VA - Freshman daughter, mom 'good time drop off' outrages VA university

[jjenny]

Got it. However, IMO, this is case is an exception. And, personally, I don't believe this is a case of gender discrimination. It's a case of over-correction. By far....the majority of rapists are males.

Not an exception. Quite a few males recently filed lawsuits against Universities that expelled them. Some of them even managed to win these lawsuits.

 

[flourish]

I would like to thank some WS members for their steadfast stances about not blaming the victim. Flourish, BritsKate and Bluesneakers (and others), over the last week, you have immensely helped me understand some things in my past. Reading your posts have helped me heal in ways I didn't know that I needed to. Thank you.

Aww you sweet thing! That's part of why we're here. Hugs

Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk

 

[Donjeta]

Nah. It was not like that though. He was in his room and his roomie comes home with a girl and they knock on his door and want him to bring out his weed and his bong. And he does that. He was cute. Much cuter than Johnny, the guy that I arrived with. So we all smoked and laughed and talked and I was flirting heavily with the roomie. I was half naked because Johhny and I had jumped into the pool with our clothes on so he gave me a big t-shirt to wear. That is all I had on.

As for my 'protests' of 'where's Johnny?' -- I was not really protesting because I wanted Johnny back. I liked the roomie better. I just wanted to know where Johnny was because it was awkward switching up like that. And I was also trying not to look like a total *advertiser censored*. I felt like I needed to at least acknowledge that i arrived with the other guy. I was actively making out and voluntarily doing some heavy petting on the living room shag carpet. As we past 3rd base and rounded for home, I did feel regret and felt like I was in over my head. But it was mostly because I LIKED THE GUY and wished I had made a better impression. So my protests were rather weak. I was trying to have it both ways.

There is no way in the world to pretend that I am not partially to blame for my having sex when I was not fully onboard. Calling him a predator and holding him 100% responsible is biased and unfair, imo.

He was a college student, at home minding his own business and suddenly a half naked girl is kissing him and playing with his manhood, while saying ' where's Johnny?' It must have been confusing but enjoyable for him. JMO

Ok, from the earlier post I got the mistaken notion that Johnny disappeared and the other guy appeared in Johnny's place ready for action as more of a nasty surprise.

 

[katydid23]

Ok, from the earlier post I got the mistaken notion that Johnny disappeared and the other guy appeared in Johnny's place ready for action as more of a nasty surprise.

yup, it is easy to get that notion because here is how I described it:

"At some point he disappeared and his roomie slid into his place. And I remember doing some vocal protesting about the substitution, but I was pretty drunk and high, and pretty much stuck there in downtown Oakland at 3 am, tripping and drunk on tequila. I complied because I felt there were no real options. "



But that was the shorthand version. The roomie did slide into his place but probably because I was ignoring Johnny and flirting with him. College kids are fickle and impulsive. At least I was anyway.

 

[Donjeta]

Yeah, most kids I'd say...

Stories like this are an excellent illustration why, IMO, it's important to talk about affirmative consent and keep track of the level of mutual consent along the way. It is not enough to just vaguely assume that everything goes since there were some shared pleasures or lack of forceful protests at some initial stages of the evening.

 

[TorisMom003]

You can blame the male for his bad choices all day long. But does it mean this male, if he hasn't raped anyone, should be expelled from the University or worse yet, charged with rape? People seem to feel free to blame the male. He drunk, he had sex with someone he barely knows, so it's his fault he is accused and expelled (even if he actually hasn't done what he is accused of).

Never said that in my post. But guys do need to realize that it is a chance they take when they have sex with someone they really don't know. Is it fair? Of course not. But neither is a woman that has been raped getting blamed for "her part" in it either. Personal responsibility is not a female thing only. It is for both sexes even if they may feel it shouldn't be.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

Here is an example of the DOUBLE STANDARD in gender difference is sexual assault cases: [ if sexes were reversed the male would have been imprisoned]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...friend-middle-parking-lot-broad-daylight.html

