Warning For All College Men

<p>

</p>

<p>This was my sense of my friend’s situation. I think she had been really scarred by something in her past. And I’m sure it is not atypical. But that’s what’s worrisome. If a non-Beast boy with fairly normal sexual interest encounters a girl with these emotional wounds in today’s environment, the consequences could be truly catastrophic for him.</p>

<p>Of course, today my friend would have been more likely to receive help earlier and might have been able to get clear of the damage by the time she got to college.</p>

<p>“women who have been subject to child sexual assault to end up in a series of multiple sexual experiences, both consensual and non-consensual. Also to experience alcohol and drug problems”
While it may not be uncommon I think you’re on unsteady ground if you assume that all women who engage in this sort of behavior have therefore been subject to child sexual assaults. </p>

<p>There are all sorts of reasons for people to engage in risky sexual behaviors and/or misuse of alcohol or drugs. And all sorts of triggers.</p>

<p>mini, the assertion that a girl who is drunk can say yes but it simply can’t count as yes, so if she and the equally drunk boy have sex he has taken advantage of her at aminimum and perhaps raped her is something I have a huge problem with. Where is personal responsibility in this situation. I know this is facetious, but look at it this way, if a college girl or any woman for that matter has no real personal responsibility when she is drunk is she exonerated if she drives a car and has an accident? If she falls down the stairs are the stairs responsible, remember she is drunk and has no ability to negotiate stairs. Or maybe those high heels she is wearing are to blame? Believe me I know sex assault is not a facetious subject, I just don’t think drunk girl=victim; drunk boy=criminal.</p>

<p>

My conclusion is that some folks just think this situation doesn’t occur, or is extremely rare, or doesn’t give rise to accusations.</p>

<p>If she says yes, it is yes, unless she is incapable of consent. That is a VERY high standard. To be found guilty, the woman has to say no, or be found, by a jury, to have been incapable of consent. Drunk is not the issue. Saying no, or incapable of consent is.</p>

<p>If you have problems with that, I suggest you contact your legislator. I didn’t make the law. I’m just trying my best to explain it.</p>

<p>Hunt, whether the situation or occurs or not it saddens and frightens me some people see our sons in such a negative way. I also think seeing yourself or your daughter as a potential victim is sad too.</p>

<p>mini, it is a bad standard and it has come up in discussion with a legislator.</p>

<p>

OK, I may have mistakenly thought you were trying to justify it.</p>

<p>

It is very sad, but it is the reality for women that part of protecting yourself is to see yourself as a potential victim, and taking precautions to make sure that doesn’t happen. </p>

<p>It is also very sad that now our sons have to do the same thing. </p>

<p>Perhaps we now have equality after all.</p>

<p>This thread has me thinking about the novels Atonement and To Kill a Mocking Bird.</p>

<p>any young man who, you know, doesnt become intimate with a woman he just met at a party is unlikely to be effected by this, eh? I mean maybe its my brooklyn upbringing, but ISTM that when you do “non beastly” stuff on the first date, you take your chances. </p>

<p>Given that we have a culture where intimacy before friendship is routine, given the reality of the impact of alcohol on consent, given the difficulties of establishing proof of intent, state of mind, ability to give consent, I’m not sure there is ANY satisfactory solution that lawyers could come up with. </p>

<p>Which of the above factors do you suppose we could change?</p>

<p>It isn’t just men who like sex and want to engage in it, okay ready; brace yourselves I am pretty darn sure women like it too, even college women.
This pretty much described the situation among many of my female college friends, way back when. Worse, because they couldn’t acknowledge their interest, most were not on birth control. (Talk about words of wisdom to a young man!) Several wound up “in trouble.” I thought it was stooopid. This was a school for smart kids. When they whined, we didn’t console them and send them to health services- we told them they were dumb for not considering the situation, knowing when to back off, not being on bc, etc. We were not mean, but firm. </p>

<p>-this was different. There was no definition of “date rape.” Now there are laws that, one way or another, allow a woman to complain about “non-consensual” sex. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don’t fret that people call your son a beastie and this and that. Focus on the specifics: the act, regardless of how you get to it, involves one doing to the other. (Don’t know what words I can use on CC.) The doer can be held accountable. </p>

<p>But, again, TITLE IX only tells the colleges they have to respond, not what to do.</p>

<p>Title IX only says what it says and I sure hope, by now, all read it. It is VERY SPECIFICALLY NOT a blank check. But, posters here are treating it as such.</p>

<ul>
<li>They are repeating that boys will be expelled under false allegations, that names will be broadcast, etc.
Fab even wrote: that maybe a girl doesn’t have equal access to school opps because of “trauma,” even the comment that *The university…is not excluding her “from participation in, …any education program or activity” offered…She may be excluding herself.… <a href=“This%20may%20be%20taken%20out%20of%20your%20intended%20context,%20but%20they%20are%20your%20words%20and%20adjoining.”>/i</a></li>
</ul>

<p>***No one is saying a girl must always be believed. **Just that the U must respond and then adequately investigate.
There is nothing that says preponderance means lighthearted or frivolous or “let’s close this fast and go to lunch.” The U must respond in defined ways. They are allowed to deal with it per their Code of Conduct. “She said/he said” is NOT preponderance. Something else, something more is required. College admins are not all the self-serving isolated, misandrist dummies you portray them to be.</p>

