[fullmetal]

And let's be realistic - all that would happen is that it would go underground. When I was an RA my attitude was that I would tolerate underaged drinking as long as people kept their doors open. When people close their doors and try to hide the drinking, that's usually when the problems start.

One may argue that's what happened with this private party hosted outside the auspices of the previously-stated campus party alcohol policies.

[fullmetal]

And let's be realistic - all that would happen is that it would go underground. When I was an RA my attitude was that I would tolerate underaged drinking as long as people kept their doors open. When people close their doors and try to hide the drinking, that's usually when the problems start.

One may argue that's what happened with this private party hosted outside the auspices of the previously-stated campus party alcohol policies.

[Mick]

And let's be realistic - all that would happen is that it would go underground. When I was an RA my attitude was that I would tolerate underaged drinking as long as people kept their doors open. When people close their doors and try to hide the drinking, that's usually when the problems start.

That's funny.  When I was a frosh in 1981, the rule at SCU was literally the opposite.  You could only drink behind closed doors, but the RA was obliged to bust you if your door was open.  Sort of "don't-look-don't-tell" for college drinkers.  And BTW, I agree with your stance 100%.

[Mick]

And let's be realistic - all that would happen is that it would go underground. When I was an RA my attitude was that I would tolerate underaged drinking as long as people kept their doors open. When people close their doors and try to hide the drinking, that's usually when the problems start.

That's funny.  When I was a frosh in 1981, the rule at SCU was literally the opposite.  You could only drink behind closed doors, but the RA was obliged to bust you if your door was open.  Sort of "don't-look-don't-tell" for college drinkers.  And BTW, I agree with your stance 100%.

[Mick]

A question for the attorneys in the crowd.

When I was a freshman, I knew a very popular young man who had no intention of tying himself down with a girlfriend at the age of 18.  There was a woman who lived in the same dorm and pursued him aggressively, with the intent of becoming his girlfriend.  Repeatedly and adamantly over the course of several months, he refuses her entreaties and flirtations and makes very clear his intent.  Just before departing for Thanksgiving, he hosts a party with about 50 attendees, she is in attendance.  Just before midnight, both are drunk and she pulls him off to the side, tells him she wants to spend the night with him, no strings attached.  He declines and repeats himself, claiming he doesn't want a relationship and therefore doesn't want to sleep with her.  She persists, says she just wants one night with him, etc.  He agrees, they commence and they are about to have sex when she begins to talk about their future life as a couple.  He says "I told you, I don't want a girlfriend" -- but has sex with her anyways.  He doesn't say if she says yes or no or anything at that point.

He tells me and three or four other guys this story over the holidays.  It's nagged at me over the years.  There were warning alarms all over the place, for both of them.  But was it rape?  I thought so, but then I have three younger sisters and I'm perhaps more sensitive than most about it.  So I'm curious as to what the attorneys on the board think.  How does this get adjudicated if she decides to press charges?

BTW, he never returned to school after his freshman year for financial reasons, but he was a schmoozer and connected with several Ca.l engineers who created a short-lived but profitable educational software startup.  It sold out in a few years, and he made a moderate amount of money.  Since then, he's led a behind-the-scenes life in Hollywood.

Odd aside: he has the same name as a noted campus sexual violence prevention expert.  They are definitely not the same person, the guy in question ended up in Hollywood.

[Mick]

A question for the attorneys in the crowd.

When I was a freshman, I knew a very popular young man who had no intention of tying himself down with a girlfriend at the age of 18.  There was a woman who lived in the same dorm and pursued him aggressively, with the intent of becoming his girlfriend.  Repeatedly and adamantly over the course of several months, he refuses her entreaties and flirtations and makes very clear his intent.  Just before departing for Thanksgiving, he hosts a party with about 50 attendees, she is in attendance.  Just before midnight, both are drunk and she pulls him off to the side, tells him she wants to spend the night with him, no strings attached.  He declines and repeats himself, claiming he doesn't want a relationship and therefore doesn't want to sleep with her.  She persists, says she just wants one night with him, etc.  He agrees, they commence and they are about to have sex when she begins to talk about their future life as a couple.  He says "I told you, I don't want a girlfriend" -- but has sex with her anyways.  He doesn't say if she says yes or no or anything at that point.

