Courts

Stanford So Smart Even Its Rapists Are Logical

|

When Andy Warhol refused to return the only copy of the script for "Up Your Ass" to Valerie Solanas, she didn't go to to some student court for justice.

A Stanford University student accused of sexual assault in an incident that the Palo Alto police and prosecutor investigated and declined to pursue nevertheless was convicted by a student court under relaxed evidence standards introduced by U.S. Department of Education. 

In the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post, Princeton alumna Samantha Harris reports that the student court – which I guess is what you would get if you replaced kangaroos with students in a kangaroo court – changed its standard mid-trial, in response to a letter from Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR): 

At the time the student was charged, Stanford was using the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard—the highest standard of proof, used by courts in criminal cases. But after OCR's letter, Stanford shifted to the "preponderance" standard in the middle of his case. 

Plus, the campus panel that heard the case had been "trained" using documents boldly proclaiming that "everyone should be very, very cautious in accepting a man's claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence" and that one indication of an abuser is that he will "act persuasive and logical." 

Perhaps the Stanford student acted too logically: He was promptly found guilty and suspended for two years. But because the OCR's letter forces colleges to permit the accuser to appeal the decision if the accused may do so, she has appealed and is seeking permanent expulsion of her alleged attacker. 

Harris' organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has more on Stanford due process:

Stanford's definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people's idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent … if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage. Further, under a policy like Stanford's, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.

We've all had nights like that, eh? Amiright? 

Here's the table of instructions [pdf] designed to help jurors find the plaintiff credible and the defendant guilty:

Stanford Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness advice on distinguishing a victim/survivor from an abuser.

These guidelines give a sense of having been written about specific episodes/people in the author's past. ("Mention receiving abuse in prior relationships & claim not to understand why these relationships ended" could describe most people I know, but writing it out in this breathless way suggests the framer of the guidelines is still working through something.)  

I'm willing to go pretty far along the Valerie Solanas/Ti-Grace Atkinson continuum that recognizes men as the natural enemies of women. But the striking thing about these talking points is that they're symmetrical. They prescribe behavior for both the accuser and the accused. 

The victim (most likely to be an adult woman, though I hear the kids are getting up to all kinds of funny business these days) is forced into a role that can only be described as "nice, passive, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy's Girl." On the other hand, the attacker (most likely to be an adult male, but they tell me you wouldn't believe some of these girls today) is given strengths of logic and persuasiveness that you would associate with a highly functioning person. Are logic and persuasiveness just gender constructions or something? I've known some logical and persuasive women – and by that I mean more than just, "I'd hit that." 

NEXT: Reason Writers in Journalistic How-to Manuals for Young Libertarians

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The “indications of an abuser” read more like “indications of someone who feels unjustly accused”.

    1. Campus Panel: Are you a male?
      Accused: Yes.
      Campus Panel: GUILTY!

      Does anyone really wonder why fewer and fewer men are attending college these days?

      1. Males are also becoming wise to the fact that only an idiot would take out the equivalent cost of a Lexus in non-dischargeable debt for a liberal arts degree. Even in these days of lowered academic capabilities, the math is upfront and in your face.

        It’s possible to have the “college experience” without the college, and the sooner young people realize that, the better off society will be.

        1. And if you have the college experience without the college, you will be protected by the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, as well.

      2. Why even bother with “burden of proof” at all? In fact, the whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept is just a construct of the logo-centric phallic patriarchy.

      3. Princeton alumna Samantha Harris reports that the student court ? which I guess is what you would get if you replaced kangaroos with students in a kangaroo court ?

        I’ll take my chances with the Kangaroos!

      4. I trust that he will at least get his money back for the overpriced sheepskin credential he is unlikely to receive from the prestigious Stanford.

    2. The accused blew it. Under the circumstances he should have claimed that she forced him inside while he was blotto and asked for her to be expelled sexual predator that she is.

      1. You assume the same rules apply to men and women. I don’t think so.

      2. Bad advice, counselor. Claiming to be a victim is evidence that you are an abuser, according to the Stanford materials.

    3. Yes that seems to be an increasingly common tactic used by accusers, prosecutors, and “experts.” If the accused denies any wrongdoing and seems calm and rational then that proves he is guilty because that is part of his sickness.

