The UK explained sexual consent in the most British way possible...

[Sarah CB]

No, it isn't a false allegation.

 

It doesn't matter that she said yes, and meant it, any more than if she were a minor. She could not give consent. because she was intoxicated.

 

The next day, when she says she was assaulted, she would be telling the truth, because her agreement did not constitute consent.

 

Now, while you might think that would be a silly thing for her to do unless she was really a piece of work, it might look a little different if you are a somewhat young person who feels in some way uncomfortable with her decision, and has been taught that her consent isn't valid because she was drunk. In that case, it might seem logical to frame it as assault.

Yes. This is exactly what I was talking about.

[Nan in Mass]

Thinking about my son's college, I think a way to describe the situation is that they are trying to teach students to ask, to get clear consent before doing anything, to say yes clearly if they mean yes, to say no clearly if they mean no, to have the courage to say no, to avoid situations where their no might be ignored, and what their options are if they say no and it is ignored. Even getting people to agree that it would be a good idea to scream loudly in public in the middle of a frat party if they are touched intimately without consent, which my son thought would help improve frat parties considerably, is proving to be difficult. Obviously the tea video only covers some of this. I think there is more space between the real murky situations and the very obvious ones than there at first appears, space where a lot of preventable things can occur.

 

Nan

[EmseB]

No, it isn't a false allegation.

 

It doesn't matter that she said yes, and meant it, any more than if she were a minor.  She could not give consent. because she was intoxicated.

 

The next day, when she says she was assaulted, she would be telling the truth, because her agreement did not constitute consent. 

 

Now, while you might think that would be a silly thing for her to do unless she was really a piece of work, it might look a little different if you are a somewhat young person who feels in some way uncomfortable with her decision, and has been taught that her consent isn't valid because she was drunk.  In that case, it might seem logical to frame it as assault.

 

What's interesting to me is the way it is always framed as she couldn't give consent because she was intoxicated.  If he was also intoxicated, it means he drunkenly raped her, and she could not give consent.  That is always the scenario presented.

 

At parties like this (college frat parties, etc) there is rarely one sober person and one drunk person during a sexual encounter.  Usually both are drunk and acting with decreased inhibitions.  Who is culpable in that situation when one person wants to come forward and claim they were raped or assaulted?

 

Or are people really finding that the female in these encounters is always sober and says no and/or completely unconscious and can't say no?  Because, honestly, in my limited experience, it is rarely that cut and dry.  Even that girl who carried her mattress around for however long sent enthusiastically consenting text messages before and after the fact, right?

[Leav97]

Here's the Cornell University policy for when both parties have been drinking:

 

 

 

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

 

https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

[Bluegoat]

Here's the Cornell University policy for when both parties have been drinking:

 

 

https://share.cornell.edu/education-engagement/sex-alcohol-and-clear-consent/

 

Which is just a totally crazy methodology, and why asking universities to set policies on such things is a bad idea. 

 

If the issue is really that a drunk person is incapable of giving consent, that doesn't change based on having taken action.  No one would think that if a minor initiates sexual contact with someone older, that suddenly means that the minor's inability to give legal consent is changed.  Even in cases where it is illegal for two minors to have sex as is the case in some places, the idea that one is at fault because he or she initiated the consensual encounter would seem really stupid.

 

That is even without getting into how you decide who initiated which could be pretty fraught.

[livetoread]

Here's what I tell my son -

1) Only have genital contact with people you know well, are in a relationship with, and care about. Sex is something you share, not something you get.

 

2) If you decide to violate #1, you are upping the risk because the goal is to have loving, consensual sex while avoiding crazy, and you don't know if someone is crazy until you know them. Also, never have genital contact the first few times (especially the first time) with people who have been using any substances. That includes you.

 

3) If you decide to violate #2, you are upping the risk, A LOT. Make sure both of you have only had a little to drink. As far as crazy goes, you just have to cross your fingers.

 

4) You CANNOT violate #3. Drinking a lot from either party is a no go. Choosing to drink a lot means choosing to keep everything covered up for that night, end of story, unless you have a long standing, romantic and sexual relationship. Even then, there must be consent.

 

5) In any scenario, 1-3, there must be continuous, enthusiastic consent. No exceptions. This is necessary but not sufficient because substance use and crazy can still come back to bite you big time. If they have been drinking a lot and you don't have a long standing, romantic and sexual relationship, even their continuous, enthusiastic response is not good enough. Run away, far, far away. There will always be a next time - it isn't your last chance to have sex. So... refer back to #1 and listen to your mother!

Edited January 27, 2016 by livetoread

[Leav97]

Which is just a totally crazy methodology, and why asking universities to set policies on such things is a bad idea. 

 

If the issue is really that a drunk person is incapable of giving consent, that doesn't change based on having taken action.  No one would think that if a minor initiates sexual contact with someone older, that suddenly means that the minor's inability to give legal consent is changed.  Even in cases where it is illegal for two minors to have sex as is the case in some places, the idea that one is at fault because he or she initiated the consensual encounter would seem really stupid.

 

That is even without getting into how you decide who initiated which could be pretty fraught.

 

And what would you like them to tell students?  

[Crimson Wife]

Two of my college friends got into bad circumstances. Long term dating, when the bf decided he had ow nership, and threatened death if no compliance. Both were shocked and silent. One protested physically, one did not. One has to realize that some young men want control of the relationship, and will go as far as they need to. So, yes, I have no problem with a conviction if the gal is silent. No problem with her decision to keep her life and get away.

