MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Juror in Saifullah Khan Yale Rape Case Says Acquittal Was Justified: 'I Think He's Innocent'

"I think he doesn't deserve this, and I think it's sad."

YalePublic DomainA jury acquitted former Yale student Saifullah Khan last week of committing rape on Halloween night in 2015. If you read Time, The New York Times, The Yale Daily News, or any number of other mainstream media outlets' coverage of the case, this verdict may seem like a travesty of justice, even a calculated counterstrike against the #MeToo movement.

Khan's defense attorney put the victim on trial, critics say, by asking her uncomfortable questions about her sexy Halloween costume, her sexual history, and her flirtatiousness toward Khan. Jess Davidson, interim director of the group End Rape on Campus, called this line of questioning "every survivor's worst victim-blaming nightmare."

But the Khan case is a lot more complicated than such stories have made it seem. Just ask Elise Wiener, a 56-year-old mother of three who served as an alternate juror in the case, who says she would have eagerly voted to acquit Khan if given the chance.

"It just didn't add up," Wiener tells me. "I think he's innocent, I think he doesn't deserve this, and I think it's sad."

Wiener didn't get to attend the jury's deliberations, but she sat through the entire trial, evaluating all the evidence the prosecution presented. She came away quite convinced that there was little to support the accuser's story.

"It was like George Orwell, like 1984, where you're looking at [the evidence], and they're saying it's the complete opposite of what it looked like," said Wiener.

Khan and his accuser were seniors living in the same dormitory at Yale. They didn't know each other well. Both attended a series of events that Halloween. In the course of the evening, the accuser became so drunk that she vomited and found herself separated from her friends. Khan walked with her back to her dorm room, where they had sex. Later, they would each remember the night very differently. Khan maintained that she had taken off her clothes for him, initiated oral sex, and then vomited again. She took a shower to clean herself off while Khan called his long-distance girlfriend, with whom he was in an open relationship. Khan's girlfriend would testify at trial that she spoke with the accuser very briefly after her shower. The call then came to an end, and Khan and the accuser had sex.

Khan's accuser claimed she couldn't remember many of the night's events but that she hadn't consented to sex. The next morning, she told him he was "a piece of shit" and went to the university hospital to get the morning-after pill and an STD test. (Khan told her they had used protection, but the accuser didn't trust him, she said in her testimony.) The accuser told hospital personnel that she had engaged in "consensual sex"; during the trial she said that was because she was too traumatized to admit the truth to them. After meeting with her friends, she decided to go to the university's sexual misconduct office, where the police immediately began an investigation.

Two key pieces of evidence were supposed to establish Khan's guilt. The first was surveillance footage of Khan and the accuser walking to her dorm. According to the prosecution, this footage showed Khan dragging an unwilling victim. But that's not what Wiener saw.

"She was strolling with him with a big grin," said Wiener. "And that was supposed to show that she was in a drunken stupor, and she was being dragged by him?"

The video footage, according to Wiener, simply didn't support the prosecution's argument.

Then there were the text messages. As The New York Times characterized them:

After Mr. Khan left, the victim said, she looked through her phone and found that he had sent messages to her friends on her behalf the night before, declining their invitations to meet up after the show.

Such a specifically deceitful act would indeed make Khan's guilt seem more likely. The problem—unacknowledged by The Times—was that the prosecution could present no evidence that Khan had sent those messages instead of the accuser.

"There's no evidence that it was him," said Wiener. "It's just not evidence, it's conjecture."

I asked Wiener why the accuser would make up such a story—why she would go to such lengths to punish Khan. Wiener saw a couple of possibilities. One was that she woke up revolted with herself for having slept with Khan. The other, more benign explanation is that she really had convinced herself she hadn't consented to sex. In either case, Wiener felt the evidence simply wasn't in her favor.

Other jurors apparently reached the same conclusion, according to The Times:

The juror who spoke anonymously said that the panel had not focused on the banter or on Mr. Pattis's suggestion that the woman's Halloween costume had been too sexy. Instead, the jurors focused on evidence like security camera footage that showed the complainant and Mr. Khan walking back to her dorm room. The complainant had testified that the footage showed her so drunk that she was unable to support herself, her leg dragging behind her.

"We looked at and we looked at and we looked at that video of them walking," the juror said. "We could not see her leg dragging. We could not see her eyes shut. We could not see what she said."

Photo Credit: Public Domain

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.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "We looked at and we looked at and we looked at that video of them walking," the juror said. "We could not see her leg dragging. We could not see her eyes shut. We could not see what she said."

    One wonders why the prosecution didn't dismiss his own video claiming "it didn't show the whole story."

    Works for cops.

