NY - Male student sues Columbia Univ for 'gender-based harassment and defamation'

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Nova said:
Has that law ever been used against a female? I assume it must have been, but I only hear about it when the female is intoxicated. I've long wondered why a female's blood-alcohol level makes her not responsible, but the blood-alcohol level of her alleged assailant doesn't absolve him of culpability.
Click to expand...

Do you feel this way about other crimes commited while drunk?
 
Goose22 said:
Do you feel this way about other crimes commited while drunk?
Click to expand...

No. As a rule, I think that if you consume the alcohol, you are responsible for whatever you do while impaired. (I feel the same about illegal drugs, for the most part: legalize them, but make individuals culpable for whatever they do under the influence.)

BUT HERE we were talking about behavior that is criminal ONLY BECAUSE the "victim" is impaired and therefore legally unable to give consent. In such cases the behavior is a crime only because the victim is impaired; so why is her impairment an element of the crime but his is not?

AFAIK, this is not the case with mattress girl and I didn't mean to imply that it was. It was just a tangent that arose as we conversed.
 
Nova said:
No. As a rule, I think that if you consume the alcohol, you are responsible for whatever you do while impaired. (I feel the same about illegal drugs, for the most part: legalize them, but make individuals culpable for whatever they do under the influence.)

BUT HERE we were talking about behavior that is criminal ONLY BECAUSE the "victim" is impaired and therefore legally unable to give consent. In such cases the behavior is a crime only because the victim is impaired; so why is her impairment an element of the crime but his is not?

AFAIK, this is not the case with mattress girl and I didn't mean to imply that it was. It was just a tangent that arose as we conversed.
Click to expand...

I think for prosecution of rape by intoxication a woman pretty much has to be passed out drunk, or close to it. Sounds like a lot of students engage in sexual activity while intoxicated. If just being buzzed made this sexual activity rape, they would be prosecuted day in and day out.
 
EllieBee said:
http://jezebel.com/i-am-not-a-pretty-little-liar-1705996719

Authored by one of the other three women who was allegedly assaulted by Paul.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that sexual assault is a genuine problem on college campuses. Young people away from home for the first time, easy access to alcohol and other drugs (even for underage students), etc. and so forth.

And i sympathize with the efforts of colleges to protect young women.

But defining that young man's pass ("hug", whatever) as "sexual assault" is part of the problem. It trivializes the very real problem of sexual assaults on campus. And apparently engenders a sense of entitlement in some people: the young woman's indignation that her case should be subject to the rules of due process does not convince me that "her truth" is something I should trust. (I mean, how DARE they call her to discuss her case during the middle of the day! Apparently the people handling her case were supposed to stay at their jobs until whatever hour was comfortable for her.)

And while I'm on THAT SUBJECT, the notion that all truth is subjective was already popular when I was teaching at a university. While I see the value of the idea in evaluating historical sources, I think it's a very dangerous concept to employ in cases of alleged sexual assault. If an alleged victim is merely telling "her truth", why should I, as a juror, consider her testimony objective enough to stand as "proof beyond reasonable doubt"?
 
Nova said:
No. As a rule, I think that if you consume the alcohol, you are responsible for whatever you do while impaired. (I feel the same about illegal drugs, for the most part: legalize them, but make individuals culpable for whatever they do under the influence.)

BUT HERE we were talking about behavior that is criminal ONLY BECAUSE the "victim" is impaired and therefore legally unable to give consent. In such cases the behavior is a crime only because the victim is impaired; so why is her impairment an element of the crime but his is not?

AFAIK, this is not the case with mattress girl and I didn't mean to imply that it was. It was just a tangent that arose as we conversed.
Click to expand...
Frankly I think it is to the point where young men probably should be administering a breathalyzer and getting a signature on a legal contract before engaging in any sexual activity. But I suppose that would be offensive.
 
tangelo said:
that's the woman he hugged (allegedly)
Click to expand...

Yes. If by "hugged" you mean groped while being asked to please stop. That is legally "sexually assault".

Sorry, but calling that "hugging" is really scary. Rapists often like to imagine their assault is actually a welcome advance. Or at least that is how they justify it.

Are you a male? I am just wondering. If so, have you ever disregarded a woman's request to stop some "harmless embrace" such as hugging?

I will be honest. If someone touched me in ANY way after my asking him to stop, I would be very alarmed. And it is NOT okay to just "let it happen" because the person assaulting you calls it a 'hug'.
 
Nova said:
I don't doubt that sexual assault is a genuine problem on college campuses. Young people away from home for the first time, easy access to alcohol and other drugs (even for underage students), etc. and so forth.

And i sympathize with the efforts of colleges to protect young women.

But defining that young man's pass ("hug", whatever) as "sexual assault" is part of the problem. It trivializes the very real problem of sexual assaults on campus. And apparently engenders a sense of entitlement in some people: the young woman's indignation that her case should be subject to the rules of due process does not convince me that "her truth" is something I should trust. (I mean, how DARE they call her to discuss her case during the middle of the day! Apparently the people handling her case were supposed to stay at their jobs until whatever hour was comfortable for her.)

