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

[jjenny]

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.

Woman can perform certain sex acts on a man in which man's participation isn't required.

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who takes sexual advantage of another person has committed a sexual assault, regardless of the sex of the perp or the victim.

 

[jjenny]

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:
•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.
•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

We aren't talking about someone who is asleep or passed out. I've seen people stating that if people are drunk, it's illegal for them to have sex (or that they can't give consent). Presumably that should mean that if two tipsy people are having sex, both should be arrested and off to jail with them.

 

[Fairy1]

Yeah, I was gonna thank another post that mentioned the two years after the fact, when I suddenly remembered- it takes sexual assault victims many years to deal with it and report it. I never told on my uncle because I knew my own family wouldn't believe me, and some still don't as of this day...

I should clarify my position on this. I certainly have empathy for any and every victim of rape - regardless of the timetable involved. But, when it comes to the burden of proof, two years or more, where there are no witnesses or other evidence, is too long.

In the case that katydid and jjenny have referenced previously, the young man was expelled on the basis that the rape "was most likely" to have occurred. That's not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. That's not how our justice system works and it does nothing more than advance the futility of the he said-she said scenario that is so often at the root of this crime, which hurts everyone.

 

[flourish]

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.

Woman can perform certain sex acts on a man in which man's participation isn't required.

Are you freaking kidding me? Read my %#}| post.

Eta: despite what it says, I didn't say the second quote.

 

[sorrell skye]

Woman can perform certain sex acts on a man in which man's participation isn't required.

I agree. For instance: if a woman (or a man, for that matter) performs unwanted oral sex on a man who is either too drunk, too high on heroin, etc., to provide valid consent, that would be rape, according to the legal definition in most states.

 

[jjenny]

I should clarify my position on this. I certainly have empathy for any and every victim of rape - regardless of the timetable involved. But, when it comes to the burden of proof, two years or more where there are no witnesses or other evidence, is too long.

In the case that katydid and jjenny have referenced previously, the young man was expelled on the basis that the rape "was most likely" to have occurred. That's not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone else. That's not how our justice system works and it does nothing more than advance the futility of the he said-she said scenario that is so often at the root of this crime, which hurts everyone.

In that case, rape wasn't likely to have occurred at all. They got text messages from the woman to other people, in which she states that her roommate will know she wasn't an innocent bystander, man was very drunk, and that she is concerned that male's girlfriend (who is this woman's roommate) is going to find out she had sex with the man (nothing about being raped or forced into anything). She was actually advised by the person she texted to blame the male for the encounter (which she did a couple of years later when she complained to the University). Then she invited another man over, and had sex with him on the same night (also texting about it). Does University care? No, not at all. They refuse to reverse the expulsion. I think it's a very clear case of gender discrimination.

 

[BritsKate]

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.

Oh please do tell me where you see that in my post! I was deliberately totally gender non-specific! Because I'm actually a domestic violence advocate intimately equipped with the knowledge that men too can be victims. If you look, you'll find the overwhelming majority of my posts phrased carefully regarding victims and perpetrators, unless citing a specific gender is more appropriate. You'll even find some attempting to educate others on male victims.

As for any university's assumptions, you'd be best off asking them to clarify their position.

I really feel like the drunk, stripping woman driving over a drunk on the curb after he jumped out into the road; innocent men being vilified; and the gender wars are just being used to obfuscate at this point. More and more unrealistic scenarios and unusual, atypical incidents are being proffered seemingly as justification for rape as some kind of a mistake or misunderstanding or victims being responsible for what occurred to them because of their actions leading up to being raped.

 

[BritsKate]

We aren't talking about someone who is asleep or passed out. I've seen people stating that if people are drunk, it's illegal for them to have sex (or that they can't give consent). Presumably that should mean that if two tipsy people are having sex, both should be arrested and off to jail with them.

I think you've missed a few posts.

 

[sorrell skye]

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?

Driving under the influence (beyond the legal limit) is a criminal act. The intoxicated driver has broken the law, even if they don't cause harm to anyone. An intoxicated driver cannot 'give consent' to drive.

A rape victim who is sexually assaulted while incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs (therefore, unable to give valid consent) has not committed a crime - although there are those who seem to believe that she/he is at least partially to blame (a sentiment with which I disagree).

Each and every human being has the absolute right to ownership of their bodies. Each and every person has the absolute right to control what happens to their bodies. If that person experiences diminished capacity due to the effects of alcohol or drugs and is incapable of actively controlling what happens to their bodies, the law steps in and punishes those who take sexual advantage of them.

 

[Firefliezz21]

Driving under the influence (beyond the legal limit) is a criminal act. The intoxicated driver has broken the law, even if they don't cause harm to anyone. An intoxicated driver cannot 'give consent' to drive.

A rape victim who is sexually assaulted while incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs (therefore, unable to give valid consent) has not committed a crime - although there are those who seem to believe that she/he is at least partially to blame (a sentiment with which I disagree).

Each and every human being has the absolute right to ownership of their bodies. Each and every person has the absolute right to control what happens to their bodies. If that person experiences diminished capacity due to the effects of alcohol or drugs and is incapable of actively controlling what happens to their bodies, the law steps in and punishes those who take sexual advantage of them.

I agree. Anyone who is sexually assaulted while incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs is a victim of a crime. I think gender is irrelevant.

 

[sorrell skye]

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.

BBM

Yep - it's no different than saying "That filthy got what was coming to her."

