Horrible question about date "rape" (not actual date rape, more post-coital regret)

Suppose Joe and Sally, both freshmen, meet at a party where each has been drinking to the point where they would each be the same amount drunk as the other. And they are each pretty drunk.

So Joe invites, and Sally agrees, and off they go. Or Sally invites…

Next morning, Sally wakes up and realizes what she has done, freaks out, and accuses Jow of having raped her because she was too drunk for her consent to have been meaningful.

Joe is arrested, kicked out of the college, and ends up as a registered sex offender.

But if Sally was too drunk to give consent, and Joe was just as drunk, then why does Joe’s “consent” count and hers doesn’t? What if he is just as bummed out the next day as she was?

Well, in most of these cases Joe doesn’t become a registered sex offender because he hasn’t been convicted, much less charged with any crime. He may be arrested initially, but the police will determine that no crime was committed. He will go through an administrative process run completely by the school which only affects his status at the school. It’s not a legal process and at more and more schools due to pressure from the government, it’s based on preponderance of the evidence standard. Under threat that if the school doesn’t take these cases ‘more seriously’ they’ll lose federal funding. Erego, in most cases Joe will not have the right to provide testimony, bring his own witnesses, confront/question opposing witnesses or provide evidence in his defense. It will simply be the board/hearing listening to the testimony of the female and her witnesses.

This is why there have been a spate of lawsuits against universities which they have lost.

You know the answer to the question. In accordance with the political correctness of modern feminism, women are always the victims and need special protections. Now, if they’re unable to drink and then be accountable for their actions-- perhaps the solution should be to ban college women from drinking.

This is a very poorly titled subject and seems like a attempt to “blame the victim.”
To say date “rape” (not actual date rape) makes zero sense.

This was just in the news:

"Woman judge slams drunk rape victims because juries can’t convict when women can’t remember anything about the attack
Judge Mary Jane Mowat, 66, gives controversial interview as she retires
Says rape conviction rate will only improve when women ‘stop getting drunk’
Oxford-educated circuit judge says she knows she will be ‘pilloried’ for view
Rape crisis workers say such ‘victim-blaming’ is behind low conviction rate
Oxford Rape Crisis manager calls comments ‘outrageous and dangerous’

Natalie Brook, service manager at Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre, yesterday slammed the judge’s comments on rape as ‘an outrageous, misguided and frankly dangerous statement to make’.

She said: ‘Rape convictions will improve when those who perpetrate it, who are disproportionately male, stop raping and when society stops blaming women for somehow being complicit in this act of violence.

‘Rape is 100 per cent the fault of the perpetrator.’

Sorry, it’s not an attempt to blame the victim. It’s wondering why if two drunk people have sex, only one is considered the victim. Why not both?

If a drunk woman can’t give consent, then neither can a drunk man.

Which shows the wisdom of the Catholic Church in it’s teachings on sobriety, responsibility and chastity.

reason.com/archives/2014/08/27/it-was-a-wild-and-crazy-summer-of-crimin

Note, even if investigators and the police determine that the encounter was consensual-- colleges are adminstratively expelling male students without any kind of due process.

All based on the flawed and discredited ‘1 in 5’ females are sexually assaulted at college statement from a single study involving 2 colleges with an extremely low rate of response.

collegeinsurrection.com/2014/08/new-nonprofit-supports-rights-of-students-accused-of-campus-sexual-assault/

washingtonexaminer.com/judge-denies-universitys-motion-to-dismiss-students-due-process-lawsuit-against-college/article/2552198

In no way did the OP attempt to “blame the victim”. Rather, the post seems to be an attempt to understand why, when both parties are** equally incapacitated** by alcohol, one party’s “consent” is often given more weight than the other party’s.

Questions like this make me think we need a Law forum especially dealing with situations involving religious freedom or church-state relations.

I’m not sure where the “morality” of your question exists, unless you rhetorically conclude that the legal situation would be different, and you think we as citizens should be concerned.

Without commenting on that, I will make a few observations.

  1. The campus’s decision is not in any way contingent upon the law’s decision, or vice versa. The law presumes innocent until proven guilty, the university may or may not. The law uses a standard of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt;” the university may or may not.

  2. The university has no power to order someone to register as a sex offender.

  3. My favorite blog, legalinsurrection.com, has a sister blog, collegeinsurrection.com (same author), that has extensively covered on a weekly basis the eroding of due process rights of accused males on college campuses over the past two years. It notes a very real danger for unfair treatment, witch hunts based on noncritical studies. I would strongly suggest that you go there for further reading if that’s an interest to you.

  4. Laws can make some distinctions with regards to a person’s sex (gender). Normally, this would be prohibited, but in the context of sex/rape, it is constitutional. It could lead to unfairness in application if not drafted properly.

