Sex

Student Suspended for Rape Because He Didn't Stop Friends from Slapping Girl's Butt

Judge rules against University of Southern California, says due process violated.

|

Slap
Dreamstime

The University of Southern California found a male student, "John Doe," responsible for sexual assault and suspended him for two years. But his alleged victim, a female student, "Jane," maintained that the sex between them was consensual. 

Doe was ultimately punished, not because he hurt Jane, but because he did nothing to prevent two other males from having rough sex with her—from slapping her on the buttocks—during an orgy. 

That's just one of the mind-boggling details in Doe's lawsuit against USC. A California court of appeals recently sided with Doe, agreeing that the university violated his due process rights by not giving him a chance to defend himself and ultimately convicted him. The decision also asserts that USC simply didn't have enough evidence against Doe to find him responsible. [Related: This University Cleared a Male Student of Rape, Then Re-Tried and Convicted Him Via Insane System] 

"We agree with John that the evidence does not support the Appeals Panel?s findings as to either violation," wrote Associate Justice Audrey Collins, on behalf of two of her colleagues. "There is no substantial evidence that John encouraged or permitted other students to slap Jane on the buttocks in violation of section 11.44C, because the evidence does not demonstrate that John knew they would slap Jane nor that John was in a position to prevent them from doing so." 

The incident took place at an off-campus fraternity party in January of 2013. Doe was a member of the fraternity: the two other males who attended the part and were involved in the incident, "Student 1 and Student 2," were students at a different university. Jane attended the party with a group of friends. 

After dancing together, Jane, Doe, and Student 1 went off to a bedroom together to have sex. All agree that this encounter was consensual, according to the court's decision

Later that evening, Jane and Doe returned to the bedroom to have sex again. Jane maintains that their sexual activity remained consensual, but other men—likely including Students 1 and 2—entered the room and also began performing sexual acts on Jane. These activities became rough, and culminated in one or two of the men—not Doe—slapping her butt. 

At no point did Jane tell any of the men to stop, but she did begin to cry after the slapping. All sexual activity then ceased. Jane later texted Doe that she had a good time with him, but "your friends suck though." She approached him again at a party some weeks later, but he declined to dance with her. 

Months later, in August of 2014—after discussing her "confidence issues" with a counsellor—Jane decided that the incident constituted sexual assault and filed a complaint. Still, she maintained that she had consented to sex with Doe: it was the other men who had violated her. 

USC disagreed, and accused Doe of violating 11 different sections of the student code of conduct, including "endangering the health of others," "engaging in obscene behavior at a university-sponsored event," and "engaging in non-consensual sexual touching." [Related: Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of 'Serious Sexual Transgression' for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend] 

Consider that for a moment. Jane said her sexual activity with Doe was consensual. The university then made the paternalistic and indefensible decision to override her opinion on the matter and described their sex as rape anyway. 

The investigation process involved many of the same drawbacks common to university sexual misconduct cases: a process biased against the accused, limited methods for the accused to examine the evidence against him, or even the charges, etc. He was eventually found responsible on nine of the 11 charges and suspended for two years. 

Doe appealed the decision to USC's Student Behavior Appeals Panel. Jane, despite describing her encounter with Doe as consensual, wrote a letter to the panel in support of his suspension: 

Jane submitted a letter detailing the difficulties she had experienced after the incident, which she characterized as a rape. She also stated that she is uncomfortable on campus knowing that John was still there, and concluded, "I do not believe that the University is enforcing its Title IX responsibilities for responding effectively and immediately to reports of sexual harassment, or quelling what is currently a hostile environment. I expect that the University will hold [sic] its original decision for my case in order to ensure my safety, comfort, and peace on this campus." 

The panel agreed with Doe—and Jane, for what it's worth—that their sex was consensual, and thus cleared him of seven of the nine charges. But, astonishingly, the panel maintained that his suspension was still valid because he had "encouraged or permitted the slaps." In other words, the panel found that Doe had a responsibility to prevent Jane from engaging in rough sex with two other men, even though she had voiced no objections at the time. 

Doe's suspension was reduced from two years to one. 

His lawsuit contended that USC initially suspended him based on one false theory—that he had assaulted Jane—then reversed course and suspended him for completely different, equally ridiculous reasons—his failure to intervene. He also alleged a variety of other due process abridgements. 

Thankfully, the court of appeals agreed with him. Its decision is a strong affirmation of both due process protections and common sense. USC obviously denied Doe a fair hearing, relied on hearsay to convict him, and nonsensically suspended him for the non-crime of failing to stop the butt-slapping. 

The College Fix's Greg Piper cautions civil libertarians not to get too excited, however: 

Fans of due process should not overestimate how much this one ruling – in a state appeals court, remanding a case to the trial court – will affect future litigation going forward. 

But it's one piece in a patchwork of rulings that suggest judges will increasingly look skeptically at the typical protocols in campus adjudications. It's useful ammunition to stateand federal lawmakers who are hoping to rein in abuses by campus administrators and federal bureaucrats who are more driven by PR than the rule of law. 

Jane's contention that USC is not living up to its Title IX obligation unless it removes Doe from campus deserves criticism as well. How could it possibly be the case that Title IX—a one-sentence-long federal statute mandating gender equality in higher education—obligates a private university to discipline a student for not stopping another student from having rough sex with non-students at an off-campus party? 

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.

267 responses to “Student Suspended for Rape Because He Didn't Stop Friends from Slapping Girl's Butt

  1. Well it’s their own fault for not getting signed orgy permission slip from her before joining in.

    1. Why don’t white Anglo-Saxon Protestants go to orgies?

      Too many thank-you notes to write afterwards.

    2. No, I’m sorry, I need affirmative consent. I’ll need you to say “Yes, you may take me upstairs and crush my pussy at this time.”

    3. This chick took three cocks in one go, like Bobbi Starr on a workday, and decided that getting slapped on the ass was too fucking far? Are you fucking kidding me? Fuck her and everybody who enabled her crazy ass.

  2. “””She approached him again at a party some weeks later, but he declined to dance with her. “”

    That was his crime.

    1. Hell hath no fury…

    2. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If he had maintained a sexual relationship with her he’d have gotten accused of rape at some point.

      1. You shouldn’t talk about things you have no experience with, Tulpy-Poo. By that I mean sex or relationships.

    3. Not really, since she never even accused him of anything. She accused two other dudes of something and the idiots at the university decided to charge someone even the complainant said didn’t do anything wrong.

      1. Okay, I should have read the whole fucking article:

        “Jane submitted a letter detailing the difficulties she had experienced after the incident, which she characterized as a rape. She also stated that she is uncomfortable on campus knowing that John was still there, and concluded, “I do not believe that the University is enforcing its Title IX responsibilities for responding effectively and immediately to reports of sexual harassment, or quelling what is currently a hostile environment. I expect that the University will hold [sic] its original decision for my case in order to ensure my safety, comfort, and peace on this campus.” ”

        So she said it was consensual then decided he should be suspended anyway because feelings. LOL wut?

        Also, I don’t think this needs to be said, but getting slapped on the butt isn’t rape.

        1. I mean, he did not even use a ping-pong paddle.

          1. Your signature move, huh?

            I would have thought a cricket bat was more your speed.

            1. My skin is too sensitive for that.

        2. Ex post facto withdrawal of consent; take a google at that concept and consider the traction it is getting with this crowd. It does not so much matter what someone thought was ok at the time, but “how they feel about something before, during, and after an event” that matters [and, in their minds, constitutes rape, among other things].

        3. She also stated that she is uncomfortable on campus knowing that John was still there, and concluded, “I do not believe that the University is enforcing its Title IX responsibilities

          She didn’t conclude this; somebody concluded it for her.

          1. I was about to say the same thing.

        4. IIRC, in 1984, the rape case that the country was watching was the Big Dan’s rape case in New Bedford, MA. One of the defendants had to stand trial, accused of rape, for tickling the victim’s foot during the attack.

    4. Would you go back for seconds on a broad who basically just let two other dudes join in? That’s a clear one timer.

    5. Spite against an ax is all most these things seem to boil down to. Modern feminism or whatever the hell this is, has completely erased common-sense (and shame) from the minds of everyone in academia. I’m trying to picture a college dean in 1950 listening to a complaint about a butt-slap during a consensual gang-bang.

      1. You never know, many WWII veterans were going to college on the GI bill, maybe they were letting off a bit of steam after their war experiences.

    6. Bingo.

  3. She was a willing participant in a gangbang, and it was the slap on the butt that was a problem?

    Holy. Shit.

    Forget “due process”. This is just beyond insane.

    You go, Mr. Doe. Straight to the bank with a Brinks Truck of USC’s money.

    1. Can’t image why she has “confidence issues”.

  4. Even Kafka’s head is spinning at this one.

    Huge settlements are the only thing that is going to make them stop.

    1. I don’t even know if $10 million will get a private university with the kind of endowment that USC has to change behavior when the alternative is Leviathan fucking with them through the Departments of Ed and Justice. It would have to get to stupid money levels. And with public universities? If civil damages based on taxpayer money doesn’t keep cops from beating and killing people, I’m not so confident about change at the university either.

      1. I don’t know of any public university 100% funded by the state. Most are below 10% at this point, so it would hurt.

        Of course, if it plays out like Mizzou, maybe plunging rates of applications might do the trick.

        1. ^This. Somewhere in here parents are going to start reading this stuff and say, “You’re getting a degree online.”

          For sons and daughters.

          1. I don’t know about this. I think most parents (especially those with daughters) will buy into the feminist narrative just tell their sons that nothing bad will happen to them if they ‘respect women.’ Most will continue to believe bad things just do not happen to innocent boys.

  5. I suppose this will trigger the “this is why there are no female libertarians” alarm, but am I really expected to regard women like this as functioning adults? Whether she’s stupid enough to be shocked that she got smacked on the ass at an orgy, or petty and vindictive enough to abuse the rape charge just to get even with a guy who dumped her, she’s not someone I can have any respect for.

    1. She at least maintained that he didn’t rape her, but no, you shouldn’t respect someone who tries to get people thrown out of school because you got in over your head at an orgy (the fact everyone stopped the second she freaked shows no one raped or sexually assaulted her).

      1. the fact everyone stopped the second she freaked

        I mean, isn’t that kind of what they pretend to want when someone withdraws consent?

        1. That used to be the standard. Apparently too many guys follow it though. Now we’re moving back into mind reader/fortune teller requirements for guys.

          1. Please tell everyone how you’re actually a girl with numb sexual parts after that statement, Tulpy-Poo. How fucking stupid are you? Oh, right.

            1. Sorry my connection to the vagina hive mind must have been severed along with the other nerves.

            2. So, are you actually a believer in ‘rape culture’ and all that bullshit then?

    2. am I really expected to regard women like this as functioning adults?

      Expected by whom? By me? Then no, you are not.

      1. Actually, I think the systemic expectation that they are not to be regarded as adults is the problem.

        1. Adults they are. Functioning; not very well, anyway.

    3. Well, as a Part II to a comment I made below likening this to the Witch Hunts, I have little doubt that there’s a hidden coterie of female friends and counselors, all ready to link arms and stamp their feet “at trial”. There’s a lot of mental illness to go around for males and females, but there’s no doubt chicks can goad each other over the deep end. And it’s not just that you break up with chick X, it’s all her friends and support system. If you cross any of them, especially the fumpy one with the Gabe Kaplan upper lip, they’ll burn your ass too, and they’ll hector your X until you’re expelled.

      For the young lads of this world, the Comfortbot 3000 can’t come soon enough.

    4. am I really expected to regard women like this as functioning adults?

      Of course not. Their high schools didn’t prepare them for anything but this kind of college, so they’re college students, and the schools are enabling them.

      If, back in the day when I was a teenager, Texas A&M had handed me a “Get Out Of Guilt Free” card I would have worn that sucker out.

      Of course, they didn’t, and according to my daughter who works there they still don’t.

  6. I honestly thought it was gonna take longer for them to convict someone of being an accessory to unintentional hate rape.

    l*Strings up noose next to Anarcho-Woodchipper’s dangling corpse*

    1. *kneels down between the hangmen, takes one last look at the worlds daily news, eye lingers on the beautiful dead girl in Texas… Unsheathes his katana and exposes his chest*

      “So long you fucking filthy world, I hope the soul of man burns in hell.”

      *sinks the blade deep and zig-zags up his torso*

      1. The traditional weapon for seppuku was the tanto or wakizashi

        1. That is correct but I don’t have one. I shouldn’t go strict traditionalist with it either, I’m already way past the red line of cultural appropriation.

    2. At this point, I’ll feed myself to my own woodchipper.

      Could one of y’all be a good chap and give me the ole heave-ho?

  7. “Months later, in August of 2014?after discussing her “confidence issues” with a counsellor?Jane decided that the incident constituted sexual assault and filed a complaint. Still, she maintained that she had consented to sex with Doe: it was the other men who had violated her.

    USC disagreed, and accused Doe of violating 11 different sections of the student code of conduct, including “endangering the health of others,” “engaging in obscene behavior at a university-sponsored event,” and “engaging in non-consensual sexual touching.” [Related: Judge Sides with Gay Brandeis Student Guilty of ‘Serious Sexual Transgression’ for Kissing Sleeping Boyfriend] ”

    Hilarious. He was suspended for rape when the alleged VICTIM said it was consensual. That’s some Orwellian shit right here.

    1. after discussing her “confidence issues” with a counsellor

      There’s your root cause rigth there. The university pays people, and probably not only one or two, to convince students that they have been raped, micro-aggressed, etc.

      Counsellors are like bio-ethicists – it sounds like a good idea, but in practice the results are nearly always really, really bad.

      1. The problem is you need some counseling service to stop the kids who freak on going away to college and become suicide risks (one person in my friend group did this), but if you have them they are invariably going to have lull periods where they seek something to do. Outreach and attention pulls in all the people who just want to feel important and then you get this shit.

    2. Wait a minute, Irish. You actually thought The Betters were going to allow HER interpretation of events stand?

  8. You know I was reading an article by a proggy professor complaining about this movement of the goal posts. Younger progs have started to stop saying the victim gets to decide if something is rape or not and started to declare things rape no matter what the people involved think. It’s begun to show up mostly in areas involving abusive relationships (all sex in the relationship is getting considered rape, even the stuff that was consensual and non-coerced) and in BDSM relationship (no sane person is supposed to be able to consent to pain apparently). Hmmmm, guess they really are taking their position as the new puritans seriously. I think this is what will finally topple them from power. Getting in the way of people having fun builds youth opposition movements.

    1. +1 Footloose.

    2. Younger progs have started to stop saying the victim gets to decide if something is rape or not and started to declare things rape no matter what the people involved think.

      By “younger progs,” do you mean “the state,” and by “started,” do you mean “have done this for decades”?

      1. In the article I was reading, it was a professor bitching about their students not interpreting a work the same way she did.

      2. Not speaking about rape, but about the broader picture as it relates to “violence against women” and Domestic Violence, there is in fact a more recent phenomenon of states passing laws that will take over the pressing of charges, even when the “victim” recants or refuses to press.

        In my state, we have such a law where the state automatically steps in presses charges in any domestic violence case. And by any case, there doesn’t have to be physical violence, it can be a man and a woman in an argument, a vague threat is made, and a neighbor or witness to the argument calls 911 and reports the threat.

        1. Sure. But not many complain when it’s statutory rape and the 15-year-old says she consented.

        2. This doesn’t sound different than calling it a crime against the king / the state, which is Nikki’s point.

      3. Um, I think the status who has shifted considerably no recent years, hence all the new rules that didn’t exist 20 years ago.

        Granted I don’t know if the younger feminists are really worse than the dworkins and frenches of old, but it seems the younger batch is having far more success when it comes to campus policy

    3. This insistence by authority figures that an inferior (a student) was actually sexually abused, or microaggressed upon, or whatever, despite the student’s initial, intuitive belief to the contrary, seems to me rather abusive of the structural power disparity therein. We need to teach subordinates, students, in this Derridan structural system to resist this quasi-Stockholm-syndrome inclination to trust these structurally-oppressive figures of authority who inculcate in them these paranoias of structural oppression. How should we do it? Let me confer with my congressman and priest and local newspaper column opinionist.