Just because the message is couched in cunning language, anecdotal and/or hypothetical scenarios, irrelevant metaphors, or ambiguous analogies, doesn't mean that the underlying message is lost between the lines.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

We aren't talking about someone who is asleep or passed out. I've seen people stating that if people are drunk, it's illegal for them to have sex (or that they can't give consent). Presumably that should mean that if two tipsy people are having sex, both should be arrested and off to jail with them.

I'm confused on how legal consent works when both participants in sexual activity are inebriated by choice. If neither party can give legal consent, then who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. JMO.

 

[flourish]

Interesting article, dated today.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/danaher20150902

...we will probably learn that: (a) there is some value in allowing for some degree of intoxicated consent (from the perspective of positive sexual autonomy); (b) this value must be balanced against the potential harms of intoxicated sexual activity (including the likely ex post regret); and c) the appropriate standard is likely to vary depending on the potential marginal harm of the sexual encounter (where this is likely to be lower in the case of long-term partners than it is in the case of new ones).

 

[jjenny]

I'm confused on how legal consent works when both participants in sexual activity are inebriated by choice. If neither party can give legal consent, then who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. JMO.

Maybe they both should be arrested and charged with raping each other. And if they are students, shouldn't University be expelling both?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Maybe they both should be arrested and charged with raping each other. And if they are students, shouldn't University be expelling both?

I see what your saying. It doesn't seem to be a reasonable outcome though. Maybe there should be no punishment for anyone in a case like that. JMO.

 

[katydid23]

Oh please do tell me where you see that in my post! I was deliberately totally gender non-specific! Because I'm actually a domestic violence advocate intimately equipped with the knowledge that men too can be victims. If you look, you'll find the overwhelming majority of my posts phrased carefully regarding victims and perpetrators, unless citing a specific gender is more appropriate. You'll even find some attempting to educate others on male victims.

As for any university's assumptions, you'd be best off asking them to clarify their position.

I really feel like the drunk, stripping woman driving over a drunk on the curb after he jumped out into the road; innocent men being vilified; and the gender wars are just being used to obfuscate at this point. More and more unrealistic scenarios and unusual, atypical incidents are being proffered seemingly as justification for rape as some kind of a mistake or misunderstanding or victims being responsible for what occurred to them because of their actions leading up to being raped.

"More and more unrealistic scenarios and unusual, atypical incidents are being proffered seemingly as justification for rape as some kind of a mistake or misunderstanding or victims being responsible for what occurred to them because of their actions leading up to being raped."


My purpose in bringing some of these REAL cases to this forum is to show how some of these new so-called 'reforms' are negatively impacting innocent students by taking away their due process, expelling them, ruining their futures. I do not think it is fair to sacrifice the futures of some of the male students in order to make it easier for some others to be charged. It is not right, imo.

My father was a super liberal progressive and a defense attorney and civil rights advocate. One principle that he lived by was that he would rather see 10 guilty men go free in order to know that one innocent man would not be convicted. And he would be horrified if he saw how these rape 'tribunals' are being run. It surprises me how few here have any problems with it.

 

[Fairy1]

In that case, rape wasn't likely to have occurred at all. They got text messages from the woman to other people, in which she states that her roommate will know she wasn't an innocent bystander, man was very drunk, and that she is concerned that male's girlfriend (who is this woman's roommate) is going to find out she had sex with the man (nothing about being raped or forced into anything). She was actually advised by the person she texted to blame the male for the encounter (which she did a couple of years later when she complained to the University). Then she invited another man over, and had sex with him on the same night (also texting about it). Does University care? No, not at all. They refuse to reverse the expulsion. I think it's a very clear case of gender discrimination.

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.

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm confused on how legal consent works when both participants in sexual activity are inebriated by choice. If neither party can give legal consent, then who is the perpetrator and who is the victim. JMO.

In the above hypothetical scenario, if one of the parties files a report and charges are brought, it's up to a jury to decide (based upon evidence) if either party was sexually assaulted and/or if either party had been incapable of affirming consent.

In the absence of any further details and in the absence of any evidence in this hypothetical scenario, it's not possible to determine guilt or innocence.

If neither party files a report of alleged sexual assault, then there's obviously nothing law enforcement can do.

 

[katydid23]

BBM

Yep - it's no different than saying "That filthy got what was coming to her."

Just because the message is couched in cunning language, anecdotal and/or hypothetical scenarios, irrelevant metaphors, or ambiguous analogies, doesn't mean that the underlying message is lost between the lines.

I disagree. I think sometimes peoples choices and decisions can and DO set them up for being raped. It does not mean that they are responsible for the evil choice the rapist made. But as an analogy, if I moved a sex offender into my house with me, and I had young daughters, would my choices and poor decisions make me partially responsible if he assaulted my girls? I think so. We say that all of the time here when we see tragic cases like that.

My daughter moved into an apt. with 2 girls when she was a sophomore. They were seniors and she thought they were 'cool' but she didn't know them very well. It didn't take long for her to understand why the extra bedroom was empty. All she was told was the girl had moved out and broke her lease.

But she ended up moving out and breaking her lease too because the two seniors were in the dangerous habit of getting drunk in the local pubs, meeting brand new people and bringing them back to the apt. at 3 am. They didn't know the people at all, but would continue to drink and get high and sometimes pass out in the living room. Or wake up in bed with one of them and not remember how or why it happened. I am not going to pretend that those poor choices and bad decisions were not partially responsible for any bad things that may have happened. But they did not even know if they were raped because they didn't always remember if they consented or not. Obviously my daughter moved out pretty quickly.

If I found out they had been raped, I would never say ' those filthy had it coming to them.' Never ever would I say that. HOWEVER, I would say ' those two girls were making very irresponsible decisions and poor choices that led to those tragic consequences that could have been avoided. JMO