He tells me and three or four other guys this story over the holidays.  It's nagged at me over the years.  There were warning alarms all over the place, for both of them.  But was it rape?  I thought so, but then I have three younger sisters and I'm perhaps more sensitive than most about it.  So I'm curious as to what the attorneys on the board think.  How does this get adjudicated if she decides to press charges?

BTW, he never returned to school after his freshman year for financial reasons, but he was a schmoozer and connected with several Ca.l engineers who created a short-lived but profitable educational software startup.  It sold out in a few years, and he made a moderate amount of money.  Since then, he's led a behind-the-scenes life in Hollywood.

Odd aside: he has the same name as a noted campus sexual violence prevention expert.  They are definitely not the same person, the guy in question ended up in Hollywood.

[CTcard]

One may argue that's what happened with this private party hosted outside the auspices of the previously-stated campus party alcohol policies.

Is it clear this was the case? (i.e. private party outside the campus party policies)

I saw some speculation to this effect above, but never saw it stated or any clear reason to believe it so. I did a bit of a search for articles about the party - and again I never saw the nature of the party specified, but I did see enough references to people outside the fraternity coming to the party that it would seem to not qualify as a private party.

[CTcard]

One may argue that's what happened with this private party hosted outside the auspices of the previously-stated campus party alcohol policies.

Is it clear this was the case? (i.e. private party outside the campus party policies)

I saw some speculation to this effect above, but never saw it stated or any clear reason to believe it so. I did a bit of a search for articles about the party - and again I never saw the nature of the party specified, but I did see enough references to people outside the fraternity coming to the party that it would seem to not qualify as a private party.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=15166.msg164610#msg164610 date=1465337997]
One may argue that's what happened with this private party hosted outside the auspices of the previously-stated campus party alcohol policies.

Is it clear this was the case? (i.e. private party outside the campus party policies)

I saw some speculation to this effect above, but never saw it stated or any clear reason to believe it so. I did a bit of a search for articles about the party - and again I never saw the nature of the party specified, but I did see enough references to people outside the fraternity coming to the party that it would seem to not qualify as a private party.
[/quote]

If the party was registered as an open party and also required attendees to have a Stanford ID on them...then whoever threw the party is really busted.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=15166.msg164610#msg164610 date=1465337997]
One may argue that's what happened with this private party hosted outside the auspices of the previously-stated campus party alcohol policies.

Is it clear this was the case? (i.e. private party outside the campus party policies)

I saw some speculation to this effect above, but never saw it stated or any clear reason to believe it so. I did a bit of a search for articles about the party - and again I never saw the nature of the party specified, but I did see enough references to people outside the fraternity coming to the party that it would seem to not qualify as a private party.
[/quote]

If the party was registered as an open party and also required attendees to have a Stanford ID on them...then whoever threw the party is really busted.

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=15166.msg164603#msg164603 date=1465333711]Many campuses have banned hard alcohol, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, UFDFG, etc.

Dartmouth?  I don't actually believe this.

edit:
What I meant was that I didn't think such a ban would have much effect.

http://thedartmouth.com/2016/03/03/a-loo...-year-out/
[/quote]
The proposed Stanford ban was ONLY on hard liquor and ONLY on freshman dorms where nearly everyone is under the legal drinking age, and it still went down to defeat 11:1.  I think keeping hard liquor out of the hands of 18 year olds is not a bad goal, given that there were no other restrictions proposed.

No, it doesn't seem as if any kind of prohibition of any kind is effective, and many of them have negative, unforeseen consequences.  If Garvin were here I am sure he would point that out, the good Libertarian that he is. 

But we have a serious problem at universities across American, Stanford included, with the use of alcohol.  This is a major transition for many nerdy 18 year olds--many of whom have no experience with drinking--and get thrown into the binge drinking experience for the first time their freshman year.  Figuring out a way to help these kids learn responsible drinking rather than the binge drinking that is common at colleges would certainly be desirable.  Keeping the alcohol content low enough that inexperienced drinkers have time to react to the effects would be a good start.  Improving our residential education on the subject might be useful--I'm not sure how much alcohol education students get during orientation these days.  I don't think we got any in the 1970s. 

But the whole culture could use an overhaul on its attitude toward this drug.  It is instructive to look at how Southern Europeans (so called "wet cultures," although patterns are changing) used alcohol--higher per capital consumption but lower rates of alcoholism, DUIs, public drunkenness, etc.  Why?  Binge drinking was rare, being drunk was socially unacceptable, there was little consumption of hard liquor, drinking was normally done with food.  Compare that to going to a frat party and drinking vodka straight up.  Values and attitudes about this drug matter, and it would be good if we could figure out how to steer those 18 year olds toward moderation and responsible use.  Perhaps offer them wine with their dinners every night?