    4. If the accused drowns, it is proof he is not a witch. If the accused does not drown, it is proof he is a witch, and must be killed.

      1. Or a duck. Or a very small rock.

    5. A Bonney Lake man who made the police department’s Most Wanted list was apprehended by police late Thursday evening.

      James D. Haselwood is a common name at the Bonney Lake Police Department. He has been accused of chronic theft and is banned from most local stores for reportedly stealing everything from lawn mowers to deli food.

      After making Bonney Lake’s ‘Most Wanted’ list, 21 year-old Haselwood was picked up late on Thurs., June 23 for five outstanding misdemeanor warrants since March of this year.

      Nothing else happened.

      http://bonneylake-sumner.patch…..shoplifter

    6. Winning the thread in the first comment. Nice work!

    7. This is women’s revenge for witch trials.

    8. That is a logical conclusion … abuser!

  2. Isn’t Stanford one of those places where there aren’t any Americans, much like Harvard and Berkeley?

    This is much the identity I would imagine for shithead Ivy League graduates, if they weren’t elected President:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYws8biwOYc

  3. I’ve known some logical and persuasive women ? and by that I mean more than just, “I’d hit that.”

    And by that I mean “They were rapists.”

  4. Act persuasive and logical.

    In fairness, it’s been a long time since academia’s practiced persuasiveness and logic over hyperventilation and grievance-mongering.

    1. You just have to look in the right areas. I find that engineering faculty for the most part are pretty logical, but they also tend to be men and more conservative than the academy as a whole. Odd that.

      1. In my experience it’s only a matter of “less liberal”. There really are few disciplines in academia where the average faculty is not liberal.

        1. Wouldn’t it be nice if all of the members of the student court were beaten and raped, maliciously and viciously?

          That would be some justice.

          1. Retraction:

            Only those who voted the kid guilty.

        2. In my experience it’s only a matter of “less liberal”. There really are few disciplines in academia where the average faculty is not liberal.

          The conservative ones are typically pretty good at hiding their leanings, and they tend to be much older from what I’ve seen. A 20-30-something conservative faculty member is as rare as hen’s teeth due to the incestuous nature of hiring practices in academia.

          Your own experience may vary, of course, but I honestly don’t believe I met one conservative faculty member during my seven years on the institutional march.

          1. Yeah, that’s a good point about the dangers of speaking one’s views for conservative faculty. Pretty much everybody in my department knows my political leanings and have gotten over it, though I suspect their own disillusionment with Obama has helped. Late 2008 and early 2009 was seriously difficult though.

            1. How many times were you accused of racism?

          2. The conservative ones are typically pretty good at hiding their leanings

            I don’t know about this. There’s a professor at a local university that proudly goes by the nom de mathematique “Dr. Teabagger.”

            1. Maybe he’s just gay?

              1. Giving someone german goggles is fun for any sexual orientation.

              2. You don’t have to be gay to teabag. And no, he’s not, though the activity portion of the ledger is so barren these days that it probably doesn’t matter.

    2. Therefore, if you act unpersuasive and illogical, you must be innocent.

      1. That sounds like something a persuasive and logical rapist would say. hmmmmm

        1. But he knew you’d say that, so a persuasive and logical rapist would know not to be unpersuasive and illogical. So, clearly, I cannot choose the glass in front of me.

          1. And never enter a land war in Asia.

            1. or go up against a Sicilian (or a Stanford student court) when death is on the line

  5. anytime you go up the side of a man’s head, or a woman’s, they have a tendency to blink their eyes

    1. I get your obscure reference! What do I win?

  6. Men are the natural enemies of women? No, I’m thinking that’s bullshit. Where does that put me on the continuum?

    The temptation to type “cuntinuum” was so great that I added this postscript. Please disregard.

    1. Men are the natural enemies of women? No, I’m thinking that’s bullshit.

      You, sir, are clearly an abuser, possibly even a rapist. At the very least a tool of teh patriarchy, since you deny your own guilt and complicity in the oppression of teh wymyns.

      1. Nah, I’m married. I don’t count anymore.

        1. When did you stop beating your wife?

          1. When she ditched the smart-mouth and the back-talk.

          2. Are you kidding? She could kick my ass.

            1. Are you kidding? She could kick my ass.

              Only because I let her.