 

I'm not talking about situations where the aggressor makes threats. I'm talking about situations where one party takes the intimacy to a new level and the other party does not give any clear indication that it is unwanted. The aggressor is supposed to be able to read the partner's mind to distinguish between consensual "oh, just get it over with already" and non-consensual "I want him to stop but [insert excuse for failing to communicate]"?

 

I'm not comfortable sentencing someone to prison who might very well have stopped HAD HE RECEIVED A CLEAR SIGNAL TO by the other party.

[EmseB]

And what would you like them to tell students?  

 

Why should universities have policies on sexual conduct between students?  Rape and sexual assault are against the law.  Universities don't need a policy about "who started it" because that is for the police and criminal investigations to discover, and courts and juries to decide.  I mean, make videos about not drinking and having sex (if they think that prevents kids from drinking and having sex), certainly expel anyone who is convicted of such a crime (make that a policy if it isn't already), but what do universities really have to tell students about having sex that they don't already know?  Are they expecting to tell kids that hook up culture is bad and the students to go "oh, I never thought of it that way!"?  That having sex while intoxicated is risky business?  It all sounds like the DARE program for young adults.

 

 

I'm sure these policies go back to the idea that universities should be adjudicating sexual assault cases between students instead of the police, which is totally asinine anyway.

[Crimson Wife]

If you come to my house and take my lambo in front of my eyes, with me silently weighing the value of my life vs the stolen item, as I watch in surprise, you have still violated me.

 

I thought of an analogy to the situation I'm talking about: person A asks person B for a piece of fruit. Person B responds happily, "sure, help yourself!" Person A takes a piece of fruit and then proceeds to pocket the silver bowl in which the fruit was contained. No threats are made by person A to person B. Person B sees what person A did but makes no kind of protest, verbal or otherwise. After person A leaves, person B calls the police and reports person A for theft.

 

Should person A have taken the bowl without asking explicit permission first? Of course not.

 

Is it really a crime when person B made no effort to stop person A from taking the bowl along with the piece of fruit?

[FaithManor]

The "who started it' policies concern me. Universities should not be in the business of establishing what is and is not crime. That is for our trained law enforcement to do. It is not their job to try to police this themselves - though I agree that in the interests of the safety of the student body they should be proactive about public safety and taking reasonable measures to prevent crime - it should be left up to the police. Report, report, report...given the number of schools that have run afoul for covering up alleged assaults in order to "save their reputation" or whatever, they should be focusing on their reporting mechanisms and having strict policies about THAT, not on defining the nature of sexual assault itself.

[Bluegoat]

And what would you like them to tell students?  

 

Something that makes sense might be a good start.

[EmseB]

I thought of an analogy to the situation I'm talking about: person A asks person B for a piece of fruit. Person B responds happily, "sure, help yourself!" Person A takes a piece of fruit and then proceeds to pocket the silver bowl in which the fruit was contained. No threats are made by person A to person B. Person B sees what person A did but makes no kind of protest, verbal or otherwise. After person A leaves, person B calls the police and reports person A for theft.

 

Should person A have taken the bowl without asking explicit permission first? Of course not.

 

Is it really a crime when person B made no effort to stop person A from taking the bowl along with the piece of fruit?

 

I think a better analogy might be to say if two people sat down to a bowl of fruit belonging to person A and each of them wanted to have some.  Person A says "let's have some fruit!" and Person B agrees.  They both eat a bunch of fruit from the bowl and no one says, "no don't eat anymore, I'd like you to not eat anymore".  Person B eats more fruit than Person A, and ends up eating everything in the bowl.

 

Now imagine A and B are drunk and can't remember who ate the most or the last of the fruit, and Person A is really ticked that all the fruit is gone and feels like Person B took advantage of them by eating it all.  Person B thought the fruit was there and they were both eating it together and enjoying it.

 

An interesting poll would be to see exactly how many people by default imagine Person A as female.

Edited January 27, 2016 by JodiSue

[EmseB]

Yes, it is really a crime. A real life version is being mugged by someone you thought was a friend.

 

Or a common one...you dont secure your checkbook, and they take a check, and forge your name, taking cash out of your account. That person is a thief, whether you object or not at the time the crime is committed.

 

My fav. Real life: 4 teens skip football practice to smoke maryjane and race the car. Its mutually agreed upon. The driver and one passenger live. Who goes to prison?

The judge here imprisoned the driver, because he was in control of the vehicle. No charges against passenger, not even aiding murder by agreeing instead of disagreeing with the groups actions. Responsibility resides with the perp. Not the victims, not the bystander.

 

All of these scenarios denote a clear victim.  Even the last scenario, someone was clearly driving the car.

 

That is not always the case in drunken sexual encounters.

[Leav97]

Why does this topic always end with people fixated on two drunk people having sex?

[EmseB]

Why does this topic always end with people fixated on two drunk people having sex?

 

Because that is really, really common at college (and other) parties.  And it is where the consent issue gets mucked up.

 

No one argues that a person should be able (morally or legally) have sex with an unconscious person.  No one argues that someone should be able (morally or legally) to have sex with someone who does not want to.  Every scenario in the video is pretty cut and dry as to when you should not have sex with someone.

 

But the problems arise when the participation of both parties was impaired.  It can't be claimed that someone has no control over their faculties so they can't consent while also saying that another intoxicated party had full control over their faculties to assault the other person.

 

In my "former life", when I saw people hooking up (or going home together, of course I didn't actually witness the act) as part of that party culture, it was rarely if ever two sober people.

 

ETA: and before someone misconstrues my words to mean that I think a drunk person can never rape another drunk person, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

Edited January 27, 2016 by JodiSue

[momma2three]

Something that makes sense might be a good start.