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a...95-109.htm

[81alum]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=15166.msg164603#msg164603 date=1465333711]Many campuses have banned hard alcohol, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, UFDFG, etc.

Dartmouth?  I don't actually believe this.

edit:
What I meant was that I didn't think such a ban would have much effect.

http://thedartmouth.com/2016/03/03/a-loo...-year-out/
[/quote]
The proposed Stanford ban was ONLY on hard liquor and ONLY on freshman dorms where nearly everyone is under the legal drinking age, and it still went down to defeat 11:1.  I think keeping hard liquor out of the hands of 18 year olds is not a bad goal, given that there were no other restrictions proposed.

No, it doesn't seem as if any kind of prohibition of any kind is effective, and many of them have negative, unforeseen consequences.  If Garvin were here I am sure he would point that out, the good Libertarian that he is. 

But we have a serious problem at universities across American, Stanford included, with the use of alcohol.  This is a major transition for many nerdy 18 year olds--many of whom have no experience with drinking--and get thrown into the binge drinking experience for the first time their freshman year.  Figuring out a way to help these kids learn responsible drinking rather than the binge drinking that is common at colleges would certainly be desirable.  Keeping the alcohol content low enough that inexperienced drinkers have time to react to the effects would be a good start.  Improving our residential education on the subject might be useful--I'm not sure how much alcohol education students get during orientation these days.  I don't think we got any in the 1970s. 

But the whole culture could use an overhaul on its attitude toward this drug.  It is instructive to look at how Southern Europeans (so called "wet cultures," although patterns are changing) used alcohol--higher per capital consumption but lower rates of alcoholism, DUIs, public drunkenness, etc.  Why?  Binge drinking was rare, being drunk was socially unacceptable, there was little consumption of hard liquor, drinking was normally done with food.  Compare that to going to a frat party and drinking vodka straight up.  Values and attitudes about this drug matter, and it would be good if we could figure out how to steer those 18 year olds toward moderation and responsible use.  Perhaps offer them wine with their dinners every night?

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/a...95-109.htm

[BostonCard]

Quoting you out of order here:

But was it rape?

The funny thing is that as you were telling the story, I thought the question was going to be whether he was the victim of rape.

He doesn't say if she says yes or no or anything at that point.

That would seem to be a key determinant, right?  If she said no, the answer is pretty easy. If she consented, the question is whether she was sober enough to give her consent.

I found this guideline by Cornell to be helpful (though it may be more related to campus adjudication of sexual assault charges and not legal circumstances):

https://share.cornell.edu/education-enga...r-consent/

Inability to consent due to intoxication means “no.” When a person is the recipient of sexual advances but is highly intoxicated, he or she may be unable to consent to any sexual conduct. In the words of the Review Board, “sexual interactions with another party who has been drinking heavily should . . . be undertaken . . . at one’s own risk.” A panel of the Hearing Board has also noted, “No member of the community should be at risk of a sexual assault merely because [he or she] consumes too much alcohol at a party. Cornell aspires to be a community in which students come to the aid of others who find themselves in such a state [rather than seeing them] as someone [to] exploit.”

(emphasis mine)

Note however, that two items are vague.  Unstated is how intoxicated must one be to be "highly intoxicated", and "may be unable to consent" is different from "is not able to consent".

Also, I found this a particularly good way of thinking of it.

The responsibility for misinterpretation when either party has been drinking falls on the initiator of further sexual activity. If the person seeking sex is intoxicated, he or she has a decreased ability to discern the capacity of the other party to give consent. Under Cornell’s rules, the inability to perceive capacity does not excuse the behavior of the person who begins the sexual interaction or tries to take it to another level. The Review Board has held that “intoxication is neither a defense to sexual assault nor an exonerating circumstance, with the result that sexual interactions after periods of heavy drinking should be undertaken with caution” and, in another case, “failure to recognize that the victim was too drunk to consent is no defense to a charge of sexual assault as defined by the Cornell Code . . . The responsibility for ascertaining [complainant’s] mental state rested upon [accused student], as did the risk of failing to do so.”