          3. Not really funny, but my wife and I thought it was a hilarious line from Winter’s Bone:

            “I already told you once to shut up with my mouth”

        2. Marriage is clearly a form of institutionalized, perpetual, lifetime rape created by the patriarchy.

          1. “To have and to hold” is a property term. And I’m not making that up.

            1. In fee simple absolute?

              Or, as is more in keeping with reality, as joint tenants, and not as tenants in common, with the government? (One of the aforesaid joint tenants never dies!)

              Or, as is even more in keeping with reality, as tenants at sufferance with the government as landlord?

    2. I thought women were the natural enemies of women. And then yeast.

  7. What one wonders upon reading that Victim vs. Abuser list is whether the student courts are supposed to doubt the stories of accusers who don’t fit the mold. For instance, if the accuser seems not to be at all confused and acts persuasive and logical, does that mean they should acquit the accused?

    1. I think it’s fairly obvious that the list is intended to depict the normal behavior of someone falsely-accused trying to defend himself as evidence of guilt, to ensure the ‘proper’ verdict is reached.

    2. Logic and reason are false constructs placed upon us by a male-dominated patriarchal society.

      The male pathos has created a web of lies via the outmoded and capitalistic linear thinking model, which should be destroyed, along with global capitalism itself.

      Groovy. Power to the people. It’s just this war and that lyin’ sonofabitch Johnson…

  8. “Life has narrowed during the relationship” = definition of monogamy?

  9. Damn, that PDF is one of the most appalling things I’ve read. ‘The survivor will’, ‘the abuser will’? Not even ‘may’ but ‘will’? Not to mention labeling someone accused of a crime as ‘The abuser’.

    If I were a high school guidance counselor, I’d advise my male students to avoid Stanford. I’d probably advise my female ones to avoid it also. That kind of environment would warp your mind.

    Of course, since the Dept of Education (a misnomer if there ever was one) is pushing colleges to adopt this crap, I’m not sure there’s anywhere I would advise them to go.

    If you’re accused, you’re guilty. I don’t know how people can think like that and I don’t why they’re allowed to get away with it.

    1. Methinks that state schools would have a very difficult time pushing crap like this due to due process issues.

      1. I would hope so, although I worries me that this is being pushed by the federal gov’t. They’re supposed be concerned with process also.

        1. Friday Funnies is tomorrow.

          1. Sorry, got ahead of myself.

    2. If the Dept of Education is coming up with garbage like this I can think of no good reason it should exist.

      1. Nor can anyone else.

        1. We haven’t run out of garbage to come up with, er, up with to come, uh, yet.

    3. I thought it was brilliant.

      Denying the crime is proof of guilt.
      Having a logical explanation as to exactly why you didn’t do it is proof of guilt.
      Being persuasive in your argument that you didn’t do it is proof of guilt.
      Being offended at the accusation is proof of guilt.

      That’s really, really good stuff right there. Clearly the author has studied her history and is familiar with Salem.

  10. Btw, when did Nancy Grace start working for the Dept. of Education?

  11. At Stanford, everyone’s a felon. It’s what makes them such a close-knit community!

    1. See, that’s why they had to have a prison study- to preview what the lives of alumni are like.

  12. What I am getting from all of this is the Spock was a rapist.

    1. He can’t be expected to control himself during a Ponn Farr cycle.

      1. Troika! Mofo.

      2. What about a Jamie Farr cycle?

        (I thought the spelling was Pon Thar, but I’m not enough of a geek actually to know the correct spelling.)

  13. What I am getting from all of this is that Spock was a rapist.

    1. Oooh. Yes he was.

      1. No, no, no. If you’re going to be Takei and respond to that comment, you say, “Oh, my.”

        1. Listen Kirk, Why wouldn’t you come to my gay wedding? Stop correcting me!

          1. Takei isn’t gay. It’s all a Howard Stern goof.

    2. He once touched the upper part of two of my fingers without my consent…

      1. He was drunk with logic at the time.

  14. “Further, under a policy like Stanford’s, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.”

    Doesn’t Stanford’s policy also mean that if a drunk person assaults a sober person, they’re both guilty? “Sure, the drunk guy raped her, but he was hardly in any state to give consent either!”

    Ridiculous.

