<p>Thank you, alh. </p>
<p>As Germaine Greer famously said, “The opposite to patriarchy is not matriarchy but fraternity.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the world I went to school with in the early to mid-80s. In fact, we guys had a saying that it was getting a bit disturbing because women seem to think we wanted to date ourselves. </p>
<p>I do think it has changed some, and it is becoming more about just being free to be themselves and not trying to be like men.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ideally, yes; in reality, no. It is to be women as seem by some definition that feminists have derived. That will be become more and more apparent if you deviate from the script, then see what happens to you.</p>
<p>My SO has always been a stay-at-home mom, and the amount of stupid nonsense she got for that was funny to watch. She was even told she took up spots at top schools because she did not go into the workforce and use her degrees. Watch nonsense. Gees, I got it too. Dumb questions such as how I felt about my wife not working? I always wondered about that question. Why in the world would I feel anything in particular? That is her decision, not mine. Funny, no guys ever asked me those types of questions, just women. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I soooo agree with this! This is exactly how my daughters feel, too, and I like it a lot.</p>
<p>I’m loving the way your generation has been freed up to move on from worrying about “equality” issues and can move onto the next thing. </p>
<p>awc, you make a lot of bizarre assumptions. You can speak for your spouse if you want. But, you haven’t been with your wife longer than I’ve been with my husband. We started dating before either of us was old enough to drive.</p>
<p>carry on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well to raise kids, I am not too sure how a husband and an wife cannot be on the same page and discus things, even when they disagree. We just happen to agree in this case. Like I said, earlier in this thread, I discuss what I do with her, including this thread and I can relay her thoughts, if I choose, That is not bizarre. I have also asked my oldest DS to chime since he went through the college thing this year. And the youngest one as well.</p>
<p>We see it differently. Nothing bizarre about me talking this stuff with anyone in my house and sharing what they say. To us that is normal. It works for us, and that is really all that matters. </p>
<p>awc, to be honest, I found the mommy wars to be tiresome. I always fought against them, and I absolutely refused to participate. I had great appreciation for the SAHM in our area, and there were many, as it was a wealthy area. I believed all of these women, myself included, were fortunate to have the opportunity to choose whether or not we wanted to work outside the home. (This is not the case for most women and it is also not going to be the case for any of our daughters, though you seem to have none.)</p>
<p>I’ve actually talked about this on several threads.</p>
<p>I think our generation, graduated college at the end of the 80’s, had a tough transitional period. Women who worked felt guilty and women who didn’t work outside the home felt pressure and devalued and many of them now, in spite of what they were told about how important that work was, are not able to find meaningful employment and find it frustrating.</p>
<p>I don’t think our daughters face the same situation. They know they will be working outside the home. They know to make their choices and decisions accordingly. </p>
<p>^^ Very accurate depiction of what occurred and what is occurring now.</p>
<p>Thanks, M2L, I have had biz law. There they mentioned a big difference between actions while voluntarily intoxicated compared to during involuntary intoxication. They also touched on a somewhat grey area of defining “drunk” compared to having a drink, under the influence, tipsy, passed out, and other common words describing various stages of intoxication. At no time though, in biz law, did they explain the law saw legal differences for a male while voluntarily intoxicated compared to a female while voluntarily intoxicated. A drunk guy signing a contract(for example) had the same standard as if a drunk woman signed a contract. I’m sure that is one of the factors in my belief that a man’s word should be equal to a woman’s word (and vice versa) while drinking. Reliable words or not, but I believe both genders should be held to the same standard. That is more closely related to the equal rights I mentioned, rather than referring to working outside the home or wearing a dress.
I think Hunt has told us a drunk person is typically not held responsible if he/she willingly signs a contract while drunk. OK if that’s the way it is. OK by me if both are responsible if they sign a contract while drunk.That is equal; it holds both genders to the same standard. But that is in conflict with those who say only the one doing the penetrating still has responsibility for their actions- even if both parties willingly agree to sex while drunk.