  5. When you take your pants off in front of a woman who is not your wife, you put your legal status as a free man at jeopardy. Just sayin’. For different reasons, you’re likely transgressing Catholic morality as well, as you well know.

Please realize, statistically women commit sexual assault almost as frequently as men.

thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/06/women-need-to-be-educated-about-sexual-consent-right-now-they-arent/

If he were “equally incapacitated” I have a lot of doubts that he would manage to follow through.

But I don’t have extensive personal experience in this area.

Bear in mind, a woman can experience completed intercourse without being conscious, whereas it’s rather less probable that a man would be able to sustain intercourse while unconscious.

By the way, if “enthusiastic consent” becomes the social norm, there’s going to be a lot less premarital sex happening.

Or your proctologist.

Just sayin.’ :smiley:

From that article:

“How can women aggressively rape men? It’s very simple: men do not fight back because they will be the party arrested, as specified under the Violence Against Women Act, which has a mandatory arrest clause that almost always means the man will be arrested, no matter who the primary aggressor happened to be.”

That claim seems undersourced.

It doesn’t even make sense, from the point of physical mechanics. An uninterested male is simply incapable of intercourse. I realize there are other physical options, but intercourse is definitely off the table (barring some sort of very weird set of circumstances).

The physical aspect of rape begins at even the slightest penetration. Issues such as turgidity or “follow through” don’t really matter.

At the risk of TMI, it might be impossible to achieve any penetration at all, whatsoever, in the face of a totally disinterested and uncooperative male.

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting, but feel free to PM me. It’s already happened to many men, therefore it is not impossible.

I did write the title awkwardly, and added some afterwards to clarify. I was trying to be clear that I wasn’t talking about a case in which a woman said no or was forced or was unconscious at the time, but of a case in which the woman consented *at the time *abd later regretted having done so, and claims her consent was not valid because she was drunk. If the man in question was drunk, then it seems there is a double standard.

This was just in the news:

"Woman judge slams drunk rape victims because juries can’t convict when women can’t remember anything about the attack
Judge Mary Jane Mowat, 66, gives controversial interview as she retires
Says rape conviction rate will only improve when women ‘stop getting drunk’
Oxford-educated circuit judge says she knows she will be ‘pilloried’ for view
Rape crisis workers say such ‘victim-blaming’ is behind low conviction rate
Oxford Rape Crisis manager calls comments ‘outrageous and dangerous’

If this is Oxford, England, they are apparently having (in England) a huge problem with young people drinking to excess.

Natalie Brook, service manager at Oxford Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre, yesterday slammed the judge’s comments on rape as ‘an outrageous, misguided and frankly dangerous statement to make’.

She said: ‘Rape convictions will improve when those who perpetrate it, who are disproportionately male, stop raping and when society stops blaming women for somehow being complicit in this act of violence.

‘Rape is 100 per cent the fault of the perpetrator.’

However, there are false accusations of rape. Consider what happened in the Duke Lacross team case–that must have been a nightmare for those men.

I had no idea… oh, what our society has come to.

As outlined in the article linked, it seems that men, esp when they are young, are not always in control of this particular bodily function.

Additionally, men may be showing a physical interest but be mentally unwilling to commit the act.

In addressing the issue delicately, remember that the body may react in a way the mind does not consent to. A man may not be interested and lack capacity to consent, but his body may respond to intimacy nonetheless.

Dave Chappelle had it right on his show: People will need to sign a “Love Contract” (ironic name, I know) stating they they are each in full consent and are willing participants. I believe there was even a ‘checklist’ of what they would and would not do, and a “non-disclosure agreement”.

Where I attend grad school, there was a disgusting example of an underground, off-campus ‘fraternity’ that was seriously in the wrong, including having a manual on making situations “more comfortable” for young women to get drink, then how to convince them to go upstairs. This type of behavior is grossly unacceptable, but I believe it is an extreme example.

As a result, every new freshman (and all grad students) have to take an online course on sexual abuse, including relationship violence (emotional and mental, as well as physical), what is deemed consent, etc. Aside from the pro-homosexual references throughout the program, and some really good sections on identifying trouble situations (for yourself and others), there was a huge focus on consent, and every single example involved a man getting a woman drunk, or a drunk man and drunk woman at a bar and the man trying to convince the woman to go home with him. Even with this ultra-PC course, it misses the hypocrisy that the perceived notion is that the man does not have to give consent, and any sexual activity is always instigated by the man, requiring the full consent of the woman.

Other posters have it right - Catholic teaching is the best option - not only for morality, but also because it is the only method that protects all parties involved.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.