      Also, hi Tulpa! It’s me, Tulpa!

  9. The real lesson is that if your name is John Doe, don’t go to college.

      1. Exene Cervenka is a raging SJW, so maybe not.

        1. No she’s a rabid rightwinger conspiracy theorist. There’s a post in the archives on it

      2. I was all but certain that this link would be “Johnny Hit & Run Paulene”

  10. “Jane’s contention that USC is not living up to its Title IX obligation unless it removes Doe from campus deserves criticism as well. How could it possibly be the case that Title IX?a one-sentence-long federal statute mandating gender equality in higher education?obligates a private university to discipline a student for not stopping another student from having rough sex with non-students at an off-campus party?”

    Trump?

    1. “John Doe, are you male?”

      “Yes.”

      “Guilty as charged.”

  11. A sturdy tap on the bum is considered rough sex?

    1. It sounds more like a bracing slap.

  12. “Due process” is a weak reed for reining in this kind of Kafkaesque malicious idiocy. These University people are expert bureaucrats. All they have to do is come up with a “process” that looks good on paper, follow it on paper, and at that point they are free to deliver exactly the same idiotic results.

    1. According to the Obama administration, “due process” is a bored official in a back room flipping through your file and determining everything that happened to you is A-OK.

  13. This entire story suggests the school is admitting that women are weaker and require the protections of their male counterparts. I for one am happy to know that things are returning to normal.

    1. On the other hand, women should be allowed to fight in the infantry. It all makes complete sense.

      1. They should be allowed to fight in the infantry. But with lighter packs, shorter hours and fewer pullups.

        1. I dated a girl that was adamant that things like the Marine and Ranger physical fitness test were nothing but tools to discriminate against women in combat arms and therefore command track. I asked her how better to test whether she could carry 100+ pounds of water, kit and ammunition in her ruck plus her body armor and rifle and assist in carrying a wounded comrade. Her response? “DARPA can invent something for that.”

          I quickly finished my beer and called for more medicine.

        2. They should be allowed to fight, but only against enemy units made of women. Like in sports.

  14. From the decision:

    “Also on October 1, interviewers met with Jane for a third time. The interview
    notes state that the purpose of the meeting was to determine “which of [John?s] behaviors
    [Jane] was ok with and those which made her feel uncomfortable; which were consensual
    and which were not consensual.” Jane confirmed that the first sexual encounter with
    John and Student 1 was consensual in its entirety. She said that during the second
    encounter she was aware other people were in the room with her and John. The notes
    state that “someone got rough and [Jane] thought she would cry.” Then Jane mentioned
    for the first time that someone “slappe[d] her on the butt, hard.”7

    1. She said that there were at least two slaps. The interview notes state, “Fair to say you don?t know who slapped
      you? [Jane]: [Jane] affirmed that she doesn?t actually know who slapped her.” When the interviewer asked Jane if the men had intercourse with her or just digitally penetrated her, Jane stated, “Pretty sure it was both but the digital (penetration) set me off.” (Parentheses in interview notes.) Jane confirmed that all contact “stopped instantly” when John observed that she was crying. She said again that her memory of the night was “patchy” from intoxication. She stated that she did not know if all the men left the room together because she went into the bathroom, which differed slightly from her earlier statement that after the men left, she crawled off the bed and then went to the bathroom. ”

      So she is actually claiming she was raped, rather than just slapped on the butt, but John is the one who actually *stopped her from being victimized* by ending the encounter when he realized she wanted it to end. She should be thanking him.

      1. I’m not willing to call something rape if it end the ‘instantly’ when consent is withdrawn in a manor that the other parties can identify. She was capable of making her desire known. The others involved are not responsible for her decision not to do so.

        1. Was there any invitation to the other two men to penetrate her in any way, or to slap her ass?

          1. Student 1 was invited to Round 1, Student 1 and 2 seemed to join in Round 2 without invitation.

            1. Exactly. This does not appear to have been a “gangbang” as many would like to portray it in the comments.

              1. Yeah, I don’t think it’s socially acceptable to just “join in” and expect to get away with everything UNTIL she starts crying. Obviously the first encounter influences in the minds of Student 1 and 2 whether she’d be willing but that comes dangerously close to the whole “well, I have sex with my wife every day, why not today too, damn her protestations!”

              2. And yet, the first guy is not responsible for the other two. I am not responsible for preventing other men from raping women.

                And unless she specified that the two joiners did indeed force her, why should we assume they did? She herself is not clear on whether she consented to a foursome.

            2. Later that evening, Jane and Doe returned to the bedroom to have sex again. Jane maintains that their sexual activity remained consensual, but other men?likely including Students 1 and 2?entered the room and also began performing sexual acts on Jane.

              How many and who is not clear. We only have a third had version of “Jane’s” account for Round 2

          2. Non-verbal cues are murky and near impossible to determine for certain from an outside perspective. As the only party who knows without a shadow of a doubt if our side of a sexual situation is consensual, it is our responsibility to inform others of what we want and do not want. The person with the information on the legality of a situation has a duty to share.

            1. As the only party who knows without a shadow of a doubt if our side of a sexual situation is consensual, it is our responsibility to inform others of what we want and do not want.

              Correct. And if they stick a finger inside me with no invitation, and I only say “no” after the fact, that’s sexual assault.

              1. Mens rea, the immediate stopping of all activities when withdrawal of consent was made clear would cause a reasonable man to conclude that participants thought their actions consensual up until that point.

                1. Whether they thought their actions were consensual is irrelevant.

                  1. Affirmative consent isn’t the law.

                  2. Whether they thought their actions were consensual is irrelevant.

                    Its very relevant, although the legal test is probably whether a reasonable person would have thought they had consent.

              2. And if they stick a finger inside me with no invitation, and I only say “no” after the fact, that’s sexual assault.

                There are reasonable grounds for finding you’ve been sexually assaulted. If you’re at the point where the line between assault and not is strictly your consent and actual penetration, I’m gonna say that a lot of cues have been initiated and received.

                Somebody shows up in my living room and juggles knives for 20 min. and the situation ends with a knife through my hand and me screaming “I should’ve thrown you out when you first came in!” doesn’t mean they committed assault with a deadly weapon.

                1. Do you actually think that fucking asinine analogy makes any fucking sense at all?

                  1. Shut up, Epi. You’re just spinning around in a public park firing a machine gun while blindfolded.

                2. If you’re at the point where the line between assault and not is strictly your consent and actual penetration, I’m gonna say that a lot of cues have been initiated and received.

                  And if the “cues initiated and received” in this case include “she’s fucking my buddy, so that means I can join in”?

                  1. And if the “cues initiated and received” in this case include “she’s fucking my buddy, so that means I can join in”?

                    She acted like a slut throughout the event, and was reasonably treated as such by all involved.

                    1. She acted like a slut throughout the event, and was reasonably treated as such by all involved.

                      Sweet, I’m gonna keep an eye out for sluts, then go fuck ’em whenever I feel like it.

                  2. I’m saying they didn’t explicitly have the right/privilege to;
                    A) Enter the room.
                    B) Remove any/all clothing.
                    C) Start participating.
                    D) Get rough.
                    E) Slap her ass the first time.
                    F) Slap her ass the nth time.

                    I’m not saying they didn’t rape her. Just that there’s no fucking way you could craft reasonable policy about step E being universally acceptable and step F being rape de facto.

                    1. There aren’t that many steps. When she was sucking John Doe’s dick, unidentified parties came up behind her and began penetrating her and slapping her ass. The entire encounter, including the blowjob, lasted for 1 to 2 minutes before she started to cry.

                    2. There are that many steps; either they entered the room or she entered a room that they were in. Everyone was dressed at some point. It’s all there in the testimony.

                      Seriously, door locks how do they fucking work? and how many times I can say the word ‘No’ in two minutes…

                    3. According to the court document the other men were already in the room

                    4. “less than 5” according to John Doe.

