<p>Yes…most drunk sex is just that… “drunk sex.” For colleges to “prevent” drunk sex, colleges need to prevent drinking and that’s not going to happen on most campuses. Individuals, both male and female, can protect themselves from sexual predators and from having unwanted sex by not drinking to excess as well as many of the tips already mentioned. While the media has mostly focused on the women, there is a growing number of lawsuits from the men. As parents we need to take responsibility to teach both our young men and young women the potential pitfalls of drinking to excess because if we don’t the law certainly will regardless of what the college does or doesn’t do following complaints.</p>
<p>Drunk sex is not rape. Drunk sex is a mistake. Drunk sex is also not new and it’s probably not an escalating problem. The reports of it may be increasing but that’s because it used to be an embarrassing mistake not a potential crime.</p>
<p>No drunk sex is not rape in the absence of force either mental or physical, however, it is getting much media play right now because of the Title IX interpretive enlargement. As an “older” woman, I’m not exactly sure what younger women want that they don’t currently have under the law, but then I’m not a “younger” woman so don’t know what has changed on colleges campuses since the 70s. No means No has been around since I was a younger woman and we were drinking at 18 and the pill was as easy as a trip to Planned Parenthood, but I raised boys, so don’t have first hand knowledge. </p>
<p>I’m more concerned about women “giving up” rights than I am my boys getting entangled in legal issues surrounding sex. I’m already seeing signs in my youngest son of distancing himself from the campus girls - much more bro-time than even seven or eight years ago when my oldest went off to college. My youngest was the first of my boys to 'like girls", go on dates, go to dances and proms and really “like girls”, but I also hear alot about manipulation and mixed signals when the guys are hanging out at our house and I’m “listening”. It’s concerning to me that this Title IX focus is going to do nothing but segregate campuses; there are lots and lots of woman screaming and holding signs in the media these days; and make young men even more leery of women than they already are. I’m sure it’s not enjoyable to be hoofing across campus and have women screaming at you. That is the flip side of the coin. Unfortunately the same media has supported objectifying women in so many ways, while at the same time displaying it’s underbelly in my opinion. Power sometimes has a cost and I fear for this generation it’s going to be healthy male/female relationships. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps not, but it can still be grounds for suspension/expulsion – of the guy.</p>
<p>Hence the increasing number of lawsuits…the Title IX edict was not well thought out in my opinion. It’s no-win for women who think the college supercedes criminal action and it’s no-win for the non-sexual predator male who get’s “caught” in the system and it’s no win for the colleges who have to defend the lawsuits (from both sides). My guess is over time, if women decide not to pursue criminal charges it will come to a mediation type situation where the universities will end up mitigating the arguments through dorm moves, class schedule changes etc., which is tough for the little colleges with the small campuses and much easier on the big U campuses. There are several long threads on this topic. </p>
<pre><code>“Drunk sex is not rape.”
</code></pre>
<p>“Perhaps not, but it can still be grounds for suspension/expulsion – of the guy.”</p>
<p>My understanding (although I may be wrong) if the woman is so drunk she was unable to say no that is considered rape or as bluebayou said, "grounds for suspension/expulsion. This is very problematic and is going to result in many cases which are going to lead to an unfair outcome. Although my example of two drunk people having sex might be viewed under these guidelines as each raping the other is somewhat facetious, I think it also points out the tortured thinking and the lack of due process that is going to result from these Title IX edicts.</p>
<p>One of the biggest problems related to this is that peoples understanding of the definition of rape is not clear and consistent. Until people understand what rape is, I think it is possible to make progress on this issue.</p>
<p>For example, I see all of your opinions about “Drunk Sex is not rape”, and “What happens when both the male and female are totally intoxicated to the point of incapacitation and they have sex, but neither of them was sufficiently cognizant to say, “no”? Have they both raped each other?”</p>
<p>To move away from individual opinions, here is the definition of Rape that is used by the DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice):</p>
<p>“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” </p>
<p>The go on to say"…(This) includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with state statute. Physical resistance from the victim is not required to demonstrate lack of consent."</p>
<p>It also makes it clear that in addition to the penetrating party needing to obtain consent, that the victim not resisting is not adequate to imply consent, and that lack of consent includes cases where the victim may have given consent, but “the victim is incapable of giving consent…because of drugs, alcohol or age.”</p>
<p>By this definition it is rape if you penetrate another person, as defined above, without consent.