(emphasis their's)

So, assuming that he was the initiator (that is, he was the one taking off her clothes, etc.), then it was his responsibility to ensure that she was sober enough to consent.  He could have been in very big trouble.  I suspect the degree that she pursued him before and the fact that she specifically went to him earlier in the evening and said that she wanted to spend the night with him without strings attached would be mitigating circumstances.  But, consent can be withdrawn at any time.  That was a situation that he should have avoided with a 10-ft pole.

Of course, it could also be that she was the initiator even after he stated he didn't want to be his girlfriend and that he never gave his consent (or was capable of it).

BC

[BostonCard]

Quoting you out of order here:

But was it rape?

The funny thing is that as you were telling the story, I thought the question was going to be whether he was the victim of rape.

He doesn't say if she says yes or no or anything at that point.

That would seem to be a key determinant, right?  If she said no, the answer is pretty easy. If she consented, the question is whether she was sober enough to give her consent.

I found this guideline by Cornell to be helpful (though it may be more related to campus adjudication of sexual assault charges and not legal circumstances):

https://share.cornell.edu/education-enga...r-consent/

Inability to consent due to intoxication means “no.” When a person is the recipient of sexual advances but is highly intoxicated, he or she may be unable to consent to any sexual conduct. In the words of the Review Board, “sexual interactions with another party who has been drinking heavily should . . . be undertaken . . . at one’s own risk.” A panel of the Hearing Board has also noted, “No member of the community should be at risk of a sexual assault merely because [he or she] consumes too much alcohol at a party. Cornell aspires to be a community in which students come to the aid of others who find themselves in such a state [rather than seeing them] as someone [to] exploit.”

(emphasis mine)

Note however, that two items are vague.  Unstated is how intoxicated must one be to be "highly intoxicated", and "may be unable to consent" is different from "is not able to consent".

Also, I found this a particularly good way of thinking of it.

The responsibility for misinterpretation when either party has been drinking falls on the initiator of further sexual activity. If the person seeking sex is intoxicated, he or she has a decreased ability to discern the capacity of the other party to give consent. Under Cornell’s rules, the inability to perceive capacity does not excuse the behavior of the person who begins the sexual interaction or tries to take it to another level. The Review Board has held that “intoxication is neither a defense to sexual assault nor an exonerating circumstance, with the result that sexual interactions after periods of heavy drinking should be undertaken with caution” and, in another case, “failure to recognize that the victim was too drunk to consent is no defense to a charge of sexual assault as defined by the Cornell Code . . . The responsibility for ascertaining [complainant’s] mental state rested upon [accused student], as did the risk of failing to do so.”

(emphasis their's)

So, assuming that he was the initiator (that is, he was the one taking off her clothes, etc.), then it was his responsibility to ensure that she was sober enough to consent.  He could have been in very big trouble.  I suspect the degree that she pursued him before and the fact that she specifically went to him earlier in the evening and said that she wanted to spend the night with him without strings attached would be mitigating circumstances.  But, consent can be withdrawn at any time.  That was a situation that he should have avoided with a 10-ft pole.

Of course, it could also be that she was the initiator even after he stated he didn't want to be his girlfriend and that he never gave his consent (or was capable of it).

BC

[Mick]

Thanks BC, appreciate the reply.

[Mick]

Thanks BC, appreciate the reply.

[CTcard]

If the party was registered as an open party and also required attendees to have a Stanford ID on them...then whoever threw the party is really busted.

From the Stanford party guide linked above:

Once your party grows to a size where you need to make use of a public space, (e.g. the hallway of your dorm, lounge at your row house, space in Elliot Program Center or in Tresidder, or Lag BBQ Pit) you need to register it

and

Examples of parties that should not be registered: You and a friend (both of you over 21) have a beer or a glass of wine in your room. You invite a speaker to campus, after the talk you host a recep-tion. You don’t serve alcohol.  (This is an event. Events have their own registration process which is overseen by Student Activities and Leadership). Examples of events that should be registered as parties: 1. A public event without alcohol service held for the purpose of socializing. These are parties like Screw Your Sib and Club Caliente. Students dance, eat, drink (EANABs!), and they socialize. 2. Public events with alcohol service. Examples of this kind of party include 680’s Exotic, Café Night and Senior Night.

So it seems pretty clear that the party in question would have had to be registered by this policy.


Slightly ambiguous is whether the victim in this case would have been allowed to be there by the Stanford party policy. The guide explicitly states that non-Stanford students under 18 are not allowed. It also makes clear that for most parties, Stanford students can bring a guest who is a college student elsewhere.* As far as I saw, the policy never specifically addresses whether non-college students can attend a Stanford party even as a guest.


