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

[sorrell skye]

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

Katy - please (I'm begging you) don't tell me that you equate a conscious decision for a mother to deliberately move a known sex offender into a household where her young children reside (and the sex offender then sexually assaults the children) to that of nonconsensual sex between two adults.

The two scenarios are NOT equal in any known universe.

Introducing bizarre hypothetical scenarios does nothing to move the conversation forward. If anything, it only serves to stall or derail the conversation.

I'm only left to shake my head that such a comparison would have even been proposed as a defense for nonconsensual sex between adults.

No defense attorney of ANY caliber would attempt such a lame analogical defense of an accused rapist.

 

[katydid23]

Katy - please (I'm begging you) don't tell me that you equate a conscious decision for a mother to deliberately move a known sex offender into a household where her young children reside (and the sex offender then sexually assaults the children) to that of nonconsensual sex between two adults.

The two scenarios are NOT equal in any known universe.

Introducing bizarre hypothetical scenarios does nothing to move the conversation forward. If anything, it only serves to stall or derail the conversation.

I'm only left to shake my head that such a comparison would have even been proposed as a defense for nonconsensual sex between adults.

No defense attorney of ANY caliber would attempt such a lame analogical defense of an accused rapist.

Let me see if I can explain it better--since I am tired.

I have seen many posts on many threads here , where angry ws-ers criticize women for allowing men that they barely know, to move in with them. And then tragic things happen that could have been avoided. Children are beaten or sexually assaulted---and we all scream " how could she let that man she barely knew move in with her kids?' We hold them accountable for those poor decisions. Women meet men online or in jail house 'forums' or at bars, and move them right in. Like Wesley Hadsell, for example. And we rant about the poor choices made and hold the women responsible for putting their kids in danger.

So how is that any different than holding a woman responsible for poor choices which put HERSELF in danger? Why is it not OK to say a woman should not meet a random stranger in a bar and bring him home alone with her to get drunk? If that stranger raped her child then we would criticize her and hold her accountable. But if he rapes HER then we say she had NO responsibility or accountability at all in the situation.

 

[katydid23]

Katy - please (I'm begging you) don't tell me that you equate a conscious decision for a mother to deliberately move a known sex offender into a household where her young children reside (and the sex offender then sexually assaults the children) to that of nonconsensual sex between two adults.

The two scenarios are NOT equal in any known universe.

Introducing bizarre hypothetical scenarios does nothing to move the conversation forward. If anything, it only serves to stall or derail the conversation.

I'm only left to shake my head that such a comparison would have even been proposed as a defense for nonconsensual sex between adults.

No defense attorney of ANY caliber would attempt such a lame analogical defense of an accused rapist.

Ok, for argument's sake, let me take the 'sex offender' part out of the equation. How about this analogy:

I go party in a bar and meet a couple guys and we buy some rum and come back to my house to hang out. IF one of them snuck into my kid's room while I was drunk, and assaulted them, wouldn't people hold me accountable for my poor choices that night? Wouldn't people say I was irresponsible for putting my child in such a dangerous/vulnerable situation?

So why wouldn't the same thing be said if I met a couple of guys in a bar, invited them over for more rum, and one or both assaulted me? Aren't I putting MYSELF in that same dangerous/vulnerable position? Why do I get criticized for putting my child in a vulnerable position but no one is 'allowed' to criticize me for putting myself in one?

 

[BritsKate]

Ok, for argument's sake, let me take the 'sex offender' part out of the equation. How about this analogy:

I go party in a bar and meet a couple guys and we buy some rum and come back to my house to hang out. IF one of them snuck into my kid's room while I was drunk, and assaulted them, wouldn't people hold me accountable for my poor choices that night? Wouldn't people say I was irresponsible for putting my child in such a dangerous/vulnerable situation?

So why wouldn't the same thing be said if I met a couple of guys in a bar, invited them over for more rum, and one or both assaulted me? Aren't I putting MYSELF in that same dangerous/vulnerable position? Why do I get criticized for putting my child in a vulnerable position but no one is 'allowed' to criticize me for putting myself in one?

The mother CHOSE to bring someone into their home. The child who is assaulted is a victim. A person who is raped is a victim. Both are victims of crimes perpetrated against them and neither chose to be a victim. Blaming a rape victim, which is exactly what these scenarios continue to do, for their own rape or the circumstances that contributed to them being raped takes the emphasis off the perpetrator and perpetuates the myth that it is a victim's responsibility to prevent their own rape. We would never blame that child who is assaulted for what he/she wore to bed that night or for perhaps climbing into their mother's bed after a nightmare. We would never suggest to that child perhaps had they behaved differently, they would not have been assaulted.