Even if:
- You are drunk too
- The other party does not consent, but does not resist
- The other party does consent, but does not have the legal capacity to consent </p>
<p>Based on the DOJ, the “Drunk Sex is not rape” situation appears to depend on whether the victim consented and had the legal capacity to consent. </p>
<p>Based on the DOJ, the “What happens when both the male and female are totally intoxicated to the point of incapacitation and they have sex, but neither of them was sufficiently cognizant to say, “no”? Have they both raped each other?” situation appears to be clearly rape by the penetrating party. </p>
<p>I think that every college student needs to understand this definition clearly. If the other person is not saying “yes”, participating enthusiastically, and sober, you are putting yourself at risk. If you get a woman very drunk, you should be a gentleman and return her home safely, not take advantage of her. Alcohol does not relieve a persons responsibility for penetrating another person, it just puts you at risk for going to prison.</p>
<p>“Based on the DOJ, the “What happens when both the male and female are totally intoxicated to the point of incapacitation and they have sex, but neither of them was sufficiently cognizant to say, “no”? Have they both raped each other?” situation appears to be clearly rape by the penetrating party.”</p>
<p>In my view this is an absurd rule which makes no sense. Further, it is patently unfair to the guy who is also unable to say no. </p>
<p>“3. The other party does consent, but does not have the legal capacity to consent”</p>
<p>I am amazed that this would constitute an act of rape. The woman actually consents and it is still considered rape. Have we lost our minds?</p>
<p>Why is the onus on the male to interpret whether a female is consenting or not? If the women is saying no it means no - clearly. But some of the cases in the courts right now are months and months after the event and with a clear lack of preponderance of evidence. The Title IX advocates lost me when they decided it was fine to take justice into their own hands with a lack of preponderance of evidence. It would be interesting if anyone can site a case where the other party did not verbally (or in a text message or on video) consent and does not resist and the accused is found guilty. It’s fine to put language to paper (as they proponents of this expanded reading of Title IX have done) and it’s quite another thing to have that language stand the smell test. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It would be wise to teach women not to drink to excess. Comments like this seems to assume that the males have all the power here. Something I simply refuse to accept and will never accept. </p>
<p>Rape drugs are used on campuses. It makes perfect sense to require consent in a culture where people are knocked out (poisoned) for sex with some regularity. I know mothers worry about their boys, but remember if the boy is really, really drunk, it’s going to effect his libido, for pete’s sake</p>
<p>As for as legal consent, it is particularly important on campuses to protect not college girls, but HS girls who think college boys are sophisticated:</p>
<p><a href=“What Is the Age of Consent and What Is Statutory Rape? | LegalMatch”>http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/statutory-rape-the-age-of-consent.html</a></p>
<p>Federal law makes it criminal to engage in a sexual act with another person who is between the age of 12 and 16 if they are at least four years younger than you. Each state takes a different approach as the age of consent has ranged from 10 to 18. Some states, such as California and New York, set an age at which all sexual intercourse is considered statutory rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they are there on an admissions arranged overnight perhaps but in general “no” legal obligation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? With regularity? Where in the world are you living that you would believe this. </p>
<p>Using drugs to get someone to have sex is illegal - criminal which is why it is important to call the police so correct tests can be performed to corroborate testimony. Waiting weeks or months doesn’t work because there is no evidence to support the accusation. Which is another reason why people should get their own drinks (if they are going to be drinking) either illegally drinking or legally drinking no matter what setting they are in - bar, restaurant, party etc. </p>
<p>Pooch:
“3. The other party does consent, but does not have the legal capacity to consent”</p>
<p>I am amazed that this would constitute an act of rape. The woman actually consents and it is still considered rape. Have we lost our minds?"</p>
<p>Response:
Legal capacity is important in many types of cases. For example, if the male is 40 and has sex with a female who is 13, the fact that she consented is not a defense, because legally she did not have the capacity to consent. It is also similar to getting a person very drunk and then getting them to sign a legal document signing over their property. In court, the document will not hold up if the person in question did not have legal capacity at the time they signed the document. </p>
<p>momofthreeboys:
“Why is the onus on the male to interpret whether a female is consenting or not?”</p>
<p>Response:<br>
The point is you that you are taking a risk if you are not sure whether you have consent, and “interpretation” is required. If the other person is sober and says “yes” or is enthusiastically participating then there is no interpretation to be done. </p>
<p>Momofthreeboys:
"“If you get a woman very drunk”</p>
<p>It would be wise to teach women not to drink to excess. Comments like this seems to assume that the males have all the power here. Something I simply refuse to accept and will never accept."</p>
<p>Response:
I am not suggesting that men have all of the power or that women are powerless. We do need to educate our daughters to be responsible and not lose control. It is important that young men and women both have a clear understanding of the rules of engagement, what the risks are, and what is, and is not legal.</p>
<p>“For example, if the male is 40 and has sex with a female who is 13, the fact that she consented is not a defense, because legally she did not have the capacity to consent.”</p>
<p>I think you are confusing these Title IX rules with statutory rape which is illegal in all 50 states. </p>
<p>Pooch:
I am not confused. I am saying that they are similar situations legally in the sense that it does not matter what a person says if they do not have the legal capacity to consent.</p>
<p>How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that you were too drunk to say yes six months ago and the guy was aware of that fact? It seems difficult at best. </p>
<p>So are you saying a 13-year-old girl not having legal capacity to consent is equivalent to a 21-year-old woman who consented but did not have legal capacity because she was drunk? I don’t see any equivalence at all.</p>
<p>I think the fundamental issue here is Title IX is a political document that mirrors the PC mindset of today, which is victimhood; it is not grounded in a true legal framework. Title IX is meant to produce particular outcomes, which is just the opposite of a criminal case, where the outcome is not pre-determined. </p>
<p>The particular mindset behind Title IX centers on ignoring personal responsibility, as everything is someone else’s fault. Blame the institution; blame the male; blame the system etc., but in no way can any part of the responsibility fall on the defined victim. The victim is never responsible for any actions, which lead up to an event. </p>
<p>The one poster above illustrates it well - even if both male and female are rip-roaring drunk and neither can give consent for anything, it is the guy, and only the guy, who should get suspended or expelled. That is purely political and not logical in any sane world because the drunk female is as responsible as the drunk male. Anything else says that females are not smart enough to be personally responsible, which treats females as lesser beings. Not a smart message to tell young women, at least not in my book.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No need. The college is required to use nothing close to that standard to take action.</p>
<p>Awcntdb:
It is not only the male that is responsible. It is the penetrating party. If the male is drunk and passively lying there and a female penetrates him with an object, or body part, without consent, she can be in violation of this too.</p>
<p>Uhm, how likely is that? I mean really, how does one respond to a post like this. Are you kidding?</p>