the young man should hire a lawyer; he should settle out of court for 18million...he should have sued long ago...
The Triggering wrote:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/I'm also reading about how consent can be retroactively taken back if the victim feels just so.
Rojo really dumb wrote:
I’m a guy and I realize how stupid this article is. Also how stupid rojo must be to make this statement. My god I hope none of the letsrun creators have procreated because it is embarrassing how you act on this site. Absolute ignorance at it’s finest.
Out of curiosity, what is dumb about this article? It's a story, do you have any insights as to what makes it dumb? Or are you hoping that by your all-mighty power of labeling it dumb you can win the internet?
I'm going to add some context as to why I posted this rather than just post the article and take jabs.
First off, I'm not thinking of this in terms of 'guys vs girls: who's right?' - there are bad people on both ends of this debate and there are good people that make poor decisions for good or bad reasons on both sides. I think it's important to distinguish actual predators and bad guys from run of the mill drunken youths and clearly this is one example of two run of the mill drunken youths who are both probably good people making poor decisions. Where I begin to find things problematic is when one of them (who engaged in the exact same behavior) is punished, while the other is coddled and treated as a victim.
We all know this is due to a witch-hunting agenda on the part of female activist groups. In theory, I agree with the idea of bringing this to light as it serves to punish predators and criminals, but the implementation has been a disaster and only operates as a one-sided advocacy for females, which, at the same time demonizes males who dare to hook up at parties. I've been in and witnessed this debate enough times to foresee the 'you're just defending yourself because you're a rapist too' claims, so I'll admit I've had sex with one stranger i my life - in college, I was very drunk and she was sober - by every definition being thrown around today I was 'raped' but I have enough of a mind to know that that was not the case. Every other sexual experience I've had has been in a long-term relationship, sober or not. And to the posters astute enough to be 'fearful' that I won't teach my son to not engage in risky behavior, a heartfelt thanks for the words of wisdom, however, I live in reality and I know that no matter how well someone is brought up, there's always the possibility of teenage hormones and alcohol over-riding any parenting and good nature.
But more to the point. This isn't 'guys vs girls' and to me it's not even really necessarily about rape. It's about logic and how we're moving away from it and towards emotion in our decision making. Logic tells me that we send our teenagers away from home, opportunities open up, mistakes are made and (hopefully) we walk away from that a more knowledgeable person. But what's happening is our emotional side is taking over (we can be honest here, women are more likely to think emotionally rather than logically) and we have this non-insignificant portion of the population who feel bad after something happens and need to be told that they are victims. This is being reinforced and *poof* now we have a population that doesn't understand personal accountability. We're treating them with kid gloves, giving them the wheel and saying 'go to a party where you know what the premise is, and expect to feel good about yourself in the morning regardless of what decisions you made during the night'. If that doesn't happen, it's game on for the rape claim - regardless of whether the person on the other end was an actual predator.
In something like a murder case, a jury has to be convinced that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the same should hold for rape, but that's not where we are today.
I think both parties need to be held accountable to the same degree and if they are both equally as foolish in their decision-making, they can both learn something and move on.
I found an update. As of May, the guys court case against Occidental hadn't been ruled on:
http://helpsaveoursons.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/20170324-PT-Opening-Brief-FILED-4.pdf
If anything has happened sense then, the following website which is solely devoted to helping men accused of these type of crimes will have info:
http://helpsaveoursons.com/occidental-will-john-doe-finally-get-his-day-in-court/
rojo wrote:
The Triggering wrote:Okey dokey, you're incapable of reading for 20 minutes at a time.
Paraphrase
2 freshmen - boy and girl get drunk on campus separately.
They meet up in the dorms.
She is sexually aggressive with him in his dorm, and leaves.
They text, she asks if he has a condom, he tells her yes and to come back.
She fellates him.
They have sex.
Neither remember much.
She regrets it but is normal with him afterwards.
Until...
She meets with an activist group that convinces her she was raped.
She files against him.
He gets expelled.
He tries to enroll at another school but an 'anonymous tip' at the new school prevents him from enrolling.
Should I dumb it down any more for you?
My goodness. Terrible.
I have a liberal friend who while a victim of sexual assault herself, thinks cases like this are absurd. It's gone so far in one direction that she said she told me she is going to have a talk with her son when he goes out to college about sex - warning him about false allegations. I guess it's the white version of the talk many black parents have with their kids about aggressive policing.
