Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Guy kicked out of college for having sex with a woman!!!

Options
245

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    cork2 wrote: »
    Definitely a law made by a woman!
    "Definitely"? Bet you it was made by a man actually.


  • Options
    #33
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,516 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Wibbs wrote: »
    That's the beaut in these scenarios, the man not only has to take responsibility for his actions, he also has to take responsibility for hers. Basically she's absolved because she's got internal gonads and therefore apparently has no responsibility or agency over her actions. Nice one you daft third wave feminists with your BS, you've just stuck women back in the 19th century. You've made them children who can't have responsibility, or that is diminished because of their gender. Ironic and moronic in equal measure.

    This. The ironic inference is that women, legally and apparently socially, are held to be less responsible than a man by virtue of their gender. At a time when women are campaigning for rights over their own bodies, they apparently still need to rely on a man (who is as drunk, or even drunker than them) to decide what they actually think or should do.

    It's a very unjust case, and undermines a lot of the scary rape claims coming out of US colleges if the definition for rape is set as low as the girl regretting having consensual sex weeks later.


  • Options
    #34
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    It's cases exactly like this one which make me automatically question rape stats, especially as they pertain to colleges.
    You and everyone else should question them because they're essentially a complete and utter nonsense. The "1 in 4" stat bandied about is based on a "study" back in the 1980's that even the most crosseyed gobshíte would see was a nonsense. Apparently there are too many crosseyed gobshítes who buy into it.

    The study in question told women they had been raped, even though the majority didn't consider it so and most of the "raped" continued to go out with and sleep with their "rapists". Akin to the Guards showing up to your gaff and telling you you've been burgled because a mate of yours was invited in and you gave him a loan of a CD. You denying that it was a burglary would be ignored. Clearly you were burgled.

    In short it was some 1970's stylee retarded rad fem ballsology that wanted to set out and prove what it already believed. Yet that "1 in 4"(sometimes 1 in 3) stat is repeated ad nauseam today and policy is based on it, particularly in US colleges.

    The joke is that the same colleges because of an actual brutal rape that occurred in the early 80's have to keep very detailed records and what those records show is the stats for rape in US colleges are equal to or slightly below the stats of the wider society. The figure? More like 1 in 250. Just a bit of a diff.

    I'm sorry, actual rape, whether it by someone you know(the majority) or a stranger is not something someone would be bloody well confused about. You'd bloody well know it and I've personally seen the fallout of that with a good friend of mine who was raped by an utter scumbag ex boyfriend of hers.

    This shíte and shíte like some loon calling "rape culture" because of some dickhead "joke" or because there are scantily clad women in an advert makes the word rape lose its meaning. It diminishes the true and horrific life changing crime and that's plain fúcking wrong. Keep at it rad fems, keep crying wolf to get attention for your nonsense and make the real crime even harder to discover and more, punish.

    TL;DR? Nonsense and if I were him I'd sue the university until they bled out.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #35
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    cork2 wrote: »
    Definitely a law made by a woman!
    Nope, afraid not. You can't blame women there. Not even close. Most definitely a law made by men. "Shure how could a laydee rape a man? That's not possible like".

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #36
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,516 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    I'm pretty sure I recall a case of a woman being done for sexual assault of a man (IIRC, a man passed out on a couch at a party - some woman who decided she would entertain the rest of the guests by performing sexual acts on him. He woke up and was not pleased). But I think rape is usually defined in such a way in the lawbooks that only a man can carry it out.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Nomis21
    Registered Users Posts: 1,409 ✭✭✭Nomis21


    green_screen wrote: »
    Some of the 'jokes' are very unfunny.

    People are saying that a woman cannot legally give consent if drunk.

    It's not quite so clear cut. Under the influence of alcohol, you CAN give consent. So if you're having a few bottles of wine or beer with your OH, and do the deed after, it's not rape.

    It's rape (under current laws), if the woman cannot give informed consent. So, if she's paralytic, blacks out, puking, can't remember the next day - they're all clear signs she can't/couldn't give informed consent.

    However, I agree that the law is totally unfair to men. If the man in question was sober, then yah, he ttook advantage. But it seems that he was equally drunk, so considering his own intellect was impacted upon by alcohol consumption, how the hell was he to know that the woman wasn't giving informed consent?

    The law is unfair to men in theory but in practice only a small number of rape prosecutions lead to a conviction


  • Options
    #38
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,251 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    green_screen wrote: »
    Some of the 'jokes' are very unfunny.

    People are saying that a woman cannot legally give consent if drunk.

    It's not quite so clear cut. Under the influence of alcohol, you CAN give consent. So if you're having a few bottles of wine or beer with your OH, and do the deed after, it's not rape.