  • Flinch||

    Cops can offer up their 'notes' as testimony evidence in the form of reading them [or referring to them] on the stand - it's an interpolation of real evidence accepted as evidence that has problems, but its a longstanding tradition that pre-dates electronics. It's one of the reasons cops can be pivotal to putting somebody on death row with little or no evidence. A mis-heard or misrepresented statement of the accused combined with circumstantial evidence is a monster to overcome in court. A prosecutor with direct knowledge of a crime will either recuse himself to protect the case, or defense will bbq their shorts the moment they get called as a witness. For that reason, they don't interpolate - they either present, or they don't.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    She read Orwell and they still let her on a jury?

  • Darr247||

    Prolly wasn't asked in [i]voir dire[/i].

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Brackets? This ain't March Madness.

  • DajjaI||

    If you didn't enjoy it, or if your partner didn't as much as they should have, then it was probably rape.

  • Dave99||

    You link to a site called "last jew."

    No thanks, bruh

  • Flinch||

    That is weird - and it almost stopped me, but I read on. You should have continued to where the real freak show is: the 'weendviolence' website that has Agent of Change as one of its products. What the hell is a "tri-gender pyro fox"? These people have packaged a plan for self induced psychosis? Calling it propaganda is weak: it's definitely Obama style culture vandalism, sucking up treasury money via grants - or was. Last report I found available is 2015, so it looks like it has attained vaporware status. That year coincides with Eric Holders departure, so the place to start would be DOJ grants labeled something like "violence prevention" or other benign term, and possibley a joint venture with Dept of Education. The content is so weak, I would suggest it was pulled mainly out of thin air as a money laundering platform to get tax dollars into democrat coffers, and if students got brainwashed by the brain trust running the show, all the better for their party. The only interesting part was that the bulk of [roughly 6k] students surveyed to develop data 74% were 18 or 19, and less than 1% identified as other than male or female. Clearly, their stats were assembled via freshmen orientation, which is its own issue statistically.

  • NicholasStix||

    Dave99|3.13.18 @ 12:06PM|#

    "You link to a site called 'last jew.'

    "No thanks, bruh"

    N.S.: You act as if it were obvious that such a site would be radioactive, but it's not at all obvious.

    In fact, the linked article is very good. http://lastjew.com/the-rape-agenda/

    Maybe you just support campus rape hoax culture, and don't want people reading about it.

  • Flinch||

    Your criteria allows for the absurd: if a man can't get it up and the partner is disappointed by the non-performance, it's rape? Please tell me you are a high school dropout, and not a degreed "professional". If it's the latter, then you should seek damages from your alma mater: your degree should never have been issued with that little command of logic and language, and is defective.

  • SIV||

    Where's the pics of "victim" in her slutty Halloween costume?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's like Reason doesn't even try.

  • SIV||

    They don't teach that shit at Columbia!

  • Flinch||

    I don't know. I think Columbia switched from 'be-ins' during the 70s to 'hate-ins' today as Alinsky's acolytes tore down their last shred of love for country [and humanity]. Democrats hate everything now, including themselves, and control the university with a stranglehold. That's not worth paying for, but it is being taught by certified misanthropes who staked out a new [yet undeclared] spot in the DSM. I like to call it pre-schizophrenia, but it's not my profession. Don't expect the progs inside the APA to touch it with a ten foot pole...

  • RaymondhW||

    It might not be rape but he sounds like a piece of shit. If someone is so trashed they vomit twice, safe bet is they are way too drunk to make any real decisions.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How drunk was he?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Shush, he's establishing bona fides.

  • RaymondhW||

    Don't know. As him even being slightly drunk isn't brought up in the article, my guess is not very.

    There are plenty of things that aren't and shouldn't be crimes but are still morally abhorrent.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Did he force the booze down her throat? No.

    So she chose to get drunk to the point of illness if not loss of control, and then she chose to have sex with what was likely impaired judgment.

    At what point should women be held responsible for the choices they make? Because it seems like their answer is, "Assume I'm not responsible for any of my decisions or choices until I can get something I want (abortion, attention, money, job, etc.) by acting like I am responsible for my decisions."

  • RaymondhW||

    And he chose to have sex with someone' who was drunk out of their mind. She can be responsible for her actions and he can still be a piece of shit. They aren't mutually exclusive. Why their genders matter to you so much I'm not sure, but everyone is responsible for their own actions. Which is why I don't claim it is or should be rape. He didn't drug her, she chose to get that drunk. But he still sounds like a piece of shit.

    But hey virtue signal away to your in crowd while I take the fairly normal position that having sex with people shit faced drunk is fucked up.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    He doesn't care about the genders, jackass. Do some reading and basic observation and you will see that the is a dichotomy playing out in front of you. They are unarguably strong as a man when they want to be and simultaneously more delicate than a flower upon desire.

    However, you are the one throwing out a bunch of unsubstantiated conjecture. Prove he wasn't drunk or STFU. Given the circumstances the obvious assumption is that he was.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Which one are you talking about? Both? Oh wait ....

    I see. Both were too future drunk to make decisions to not drink in the past. Oh wait ....

    You are confused. You are in a maze of twisty passages, all pointing to male responsibility, male accountability, male agency ... but female rights.

  • Eidde||

    It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by an SJW.