'I was in the mood': Woman explains why she was having sex with passed-out-drunk boyfriend in the middle of a parking lot in broad daylight
Kimberly Jackson, 36, was arrested after having sex with her unconscious boyfriend, Earl Palmer, in the middle of a Virginia parking lot
She was only charged with being drunk in public and released on bond
Palmer insisted he had agreed to the sex romp but later passed out from drinking

 

[Montjoy]

Here is an example of the DOUBLE STANDARD in gender difference is sexual assault cases: [ if sexes were reversed the male would have been imprisoned]

rsbm

I really don't see why. In this case, the 'passed-out-drunk' boyfriend isn't claiming that he was raped -- in fact, he's insisting that he gave his consent. The only reason that this was a legal case at all is because it happened in public. So, if the sexes were reversed, I still don't see this as being prosecuted as a rape, though I'm surprised that there was no charge of public indecency, or whatever it would be called.

 

[katydid23]

rsbm

I really don't see why. In this case, the 'passed-out-drunk' boyfriend isn't claiming that he was raped -- in fact, he's insisting that he gave his consent. The only reason that this was a legal case at all is because it happened in public. So, if the sexes were reversed, I still don't see this as being prosecuted as a rape, though I'm surprised that there was no charge of public indecency, or whatever it would be called.

If that man was having sex with an unconscious woman, in broad daylight, you don't think he would have been arrested for RAPE?

Didnt everyone say on this thread that it is RAPE if the partner is unconscious?


ETA:

Originally Posted by Donjeta
It's quite possible she didn't revoke her consent.

However, it would be wise for all the horny young male students, and everybody else for that matter, to remember that sex with someone who is in no state to consent, could be a felony.

Inability to consent because of excessive intoxication effectively means no.



Linas: Amazing how many times we have to point that out on this thread. Seems like a simple concept to me!!!

 

[katydid23]

rsbm

I really don't see why. In this case, the 'passed-out-drunk' boyfriend isn't claiming that he was raped -- in fact, he's insisting that he gave his consent. The only reason that this was a legal case at all is because it happened in public. So, if the sexes were reversed, I still don't see this as being prosecuted as a rape, though I'm surprised that there was no charge of public indecency, or whatever it would be called.

The double standard in the above reasoning is shocking to me. The battle cry in this thread has been that an 'unconscious' woman cannot give her consent. And any guy that is creepy enough to continue sexual relations should be arrested for rape. that has been said many times in this thread. But now that a woman has done the same, you are saying it is not a big deal and the guy consented so it is fine. :no:

 

[katydid23]

rsbm

I really don't see why. In this case, the 'passed-out-drunk' boyfriend isn't claiming that he was raped -- in fact, he's insisting that he gave his consent. The only reason that this was a legal case at all is because it happened in public. So, if the sexes were reversed, I still don't see this as being prosecuted as a rape, though I'm surprised that there was no charge of public indecency, or whatever it would be called.

Here is what our resident attorney has stated:


Let me be clear:
Yes, it is rape if it involves sexual penetration/sodomy of a person who cannot consent due to being a minor, or passed out or otherwise too incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to know what they're doing.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...d-time-drop-off-outrages-VA-university/page25


She very clearly says that this is rape. But apparently some here are saying it is NOT rape because he 'consented' before he passed out cold.

SERIOUSLY? If a girl had consented, then passed out , unconscious, and this man had sex with her on the street in broad daylight, you all would have said ' I't OK, SHE CONSENTED BEFORE SHE PASSED OUT?'

I cannot believe what I am seeing here. What an obvious double standard. wow.

 

[flourish]

I think it was rape. Although, you know, he got her worked up and consented then left her with blue...ovaries....my word.

 

[Montjoy]

Well, if after the incident he had said he felt that he was violated or raped, sure, it is a rape. But in this case, there is no 'victim' who would say that he did not give consent -- quite the contrary. As per the 'victim', it was a consensual act, whereas rape is a non-consensual act. As such, it couldn't be prosecuted successfully as a rape.

This is not at all like a situation where someone has sex with someone who is incapacitated and who later confirms that no consent was given. It is a bizarre case to be sure, and I am not defending what anyone has done.

