Rikurzhen
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2014
- 6,145
- 1,292
- 185
The irresponsibility of some women is ruining the good times for many other women and it's seriously harming men. Check out what is happening at a Obama's alma mater:
If we're going to play this game, then the less harmful approach should try to avoid after the fact punishment for harms caused and instead focus on preventing harms, so prohibiting women from drinking alcohol would be a law which serves the greater good and any woman who is caught drunk in public should be criminally charged. Men can be drunk without legal consequence so long as they don't violate any other laws.
What's playing out here is only a piece of a larger problem. Women want to be treated as equals but they want laws written for them as though they were children. We see this in all areas of life. Regret rape laws are an abomination to the concept of justice.
In the early morning of Sept. 8, 2013, after a long night of drinking that left the students more drunk than either had ever been, two Occidental College freshmen, one male and one female, had sex. Evidence indicates that the sex appeared consensual at the time it occurred.
A week later the female student, Jane Doe, filed a complaint with Occidental, saying she'd been the victim of a sexual assault. Just over three months later, and following an intensive official college investigation, the male freshman, John Doe, was notified he had been found responsible of sexual assault and non-consensual sex and was expelled from Occidental. Weeks later, he lost an appeal to overturn the decision.
Nobody disputes that Jane had been drinking or that she had sent the texts. The question is whether she was too impaired that night to make and understand her own decisions.
The answer is far from simple. One of Jane's friends, Kelly (all student names have been changed to maintain anonymity), was interviewed by the investigators and noted the apparent contradiction:
An outside lawyer hired by Occidental to adjudicate the sexual-assault hearing found that John was impaired beyond the point where he could have understood Jane's condition but should nonetheless be held as responsible as if he had been sober.
Jane told investigators she didn't remember having sex with John or understand why she appears to have voluntarily gone to his room that night with full knowledge at the time of what would likely happen.
Among the key pieces of evidence that John and his legal team are relying on are two text messages that Jane had sent before going to John's room, one to him asking if he had a condom and another to a friend from her hometown saying "I'mgoingtohave sex now" (sic).
"The thing is I have no clue what I was thinking," Jane later told investigators. "I would never have done that if I had been sober … I don't know what was going through my head."
So let's understand what's going on here. A drunk man and a drunk woman both consent to sex. That's not in dispute. The women sobers up and regrets her decision and retroactively claims that the sex was rape. The lawyer hired by the school imposes a different standard on the male than the female. A man is held responsible for his decisions while intoxicated but a woman is excused from her decisions while intoxicated.A week later the female student, Jane Doe, filed a complaint with Occidental, saying she'd been the victim of a sexual assault. Just over three months later, and following an intensive official college investigation, the male freshman, John Doe, was notified he had been found responsible of sexual assault and non-consensual sex and was expelled from Occidental. Weeks later, he lost an appeal to overturn the decision.
Nobody disputes that Jane had been drinking or that she had sent the texts. The question is whether she was too impaired that night to make and understand her own decisions.
The answer is far from simple. One of Jane's friends, Kelly (all student names have been changed to maintain anonymity), was interviewed by the investigators and noted the apparent contradiction:
According to Kelly, Jane Doe's demeanor did not appear as if she knew what was going on, but her text messages and her physically going to John's room seem to indicate that Jane Doe had some idea of where she was, of what was taking place, and of what would happen if she went to John's room.
If Jane did consent to sex then, was John truly responsible for disregarding that consent? Quite possibly yes.
An outside lawyer hired by Occidental to adjudicate the sexual-assault hearing found that John was impaired beyond the point where he could have understood Jane's condition but should nonetheless be held as responsible as if he had been sober.
Jane told investigators she didn't remember having sex with John or understand why she appears to have voluntarily gone to his room that night with full knowledge at the time of what would likely happen.
Among the key pieces of evidence that John and his legal team are relying on are two text messages that Jane had sent before going to John's room, one to him asking if he had a condom and another to a friend from her hometown saying "I'mgoingtohave sex now" (sic).
"The thing is I have no clue what I was thinking," Jane later told investigators. "I would never have done that if I had been sober … I don't know what was going through my head."
If we're going to play this game, then the less harmful approach should try to avoid after the fact punishment for harms caused and instead focus on preventing harms, so prohibiting women from drinking alcohol would be a law which serves the greater good and any woman who is caught drunk in public should be criminally charged. Men can be drunk without legal consequence so long as they don't violate any other laws.
What's playing out here is only a piece of a larger problem. Women want to be treated as equals but they want laws written for them as though they were children. We see this in all areas of life. Regret rape laws are an abomination to the concept of justice.
Last edited:
