But now, it seems, gender justice is here at last: ladies, you too can have your lives ruined by a complaint over regretted drunk sex!

Reminds me of when a professional woman who was a staunch feminist, and in favor of all that entails, found herself losing a life-changing promotion opportunity to a much-less-qualified black woman. That was the end of that bullshit.

I loves me sum Cat Young and that's no lie... I read her book!, and there's no greater love a man can show for a woman he's never met, except that hers was a good book worth reading anyway.

[And apologies, Cat-a-saures, but the anecdote I remember best was the cryin' baby picture and how it happened, because Fuckin' Commies, man... Fuckin' Commies. I just knew that that typified the culture you left behind. (Though I'm sure that memorable "What the fuck was that?" grimace has crossed your face a few times in the States, too.)]



Okay, so all that's true, but this part's wrong:

But if we must have parent-like interventions by colleges, surely appropriate intervention in a case like this is counseling for both parties...[.]

If someone --and we can assume there have always been people rich and fucked up enough to need this service-- If someone wants to pay a college to handle a child's interpersonal incompetence as well as their intellectual development, then fine. But otherwise, I don't want public regulators (or public universities) telling our boys when their appreciation of the Biggun's is correctly dialed in.

And I like the round ones, m'self. I'm just saying... University administrators should be encouraged to minimize "intervention."




The great thing about not caring about education? Not knowing the context of the Title-thises and Title-thats.

Some are for sports, right? I'm totally right about that.

Field hockey, table tennis... That kind of thing. GIRL sports.

Fuck 'em.

They know they are drinking too much (she had 15 shots I believe). They just can not believe Mommy will not come in the door just in time to stop them so they keep going.

If the college wanted to stop this they'd stop the drinking/partying and tell 'em that if it's off campus STFU and take it to the police.

Truly believe the admins love this stuff. Power.

Anyone have any articles to share about the feminist outrage over this incident? I'm in the mood to cackle with sadistic glee over the feminazi tears. Any outrage expressed by a third-wave feminist can only be a blatant admission that they expected Title IX was only supposed to be used by women against men.

I further expect these indignant feminists to shriek that the young man has no right to feel remorse over his sexual encounter with Rose over the fact that she's obese. That would make him guilty of fat-shaming her.

The ironic part is that this girl Rose is justifiably kicked out of school. That is, by the standards that are imposed on men. If she's going to be taking advantage of men in their beer-goggles to get laid, then she's a sexual predator.

Right?

If the college wanted to stop this they'd stop the drinking/partying and tell 'em that if it's off campus STFU and take it to the police.

You've obviously never read a student conduct guide. Many institutes of higher larnin' will tell you, deer student, that anything you say or do on campus, off campus, in the privy of your own home, your parents home, this country, or foreign countries that runs afoul of the fore mentioned guide can and will be used to prosecute you to the fullest extent of their ability.

Here's the Buzzfeed article, which includes a 15-page letter which includes the findings of the Director of the Student Standards and Accountability. Based on the standards that drunk sex is rape, they arrived at the correct conclusion. To say nothing of the fact that Rose was obviously lying to protect herself.

The ironic part is that this girl Rose is justifiably kicked out of school. That is, by the standards that are imposed on men. If she's going to be taking advantage of men in their beer-goggles to get laid, then she's a sexual predator.

That's just...what's the phrase? oh yeah, a culture of rape.

And wow, Patrick, the comments on the buzzfeed article are gold. If I could, I might post the comment that "we're supposed to believe the accuser, right? right? RIGHT? right."

Make no mistake about it: this sucks every bit as much as when it happens to men. I had more to say, but I don't want it to look like I'm watering down the previous sentence. So I'm going to just leave it here for a while.

So, it appears that the advantage in the drunken-sex-equals-rape olympics goes tot the student who files the charges first.

If she'd filed first, instead of countercharging him, would he have been kicked out of school?

The is not the victory the anti-feminists are claiming it is. It's a deliberate perversion of justice.

Conan:

If she'd filed first, instead of countercharging him, would he have been kicked out of school?

Actually, Conan, I doubt that very much. I posted the link to the Buzzfeed article that we're referring to. And in that article is a 15-page findings of the Director of the Student Standards and Accountability.

Note the questions they ask: Who was more intoxicated? She says she was. Male student and three witnesses say he was very drunk (could not form sentences, could not walk straight, etc.) and she had no visible impairment whatsoever.

Another question they asked: Who was isolating? She was. By all accounts, including hers. She kept him in her room and wouldn't let his friends see him to make sure he was all right.

Which had the more consistent testimony? He did. Her testimony, by contrast, was contradictory and self-serving.

I would suggest you avail yourself of the SSA Director's letter, which is in the BuzzFeed article I linked above, and then decide. You are making a serious mistake here.

Had she filed first, the eyewitness testimony, plus his own, I have no doubt, would have still resulted in her expulsion.

"At one point, he left to ask his friends for a condom."

Amazing logic the school shows. The "victim" comes and goes freely, leaves to get a condom and comes back to use the condom, from the text messages has a shower w/the girl and washes her hair, and so on.

Next expelling the passed out guy that gets a BJ he doesn't remember this is pretty good. Glad they feel good about their decision.

I posted the link to the Buzzfeed article that we're referring to.

Yes, Patrick, I read that.

Who was more intoxicated? At some point, it doesn't matter because both are too intoxicated to make rational decisions.

Her testimony was self-serving, but his "I don't remember" isn't? Or maybe, both are coming off of a drunken spree in which both filled in lost details of an encounter in which both engaged in questionable behavior and made bad decisions and of which their original memories are hazy at best.

This process is a perversion of justice, as I said. Rape is a matter for the police to investigate, not a university conduct board anxious to prove it can be evenhanded.

She may have at some point insisted he didn't leave, but she subsequently allowed him to go to another person's room where he "hid in a closet." It sounds like she didn't want to be a "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" hookup and wanted him to stay to prove she was someone he enjoyed having sex with and might willingly do so again. An overweight woman, she may have had subconscious issues about sex and being used. [Please don't have a cow about a third party being unable to divine motives, that was pure speculation that her behavior need not have been "rapey."]

And, yes, if she'd filed first, her testimony would have been the default testimony to which his testimony was compared and found lacking. This is not an investigation, it was a coffee klatch trying to settle on a cohesive story and, in the spirit of Wolfe's "Great White Defendant" get the monkey of bias off its back.

Smart boy for using a condom. Somehow they got trained to use them even when drunk. This could have been so much worse. When I first saw the photos at Buzzfeed I thought she looked pregnant.

Conan:

Who was more intoxicated? At some point, it doesn't matter because both are too intoxicated to make rational decisions.

You need to stop claiming you read the SSA Director's letter, because you haven't.

Her testimony might have been the default position, but she would have been refuted by his testimony plus that of three witnesses.

And if this depravity that is Title IX is found to have claimed a female victim or two, then perhaps it will serve to wake us up to the injustice of it all.

It is good to remember that not all students are 19 and living in a dorm. Students can be in their 30s or 40s, can be living off campus, be the owner of their own business, be an executive. In what sense does in loco parentis make sense then? When I was in school, the conduct code was strictly about guarding the entrance to and hours of the ladies dorms and the sororities had a house mother who did the same. This meant that only freshman and sorority members were involved. And it was just guarding, not prosecuting. The new system is like the Inquisition.

Arrrgh! In the immortal words of Robin Williams, "assholes do vex me!"

Even if she was, by witness testimony a 5/10 in intoxication level, does that make her able to process information soberly? By her own testimony, she was an 8/10. Different people process alcohol differently. So what if she seemed " less drunk" than he did. They were both drunker than they should have been and the witnesses gainsaying her testimony and been drinking as well.

Her running back and saying "don't ruin this for me" was one of the things hat prompted me to speculate a damaged psyche in the sexual relations department on her part.

That her testimony as found "less credible" than his does not rule out that both of them were significantly intoxicated and do not remember the details of the evening as they really happened.

That the limited recollections of the evening that he offered were backed up at least somewhat by witnesses who may have also been drunk themselves indeed damages her credibility. But it does nothing to defend Title IX no matter who is being caught in the trap.

That the university's conduct board is applying the law seemingly equally in order to prosecute a woman does not rebut my proposition that she represents the "Great White Defendant" and was pursued with Ahabian zeal for the purpose of having a rebuttal to sexual bias claims against Title IX.

Rape and sexual assault are matters that should be investigated by the police, not a university conduct board. Memorize this, it was my main point. And nothing in this case, SSA letter or not, convinces me to change that statement.

And if this depravity that is Title IX is found to have claimed a female victim or two, then perhaps it will serve to wake us up to the injustice of it all. ~ Patrick at June 2, 2016 10:20 AM

You seem to take glee in the fact that the draconian miscarriage of justice that is Title IX caught a woman this time. You seem to revel in the image of feminists being hoist by their own petard. You seem to discount the very real effect cases like this have on the specific parties involved, male or female.

The present application of Title IX does represents an elevation of politics over justice. You are furthering that elevation by celebrating that Title IX snared a woman and not a man this time.

That a bad law claims any victims is a perversion of justice. That it claims victims of which you approve does not put this particular travesty in the service of a greater good. That it claimed any victims should already have served to "wake us up to the injustice of it all."

And this will not teach the feminists anything, as they've already shown a willingness to throw women to the wolves (or to the Clintons or the Kennedys) to amass greater political power.

Like the male victims of Title IX before her, this young woman's life has been ruined by an unrealistic and absolutist policy governing dynamic human behavior. While she may have been wrong but redeemable, she has been rendered irredeemable by such policies.

While I support efforts to clearly legally define what is and is not sexual assault to prevent further miscarriages of justice and provide some protection to the more vulnerable elements of our society, some things are difficult to explicitly define in legal terms for every possible situation. And the sexual dichotomy between men and women is one of those things.

Saying "no means no" sounds good and politically correct, but it is not crystal clear when the "no" is allowed to be retroactive and alcohol was involved.

Conan:

Arrrgh! In the immortal words of Robin Williams, "assholes do vex me!"

To paraphrase Robin Williams, "pompous jackasses do vex me."

You should have seen what I wrote before I modified it, then hit send. I excised out a few derisive comments.

Leave it to you to make me regret it.

By the way, no one rated her at a 5/10. She gave herself a rating of 8/10. The highest witness rating gave her a 3/10.

You seem to take glee in the fact that the draconian miscarriage of justice that is Title IX caught a woman this time. You seem to revel in the image of feminists being hoist by their own petard. You seem to discount the very real effect cases like this have on the specific parties involved, male or female.

Yes, I do revel in the image of feminists being hoisted on their own petard. Who do you think supports Title IX? Non-feminists or feminists?

Maybe these third wave feminists will rethink their position if this perverse Title IX, which makes judges and juries out of college admins. But I doubt it. You're probably right when you claim this will not serve to teach the feminists anything. These types seem to think it's perfectly fine, right and proper to inflict standards on colleges that blatantly discriminate against men, because, you know, rape culture, patriarchy and all that. There is absolutely no problem with that as far as they're concerned.

If anything, they will simply start demanding that Title IX apply only to men accused by women, not the reverse, and make no apology whatsoever that this is blatantly discriminatory.

Conan:

That it claimed any victims should already have served to "wake us up to the injustice of it all."

Not third-wave feminists. They're perfectly fine with claiming male victims, guilty or not. Because even if a man is innocent, he is still a beneficiary of the patriarchy. So that means that any man deserves to be punished anyway. Yes, they are just that evil.

As for the students, fuck 'em. Chances are, if they undergrads, they are not of drinking age anyway. So, the question remains, why are they drinking in the first place?

And what is wrong with them, that they should be getting this drunk? I can see, perhaps, a drink or two to help you relax, but seriously, what the fuck makes people want to get so sloshed they have no recollection of what they're doing?

(And before you ask, no, I've never been that drunk. As a matter of fact, I don't drink at all. Not the occasional sip of wine or celebratory glass of champagne. Never.

The only experience I have with what might be called inebriation is prescribed pain medication. And what the pillheads see in these things is beyond me.)