And while I'm on THAT SUBJECT, the notion that all truth is subjective was already popular when I was teaching at a university. While I see the value of the idea in evaluating historical sources, I think it's a very dangerous concept to employ in cases of alleged sexual assault. If an alleged victim is merely telling "her truth", why should I, as a juror, consider her testimony objective enough to stand as "proof beyond reasonable doubt"?
Click to expand...

I see your point. Perhaps there should be a separate charge for non-penetrative sexual assault. Because, IMO, emotional and verbal assault that are sexual in nature ARE forms of sexual assault.

I have been trapped by a man, thinking he was "cute", asking for a hug and kiss while blocking a doorway and I was in a state of sheer panic, alone, and trying to get past him.

Also, I was in an elevator with a work superior who told me dirty jokes that made me want to puke, and once the elevator opened, said is a loud voice "oh, WOW! Thanks, that was amazing!" to an audience of office workers and clients. I wanted to DIE. He was fired, but not for four more years and because of numerous complaints of the same kind.

I was not one of them; I did not want to be seen as a troublemaker. And I wanted to keep my job.

But since I was not penetrated and had no semen or hemmoraging to show, there was no assault. I guess.
 
CCmakes3 said:
Frankly I think it is to the point where young men probably should be administering a breathalyzer and getting a signature on a legal contract before engaging in any sexual activity. But I suppose that would be offensive.
Click to expand...

Some colleges (Antioch was one, IIRC) have tried the written contract requirement. That was 25 years ago and doesn't seem to have caught on. I can't imagine why.

Other schools have tried a rule that separates sexual behavior into "stages" (kind of like the old "first base", "second base", etc.). Each partner is required to get clear oral permission before progressing to the next stage.

By these standards, I don't think I've ever had sex that wasn't an assault.
 
Nova said:
Some colleges (Antioch was one, IIRC) have tried the written contract requirement. That was 25 years ago and doesn't seem to have caught on. I can't imagine why.

Other schools have tried a rule that separates sexual behavior into "stages" (kind of like the old "first base", "second base", etc.). Each partner is required to get clear oral permission before progressing to the next stage.

By these standards, I don't think I've ever had sex that wasn't an assault.
Click to expand...

Lol, exactly! I have sons in their teens and twenties. I show them these stories and have told them in no uncertain terms that they simply cannot afford to have consensual sex with anyone that they are not in a serious, committed relationship with. I am not a Puritan or a prude, it's just not worth ruining your life for a brief encounter with someone who decides they have regrets the next day. Frankly, if I had daughters, I don't think I would feel the need to tell them that. Sorry, boys! It's not fair, but those are the breaks. I DO believe that sexual assaults on campus occur. I also believe that false accusations occur. I'm sorry if that makes me a bad person. :(
 
EllieBee said:
I see your point. Perhaps there should be a separate charge for non-penetrative sexual assault. Because, IMO, emotional and verbal assault that are sexual in nature ARE forms of sexual assault.

I have been trapped by a man, thinking he was "cute", asking for a hug and kiss while blocking a doorway and I was in a state of sheer panic, alone, and trying to get past him.

Also, I was in an elevator with a work superior who told me dirty jokes that made me want to puke, and once the elevator opened, said is a loud voice "oh, WOW! Thanks, that was amazing!" to an audience of office workers and clients. I wanted to DIE. He was fired, but not for four more years and because of numerous complaints of the same kind.

I was not one of them; I did not want to be seen as a troublemaker. And I wanted to keep my job.

But since I was not penetrated and had no semen or hemmoraging to show, there was no assault. I guess.
Click to expand...

Ellie, I think both instances you mention involved reprehensible behavior on the man's part. Certainly sexual harassment. That said, I don't blame you for choosing to drop the matters. That should be your choice. I'm sorry you had to fear that complaining would cost you your job.

I certainly never meant to imply there must be penetration to prove an assault.
 
Nova said:
Ellie, I think both instances you mention involved reprehensible behavior on the man's part. Certainly sexual harassment. That said, I don't blame you for choosing to drop the matters. That should be your choice. I'm sorry you had to fear that complaining would cost you your job.

I certainly never meant to imply there must be penetration to prove an assault.
Click to expand...


Thing is, it is the reality for most wonen.

If you report an assault, you better damn well have bruising, bleeding, and semen to prove it.

Anything else is just whiney women not being a "good sport" and complaining about some "joshing".

And that is far from what it really is.

"Please stop" , "please let me pass by without you grabbing my breast" and "please stop raping me" are all examples of requests that ought to have some weight. Sadly, they do not.

This woman, and the other three which alleged assault by this same man, deserve to be heard and not pushed aside as attention-seeking trouble makers. Unless you have been there, you cannot possibly know how awful it is.

And this man WAS found guilty initially, but appealed and then left the country for a European "vacay", delaying the re-trial. None of the women asked for ANY type of delay or special consideration. But they had to take time off from their fresh-outta-college jobs to acquiesce to the accused's ever-changing schedule.

This is why so many woman just shut up and don't report sexual assault. Because you get raped all over again.
 