  • Zeb||

    Well, good thing that whether or not it was rape was the only relevant question at the trial.

  • Malvolio||

    Are you claiming that any woman is capable of making her own decision? Misogynist!

  • Malvolio||

    Are you claiming that any woman is capable of making her own decision? Misogynist!

  • MarkLastname||

    It's a man's duty to ask a woman she has vomited in the last 6 hours before having sex with her.

  • Chumby||

    Wasn't the vomit post oral sex?

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    Well vomiting is the body's defense against the toxins imbibed and once rid of them people generally feel better and less intoxicated. I've seen lots of people in this condition and a lot of them decide to party on. Sorry, she doesn't get a pass from me.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    In all fairness, the second round of vomiting might not be the result of alcohol consumption. We need to know Khan's dimensions to determine that. It is possible that she sobered up by the time they got back to the dorm, depending on how long the walk was.

  • tommhan||

    She was sober enough to take a shower and come back to his bed.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    She took a shower to clean herself off while Khan called his long-distance girlfriend, with whom he was in an open relationship. Khan's girlfriend would testify at trial that she spoke with the accuser very briefly after her shower. The call then came to an end, and Khan and the accuser had sex.

    Alpha. As. Fuck.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yeah; some part of me kind of admires that dude.

  • Chumby||

    It seems like the call was asking for permission/making sure it was ok or showing off a little (approval seeking behavior). Alpha for being in an open relationship where he sleeps with others but the call comes off as beta-ish IMO.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Seems like a standard procedure for someone from a community that allows polygamy. In many communities, the first wife gets veto power over dates with potential second wives. Even in the less rigid polyamorous community, many couples want a phone call to the primary lover before a new hookup.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Here's an idea. If a girl is so drunk that she throws up twice, one of 'em after blowing you, maybe don't have sex with her?

    Alcohol can be fine. Drunken sex can be fun. But there's a "too drunk" line, and folks really need to be better about not crossing it.

    Please note: I'm not saying the guy was a rapist. I wasn't on that jury, I'm not trying to second-guess them. I'm just saying that he was an idiot.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How drunk was he?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Drunk enough to think "hey, she vomited after sucking my dick. Maybe I should stick it in a different hole" wasn't a bad idea.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Exactly... so maybe HE was raped.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Sure. Go argue that in a court of law.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    That's a pretty weak ass response man, just admit you're cornered and move on.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Please clarify what I should be "moving on" from.

    My "don't fuck people that are so drunk they're throwing up" standard, or "if you think you were raped, argue it in a court of law" standard?

    'cause from where I'm sitting, they both sound pretty reasonable.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "My "don't fuck people that are so drunk they're throwing up" standard"

    So that's your standard huh? Because it looks like you only think that applies to one group.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Because it looks like you only think that applies to one group.
    Not really. If you check the timestamps, I explicitly clarified that applies regardless of the sex and gender involved before your first response to me.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    No, I was talking about people who can hold their liquor.

    Try to

  • EscherEnigma||

    To be fair, I'd already been accused multiple times of treating men and women differently, so I'm not sure it's unfair for me to think those were the groups you're talking about.

    And that said? Sure. Treat folks that can hold their liquor differently then folks that can't. With the first group you'll need to look for less obvious signs of excessive inebriation.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "Sure. Treat folks that can hold their liquor differently then folks that can't."

    Yes, he actually said this.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    timestamps? have we really come to that now?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Yes, he has.

  • Flinch||

    Timestamps... you might be on to something there. So, now we need a freakin go-pro in the bedroom to deal with the risk of false claims just as if we were driving in Bucharest? What a world... get called for jury duty, and go watch porn all day. In certain states, that just might double the number of registered voters. I'm thinking civilization just might be over - we're regressing faster than a Syrian in a full hijab.

  • EscherEnigma||

    So that's your standard huh? Because it looks like you only think that applies to one group.
    Alternative snark: yes. Because I only sleep with men, so I don't need to worry about how drunk women are before I sleep with them.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Again, you assumed I meant sex and gender when I was talking about people who can hold their liquor.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Jesus, Tulpa, go fuck yourself

  • EscherEnigma||

    Assuming you're talking to me: nah. I have a husband for that.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    No, I'm talking to "Maddow's Fleshlight," who is so obviously Tulpa I can't believe anyone is responding to it.

    Oh wait, yes I can, because for some reason most people here can't tell they're always talking to a fucking sockpuppet.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @Hail Rataxes
    Seeing as y'all regularly call me Tulpa just because you don't like my opinions, I'll have to beg forgiveness in not being so quick to dismiss others.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Man, you've accused literally everyone of being Tulpa, so you can't really blame the rest of us when we all think you're an idiot and don't care what you think

  • MarkLastname||

    Is the first thing you'd tell tell women who were raped because they went home with a drunk stranger that they're idiots?

    If not, why do it here? Why is your first impulse to attack the innocent man rather than the woman who tried to falsely imprison him? It seems either you just don't really empathize with men, or you don't see women as moral agents.