Presumably these students know the law. They not only chose to defy it, they did so with gusto. If I'm supposed to feel sorry for them, I have some sympathy, but not much. There are consequences to doing dumb things, but obviously, this consequence outweighs the crime. But doesn't it usually work that way? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Hosea 8:7

If you're going to get that hammered, you might do bad things. Those bad things carry consequences. That's rough. I didn't ask for Title IX. I am against Title IX, but it's there, and I'm quite certain that the University made its students aware of it.

She, like the men before her who have been unfairly ousted from college, now has a serious setback in her life. One venue of post-secondary education has been cut off for her. And if she borrowed money to pay for her education, that money is down the drain, but she still has the obligation to repay it.

But she's young, still. She will have to find something else. And hopefully, she will have gained something from this.

Rose found herself a victim of the same lack of due process men usually go through -- and that's not a good thing

Meh, until enough women are sacrificed on an alter no one cares.

Lifetime alimony didnt end until women had to pay it.

Judges discretion on child support didnt end until women had to pay it.

This wont end until women have to pay for it

Not third-wave feminists. They're perfectly fine with claiming male victims, guilty or not. Because even if a man is innocent, he is still a beneficiary of the patriarchy. So that means that any man deserves to be punished anyway. Yes, they are just that evil. ~ Patrick at June 2, 2016 1:31 PM

Yes, I do revel in the image of feminists being hoisted on their own petard. ~ Patrick at June 2, 2016 1:31 PM

The feminists are perfectly fine throwing women to the wolves (four-legged and two-legged) as well. So, no, this will not wake them up to anything. But it makes you happy, so you'll gleefully pile wood onto the stake-burning fire and yell for her head.

My point is that you're as bad as they are. You'll happily sacrifice this young woman who made a stupid mistake in order to sate your hunger to be able to call a political entity a hypocrite. You'll giggle at her stake burning, with no feelings for her being caught up in your machinations of what your political vendetta does to others. As long as you can point out feminist hypocrisy, you'll happily blind yourself to your own.

You casually dismiss concerns about "wasted" college money or closed education venues. "...she's young, still. She will have to find something else."

First they came for the Roses of this world, and, since her suffering was useful to me, I said nothing....

You'll make a fine Inquisitor someday, Patrick.

You should have seen what I wrote before I modified it, then hit send. I excised out a few derisive comments. ~ Patrick at June 2, 2016 1:31 PM

Right back atcha. Williams' comment was the cleanest of the many things I considered sending.

And no, I don't regret it. I don't regret not sinking to your level.

Conan:

My point is that you're as bad as they are. You'll happily sacrifice this young woman who made a stupid mistake in order to sate your hunger to be able to call a political entity a hypocrite. You'll giggle at her stake burning, with no feelings for her being caught up in your machinations of what your political vendetta does to others. As long as you can point out feminist hypocrisy, you'll happily blind yourself to your own.

Oh, how you wound me! (Well, no, not really.)

I didn't lobby for Title IX, nor do I support it. Can third-wave feminists say the same?

When I start lobbying for blatantly sexist laws and decide that even if innocents are caught up in it, they deserve it anyway, I'll be as bad as third-wave feminists are.

Frankly, you're being absurd. She is not caught up in my machinations. I didn't force a 3/10 inebriated desperate girl to bed an 8/10 drunk guy. And I didn't have anything to do with the creation of Title IX. So, I don't even have an indirect role in this girl's expulsion.

Can third-wave feminists say the same about the men that have been expelled from school thanks to their "machinations"?

And let's not forget, this girl did take advantage of a guy's inebriated state to bed him. Are you okay with people who do this, men or women?

As for my supposedly cavalier attitude about her prospects, I'd rather be realistic and realize that not every venue of personal advancement is closed to her (just one), as opposed to your melodramatic claim that her life is ruined.

Cue Monica Lewinsky! "Bill Clinton ruined my life!" then "Matt Drudge ruined my life!" I'm not exactly clear on who ruined Monica Lewinsky's life, but we know it certainly isn't her fault. She'd blame you, Conan, or me, before she accepted any personal responsibility.