                  3. She had a threesome then later was seen having sex with one of themen she ha d athreesome with. The other men reasonably concluded that she wouldn’t mind having group sex. She did not say “no” at any point. Now the precise sequence isn’t clear, but if for instance they started touching her and she looked around and didn’t stop them then that’s consent. If they just shoved it in then she gets to decide if it’s rape AT THE TIME. She didn’t ask for any of this to stop which means she consented. As soon as something happened she did no consent to she cried and they stopped. So

              3. So, what sexual acts must the male obtain explicit permission for prior to acting? Clearly you’re not expecting a man to guess whether you’ll say no or not, since that would be retarded.

                Explicit permission for each finger? To touch her breasts? Kiss? Hold hands? I’m dead serious when I say, if we’re going to go the affirmative consent route, that it must be specified in writing what exactly constitutes sufficient consent for each act. And the typical female response ‘read her body language you aspy’ rings hollow since you’re not the ones who risk going to jail for touching a guy’s wiener when he’s not in the mood.

          3. I would imagine Student 1 thought he had a permanent invitation after the earlier group sex. He was wrong, of course, and he and 2 did not have an invitation. She specifically went back for sex only with Doe. And they interrupted that.

          4. This sequence of events could be seen as: two dudebros enter a room uninvited, start horning in on sex uninvited, girl goes quiet, someone gets rough, girl starts to cry, sex ends awkwardly for all.

            Yeah. This is unclear enough to make the whole thing icky.

            1. Yes, definitely icky. And while Doe is not liable for rape in my opinion, he is a complete shit who should not let his buddies come in and do that.

              1. And while Doe is not liable for rape in my opinion, he is a complete shit who should not let his buddies come in and do that.

                *He’s* responsible for *her* agency. Got it.

                1. Precisely. Women are wards of men whenever there’s a cost to being equal.

            2. Yeah. This is unclear enough to make the whole thing icky.

              This is the issue with *sexual* assault, IMO. The neo-puritans want to act like we should all be cool with sex and that the genders should be equal but when it gets to brass tacks, the vagina is magical and men are required, by law, to read any and, in this case, all minds.

              If we were talking about making sandwiches together and somebody got a finger cut intentionally/accidentally or if they were at the gun range and somebody fired without checking whether everyone had earplugs in or w/e. This wouldn’t be an issue.

              1. With regards to the other guys (not Doe), I don’t see what mindreading has to do with it. If a girl is blowing your friend, it’s not ok to assume it’s cool for you to finger her and slap her butt. And the same goes for any gender combination. If a guy is going down a girl, it’s not ok for her friends to start fingering the guy’s asshole and touching his dick without any indication that he’s ok with it.

          5. We’ll never know, will we?

            Seriously, this does sound pretty borderline to me. She sounds really wasted, in which case the men involved should have backed off out of some sense of decency and self-respect.

            But if there’s one person who did nothing wrong, its Mr. Doe.

            1. But if there’s one person who did nothing wrong, its Mr. Doe.

              The *only* person knowingly and/or demonstrably penetrating her at the time of the rape. Everyone else, whomever they are in whatever number, were at best in the room and talking while she was penetrated.

              Again, I’m not about giving the guys a pass, but hell if she’s given as damn near zero evidence to conclusively convict *someone* as possible.

        2. I hate to agree with Nikki, but consent is presumed to be denied, in the absence of some evidence to the contrary, and it applies at minimum on a person by person basis. That is, unless she gave some indication that it was ok for random fratboy walking by to finger her, then it was not. The fact that she was already having sex with a different person has no relevance.

          1. “According to the court, the female student (“Jane”) had consensual sex with two men (“John Doe” and “Student 1″) concurrently at a party, apparently enjoyed it, and went back for oral sex with John ? into a room that was apparently expecting an orgy. You’ve been warned:” – From the College Fix

            The other participants expected an orgy in the room she was having sex in. Expecting consent from members of an orgy is not unreasonable.

            1. The other participants expected an orgy in the room she was having sex in.

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              (takes breath)

              HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

              You really are the stupidest motherfucker ever, Tulpy-Poo.

            2. Yes, clearly, if a reporter says the “room…was apparently expecting an orgy” that means Jane knew that in advance and consented.

              Not that there were two dudebros in there that thought they were entitled to fuck anything moving in their general vicinity.

              1. Can you even read?

              2. Crime of rape requires not only lack of consent but knowledge by other parties that there was a lack of consent. Someone threatening to shoot my family so I will have sex with a random guy makes the act non-consensual on my part. The random guy is not guilty of rape unless he knew the sex was non-consensual, though. If he believes he just got luck and knows nothing of the threats or my lack of desire to have sex with him, he did nothing wrong and has broken no law.

                The only exception to this is statutory rape which does not have to fulfill Mens Rea.

                1. Why would a person just assume they can fuck any available hole?

                  We call that “rape.”

                  1. Jane didn’t call it “rape”.

                    1. Not for 7 months anyways

                  2. Why would a person just assume they can fuck any available hole?

                    Because they reasonably believed it was an orgy, and had no reason to believe anyone having sex in the room wasn’t consenting to participate in an orgy?

                    1. Damn minute late and not worded nearly as nicely.

                    2. In what fucking world is her going into a room only with one guy–no “you two, come on in as well”–a fucking orgy? Are you seriously this retarded? Any room that anyone has sex in is an orgy room now? Any room where an threesome once occurred is an orgy room now? Do you even listen to yourself?

                  3. A person assuming they can join in on sex in a room that supposed to be hosting an orgy is making a reasonable assumption, though one that is possible false in this situation due to factors they were not aware of.

                    1. Literally the only “evidence” the room was “hosting an orgy” is a line in a media report that has nothing to do with the facts presented in the opinion.

                  4. Why would a person just assume they can fuck any available hole?

                    The anarchist is going to dictate for everyone at all times what holes are and are not available to be fucked?

                    1. The anarchist is going to dictate for everyone at all times what holes are and are not available to be fucked?

                      Um? Yes? WTF?

                    2. Look, Hamster, obviously if I believe the state is illegitimate that must also mean I don’t believe everyone has a right to control her own body.

                      Oh wait…

                    3. No one has said she doesn’t have the right to control her own body.

                      The fact that all the men walked out with their testicles intact tells me she did… until she whined to the state months later.

                    4. What THE FUCK does anarchism has to do with whether it’s ok to start sticking your appendages in various holes in someone who hasn’t actually engaged in sex with you? Do you have brain damage?

          2. I hate to agree with Nikki, but consent is presumed to be denied, in the absence of some evidence to the contrary,

            I disagree. Absence of consent is an element of the the crime of rape, which has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the complainant.

            In a criminal context, she/the state has the obligation to prove that consent was denied. You never presume that an element of a crime occurred unless the accused can prove differently.

            The idea that consent is presumed to be denied until the defendant proves otherwise is “affirmative consent” doctrine, which presumes every sex act is rape unless and until the defendant proves otherwise.

            1. She went into another fucking room with only one guy. She did not invite the others in, they came in of their own accord. Tell you what, when you go to fuck your wife next time, I’ll come over and come in while you’re getting busy and start joining in. You don’t mind, right? I mean, you didn’t tell me not to, right?

              Leaving the room for a private room is in itself denial of consent to the two who came in after. This is simple shit. It’s strange you’re having such a tough time with it.

              1. “Tell you what, when you go to fuck your wife next time, I’ll come over and come in while you’re getting busy and start joining in”

                Why don’t you just stick your finger inside RC Dean’s ass while you’re doing that? I mean, if he didn’t explicitly tell you ‘no, Epi, don’t penetrate me,’ no harm no foul

                1. Oh I would totally go after RC’s ass first, Irish. Don’t think I wouldn’t. Because I know he wants it. I mean, he’s having sex right then, isn’t he?

                2. Why don’t you just stick your finger inside RC Dean’s ass while you’re doing that? I mean, if he didn’t explicitly tell you ‘no, Epi, don’t penetrate me,’ no harm no foul

                  Sex never happens in a flash. There is always some buildup to it, some opportunity for cues to be given or an objection expressed. In a fantasy world where everyone’s orifices are constantly available to passersby in an instant, this scenario would be troubling. Fortunately, that’s not the real world.