    It's rape (under current laws), if the woman cannot give informed consent. So, if she's paralytic, blacks out, puking, can't remember the next day - they're all clear signs she can't/couldn't give informed consent.

    However, I agree that the law is totally unfair to men. If the man in question was sober, then yah, he ttook advantage. But it seems that he was equally drunk, so considering his own intellect was impacted upon by alcohol consumption, how the hell was he to know that the woman wasn't giving informed consent?

    Even if he was sober in this case she turned up at his door and also texted a friend to say she was doing it. So she clearly had intent.


  • Options
    #39
    Sand
    Registered Users Posts: 12,516 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Actually - there is a case of a woman being convicted of rape, for her part in a gang rape. I guess it's just extremely rare to convict a girl of it, and it still relies on having male accomplices.


  • Options
    #40
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Nope, afraid not. You can't blame women there. Not even close. Most definitely a law made by men. "Shure how could a laydee rape a man? That's not possible like".

    It's very possible, I doubt there's a guy who hasn't woken up with a raging boner that's probably been there longer than he's been conscious.


  • Options
    #41
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Aye and women have been charged and convicted of sexual assault before. IIRC there was a case here in Ireland where a lesbian was convicted of sexually assaulting a woman, in a night club toilet IIRC?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Fr_Dougal
    Registered Users Posts: 9,167 ✭✭✭Fr_Dougal


    Sand wrote: »
    Actually - there is a case of a woman being convicted of rape, for her part in a gang rape. I guess it's just extremely rare to convict a girl of it, and it still relies on having male accomplices.

    Gang rape of another female, not a male. Women can be convicted of raping other women.


  • Options
    #43
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Gang rape of another female, not a male. Women can be convicted of raping other women.

    That's weird, is it because of the penetrative aspect?


  • Options
    #44
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    TheZohan wrote: »
    A drunk person cannot give consent.

    Where did you get that idea?


  • Options
    #45
    Plasid
    Registered Users Posts: 99 ✭✭Plasid


    Stupid in so many ways...

    He can sue and will win, the university in question add themselves to the stupid pile...


  • Options
    #46
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    green_screen wrote: »
    Some of the 'jokes' are very unfunny.

    People are saying that a woman cannot legally give consent if drunk.

    It's not quite so clear cut. Under the influence of alcohol, you CAN give consent. So if you're having a few bottles of wine or beer with your OH, and do the deed after, it's not rape.

    It's rape (under current laws), if the woman cannot give informed consent. So, if she's paralytic, blacks out, puking, can't remember the next day - they're all clear signs she can't/couldn't give informed consent.

    However, I agree that the law is totally unfair to men. If the man in question was sober, then yah, he ttook advantage. But it seems that he was equally drunk, so considering his own intellect was impacted upon by alcohol consumption, how the hell was he to know that the woman wasn't giving informed consent?

    Even a black out is dubious. That just means somebody can't remember something. Since that's not clear at the time to anybody else nor is the person acting any differently to any other drunk person it's not evidently non- consensual.


  • Options
    #47
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Universities think they are their own law to themselves. Not so.


  • Options
    #48
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Plasid wrote: »
    Stupid in so many ways...

    He can sue and will win, the university in question add themselves to the stupid pile...
    Maybe, maybe not P. This mindset is all too well engrained and he might find it an uphill struggle even with her admission and texts. Basically he's guilty until proven innocent.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #49
    Shakespeare's Sister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,412 ✭✭✭Shakespeare's Sister


    krudler wrote: »
    That's weird, is it because of the penetrative aspect?
    Well yeh there's the view that rape is only = forcibly penetrating someone, which unfortunately excludes the other cases of people being forced to have sex against their will.


  • Options
    #50
    Wompa1
    Registered Users Posts: 8,170 ✭✭✭Wompa1


    krudler wrote: »
    It's a shitty situation alright, she was too drunk to remember giving consent but he was equally drunk so it's a big grey area. It's never a good idea to get it on with someone paralytic drunk

    And with that sentence the Irish stopped pro-creating and died out like the Dinosaurs


  • Options
    #51
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Maybe, maybe not P. This mindset is all too well engrained and he might find it an uphill struggle even with her admission and texts. Basically he's guilty until proven innocent.

    Is American law on sexual consent really like this?

    1) if two drunken people have sex the male is considered to have consented, the female is not considered to consent if inebriated.
    2) the male regardless of how inebriated is expected to know the inebriation level of the female. She is considered to be too inebriated to have sex, he is not considered too inebriated to work how drunk she is; even though the exact levels of drunkeness are never spelt out. Someone could get very tipsy after 3 drinks if not used to it.