There is a huge difference between educating people on risk reduction and assigning culpability to crime victims for crimes perpetrated against them. Risky or irresponsible behaviors aren't a green light to be victimized. Risky or irresponsible behaviors don't make a crime less of a crime. Risky or irresponsible behaviors on the part of the victim should never lessen a criminal's culpability.

A lot of sober people get raped too. FWIW

ETA: In context of attributing responsibility to a rape victim, I think this is a more reasonable scenario to illustrate my point:

Mom's at work. Child invites a stranger into their home and is assaulted. The child engaged in risky and irresponsible behavior that ultimately led to his victimization. But the child did not choose to be victimized. The child simply, mistakenly, decided to invite a stranger in. The perpetrator chose to commit a crime. We would never tell that child he deserved to be assaulted for having made a mistake. We would never excuse the assailant's behavior on the basis that the child invited him in. We wouldn't discount the child's claims of being assaulted on the basis that he'd opened the door. We wouldn't not prosecute for the assault because the child had invited the perpetrator in. We would never justify an attack on a child, regardless of what that child did precipitating the assault.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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.

I'm trying to figure out if neither person could give legal consent because they were intoxicated who would be the guilty party.

Consent is the key. No consent means a crime has been committed.

If both participants are guilty of not getting legal consent before engaging in sexual activity who would be charged and how could a jury decide if one of them was sexually assaulted?

JMO

 

[kaen]

I think the question of consent is key as well. When does the clock stop on giving consent? There is that old hackneyed joke of "Don't. Stop. Don't stop. Stop. Don't." that has some truth in it. Drunk or not, poor judgment or not, if a person (any gender) gives consent and then revokes consent, the consent is considered withdrawn. We know there is a problem with drinking and consent as inhibitions decrease and cogent thinking decrease. But, our standard is consent can be revoked. This is very difficult for males predominantly because they are often the people accused of non-consensual acts.

We do not have effective alcohol, drug and sexuality curriculums (at home or school) in place for many young people. So, they get to college and they learn on the fly.

( I am oldish.) I remember young upperclassmen who loved living in the freshman and sophomore dorms because of the "fresh meat" opportunities. They did not hang a banner but their intentions were pretty clear soon after the move-in day. More savvy young women avoided them but the mixture of alcohol, liking the attention, and wanting to explore sexually was enticing to many. Consent was a blurred issue. Many young women in my college were humiliated and probably did not fully understand that they had the right to decline after an encounter had begun. Hopefully, colleges have begun an more intense educational plan to spare more students from these situations.

These banners highlight an atmosphere that lives on for a segment of the college population. The public hanging of the banners proves that some in our colleges think that this kind of interaction is welcome and attractive regardless of whether or not a sexual encounter occurs. Who do they they think supports this kind of thinking? Who feels so emboldened by their prowess that they offer the opportunity to someone's mom? I am not inferring that an approach to a co-ed is more acceptable than to a co-ed's mother but somehow these young men have an impression that stating loud and proud that they are inviting sex with daughters and moms is something that some segment of the population will support. Is this an extension of how they do business everyday?

To add being drunk and consent to the discussion blurs a line and makes it harder for (the usually accused) young men to understand that consent can be withdrawn up to the moment of penetration or any action that may be offensive or unwanted. As a parent of a college age male, we have had these conversations again and again-- not because I want to paint a potential partner as evil, irresponsible or underhanded but, because I recognize that alcohol, drugs, and sex can be a bad mix and a potential legal issue. If I am not talking to my child about consent and the nuances of how it can be withdrawn, who is?

OF course, I would love to believe that my kids will wait until marriage or only engage in sex with partners they know well and have had clarifying conversations with but I cannot be sure on any front so education seems to be the best I can do. Then, my child has to make the decisions (with me at home hoping he makes the right ones).