<p>Surprised that few here have wrtten that they actually read a C of C, except, is it Mini? There’s a link to ND Ohio’s, which was written under OCR’s scrutiny, based on their problems. It’s pretty clear.</p>

<p>My own opinion is that the state laws are not a perfect standard by any means, but are much better than what existed before them. Law evolves.</p>

<p>But I’m with Tsdad on the OCR letter.</p>

<p>Perhaps the idea here is that in order to scare boys enough to keep them from raping unconscious girls, we have to make them believe that they might get expelled just for having sex with a drunk girl, even if the boy is drunk, too. It’s sort of like setting the speed limit at 55, when what we really want is for people to drive at about 60. Then we depend on those operating the system to make sure that we don’t really punish anybody who is at the margins. I guess that’s OK, as long as all of those operating the system are in on the plan, and don’t think they they really need to punish boys in those he said-she said situations.</p>

<p>"If you have problems with that, I suggest you contact your legislator. I didn’t make the law. I’m just trying my best to explain it. "</p>

<p>The legislature did not impose these mandates on college campuses. these campus issues are not adjudicated in criminal court.</p>

<p>No, Hunt, that’s NOT what it means and if that’s the message your S gets, he may find himself in very big trouble. </p>

<p>The girl doesn’t have to be unconscious for him to get in trouble for having had sex with her.</p>

<p>One of the most contentious cases in this area happened way back in 1996–it was the Sarah Klein/Adam Lack case at Brown. Some folks–including the prof who went with Adam to the hearing–made him into a martyr of Brown’s PC culture. Others felt the results were just–or even that Lack should have been punished more strongly than he was. </p>

<p>I think this summary by the Brown Daily Herald is fairly accurate: [He</a> said, she can’t remember: the Adam Lack case - Commencement 2004 - The Brown Daily Herald - Serving the community daily since 1891](<a href=“http://www.browndailyherald.com/2.12258/he-said-she-can-t-remember-the-adam-lack-case-1.1684605]He”>http://www.browndailyherald.com/2.12258/he-said-she-can-t-remember-the-adam-lack-case-1.1684605)</p>

<p>Adam’s case is as gray area as it tends to get in the real world. I think it’s this kind of case in which the chasm between the two sides is deepest.</p>

<p>Oh, and in answer to one of the posts above, we don’t “exonerate” the woman who drinks and is in an accident. However, if a barr serves someone who is obviously intoxicated more liquor and the person served gets in an accident, in a lot of states, the bar owner whose employees served the intoxicated person liquor is ALSO liable to anyone who is injured by the drunk driver. The law doesn’t say “Of course, a bar is going to serve liquor to anyone. That’s what bars do. The bartender didn’t pour liquor down her throat or force her to drive so of course, he bears no responsibility for the accident.” </p>

<p>If the bar tender who serves an obviously intoxicated person can be held liable, why do some of you think it’s wrong for someone who has sex with an obviously intoxicated person to be held responsible? And, IMO, someone can be obviously intoxicated at a point before losing consciousness.</p>

<p>Jonri, what is your evaluation of the Klein/Lack case? It was an extremely gray case, and yet the guy’s life was pretty much wrecked by it (although he ended up with a fairly mild punishment from Brown). Are you suggesting that this is how things ought to be? Or just agreeing that boys need to be warned that this is how they can be?</p>

<p>Jonri I see your points. Here is my question: If the person who supplied the alcohol is resposible, if 2 people have sex and say the guy regrets it the next day can he sue the bartender? I am obviously not completely serious I just think personal responsibility is being overlooked in some of these discussions.</p>

<p>What if it’s the girl who has a party at her apartment or dorm room? Can the guy then sue the girl? Sorry, couldn’t resist. It’s just that the example made it so tempting.</p>

<p>Suing someone is totally separately from the Title IX conversation but I’m guessing a guy could turn around and sue for Defamation if a woman made an accusation, made the accusation to at least one other person yada, yada.</p>

<p>Hunt, I do NOT think it was “extremely gray.” I think when you find a woman passed out in a toilet stall unconscious next to a pool of vomit, you’re on notice that she’s had too much to drink. I don’t think the correct response is to take the drunken girl back to your room. </p>

<p>Is he guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt? NO. Would I put him in prison? No. Do I think he should have SOMETHING happen to him? YES. </p>

<p>So, you and I differ about this. While I don’t have a D of your son’s age, I would tell any D of mine that if a young man said that the Klein/Lack case was “extremely gray,” she should stay a gazillion miles away from him. (Actually, I don’t think I’d have to tell any D of mine that because she’d reach the same conclusion.)</p>

<p>I don’t think ANYONE in this thread is denying young women are responsible for their actions. I’m certainly not saying that. I already said “up thread” that the young women who get into these situations ALSO ought to be forced to take alcohol education. </p>

<p>But if my S behaved like Adam Lack did, I most definitely would punish him myself. And I’d be incredibly upset and disappointed and think I’d failed as a parent. I’d also warn my Ds never to be alone with the Brown prof who opined that Lack “did nothing wrong.”</p>