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

[Firefliezz21]

Maybe not shut down but the fraternity did get suspended by the national organization, pending an investigation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/25/us/virginia-old-dominion-university-sigma-nu-offensive-banners/

I don't blame them. The banners reflect sexism and are demeaning but I doubt the chapter is going to get shut-down entirely.

 

[BritsKate]

Right. But the problem is that those situations are not always as simple as a predator purposely getting a girl drunk. I know it does happen and happens way too much. Which is why parents need to teach their girls to be aware of that type of ploy. My daughter and her friends stuck together at parties They never accepted drinks from guys they didnt know well. They never let one of the girls go off alone with a guy she just met. They looked out for each other.

here is the part I take issue with:


"This really isn't confusing. If anyone, man or woman, is so wasted that they they're unable to answer simple questions, unable of walking without aid, unable to seemingly grasp what is happening around them - you shouldn't have sex with them on the basis you may be arrested for rape. I think it's pretty simple."

I don't think it is that simple. For you and I, as mature adults, yes. But college kids go out on a 'date' and they party together. Which often involves pot, beer pong, a few shots. And TOGETHER they get progressively more inebriated. After a few hours they go back to one of their rooms, TOGETHER, both high. And they may BOTH agree to have consensual sex. They may both be pretty drunk by that time.

UNder the above ^^^ scenario, the male would be subject to expulsion, loss of school credits, if the female complained, even years later. And with no proof, just her word. The female would not be subject to any penalties, oddly enough.

I agree that the males should not go to bed with a female that is drunk. But if he has been drinking along with her, then he is drunk too. Why is he held responsible for poor decisions, like having consensual sex, when he is drunk, but females are not?

Again, if she is that drunk, it is NOT consensual. If she's that drunk, she cannot legally give consent. And if he is drunk too, it is not considered an excuse under the law to victimize another human being. Is that fair? I don't know. We don't typically excuse a perpetrator being drunk or high when committing any other crime.

Are universities getting it right all the time? Clearly not and hopefully reforms will be made to ensure all innocent parties aren't automatically judged. False allegations aren't good for anyone, especially victims. But comparing a rape to the scenarios you continue to use, for me, is like comparing apples to oranges. Do some women falsely claim rape? Absolutely. Do some women regret alcohol-induced sexual encounters? Indeed. Do some even falsely accuse rape as a result? Maybe. Does that make every rape suspect to me? Absolutely not. It all comes back to consent. Fortunately, I think colleges are focusing more on educating students what that actually means.

 

[LinasK]

Maybe not shut down but the fraternity did get suspended by the national organization, pending an investigation:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/25/us/virginia-old-dominion-university-sigma-nu-offensive-banners/

From this article:
The national organization, the university, and student leaders say they will hold those responsible accountable for the offensive banners.
"I am outraged about the offensive message directed toward women that was visible for a time on 43rd Street," university President John R. Broderick said in a letter sent to the community and posted on Facebook. "Our students, campus community and alumni have been offended."
The Interfraternity Council at ODU called the banners "highly offensive" and said they were placed by "several fraternity members."<snip>

Beacham condemned the content of the banners and temporarily suspended the ODU chapter.
The university president said ODU has a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, and that the school is doing its own investigation.
"While we constantly educate students, faculty and staff about sexual assault and sexual harassment, this incident confirms our collective efforts are still failing to register with some," Broderick said.

So, even though a couple of college girls who were interviewed thought it was funny and to be expected- clearly the university and the national organization realize this is sexual harassment and no joke!

 

[jjenny]

Again, if she is that drunk, it is NOT consensual. If she's that drunk, she cannot legally give consent. And if he is drunk too, it is not considered an excuse under the law to victimize another human being. Is that fair? I don't know. We don't typically excuse a perpetrator being drunk or high when committing any other crime.