 

It makes sense to me.

 

"Don't get so drunk that you don't know if you're raping someone" seems to be a pretty good life rule.

 

And forewarned is forearmed and all that.

[EmseB]

It makes sense to me.

 

"Don't get so drunk that you don't know if you're raping someone" seems to be a pretty good life rule.

 

And forewarned is forearmed and all that.

 

Sure it's a good life rule.  How should that be enforced on college campuses?  Not allow students to drink?  Or not allow students to have sex after drinking?  How do you think this life rule should be incorporated into university policies?

[momma2three]

Sure it's a good life rule.  How should that be enforced on college campuses?  Not allow students to drink?  Or not allow students to have sex after drinking?  How do you think this life rule should be incorporated into university policies?

 

The way it was in the campus policy posted above seemed pretty good to me.

 

I assume these policies are all covered at freshman orientation, and like anything else, "I didn't know it was in the handbook" isn't considered a valid excuse.

[Bluegoat]

It makes sense to me.

 

"Don't get so drunk that you don't know if you're raping someone" seems to be a pretty good life rule.

 

And forewarned is forearmed and all that.

It isn't saying "don't get so drunk you rape someone" though. It's saying that if two people who are drunk decide to have sex, the one who brought up the topic is somehow responsible for her decision, while the person who responded is not. 

 

And it isn't just advice, it is the way the university will determine who to discipline if a student accuses another student of sexual assault.  That is much higher stakes, and more technical, than just advice to party-goers.

 

Also -  you've begged the question.  The point of the paragraph is to outline, in that scenario, who is the rapist.  All you have said is the person they say is the rapist is the rapist.  You are assuming the person who is the initiator is the rapist which is not any kind of argument about why we should believe that.

 

What they are suggesting is that if Sue and Jill are both fairly drunk and Sue asks Jill to have sex, and Jill says, sure thing, that Sue is therefore responsible for sexual assault.  On the other hand, if Jill asks Sue and Sue says sure thing than Jill is guilty of sexual assault. 

 

If, the next day, the person who was asked wished to make an issue of it, the other person could be found by the university to have committed sexual assault. 

 

How is that anything other than completely arbitrary?  Why can we say, as you suggest - don't ask for sex if you are drunk, but not, don't agree to sex if you are drunk? 

 

I think there is also a kind of tacit assumption that it is always or usually pretty clear who initiates a sexual encounter.  I would say that is often not true - one person may finally put the question, verbally or otherwise, but it often follows a fair bit of flirting or other "courtship" behavior that might have been initiated by the other party.

[Leav97]

How is that completely arbitrary.  If Jill doesn't initiate sex there is no sexual assault.

[Leav97]

Because that is really, really common at college (and other) parties.  And it is where the consent issue gets mucked up.

 

No one argues that a person should be able (morally or legally) have sex with an unconscious person.  No one argues that someone should be able (morally or legally) to have sex with someone who does not want to.  Every scenario in the video is pretty cut and dry as to when you should not have sex with someone.

 

But the problems arise when the participation of both parties was impaired.  It can't be claimed that someone has no control over their faculties so they can't consent while also saying that another intoxicated party had full control over their faculties to assault the other person.

 

In my "former life", when I saw people hooking up (or going home together, of course I didn't actually witness the act) as part of that party culture, it was rarely if ever two sober people.

 

ETA: and before someone misconstrues my words to mean that I think a drunk person can never rape another drunk person, that's not what I'm talking about at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case

 

Yes, people do argue that having sex with an unconscious person is the fault of the victim.  You don't have to go far to find people talking about how tragic it was for those poor Steubenville boys to have their future ruined.

[EmseB]

The way it was in the campus policy posted above seemed pretty good to me.

 

I assume these policies are all covered at freshman orientation, and like anything else, "I didn't know it was in the handbook" isn't considered a valid excuse.

 

So, the argument is then that if two drunk people have sex and one later accuses the other of rape, then the accused is a rapist?  Because of campus policy?  By definition the accuser is saying the accused initiated the encounter.  But the accused may have been just as drunk and perceived that the accuser actually initiated.  So who gets to be right in a he-said-she-said situation where both parties were impaired?

 

The policy above makes no definition of what initiating sex looks like either.  For many people, initiating a sexual encounter and responding accordingly happens differently.  Some people think making out initiates a sexual encounter, some people think it's a wayward hand. Not to mention the fact that someone can claim sexual assault without intercourse happening at all.  None of the terms are defined in that policy, it simply says the initiator is responsible.  Who initiated a kiss?  If it was the woman and the guy tries to go further, he's suddenly guilty of sexual assault if she wants to accuse him of such.

 

This of course goes back to asking for permission at every move of a hand or other body part.  Which is almost hilariously puritanical to me considering the drinking/hook up culture in many colleges.

[Bluegoat]

How is that completely arbitrary.  If Jill doesn't initiate sex there is no sexual assault.

 

If Sue doesn't agree, there isn't any sexual assault either.

[EmseB]

I am not talking about a drunken encounter, but the more frequent s.o. relationship where one wants intercourse, the other isnt ready. In the car, everyone wanted to race. No one left, no one objected, all agreed, and all urged the driver on. In the relationship, both want to be physical, but both do not want intercourse. Quite common for one to take what is wanted, while the other is stunned in to silence at the violation. Or realizes very quickly that one wont be leaving without injury if one doesnt go along.

 

So what you're talking about is a long term relationship with continual abuse?

 

I thought we were talking about a one time incident of the car thing.  I'm confused about which metaphor is applying to what.