                  In rape cases, you look at what cues were given, if any, and what objections or opportunities to object occurred. That’s where you get evidence about whether the defendant reasonably believed he had consent.

                  1. Sex never happens in a flash. There is always some buildup to it, some opportunity for cues to be given or an objection expressed. In a fantasy world where everyone’s orifices are constantly available to passersby in an instant, this scenario would be troubling. Fortunately, that’s not the real world.

                    You should read the opinion, because this “fantasy world” is exactly the one where the assailants thought they lived. Jane was sucking on Doe’s dick, and unidentified parties came up behind her and began penetrating and slapping her. Within 1 to 2 minutes of the blowjob beginning, she was crying and the whole encounter was over.

                    1. You should read the opinion, because this “fantasy world” is exactly the one where the assailants thought they lived.

                      As I noted down below, this is a bizarre one-off case. Its not smart to build too much on it.

                    2. As I noted down below, this is a bizarre one-off case. Its not smart to build too much on it.

                      And yet this is the case we are talking about, which you have called a consensual gangbang.

                    3. And yet this is the case we are talking about,

                      Indeed we are. And I am saying its too much of a one-off to be very useful, and I don’t see enough clarity here to conclude that rape occurred.

                    4. If I’m having sex with a woman and someone unexpectedly penetrates me, someone is leaving the room without their genitals… and it won’t take me months to decide I was raped.

            2. According to this comment, it’s not rape to have sex with someone who’s asleep.

              1. Basic due process in our system: The state has to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes the absence of consent.

                Its tough in pure “he said she said” cases. Its tough with sex, where consent is often given through non-verbal cues or even inaction, depending.

                The alternative is “presumed guilty”, though. Which is a worse thing, IMO. Under affirmative consent doctrine, its always rape to have sex with someone who is asleep. Which is more absurd?

            3. “The idea that consent is presumed to be denied until the defendant proves otherwise is “affirmative consent” doctrine”

              No, consent is presumed to be denied until there is some evidence that a person wants to have sex with you. The problem with affirmative consent is that it’s based on the idea that someone has to verbally say yes and basically ignores body language. Someone doesn’t need to say yes, but they do need to actually invite you to join in, verbally or non-verbally.

              1. No, consent is presumed to be denied until there is some evidence that a person wants to have sex with you.

                Its not. Its an element of the crime. The state has to prove there was no consent. That’s what a presumption means – someone has to put on evidence to overcome it. For elements of a crime, the presumption always is that it didn’t happen unless and until the state proves it did.

              2. No, consent is presumed to be denied until there is some evidence that a person wants to have sex with you. The problem with affirmative consent is that it’s based on the idea that someone has to verbally say yes and basically ignores body language. Someone doesn’t need to say yes, but they do need to actually invite you to join in, verbally or non-verbally.

                Thank you. And sorry, but “failing to say no before you start crying, while you have a penis in your mouth,” is not consent.

                1. Someone doesn’t need to say yes, but they do need to actually invite you to join in, verbally or non-verbally.

                  I agree more or less completely. Which is why I think this is a borderline case, based on the account we have. This is a very strange case, the kind of one-off that nobody should build too much of a doctrine on.

                  I think its still a little murky about what counts as a nonverbal invitation, actually. Many of these cues are very subtle. Something short of flashing you a big grin and a double thumbs-up should be sufficient.

                2. Thank you. And sorry, but “failing to say no before you start crying, while you have a penis in your mouth,” is not consent.

                  Non-consent means someone loses a penis- or exits the room bleeding from multiple orifices…

                  Little girl never been to jail. lol

              3. Affirmative consent can be given with body language. Affirmative consent is defined as “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity”, verbal is not a key component. R C Dean is right, the main problem with the concept is it shifts the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused.

            4. I’m not talking about the question of evidence, which inevitably comes down to which testimony you believe. I’m saying that a “reasonable person” understands that they do not have consent from anyone, in most contexts, unless some affirmative communication makes it otherwise known.

              For people who are in an established, long-term sexual relationship, it might be reasonable to assume that some minor parasexual behavior should be presumed to be tentatively consensual until the situation is clarified, but that’s about as far it goes.

              1. Ant, would you consider consent to presumed in the case of an orgy? Because that’s what was supposed to be happening in that room.

                1. Because that’s what was supposed to be happening in that room.

                  You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.

                  1. “Approximately 45 minutes later, Jane and John returned to the bedroom a second
                    time. There were multiple men in the room, and people were continually entering and
                    exiting the room. Jane could not remember if she had vaginal intercourse with John
                    again. She performed oral sex on John for about 15-30 seconds while lying on her
                    stomach and elbows. As she did this, Jane was either completely undressed or her dress
                    was pulled up over her hips. Someone behind Jane pulled her to her knees, and she felt
                    her vagina being penetrated intermittently with penises and fingers.

                    At some point during this encounter, the other men present in the room?not
                    including John?exceeded the scope of Jane?s consent. One man began getting rough
                    and hurting Jane by “forcefully finger[ing]” her.”

                    Turns out the second orgy was consensual according to her. The fingering and piv sex was consensual, it was not until things became rough that she determined the scope of her consent had been exceeded. So she is claiming that the roughness was non-consensual not the sex.

                    1. This is from the opinion by the way.

                    2. “On September 6, SJACS interviewers met with “B,” one of Jane?s friends who
                      attended the party. B reported that she and other friends were in the hallway of the house
                      when she saw Jane in a bedroom with multiple men. They asked if she was okay, Jane
                      said she was fine, and someone closed the bedroom door. The friends later witnessed
                      Jane emerge from the bedroom upset.”

                      “S saw Jane go into the bedroom with John and “2-3 other
                      guys.” The interview notes state, “[Jane] told [S], ?I?m OK? and told them to go, so they
                      left.” ”

                      “John told interviewers that during the second sexual encounter, Student 1
                      slapped Jane?s buttocks hard. The slap was “[h]ard, not cool by the sound.” ”

                      “John said Jane was the one who suggested the second encounter in the bedroom
                      with him and Student 1.”

                      “On October 4 interviewers met with “C,” another friend of John?s who also
                      attended the party. Student 1 and Student 2 were his friends from high school. C said he
                      witnessed John, Jane, and Student 1 dance together before disappearing down the hallway
                      together”

                    3. So she is claiming that the roughness was non-consensual not the sex.

                      A reasonable take is that it was consensual until it got too rough. She started crying, indicating consent was withdrawn, and the sex stopped.

                      Not the only interpretation, but not the worst one, either.

                      But Nikki wants people jailed if they get too rough during group sex and stop as soon as they have reason to believe things have gone too far.

                    4. Wow, you are a truly impressive liar, Tulpa. You quote something directly and then just below it lie about what it says.

                    5. Nikki, the article we are under, the opinion, and other commentators all agree with my summary of events. Read it slower, it is a fair summary of what happened.

                    6. Nikki, the article we are under, the opinion, and other commentators all agree with my summary of events.

                      Everyone could “know” that you are Tulpa. This would not prove it so.

                    7. True point Hamster, but in this situation I’ve already posted my evidence and arguments. Unless Nikki is going to actually make a comment that goes beyond saying “Nuh uh”, there really isn’t much more that I can do. An appeal to authority at least shows that I’m not talking out of my ass, and hopefully will prompt Nikki to show some evidence that I did not interpret the passage correctly.

                    8. As she did this, Jane was either completely undressed or her dress
                      was pulled up over her hips. Someone behind Jane pulled her to her knees, and she felt
                      her vagina being penetrated intermittently with penises and fingers.

                      This reads like missed opportunity to object, to me. Lack of objection when you have the opportunity can reasonably be taken as consent.

              2. I’m saying that a “reasonable person” understands that they do not have consent from anyone, in most contexts, unless some affirmative communication makes it otherwise known.

                I think there is some talking past each other here. I’ve been looking at how this should play out in a criminal setting (which this isn’t), and about how adopting the opposing standard in any official setting is a bad idea.

