna be a big hardship for college men to forego sex with women too drunk to consent. I honestly think they will survive the loss.</p>
<p>Even then, mostly, women know the difference. From the Law and Justice article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also think that if the woman is clearly consenting, but she is so drunk that the guy thinks she won’t remember the encounter the next day, that’s a good time to stop. It’s not illegal, it’s not rape, but it’s skeevy and creepy to have sex with a woman that drunk, as well as risky.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is a misunderstanding of the rules at Occidental. The rule (and I believe it was well publicized) is that a person who has been drinking cannot be deemed to have consented to sex, and therefore any sex with a person who has been drinking is, by this conduct rule, sexual misconduct. Therefore, whatever she may have said or done or texted has no relevance.</p>
<p>It’s analogous to a man accused of raping an 11-year-old, and the man saying, “But she consented, look, her are her texts and here’s what she said to her friends.” All irrelevant-- an 11-year-old cannot consent, by law, and therefore there’s no need to look at what she said or did; it cannot possibly make any difference to the man’s guilt or innocence. If he had sexual contact with her, he raped her by law.</p>
<p>Similarly, if a guy at Occidental is accused of sexual misconduct, viz, having sex with a woman who has been drinking, there is no need to look at her “consent.” She can’t consent if she was drunk, by the conduct rules of Occidental. All the tribunal has to do is prove (1) she was drunk, (2) he knew it, (3) he had sexual contact with her. That, right there, is the offense. </p>
<p>I’m not defending the rule at Occidental. It’s a bad rule and it infantilizes women. I think Occidental should get rid of it. But colleges are allowed to have bad rules and enforce them. He knew or should have known the rule, he knew the consequence, he chose to violate the rule. </p>
<p>The UVA Board of Visitors has just voted unanimously to adopt a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault. Expulsion will now be the penalty for sexual assault, not suspension, per Coy Barefoot, who has provided excellent coverage of this fall’s sad events. I don’t have any further details other than the BOV will reconvene on December 14th. </p>
<p>I’ve seen universities deal with different crises on campuses through the years, and if there is one thing that is clear, is that university employees are not qualified to adjudicate individual cases. There is no common sense and they do as little as possible. When I was an undergrad, I watched how the university dealt with the fraternity pledge who died in a hazing ritual. In the case of UVA, it’s unthinkable that a proven rape case would result in a suspension and not an expulsion. On the other hand, I don’t trust universities’ judgement to adjudicate cases fairly in the face of Title IX threats of funding cuts. They’ll just start expelling any accused man even if there is copious evidence of consent. People are shocked by the vast errors of judgement by university officials in the Wesleyan and UVA cases, and in the other direction, the Brown case, but it’s consistent with the ineptitude from universities in dealing with undergraduate issues.</p>
<p>I think the best way to do this is to refer the alleged victim to the police immediately and facilitate the connection; perhaps, make it mandatory for the school to follow through and drive the student to the police station. Since people are worried about the burden-of-proof issue being an unfair obstacle, perhaps civil court would also be recommended as they do not require the “beyond the shadow of a doubt” criterion. In the meantime, the accused would be removed from campus without any formal punishment from the university. When the courts do make a decision, then the university would act and issue a formal punishment or readmit the accused.</p>
<p>By the way, I don’t think shutting down a fraternities, or even all fraternities, to really be a punishment. If you can lower the incidence of rapes by shutting them down, then by all means do so. It’s not like this would destroy the lives of innocent frat guys–it just means they will have to socialize without being a member of a social club.</p>
<p>It seems to me that too much time and resources are being spent on how colleges deal with sexual assault, when it should be spent on improving the law enforcement process for dealing with these cases. I agree with removing them from college’s jurisdiction.</p>
<p>Interestingly, you will find that very little money is being spent on this, in fact. Very little.</p>
<p>Fraternities at most universities have to come up with the money to pay for their own members to get rape and bystander intervention education.</p>
<p>Also, I can’t see how it is possible to say that “too much money” is being spent on keeping half the population safe from the rapists they have allowed to stay on campus. </p>
<p>You can’t remove them completely from the colleges jurisdiction. Too many universities require a student to live on campus the first year or two, which are, unsurpisingly the dangerous years for women in regards to rape. They have liability, responsibility, and they have to be involved.</p>
<p>Also, if a woman is raped in a university system fraternity, on campus, or in a dorm, she has a right to that man being removed from campus if she can prove this in a case with civil standards. Just like if you are raped at work you have a right to that man being removed from work if you can prove this in a case with civil standards. Sorry that won’t fly.</p>
<p>Colleges can’t abdicate responsibility.</p>