<p>Is the fact that somebody threw up enough to conclude that they are too drunk to consent to sex, even if they are otherwise behaving in a way that doesn’t suggest they are impaired?</p>
<p>Yes. Absolutely. Whats so hard about this? </p>
<p>I’m sure there are gray cases. This just doesn’t sound like one.</p>
<p>Its certainly a far cry from “she’d had a beer and used that as an excuse to cry rape when she changed her mind under the influence of evil feminists” which is how the case has been painted, IIUC.</p>
<p>edit</p>
<p>“A few hours later, a male junior found the girl lying next to a pool of vomit” </p>
<p>Ah, she was lying AWAKE next to a pool of vomit. I can see how that would make a young woman inclined to consensually be intimate with the young man who found her that way. </p>
<p>Well no, actually I can’t. </p>
<p>Message to men - if you find a woman lying next to a pool of vomit, awake or asleep, do not have sex with her.</p>
<p>Oh my I’m just hoping my kid has enough decency and good health habits to realize that having sex with someone who has vomited is probably not a good idea for a lot of reasons.</p>
<p>And yeah, it’s kind of a signal that the person while perhaps conscious is impaired either by alcohol or some virus. </p>
<p>Now being a feminist back in the 60s, part of the message (at least within my group) was always that if you wanted control of your life you also had to accept certain responsibilities. And that meant you had to take responsibility for your behavior, having a few beers, having sex with someone and then crying rape is a big No No. Guess feminism has changed a lot or is this just kind of like the “blame the mother” line?</p>
<p>I’m baffled by the idea that it’s fine for mama’s litlle angle boys to drink and pass out in the hall way because girls can’t take advantage of that but dad’s little angle girls should think twice to drink and pass out in the hall way becasue there are unethical beast mama’s angle boys who will take advantage of it and mama’s will come running pointing fault at the girls that why in the first place they were so dumb to be drinking with my angle boys.</p>
<p>Mens are dogs but with one difference that they can think. So let’s make sure we teach our sons some ethics that even if there is girl passed out in the hallway as there are boys passed out, still the boys don’t take advantage of the girl.</p>
<p>But instead that all mama’s come defending their little angle boys telling why the girl passed out in the hallway to begin with. Doesn’t she know she is in the lion’s den or in dog’s house.</p>
<p>If that’s the case then just admit that you have raised dogs and not men.</p>
<p>If you’ve raised your son properly then you shouldn’t be worried about this at all.</p>
<p>There was an incident depicted in “The Big Bang Theory” where Leonard refuse to get intimate with Penny because she had too much drinks and was upset because of her ex-boyfriend. That’s called ethics and Penny said “You are freakingly smart”, which is what we want our children to be; “freakingly smart”, so that these incidents can be prevented to begin with.</p>
<p>The first “article” you posted wasn’t a news article. I think it’s a letter to the editor; it may be an opinion piece, but it’s certainly not a news article. </p>
<p>So, when you come back and claim that the “take away” is that you shouldn’t take a young woman back to your room if she’s had “anything” to drink, “no matter how talkative she seems,” I think you’re really distorting things. </p>
<p>This was NOT two drunk people going back to his room together. This was junior finding a very drunk freshman girl lying on the floor next to a pool of vomit and “helping her” back to his room. (From other articles, I know she was on the floor in a toilet stall, but I concede it doesn’t say that in the article I linked.)</p>
<p>"And yeah, it’s kind of a signal that the person while perhaps conscious is impaired either by alcohol or some virus. "</p>
<p>given the circumstances, Id say the logical conclusion was that it was alcohol,not a virus.</p>
<p>"Now being a feminist back in the 60s, part of the message (at least within my group) was always that if you wanted control of your life you also had to accept certain responsibilities. And that meant you had to take responsibility for your behavior, having a few beers, having sex with someone and then crying rape is a big No No. Guess feminism has changed a lot or is this just kind of like the “blame the mother” line? "</p>
<p>She didnt have a few beers and then have sex with someone. She had ten shots of vodka, and had sex with someone who found her lying next to her vomit.</p>
<p>That doesnt mean she wasnt irresponsible. I mean ten shots of vodka, really? But suppose, for the sake of argument, she HAD actually been passed out. That would imply she was irresponsible. But also that it was rape. I’m not sure why her being irresponsible (which she WAS) makes it consensual.</p>
<p>All the incidents I’ve come across involves beasty behavior of men whether it was DeAnza college baseball team or Richmond High School students.</p>
<p>Just because I’m a man doesn’t mean I’ve to regard all men as ethical. I know many men are not and it’s because of their upbringing.</p>
<p>So once again I’ll stress that we fix the root cause of the problem and that is upbringing of these men who end up behaving like beasts.</p>
<p>Grey - not grey - murky - murkier. There have been other cases at Brown (and surely plenty at other schools) and - to me - it shores up the need for a clear policy discussion by OCR and clear Code of Conduct, including sexual topics, at the colleges.