                A reasonable person acts just as you say. Its highly, highly unusual to get access to someone orifices without some interchange beforehand. This happens to be one of those cases (maybe?). Sorting out whether the dudebros had reason to believe they could just hop on is probably beyond anyone’s ability to sort out, at this point. Yes, they were heels. Were they rapists? I’m not seeing enough clarity to convict.

            5. There is a presumption of innocence, but ant is correct that in consent itself, there is presumption of denial. The prosecution still has to prove that the defendant did not attain consent, but “Prove that she said no” would not be an effective defense.

              If ant is wrong, then the Senate is presumed to consent to Merrick Garland’s nomination so long as it remains silent. Consent is an agreement between parties.

              1. There is a presumption of innocence, but ant is correct that in consent itself, there is presumption of denial.

                That would mean that consent was an affirmative defense in rape cases, not lack of consent being an element of the crime. I don’t think it works that way. LEt’s check an actual statute:

                A person commits sexual assault by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person without consent of such person.

                http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01406.htm

                Sure looks like an element of the crime to me. The prosecution has to prove every element of the crime. The defendant doesn’t have to put on any evidence whatsoever that he received consent, and will be acquitted unless the prosecution convinces the jury that there was no consent.

                Contrast with self-defense, which is an affirmative defense that the defendant has to prove up. Every killing is a homicide, unless the defendant can prove self-defense. Not every sex act is rape unless the defendant can show prove consent.

            6. “The idea that consent is presumed to be denied until the defendant proves otherwise is “affirmative consent” doctrine, which presumes every sex act is rape unless and until the defendant proves otherwise.”

              I don’t think they’re talking about a legal burden of proof. I think what they’re saying is that if you wish to engage in sexual relations with another person, the default assumption is that consent is denied until they give you an indication otherwise. Under the opposite view, it would be totally ok for anyone to just randomly grab other people’s genitals, butts, boobs, etc. without any indication that it’s wanted.

            7. The gist of it is, in what circumstance can a given sex act (such as an orgy) be ‘reasonably inferred?’ I do not have an answer.

              John Doe I’d say is innocent, the other two, depends. Did they just barge in and start fingering her unawares? Or did she give some suggestion of consent when they approached? You’d have to ask them I guess and decide whose word is best.

      2. Yeah. It does sound like he has some shitty friends, but it also sounds like he stopped it when he knew something was up.

        Fuck the two other dudes, though.

        1. You’ll have to get them really, really drunk first.

  15. 11 different sections of the student code of conduct?

    It seems like that the real objective of all this is to discourage students from engaging in sexual activity at all. Maybe that’s not a bad idea – certainly having sex with someone you just met is probably a bad idea under any circumstances. But if that is the case, they should be honest about it.

  16. These kids today are getting a VERY different college experience than I got in the early 90s.

  17. As much as there needs to be consequences for the school, counselors who manipulate psychologically vulnerable students into falsely believing they were raped need personal censure, especially if they’re licensed professionals.

    1. I once worked at a state DHHS. During orientation the sexual harassment section was taught by an older, power-abusing SJW woman. Throughout the training continued to say sexist towards me. There were eother one or two other men in the class of about thirty other than me. It was really odd. At one she kicked it up a few notches, something that would have gotten a male instructor doing it to a female trainee in serious trouble, and I said in a calm manner that what she was sayong was sexual harassment. Her response was, “Why don’t you file a complain then.” I wear bigboy pants so I didn’t go home and cry about it. I told my boss after in a matter of fact way. He had warned me how BS the orientation was. So I took it that the issue was hers and left it at that. Anyhow, I think there are people that have been wronged and SJWs not wronged that are on a crusade.
      John Doe should get a big payday, the counselor that assisted should be fired without pension rights, the board that found John Doe “guilty” should all be suspended, and USC should provide long-term counseling for Jane.

  18. Man am I glad I graduated from college 16 years ago.

  19. Seems to me that a good rule of thumb is: Unless you were unconscious or blacked out, if you aren’t sure if you were raped or not, you probably weren’t raped. And if people stop doing what they were doing as soon as you show that you are unhappy with what is happening, you almost certainly weren’t raped.

    1. “And if people stop doing what they were doing as soon as you show that you are unhappy with what is happening, you almost certainly weren’t raped.”

      Unless a reasonable person would have known beforehand that you would be unhappy. Like, say, you never actually suggested at that time that they could have sex with you.

      1. This.

      2. Yeah, that’s a good addition. It’s a work in progress.

      3. Which is entirely subjective. Personal experience has shown me some women will invite themselves to your place, take the initiative with sex, then a week later tell you you pressured them into it. Then a week after that ask of you want to hook up again.

        Frankly, most people are horrible witnessed eve to their own lives.

        At this point, I think they may well codify sexual laws as thoroughly as possible so men can at least know if what they’re doing is illegal, and then legalize prostitution so those of us who don’t want to run the gauntlet can still have sex. Better than the current legal double bind we’re in.

  20. Who could predict that a panel of people deciding cases about sex would become filled with sadistic vindictive prudes? Who, I ask? Who?

    All positions of power will eventually be filled by the worst possible people to be in them. Because they want to be there more than anyone else. So they can abuse the power. Incentives, incentives, incentives.

    1. All positions of power will eventually be filled by the worst possible people to be in them. Because they want to be there more than anyone else. So they can abuse the power. Incentives, incentives, incentives.

      Like those creepy wikipedia editors who claim “ownership” of a particular group of articles.

    2. All positions of power will eventually be filled by the worst possible people to be in them.

      Why are you always going on about your mom, Episiarch?

      1. Why do you think I know this stuff?!? It’s from experience!

        1. Admit it, South Park based some of the dialogue in the lord of the rings on a script you sent to them uninvited based on her teaching you about the birds and the bees.

          And when the woman has four penises in her at the same time, then stands over the men and pees on them, is that part of being in love too?

          Five midgets, spanking a man… covered in Thousand Island dressing. Is that making love?

          1. Dave: Yeah, don’t worry about it, guys. I just think it’s really cool that you love each other, even though you’re from Austria and you’re from some place no one’s even fucking heard of.

            Keitha: Australia.

            Jemaine: New Zealand.

            Dave: Exactly. Because it shouldn’t matter where you’re from when love’s involved. It’s like that movie “Interracial Hole Stretchers 2” ? she was white; they were black. But it didn’t matter in the end, did it? Because they were in love.

            Jemaine: I haven’t… I haven’t seen that one.

            Dave: Well, it really affected me.

  21. She approached him again at a party some weeks later, but he declined to dance with her.

    Awww….

    1. She approached him again at a party some weeks later, but he declined to dance with her heard she was dating some guy named Haven Monahan, who was apparently a total badass..

  22. Ex post facto withdrawal of consent. It seems to be all the rage in these situations, where it is not what someone thinks or says or behaves at the time of the intercourse, but how they “feel about an event “before, during, and after” it occurs. If the girl you shagged has several consensual encounters with you, then goes to counseling to address her self esteem and leaves feeling bad about just one of the encounters months afterwards, you are then screwed retroactively. The ruling paradigm is that colleges are the hunting grounds of rape culture and any male is really a perpetrator who just needs to be caught.

    1. Except in the second sexual encounter, she only went in with Doe. She *specifically* did not invite the other two in. They came in of their own accord. She didn’t change her mind. At all. Note she didn’t raise an issue about the first threesome…where she specifically invited both Doe and Student 1 in.

      1. I’ll need some kind of diagram or flow chart to follow this.

        1. It’s two events. Should be pretty simple.

          1. Yeah, but there’s overlap, as in two of the three dudebros at event number 2 had just had consensual sex with her shortly before.

      2. “According to the court, the female student (“Jane”) had consensual sex with two men (“John Doe” and “Student 1″) concurrently at a party, apparently enjoyed it, and went back for oral sex with John ? into a room that was apparently expecting an orgy. You’ve been warned:” – The College Fix.

        She had a sexual encounter in a room where an orgy was expected. The other participants were reasonable in their assumption of consent.

