Sexual Assault discussion

[warriorchick]

The body can absorb the equivalent of one drink per hour. A drink is defined as a 1.5oz shot of 40 proof liquor or a 12oz beer at 5% ABV. For context Miller Lite has an ABV of 4.2%, High Life 4.8% and Blue Moon is 5.4%

So lets assume you are a man who is 200lbs. you would be over the legal limit if you consume 3 Blue Moons in an hour, likely over if you have 3 High Lifes in an hour and just under if you have 3 Miller Lites in an hour. Here's where the BAC bites you, if you have 5 Miller Lites in 2 hours, you're effectively over the legal limit as a 200lb man because you can only eliminate a single beer per hour.

Same scenario, if you are a 140 lb woman it would only take 2 Blue Moons to put you over the limit(it would take 3 High Life), especially in Wisconsin and at college is almost nothing compared to a typical night out drinking.



Additionally, tolerance is how you mentally "resist" or "adapt" to effects of alcholol, but it doesn't impact the BAC of the individual. If you had twins, one who drank all the time and one who never drank, and gave both of them 3 Blue Moons, they would both be around a BAC of .08 but the impact to them mentally (coordination, judgement, etc) would be vastly different.

So in other words, the best way for a guy to protect himself is to have his date hop on the scale at the beginning of the night, make note of the time, and buy drinks for her accordingly.

[mu03eng]

So in other words, the best way for a guy to protect himself is to have his date hop on the scale at the beginning of the night, make note of the time, and buy drinks for her accordingly.

They should make an app for that.....or add it as a function in Tinder or something.

[Lennys Tap]

The body can absorb the equivalent of one drink per hour. A drink is defined as a 1.5oz shot of 40 proof liquor or a 12oz beer at 5% ABV. For context Miller Lite has an ABV of 4.2%, High Life 4.8% and Blue Moon is 5.4%

So lets assume you are a man who is 200lbs. you would be over the legal limit if you consume 3 Blue Moons in an hour, likely over if you have 3 High Lifes in an hour and just under if you have 3 Miller Lites in an hour. Here's where the BAC bites you, if you have 5 Miller Lites in 2 hours, you're effectively over the legal limit as a 200lb man because you can only eliminate a single beer per hour.

Same scenario, if you are a 140 lb woman it would only take 2 Blue Moons to put you over the limit(it would take 3 High Life), especially in Wisconsin and at college is almost nothing compared to a typical night out drinking.



Additionally, tolerance is how you mentally "resist" or "adapt" to effects of alcholol, but it doesn't impact the BAC of the individual. If you had twins, one who drank all the time and one who never drank, and gave both of them 3 Blue Moons, they would both be around a BAC of .08 but the impact to them mentally (coordination, judgement, etc) would be vastly different.

So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Are you really suggesting that for a college woman (or man) to occasionally (or even regularly) hit .08 they have to be binge drinkers? I think there's something wrong with your calculations.

In short, yes. The definition of binge drinking used by the study I was quoting is 5 or more drinks in a single sitting (an evening). Given that most drinking takes place over a period time and not in a single hour, it would take most people at least five drinks to get to that  point. There is a population who probably have hit .08 bac with four drinks or less bit I would guess it's a very small population. Especially given that many students put about 5 drinks with of alcohol into one solo cup these days.

This is another factor in the problem. A pretty much universal underestimation of how much a little alcohol affects a person.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

However, the threshold you've espoused is very problematic. First, taking the drunk driving analogy (perhaps too far), if two drunk drivers in separate cars get in a car accident with just the two of them.....both are going to jail, regardless of fault. Additionally, at least the first time you are caught drunk driving it is an ordinance violation, not a felony. So by your standard, if both parties are over the 0.08 BAC they should both be charged as neither party could consent.

The problem with this analogy is that someone breaks the law the moment they enter a vehicle while intoxicated. A crash doesn't need to occur for it to be a crime. The more accurate analogy is when a drunk driver hits a drunk pedestrian. Both are drunk but only the driver is going to jail.

[mu03eng]

So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.

Doesn't have to be girlfriend....could be your wife too.

[Lennys Tap]

Doesn't have to be girlfriend....could be your wife too.

Good point. By TAMU's definition I fear that there are more than a few serial sexual assaulters among the Scoop community.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.

Again you keep using the word rape. It would a sexual assault. And if the chart is correct (thank you for posting mueng) than yes...except it wouldn't be consensual sex. The alcohol would negate that person's ability to consent.

I want to challenge you to really think about why this concept bothers you. I can post dozens of studies that prove that judgement and decision making are impaired at .08 bac. Given that this is scientific fact, why would wouldn't we negate consent given while under the influence? It was a decision made while that person has enough of a date rape drug in their system to impair their judgement. We don't hold people accountable for contracts they sign while under the influence (iirc, you can be prosecuted for making someone sign something while they are intoxicated), so why do we have a different standard for consent which is a verbal contact of sorts?

I'll also ask where would you draw the line? If not at .08, than where?

[mu03eng]

Again you keep using the word rape. It would a sexual assault. And if the chart is correct (thank you for posting mueng) than yes...except it wouldn't be consensual sex. The alcohol would negate that person's ability to consent.

I want to challenge you to really think about why this concept bothers you. I can post dozens of studies that prove that judgement and decision making are impaired at .08 bac. Given that this is scientific fact, why would wouldn't we negate consent given while under the influence? It was a decision made while that person has enough of a date rape drug in their system to impair their judgement. We don't hold people accountable for contracts they sign while under the influence (iirc, you can be prosecuted for making someone sign something while they are intoxicated), so why do we have a different standard for consent which is a verbal contact of sorts?