    1. If being intoxicated means that one cannot consent to sex then I’ve been raped many times.

      1. It is worded neutral, but it only applies to male perpetrators and female victims.

  15. I remember my college orientation. This was around 10 years ago. We were told that, if someone is intoxicated, they cannot consent to sex. Someone asked what happens if both parties are intoxicated. The answer was, essentially, whoever reports it first is the victim.

    1. I remember my college orientation. This was around 10 years ago. We were told that, if someone is intoxicated, they cannot consent to sex. Someone asked what happens if both parties are intoxicated. The answer was, essentially, whoever reports it first is the victim.

      As a male. I might make it a habit to “be the first” regardless just to seize the high ground in that case.

      1. As a male. I might make it a habit to “be the first” regardless just to seize the high ground in that case.

        They threw that out there for that guy’s question. I highly doubt it’s a matter of policy. You wouldn’t have a chance in hell of being taken seriously, and if the girl finds out about it, you’d likely be expelled when she turns the tables.

      2. It would be pretty hilarious to start saying to women, after a drunken fuck, “you just raped me, you know”.

        1. I actually did that recently. She was not amused.

          1. Just respond to her non-amusement with “Gee, you’re cute when you’re mad!” Works wonders.

    2. My alma mater got around the “both are drunk” by instituting “active” consent. You have to ask before you go on to the next sexual act- for every sexual act. So you have to ask if you can kiss the person, then if you can make out, etc. etc.

      1. Actually, as an addendum, the one bullshit thing was that, you could eat a chick out, she could have an orgasm, but then could later say that you raped her because you didn’t ask if she wanted oral sex- it just came about naturally.

      2. Can you have them sign a document? RC, would that be an enforceable contract?

        1. “Your Honor, it states clearly here in Section 8 Paragraph 3 that she agreed to swallow.”

          1. There’s an video skit floating around the web somewhere with the sex contract joke. I think they called it a pre-coital agreement or something.

      3. Yeah! The Antioch College “Mother-may-I game! Are college students still trying to get laid or are they following the checklist to launch the space shuttle? Fuck I’m tired of all this! If I put a bullet in her head but don’t look at her naughty bits are the feminists cool with that….I mean sure it’s violence against women but there’s no exploitation involved…..no imposition of male privilege.

        1. I thought they were okay with all of that after they said that it was cool that Clinton took advantage of an intern.

          1. Thanks Pro Lib….I had forgotten about the “Steinem Exemption”

            1. It’s not rape if you do it for great social justice.

              1. I thought the fairer sex was told to get out their presidential kneepads?

    3. I remember my college orientation. This was around 10 years ago. We were told that, if someone is intoxicated, they cannot consent to sex. Someone asked what happens if both parties are intoxicated. The answer was, essentially, whoever reports it first is the victim.

      As I recall, mine was similar, except it was more along the lines of “the victim is the one without the penis”. Not in those words, of course.

  16. Who wrote those lists? Jezebel.com?

    1. The fact that these rules and guidelines are being pushed instutionally should put the idea that “feminism is about equality” to bed. It won’t, of course, but it should.

      1. Men and women are equal, except when we say they are not! GOT IT?

  17. Having gone to college over 30 years ago, when these ridiculous theories were in pampers, my only advice to youngsters today is, if you’re going to take advantage of an intoxicated girl (or boy I guess I have to add in this day and age), make sure you get some anal. It would appear that you will be on the receiving end of that in the very near future.

  18. As a statement of law (which it purports to be), this is simply wrong:

    “A person is legally incapable of giving consent … if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol.”

    Absent extraordinary circumstances, if you sign a contract while you are drunk, you are bound to the contract.

    In health care, the standard for informed consent is, with some variations, the ability to understand the proposed course of treatment, its risks and alternatives. You can be at least somewhat intoxicated (or under the influence of drugs) and give informed consent, and it happens all . . . the. . . time.

    1. I once worried about that in my paralegal days, and brought the question of the questionable sobriety of a client to the lawyer I was assigned. He told me, the guy was aware of when he was suppose to come in to sign the papers I drew up days in advance, he decides to show up impaired, it’s all on him.

