<p>^^ You do not respond. This is the silliness of a political document at play. Written to sound fair, but really intended to only go one way. And worse, people really believe it is fair. But notice, responsibility is still not forthcoming. Victimhood here we come.</p>
<p>Flossy: It is less likely, but I am saying that both sexes are accountable for actions of penetration without consent.</p>
<p>What amazes me is that so many men are shocked and upset to find out that if they rape someone there is an increasing chance that they will be held accountable. </p>
<p>I think this is about responsibility. Before you drink and use drugs, and penetrate another person, carefully consider the potential consequences of those actions and be sure you have clear, enthusiastic and on-going consent. It is pretty straight forward.</p>
<p>The Steubenville rape case is a good recent example. The girl was passed out and being carried from party to party by the rapist while other party goers took photos and laughed. She was not resisting, but can clearly not consent in that condition. He went to jail, and was convicted. You can google it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one is shocked by this, and I suspect everyone on this thread would expect a guy guilty of rape to be held accountable.</p>
<p>The problem is Title IX does not establish rape, in a criminal definition, occurred. If this were the case, Title IX would not be necessary, as the courts already have that covered.</p>
<p>And you are showing exactly the problem of Title IX - it is so much a political document that you cannot defend it on its merit. You need to change venues and use an actual criminal case to justify it. Steubenville was a criminal rape case tried in a real court, not a kangaroo court set up at some college using political definitions of assault. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, yes and triple yes. Over forty years ago society fought to have all rape deemed illegal and to open the doors to male only colleges yet these days it appears that women want a do-over and back to a day when they were the "weaker sex…complete with protectionist rights under the guise of Title IX instead of taking it to the criminal justice system. Shameful. It’s at best insulting to supposedly intelligent women and at worse discriminatory against men and that is why I don’t think the teeth will stick with Title IX. If colleges really want to do something on the campuses in all seriousness, why not a return to single sex dorms, curfews and one foot on the floor rules that existed when I was a college freshman.</p>
<p>“be sure you have clear, enthusiastic and on-going consent. It is pretty straight forward.”</p>
<p>This definition is anything but clear and straight forward. I like to see a college distinguish ambivalent consent from enthusiastic consent. What a farce.</p>
<p>awcntdb:
You say that I can’t defend Title IX on its merit, but I have not even mentioned Title IX. I am pointing out that you can’t have an informed decision about what is and is not a rape without a clear definition. Then I provided the DOJ’s definition (summarized below), and then several people are disagreeing with it. </p>
<p>I imagined that this would be a clear cut agreeable definition that could form a basis for a discussion of what is being done with Title IX. However, I have not gotten to Title IX because of all of the disagreement with the DOJ definition of what rape is. </p>
<p>If there is no agreement on the basic legal definition, how can we discuss what is then happening with Title IX on top of that? Actingmt also raised the important issue of proof; however, it is a moot point when we can not even get to agreement on what is and is not rape when the facts are all agreed to. </p>
<p>I have 2 daughters and a son, and I am concerned about this issue from both sides. In the end, we can argue forever about what the law should be, but what the law is and what campus rules are is the only thing that matters when it comes to protecting your kids. </p>
<p>It is important to talk to your children about what the rules are, how these situations arise, and how to be smart and avoid situations which significantly increase your risk of being a victim of rape or being accused of rape.</p>
<p>We’re had 40 years of the legal system trying and determining what constitutes rape and assault. The criminal justice system is not in dispute. Most rationale people would tell our daughters and sons to call the police if they are the victims of a crime. What is questionable is college administrators acting as judge and jury minus all the protections of the law for both victim and accuser in matters that are criminal in nature, but then it will ultimately play out in our legal system. Clearly on top of everything there is no guarantee the names of victims and accused will not leak out into the campus and thus out into the media, which means it sticks with BOTH into their futures. Not cool. </p>
<p>This seems like a decent article that suggests ways to be safer at college:</p>
<p><a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
<p>@Much2Learn - You may not have mentioned Title IX, but you are implicitly debating it whether you realize it or not.</p>
<p>As a quick recap, the thread is about sexual assaults on campus. And more specifically, the issues being discussed are drunk boys AND drunk girls AND resulting drunk sexual activity. We also are also discussing if these should be handled by campus police or the municipal police.</p>
<p>In such campus assault situations, most complaints are handled internally by the school campus police. These internal school proceedings are not governed by the DOJ legal definitions you state, but by Title IX and CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be compared to Steubenville and other such cases simply because the male student accused on campus does not have the same rights, as a true criminal defendant. </p>
<p>Excuse me if I am incorrect, but my impression was you were using DOJ rape definitions to define how assaults are handled on campus, which really should not be done because via Title IX rape does not even have to be proved to have taken place, yet punishment is demanded of the male. And Title IX comes off as a way one document - towards guilty until proved innocent for the male student. Hence, the lawsuits now by males. </p>
<p>A sober or drunk male forcing himself on a unwilling female is one thing, but when two parties are so drunk there is a point where no actual blame can be assigned. And just because in the morning the female decides it must have been rape, does not make it so retroactively, especially when both parties were incapable of giving consent to each other at the time. </p>