  • EscherEnigma||

    You keep trying to make this a women vs. men thing. It's pretty weird.

    That said, no, I would not respond to an in-person confession of trauma the same as I respond to an stoic article about the outcome of a jury trial. And there's no reason to treat the two as the same either.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""You keep trying to make this a women vs. men thing. It's pretty weird."'

    It's shouldn't be that way, but the underlying thought is that way.

    It's his fault because he had sex with her. It never gets framed as she had sex with him. The liberal establishment is looking at it with sexist filters. It's the man's fault, because he's a man.

  • MarkLastname||

    So if it were an article about a woman being raped, your first thought would be to call her an idiot?

    And when someone jumps right over a woman trying to get a man incarcerated to criticize his decision to sleep with her, it's a safe bet it is about gender. Basically you view women doing terrible things as predictable natural disasters that it's just our job as men to avoid.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    If she went home with a drunk, but she was incapable of consent because she was drunk, why isn't he incapable of consent as well? Wouldn't a fair standard here mean that they were both raped? Which would mean that they are both guilty of rape.

  • EscherEnigma||

    @MatthewSlyfield
    (A) Please reread the article, they don't really talk about how drunk he was, and there's no claim (in this article) that he feels he was raped.
    (B) If he does feel he was raped, then he absolutely should go to the police and try to get her prosecuted.
    (C) He has already been found innocent.

  • FlameCCT||

    Therein lies the problem. It has nothing to do with feelz or emotion like morning after regret. It is facts including the fact that she claimed consensual sex to get the morning after pill.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Maybe she didn't throw up in front of him. Maybe he was too drunk to know that she was too drunk.

    Rape used to be guys holding women down with some weapon or choking them and actually having penetration.

    What women now want to call rape and send men to prison for is not clear cut rape. You cannot change the rules of the game after sex and call it rape as if rape has not meaning or consequences.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Fortunately the standard for guilt seems to have not diminished in actual courts of law [where accusers can be cross examined aka "victim blaming"], though there seem to be a few who would like to see that change.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Maybe he was too drunk to know that she was too drunk
    (A) That's speculation on evidence not in the article, and (B) he's still an idiot because letting yourself get that drunk is stupid.

    Regarding the rest, I'd like to quote myself: Please note: I'm not saying the guy was a rapist. I wasn't on that jury, I'm not trying to second-guess them. I'm just saying that he was an idiot.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    So I went back and reread everything you posted.

    You are basically correct, there seems to be a drive to make you defend all the stupid claims made in every dubious rape claim ever, and to be fair to you, yes, you have made it clear you were talking about this case.

    Also, it seems that his inebriation was not discussed, so yes, it is not clear if he was drinking.

    So I agree with you, on both your stated points, as it relates to this case.

  • MarkLastname||

    He does seem to compulsively defend spurious rape accusers or at least run interference for them to show how woke he is. Because if a woman trips a man, the woke and feminist thing to do is call him an idiot for not seeing it coming. And then wonder why people think you're not picking the target of your indignation appropriately,

  • MarkLastname||

    He does seem to compulsively defend spurious rape accusers or at least run interference for them to show how woke he is. Because if a woman trips a man, the woke and feminist thing to do is call him an idiot for not seeing it coming. And then wonder why people think you're not picking the target of your indignation appropriately,

  • MarkLastname||

    He does seem to compulsively defend spurious rape accusers or at least run interference for them to show how woke he is. Because if a woman trips a man, the woke and feminist thing to do is call him an idiot for not seeing it coming. And then wonder why people think you're not picking the target of your indignation appropriately.

  • Chumby||

    It only became rape after she spoke with her friends. If it wasn't rape then she is a slut.

  • Flinch||

    You have stumbled into a relative truism, Chumby: the length of a relationship is inversely proportional to the percentage of advice the woman seeks from her girlfriends. Women who fear embarassment more than failure tend to suffer this phenomenon in my estimation. Does that apply here? No idea, but the odds are good.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    If we are going to be fair all around, a husband should be able to charge with wife with rape if ritalin makes him interested enough in her to make love that evening.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You're actually saying only males have responsibilities, accountability, and agency. Women have none of that, btu they have all the rights.

    Is that what you think you are saying?

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Perhaps that's true if one sees women as the weaker sex that needs a man to make the decisions.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Nah, that's what you and Diane Reynolds (Paul.) are trying to make it sound like I'm saying, but what I actually said was " If a girl is so drunk that she throws up twice, one of 'em after blowing you, maybe don't have sex with her?"

    The corollary also works. "If a guy is so drunk that he throws up twice, one of 'em after going down on you, maybe don't have sex with him?"

    It's possible to talk about a specific case without pretending it's the only case.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    I've seen people throw up after half a drink. You have a pretty stupid idea of what is important here.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yeah, it's almost like I was making a quick statement that was specific to the context of this case or something, and not trying to codify a universal rule.