      1. Im a defense attorney and have had a few clients (all DUI cases) show up for court smelling of alcohol.

        1. Sorry counselor…it’s just after shave.

        2. Could you advise them to get stoned that day, instead?

          1. Yeah…if they had to testify you would want them relaxed.

        3. Im a defense attorney and have had a few clients (all DUI cases) show up for court smelling of alcohol.

          In Washington, that would either be the judge or the Drug-court case manager.

  19. “And when I looked down I saw a shark. It was a long way down, but I could still tell, it was most definitely a shark; a monster.”

  20. Weird. Jezebel and Feministing are being awfully quiet about this case.

    1. Maybe this case, but they’ve been crowing about the new standards as a great “victory” for some time now.

        1. Honestly, this link should be brought up in every (liberal) feminist discussion of rape. Rape is bad, unless the right people are doing the raping.

        2. Unless they’re activists, then it’s best to just let things sort themselves out.

          Holy shit. How was I not aware of that? That is some grade-A hypocrisy right there.

        3. Jesus Christ. “Report all rapes, unless it’s a fellow activist. Then, you better Stop Snitching.”

          Nuke all feminists.

      1. Actually, I did a site search of both. The editors of neither jezebel nor feministing will comment, but there was one community post:

        http://community.feministing.c…..-sponsors/

        And, yeah, it’s basically about how this is okay, because it’s equivalent of a civil penalty for rape. You stay classy, feminists.

        1. I could have sworn I saw stuff about it on both sites. Maybe they were just oblique references and not articles, but I was over in crazyland when I first heard about it.

  21. I wonder if rapists like the Pixies.

  22. this is typical of the hyper-feminist attitude towards both rape and sexual assault and as incorporated and practiced in the War on Domestic Violence.. imo, this war is far more detrimental to the average innocent joe (and sometimes jane) than the WOD is.

    DV advocates especially are often pure ideologues and the woman is ALWAYS telling the truth and the man always lying in their eyes

    these people disgust me

    1. YOU DISGUST STEVE SMITH!! STEVE SMITH RAPE YOU LAST, DUMBPHY!!!

    2. Agreed. Old “Shoeless Joe” Biden should be tried in a court of law on the basis of VAWA alone.

      1. VAWA violating states’ rights as well as the rights of free association and due process…

        but at least it’s not primarily “for the children”.

        it’s for the wimminses.

      2. i was at a party last night. girl who put it on is a cop and MMA fighter. she once went to a DV where the woman claimed to be the victim and described how it happened.

        this cop knew enough about groundfighting positions to determine that in fact the woman was the aggressor and the the wounds on her were of the defensive variety.

        the woman was eventually convicted.

        special expertise (hi hmmmm)… very cool, because it often advances the cause of justice

        1. Damn. He got lucky. Like, surviving a plane crash lucky.

          1. yup. he MIGHT have had a smaht enough defense attorney / expert witness if he had been arrested to argue these issues at court, but the officer’s unbiased nature (don’t automatically take sides) and special knowledge meant that the REAL aggressor was the one arrested and charged and ultimately convicted,.

  23. Determing who the abuser is and who is being abused can be a challenge especially in same sex relationships

    Because then you can’t just blame the man.

    Abusers try to get those working with to back off, either by being constantly angry and challenging or extremely agreeable

    So you want to cooperate, but not too much.

    1. rapists are just like ANY other criminal (assuming they recognize/believe that what they did was rape).

      if innocent, they tend to deny, not equivocate, and express outrage over being accused

      despite hyperfeminists’ fantasy about human behavior

      1. Interesting, the little PDF guide doesn’t list any behavioral indicators of wrongfully accused persons.

        1. …wrongfully accused persons

          There are no “wrongly accused” persons in Oceana. All are guilty….it’s only a matter of time.

        2. no (suspected) rapist is EVER wrongfully accused. truth is a metanarrative, and besides HE is guilty of SOMETHING as a member of the privileged gender

        3. Once accused, it’s not wrong.

    2. Well, if gay people can be just as bad as straights, how will I maintain my belief that they shoot rainbows and unicorns out of their asses?

    3. Funny story: I worked with legal aid for a few months one summer. While we got plenty of women calling in about their abusive ex’s, in my month and a half there, I had at least 4 lesbians call in to complain about either abusive girlfriends or crazy ex’s who would violate restraining orders.

      I had to spend about 4-5 hours total on the phone with one- and this was when I was working the front desk reception, so it sucked for other people.