[Pam in CT]

Huh.  

 

I'm a little disoriented with how far we've hopped down a trail from the video in the OP.

 

The video -- which is a video on the internet being used as a conversational/teaching tool (not a legal line) -- discusses these scenarios:

 

 

• Initiator asks, responder responds "um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…† VIDEO ADVICE: "Then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off chance they wanted it... Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled...

​

• Initiator asks, responder responds: "no thank you."  VIDEO ADVICE: "Then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay?"

 

• Initiator asks, responder responds: â€œYes, please, that’s kind of you,†(but) then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all.  VIDEO ADVICE: Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind ..... And it’s okay for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled....

 

• Initiator does not ask because other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?†because they are unconscious.

 

• Initiator asked earlier, and the other person said yes; but now the other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but .... they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea. 

 

• Initiator asked earlier, and the other person said yes, and Tea commenced; but now the other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: Don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe.  Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

 

• Initiator asked last week, and responder said yes last week: VIDEO ADVICE: ...That doesn't mean they want you ... all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and ... force them... “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK,†or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT.â€

 

That covers a lot.  It doesn't cover every possible situation, but if this crop of young people could grasp active consent in say 90% of these scenarios, the problem of sexual coercion would be a great deal smaller for my daughters' generation that it was for mine.

 

Praise.The.Lord.

 

 

 

I am puzzled by what seems to be a heightened focus on a scenario that is actually NOT discussed in the video, in which a drunk woman says yes at the time but then thereafter falsely alleges that she did not; or lodges/issues a complaint.

 

Not arguing that the false allegations by women, or (in other jurisdictions than the US where prosecution rules may be different) morning-after-regret-fueled-complaints NEVER happen.  

 

But do the posters expressing these concerns think the magnitude of the female false allegation / false complaints problem is anything close to the magnitude of the sexual coercion problem?

 

And... wouldn't better clarity help with that problem too?  I'm just a bit baffled.

[Sarah CB]

 

I am puzzled by what seems to be a heightened focus on a scenario that is actually NOT discussed in the video, in which a drunk woman says yes at the time but then thereafter falsely alleges that she did not; or lodges/issues a complaint.

 

Not arguing that the false allegations by women, or (in other jurisdictions than the US where prosecution rules may be different) morning-after-regret-fueled-complaints NEVER happen.  

 

But do the posters expressing these concerns think the magnitude of the female false allegation / false complaints problem is anything close to the magnitude of the sexual coercion problem?

 

And... wouldn't better clarity help with that problem too?  I'm just a bit baffled.

 

I don't understand what is baffling.  If we all understand that a drunk person's "yes" doesn't count as consent, then we can see that there is a huge potential for someone's life to be ruined by a rape allegation.  

 

In all of the other scenarios, it's really clear that we're talking about rape.  

 

I personally do not believe that when two people enthusiastically get together while drunk that it's reasonable that it could end with one of them in jail.  I also am pretty sure that in heterosexual situations I can guess which gender is more likely to be charged with rape.  Which, I guess, is where the scary poster of Josie and Jack (or whatever their names were) comes in.  

 

I'm not sure you can make a rule for universities to enforce that would prevent this, but I would think that students should be very aware of the possible ramifications of intimate relations while drunk.  They would need to know that even a "yes" isn't actually a "yes" in that situation.  

[EmseB]

Huh.  

 

I'm a little disoriented with how far we've hopped down a trail from the video in the OP.

 

The video -- which is a video on the internet being used as a conversational/teaching tool (not a legal line) -- discusses these scenarios:

 

 

• Initiator asks, responder responds "um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…† VIDEO ADVICE: "Then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off chance they wanted it... Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled...

​

• Initiator asks, responder responds: "no thank you."  VIDEO ADVICE: "Then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay?"

 

• Initiator asks, responder responds: â€œYes, please, that’s kind of you,†(but) then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all.  VIDEO ADVICE: Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind ..... And it’s okay for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled....

 

• Initiator does not ask because other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?†because they are unconscious.

 

• Initiator asked earlier, and the other person said yes; but now the other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but .... they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea. 

 

• Initiator asked earlier, and the other person said yes, and Tea commenced; but now the other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: Don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe.  Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

 

• Initiator asked last week, and responder said yes last week: VIDEO ADVICE: ...That doesn't mean they want you ... all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and ... force them... “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK,†or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT.â€

 

That covers a lot.  It doesn't cover every possible situation, but if this crop of young people could grasp active consent in say 90% of these scenarios, the problem of sexual coercion would be a great deal smaller for my daughters' generation that it was for mine.

 

Praise.The.Lord.

 

 

 

I am puzzled by what seems to be a heightened focus on a scenario that is actually NOT discussed in the video, in which a drunk woman says yes at the time but then thereafter falsely alleges that she did not; or lodges/issues a complaint.

 

Not arguing that the false allegations by women, or (in other jurisdictions than the US where prosecution rules may be different) morning-after-regret-fueled-complaints NEVER happen.  

 

But do the posters expressing these concerns think the magnitude of the female false allegation / false complaints problem is anything close to the magnitude of the sexual coercion problem?

 

And... wouldn't better clarity help with that problem too?  I'm just a bit baffled.

 

I get there are people out there who would rape someone in the situations outlined in the video.  Maybe I'm a bit jaded or something, but I don't think a cute video about tea is going to discourage that behavior or elucidate anyone on why they shouldn't do that.  The (very) limited amount of people I knew who would sleep with someone who was passed out were pretty much sociopaths.  That was why they did that sort of thing (and ended up in jail, for what it's worth).