  • MarkLastname||

    IOW "I'm wrong but refuse to admit it"

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Yeah, I don't really know why he's doubling down on stupid, when even as it relates to this case, his attempt at a point is pretty dumb.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yeah... I'm really not going to back off "don't fuck people that so drunk they're throwing up". And if I was still single, and thought you guys were gay, it would worry me that you think I should.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    I think the problem you keep avoiding, because it torpedoes your entire argument, is that you are relying on a second drunk person to behave, while not requiring that from the first drink person.

    It's an idiotic take, and you can't seem to understand why.

  • EscherEnigma||

    [Y]ou are relying on a second drunk person to behave, while not requiring that from the first drink person.


    Yes, that's how personal responsibility works.

    When talking to Person A about what happened last night, I tell them "I don't care what Person B did, you were still responsible for what you did, and you should have stopped things before they got that far."

    And then when I turn around and talk to Person B about what happened last night, I tell them "I don't care what Person A did, you were still responsible for what you did, and you should have stopped things before they got that far."

    This isn't difficult.

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "Yes, that's how personal responsibility works"

    Holding 2 drunk people to different standards?

    No, that most certainly is not how personal responsibility works.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Holding 2 drunk people to different standards?
    Still not a thing I've actually said.

  • MarkLastname||

    If two people while drunk do something dumb, then one if them does something morally worse - tries to get the other one imprsobed - and your only reaction is to criticize the other one, it's reasonable to infer that you hold them to different standards. Especially since this is a pattern with you.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    You are leaving out half the case, the part where the man is also so drunk he can't consent.

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • EscherEnigma||

    If that's the case, then this article is leaving out "half the case" as that's not included anywhere.

    That said, as I already have stated, if he feels he was raped he should report it to the authorities.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    So I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, and suddenly I get the urge to report some stranger has robbed me. That makes me the responsible party, and the strange irresponsible, because if the stranger was the responsible person, he would have reported me to the police for robbing him before I reported him.

  • Paper Wasp||

    How about, "if a girl is so drunk that she throws up twice, one of 'em after blowing you, maybe the next morning, she can think to herself, 'hey, maybe next party, I ought not to get so drunk that I'm ill and no longer in control of my own body or aware of my own surroundings'"?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Also reasonable advice. Not at all in conflict with what I said.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Yes, it does conflict.

    there's a "too drunk" line...he was an idiot.

    When someone drives drunk and hits a pedestrian, nobody goes up to the pedestrian and yells, "you idiot! What kind of shitty human being just stands there and lets a drunk person hit them with a car?"

    In every other kind of event involving someone who's drunk or high, if the impaired person chose to take whatever it was that made them impaired, we blame them. If they hurt themselves, we blame them. If they hurt someone else, we blame them.

    Except sex. When it comes to sex, there's this unexamined assumption that men have a chivalrous duty to take care of drunk women. He's not an idiot or a douche for having consensual sex with a woman who happened to have chosen to poison herself to the point of barely being able to walk.

    The sentimental idea that men are obligated to treat contact with pussy as a priceless, sacred commission that should only be accepted in humbled honor, under the most ideal of ritualized conditions, is quaint bullshit.

    Examine your assumptions. Why is this man "an idiot" because he had consensual sex with a woman who drank until she couldn't even get back to her room on her own? Why is he responsible for her body and choices? What is so special about sex with women that men who want it need to become the temporary legal guardians--the de facto fathers--of their female partners? Think about where your judgment comes from.

  • ||

    "In every other kind of event involving someone who's drunk or high, if the impaired person chose to take whatever it was that made them impaired, we blame them. If they hurt themselves, we blame them. If they hurt someone else, we blame them.

    Except sex."

    It shouldn't take a PhD in Logic or Ethics to come to this correct conclusion. But my experience is that the more education in the Humanities one has, the less likely they are to reach it.

  • markm23||

    The difference is, some people deliberately get drunk so they can loosen their inhibitions (or lower their standards?) enough to have sex.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Nah, that's what you and Diane Reynolds (Paul.) are trying to make it sound like I'm saying, but what I actually said was " If a girl is so drunk that she throws up twice, one of 'em after blowing you, maybe don't have sex with her?"

    Here we go again. I'm not making it sound like you're saying anything, except I was proposing that he might have been drunk enough that those sanitary details didn't matter. Further, the point being, why do only women not have agency when they're drunk, but men do?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Further, the point being, why do only women not have agency when they're drunk, but men do?
    That's a very good question for someone that's actually made that claim, who is not me.

  • Zeb||

    That's probably good advice, generally.

    But if she was still all enthusiastic about it, even after barfing, I don't know that I can blame him. Being both drunk and sexually aroused is not great for good decision making.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Being both drunk and sexually aroused is not great for good decision making.
    Which is why you shouldn't let yourself get so drunk in the first place. Both of 'em failed pretty hard at the whole "drink responsibly" part.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Both of 'em failed pretty hard at the whole "drink responsibly" part.