      1. hell hath no fury like a lesbian scorned

  24. It seems to me the best course of action would be to walk into the Tribunal and say, “Yer goddam right I fucked her;it was awesome. You should totally get on that.”

    I don’t see how it could be less successful than the truth.

  25. these people disgust me

    That’s funny.

    “Libertarian” Agents of the State who lock people in cages disgust me.

    1. troll-o-meter: .00025f

      now with even MORE significant digits AND in hexadecimal for extra nerd cred!

    2. Some people need to be locked in cages.

  26. WOW! STEVE SMITH NOT LIKE THIS!! THIS GUY AMATEUR!! STEVE SMITH VISIT STANFORD, SHOW HOW PROFESSIONAL RAPE DONE!! THEN STEVE SMITH HAPPY!!

  27. They seem confused as to whether they are talking about rape or abusive relationships.

    And last I checked, getting drunk was a voluntary activity. If you are the sort of person who goes and fucks random people when drunk and then regrets it, maybe you should avoid drinking rather than blaming your poor judgment on other people.

    1. Agreed.

      I won’t say that getting drunk and dressing to get fucked is the same as consent, but if a woman gets drunk while wearing her fetish outfit she’ll need more than her own testimony to get me to convict her “attacker”.

  28. Valerie, why the long face?

    1. Valerie, why the long face?

      She looks like Matthias from the movie “The Omega Man”.

  29. “…one indication of an abuser is that he will “act persuasive and logical.”

    It’s only when the accused drowns that we can be certain they’re not guilty!

    1. exactly. only a hyperfeminist DV/rape advocate would equate being logical and persuasive with being guilty

      it is staggeringly orwellian

      1. It reminds me of a PBS show on child abuse I saw back in the late 80s-early 90s, during the midst of the great childcare center sex abuse scare. A bluenosed self-described “abused child advocate” with a voice like chalk screeching on a blackboard announced, “The first thing an abuser does is deny his abuse!”

        Thus, to her, pleading innocence was proof of guilt.

        1. this belief is staggeringly common in the dv advocate community.

        2. Of course, that hysteria was in roughly the same location of a colonial-era hysteria that featured similar standards of evidence.

          1. for loose definition of “evidence”… just how ideologues like it

            unless the person accused is bill clinton or the wikileaks guy. at which case the accuser is a slut damnit!

        3. The statement that abusers will deny abuse is actually probably correct. However, the speaker then commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (ie, going from “if A then B” to “if B then A”).

          1. That looks like logic, rapist.

        4. Only the abuser denies his true identity!

        5. “Innocence is proof of guilt” is pretty much the battle cry of the child abuse industry.

      2. Logic and persuasion is how men perpetuate the patriarchy!

        Irrationality is a woman’s strength and her proof of innocence and superiority!

    2. “Ha Ha, Ted you’re killing me. No really, please help me undo my seatbelt.”

      *splash*

      1. “when i returned, maryjo and the cah were gone”

  30. Well here’s a fun experiment. Some guy on the campus panel needs to be falsely accused of rape. THAT should be interesting to watch.

    1. you can’t falsely accuse somebody of rape. how hard IS this? if you accuse him, he is guilty. it’s like a quantum thing. once he is accused, he’s an observed experiment.

      1. Even better!

        1. schroedinger’s rapist box…

          or… if a man is raped in the forest and there is nobody to observe, is his ass still sore?

          1. STEVE SMITH RAPE CAT IN ALL UNIVERSES.

            1. What about the universes where the cat wants it?

      2. Bill Clinton was falsely accused of rape. Not sure if it’s ever happened before or since though.

        1. my point was more in regards to the sex harassment stuff. and it wasn’t whether he was guilty or not. the point was since the accusee was a feminist hero, and the accuser was “trailer trash”, the usual “the accused is always guilty” people sang a different song.

  31. policy states that sexual assault occurs “when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent … if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol.” In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault.