 

I guess I don't have an objection to the video, just that, in environments that I've been in where this stuff is going on, the video doesn't address the most common scenario of ambiguity during sexual encounters with strangers which is that they are both drunk and/or high and the shame and regret is felt after the fact.

Edited January 28, 2016 by JodiSue

[Bluegoat]

Huh.  

 

I'm a little disoriented with how far we've hopped down a trail from the video in the OP.

 

The video -- which is a video on the internet being used as a conversational/teaching tool (not a legal line) -- discusses these scenarios:

 

 

• Initiator asks, responder responds "um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…† VIDEO ADVICE: "Then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off chance they wanted it... Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled...

​

• Initiator asks, responder responds: "no thank you."  VIDEO ADVICE: "Then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, okay?"

 

• Initiator asks, responder responds: â€œYes, please, that’s kind of you,†(but) then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all.  VIDEO ADVICE: Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind ..... And it’s okay for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled....

 

• Initiator does not ask because other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question, “Do you want tea?†because they are unconscious.

 

• Initiator asked earlier, and the other person said yes; but now the other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: Okay, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but .... they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and — this is the important bit — don’t make them drink the tea. 

 

• Initiator asked earlier, and the other person said yes, and Tea commenced; but now the other person is unconscious: VIDEO ADVICE: Don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe.  Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

 

• Initiator asked last week, and responder said yes last week: VIDEO ADVICE: ...That doesn't mean they want you ... all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and ... force them... “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK,†or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT.â€

 

That covers a lot.  It doesn't cover every possible situation, but if this crop of young people could grasp active consent in say 90% of these scenarios, the problem of sexual coercion would be a great deal smaller for my daughters' generation that it was for mine.

 

Praise.The.Lord.

 

 

 

I am puzzled by what seems to be a heightened focus on a scenario that is actually NOT discussed in the video, in which a drunk woman says yes at the time but then thereafter falsely alleges that she did not; or lodges/issues a complaint.

 

Not arguing that the false allegations by women, or (in other jurisdictions than the US where prosecution rules may be different) morning-after-regret-fueled-complaints NEVER happen.  

 

But do the posters expressing these concerns think the magnitude of the female false allegation / false complaints problem is anything close to the magnitude of the sexual coercion problem?

 

And... wouldn't better clarity help with that problem too?  I'm just a bit baffled.

 

No one has mentioned false allegations, so I don't see why that comes up at all. 

 

Perhaps it is a matter that some people are thinking in the context of a generation ago.  College campuses today do not have a widespread view that the things in the video are acceptable.  That is not to say that they never happen, which is a different story, but it is not controversial that having sex with an unconscious person is rape - every university acknowledges this, even the ones with poor methods for dealing with it.

 

The video is, IMO, ok.  I fail to see that it is really "great" however, because it simply doesn't address the kinds of questions that are causing controversy on campus, and which involves the greater number of casual sexual encounters.  And, I think more than that, it is all very simple to avoid problems, just don't give people tea they don't want. 

 

The other kinds of questions that were raised in the thread are the ones that are today causing a lot of trouble on universities. Many of the problems are centered around parties and excess alcohol. Situations where everyone is drinking, and there is a lot of casual sex.  Telling people not to have sex with someone who has passed out, either before or while you are involved, even if they said ok before, is fine, but it doesn't really address most of the sexual encounters.

 

At those kinds of parties, almost everyone who hooks up for casual sex will have been drinking.  Those kinds of encounters, under the rules of some universities, and in the minds of quite a few people, are always non-consensual, in the same way that sex between minors would be non-consensual. They can both agree, but they are still having an illicit encounter. The difference is, with two minors it is quite unusual that one would face significant consequences.  In universities, that is not the case.

 

It doesn't help people communicate when they are told that it is simple to figure out who is at fault in a negative encounter, or given standards that are contradictory in order to decide if they are victims of assault.  If 95% of the time people who have drunken sex have no issues, it gets very dicey when the other 5% of the time someone feels aggrieved and decides to take it before a university board and have them kicked out, or takes it to the media when they don't get the result they want. 

 

A much more effective plan would probably be to take steps simply to make sex while intoxicated beyond a fairly easy to define level against the rules - maybe whatever the level is for driving.  And punish both parties if it happens, and put controls on the venues for these kinds of events - this would put the onus on everyone to take responsibility for their own behavior and sexual conduct, and when breaches happened, it would be much more clear who was at fault.

 

There are all kinds of difficulties with that scenario though.  Do we want to exert that kind of control on adults?  Is it legal?  Can it possibly be enforced?  I tend to think no, it can't be enforced unless the students want it to be. 

 

 

 

[Pam in CT]

I don't understand what is baffling.  If we all understand that a drunk person's "yes" doesn't count as consent, then we can see that there is a huge potential for someone's life to be ruined by a rape allegation.  

 

In all of the other scenarios, it's really clear that we're talking about rape.  

 

________

 

I personally do not believe that when two people enthusiastically get together while drunk that it's reasonable that it could end with one of them in jail.  I also am pretty sure that in heterosexual situations I can guess which gender is more likely to be charged with rape.  Which, I guess, is where the scary poster of Josie and Jack (or whatever their names were) comes in.  

 

I'm not sure you can make a rule for universities to enforce that would prevent this, but I would think that students should be very aware of the possible ramifications of intimate relations while drunk.  They would need to know that even a "yes" isn't actually a "yes" in that situation.  

On the first bolded bit, that all the scenarios actually depicted in the video are clearly understood as sexual coercion ...Oh, how.I.wish.that.were.true.  

