• They are making a very strong argument for the moslem position that women need a male minder when they are out of the house. They are obviously incapable on their own.

  • […] H/T Walter Olson at Overlawyered […]

  • “If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault.”

    If this guy can’t see the difference in these two scenarios, it is hard to take much else that he says on the topic seriously.

    I love Dez Wells. Great player, great teammate. Maryland needs him. He got a raw deal because of the lack of evidence against him.

    But this article suggests that he is innocent of raping that girl. We have absolutely no idea of what happened. That’s the problem with this crime. Men rape women all of the time and there is not enough proof to convict them.

  • Ron Miller: I’ve been reading your comments here for years and I never knew you were a woman.

  • Ron, if there is insufficient evidence to convict, there is no crime.

  • Ron, I can make just as strong an argument that it is the woman’s fault for seducing the poor, incompetent drunk guy. Human beings are hard wired to have sex with each other. I think it has something to do with why there are so many of us. When you make it particularly easy for that to happen, like both of you being drunk, nature will often take its course. This isn’t crime, it is biology.

    The bottom line is, if you don’t want to be raped, avoid dangerous situations, or learn to defend yourself better. A beautiful naked virgin should be able to walk in perfect safety down any dark alley on the South Side at midnight with a bag of gold in each hand. But we don’t live in that world, and I would not recommend it.

    Only you can protect yourself.

  • DEM, your logic is faulty, just because there is insufficient evidence to convict does not mean that no crime was committed, just that there was insufficient evidence to convict. Conversely evidence that two people engaged in sex doesn’t mean that a crime took place either.

    Thus real crimes need to be turned over to real police not the student council. But that might make it more difficult for the “he’s male therefore he must be guilty of something” set to get the verdict they want, the facts be damned.

  • Seems it should not take long until the men on campus realize the situation and start counter charging the women with rape. Seems like the evidence could be viewed just as well from that standpoint. Guy had a couple, woman approached him and took advantage. He had said no but was too drunk to resist. He didn’t come forward first because of extreme social stigma.

    Then once the numbers approach parity, the DoJ or DoE will step in and complain that since women are not being expelled in the same proportion as men, there must be discrimination against men based on Gender, Right?

    Why does the woman being drunk make it the man’s responsibility but not the man being drunk not make it the woman’s?

  • “Men rape women all of the time and there is not enough proof to convict them.”

    Damn that Constitution. Always getting in the way. If we just closed the courts and went back to using vendattas to settle wrongs, just think how much simpler it all would be. Wouldn’t even need insurance or lawyers any more.

  • Echoing Ron’s point, it seems as a society we have no trouble blaming women if they’re raped because they’re drunk, or because they went to a party, or because of what they wore. But we refuse to blame men for having sex with intoxicated strangers and acquaintances.

    Is it so hard to expect men — even intoxicated ones — to think, for a moment, “perhaps I shouldn’t have sex with this intoxicated woman I barely know?” We have no trouble expecting intoxicated men to think, for a moment, “I shouldn’t start a fight with this guy I’ve never met before.”

  • “As a society we…” That’s a formula that often serves to characterize what neither the person speaking, nor anyone in his likely audience, actually says or believes. So where does the “we” come from?

    To return to the original question of the post: when a male and a female acquaintance on campus both consume a drink (of weight-adjusted volume, if you please) and have sex, should there be disciplinary/criminal justice consequences and if so, should those consequences fall more heavily on the male than on the female?

  • Not to be crude, but regardless of the amount of alcohol consumed the female’s equipment will still work. However, the male runs the risk of passing the point of equipment failure with excessive consumption. Thus if anything happens, it has to be the male’s fault. It matters little that the female may or may not still be of verbal capacity and may or may not remember the events of the evening.

    The bottom line being that date rape is a very slippery slope that has no business being ascertained by the student council.

  • “We” comes from my own observation of the plurality of beliefs and prejudices of the citizens of the United States. E.g., we like football, we are increasingly accepting of gay marriage, etc.

    Your question includes a normative judgment in it (“fall more heavily”) that assumes facts which render it meaningless as an exercise, and an unnecessary gender restriction. Try this one: when two acquaintances on campus both consume a drink (of weight-adjusted volume, if you please) and have sex, should either party be precluded from bringing disciplinary/criminal charges against the other?

    My answer is “no, we do not automatically absolve culpable parties because of their intoxication or the intoxication of another.”

  • Agreed Max.

    Accordingly, when we go to COURT and the evidence is only one’s word against the other we fall back to innocent until proving guilty beyond a doubt…and the accused goes free.

    So, also accordingly, if there is ONLY word against word from activities behind closed doors, why in the blue blazes are we going to trial?

    Oh yeah, they made this law that is fair on the surface but will be used to bias the evidence one way or the other. And, we know which way it’s going to work out…all by chance of course…nothing to see here.

    In a fair system, the man would be able to have just enough drinks to feel the effects and gin up his courage to proposition women who are doing the same and there would be no crime. That we think it necessary to get some sort of permission-after they have been proven able to give said permission-shows where and why this type of law exists and how screwed up a society we have become.

    I’m sorry. While predators are going to be out there and friends or chaperones should look out for the highly intoxicated (especially women), hindsight is no way to run a railroad. Especially when it’s between just the 2 particpants and no witnesses other than prior to the act.

    I just don’t see how a woman who is intoxicated and flirtatious leaving with a man who has been acting the same turns into rape because one of them said so. Men have, for years, been talking about “beer goggles”. Are they being raped because they go home with a woman below their standards? Rule 34 would say no..but flip the script and the woman can change her mind because of a law that someone created without thinking.

    I can’t wait to have the talk with my boys and how i broach this subject…Wow, just, wow.

  • You would propose that we never have a trial where the only evidence is eyewitness testimony? Is this a special rule solely for campus sexual assault, or are you proposing a total overhaul of our criminal justice system?

    In terms of your boys, seems to me the prudent advice is the same for boys and girls: “Kids, alcohol and trouble go hand-in-hand. Have a couple drinks and get in the car, then you’re looking for trouble. Have a couple drinks and start talking trash with strangers, then you’re looking for trouble. Have a couple drinks and have sex with someone you barely know, then you’re looking for trouble. If you can’t trust yourself to be responsible with alcohol, then don’t touch it. If you’re not sure about the integrity and good will of the people drinking around you, then don’t be around them. Don’t let Hollywood and Madison Avenue sell you a lie, getting drunk and doing something stupid makes people’s lives worse, not better.”

  • My advice to any young man thinking of going to one of the overpriced, overrated, left wing conformity factories: “Alcohol and trouble go hand-in-hand. Have a couple drinks and get in the car, then you’re looking for trouble. Have a couple drinks and start talking trash with strangers, then you’re looking for trouble. Have a couple drinks and have sex with someone you barely know, then you’re looking for trouble. Because if the girl regrets it afterwards, she can always accuse you of rape. And if she does, you can count on the school taking the position that she wasn’t expected to control her behavior, show any judgment or take any responsibility for her actions (because she’s a female who was drinking) but you (because you’re a male and it doesn’t matter that you were drinking) were required to do all three, impeccably. So try to get into Hillsdale College or some other school where common sense and basic fairness haven’t been stamped out by feminist haters and Obama administration bullies.”