* The typical wording is "A Stanford student can escort one non-Stanford college student guest, with valid college ID"

[CTcard]

If the party was registered as an open party and also required attendees to have a Stanford ID on them...then whoever threw the party is really busted.

From the Stanford party guide linked above:

Once your party grows to a size where you need to make use of a public space, (e.g. the hallway of your dorm, lounge at your row house, space in Elliot Program Center or in Tresidder, or Lag BBQ Pit) you need to register it

and

Examples of parties that should not be registered: You and a friend (both of you over 21) have a beer or a glass of wine in your room. You invite a speaker to campus, after the talk you host a recep-tion. You don’t serve alcohol.  (This is an event. Events have their own registration process which is overseen by Student Activities and Leadership). Examples of events that should be registered as parties: 1. A public event without alcohol service held for the purpose of socializing. These are parties like Screw Your Sib and Club Caliente. Students dance, eat, drink (EANABs!), and they socialize. 2. Public events with alcohol service. Examples of this kind of party include 680’s Exotic, Café Night and Senior Night.

So it seems pretty clear that the party in question would have had to be registered by this policy.


Slightly ambiguous is whether the victim in this case would have been allowed to be there by the Stanford party policy. The guide explicitly states that non-Stanford students under 18 are not allowed. It also makes clear that for most parties, Stanford students can bring a guest who is a college student elsewhere.* As far as I saw, the policy never specifically addresses whether non-college students can attend a Stanford party even as a guest.


* The typical wording is "A Stanford student can escort one non-Stanford college student guest, with valid college ID"

[needle]

Policy is one thing, but who enforces the policy? Unless someone on campus now can tell us, we don't know the answer. Obviously, without enforcement a policy is meaningless.

I do know at some universities, the police regularly do walk-thrus of registered fraternity events. At Stanford, no idea.

FWIW, the woman who was assaulted in her lengthy letter de-emphasized alcohol as a contributing factor, reacting to the letter from Turner that referenced alcohol repeatedly. I fully recognize that no one commenting in this thread is discounting the agency of Turner in committing this horrible crime, but I would again reference the woman's own powerful words as a reminder about who (not what) is responsible for this particular incident (and we can have another conversation on another forum about whether the criminal justice system should consider alcohol as a mitigating factor in deciding punishment for a crime such as this one):

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault.

[needle]

Policy is one thing, but who enforces the policy? Unless someone on campus now can tell us, we don't know the answer. Obviously, without enforcement a policy is meaningless.

I do know at some universities, the police regularly do walk-thrus of registered fraternity events. At Stanford, no idea.

FWIW, the woman who was assaulted in her lengthy letter de-emphasized alcohol as a contributing factor, reacting to the letter from Turner that referenced alcohol repeatedly. I fully recognize that no one commenting in this thread is discounting the agency of Turner in committing this horrible crime, but I would again reference the woman's own powerful words as a reminder about who (not what) is responsible for this particular incident (and we can have another conversation on another forum about whether the criminal justice system should consider alcohol as a mitigating factor in deciding punishment for a crime such as this one):

Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked. Having too much to drink was an amateur mistake that I admit to, but it is not criminal. Everyone in this room has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much, or knows someone close to them who has had a night where they have regretted drinking too much. Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault.

[robin]

This 1978 Santa Clara law review article by Boalt Hall graduate Roberta O'Neale (apparently misstated as "Robert" O'Neale on the first page) contains some interesting reading on the law of criminal sexual assault and its development:  http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/vi...awreview. 

As the mother of two daughters who graduated within the last five years (Stanford and Brown), I think the subject of binge drinking on university campuses -- vis a vis male sexual assault, "athlete culture," a woman's ability to control reproduction (other than "in the moment") -- is a corollary worthy of serious examination.  I know from my older daughter that Stanford does provide freshman students with alcohol education, but from my own observations during her years at Stanford this education is not avoiding unhealthful drinking in dorm rooms.  (FYI, I am not a teetotaler.)

And I will use this opportunity to thank each of you for replying.  I am reading all the responses with great interest.

[robin]

This 1978 Santa Clara law review article by Boalt Hall graduate Roberta O'Neale (apparently misstated as "Robert" O'Neale on the first page) contains some interesting reading on the law of criminal sexual assault and its development:  http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/vi...awreview. 