    Probably. But which one raped the other? Did they both rape each other simultaneously? Or was neither one raped?

  • EscherEnigma||

    But which one raped the other?
    Well, his jury has already decided that he didn't rape her, so I guess we're waiting for him to press charges against her and for her jury to weigh in.

    Or did you miss the part where I already made it clear I wasn't passing criminal judgement on him, just calling him an idiot?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    This is where I have to part company with you. He was put through a rape trial, that is far too serious a punishment for someone who just had bad judgement.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Really? "If he feels he was raped, he should press charges" is a bridge too far? The justice system is only for women victims? What a weird stance.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    And if he doesn't think either party was raped, is he supposed to file a dual-non-rape complaint with the police?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    "Really? "If he feels he was raped, he should press charges" is a bridge too far? The justice system is only for women victims? What a weird stance"

    I keep rereading this, and I still can't see where it relates to ". He was put through a rape trial, that is far too serious a punishment for someone who just had bad judgement."

    What were you responding to?

  • Maddow's Fleshlight||

    Where did I say anything like that?

    Are you actually reading what I wrote?

  • EscherEnigma||

    @Scarecrow Repair & Chippering
    Generally, when a person claims they're innocent, they plead innocent and then try to prove said innocence in court.

    And on the flip-side, if they don't want to press charges, they simply don't press charges. If the prosecutors decide to go ahead anyway, they can always choose to testify for the defense.

    This really isn't complicated.

    @Maddow's Fleshlight
    If you weren't responding to what I wrote, then you probably should have included more context then just disagreeing with me.

  • Zeb||

    He was put through a rape trial, that is far too serious a punishment for someone who just had bad judgement.

    Being tried on a criminal charge is too harsh an ordeal to subject any innocent person to. But it's going to happen. Even if police and prosecutors were all honest and good people with excellent judgement, it would happen from time to time.

    It's a tricky question about the system. What do you do for someone whose life has been significantly disrupted (if not ruined entirely) by an arrest and trial where they are acquitted? Even if you are 100% innocent, you can lose jobs, reputation and lots of money. Seems like removing prosecutorial immunity would be a good start. But there will be cases where charges are brought honestly and without malice against innocent people.

  • Chumby||

    He should seek restitution from the accuser.

  • MarkLastname||

    And then one of them tried to get the other one sent to prison, which to sane people dwarfs in magnitude the issue of irresponsible drinking.

  • Longtobefree||

    Maybe she threw up because of some of the party food? Blaming only the alcohol seems like an assumption.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...initiated oral sex, and then vomited again.

    Don't any of you cretins make one of the several obvious jokes here.

  • SIV||

    one of 'em after blowing you

    How far did she take it ?
    Some chicks get off choking on dick.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I've lost count of how many times I've complained that a dildo is too long for me to take all the way only to have a viewer become twice as insistent and enthusiastic about me going balls deep. Looking back at the past few years, I should have just bought thinner dildos instead of trying to talk to a professional. That professional tended to give poor customer service.

  • Libertymike||

    Justice requires that all rape allegations, except allegations that law enforcement officers committed rape, must have two witnesses for conviction.

    She said is not enough. She said with DNA, is not enough. There has to be more if we truly champion due process and due process is more important than mollifying rape accusers.

  • Longtobefree||

    And now you can't even use DNA to establish the person's sex, because they might feel different. So no more DNA at trials.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Like it's that difficult to get a guy to jerk off into a condom while you watch and then put the semen where you want after he goes home?

  • Billy Bones||

    I am so over this "victim blaming" schtick. Granted, there are many victims that are just products of "wrong place/wrong time", but the majority of victims are victims because they did not take the necessary steps to protect themselves. "It isn't my fault I got the crap beat out me. All I was doing was walking through Compton wearing a KKK hood. Don't blame me. That's "victim blaming". You don't want to be sexually assaulted on a college campus? One way is to not drink yourself into a stupor. This anti-"victim blaming" is just another example of people not wanting to be responsible for the decisions they make, whether they remember them or not.

  • Paper Wasp||

    I know it.

    In the eyes of the law, you can't and shouldn't have it both ways. If you're over 18, you're either responsible for the choices you make or you're not. There should not be any such thing as "I'm responsible for my body and my choices until Saturday nights, because that's when I drink to the point of illness and lack of control over my body and speech."

  • Zeb||

    called this line of questioning "every survivor's worst victim-blaming nightmare."

    I'm actually quite sympathetic to rape victims in these circumstances. I'm sure it's very unpleasant.
    But they say it as if it's wrong for the defense to pursue those lines of questioning and evidence. Establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an actual victim, then we can complain about victim-blaming.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm sure the questioning is a nightmare for rape victims
    But not nearly the nightmare that a prosecution for rape is for the accused

  • Brandybuck||

    This is why progressives in want to remove rape from the criminal domain, because if it's criminal then judges and juries get involved and the guilt of the accused is not longer guaranteed. Much better to make it an academic matter where college administrators due there duty by rubber stamping pre-determined outcomes.