    From Annie Hall =

    [Annie wants to smoke marijuana before sex]
    Alvy Singer: Yeah, grass, right? The illusion that it will make a white woman more like Billie Holiday.
    Annie Hall: Well, have you ever made love high?
    Alvy Singer: Me? No. I – I, you know, If I have grass or alcohol or anything, I get unbearably wonderful. I get too, too wonderful for words. I don’t know why you have to get high every time we make love.
    Annie Hall: It relaxes me.
    Alvy Singer: You have to be artificially relaxed before we can go to bed?
    Annie Hall: Well, what’s the difference anyway?
    Alvy Singer: Well, I’ll give you a shot of sodium pentathol. You can sleep through it.

  32. If it weren’t for all the Christ-fags, women would never be raped.

    1. I’m glad that I know this was a spoof. If it weren’t though, I would have to say:

      Yeah, because in all those non-Christian cultures that (wow, how many billions of them???) people live in, rape is completely unknown.

  33. What’s the problem with this story? The male was found guilty, as he should have been. Case closed.

    1. It’s funny…even in the presence of a gaggle of feminists Amanda is still the ugly one. Girl just can’t catch a break.

    2. evidence is a patriarchal heteronormative fascist imperialist racist classist construct.

      1. Dunphy you are wearing out the thesaurus on this thread!

  34. Who is STEVE SMITH??

    1. The protagonist in a novel written by an iconic author who fled her homeland…..err….wait….nevermind.

      1. I like the way you think. Perhaps someone should make bumper stickers.

    2. you just have to hang around here for a few years. eventually SS will osmote into your consciousness.

  35. I wonder how the Duke Lacrosse players would have fared before the Stanford student jury? “Just because the victim fabricated the story doesn’t mean it didn’t happen!!!”

    1. the rigoberto mencho clause

      1. Alright, dunphy!

        We do see eye to eye on some things.

        1. i suggest on most, not to mention most that diverge from the statist hordes.

  36. Further, under a policy like Stanford’s, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.

    If you can’t give consent if you are drunk, how can you have mens rea if you are drunk?

    1. Mens rea isn’t even a component for a rape conviction in a court of law.

      1. note that in many states, mine included, the “sex w/o consent” does not apply IF the parties are married.

        iow, consent is assumed with married couples.

        the de facto reality is that in many cases even where they are not married but are longtime partners etc. the prosecutors still won’t charge in the drunk sex cases, but they CAN. not when they are married, though.

      2. Exactly. Because it is unreasonable to believe that someone could sexually assault someone who didn’t consent without meaning to. Except, apparently, now it is possible to rape someone who blows a .08, or the equivalent, no matter what reasonable beliefs the actors have.

        Have consensual sex with someone who could claim she was drunk, tell her you don’t feel like spending the next day with her, pack your stuff when she gets irate and has you get kicked out of school.

        1. actually, no

          you are confusing two concepts: .08 is the level that impairment by liquor is presumed for DUI.

          DUI does not (in most penal codes) require INTOXICATION. …

          far far far far far far from it

          the sex w/o consent laws require a person to be (depending on penal code) either intoxicated or incapacitated by liquor

          this is a MUCH higher level of alcohol (or drug) intoxication

          in brief, in a DUI, impairment is the level (generally) that must be proved OR a .08 (my state has a two prong either.or test… if one is a .08 *or* impaired, the element is met).

          impairment by liquor for driving purposes is a MUCH lower standard than the standard you need to prove the element of “incapacitation” or “intoxication” in a rape case.

          the concepts are entirely different and qualitatively divergent

  37. The survivor will feel remorse for fighting back

    So, if a man rapes me or at least tries to, and I fight him off and then report the attack, I have to pretend I feel guilty about fighting him off, or else nobody will believe me?

    1. It’s a marker. Without the behavioral markers, you don’t fit the profile.

      1. Without the behavioral markers a vagina, you don’t fit the profile.

        FIFY.

    2. Well, if you don’t feel guilty, you probably also support the 2nd amendment. And guns are phallic symbol of patriarchal oppression. So, really, you’re probably the rapist.

      On an unrelated note, I’ve read some of your op-eds, and they are quite good.

      1. there are a vanishing few hyperfeminists who support RKBA. kind of lame considering that the gunz are the great equalizer.

        1. Liberals do not support gun rights. Liberals are good. Ergo, gun rights must be evil.

          dunphy, you seem to be very confused by even basic facts.

          1. facts are hard. it would so much easier to be a hyperfeminist and just rely on THE UNALTERABLE FEMINIST TRUTH

  38. “But because the OCR’s letter forces colleges to permit the accuser to appeal the decision if the accused may do so, she has appealed and is seeking permanent expulsion of her alleged attacker.”