 

The scenario in which the woman said "yes" last week, but doesn't want tea today.... is a problem area.

 

The scenario in which the woman started out saying "yes," but then changed her mind and doesn't want it anymore... is a problem area.  (Nan's son's suggestion that women should "practice saying no, randomly, without giving a reason" is a powerful and important tool.  A person who doesn't respect the other person's changing her mind is indeed a Big Red Flag.)

 

And the several scenarios in which the person is unconscious... is a problem area.

 

_______

 

To the second bolded bit: heavens, I don't either!

 

But -- and Sarah I really am sorry that I'm evidently obtuse on this, but -- if both partners are in fact enthusiastic, the only way one could end up in jail is if the woman (in the US) lies and presses charges or (I understand from you and bluegoat, in Canada) goes down to the police and files a complaint (and thereafter, the authorities opt to prosecute).  Right?  Either way, the (enthusiastic at the time) woman would have to take clear action to initiate proceedings... and in the US, she would have to lie under oath.

 

 

 

 

No one has mentioned false allegations, so I don't see why that comes up at all. 

......

 

 

You and Sarah have clarified that what you & she meant in posts including

 

The scenario is that while both partners were giving consent at the time, one later decides to press charges. 

 

refers to a woman who consents at the time but thereafter presses charges.  In the US, she could only press charges if she falsely alleged she did not consent, otherwise there is no crime.  I understand now that in Canada the arrest process and legal line is different, but I understood you both to be saying upthread that the (consenting) woman would have to actively initiate and file a complaint.  Is that right?

 

(I get the distinction that in Canada, legal consent can't be given drunk, much as, here and I presume there as well, legal consent can't be given as a minor.  Thanks for that analogy.   My question is doesn't the (consenting albeit drunk) woman have to initiate the complaint.)

 

 

 

 

College age kids make all sorts of mistakes.  I get that sometimes people experience a bit of embarrassment/dread/shame, dang, wish I hadn't a done that.   It's not a great feeling, but it's part of growing up, lesson learned, OK that's one mistake I won't make again.  I can't really see that too high a proportion of the people who regret a mistake are (in the US) lying under oath or (I understand now, in Canada) going down to the police to file a complaint in a purposeful effort to ruin the life of someone with whom they consented.  

 

I'm not saying it never happens.... just that in comparison to the incidence of actual sexual coercion WITHOUT consent, like the scenarios actually discussed in the video, isn't it a pretty small issue?

[EmseB]

I think the point is that if the woman was drunk, she, according to some campus policies, could not give consent, no matter how enthusiastic she was at the time, so it's not a false charge. It's not a lie under oath if she was drunk and therefore couldn't technically say yes even if she did verbally say yes, or participated willingly. Even if he was also drunk and theoretically could not give consent either. This has little to do with law enforcement and more to do with campus tribunals and getting expelled, or even simply being branded as someone who sexually assaulted a woman...a rapist.

 

In my limited experience, the girls I knew who went through the "dang I wish I wouldn't have done that" scenario believed they had been assaulted based on what they were taught/told by policies like the above. They may not have pressed charges, or taken it beyond gossip, but they fully considered they had been victimized in some way and the guy was a scumbag for having sex with her because she was drunk (even if he was also drunk and had no better decision making skills than she did). The number of scenarios I heard about or knew about like this (two drunk partners, one with regrets after the fact) were far more common than any of the scenarios in the video.

 

This whole conversation reminds me of Lena Dunham's account in her book of being raped and the guy not ever having any idea she was remotely unhappy with the encounter.

[scoutingmom]

Ok... so my only frame of reference for the drunk question is from a TV show. The girl woke up after and realized that sex had occurred... but she had been really drunk and had gaps in her memory.... she could only remember flashes of the evening and didn't know if she had given consent or not.... wasn't sure if she had been conscious or not because of the gaps in her memory. (In the show, the information got to staff at the university (she talked to her brother, who was dating someone and he told her....) and the university took action, investigated, and expelled the man. He had also had a lot to drink, but thought she wanted tea.....

 

So, what is your opinion, assuming no loss of conciousness.... They are both really drunk to the point her memory is blanked out. She isn't sure if she gave consent, but from the moment of waking up, she felt violated.

 

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[Pam in CT]

re waking up feeling regretful vs then taking concrete action to press legal or (in a university setting) disciplinary sanctions:

 

 

I think the point is that if the woman was drunk, she, according to some campus policies, could not give consent, no matter how enthusiastic she was at the time, so it's not a false charge. It's not a lie under oath if she was drunk and therefore couldn't technically say yes even if she did verbally say yes, or participated willingly. Even if he was also drunk and theoretically could not give consent either. This has little to do with law enforcement and more to do with campus tribunals and getting expelled, or even simply being branded as someone who sexually assaulted a woman...a rapist.

In my limited experience, the girls I knew who went through the "dang I wish I wouldn't have done that" scenario believed they had been assaulted based on what they were taught/told by policies like the above. They may not have pressed charges, or taken it beyond gossip, but they fully considered they had been victimized in some way and the guy was a scumbag for having sex with her because she was drunk (even if he was also drunk and had no better decision making skills than she did). The number of scenarios I heard about or knew about like this (two drunk partners, one with regrets after the fact) were far more common than any of the scenarios in the video.
...

 

 

Ok... so my only frame of reference for the drunk question is from a TV show. The girl woke up after and realized that sex had occurred... but she had been really drunk and had gaps in her memory.... she could only remember flashes of the evening and didn't know if she had given consent or not.... wasn't sure if she had been conscious or not because of the gaps in her memory. (In the show, the information got to staff at the university (she talked to her brother, who was dating someone and he told her....) and the university took action, investigated, and expelled the man. He had also had a lot to drink, but thought she wanted tea.....