    This would mean that perpetrators of real rape (what Whoopie calls "rape rape") would be punished by mere expulsion from school is irrelevant. What matters is that narrative is maintained. Letting the rapist walk free to terrorize other women is a small price to pay for true social justice. Treating rape like it was a crime would mean that sometimes the accused will be found innocent. And we can't have that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    even a calculated counterstrike against the #MeToo movement.

    Brendan O'Neill throws cold water on #MeToo.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I was a vastly lucky kid in regard to the parents I had. They made an effort to teach me that getting shitfaced drunk around strangers is a bad idea, and it's a bad idea regardless of gender. You're too prone to doing dumb things, and too easy to take advantage of. It was advice that served me well when I was in the Navy, and after.

    I say "vastly lucky" because such teaching seems to be rare. And I'm not saying it's a generational thing; a lot of people in my generation fucked themselves up by getting shitfaced in all the wrong places.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    One was that she woke up revolted with herself for having slept with Khan.

    Recreation of what went on in Khan's room the evening in question.

  • Zeb||

    At which point did she barf?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When RA Kirk released knockout gas.

  • Palatki||

    Just like real life.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I smell rich Corinthian letter.

  • Palatki||

    i think that was fine Corinthian leather'. i remember because i almost bought that piece of junk because of that stupid commercial.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's a sexy star trek uniform, not a sexy halloween costume. It's like you di'unt even read the article.

  • Eidde||

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I would never convict someone where the accuser gets their name withheld from the media.

    If someone injures you and you are serious about having the person sent to prison, grow up and give your name and tell everyone you can so that person is prosecuted.

    Being raped is bad but being sent to prison for rape is worse. Hiding the name of the victim seems like the criminal case is a farce.

  • R. K. Phillips||

    I agree; if any sexual crime requires the victim's name to be withheld, then justice requires that the accused gets the same protection. If acquitted, no names are released. If convicted, both names are released.

  • Chumby||

    If acquitted the accuser's name gets released.

  • Phos||

    Chumby, at first your proposal sounds good. However, there is a difference, between reasonable doubt that the state proved the case and 'that b!tch lied!". Your proposed rule might shift the balance in the jury with unintended consequences.

  • Empress Trudy||

    Any men who attend these schools make themselves part of the problem. Let the women, trannies and various other monstrously oppressed others sort it out with their own tuition payments.

  • Zeb||

    Unless you think there might still be some value remaining in these institutions.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    You get spring break and stuff, so... point to Zeb.

  • Chumby||

    Spring break is where you go someplace sunny, wear few clothes, get drunk, and...too rapey. Rape adjacent.

  • Mark22||

    Any men who attend these schools make themselves part of the problem

    Khan obviously is the kind of man who doesn't mind fucking a binge-drinking slut, so it seems to me he is in the right place. These men and women deserve each other. They should just stop expecting that the rest of the country pay for their escapades.

  • Darr247||

    "Yes" while drunk = "ask me again tomorrow."

  • Eidde||

    So the jury said it wasn't rape, that's not the same as a seal of approval for this kind of behavior. Just not a crime to get put in a cage for.

    Really, online education needs to be more widespread, among other reasons, to minimize the thing of colleges being large bordellos. Overpriced bordellos where you can get charged with rape.

  • Eidde||

    What I'm saying is just because you Khan doesn't mean you should.

  • FlameCCT||

    I though Yukon was a territory in Canada?

  • FlameCCT||

    Or that Toucan is a bird?

  • NicholasStix||

    "So the jury said it wasn't rape, that's not the same as a seal of approval for this kind of behavior. Just not a crime to get put in a cage for."

    Irrelevant answer. What does "seal of approval" even mean? Legally, the jury did give the falsely accused defendant (i.e., victim) a legal seal of approval, and denied one to the false accuser (i.e., perp).

    However, me thinks you're playing word games, the way the supporters of the Duke Rape Hoax did, as if the vic were somehow guilty of something on some high, moral plane.

  • XM||

    Any sort of violent and significant vomiting would drain you physically. I doubt that she had the energy or the willpower to have sex if something like that occurred. People literally drop a few pounds after a round of vomiting.

    She probably experienced a bit of gag reflex during the oral sex. She was probably feeling a bit queasy to begin with. But I'm guessing not a lot actually came out.

  • Chumby||

    And maybe she swallowed when she is normally a spitter. Voila! Regurgitated ejaculate!

  • Mark22||

    You know, if these kids want to destroy their lives and haven't been raised better by their parents, that's their business. What bothers me is that I'm supposed to pay for this crap.

  • ||

    All this is making he hungry. Is ENB available to make me a sammich?

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Khan's accuser claimed she couldn't remember many of the night's events but that she hadn't consented to sex. "

    I can't remember what happened but I remember all the things that didn't happen

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Khan maintained that she had taken off her clothes for him, initiated oral sex, and then vomited again.