Are universities getting it right all the time? Clearly not and hopefully reforms will be made to ensure all innocent parties aren't automatically judged. False allegations aren't good for anyone, especially victims. But comparing a rape to the scenarios you continue to use, for me, is like comparing apples to oranges. Do some women falsely claim rape? Absolutely. Do some women regret alcohol-induced sexual encounters? Indeed. Do some even falsely accuse rape as a result? Maybe. Does that make every rape suspect to me? Absolutely not. It all comes back to consent. Fortunately, I think colleges are focusing more on educating students what that actually means.

If this drunk woman gets into a car and drives, we won't excuse her either. Is anybody going to say "she didn't know what she was doing because she was tipsy?"

 

[flourish]

If this drunk woman gets into a car and drives, we won't excuse her either. Is anybody going to say "she didn't know what she was doing because she was tipsy?"

We don't excuse drunk drivers. But if someone is drunk and sitting on a curb and another drunk person driving a car hits them we don't blame the person sitting on the curb.

Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk

 

[jjenny]

We don't excuse drunk drivers. But if someone is drunk and sitting on a curb and another drunk person driving a car hits them we don't blame the person sitting on the curb.

Sent from my LG-D321 using Tapatalk

What if that drunk jumps into the middle of the street?

 

[LinasK]

What if that drunk jumps into the middle of the street?

Still the fault of the driver for not stopping I think...gitana help me out here legally please, or AZLawyer or any other attorney on WS.

 

[bluesneakers]

What if that drunk jumps into the middle of the street?

What is the drunk woman doing in this analogy? Stripping?

 

[BritsKate]

If this drunk woman gets into a car and drives, we won't excuse her either. Is anybody going to say "she didn't know what she was doing because she was tipsy?"

No, because we normally view perpetrators and victims in a different light. I would expect anyone committing a crime, while intoxicated or otherwise, be held to the same standard as another committing a crime. Being drunk is not a crime. Being raped isn't a crime. Being forced to have sex when you are incapable of providing consent is not a crime. But the fact that some feel a victim's choices, actions or decisions somehow make them responsible for being raped is a very, very big problem.

Someone may choose to drive a car while intoxicated. Or rob a bank. Or commit murder. Or to commit rape. No one chooses to be raped.

 

[sorrell skye]

What if that drunk jumps into the middle of the street?

It's illegal to drive under the influence.

If a drunk person sitting on a curb jumps into the middle of the street and gets struck by a drunk driver, I think the drunk driver is still liable because that person broke the law by driving while intoxicated. The drunk pedestrian would have never been hit in the first place if the drunk driver had not gotten behind the wheel of the car.

I have no idea if the law would also hold the pedestrian partially liable, but the above is my personal opinion.

 

[sorrell skye]

If this drunk woman gets into a car and drives, we won't excuse her either. Is anybody going to say "she didn't know what she was doing because she was tipsy?"

I don't understand why a drunk woman driver is being used as an analogy for a drunk, incapacitated female rape victim. Is the drunk woman being compared to an automobile? Is the automobile being compared to a rape victim? Is consenting/not consenting to sex while intoxicated being compared to drunk driving?

Regardless, following this analogy, an automobile would need to be able to 'give consent' to the driver prior to being driven. If the car is equipped with an ignition interlock device in order to start, the car would 'refuse consent' to be driven if the driver was intoxicated.

 

[bluesneakers]

I don't understand why a drunk woman driver is being used as an analogy for a drunk, incapacitated female rape victim. Is the drunk woman being compared to an automobile? Is the automobile being compared to a rape victim? Is consenting/not consenting to sex while intoxicated being compared to drunk driving?

Regardless, following this analogy, an automobile would need to be able to 'give consent' to the driver prior to being driven. If the car is equipped with an ignition interlock device in order to start, the car would 'refuse consent' to be driven if the driver was intoxicated.

I thought the drunk woman/rape victim was the one jumping in front of the car being driven by another drunk person/rapist.

But maybe I have it backwards.

 

[jjenny]

I don't understand why a drunk woman driver is being used as an analogy for a drunk, incapacitated female rape victim. Is the drunk woman being compared to an automobile? Is the automobile being compared to a rape victim? Is consenting/not consenting to sex while intoxicated being compared to drunk driving?