The McVicar rept from the local paper is good- but note it’s from 1996 and, even at the time, Brown acknowledged the need for clarity and revisions.</p>
<p>I basically agree with Hunt that details morph. There are other articles from RI papers which are so murkily written (with two cases intertwined,) that you can barely distinguish one case from another.</p>
<p>*The charge of sexual misconduct was reduced to flagrant disrespect. The sentence of one-semester’s suspension was reduced to two-semester’s probation</p>
<p>“It’s very difficult for one person to judge the alcohol level of another person,” [Provost] Pomerantz said in an interview recently. "You can’t tell by the eye. At Brown, our sexual misconduct policy is based on the concept of consent. In the Lack case, consent wasn’t an issue because Adam was the recipient of, not the initiator of, the overtures. So consent didn’t rely apply.*</p>
<p>I’m glad there is an attempt to clarify.</p>
<p>Let’s not sling insults at others’ sons and daughters. Let’s each tackle our parental responsibilities. To assume our jobs are done or nearly done is to put our heads in the sand. These kids aren’t grown up yet. They are still in transition.</p>
<p>**Morgan McVicar works for the Providence Journal.</p>
<p>“But also that it was rape. I’m not sure why her being irresponsible (which she WAS) makes it consensual.”</p>
<p>It doesn’t, you’re totally correct. I was referencing someone else’s comment about a beer, not this particular case. I totally agree with you. And in that particular case, you’d have to have been a real dunderhead to not know it was alcohol.</p>
<p>My dear POIH:
“If you’ve raised your son properly then you shouldn’t be worried about this at all.”</p>
<p>I didn’t and I don’t, it was expression as in the generic “kid.” What makes you think I have a son by the way? I didn’t mention gender. Why I could even have a son and daughter for all you would know.</p>
<p>POIH, are you a man? You have a rather singular take on the male half of the species, not to mention their mothers.</p>
<p>Oh, I see you have responded that you are a man. Go figure.</p>
<p>And if we want to fix the root cause of the problem, it is important that we not only raise our young men to not be beastie boys, but also raise our girls with the same sense of personal responsibility, which, POIH, I’m sure you have done.</p>
<p>Maybe I’m being obtuse ( ), but please define “angle” in your statements (#385 and #404). Do you really mean “angel”, as Limabeans pointed out in #394?</p>
<p>I didn’t and I don’t, it was expression as in the generic “kid.” What makes you think I have a son by the way? I didn’t mention gender. Why I could even have a son and daughter for all you would know.</p>
<p>“Woops”. I did raise my child properly and I don’t worry about this issue arising at all. Mostly because my kid is a little germ phobic anyway so even if the temptation were there I think my child would be too turned off by the vomit thingie as Brooklynborndad so beautifully put it.</p>
<p>“To assume our jobs are done or nearly done is to put our heads in the sand. These kids aren’t grown up yet. They are still in transition.”</p>
<p>Well put, I think that this is the trickiest time in a way, they look like adults but they still have so much to learn. Now I understand why my mother used to look at me in disbelief and then laugh hysterically when I’d come home from college and tell her seriously what she needed to do with her life.</p>
<p>“And in that particular case, you’d have to have been a real dunderhead to not know it was alcohol.”</p>
<p>thats the case that is being cited (and recieved much national publicity thanks to John Stossel) to show that there is a feminist mafia running campuses, and that parents of sons should worry that there kids will be expelled and have their lives ruined because they go to bed with a girl after BOTH have had a couple of beers. Which is SIMPLY NOT THE CASE, afaict. Part of a general trend of certain segments of the media taking factoids out of context and piecing them together dishonestly to make a larger, ideologically driven claim of (generally reverse) persecution.</p>
), but please define “angle” in your statements (