<p>If a female student is raped, she should make two phones calls - first, the real police, then campus police. </p>
<p>There are a lot of issues here; hope this puts them into some order. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According to wiki, that font of all knowledge, there is no clear, standard definition. Well there is, but it is spelled out in the Military Code of Justice. </p>
<p><a href=“Rape in the United States - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920</a></p>
<p>Instead, what the DoJ has promulgated is regulations – which are often political.</p>
<p>Re: <a href=“10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920</a></p>
<p>Looks like the military code specifies sex with someone incapable of consent “due to impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance” as illegal “sexual assault”. I.e. having sex with an intoxicated person can be “rape” or “sexual assault”, depending on whether the actor caused the victim to become intoxicated. But, in either case, it is illegal.</p>
<p>Of course, states specify their own definitions. California’s definition is here: <a href=“http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269”>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=261-269</a> . Note that “rape” includes all sex with someone so intoxicated as to be unable to give consent, without it mattering whether the actor caused the intoxication. But an adult having sex with a minor is called “unlawful sexual intercourse”.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, the definition of “rape” may vary, but sex with an intoxicated person is likely to be illegal even if it is called something other than “rape”.</p>
<p>ucb, so I guess under Ca law if two very intoxicated adults have sex, they would have raped each other. These laws can lead to absurd outcomes when you try to define consent when alcohol is part of the equation.</p>
<p>Although these alcohol-related cases may become a problem for college administrators to resolve, I doubt very many of them are prosecuted by the state because of the difficulty of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>Mother of three, I am a professor and have “lived” in universities for 30 years. I admit regularity is a flexible term, but the rape drug is used. Don’t doubt it just because the evidence is hard to quantify. For a few years faculty and counselors would have crying students in their offices every semester. Students and campus police are now more aware and proactive, but it is still used, and girls are still too ashamed to report it immediately. </p>
<p>Yes, colleges are worried about high school girls hanging out with college boys.Town-gown relationships are very important to both sides. Just imagine the publicity nightmares of high school students drinking, drugging, sexting, etc on campuses, but also imagine the consequences of having a large campus in a small town or city where relatively wealthy and sophisticated college students toy with local kids.</p>
<p>
I tend to agree with the second clause of this sentence, but there’s a problem: I’ve become more and more persuaded that a large percentage of the cases that get reported to police or to the campus authorities involve cases in which men deliberately use alcohol as a tool to overcome the resistance to consent on the part of women. They use the wide prevalence of heavy drinking, and the existence of “drunk sex” as protective camouflage for their predation. This creates very serious proof problems for anybody who wants to bring such a predator to justice. Many people (including myself to some extent, as well as others on this thread) are concerned that there will be cases of unfair punishment when the man and the woman have essentially done the same thing. But how are we going to distinguish that situation from the acts of the predator? From what I hear–anecdotally–the predator gets caught when he does it too many times. That’s not ideal.</p>
<p>Has anyone seen this case?</p>
<p><a href=“Found responsible for sexual misconduct, student sues Columbia alleging discrimination, unfair treatment - Columbia Spectator”>http://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2014/05/19/found-responsible-sexual-misconduct-student-sues-columbia-alleging-discrimination</a></p>
<p>It is also worth reading the complaint for more detail:</p>
<p><a href=“John Doe Vs Columbia University | PDF | Title Ix | Sexual Harassment”>John Doe Vs Columbia University | PDF | Title Ix | Sexual Harassment;
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. And that directly refutes Much2Learn’s earlier claim, which was:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Situations where the “date rape drug” is used would be those involving an actual sexual predator who is using it to incapacitate the victim, as opposed to cases where consent is unclear or misinterpreted due to (voluntary) drunkenness on the parties involved.</p>
<p>Here is another article about a college case of the muddied waters variety. This one went to court, although I believe the male involved had been suspended shortly after the complaint. In any case, he was not on campus. I would doubt that he will return. I also strongly doubt that he would have been found not guilty by the approved Title IX procedures. (I’m not sure whether the college went through that process, since a legal proceeding was underway.) We often say here that if someone is raped, they should go to the real police. Clearly, that did not work out as well for this accuser. </p>
<p><a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2014/03/18/news/gilbert-16-trial-attorneys-deliver-opening-statements-prosecution-begins-case”>http://thedartmouth.com/2014/03/18/news/gilbert-16-trial-attorneys-deliver-opening-statements-prosecution-begins-case</a></p>
<p>Here is a link to a series of articles in the regional paper about the case:</p>
<p><a href=“Valley News - North Haverhill — A jury has acquitted Parker C. Gilbert of raping a Dartmouth College classmate in her dorm room”>http://www.vnews.com/home/11335496-95/jury-clears-former-dartmouth-student-in-rape-trial</a></p>
<p>referring only to legal adults and voluntary intoxication:
Makes perfect sense to me that No means No.
Makes perfect sense that unable to answer is the same as No.
But Yes can mean No? Or does a reluctant Yes mean No? Don’t see it. </p>
<p>In my mind a man is responsible for his actions, but so is a woman. I know some disagree with me. Some will say a guy is responsible for his own actions and the woman’s actions too. Maybe some would say I have been “brainwashed by equal rights movement”, but I think all adults have the right and responsibility to enjoy or suffer the consequences of their actions.</p>
<p>I repeat, I am referring only to legal adults and voluntary intoxication. </p>
<p>
I agree with you. </p>