        1. Tulpy-Poo, are you admitting right here that you think a room where a certain kind of sex occurred earlier is now a room where anyone can expect that kind of sex any time after? Please please please say yes. Oh god you are so amazingly stupid.

          1. Reading comprehension Epi. Orgy was expected for future.

            1. You fucking blithering idiot, they couldn’t expect something she had not agreed to.

              You do realize you’re essentially outing yourself as a rapist, right? That if you think you have an expectation for sex, you’re entitled to it?

              I love how stupid you are.

              1. You do realize you’re essentially outing yourself as a rapist, right? That if you think you have an expectation for sex, you’re entitled to it?

                Zomg Epi it’s like you believe in affirmative consent or something.

              2. Thought crime much Epi?

                Yes, I believe in Mens Rea. You must be aware a crime is occurring to be guilty of breaking a law. There are unfortunately exceptions to this, but rape of adults is not one of those exceptions.

                1. Tulpy-Poo, you have done the best thing ever: shown the degree to which you are a moral imbecile and that you think an expectation of sex actually entitles you to sex. Also, if you think anyone is still buying your act, think again.

                  You always deliver, Tulpy-Poo. Just not in the way you thought you would. I love it.

              3. You do realize you’re essentially outing yourself as a rapist, right?

                That’s quite a leap. Please shirk your jury duty.

            2. By other people.

        2. This whole thing is murky enough that I don’t think anyone can overcome a presumption that consent was denied. Of course, if you assume that affirmative consent should be the standard, then you would say that no one can overcome a presumption that consent was given.

          I think “affirmative consent” is an abomination, so I go with there’s not enough to conclude that she was raped.

  23. Jane later texted Doe that she had a good time with him, but “your friends suck though.”

    Okay, then. I think we’ve all learned a valuable lesson.

  24. Numero uno, this wasn’t rape.

    Numero two-o, Title IX is not applicable to orgies, and the heck with the SJWs for saying it is.

    Numero three-o, it says of the charges against the guy was “engaging in obscene behavior at a university-sponsored event,”

    When he’s participating in what even his defenders call an “orgy,” then wouldn’t that count as obscene behavior?

    1. I mean, what *would* be obscene if this isn’t?

      1. “Hey, guys, there’s a n orgy at the Tappa Kegga fraternity house.”

        “I’m in, just so long as the orgy isn’t obscene.”

        1. Come on guys, I’m not trolling, did they find that he engaged in obscene behavior at a university function, or not?

          If not, was it because it wasn’t a university function or because it wasn’t obscene?

    2. It has just occurred to me that I have no idea what “obscene” means.

      1. Don’t worry, you’ll know it when you see it.

    3. Title IX is not applicable to orgies

      If there’s one place where everyone has equal opportunities, that would be it.

  25. And I say again, this sequence of events could be seen as: two dudebros enter a room uninvited, start horning in on sex uninvited, girl goes quiet, someone gets rough, girl starts to cry, sex ends awkwardly for all.

    Unclear, Robby. And that’s not okay.

    1. A hair more context introduces even more ambiguity:

      She had consensually, by all accounts, participated in group sex with two of the three earlier that evening.

      Its a frickin’ mess.

      1. She had consensually, by all accounts, participated in group sex with two of the three earlier that evening.

        The most vital bit of information in this sentence is not that two previously had attained consent, but that there’s no evidence the third ever did.

        I cannot be more (and certainly not most) concerned about a girl’s questionable morals, with DudeBro #3 wandering through our scenario shoving his questionable morals into any crack it finds.

        I see cause for doubt as to the party line. I would like Robby to give us an update with a little clarity.

        1. Well, is there ever any evidence that anyone ever consented to sex, unless it’s on tape?

          In any case, if #1 and #2 were raping her, then why again does John Doe get expelled?

          And the fact that this woman wants to expel the guy she herself admits did not violate her makes her hard to sympathize with. ‘Punish the innocent as retribution against the guilty’ seems to be catching on; Andrea dworkins would be proud.

  26. It seems pretty clear that these tribunals are simply out to “lynch”. Whistle at a white woman, look at her inappropriately out of the side of your eyes, you get strung up as retribution for every raper of pure, white womantude that got away. Then combine that with a dash of “witch hunt” zeal by some troubled, hysterical women (not in this case, perhaps, but in many cases). This whole rape on campus thing has that spin to it. Don’t call three days after hooking up? Rape!

    Does anyone think, like the witch trials or lynching, that sensibility will be regained? That history will look down on these rape expulsions as a sad era where the dark side of human nature reared its head? I don’t, I think it’s a tip of a dark age iceberg.

    We’re all sinners in the angry hand of “God”…..

  27. This John Doe fella is raping people all across college campuses. Someone needs to put a stop to it.

  28. If college students are “functioning adults” let them sue each other in regular court. Get the school out of “regulating” this crap.

  29. John Doe really gets around.

  30. People who engage in orgies and other such free-love-fests and “nontraditional” sexual arrangements (we’re polyamorous because we fucking love science!) aren’t usually the most stable of people, I’ve noticed.

    “Don’t worry, at the Orgy Box at Burning Man, we’re very adamant about vocal affirmative consent for every discrete act of sexual interaction! We have countless rigid rules inlaying our progressive, forward-thinking approach to human sexuality and social relationships. Tread carefully and enjoy!”

    1. Yeah, frat parties are nontraditional sexual arrangements.

      1. Thanks for your input, Daria.

      2. Yeah, frat parties are nontraditional sexual arrangements.

        They certainly can be.

        Odd, that our nihilist/anarchist is so prudish about sex, and eager to punish those who depart from the narrow path she has laid out for them.

        1. She’s not exactly Max Stirner.

          1. No, I’m not. I think people shouldn’t act like dicks and should be responsible for their own messes.

            1. Must be exhausting to constantly find yourself brushed up against the is?ought problem.

              The world is not and will not be as you wish it would be. It sucks, I know.

              Like, I think you *shouldn’t* act like a strident, sarcastic dick, but I have no capacity to induce you not to be.

              1. You sound really familiar.

                1. Very convenient for you to have this ‘Tulpa’ scapegoat, dude. My username is mocking you and your absurd paranoia. Do you see Tulpa in your toast?

                  You sound familiarly dull and dull-witted! Surprise!

                  1. Oh, I wasn’t referring to Tulpa. Not at all.

        2. Odd, that our nihilist/anarchist is so prudish about sex, and eager to punish those who depart from the narrow path she has laid out for them.

          Was I the one decrying the instability of people who participate in nontraditional sexual arrangements?

          1. No, but you seem to have pretty rigid ideas about how they should behave.

            1. Yeah, “don’t touch people who don’t want you to touch them” is super rigid, you’re right.

              1. Nikki, you should start using ‘sarc’ tags. It’s really arduous to figure out when you’re being sarcastic!

              2. Jane’s accusation is that she was touched in a manner she objected to, not “who” was doing the touching. Whatever, it took her 7 months and a suggestion by a university counselor for her to believe she was assaulted at all.

          2. Actual, I was just noting that these outcomes follow probabilistically from the disproportionate instability of the people drawn to them.

            Just an observation. Yes, anecdotal. And so? It’s a red flag for me. A heuristic to avoid such people. Similarly, you can ignore my post if you find it irrelevant or uninteresting.

            1. Really, really familiar.

              1. So filter me, you drooling fuckwit. In fact, I’ll reciprocate, right now. You’re not exactly a worthwhile contributor to this forum, like Gilmore, ProL (rip), HM, Ken, etc. Just a drone and ad-hom machine. zzz

                1. Ah, don’t filter him. He’s not half bad when not driven half-insane by his belief in my Tulpaness. He’ll probably calm down in a month or so.

                  1. I can’t remember a single interesting contribution he’s made lately. Just accusing people of being Tulpa and sarcastically insulting anyone who’s at odds with Nikki.

                    I’ll pass on that stuff.

        3. Well, she seems to assume that group sex is non-consensual and affirmative consent is necessary to engage in it. This may be contextually accurate, since situations where normal sex is implied in our society generally do not also imply a gangbang is ok as well, but that is an imposition of sexual norms on people, and a tacit acknowledgement that what constitutes or requires a given level of consent depends on what a given society considers acceptable or deviant., and is not objectively self evident.