    I am glad I turned down that wine whore in London. Worst case scenario, she makes up rape accusations to get attention. Best case scenario, her gag reflex is hypersensitive. If a bitch or a stud needs more than kiddush to get into bed with you, it wasn't meant to be.


    (By the way, enhanced security search procedures are kind of chill in Heathrow. The airport employees kept calling me over the loudspeaker to approach the desk, because they didn't notice me slipping into the separate room where they do the searches. Eventually, I got tired of waiting and grew bold enough to approach them with my driver's license in hand to tell them I was waiting for them in their enhanced security search room. The search consisted of a few questions and a quick glance inside my backpack. *Sigh* I flew all the way to Eastern Europe to check a stripper for a birthmark and the only action I got was a quick above the belt pat down after going through the scanners in Heathrow. Funny story: the stripper looks just like my ex-boyfriend/ex-roommate who once ... well let's just say he and had a wonderful Christmas Eve because we were mature enough to stick to one glass of wine each.)

  • Agnes||

    If you understand what alcohol does to your body and your decision making and you are willingly deciding to make yourself more and more inept to making solid decisions, all for the sake of a funny story of how fucked up you got, you should probably use this situation as more of a wake up call to check in on your drinking limits and make better decisions. I've made mistakes which I have regretted while drinking and guess what I did? Owned up to the fact that I put myself in a risky situation and decided to make some personal changes.

    Look at the memes about drinking: it's all moms who drink too much wine, girls who drink too many mimosas at brunch, friends who do too many tequila shots and vomit or have to show up to work hungover...I mean some are funny or relateable, but binge drinking has become a huge part of what we do in our downtime as a culture. It's become a hobby for most young adults and we wonder why so many suffer from depression and anxiety?

  • Agnes||

    And I'm not saying that girls who drink too much and wear provocative Halloween outfits deserve to get raped, I'm just saying, they need to be accountable for the risk they put themselves in. As much as you want to argue with 100 years of new age feminism, you can't erase thousands of years of biology and human sexuality. Don't be alarmed when self inflicted inebriation + tits out + flirtation + blow job = potential regret sex.

  • Praveen R.||

    Yep, drunken sex has been a long standing activity and is nothing new. Hell, some permanent hookups have arisen out of drunken hookups. in fact, one of the reasons a lot of people give for drinking is too loosen their inhibitions. I dont drink regularly and that's why I have a problem hooking up with ugly women. I dont have beer goggle vision.

    There is a difference if a girl got too drunk and just passed out on bed and was taken advantage of a passer by. But if you get drunk enough where you can actively take part in sex even if it is at an impaired judgement level, that is on you. Because even if it is sex that you regret, there is something inside of you that was OK with the sex at some level in that moment. Sure, it is fine to hate the guy later, but you were not vicitimized. move on and learn from it.

  • ||

    I'm a teetotaler - and stories like this just underscore that decision. In my 68 years, I've witnessed a lot of truly stupid behavior by incredibly drunk people - male and female - and have little sympathy for what happens as a result.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    Lots of speculation (more or less unfounded) about what happened. To quote the Rock: "It doesn't matter"

    Twelve good people, honest and true, older women among them, heard the evidence and decided there was no rape. We know that innocent people not uncommonly go to jail, but Khan did not. He went free. Why? Because the prosecution did not carry its burden of proof to establish BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that Khan was guilty of the charges brought against him.

    If you choose to think about it, all this speculation establishes only one thing for certain: there was more than reasonable doubt when the prosecution closed its case. It's not about outrage, it's not about moral superiority, it's not about situational wisdom: it's about the law. And the prosecution lost its case, as it should have if what the Wiener alternate says is true.

  • Praveen R.||

    Even if she were drunk, the fact that she was willing to have sex and was not just passsed out on a bed tells me that she was OK having sex with him on some level. if i was flat out drunk and a friend who happened to be gay helped me back to my room, guess what, I am pretty sure I would give him oral or go take a shower so he can be comfortable banging me because no matter how drunk I am , if sex with a guy grosses me out, I will not have sex.

    Maybe having sex with this guy was not her top choice, but she needs to get over a bad choice she made and because getting drunk loosened her inhibitions , it doesn't mean her life is over. She had sex she regretted she wouldnt have done if sober. Well, get over it. She was not passive in this interaction.

  • Praveen R.||

    OK, horrible typo. ha ha. I mean " I am pretty sure I WOULD NOT give him oral"

  • Flinch||

    Two signs of a bad case when you are a juror: overselling by the prosecutor, and a 'stand in' present for them when a verdict is rendered.

  • NicholasStix||

    "Khan's defense attorney put the victim on trial, critics say, by asking her uncomfortable questions about her sexy Halloween costume, her sexual history, and her flirtatiousness toward Khan."

    It sounds like Khan was the victim. And why do we know his name, but not hers? I'd like to know her name, and Khan ought to sue her. Only when false accusers pay a price, will we see a diminution, if not an end to campus rape hoax culture.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online