Regardless, following this analogy, an automobile would need to be able to 'give consent' to the driver prior to being driven. If the car is equipped with an ignition interlock device in order to start, the car would 'refuse consent' to be driven if the driver was intoxicated.

No, drunk woman is being compared to a drunk woman. If a drunk woman gets behind the wheel of the car and drives, I don't think anyone is going to say that because she is drunk, she should be absolved of responsibility of driving drunk. So why is it assumed that this drunk woman would not be capable of giving consent to sex?

 

[jjenny]

No, because we normally view perpetrators and victims in a different light. I would expect anyone committing a crime, while intoxicated or otherwise, be held to the same standard as another committing a crime. Being drunk is not a crime. Being raped isn't a crime. Being forced to have sex when you are incapable of providing consent is not a crime. But the fact that some feel a victim's choices, actions or decisions somehow make them responsible for being raped is a very, very big problem.

Someone may choose to drive a car while intoxicated. Or rob a bank. Or commit murder. Or to commit rape. No one chooses to be raped.

Why is the perpetrator always assumed to be a man? A woman can perform a sex act on a drunk male. But University doesn't consider that man a victim, in fact he is still a perp in their eyes.

 

[sorrell skye]

No, drunk woman is being compared to a drunk woman. If drunk woman gets behind the wheel of the car and drives, I don't think anyone is going to say that because she is drunk, she should be absolved of responsibility of driving drunk. So why is it assumed that this drunk woman would not be capable of giving consent to sex?

It's common knowledge that driving under the influence (beyond the legal limit) is illegal, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately, it may or may not be common knowledge that any person who is incapacitated due to alcohol, drugs, etc. cannot legally consent to sex, ergo anyone who sexually takes advantage of an incapacitated person is committing a crime.

 

[flourish]

No, drunk woman is being compared to a drunk woman. If a drunk woman gets behind the wheel of the car and drives, I don't think anyone is going to say that because she is drunk, she should be absolved of responsibility of driving drunk. So why is it assumed that this drunk woman would not be capable of giving consent to sex?

Why should drunk folks not drive? Perhaps the answer could offer a hint as to why an intoxicated person cannot legally consent.

 

[jjenny]

It's common knowledge that driving under the influence (beyond the legal limit) is illegal, for obvious reasons.

Unfortunately, it may or may not be common knowledge that any person who is incapacitated due to alcohol, drugs, etc. cannot legally consent to sex, ergo anyone who sexually takes advantage of an incapacitated person is committing a crime.

What exactly do you mean by "incapacitated?" If two drunk people are having sex, who is taking advantage of whom?

 

[jjenny]

Why should drunk folks not drive? Perhaps the answer could offer a hint as to why an intoxicated person cannot legally consent.

If neither can legally consent, then why shouldn't both be arrested? Again, why only male is at fault?

 

[sorrell skye]

What exactly do you mean by "incapacitated?" If two drunk people are having sex, who is taking advantage of whom?

According to the following site:

"Incapacitated person means any person who is impaired by reason of mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness or disability, chronic use of drugs, chronic intoxication, or other cause (except minority) to the extent of lacking sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate responsible decisions."

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/Incapacitated.aspx

Also from this site:

Alcohol and drugs:
&#8226;A person who is asleep or mentally or physically incapacitated, either through the effect of drugs or alcohol or for any other reason, is not capable of giving valid consent.
&#8226;The use of alcohol or drugs may seriously interfere with the participants' judgment about whether consent has been sought and given.

http://www.northwestern.edu/womensc...n/sexual-assault/defining-sexual-assault.html

 

[flourish]

If neither can legally consent, then why shouldn't both be arrested? Again, why only male is at fault?

I never said only the man was at fault.

If they are both too drunk to really consent, that's an issue. However, as explained earlier, while a man can forcibly rape a woman, using his penis on her orifices, a woman cannot do the same. (Don't tell me how women can rape men, because I know that and it isn't what I'm referring to). So, biology, along with history, tells us men are more likely to rape women than women to rape men, add in some societal beliefs, throw in some sexism, and here we are.