Where are you getting this “meet the needs of women” idea? Did women not “need” a voice in leadership, or an education, or their choice of husband, or the right to own property, or any of the other things they were denied until modern times?
You can look at such a case in the post directly above yours. Link.
I have a question for you. If a man, in a high-profile public setting - such as the Gloria Awards and Gala, hosted by the Ms. Foundation for Women - admitted to having, or trying to have sex, with a passing-out drunk woman, in college, would their be enough pitchforks in the world for such a man?
What??
I said I haven’t heard of a case where a man is passively laying on the bed etc and yet is called a rapist by feminists.
You responded by pointing to a case where a woman is passively laying on the bed etc.
Your response is completely unresponsive to my point.
You are aggravated that Schumer isn’t called a rapist, because you believe feminists would call a man in her situation a rapist. So I assume you know of cases where men in her situation are called rapists. I outlined what that would take. Again, it needs to be a case where a man is laying passively on a bed while a woman tries to manually stimulate him, go down on him, and have sex with him, and where the man is looking for an opportunity to exit gracefully the entire time. And for your point to have any support, feminists would need to be calling the man a rapist in this case.
Where is such a case? If there are no such cases, then your impression of how feminists react to such cases is shown to be without support.
There’s two videos: a short clip, and a longer one. The longer one is better. The short one starts about half-way through the confrontation.
From way back at Post #130:
And again at Post #263:
Over in that thread about the new NY affirmative-consent law, there was a cite to such a case, or at least something similar, at Post #53. Here is the link again:
Amherst Student Was Expelled for Rape. But He Was Raped, Evidence Shows.
TL;DR: Dude blacked out. (article didn’t exactly say why. Drunk?) Female person (girlfriend? Casual pick-up?) sucks his dick, decides immediately afterward that she regrets doing that. Two years later, accuses him of sexual assault in the incident. Amherst tribunal, described as “Kafkaesque”, expels him. Lawsuit ensues.
Article in turn links to Washington Examiner article: Man receives sex act while blacked out, gets accused of sexual assault.
Are people using “blacked out” to mean “passed out”? “Blacked out” in my vernacular is “I don’t remember” not “I was unconscious.”
The Examiner article seems to say that he was “blacked out” in the sense of being a walking zombie. It seems that he “blacked out” after heavy drinking, and then accompanied the female to her dorm room, in that order. Then, while he was still in a zomboid “blacked out” state, she sucked his dick, then she immediately decided she regretted it and texted a friend to say so. I suppose one can debate whether that counts as being conscious, but he was fairly obviously in no condition to give consent.
Is there a source that isn’t making this very important and significant error? Because “blacking out” doesn’t mean being a zombie-ish person. It means you don’t remember what happened. It’s a very important, actually crucial, distinction.
Not sure. I don’t think either of the sources I linked mention if he does or doesn’t remember anything about it.
You may be focusing on a point that you think is very important, that is different from the point I am focusing on that I think is very important. It sounds to me like you are questioning whether he had any case to make a sexual assault complaint against her.
But note: He didn’t make any accusation against her. Maybe he didn’t know. Maybe he didn’t care. Maybe he remembered it and enjoyed it and even after the fact had no interest at all in making a sexual assault complaint against her.
The outrage in those articles, however, was that she seems to have initiated and performed a sex act on him, while he was in no condition to consent, and then furthermore she accused him of sexual assault, and furthermore that Amherst found in her favor and against him because, … well, just because, I guess.
Well, yes, I’m focusing on the point that if the article cannot distinguish between “I was fully conscious but I don’t remember” and “I was unconscious” that maybe, just maybe, the article is incredibly inaccurate.
Blacking out is not a defense. You appear to be using it as a defense. The article appears to be using it as a defense. Blacking out means the person does not remember; it has nothing to do with whether they did what they are accused of doing.
He reports that he doesn’t remember anything. She reports that he wouldn’t take no for an answer after she initially started things but then withdrew. This is definitely not a case where feminists (or anyone else) characterize him as a passive recipient of a woman’s sexual advances who is, by virtue of that interaction, a rapist.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the logic of the argument here. You guys are not producing relevant examples. Explaining again:
LinusK says Amy Schumer should be called a rapist by feminists because:
-
A drunk man had sex with her while she laid there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out of the situation without trouble, AND
-
If feminists believed a drunk woman had sex with a man while the man lay there waiting for either it to be over or for an opportunity to get out the situation without trouble, THEN feminists would call the man in that situation a rapist AND
-
Feminism claims to be about equal treatment of the sexes.
I asked him for examples to support premise 2, because without examples, I don’t see why it should be believed, by him or anyone else.
He just pointed back to the Schumer case, bizarrely.
You’re making a similar mistake, I think. The example you adduced doesn’t give support for the second premise above, because the genders are not correct (what we need is an example of a drunk woman as the active partner–yours has a drunk man as the active partner), and because anyone calling the man a rapist (feminist or no) is doing so because they believe the woman when she says he was making advances towards her which she had verbally refused. In other words, they don’t believe this is a case where a drunk woman had sex with a man while he lay there passively waiting for it to be over etc.
“Blacked out” is the term used by the college itself in its affirmative defense standard:
But that is not the crucial point. There were text messages by the accuser to a friend where she admits it was consensual, and her main concern was her roommate finding out (the accused was her roommate’s boyfriend). She never told the college about them, and they weren’t discovered until the accused filed a suit against the college:
There are links to the actual transcript and texts if you doubt the accuracy of this summary.
This seems to be a non-sequitur here. If he had initiated and committed a sexual assault against her then fer sure being blacked-out (as you define it, if in fact that was the case) would be no defense.