Her advice - don't have sex with an you you don't know.
The thing I don't get from a legal perspective is why if two drunk people have sex, the man is viewed as the aggressor. In this case, she asked him to come back.
Under the logic of anything that happens while intoxicated is a crime, it seems if both are drunk and men and women are viewed as truly equals they both should be charged with a crime as they are both raping the other as neither can consent.
By only charging the man, aren't you buying into old fashioned stereotypes.
Good lord, you are illiterate. Please stop posting, as it harms the Ivy League reputation.
May assumption is this girl was no virgin to to *ick or alcohol. I'm sure she doesn't get much these days.
**** My assumption is this girl was no virgin to *ick or alcohol.
**** My assumption is this girl was no virgin to *ick or alcohol.
Whoever made the surgeon example is an idiot. That's not how the law works.
A better example is drunk driving. You can't drive drunk and claim that you were too drunk to know it was not okay to drive. Similarly, if you are actively participating in sex, that is consent, drunk or not.
crazzzy rop wrote:
Whoever made the surgeon example is an idiot. That's not how the law works.
A better example is drunk driving. You can't drive drunk and claim that you were too drunk to know it was not okay to drive. Similarly, if you are actively participating in sex, that is consent, drunk or not.
It's more paradoxical than that:
If you are drunk enough, you can't consent to sex, which makes it rape for someone to have sex with you. However, if you are charged with a crime like rape, voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
So if you have two equally drunk people who have sex, and one of them is accused of rape, the person accused of rape can't use intoxication as a defense, while the "victim" could not consent because the "victim" was intoxicated, thereby making it rape. So the outcome depends on which person is accused of rape and which person is defined as the "victim."
paradoxical wrote:
crazzzy rop wrote:Whoever made the surgeon example is an idiot. That's not how the law works.
A better example is drunk driving. You can't drive drunk and claim that you were too drunk to know it was not okay to drive. Similarly, if you are actively participating in sex, that is consent, drunk or not.
It's more paradoxical than that:
If you are drunk enough, you can't consent to sex, which makes it rape for someone to have sex with you. However, if you are charged with a crime like rape, voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
So if you have two equally drunk people who have sex, and one of them is accused of rape, the person accused of rape can't use intoxication as a defense, while the "victim" could not consent because the "victim" was intoxicated, thereby making it rape. So the outcome depends on which person is accused of rape and which person is defined as the "victim."
Answer: Consent forms. Or accuse everyone you sleep with of assault.
paradoxical wrote:
crazzzy rop wrote:Whoever made the surgeon example is an idiot. That's not how the law works.
A better example is drunk driving. You can't drive drunk and claim that you were too drunk to know it was not okay to drive. Similarly, if you are actively participating in sex, that is consent, drunk or not.
It's more paradoxical than that:
If you are drunk enough, you can't consent to sex, which makes it rape for someone to have sex with you. However, if you are charged with a crime like rape, voluntary intoxication is not a defense.
So if you have two equally drunk people who have sex, and one of them is accused of rape, the person accused of rape can't use intoxication as a defense, while the "victim" could not consent because the "victim" was intoxicated, thereby making it rape. So the outcome depends on which person is accused of rape and which person is defined as the "victim."
That's nuts. In your idea whoever cries rape first wins. If you are going to float something that stupid, at least be creative and say the person on bottom is the victim.
The Triggering wrote:
Okey dokey, you're incapable of reading for 20 minutes at a time.
Paraphrase
2 freshmen - boy and girl get drunk on campus separately.
They meet up in the dorms.
She is sexually aggressive with him in his dorm, and leaves.
They text, she asks if he has a condom, he tells her yes and to come back.
She fellates him.
They have sex.
Neither remember much.
She regrets it but is normal with him afterwards.
Until...
She meets with an activist group that convinces her she was raped.
She files against him.
He gets expelled.
He tries to enroll at another school but an 'anonymous tip' at the new school prevents him from enrolling.
Should I dumb it down any more for you?
Nope, thats perfect. Wish they'd written it this way from the start.
Situations like this don't not help women, it hurts them, it makes women seem weak. The law in some states makes it as simple as having sex under the influence of alcohol and deciding it was rape. If that's the case, why can't this young man also say he was raped since he was also under the influence of alcohol?