As the mother of two daughters who graduated within the last five years (Stanford and Brown), I think the subject of binge drinking on university campuses -- vis a vis male sexual assault, "athlete culture," a woman's ability to control reproduction (other than "in the moment") -- is a corollary worthy of serious examination.  I know from my older daughter that Stanford does provide freshman students with alcohol education, but from my own observations during her years at Stanford this education is not avoiding unhealthful drinking in dorm rooms.  (FYI, I am not a teetotaler.)

And I will use this opportunity to thank each of you for replying.  I am reading all the responses with great interest.

[martyup]

A question for the attorneys in the crowd.

When I was a freshman, I knew a very popular young man who had no intention of tying himself down with a girlfriend at the age of 18.  There was a woman who lived in the same dorm and pursued him aggressively, with the intent of becoming his girlfriend.  Repeatedly and adamantly over the course of several months, he refuses her entreaties and flirtations and makes very clear his intent.  Just before departing for Thanksgiving, he hosts a party with about 50 attendees, she is in attendance.  Just before midnight, both are drunk and she pulls him off to the side, tells him she wants to spend the night with him, no strings attached.  He declines and repeats himself, claiming he doesn't want a relationship and therefore doesn't want to sleep with her.  She persists, says she just wants one night with him, etc.  He agrees, they commence and they are about to have sex when she begins to talk about their future life as a couple.  He says "I told you, I don't want a girlfriend" -- but has sex with her anyways.  He doesn't say if she says yes or no or anything at that point.

He tells me and three or four other guys this story over the holidays.  It's nagged at me over the years.  There were warning alarms all over the place, for both of them.  But was it rape?  I thought so, but then I have three younger sisters and I'm perhaps more sensitive than most about it.  So I'm curious as to what the attorneys on the board think.  How does this get adjudicated if she decides to press charges?

BTW, he never returned to school after his freshman year for financial reasons, but he was a schmoozer and connected with several Ca.l engineers who created a short-lived but profitable educational software startup.  It sold out in a few years, and he made a moderate amount of money.  Since then, he's led a behind-the-scenes life in Hollywood.

Odd aside: he has the same name as a noted campus sexual violence prevention expert.  They are definitely not the same person, the guy in question ended up in Hollywood.

I don't think "legal" consent can be conditioned upon a future relationship.  I think you are asking if she gave consent only if he agreed to be her boyfriend.  If conditions could be attached to consent, it would create very odd results.  For example, if a woman said she would have sex with a man if he agreed to help her study for an exam.  If he later refused to help her study, he could be guilty of rape.  I don't think that is the kind of legal standard society would desire.

[martyup]

A question for the attorneys in the crowd.

When I was a freshman, I knew a very popular young man who had no intention of tying himself down with a girlfriend at the age of 18.  There was a woman who lived in the same dorm and pursued him aggressively, with the intent of becoming his girlfriend.  Repeatedly and adamantly over the course of several months, he refuses her entreaties and flirtations and makes very clear his intent.  Just before departing for Thanksgiving, he hosts a party with about 50 attendees, she is in attendance.  Just before midnight, both are drunk and she pulls him off to the side, tells him she wants to spend the night with him, no strings attached.  He declines and repeats himself, claiming he doesn't want a relationship and therefore doesn't want to sleep with her.  She persists, says she just wants one night with him, etc.  He agrees, they commence and they are about to have sex when she begins to talk about their future life as a couple.  He says "I told you, I don't want a girlfriend" -- but has sex with her anyways.  He doesn't say if she says yes or no or anything at that point.

He tells me and three or four other guys this story over the holidays.  It's nagged at me over the years.  There were warning alarms all over the place, for both of them.  But was it rape?  I thought so, but then I have three younger sisters and I'm perhaps more sensitive than most about it.  So I'm curious as to what the attorneys on the board think.  How does this get adjudicated if she decides to press charges?

BTW, he never returned to school after his freshman year for financial reasons, but he was a schmoozer and connected with several Ca.l engineers who created a short-lived but profitable educational software startup.  It sold out in a few years, and he made a moderate amount of money.  Since then, he's led a behind-the-scenes life in Hollywood.

Odd aside: he has the same name as a noted campus sexual violence prevention expert.  They are definitely not the same person, the guy in question ended up in Hollywood.