 

[kaen]

[/QUOTE]ETA: In context of attributing responsibility to a rape victim, I think this is a more reasonable scenario to illustrate my point:

Mom's at work. Child invites a stranger into their home and is assaulted. The child engaged in risky and irresponsible behavior that ultimately led to his victimization. But the child did not choose to be victimized. The child simply, mistakenly, decided to invite a stranger in. The perpetrator chose to commit a crime. We would never tell that child he deserved to be assaulted for having made a mistake. We would never excuse the assailant's behavior on the basis that the child invited him in. We wouldn't discount the child's claims of being assaulted on the basis that he'd opened the door. We wouldn't not prosecute for the assault because the child had invited the perpetrator in. We would never justify an attack on a child, regardless of what that child did precipitating the assault.[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your post, I want to point out a nuance that concerns me. When we use child analogies to discuss consent, I am always uncomfortable because it can be misconstrued that a consenting/unconsenting adult may be seen as child-like. (Not saying that this is what you want to illuminate in the example.) In case outlined, regardless of the child's actions, the child cannot consent. I agree that we should not or would not accuse the child of being responsible in any way.

I cannot think of a scenario where I would not be outraged if a parent/guardian put their child at risk by bringing home a person and not protecting the child. But, this scenario is marked different than date rape or two drunk college students.

With more than one impaired adult situations, it is important to recognize that penetration, oral copulation, or any other act upon a person cannot be consented to. It seems that this must be the line in the sand even though (to some) it feels stilted toward the victim who may have made poor choices.

 

[AliceInPain]

Let me see if I can explain it better--since I am tired.

I have seen many posts on many threads here , where angry ws-ers criticize women for allowing men that they barely know, to move in with them. And then tragic things happen that could have been avoided. Children are beaten or sexually assaulted---and we all scream " how could she let that man she barely knew move in with her kids?' We hold them accountable for those poor decisions. Women meet men online or in jail house 'forums' or at bars, and move them right in. Like Wesley Hadsell, for example. And we rant about the poor choices made and hold the women responsible for putting their kids in danger.

So how is that any different than holding a woman responsible for poor choices which put HERSELF in danger? Why is it not OK to say a woman should not meet a random stranger in a bar and bring him home alone with her to get drunk? If that stranger raped her child then we would criticize her and hold her accountable. But if he rapes HER then we say she had NO responsibility or accountability at all in the situation.

GREAT post. I totally 100% agree with you.

 

[Donjeta]

One distinction between the "college girl gets drunk with college guys and gets raped" and the "mom brings a known child molester to the home and child gets abused" scenarios I see, is that it's not a crime to drink alcohol with the opposite sex and normally you couldn't be prosecuted for putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

But child neglect is a crime and occasionally parents do get in trouble if they knowingly put their kids in dangerous situations and fail in their duty to protect and create good living conditions for their child.

So if your choice of violent boyfriends puts your children in danger I will feel more justified in assigning part of the blame to you. The boyfriend is still solely responsible for the assault on the child (if he did it alone) but if you know that he has done it before or might be a danger to your child you might get some sideways glances for being a reckless mother who puts her good-for-nothing boyfriend before her children.

 

[Zuri]

These frat signs have been displayed on freshman drop off days for years at many colleges and universities. I remember them at Vanderbilt in 1975. Our culture has changed a lot since then and it is not exactly "PC" to display them. But I did smile when I saw the banner about dropping the moms off too. No stones please!

 

[TorisMom003]

So if a female is partly to blame (in the eyes of some) because she put herself in a situation where she could possibly be raped, isn't a male that does the same actions partly to blame when (if) he is accused of rape? If a male goes to a bar/party/whatever, gets drunk, meets a female he doesn't and/or barely knows, takes her to his place or goes back to hers, has sex with her.....isn't he partly responsible if she accuses him later of rape? Or does he get a pass because he is a male and can't control his urges? Shouldn't males be taught (along with females) to not have sex with someone that they are not in a committed relationship with? After all the risks far outweigh the benefits of it. There are possible STD's, unwanted pregnancies, being accused of rape, being expelled from college, prison time, etc. So if the males know that all of those are possible then why risk it? Is risky behavior ok for males but not for females?

 

[Elley Mae]

These frat signs have been displayed on freshman drop off days for years at many colleges and universities. I remember them at Vanderbilt in 1975. Our culture has changed a lot since then and it is not exactly "PC" to display them. But I did smile when I saw the banner about dropping the moms off too. No stones please!

No stones here, I'm still smiling about it. jmo idk

 

[katydid23]

One distinction between the "college girl gets drunk with college guys and gets raped" and the "mom brings a known child molester to the home and child gets abused" scenarios I see, is that it's not a crime to drink alcohol with the opposite sex and normally you couldn't be prosecuted for putting yourself in a dangerous situation.

But child neglect is a crime and occasionally parents do get in trouble if they knowingly put their kids in dangerous situations and fail in their duty to protect and create good living conditions for their child.