I think many of us can agree that not reporting a rape doesn't necessarily mean a rape didn't occur. Rape victims the world over can attest that reporting your rape isn't a simple and easy process. It's easy for the often times lack of evidence, even in a recent rape, to work against them and the questioning can be too much for someone who was just traumatized.
 
EllieBee said:
And this man WAS found guilty initially, but appealed and then left the country for a European "vacay", delaying the re-trial. None of the women asked for ANY type of delay or special consideration. But they had to take time off from their fresh-outta-college jobs to acquiesce to the accused's ever-changing schedule.

This is why so many woman just shut up and don't report sexual assault. Because you get raped all over again.
Click to expand...

Link, please? According to the complaint, linked in the OP, he was exonerated by both Columbia and the NYPD. It was the "victim" who waited seven months to file a complaint in the first place, and violated Columbia's confidentiality policy. JMO MOO.
 
Ellie, I'm not convinced the current situation is as dire as you paint it. I can appreciate that victims find the judicial process upsetting, but what is the alternative? The "second woman's" account demands not due process, but special legal privileges for anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault.

Personally, I'm leery of any law that depends entirely on the subjective feelings of the alleged victim. This isn't a male/female thing with me. I never liked the "telephone obscenity" laws that defined the crime entirely by whether the listener considered the language obscene.
 
Nova said:
Has that law ever been used against a female? I assume it must have been, but I only hear about it when the female is intoxicated. I've long wondered why a female's blood-alcohol level makes her not responsible, but the blood-alcohol level of her alleged assailant doesn't absolve him of culpability.
Click to expand...

The incapacitated (passed out, unconscious or barely conscious) person is usually considered the victim. Even when that person is male. It is the active person, the one doing the deed, who is considered the assailant even when they've had a few. Have we forgotten the case of the Brian Downing already?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-on-lsu-fan-face-pleads-guilty_n_1933889.html

From the above link: "When you put your genitals on someone's body, someone who is passed out, that's not a prank," Christopher Bowman, spokesman for District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro told the Associated Press. "I don't think people would be asking that question if the defendant had done it to a passed-out woman."

BBM: IMO, if he'd done it to a woman many people, as shown in this thread, would be blaming the woman for being passed-out drunk. JMO, MOO, etc.
 
gxm said:
The incapacitated (passed out, unconscious or barely conscious) person is usually considered the victim. Even when that person is male. It is the active person, the one doing the deed, who is considered the assailant even when they've had a few. Have we forgotten the case of the Brian Downing already?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-on-lsu-fan-face-pleads-guilty_n_1933889.html

From the above link: "When you put your genitals on someone's body, someone who is passed out, that's not a prank," Christopher Bowman, spokesman for District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro told the Associated Press. "I don't think people would be asking that question if the defendant had done it to a passed-out woman."

BBM: IMO, if he'd done it to a woman many people, as shown in this thread, would be blaming the woman for being passed-out drunk. JMO, MOO, etc.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the response. I understand the issue is pretty clear when one party is unconscious and the other party is conscious enough to perform sexual acts on the victim.

But I have heard of cases (sorry, no link handy) where both parties had been drinking and the fact that the woman's blood alcohol content was over the legal limit was accepted as proof she was incapable of consenting. So I'm just asking, what about HIS alcohol level? I've never heard of the latter being a mitigating factor, but I admit I haven't researched the issue thoroughly.
 
I'm surprised this thread hasn't popped back to the top. In addition to "Mattress Girl's" video, there have been some interesting op eds (including, I think, in the NY TIMES) questioning the demands of some feminists that their grievances should supersede rules of due process.

I'll try to find a link or two, but while almost all of us agree that colleges need to do a better job of protecting their students, we don't necessarily agree that the definition of rape should be expanded to include every instance of bad manners. Nor that merely being a member of the female sex should make every encounter with bad manners a reason for imprisonment.

(I'm speaking of one of MG's supporters who claims she too was sexually assaulted by the same perpetrator. What she is calling "assault" others have called a "hug". In either case, she disengaged from her alleged assailant after a few seconds and walked out of the room. Myself, I have trouble identifying the crime there.)
 
A link discussing the "rape video" Mattress Girl made. I'm still trying to figure out what she was trying to accomplish. Supposedly, "She posted the video claiming if you watch it you are making yourself party to her rape."

WARNING: there are a few, sexually graphic photos from the video:

http://www.wwtdd.com/2015/06/mattress-girl-moves-on-to-staging-rapes/


The link above contains a link to the MG's actual posting, including the video. I didn't watch the video (I was too busy trying to parse her logic that it is okay for her to post it, but I am culpable in her rape if I watch it!), but I'm guessing it isn't a link WS wants here. So I've pointed the way to a link, but I'll refrain from linking directly.

Note: the title of her short film, Ceci n'est pas un viol, means "This is not a rape".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 180 more.
Total: 3,913 (members: 181, guests: 3,732)

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
3,732
Total visitors
3,913
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,120
Messages
18,152,430
Members
231,652
Latest member
fiend_nyx
Back
Top