And is Monica's life so ruined? She now writes for a very prestigious and recognized magazine. I know a lot of fledgling writers that would kill to have their lives so "ruined."

And poor Rose! Oh, woe is her! She must languish away for the rest of her terrestrial existence with the burden of her ruined life, until the welcome release of death overtakes her!

Don't be such a drama-queen, Conan.

Don't be such a drama-queen, Conan. ~ Patrick at June 2, 2016 3:34 PM

Patrick, as far as I know, you didn't lobby for it and, no, I've never heard you praise or advocate a blatantly sexist law.

However, you've reserved your vitriol for complaining about Title IX when the men get caught up in it. When a woman who has no known connection to the third wave feminists you despise gets caught in its tendrils, you're all giggles, imagining feminist angst at what they, in their zeal, have wrought. No drama, just pointing out your selective outrage.

And yes, Rose's life is now limited by this. She'll always be the woman kicked out of a college for raping a drunken man. Getting into another college with that on her record will be nigh impossible. Whatever plans she had for her life must now be adjusted. Just like the men who were unjustly punished under this policy, her life will never be the same, and not in a positive way.

Laws that ruin people's lives like this over things better handled through arbitration or mediation or just plain common sense need to be eliminated.

But you don't see that, in some way, you're as bad as the feminists, celebrating someone else's downfall because it meets your own personal needs; in this case, a need to say "I told you so" as a law you've held was meant to persecute men gets turned on women (or, a woman). You imagine the feminists hoist by their own petard, but you fail to see that Rose was not one of the feminists you wanted to see hoist. She was just a lonely young woman who did something stupid and was forced to pay too high a price for it, yet another victim of feminist tunnel vision.

☑ Coney et al

Conan, a couple of points.

First, from the BuzzFeed article:

Rose, who asked to be identified by her middle name, is now 21.

If she is now 21, then we can say with mathematical certainty that in January, 2014 when this incident took place, she was underage. She was 19, possibly 18, depending on when her birthday is. Yet, by all accounts, including hers, she was drinking.

Do people make bad decisions when they're drinking? Tough. They own them anyway. You don't get a pass because you were drinking. Ask anyone who's killed someone drunk driving.

Second: I also notice you avoided my previous question to you. "And let's not forget, this girl did take advantage of a guy's inebriated state to bed him. Are you okay with people who do this, men or women?"

By all accounts, including hers, the guy she targeted was very seriously drunk. Men have been demonized as rapists for choosing to take advantage of a woman's intoxicated state to have sex. Even if the woman, with impaired judgment, gives her consent to this, men are still rapists.

So, I will ask again. Are you okay with people who get consent to sex when their prospect is as drunk as her target obviously was?

You sympathize with her as a lonely girl. Lots of people get lonely, but they don't take advantage of drunks.

She made a series of bad decisions. (So did he, but she was clearly the aggressor.) Society at large, feminists or not, would have no trouble demonizing him as a rapist if the roles were reversed.

I didn't invent the standard, but it's supposed to work both ways.

Yes, she paid a heavy price, but I refuse to buy into the poor, lonely girl narrative you insist on writing. She saw an opportunity and took advantage. Pretty low thing to do, and loneliness or the fact that she had been drinking does not make this okay.

Losing some weight might go a good way in alleviating her loneliness and need to predate on drunks.

And she is, according to BuzzFeed, filing a lawsuit. If she's successful, that will be yet another instance in which the courts have ruled against Title IX.

Patrick, I think the source of our difference is you're regarding the SSA letter as a finding of fact and I'm regarding it as a farce.

The SSA letter treats he eyewitness testimony as factual. Whereas any lawyer will tell you the weakest evidence in any case is eyewitness testimony. People fill in memory blanks based on expectations. Was Rose given a chance to cross examine the witnesses, as she would be in the legal system? No.

Were the conduct board investigators trained in interrogation, as police detectives are? Did they lead the witnesses or ask loaded questions? If she'd had a chance to question the witnesses, we might know that, but since her guilt was predetermined, we can only speculate.

Was he the more intoxicated one? A group of drunken witnesses says so. But there is no blood-alcohol test or impartial evidence to show who was actually more intoxicated that night.