So if your choice of violent boyfriends puts your children in danger I will feel more justified in assigning part of the blame to you. The boyfriend is still solely responsible for the assault on the child (if he did it alone) but if you know that he has done it before or might be a danger to your child you might get some sideways glances for being a reckless mother who puts her good-for-nothing boyfriend before her children.

It is a crime to drink alcohol if you are a freshman in college [ in most states.] So the distinction of breaking a law vs not breaking a law is not always present.

But my point is WHY do we partially blame someone for putting their child in danger but if the same actions put them in danger, we assign no blame whatsoever?

 

[katydid23]

So if a female is partly to blame (in the eyes of some) because she put herself in a situation where she could possibly be raped, isn't a male that does the same actions partly to blame when (if) he is accused of rape? If a male goes to a bar/party/whatever, gets drunk, meets a female he doesn't and/or barely knows, takes her to his place or goes back to hers, has sex with her.....isn't he partly responsible if she accuses him later of rape? Or does he get a pass because he is a male and can't control his urges? Shouldn't males be taught (along with females) to not have sex with someone that they are not in a committed relationship with? After all the risks far outweigh the benefits of it. There are possible STD's, unwanted pregnancies, being accused of rape, being expelled from college, prison time, etc. So if the males know that all of those are possible then why risk it? Is risky behavior ok for males but not for females?

Of course, in many cases the male that is falsely accused should be partially to blame for the poor choices that set up the situation. Absolutely. Risky behavior is fraught with danger for all genders. And voluntarily getting drunk with strangers leaves both genders vulnerable in many ways.

My complaint is the way we are all bending over backwards to say that it is NEVER EVER OK to criticize a rape victim's actions.

 

[Donjeta]

It is a crime to drink alcohol if you are a freshman in college [ in most states.] So the distinction of breaking a law vs not breaking a law is not always present.

But my point is WHY do we partially blame someone for putting their child in danger but if the same actions put them in danger, we assign no blame whatsoever?

Well but that is not true, is it? Victims get blamed a lot, in the real world.

 

[kimlynn]

So if a female is partly to blame (in the eyes of some) because she put herself in a situation where she could possibly be raped, isn't a male that does the same actions partly to blame when (if) he is accused of rape? If a male goes to a bar/party/whatever, gets drunk, meets a female he doesn't and/or barely knows, takes her to his place or goes back to hers, has sex with her.....isn't he partly responsible if she accuses him later of rape? Or does he get a pass because he is a male and can't control his urges? Shouldn't males be taught (along with females) to not have sex with someone that they are not in a committed relationship with? After all the risks far outweigh the benefits of it. There are possible STD's, unwanted pregnancies, being accused of rape, being expelled from college, prison time, etc. So if the males know that all of those are possible then why risk it? Is risky behavior ok for males but not for females?

I think as long as some (not you TorisMom003) buy into the belief that males are unable to control their urges we will have others saying that females acted in some manner that caused them to be raped.
No means no. It is as simple as that.
It doesn't matter if one had drinks,wore a certain outfit .... and whatever else can be made up as an excuse. IMO

 

[Donjeta]

Of course, in many cases the male that is falsely accused should be partially to blame for the poor choices that set up the situation. Absolutely. Risky behavior is fraught with danger for all genders. And voluntarily getting drunk with strangers leaves both genders vulnerable in many ways.

My complaint is the way we are all bending over backwards to say that it is NEVER EVER OK to criticize a rape victim's actions.

JMO there's a fine line, but a real line, between saying some behaviors and choices increase your risk of being a victim of crime, and saying that if you did X you're responsible for your own rape, or assault, or whatever crime.

The first I've said many times and it's a common sense thing really. People need to be aware of the things they can do to protect themselves.

Some things you do make you more vulnerable. If you're passing out drunk in the middle of the street your risk of being raped, robbed, dying in a traffic accident, dying of exposure, etc. is probably bigger than if you're walking there sober.

The second is victim blaming and minimizes, decreases or eliminates the responsibility of the perp for his or her own actions.

 

[katydid23]

The mother CHOSE to bring someone into their home. The child who is assaulted is a victim. A person who is raped is a victim. Both are victims of crimes perpetrated against them and neither chose to be a victim. Blaming a rape victim, which is exactly what these scenarios continue to do, for their own rape or the circumstances that contributed to them being raped takes the emphasis off the perpetrator and perpetuates the myth that it is a victim's responsibility to prevent their own rape. We would never blame that child who is assaulted for what he/she wore to bed that night or for perhaps climbing into their mother's bed after a nightmare. We would never suggest to that child perhaps had they behaved differently, they would not have been assaulted.

There is a huge difference between educating people on risk reduction and assigning culpability to crime victims for crimes perpetrated against them. Risky or irresponsible behaviors aren't a green light to be victimized. Risky or irresponsible behaviors don't make a crime less of a crime. Risky or irresponsible behaviors on the part of the victim should never lessen a criminal's culpability.

A lot of sober people get raped too. FWIW

ETA: In context of attributing responsibility to a rape victim, I think this is a more reasonable scenario to illustrate my point:

Mom's at work. Child invites a stranger into their home and is assaulted. The child engaged in risky and irresponsible behavior that ultimately led to his victimization. But the child did not choose to be victimized. The child simply, mistakenly, decided to invite a stranger in. The perpetrator chose to commit a crime. We would never tell that child he deserved to be assaulted for having made a mistake. We would never excuse the assailant's behavior on the basis that the child invited him in. We wouldn't discount the child's claims of being assaulted on the basis that he'd opened the door. We wouldn't not prosecute for the assault because the child had invited the perpetrator in. We would never justify an attack on a child, regardless of what that child did precipitating the assault.

Of course we would not blame the child for the rape. But wouldn't we assign partial blame to the mother if she brought two drunk strangers into her home? I certainly would. I would say that she should have done more to protect her vulnerable daughter and it was reckless behavior to bring drunk strangers into her home at night, when she is drunk as well.

If the same exact situation happens but the mom is the rape victim, then none of that criticism is allowed. We have to say that it is all on the drunk men and she holds no responsibility for her irresponsible and reckless behavior. We are turning women into infantile, helpless victims by taking away ALL of their accountability, IMO. Why do we hold women responsible to protect their vulnerable children but not themselves?

 

[TorisMom003]

Of course, in many cases the male that is falsely accused should be partially to blame for the poor choices that set up the situation. Absolutely. Risky behavior is fraught with danger for all genders. And voluntarily getting drunk with strangers leaves both genders vulnerable in many ways.

My complaint is the way we are all bending over backwards to say that it is NEVER EVER OK to criticize a rape victim's actions.

To criticize a rape victim's actions is one thing. To assign blame to the rape victim is another. How many cases has a rape victim been on the stand and accused by the defense to have "asked for it" by the way they dressed, were drunk, whatever stupid excuse they can come up with? It's one thing to say that it was unwise for a rape victim to make the choices they did that put them in a position that someone took advantage of it/them. It's another to say that they are to blame, as much as the rapist is, for them being raped. I don't like the idea of assigning blame to the victim at all. The rapist is the one that was the aggressor, the one that committed the crime. This is one of the biggest reasons why so many rapes (against males AND females) go unreported. The victim knows that they will be blamed. And that practice has to stop, IMO.

MOO

 

[katydid23]

To criticize a rape victim's actions is one thing. To assign blame to the rape victim is another. How many cases has a rape victim been on the stand and accused by the defense to have "asked for it" by the way they dressed, were drunk, whatever stupid excuse they can come up with? It's one thing to say that it was unwise for a rape victim to make the choices they did that put them in a position that someone took advantage of it/them. It's another to say that they are to blame, as much as the rapist is, for them being raped. I don't like the idea of assigning blame to the victim at all. The rapist is the one that was the aggressor, the one that committed the crime. This is one of the biggest reasons why so many rapes (against males AND females) go unreported. The victim knows that they will be blamed. And that practice has to stop, IMO.

MOO

We allegedly have a huge surge of sexual assaults on our campuses. At the same time, we have adopted a stance that we will never criticize reckless or irresponsible behavior of the potential rape victims. We put it all on the males and none on the females. And then we go an extra step and take due process away from the accused, since people are not always believing the accusers. I think it is the wrong direction to go in.

Why can't we say ' YES, I should not have gotten drunk with a stranger and gone into his room alone, but the rape is his fault, not mine. " But we want to say " it is totally fine to get drunk with a total stranger and go into his bedroom alone with him, no problem there, do it as much as you want because you have no accountability or responsibility in this situation. ' Blaming the victim is wrong. But I think some criticism is sometimes warranted. But in the 'rape culture' criticism of the victims is NEVER allowed.

I think it is wrong to teach that philosophy to our young women.