I don't think "legal" consent can be conditioned upon a future relationship.  I think you are asking if she gave consent only if he agreed to be her boyfriend.  If conditions could be attached to consent, it would create very odd results.  For example, if a woman said she would have sex with a man if he agreed to help her study for an exam.  If he later refused to help her study, he could be guilty of rape.  I don't think that is the kind of legal standard society would desire.

[yvonne]

If someone says they might want tea later, you can put the kettle on, but don't force them to have tea now. You do not have the right to force them to have tea just because they said the might at some time in the future want tea.

[yvonne]

If someone says they might want tea later, you can put the kettle on, but don't force them to have tea now. You do not have the right to force them to have tea just because they said the might at some time in the future want tea.

[robin]

In case Yvonne's post's reference is missed, see the video "Tea and Consent" here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ

One of the most clever education pieces I have seen.

[robin]

In case Yvonne's post's reference is missed, see the video "Tea and Consent" here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ

One of the most clever education pieces I have seen.

[BostonCard]

Obviously, the extreme of this is that consent made conditional on payment of money, which is illegal in most states.

That being said, I'm not sure that's the case here.  It doesn't sound like the woman said, "OK, fine we can have sex, but only if later you are my boyfriend".  It sounds more like the woman first gave consent (if not initiated).  Then she insinuated that they would be in a relationship by talking about their future life as a couple.  He makes it clear he is not interested in life as a couple.  At that point, the woman could a) nonetheless consent to having sex b) withdraw consent or c) be too intoxicated to consent.  We don't hear what happened in the story other than the fact that they did have sex.  If she said that if they weren't going to be a couple that she didn't want to continue, then he was guilty of committing rape.  If she was too intoxicated to consent, he also was guilty of committing rape, though there would probably be extenuating circumstances (her behavior the entire rest of the evening).  If she said yes and was capable of saying yes, then it's not rape.  It's possible though that she wasn't hearing him when he said he was not interested in a relationship.  That's on her, but creates a very messy situation for both of them.  That's why my one conclusion is that it's a situation that I wouldn't have wanted to touch with a 10-foot pole.

BC

[BostonCard]

Obviously, the extreme of this is that consent made conditional on payment of money, which is illegal in most states.

That being said, I'm not sure that's the case here.  It doesn't sound like the woman said, "OK, fine we can have sex, but only if later you are my boyfriend".  It sounds more like the woman first gave consent (if not initiated).  Then she insinuated that they would be in a relationship by talking about their future life as a couple.  He makes it clear he is not interested in life as a couple.  At that point, the woman could a) nonetheless consent to having sex b) withdraw consent or c) be too intoxicated to consent.  We don't hear what happened in the story other than the fact that they did have sex.  If she said that if they weren't going to be a couple that she didn't want to continue, then he was guilty of committing rape.  If she was too intoxicated to consent, he also was guilty of committing rape, though there would probably be extenuating circumstances (her behavior the entire rest of the evening).  If she said yes and was capable of saying yes, then it's not rape.  It's possible though that she wasn't hearing him when he said he was not interested in a relationship.  That's on her, but creates a very messy situation for both of them.  That's why my one conclusion is that it's a situation that I wouldn't have wanted to touch with a 10-foot pole.

BC

[Mick]

Obviously, the extreme of this is that consent made conditional on payment of money, which is illegal in most states.

That being said, I'm not sure that's the case here.  It doesn't sound like the woman said, "OK, fine we can have sex, but only if later you are my boyfriend".  It sounds more like the woman first gave consent (if not initiated).  Then she insinuated that they would be in a relationship by talking about their future life as a couple.  He makes it clear he is not interested in life as a couple.  At that point, the woman could a) nonetheless consent to having sex b) withdraw consent or c) be too intoxicated to consent.  We don't hear what happened in the story other than the fact that they did have sex.  If she said that if they weren't going to be a couple that she didn't want to continue, then he was guilty of committing rape.  If she was too intoxicated to consent, he also was guilty of committing rape, though there would probably be extenuating circumstances (her behavior the entire rest of the evening).  If she said yes and was capable of saying yes, then it's not rape.  It's possible though that she wasn't hearing him when he said he was not interested in a relationship.  That's on her, but creates a very messy situation for both of them.  That's why my one conclusion is that it's a situation that I wouldn't have wanted to touch with a 10-foot pole.

BC

I agree with you, BC.  And he didn't disclose whether she said "In that case, No" or "I don't care, let's have sex anyway" hoping for the future relationship anyways, or was too intoxicated to respond...although the fact that she was coherent enough to discuss future plans makes me wonder.