I understand rape laws may differ than my opinion of “what is right”, in that often males are held to a stricter standard of responsibility while intoxicated than females. So with that in mind, yes, [sex]consent is a special rule relating to women drinking that differs from consent to enter into a real estate contract for example.
Make no mistake, I’m all for punishing rapists on campus, or in the “real world” as some have called it. I’m all for punishing false accusors, too. The problem I see, and this thread has demonstrated it, cited articles have shown it, that reasonable people can differ defining each of the two, and that doesn’t make them apologists.</p>
<p>@ younghoss
As I have said before, there is a clear difference between legally intoxicated and incapacitated. If we are talking about 0.08% blood alcohol, and legally intoxicated, I have consistently agreed that both parties are capable to actively participate and understand what they are doing. I do not see any wrong doing in that. </p>
<p>The problem with the “both drunk” equals fair game argument is that "both drunk’ is used as a synonym for equally drunk, but very often that is not the case. The women is often a lot more drunk because she is smaller than the man. He may be drunk, but she may be incapacitated.</p>
<p>“But that is in conflict with those who say only the one doing the penetrating still has responsibility for their actions- even if both parties willingly agree to sex while drunk.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I think it is the same. If your partner is sober enough to get on top and initiate penetration herself, then I think that she is sober enough to consent because it would appear that she understands what she is doing. In contrast, if she is so drunk that she is just lying there passively, then that is different. </p></li>
<li><p>The fact that the person taking a specific action is the one responsible for that action is also the same in all cases. This is not a special rule that is made for women. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Lack of evidence is the problem. This is pretty simple, really. </p>
<p>Of course, my comment said “drunk” but ruled out drunk to the point of incapacitation, that’s why I specifically mentioned signing a contract as a comparison. I’m not sure why you brought that up? To the best of my recollection, the cases cited in this thread did not mention cases of hesaid/she said, where authorities went back to test the level of drunkenness in both parties.</p>
<p>I’m not completely sure contract law applies either, but M2L suggested I reference biz law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not recall this exchange, but the key word here is typically. And even then, it is not that simple.</p>
<p>This one is for the lawyers because as I currently read this campus situation I am not even sure contract law, as understood, even applies to this discussion. It is, in fact, turned on its head. </p>
<p>A company employee cannot get out of a contract / agreement by saying, “I was drunk, and I did not mean to call, email, or text and send that plane there.” The problem is, of course, someone has to pay for sending the plane that was not needed. Drunk must be proved as involuntary in order to get out of the contract and to successfully sue to avoid paying for services. Men and women are treated the same in this situation, and the agreement is considered gender-neutral.</p>
<p>And the key in business is, after a verbal, email, or text agreement AND the action is completed, it is actually up to the party who disagrees that there was a contract to prove his position.</p>
<p>In the campus analogy, if standard business accountability guidelines were followed, it would be the party (i.e., the accuser) who says no contract existed who would have the burden of proof that there was no contract in order to get out of being responsible for it and to hold the other party (i.e, the accused) responsible for damages.</p>
<p>However, as far as the current college proceedings, the reverse is true - the accused is the one who has to prove there was a contract. </p>
<p>I suspect this is what is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way: 1) the responsibilities are different between the genders, and then once accused, 2) the burden falls on the accused to prove the accuser is wrong, not on the accuser to prove his case. I cannot recall any situation in business like this. </p>
<p>
I think this is the dirty secret, along with tolerance for binge drinking. But to fix it you need to clash with powerful groups, and not many colleges are brave enough to do that.</p>
<p>I have reason to believe that colleges often do take action when there are multiple complaints against a particular guy. But I think the action may often be a behind-the-scenes agreement in which he leaves the school, or leaves for some period of time (perhaps while his victims are still there). That’s not satisfying, and it probably doesn’t keep him from re-offending–but it may be the best the college can do without enough evidence in any of the specific cases.</p>
