Then why if you weren’t “actually interested in knowing” whether I was “intoxicated” did you ask me if I was?
Were you trying to imply I was? Were you trying to insult me?
If not, what was your motivation for the question?
Errr… Since this thread is about how common of uncommon “rapes” are on college campuses, it’s extremely common.
Now, since by your own admission you have “no idea” whether or not people who’s had consensual sex with someone who’s “intoxicated”(a word you either refuse or are unable to define) since in the US one is only deemed guilty of a crime if a jury of 12 or 6 people deem that person guilty, then since you are unable to determine if even having consensual sex with a person who’s “intoxicated” is a crime, then shouldn’t we assume it isn’t?
If you find that question not to your liking, here are three others.
A) A woman declares “I was really drunk last night and I did something I never would have done if I was sober! I had sex with a nigger!” Was she the victim of a rape if her statement proved correct?
B) A man gets extremely drunk and winds up having consensual sex with another man and the next day claims he’s been raped because he’d never have done so if he was sober? Was he raped?
C) A woman has consensual sex with a man while drunk or vice versa. Did a rape occur?
You already called the comment out as an insult. I’m not sure what you’re unsure of here.
But to be clear: Of course it was intended as an insult.
I don’t see why we should assume that conclusion based on that premise. Again: that one doesn’t know about X does not license any assumptions regarding X or regarding what it is reasonable to believe about X.
I really do not see the alleged “cover-up” because universities are do damn liberal anyways with women’s studies groups and such, plus most have many women working in upper administrative roles. I just cannot see them hiding rapes.
That said, thank you for your honesty, and I genuinely mean that.
So, why did you decide to insult me outside of the Pit? I didn’t insult you. If you thought I has insulted you, I didn’t. I made a comment about your post and it clear that was the case. If you took it as an insult then for what it’s worth I’ll say I apologize and didn’t mean an insult.
Were you under the impression it wasn’t a violation of board rules?
Now, once more, please answer my question along with questions A, B, C.
I answered your question in my last post, as follows: “I don’t see why we should assume that conclusion based on that premise. Again: that one doesn’t know about X does not license any assumptions regarding X or regarding what it is reasonable to believe about X.” (This was in answer to your question " since you are unable to determine if even having consensual sex with a person who’s “intoxicated” is a crime, then shouldn’t we assume it isn’t?")
As to the other questions A, B and C, I am not interested in pursuing them in this thread.
They seem fairly relevant when we’re discussing how common rape on college campuses is and what constitutes rape.
As for the first question, since I’m a minority I’d like to know whether I’ve committed a rape if I have consensual sex with a woman who’s drunk who might in the morning decide she’d never have had sex with me if she was sober.
Now, I don’t know if you’re white or not, but I’d like to think even if you were you could understand my concern so, once more, since what constitutes rape is the subject of this thread and you’ve been rather assertive about the question of “intoxication” and “consent”:
If a woman declares “I was defiled by a nigger last night! I’d never have had sex with him if I was sober!” do you think she was raped?
Asking for a citation is always rude. He choose to make the argument that he did, with the amount of substantiation that he did.
This is not Wikipedia, we are allowed and encouraged to express original thought and use critical thinking; not merely parrot back the research and opinions of others.
Yeah, but quibbling over the study methodology or the numbers isn’t exactly doing the “pro-rape” party any favors either.
It would probably be best if we all agreed that there was too much sexual assault on campus - even if you use the most conservative numbers. That we need to teach men more respect, and give women better tools. But also that we need funding to make sure rape kits are processed in a timely manner, that medical personnel and police are trained in dealing with rape and sexual assault victims so that they aren’t victimized by the system, etc.
Privacy laws, or at least a basic sense of ethics and privacy, preclude campus officials from reporting a rape or sexual assault to the police without the student’s consent. Only if the student is a minor does there become a legal or ethical duty to report the incident.
Again, it is the student’s responsibility to report an incident to the police. It would be unethical, however, to actively discourage a student from reporting an incident to the police in favor of an “in house” procedure. In deed, the school should encourage such self-reporting.
It is erroneous to say the disciplinary board has no role in investing criminal incidents. Their duty, through tools such as expulsion, suspension, or disciplinary probation is to maintain an appropriate campus environment. This may include removing students from the campus community who commit crimes.
Not all crimes, including rape or sexual assault, can be successfully prosecuted in a court of law. Similarly, even if convicted, the penal sentence may not preclude returning to the school. The school then must investigate such incidents to decide if the student at fault would be allowed to return or remain matriculated.
They’re not terrifically relevant. For one thing, you’ve included some element of consent, at least impliedly, in each of your questions, which renders the exercise pointless. Consensual sex isn’t rape; it’s close enough to axiomatic that we might as well treat those things as synonymous. You’re creating and resolving the debate by its own terms. The question of whether sex is “consensual sex,” just like the related question of whether a person is intoxicated to such an extent that they’re rendered incapable of consent, is a messy and complicated one. A one-sentence hypothetical scenario where you outright state the legal conclusion doesn’t give us any insight into how this works in the real world. You’re treating imaginary legal concepts as real things that you can experience and identify as they happen.
It’s like saying “Oh, if I accidentally shoot somebody six times during an argument, you’re telling me I murdered them?” Well, er, no, you said right in the question that it was an accident; that doesn’t mean that this mental exercise is any good to us the next time, in the real world, somebody says they accidentally shot somebody six times.
You’re ignoring the fact that according to Frylock people who are “intoxicated cannot legally consent to sex” so actually in none of those cases, it we use Frylock’s logic, then in none of those cases was there consent and the racist white woman and the repressed gay man were the victims of rape.
Mace and I are simply asking him to clarify his/her position, particularly since Frylock made indications that would seem to imply(it’s difficult to tell because his/her answers seem to be deliberately evasive and since he/she admits to deliberately insulting people on this thread it’s difficult to tell if honest debate is intended) that he/she thinks we ought to use the governmental definition of “intoxicated”.
Now, obviously I think it’s asinine to automatically think that a person who’s got a blood alcohol level of .08 is incapable of consenting to sex and you go vastly farther and say people who you consider to be drunk can still consent to sex, but it’s hardly clear that’s universally understood.
Someone earlier mentioned during their freshman orientation that it was made clear to them that “any amount of intoxication” meant there was no meaningful consent .
The famous researcher, Mary Koss has made similar statements.
So respectfully it’s not clear that all, or even most people agree with you and I.
No. I said that when the researchers in the cited study said intoxicated people can’t legally consent to have sex, we should assume they mean to use “intoxicated” in some legally defined sense, since they are talking about what is an isn’t legal.
I did not say that anyone else should feel constrained to use that definition when formulating their own views as to what should or shouldn’t be allowed.
Again, in other words, I have been talking about how the authors understand intoxication, I have not been talking about how anyone should understand intoxication.