And I wonder, looking ahead to the future when college students where strap-on blood-alcohol measuring devices that flash green for "Good to go" or red for "too intoxicated"...what is too intoxicated?  .06?  .10?  .15 or more?  And if these devices get developed, would colleges mandate their distribution at parties?  Would they deliver a non-lethal jolt of electricity to a persistent suitor who tries to override the red warning?  Just curious as to the various future permutations.

[Mick]

Obviously, the extreme of this is that consent made conditional on payment of money, which is illegal in most states.

That being said, I'm not sure that's the case here.  It doesn't sound like the woman said, "OK, fine we can have sex, but only if later you are my boyfriend".  It sounds more like the woman first gave consent (if not initiated).  Then she insinuated that they would be in a relationship by talking about their future life as a couple.  He makes it clear he is not interested in life as a couple.  At that point, the woman could a) nonetheless consent to having sex b) withdraw consent or c) be too intoxicated to consent.  We don't hear what happened in the story other than the fact that they did have sex.  If she said that if they weren't going to be a couple that she didn't want to continue, then he was guilty of committing rape.  If she was too intoxicated to consent, he also was guilty of committing rape, though there would probably be extenuating circumstances (her behavior the entire rest of the evening).  If she said yes and was capable of saying yes, then it's not rape.  It's possible though that she wasn't hearing him when he said he was not interested in a relationship.  That's on her, but creates a very messy situation for both of them.  That's why my one conclusion is that it's a situation that I wouldn't have wanted to touch with a 10-foot pole.

BC

I agree with you, BC.  And he didn't disclose whether she said "In that case, No" or "I don't care, let's have sex anyway" hoping for the future relationship anyways, or was too intoxicated to respond...although the fact that she was coherent enough to discuss future plans makes me wonder.

And I wonder, looking ahead to the future when college students where strap-on blood-alcohol measuring devices that flash green for "Good to go" or red for "too intoxicated"...what is too intoxicated?  .06?  .10?  .15 or more?  And if these devices get developed, would colleges mandate their distribution at parties?  Would they deliver a non-lethal jolt of electricity to a persistent suitor who tries to override the red warning?  Just curious as to the various future permutations.

[martyup]

It seems that the legal definition of consent is changing.  According to an article in The Telegraph:

The offence of rape has continued to become more complex, and malleable, as the result of three cases from the higher courts. If you thought rape is only where a man uses violence against a woman to have sex you would be wrong – violence is not necessary. If you thought rape is where a man has sex with a woman without her consent – you would be right but consent is not black and white. A man could be guilty of rape if he ‘tricks’ a women into bed; if he agrees to use a condom but then removes it or damages it; or, if he agrees to withdraw from her but refuses to at the end. So the offence of rape now definitely does not just concern the knife-wielding maniac in the alleyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-...s-how.html

Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid. 

[martyup]

It seems that the legal definition of consent is changing.  According to an article in The Telegraph:

The offence of rape has continued to become more complex, and malleable, as the result of three cases from the higher courts. If you thought rape is only where a man uses violence against a woman to have sex you would be wrong – violence is not necessary. If you thought rape is where a man has sex with a woman without her consent – you would be right but consent is not black and white. A man could be guilty of rape if he ‘tricks’ a women into bed; if he agrees to use a condom but then removes it or damages it; or, if he agrees to withdraw from her but refuses to at the end. So the offence of rape now definitely does not just concern the knife-wielding maniac in the alleyway.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-...s-how.html

Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid. 

[stupac2]

Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid.

Is that a bad thing?

[stupac2]

Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid.

Is that a bad thing?

[fullmetal]

Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid.

Is it?  Or maybe it's just getting perilous for those young men to get laid on their own terms with specific people regardless of consent.  Consenting young adults are not a rare type of person on a college campus.

[fullmetal]

Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid.

Is it?  Or maybe it's just getting perilous for those young men to get laid on their own terms with specific people regardless of consent.  Consenting young adults are not a rare type of person on a college campus.

[martyup]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=15166.msg164674#msg164674 date=1465417210]Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid.

Is that a bad thing?
[/quote]

Not for me.  I'm just making an observation of reality.  No judgment intended.

[martyup]

[quote author=martyup link=topic=15166.msg164674#msg164674 date=1465417210]Mick is right.  It's getting very perilous out there for young men who just want to get laid.

Is that a bad thing?
[/quote]

Not for me.  I'm just making an observation of reality.  No judgment intended.