So, what is your opinion, assuming no loss of conciousness.... They are both really drunk to the point her memory is blanked out. She isn't sure if she gave consent, but from the moment of waking up, she felt violated.
 

 

Hmmm.  Well, first and foremost, if as a society we eliminated or greatly reduced the incidences of sexual coercion of the sort treated in the video, so that the problem was reduced down to just ones like these, we'd be immensely better off than we are now.  So I'm all for clarity.

 

And second, I as I said upthread, a piece of this issue is about women accepting ownership for their intentions.  Clarity, specificity, without coyness or swept-me-off-my-feet or I-didn't-know-what-I-was-doing or whatever.  Act like a grownup.  A larger piece is for men, accepting that only explicit yes can mean yes, act like a grownup.  But a piece is for women.

 

_____

 

"Act like a grownup" applies to what comes next if you wake up with regrets, as well.  I mean, it's a bummer, but just like any other realization about any other mistake, you own up to it, you figure out what the piece parts were (including too much drinking, if that was a piece of it), you internalize the lesson and you carry on, hopefully a bit smarter.

 

Certainly taking a concrete action such as pressing charges or initiating disciplinary proceedings would be disingenuous and unfair, and also childish, like a little kid blaming someone else for a mistake.  Growing up means learning to take accountability even for mistakes.

 

I'm a good deal less worried about gossip, along the lines of he took advantage of an muddy situation.  I mean, it's not nice, but the world of adolescent/young adult gossip gets a lot worse.   A conversational mention of "He took advantage" is a whole lot different than "ruining his life" with legal allegations.  Certainly a whole lot less harmful than sexual coercion itself, KWIM?

[Sarah CB]

 

 

But -- and Sarah I really am sorry that I'm evidently obtuse on this, but -- if both partners are in fact enthusiastic, the only way one could end up in jail is if the woman (in the US) lies and presses charges or (I understand from you and bluegoat, in Canada) goes down to the police and files a complaint (and thereafter, the authorities opt to prosecute).  Right?  Either way, the (enthusiastic at the time) woman would have to take clear action to initiate proceedings... and in the US, she would have to lie under oath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and Sarah have clarified that what you & she meant in posts including

 

 

refers to a woman who consents at the time but thereafter presses charges.  In the US, she could only press charges if she falsely alleged she did not consent, otherwise there is no crime.  I understand now that in Canada the arrest process and legal line is different, but I understood you both to be saying upthread that the (consenting) woman would have to actively initiate and file a complaint.  Is that right?

 

What people are being told now is that consent cannot be given when drunk.  So, if the girl wakes up on the morning and thinks, "Jake and I had sex last night - how could he?  I was so wasted.  He knew I was wasted and that someone who is drunk can't possibly consent to sex."  

 

Women are being told that it's a rape if they were drunk when it happened.  That's the problem.  I understand that it still means the woman must complain - but I think that will be happening more and more with the messaging that people are being given.

 

- It's not your fault, you were way too drunk to consent.

- Of course it was abuse if you were too drunk to give consent.

- He saw how much you drank - he knew you were drunk, so he knew that you couldn't possibly consent

 

I don't think it takes an evil girl to press charges after a night of drunken relations.  I think if someone truly believes that any consent given while drunk is invalid, then it's a pretty easy step to charge someone.  Especially if the guy is being a jerk afterwards, or if his friends find out about it and are giving you a hard time about it or telling other people what happened.  I think a lot of things can lead to someone "realizing" that they were actually raped - they were the victim of the horrible thing, not a slut or someone who is easy after a few drinks.

[Bluegoat]

 

On the first bolded bit, that all the scenarios actually depicted in the video are clearly understood as sexual coercion ...Oh, how.I.wish.that.were.true.  

 

The scenario in which the woman said "yes" last week, but doesn't want tea today.... is a problem area.

 

The scenario in which the woman started out saying "yes," but then changed her mind and doesn't want it anymore... is a problem area.  (Nan's son's suggestion that women should "practice saying no, randomly, without giving a reason" is a powerful and important tool.  A person who doesn't respect the other person's changing her mind is indeed a Big Red Flag.)

 

And the several scenarios in which the person is unconscious... is a problem area.

 

_______

 

To the second bolded bit: heavens, I don't either!

 

But -- and Sarah I really am sorry that I'm evidently obtuse on this, but -- if both partners are in fact enthusiastic, the only way one could end up in jail is if the woman (in the US) lies and presses charges or (I understand from you and bluegoat, in Canada) goes down to the police and files a complaint (and thereafter, the authorities opt to prosecute).  Right?  Either way, the (enthusiastic at the time) woman would have to take clear action to initiate proceedings... and in the US, she would have to lie under oath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You and Sarah have clarified that what you & she meant in posts including

 

 

refers to a woman who consents at the time but thereafter presses charges.  In the US, she could only press charges if she falsely alleged she did not consent, otherwise there is no crime.  I understand now that in Canada the arrest process and legal line is different, but I understood you both to be saying upthread that the (consenting) woman would have to actively initiate and file a complaint.  Is that right?

 

(I get the distinction that in Canada, legal consent can't be given drunk, much as, here and I presume there as well, legal consent can't be given as a minor.  Thanks for that analogy.   My question is doesn't the (consenting albeit drunk) woman have to initiate the complaint.)