  31. Sounds like Jane is crazy. She goes to a frat party and decides to have sex. Doesn’t that break some sort of obscenity code with the university. Why wasn’t she suspended for being a woman of loose morals? And she doesn’t feel “safe” with the boy still on campus that she knowingly and willingly had sex with and … well, Jane, as well as the university authorities, are totally bonkers. Keep the poor little baby at home, in a crib, with diapers, and pacifier.

  32. Quick I need some SJWs to purge my guilt;

    1) Mrs. Casual begins removing clothing and I, without her explicit consent, forcefully remove the remainder of her garments. She laments the forcible removal of her garments. Did a rape occur?!?!?

    2) I’m at a bachelor party where one woman/several women are performing stripper-type activities. I haven’t penetrated any but it seems likely to me that others have. While performing for me, a fellow partier slaps her ass forcibly enough to compel her to quit dancing and leave. She doesn’t say a rape occurred and didn’t file any charges. Did a rape occur?!?!?!?

    1. you raped them with your mind

    2. you raped them with your mind

  33. I find myself in the weird place of agreeing with Nikki on consecutive days. People, the fact that the Girl in the Hat agrees to have sex with Dudebro 1 and Dudebro 2, does not in any way at all indicate that she wants to have sex with Dudebro 3.

    Yes absence of consent is an element of rape, but if the facts of the case are girl has sex with dude 1 and 2, and dude 3 walks in behind her and starts penetrating her with no communication, those facts would be pretty strong evidence of absence of consent. To prove absence of consent it is not necessary to prove that the ‘victim’ said no; proving that the victim was never given the opportunity to say no would work.

    If there is a naked sleeping girl, a naked girl having sex with your bro and facing away from you, or just Bridget bent over in an Irish joke, penetrating her without asking in some way, and giving her an opportunity to consent or not, is rape if she says it is.

    I am not advocating affirmative consent here, nor was Nikki, you cannot surprise someone and then claim they consented before penetration.

    1. People, the fact that the Girl in the Hat agrees to have sex with Dudebro 1 and Dudebro 2, does not in any way at all indicate that she wants to have sex with Dudebro 3.

      Hold on now… there was a Hat involved? This changes everything.

      no really, is the point here to pretend to play sex-crime jurists and re-try the claims of the victim here in the comments?

      or simply ask, “Why the fuck is the University involved in adjudicating this stuff in the first place?”

      because i don’t think there’s much point in trying to pass judgement on “what happened”, given no one really knows wtf really happened.

      I think it is fair to pass judgement on the process of making Universities into “Sex Cops”, which as some adminstrator said in a quote in a previous Robby-piece, takes up the majority of their time these days. Because it seems to me that if something meets the actual definition of “Sexual Assault” (instead of the more flexible ‘makes me feel unsafe’), then real cops should be involved, and not some inherently-compromised university administrator trying to contort themselves into Title IX pleasing-positions.

      1. I agree with you with regard to the impropriety of Universities (and other institutions) playing at court. They do it badly, and ignore rules of evidence and procedure that are vital to fairness. But I also think there is a danger that we as commentators lose perspective and try to force cases into our pet narratives.

        In this case the University clearly was wrong to punish the male student for acts another person committed, but some comments here seemed to be going a bit far in the direction of Consentio unius est consentio omnes and that is equally wrong.

        1. try to force cases into our pet narratives.

          Consentio Unius est Consentio Omnes = Latin Schoolgirl Bukakke 35

          1. Aria Giovanni is hot!

    2. To be clear, I’m open to the possibility that some students may have committed rape, just not the student who’s the plaintiff in this lawsuit.

      1. But he didn’t stop them, so he’s just as bad.

        #itsonus

  34. anyone got her number? for research purposes only

  35. Does USC have a clocktower?

  36. Related stories “How the government stole sex” and “Zealous Anti-Prostitution Prosecutor Paid for Sex Hundreds of Times”. So at least _he’s_ not stealing it.

  37. I think it’s mostly amusing that the commenters here are making assumptions on the priors and particulars of the situation rather than the one central issue which is rather simple.

    Should these types of things be handled by unelected, unempowered education institutions or by the group specifically designated by the state to handle crimes of every nature?

    The argument seems to be heading in the direction where everyone above has essentially acknowledged the legitimacy of the way these types of things are handled. Rather than making yourselves look like retards, why not discuss the methodology used by the prosecution rather than the validity or if/when/how this would/wouldn’t be rape.

    I think everyone can at least agree that the participants, every last one of them, were pretty fucking stupid; But if a person can’t be bothered to press charges in a court of law than fuck them and their non-crime. They clearly don’t feel violated enough to seek actual recourse under the law, ergo they shouldn’t have the recourse of kangaroo courts that violate the basic individual rights every citizen of the United States has enumerated in the god damn Bill of Rights.

    1. Oh, and I should mention I don’t buy the angle where women need to be coddled because rape is somehow different than other crimes against one’s person. If women are strong enough to vote, drink, fight in the infantry, be a CEO, and be a god damn nucelear scientist then why is there this bizarre undertone where they need special treatment of having the state intervene in their behalf to prosecute people in their stead.

      Sorry, but not sorry. Equal rights are equal rights not superior rights and women aren’t some special unique snowflakes that deserve some magical hand waving to make them equal by the state. They are equal, and by god plenty of them have stood up for their rights and got us where we are today. Those women should rightfully bash in the ideology sold by modern feminism that they are victims instead of rightful equals that reap what they sow.

  38. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    http://www.MaxPost30.com

  39. jeez, two years suspension for raping someone? what is this, the soviet union?

  40. It seems to me that this is a feminist way of clearing colleges and universities of males so that women will have 2 extra years of experience in jobs that require and education. This is so they can close the so-called gender wage gap. In other words, they do this because they are too weak to compete on a level playing field.

  41. Are you single tonight? A lot of beautiful girls waiting for you to http://goo.gl/WbbNre

  42. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  43. Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link??

    Clik This Link inYour Browser
    ? ? ? ? http://www.MaxPost30.com

  44. ok, so lets say i am at a nude beach. i see a woman laying face down on a blanket, naked. she is clearly awake and alert (shes reading a book, for instance) and i decide i want to have sex with her. so, i walk over, lay on top of her and attempt to insert. now, in all likelihood she is going to freak out before i have gotten very far, and i am going to be guilty of whatever convoluted thing we are calling attempted rape these days. BUT lets say she lays there and allows me to penetrate her. she then also allows me to continue having sex with her for 90 seconds. i’m sorry, but somewhere in there i have in fact obtained consent. if you dont think so, you’re nuts. i have done it in a very risky, very hazardoues to my own well being manner, but i have done it never the less. if at the 2 minute mark she realizes “hey wait a second, i probably shouldnt be letting this guy i cant even see have sex with me” and attempts to put a stop to it, that is withdrawal of consent. if i stop at that point i am guilty of no crime.

    i suppose if in some far fetched unusual way she was able to show that there was a reason why it took her two minutes to make known her objection that’d make a difference, but i dont see that in this case.

    my reading of it is that her getting her ass slapped hard snapped her out of it and made her question her consent to the situation. that doesnt mean she didnt give consent in the first place.

    1. my step-mum just bought a new cream Toyota Highlander only from working off a pc… browse around this website

      ??????www.paypost50.com

      1. Lol cream is right. Spark76 can I order some of your erotica?

    2. Hmm, if I grab a candy bar at the convenient store and make for the door; and the owner decides he’d like me to have the candy so doesn’t bother to stop me. Am I guilty of stealing?

      What if I’m in my friend’s dorm and grab some food out of his fridge without stealing? A crime? What if I grab his lava lamp and say ‘I’m gonna borrow this okay” as I walk out? If he says nothing is he consenting? Or should I consider that he is just in awe that I would just take his lamp?

  45. Looks like the “counselor” has a back assward understanding of cause and effect. It seems obvious that her willingness to basically pull a train with strangers is a symptom of whatever underlying issue drives her lack of confidence, not the cause.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.