I am not an academic. I am a person with an education who can read with an open mind. I stated that colleges are forced into arbitrating something they are not equipped to handle and really should be part of the justice system. That does not mean the education is bad. You say they are meddling where they don't belong (same as me, but more angry) and draw the conclusion that education is bad because they are doing it badly and poising young minds. Thank you for backing up my argument that many are drawing a conclusion that is not supported by the story.
Noppppe wrote:
Apparently you are an academic, one who can either (1) not read, or (2) prefer to ignore the salient issues being discussed. Universities, and the academics that run them, are at the core of EVERYTHING being discussed in this thread, nitwit.
Please read the article linked by the OP, then read through the comments again, and if you have something interesting to post, have at it. To post comments to the effect that posters aren't being nice enough to academics is so off point that I believe you didn't read the article at all.
All of the above tells me that you are probably an academic. If you are an academic and aren't aware of the Title IX kangaroo courts taking place on your campus, get your head out of your anus and do something about it.
ShockedAndAwed wrote:The conclusions that people have made about academics based on some systemic issues in the peripherals of college education are shocking. This article brings to light some issues about people in a situation where the College is involved but has absolutely nothing to do with college education. However, people here are saying that they HATE higher education, liberals, yada, yada.
Take a step back. Rape is a crime and should be handled by the justice system, not the college. However, their rules have forced them into it and they are ill equipped to do it. That does not make education evil.
You may believe that education is ruining America. That is a very strange idea, but it is fine for you to believe it. But please use some critical thinking skills to understand that Rape (alleged or otherwise) on campus is not a statement about the education of a school or even the liberal or conservative attitude of the school. It is about 2 people and the law. Way too much other stuff is being projected onto this.
rojo wrote:
ShockedAndAwed wrote:The conclusions that people have made about academics based on some systemic issues in the peripherals of college education are shocking. This article brings to light some issues about people in a situation where the College is involved but has absolutely nothing to do with college education. However, people here are saying that they HATE higher education, liberals, yada, yada.
Take a step back. Rape is a crime and should be handled by the justice system, not the college. However, their rules have forced them into it and they are ill equipped to do it. That does not make education evil.
You may believe that education is ruining America. That is a very strange idea, but it is fine for you to believe it. But please use some critical thinking skills to understand that Rape (alleged or otherwise) on campus is not a statement about the education of a school or even the liberal or conservative attitude of the school. It is about 2 people and the law. Way too much other stuff is being projected onto this.
i 100% agree but what you are forgetting here is the guy was equally intoxicated. He was so drunk he was sent home from his own event.
The fact that only the man is charged is actually very sexist.
Rojo, if the guy was so drunk, how did he achieve an erection AKA brewer's droop.
Also, how much college sex occurs WITHOUT alcohol involved?
From just reading the OPs subject line, I thought it meant he doesn't want to be a grandparent.
You'll miss out on a lot of fun, young fella, spoiling them and having no responsibilities. Don't know about the sex part. Back in my day we waited till we got married. If some whore got knocked up, she was the focus of town gossip until she moved away.
Technically wrote:
The Triggering wrote:http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/I'm also reading about how consent can be retroactively taken back if the victim feels just so.
I can understand your frustration and confusion however, consent cannot be granted if alcohol and drugs are involved. There are literally apps that were made to allow individuals to grant consent while sober in the event of drinking/drugs are used later.
The law is clear on this, when someone is under the influence, consent cannot be granted.
This post is complete bullshit and not true, legally speaking. Drunk women CAN consent to sex. The only reason this guy got in trouble is that it was a process that had nothing to do with the justice system, but rather a university with its own policies and procedures.
Again, bullshit. This is not "how the law is written". You just made that up or repeated some crap you heard. Please cite the law that says a drunk woman cannot consent to sex.
Do you also think that drunk people can get all their money back from the casino because they couldn't legally consent to gambling?
Generally the laws pertaining to consent state that as long as a woman (or man) is conscious, she can consent. All this bullshit making the water muddy is college rules and guidelines and has absolutely nothing to do with the law or the justice system.
Fortunately, more and more people are becoming aware of the absurdity of the situation and are suing colleges for this type of shit.
More bullshit. If you are conscious, you can consent to sex. Intoxication does not legally remove one's ability to consent.
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Jakob Ingebrigtsen has a 1989 Ferrari 348 GTB and he's just put in paperwork to upgrade it
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these