 

[katydid23]

Well, if after the incident he had said he felt that he was violated or raped, sure, it is a rape. But in this case, there is no 'victim' who would say that he did not give consent -- quite the contrary. As per the 'victim', it was a consensual act, whereas rape is a non-consensual act. As such, it couldn't be prosecuted successfully as a rape.

This is not at all like a situation where someone has sex with someone who is incapacitated and who later confirms that no consent was given. It is a bizarre case to be sure, and I am not defending what anyone has done.

NO, that is not what has been stated here many times. It has been clearly said here that a drunk woman CANNOT CONSENT. The drunk person cannot wake up and say they 'consented' because consent is not possible when one is intoxicated. And it is certainly not possible while one is unconscious.

So it is quite shocking to me that you are now saying this was a consensual act. The man was UNCONSCIOUS, lying in the middle of the street while she was having sex with him. And you are seriously saying that is not rape? How can it not be rape given the definition of consent. He could not legally have given consent while intoxicated. Or is that just reserved for women?

 

[katydid23]

Well, if after the incident he had said he felt that he was violated or raped, sure, it is a rape. But in this case, there is no 'victim' who would say that he did not give consent -- quite the contrary. As per the 'victim', it was a consensual act, whereas rape is a non-consensual act. As such, it couldn't be prosecuted successfully as a rape.

This is not at all like a situation where someone has sex with someone who is incapacitated and who later confirms that no consent was given. It is a bizarre case to be sure, and I am not defending what anyone has done.

How is it consensual if the man was too drunk to stay conscious?

 

[sorrell skye]

Who took these disgusting photos? Did the Daily Mail pay someone to have sex in a parking lot so they could sell newspapers?

Regardless, the male is insisting that he gave consent.

If he was claiming that he'd been raped, I would have no problem defending him. Just as I have no problem defending a female rape victim.

 

[katydid23]

Who took these disgusting photos? Did the Daily Mail pay someone to have sex in a parking lot so they could sell newspapers?

Regardless, the male is insisting that he gave consent.

If he was claiming that he'd been raped, I would have no problem defending him. Just as I have no problem defending a female rape victim.

So he is OK giving consent if he passed out moments later?

 

[katydid23]

Who took these disgusting photos? Did the Daily Mail pay someone to have sex in a parking lot so they could sell newspapers?

Regardless, the male is insisting that he gave consent.

If he was claiming that he'd been raped, I would have no problem defending him. Just as I have no problem defending a female rape victim.

link:
https://rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape


I was asleep or unconscious when it happened – does that mean it isn’t rape?

Rape can happen when the victim was unconscious or asleep. If you were asleep or unconscious, then you didn’t give consent. And if you didn’t give consent, then it is rape.

I was drunk or they were drunk - does that mean it isn't rape?

Alcohol and drugs are not an excuse – or an alibi. The key question is still: did you consent or not? Regardless of whether you were drunk or sober, if the sex is nonconsensual, it is rape. However, because each state has different definitions of “nonconsensual”, please contact your local center or local police if you have questions about this. (If you were so drunk or drugged that you passed out and were unable to consent, it was rape. Both people must be conscious and willing participants.)

 

[katydid23]

It is quite amazing to me that people are giving this rapist a pass because the VICTIM said, after waking up from unconsciousness. that he 'consented.'

If that had been a college girl waking up on the street from an unconscious state and she said she had 'consented' --- I hardly think anyone here would have accepted her consent as valid. It is quite alarming actually to see the double standard at work.

 

[sorrell skye]

Do some folks really believe that someone is going to be prosecuted if two intoxicated adults engage in sexual intercourse?

It's not against the law for two drunk/high adults to have sex.

I think some people are confusing the intention of sexual assault statutes. Sexual assault laws pertaining to incapacitation due to alcohol/drugs are designed to protect unwilling victims from being taken advantage of if they're incapable of affirming consent.

Intoxication is not the primary factor. CONSENT is the primary factor.

If someone says: I was too drunk/high to consent to sex and I didn't willingly have sex and this person forced him/herself on me, then that person was raped.

If someone says: I was really drunk/high, but I consented to sex and I wanted to have sex, then that person was not raped.

I don't understand the confusion.