    Wait a minute…I am sure that this was supposed to mean that either party may appeal an adverse decision, not that the prevailing party is entitled to appeal because she did not prevail enough.

  39. “Student court”?

    1. Well, you never know. Maybe it is a good idea to let the inmates run the asylum.

    2. Yeah I couldn’t stop laughing when I read that. What the shit.

  40. When the liberal nannystatists he whines about (when it suits his purposes) impose their special brand of social justice on us through the barrel of a gun, Fearless Fosdick will be there to pull the trigger.

    1. yawn… is your mama cleaning up yer poop when she brings you hot pockets in the basement?>

  41. An abuser will…

    Feel victimized.

    Assertively claim to be the victim.

    Because people love to be accused of things they didn’t do.

    Fucking due process! How do they work?

  42. We’ve all had nights like that, eh? Amiright?

    Not fucking lately.

  43. Hmmmm…

    They didn’t have this when I was 19. Wish they did.

    I didn’t go to Stanford, but I would have traveled there for weekends. Think about it: thousands of drunk, horny college girls, and the Stanford guys can’t touch ’em for fear of reprisal. It might as well be an all-girl school, but most of the girls are STRAIGHT!

    Oh, man…

  44. Let us not overlook a key point it this story: the role of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights and its “Dear Colleague” letters in not-so-subtly forcing colleges and universities to adopt these ridiculous procedures or risk losing federal funds. That’s the real outrage.

    1. and the fact (common with liberals) of the naming. the office of CIVIL RIGHTS encouraging the violation of same.

      irony: it’s what’s for dinner

  45. So, what happens when you get a two-year suspension from Stanford and decide to transfer? Do you just tell the Admissions office at the next school you spent the last few years in Bolivia living under an assumed name, robbing banks and burning down churches?

    Because that is more likely to get you in than trying to tell your side of the story.

    1. rapists don’t deserve an education! unless they are rapists of color, then maybe the el33t college apparatchnik’s will make an exception

  46. Tim, I find you suspiciously persuasive and logical.

  47. You’re a hep cat, Fosdick.

    All, “individualism is totally cool” and “rebel against the nanny state” and stuff. Can you see yourself in a mirror?

    1. do these ad homs get boring for you ever? small minds tend to discuss people. great big brains discuss concepts…

      hth

      1. And really gigantic enormous brains keep their mouths shut.

        1. yea, we both fail on that metric

        2. Yeah! I kept my mou……….fuck!

  48. The Solanas/Up Against The Wall Motherfuckers connection is…underexplored.

    I think a lot of people interpret Solanas through what she did to Warhol in terms of radical feminism…

    If I ever made a documentary, I’d do it about Up Against The Wall Motherfuckers. Way more interesting than the Merry Pranksters, way more interesting than the Situationist International.

    They cut the fences at Woodstock, started brawls with Maoist groups at Students for a Democratic Society conferences, forced their way into the Pentagon and had a link to Solanas shooting Warhol?

    Why isn’t there a documentary about all that?

  49. Shorter Fosdick:

    STOP RESISTING!

    Eat shit and die, you jackbooted authoritarian dimwit.

    1. troll-o-meter: []

      needs more significant digits. p brooks not significant enough to register. danger, will robinson!

  50. I don’t understand how women this age can be this bitter and hate men so much, at such a tender age. Really, at 19 or 20, you think they’re all rapist tools of the patriarchy? What can you possibly have to punish, at that age? Your high-school prom date tried to cop a feel, so now anything with three legs belongs in prison?

    I mean, really. There’s plenty of time to be bitter and hateful of men when you’re 40, and they’re rejecting you because you look like Andrea Dworkin and smell like the bottom of the orangutan enclosure at the zoo.

    At 40 you’ll look back fondly on the years when somebody actually wanted to grope you, trust me.

    1. Truer words …

  51. At the time the student was charged, Stanford was using the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard — the highest standard of proof, used by courts in criminal cases.

  52. ‘ one indication of an abuser is that he will “act persuasive and logical.” ‘

    This is very similar to the warning given to exorcists, namely not to argue with the (supposed) demon because it will try to entrap them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.