Was she the more aggressive one? Probably, but we only have his testimony and that of the aforementioned drunken witnesses on that, so take it with the proverbial grain of salt. And even if she was the "more" aggressive one, he seemed to give active consent when he had sex with her in the shower and again later in her bed.

What about the fact that he later hid in the closet. Was that out of mortal fear or to get away from a one-night stand he was already regretting?

Would we condemn man for conducting himself as she conducted herself, even if intoxicated? Yes. Such behavior in either sex is deserving of some form of discipline and public opprobrium. But permanent exile from college? And, make no mistake, permanent exile is what the board's finding is.

Should she get a pass because she'd been drinking? No. Should he, for the same reason, be handed a weapon to expunge his embarrassment at having had sex with a overweight woman? No.

"No" in sexual misconduct cases should not be allowed to be retroactively applied. Regret should be just that. Not a weapon to be wielded to extract payback for a now-bemoaned sexual encounter - by men or women.

The bottom line is that he hooked up with a "fatty" and his friends made fun of him for it, so he cried rape. And a stupid law gave him a weapon to expunge the embarrassment at the expense of ruining the fatty's life. He chose vindication over responsibility. "See guys, I was too drunk and she took advantage of me."

Title IX is a miscarriage of justice and this case should be lamented as another travesty, not celebrated as "finally, they're getting theirs."

Rape and sexual assault allegations should be investigated by the police and not by a group of campus busybodies anxious to find their "Great White Defendant."

Patrick, you celebrate this case because you think it will open people's eyes to the travesty that is Title IX and because a woman was finally ensnared. Whereas, I lament this case because the travesty that is Title IX has claimed yet another victim.

And now, thanks to this, feminists have a presumptive answer for the argument that Title IX is biased against men. With this, they will continue to argue that the "protections" that they claim Title IX offers are necessary.

Damn it, Conan! I was hoping you'd say something derisive, so I could go off on you, since my last comment to you was derision-free.

I'll have to be sneakier next time.

You raise some valid points, and perhaps I should rethink my celebration that Title IX has ensnared a woman this time. What made this especially delectable for me is that it employs the bullshit feminist standard, specifically that regret equals rape.

One point that you might also add to your argument is that, in addition to being drunk, the three witnesses identified themselves as friends of the soi-disant victim, whereas they barely knew Rose.

Of course, it's entirely possible that their assessment was completely objective, but their relationship with the victim makes this a fair point to at least question.

Another thing that makes less sympathetic is that it appears that she took advantage of someone's inebriated state to bed him, when he would otherwise have nothing to do with her. And most likely, she knew this. As she said, she crushed on him, and obviously, he was not reciprocating.

If there's a distinction between getting the consent of someone who's totally sloshed and rape, it's a narrow one, and I don't mind adding I'm disgusted with people who do things like that, man or woman.

Which is why I'm not exactly shedding tears for her as the latest victim of Title IX. She did a despicable thing.

This is also not just unfair to the students, it's unfair to the admins. As you say, there is no prerequisite training in interrogation to do this job. Nonetheless, if they make a bad decision, they will be held responsible.

And even if they were trained in interrogation, it's still not a court of law. No cross-examination, no representation, no jury, no due process.

I think your best point is that "feminists now have a presumptive answer for the argument that Title IX is biased against men." It's a weak answer, given the male-to-female ratio, but it's still better than nothing. And God knows, they will milk it for all it's worth, and then some.

"Meh, until enough women are sacrificed on an alter no one cares."

Yes, Alinsky rules, etc. I've argued that point myself. And I fully support it when it's members of the inquisitor tribe getting beheaded by their own swords. But when it's an innocent person, of either sex, that's getting the shaft, I find it hard to get revved up for that. I haven't seen anything that says that the accused woman was involved in campus feminism or leftism. If I had, it would be different.

I note with some amusement that the "victim" in this case claimed it was his first time having sex, and the "perp" claimed it was her first time giving a blowjob.

One wonders how many times those who have appealed to Title IX have made that claim. I'm sure it won't be long before some people get the mistaken impression that Title IX only applies to virgins.