    I don't think that's the law. It's what universities enforce but not statutory law. It goes against all kinds of principles of justice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Plasid wrote: »
    Stupid in so many ways...

    He can sue and will win, the university in question add themselves to the stupid pile...


    If you read the article, he can't sue as the College policy complies with State Federal laws, so that nullifies the idea that he could win.


  • Options
    #53
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    If you read the article, he can't sue as the College policy complies with State Federal laws, so that nullifies the idea that he could win.

    Why would he take the case? He *is* suing. I find it hard to believe those are real laws in the US and not just university rules.

    Of course he may still lose. You can be expelled from a school for not obeying rules on wearing a uniform which doesn't mean not wearing a uniform is illegal outside the school.

    He's probably persuing a discrimination case.


    EDIT: yes he is. Btw if he were considered a rapist under federal law he would be pursuing a civil case against the university but be under investigation in a criminal case. The facts are not in dispute here. She was very drunk.


  • Options
    #54
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Why would he take the case? He *is* suing. I find it hard to believe those are real laws in the US and not just university rules.

    Of course he may still lose. You can be expelled from a school for not obeying rules on wearing a uniform which doesn't mean not wearing a uniform is illegal outside the school.

    He's probably persuing a discrimination case.


    Yep, he's filed a lawsuit against the college alright, but the college policy is there in black and white, and because they're a private organization, they can set their own rules -
    At the core of this whole case is the arguably simple fact that John Doe was found to have broken Occidental's policy — which, as a private organization, has no obligation to set the same standards as any legal system, although it is required to maintain federal standards in processing sexual-assault allegations.

    Per Occidental's policy, students are unable to consent if they are "incapacitated" — a state of being that, although often caused by alcohol, is distinct from drunk or intoxicated.

    After examining all of the evidence provided by Occidental's team of outside investigators, an external adjudicator made several key determinations. First, that sexual intercourse had in fact occurred; second, that Jane Doe gave her consent; and, third, that Jane was incapacitated when she did so.


    Chances are he filed the lawsuit just to get exposure for his case, but he won't win.


  • Options
    #55
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yep, he's filed a lawsuit against the college alright, but the college policy is there in black and white, and because they're a private organization, they can set their own rules -




    Chances are he filed the lawsuit just to get exposure for his case, but he won't win.

    You said he can't sue. Not that he couldn't win.

    He is - I assume - claiming unequal treatment and could win on that. Private club or not.


  • Options
    #56
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users Posts: 4,251 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yep, he's filed a lawsuit against the college alright, but the college policy is there in black and white, and because they're a private organization, they can set their own rules -




    Chances are he filed the lawsuit just to get exposure for his case, but he won't win.

    So should she be kicked out too?


  • Options
    #57
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    So should she be kicked out too?


    My own personal opinion is that the idea that a person can retrospectively claim they were raped on the basis that they suffered ill effects after what by all accounts was consensual sex at the time, is utterly insane.

    That'll make no difference to this case though, but I sure as hell hope it doesn't catch on over this side of the pond.


  • Options
    #58
    Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,009 ✭✭✭Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo


    Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »
    I don't know that the idea of the woman as always the victim is due to liberalism/feminism. Could be wrong though. I know some feminism certainly perpetuates it, but not sure that it created it. If anything, it's a conservative/traditional notion.

    I'm of the opinion that it is the other way around. Conservative/traditional notions would never have put women as the victim, (even though they were!) such as how you could rape your wife legally, domestic violence being a 'non issue', women having 'illegitimate' children being treated like crap by society ect.
    I think extreme liberalism and a certain type of feminism have put us here (not conservatism). It fits in with the whole women shouldn't go to jail narrative as female criminals are actually just victims. It's a skewed way to look at society.


  • Options
    #59
    dfx-
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,665 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    Wibbs wrote: »
    The tragedy and joke is this poor bastard has been kicked out of university. Even though she went to him and fcuked him willingly(and her texts prove this), but because she has a change of heart and can blame diminished responsibility(because of her gender), he loses out and his life is potentially if not actually ruined. He can kiss goodbye to another US college looking at him for a start.

    Reading the article, there was at least some time between the texts and the 'event' - enough time to change one's mind?

    If you make one decision, should you be held to that if you change your mind ten minutes later?


  • Options
    #60
    Direct Current
    Registered Users Posts: 6 ✭Direct Current


    I can't decide whether the name of the website on which that story is published, is very appropriate or highly inappropriate given the story!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,437 ✭✭✭tritium


    dfx- wrote: »
    Reading the article, there was at least some time between the texts and the 'event' - enough time to change one's mind?

    If you make one decision, should you be held to that if you change your mind ten minutes later?

    Except there no claim that she changed her mind....


Advertisement