<p>(And here I think is the point to clarify that a person may commit the actions that constitute rape, but not be convicted of rape because there isn’t enough evidence. In one sense, of course that person is a rapist. But in another sense–in the eyes of the law–he isn’t a rapist. I think sometimes colleges are able to discipline a person for acts they can prove that are short of rape–and thus the punishment may be less as well.)</p>
<p>I note that a lot of this discussion turns around perceptions of what people do or don’t do, or know, or say, when they are at various levels of intoxication, and how responsible they should be for those things. I don’t have much clarity about any of that, and I don’t know why anybody else should think they do, either.</p>
<p>My S asked me yesterday whether I still visited this website, and, somewhat embarrassed, I admitted I did, but only to find helpful info to pass onto him as he will be starting college in a couple of months. I mentioned that I was quietly following this thread to see if there was anything that may be of use to him, and we discussed the thread for a couple of minutes, and then he made a comment that I found interesting. He said, as a straight guy, “I wonder whether they have developed the rules for when two people of the same sex get drunk and have sex and one of them later decides it was sexual assault? Whatever rules they develop there should apply to the male-female situation, as anything else would really be unfair.” I began to wonder what those rules are.</p>
<p>The same</p>
<p>I’d advise S about health and legal risks with excessive drinking, and putting himself in any position where he might be an easy target for ANY illegal act, be careful about putting himself in a position where he might appear to be conspiring with a criminal act, and caution him about different rules/expectations for sex consent. A female’s No always means No. A female passed out always means No. A female’s Yes can mean Yes or No, so all students should give a clear answer, but all male students should use extra care there, even if they too, are drinking. Much of that is same I’d tell a D.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, those are the understood non-grey parameters of rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ahh…the grey area and the lawsuits. Given the risks and the fact that caution and extra care are no defense and it does not matter one iota what the female says to the male at the time, then the safest way is not to engage sexually with a female who has been drinking. </p>
<p>@ younghoss"At no time though, in biz law, did they explain the law saw legal differences for a male while voluntarily intoxicated compared to a female while voluntarily intoxicated."</p>
<p>“Of course, my comment said “drunk” but ruled out drunk to the point of incapacitation, that’s why I specifically mentioned signing a contract as a comparison.”</p>
<p>Comment
Okay, you are still trying to challenge me, but I fail to see the disagreement. If a woman understands what she is doing and is actively, enthusiastically participating, then she may regret it later, but that is not rape in my opinion. </p>
<p>I do not understand why you seem to want to reframe the problem of women being raped on campuses to somehow try to argue that men are the ones being victimized. </p>
<p>Maybe what a college woman really needs these days is a drop cam in her room. Then she will have evidence if she needs it. It isn’t a bad idea for guys either, if they are innocent. It would also help frats to show that they are not encouraging or enabling people to get irresponsibly drunk. I am sure that they will want to be able to show that none of this is their fault because they are all good upstanding citizens.</p>
<p>Maybe that is the easiest answer to the entire problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think everyone would agree.</p>
<p>However, since there are no alcohol tests, no cameras, and no audio for the college tribunal, it really does not matter from the male perspective. All the female has to say is I was drunk (legal proof not required) and I was not into it (no proof required) and the guy is pretty much toast. </p>
<p>Therefore, it is whatever the female says, which governs the proceedings, not necessarily what actually occurred. And not that the female is actively lying, but we all know there are three sides to every story.</p>
<p>It is what it is.</p>
<p>Hunt wrote:
</p>
<p>Not being a very close reader or any kind of analytical thinker, I went back and reread. I don’t think I’m over-interpreting. I also don’t think you have suggested such a thing.</p>
<p>Hunt wrote:
</p>
<p>When I first read this, I did over-interpret. How is it possible that the same person with all those excellent posts on the “Privilege” thread, is using a lynching analogy here? Then I slowed waaaay down and read more carefully. That was not close to what you were doing. And then I thought, is it possible for someone from the South to write, this argument sent a lot of black men to prison without there being some kind of lynching allusion? I have no idea. I would be interested in your thoughts if you have the time or interest to comment.</p>