But his supposed defense here is not that he was blacked out while assaulting her. His defense is that he never assaulted her at all, and in fact she assaulted him. The fact that he was blacked out means he was incapable of consent, meaning that she was the one who had no defense. In fact, consider several alternative scenarios:
[ul][li] Suppose he was flat out unconscious.[/li][li] Suppose he was in some semi-conscious zomboid state, and doesn’t remember anything.[/li][li] Suppose he was in some semi-conscious zomboid state, and does remember everything.[/ul][/li]Regardless of which of these cases may have been so, the stated facts remain that he was in no shape to consent, and that she initiated the sex activity, and thus she is the one who committed sexual assault. And furthermore, that she then accused him of sexual assault, which certainly isn’t supported by the facts as stated. And the college accepted her complaint and expelled him.
Suppose, even, that however drunk he was, he was conscious, had a rollicking good time, remembered everything, and never regretted it afterward. She is still guilty of assault (because he wasn’t able to consent), although he would never have lodged a complaint against her. In fact, it appears that, whatever the scenario was, he didn’t lodge a complaint against her. Still, even in this scenario, what possible logic would allow her to accuse him of sexual assault?
(To be sure, discussions like this must always include the disclaimer that we can only work with the information given in the article. And, just like in so many other RO news articles that get discussed on this board, where some outrageous thing happened, we might wonder if we are getting the whole story. But this case seems to vindicate the cynical view that, in any claim of sexual assault, regardless of who did what to whom, the male participant is always unconditionally guilty, and the female participant is always unconditionally the [del]victim[/del] survivor.)
It was consensual–at first. Then, (she says,) she withdrew her consent but he kept going.
If I’m reading this right, you seem to not be disputing the Recreational Outrageousness of the Amherst case that I’ve pointed out here, but rather, you are simply disputing that it has much relevance to the Schumer argument. Is that right?
Also, I didn’t see where either article I linked said anything about him saying he didn’t remember anything. (Maybe I missed that? I’ll read them again . . . ) And I sure don’t remember anything about her starting (in which case, her assault on him is already done) then trying to stop and him not letting her. And what does it mean that he “wouldn’t take no for an answer”? Did he somehow forcibly compel her to continue? If the genders had been reversed, then the male participant would certainly have been guilty of outright rape. But given that the genders were as they were … the male participant is guilty of outright rape? :smack:
Anyway, what is your source for all these new facts? I don’t think they were in the articles I linked (although I’ll re-read to be sure). I haven’t read the cite that camille linked yet, although I note that her post came after your post so I can’t assume that was your source.
Now exqueeze me for a few minutes while I go do some re-reading . . .
ETA: Just saw your last post which was simulposted with the above:
Again, if she’s sucking his dick, how can it be that he kept going? She withdrew her own consent but kept sucking his dick anyway? Did he coerce her? If so, how? And how was it consensual in the first place if he was that seriously drunk? (To be sure, the articles imply, but I don’t think they outrightly say, that she was seriously drunk too.)
I started to type up a very long reply, but I think it’s important to first establish something. I have not closely read all of the links, so if you don’t want to provide this information because you think I’m being a lazy bum I understand and think that’s fair. But here is my question:
What are you basing the argument that he was unconscious or semi-conscious on? The article hinges on him having “blacked out,” but blacking out is not necessarily related to an unconscious or semi-conscious state. There appears to be a conflation of these terms, but they are not synonymous.
Sorry, but this is complete BS. Human life was considered expendable on the Eastern Front in WW2, not women in particular. Soviet female aviation regiments were not issued ‘crappy planes’ while male pilots got the good ones. The 588th Night Bomber Regiment aka “Night Witches” from the nickname the German’s gave them of Nachthexen is the best known because it was the most decorated female unit in the Soviet Air Force, with 23 Hero of the Soviet Union medals awarded and the unit itself renamed as the 46th “Taman” Guards Night Bomber Aviation Regiment. The Po-2/U-2 biplane the unit flew was extensively used by the USSR in spite of its seeming obsolescence due to its availability in large numbers and usefulness in reconnaissance, liaison, supplying partisans behind German lines and its effectiveness as a night harassment bomber. It was so effective that in fact the Germans formed their own harassment bomber units from obsolete biplanes:
Also formed at the same time as the 588th Night Bomber Regiment were the 586th Fighter Aviation Regiment with Yak-1 fighters and the 587th Bomber Aviation Regiment (later redesignated the 125th Guards Bomber Aviation Regiment) with Pe-2 bombers. The Yak-1, Pe-2, and even the ‘obsolete’ Po-2 were all front-line aircraft in wide service in the Soviet Air Force in 1941, not crappy second rate planes given to women while better aircraft were reserved for the men. For all of its many, many, many ills, the Soviet Union was the first nation to allow female pilots to fly combat missions. Saying that they were given crappy planes and holding it as an example of female life being considered more expendable than male life are patently false.
I’m not disputing the RO-iness of it, but only because I don’t find it relevant to the Schumer argument. In a different thread, I’d dispute the RO-iness of it.
My comments are based on (possibly inaccurate) recollections of the transcript of the hearing itself.
I believe the coercion was a combination of physical and psychological. I don’t remember.
Understand that women in this position often cannot know that if they simply pull away hard enough and speak forcefully enough, the guy won’t become even more aggressive. If I suck a man’s dick (btw I’m male to be clear) because I have good reasons to be afraid of what he’ll do to me otherwise, because he’s taking actions to hold me in place and is speaking aggressively to me, then you bet I’m being assaulted, even if it’s in a sense my decision to keep going, and even if I started it before I said I wanted to stop.
It is the crucial point for the purpose of this thread.
Transcript here: https://usatcollege.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/amherst-hearing.pdf
ETA: Corrected link.