 

 

 

 

College age kids make all sorts of mistakes.  I get that sometimes people experience a bit of embarrassment/dread/shame, dang, wish I hadn't a done that.   It's not a great feeling, but it's part of growing up, lesson learned, OK that's one mistake I won't make again.  I can't really see that too high a proportion of the people who regret a mistake are (in the US) lying under oath or (I understand now, in Canada) going down to the police to file a complaint in a purposeful effort to ruin the life of someone with whom they consented.  

 

I'm not saying it never happens.... just that in comparison to the incidence of actual sexual coercion WITHOUT consent, like the scenarios actually discussed in the video, isn't it a pretty small issue?

 

 

Actually, I was not talking about rules in Canada. The rules on a college campus in the US aren't necessarily the same as the laws more generally - the tend to have their own regulations.  The quote up-thread about the rules at a particular college are an example - someone who is drunk cannot give consent, and the person who initiated the encounter can be accused of assault, even if both agreed.  This doesn't send anyone to jail, but it can result in being kicked out of university, and perhaps more importantly media coverage which follows and impact admission to other schools or jobs.

[Bluegoat]

re waking up feeling regretful vs then taking concrete action to press legal or (in a university setting) disciplinary sanctions:

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm.  Well, first and foremost, if as a society we eliminated or greatly reduced the incidences of sexual coercion of the sort treated in the video, so that the problem was reduced down to just ones like these, we'd be immensely better off than we are now.  So I'm all for clarity.

 

And second, I as I said upthread, a piece of this issue is about women accepting ownership for their intentions.  Clarity, specificity, without coyness or swept-me-off-my-feet or I-didn't-know-what-I-was-doing or whatever.  Act like a grownup.  A larger piece is for men, accepting that only explicit yes can mean yes, act like a grownup.  But a piece is for women.

 

_____

 

"Act like a grownup" applies to what comes next if you wake up with regrets, as well.  I mean, it's a bummer, but just like any other realization about any other mistake, you own up to it, you figure out what the piece parts were (including too much drinking, if that was a piece of it), you internalize the lesson and you carry on, hopefully a bit smarter.

 

Certainly taking a concrete action such as pressing charges or initiating disciplinary proceedings would be disingenuous and unfair, and also childish, like a little kid blaming someone else for a mistake.  Growing up means learning to take accountability even for mistakes.

 

I'm a good deal less worried about gossip, along the lines of he took advantage of an muddy situation.  I mean, it's not nice, but the world of adolescent/young adult gossip gets a lot worse.   A conversational mention of "He took advantage" is a whole lot different than "ruining his life" with legal allegations.  Certainly a whole lot less harmful than sexual coercion itself, KWIM?

 

Being told that your decisions when drinking don't count as consent don't really lead to accepting ownership.  Rules that say the person who initiates is has sexually assaulted the other don't either. 

[EmseB]

 

I'm a good deal less worried about gossip, along the lines of he took advantage of an muddy situation.  I mean, it's not nice, but the world of adolescent/young adult gossip gets a lot worse.   A conversational mention of "He took advantage" is a whole lot different than "ruining his life" with legal allegations.  Certainly a whole lot less harmful than sexual coercion itself, KWIM?

 

Sure, if that's the conversation.  If the conversation is more like, "I think I was sexually assaulted by Joe, but I don't really remember because I was drinking, but I think he raped me," the implications are much different even if they are "only" social.

 

ETA: and I disagree that pressing charges or bringing disciplinary action is childish or unfair or petty, given the stated rules and guidance that is being given out all over college campuses.  If the girl truly could not give consent because she was drunk, then she truly was a victim.  She was helpless to make her own decisions once she got drunk, so it's not a matter of simple regrets or feeling badly.  As defined above, even if he was also drunk, even if she was enthusiastic and wanted to be there, the man in the situation raped her because she was incapable of "signing on the dotted line" even if she wanted to.  She no longer has autonomy or responsibility if she gets drunk.

Edited January 28, 2016 by JodiSue

[FaithManor]

This reminds me of that scene from Big Bang Theory when Sheldon finally has the guts to get intimate with Amy, and asks for her explicit consent a couple of times, then wants to bring out a contract for her to sign!

 

More than anything, I simply want colleges to get serious about reporting, making counseling and medical care readily available, and get the heck out of the police department's way. And that means NOT campus police, but the county Sheriff's office or State Police. Campus police are often bizarrely undertrained.

 

I also think that we parents need to do A LOT when it comes to educating our kids about the dangers of inebriation for all parties involved. I know several parents that are so embarrassed to talk about these things that they admitted they have never broached the subject with their teens. YIKES! I would imagine there are a lot of students out there that have never been frankly spoken to on the subject by their parents, and in the group setting of "come to this orientation meeting so we can talk to the entire freshman class about safety" it is easier to let it go in one ear and out the other compared to looking your dad and mom in the face while they discuss different scenarios.

[Sarah CB]

 If the girl truly could not give consent because she was drunk, then she truly was a victim.  She was helpless to make her own decisions once she got drunk, so it's not a matter of simple regrets or feeling badly.  As defined above, even if he was also drunk, even if she was enthusiastic and wanted to be there, the man in the situation raped her because she was incapable of "signing on the dotted line" even if she wanted to.  She no longer has autonomy or responsibility if she gets drunk.

 

What if they were both too drunk to give consent?  Why would the girl be the only victim here?  

[EmseB]

What if they were both too drunk to give consent? Why would the girl be the only victim here?

Exactly my point. :) To be more clear, I was stating the pov the rules and policies seem to be fostering, not that I agree with the characterization.