I'll also ask where would you draw the line? If not at .08, than where?

The thing I really struggle with is that both parties could and likely are impaired in these scenarios so neither can give consent so both parties are committing sexual assault. So in the eyes of the law, both should be charged which sets up a scenario where one party claims assault and the other counter claims in a "well if I'm going to jail so are you" type of action. That can't possibly be where we want to go with our legal system.

[4everwarriors]

So, let's name da basketball dudes who allegedly did dis chit, ai na?

[Lennys Tap]

Again you keep using the word rape. It would a sexual assault. And if the chart is correct (thank you for posting mueng) than yes...except it wouldn't be consensual sex. The alcohol would negate that person's ability to consent.

I want to challenge you to really think about why this concept bothers you. I can post dozens of studies that prove that judgement and decision making are impaired at .08 bac. Given that this is scientific fact, why would wouldn't we negate consent given while under the influence? It was a decision made while that person has enough of a date rape drug in their system to impair their judgement. We don't hold people accountable for contracts they sign while under the influence (iirc, you can be prosecuted for making someone sign something while they are intoxicated), so why do we have a different standard for consent which is a verbal contact of sorts?

I'll also ask where would you draw the line? If not at .08, than where?

Easy. I draw the line at "NO" and "NO" is "NO" anytime - before or during sex. No means no and yes means yes everywhere but in the Orwellian world you inhabit. No is also implicit when one of the partners is too incapacitated to say yes - falling down or passed out drunk.

But as long as one consents (to steal the car, throw the brick through the window, have sex, etc.) he or she is responsible. Willingly consuming too much alcohol EXPLAINS poor decision making, but it doesn't exonerate one (or put the blame on someone else) for those poor decisions. Period. Two people who voluntarily drink too much and voluntarily get a room own that decision. Both of them.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Two people are drunk.  Both ride in the same car.  One controls the gas and break; the other controls the steering wheel.  They arrive home safely.

The next day one person accuses the other of drunk driving.  What would justice be in this situation?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So if your 120 pound girlfriend drank 2 beers in an hour and the two of you had consensual sex you're a rapist. And that's a standard that college counselors are comfortable advocating. Mind boggling.

Again, sexual assault, not rape. Rape requires physical violence or threat of physical violence. I do want to say here that yes, while anytime someone has sex with someone who is incapacitated it is technically a sexual assault, I do think the response of the two parties does matter in a sense. As I mentioned before, there are going to be people who have sex at well north of incapacitaion and wake up the next morning and feel great about it. Or they might not feel great about it, but they don't feel like they were taken advantage of. While technically an assault occurred, I don't think it would be fair to label that person a victim. They would be well within their rights to bring charges, however, it would not be right for anyone to bring charges on their behalf. I'll give an allegory. When I was in grad school, I was out drinking with a few of my buddies. One of them had a little too much to drink and got into an argument with me (I had been drinking but was a tad bit more sober). He ended up taking a swing at me, it was enough to knock me over and I cracked my head on the bar pretty good. I was dazed, looking back it could have been a concussion, probably should have had it checked out, but I digress. Technically, I was assaulted by my friend. I could have brought assault charges and would have had an open and shut case.  But I didn't. I don't consider myself an assault victim and I would challenge anyone who said I was. I think most of the time, having sex with a significant other or spouse while incapacitated would usually all into this category. But you run the risk, what if they wake up the next morning and have no memory of the night before. What if they do feel like they were taken advantage of? You risk both your relationship and legal charges (in some states) and misconduct charges (at all universities that accept federal funding).

I'll also put the caveat here that just because two people are dating or married, does not guarantee consent. A person always has the right to their own body and can choose to not give sex to their partner or spouse.

Universities aren't in the business of finding cases to try. Someone needs to bring charges in order for the university to investigate. We aren't scoping out the bars and seeing who is going home with whom. We only respond when someone bring charges and for that to happen, someone needs to feel like they were taken advantage of. Even then, I would estimate that less than 50% of accused students are found not responsible.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Easy. I draw the line at "NO" and "NO" is "NO" anytime - before or during sex. No means no and yes means yes everywhere but in the Orwellian world you inhabit. No is also implicit when one of the partners is too incapacitated to say yes - falling down or passed out drunk.

But as long as one consents (to steal the car, throw the brick through the window, have sex, etc.) he or she is responsible. Willingly consuming too much alcohol EXPLAINS poor decision making, but it doesn't exonerate one (or put the blame on someone else) for those poor decisions. Period. Two people who voluntarily drink too much and voluntarily get a room own that decision. Both of them.

No definitely means no. We agree on that. Unfortunately, no to many college students means try again in a few minutes, or worse try again once they have had a little more to drink.

Yes doesn't always mean yes. Threats, manipulation, blackmail, intimidation, bullying or not giving someone any choice but yes are all tactics used by people to bully people into saying yes.

I would argue that your line with alcohol is too extreme. "Falling down drunk" is a sign of alcohol poisoning, I think there are a few step before that where judgement has become severely impaired. Again, we don't hold people accountable for contract they sign while incapacitated and we prosecute those who manipulate incapacitated people into contracts. Why would we treat a verbal contract like consent differently? We recognize that someone must be in complete control of their faculties to make a business decision. Why wouldn't we recognize that someone must be in complete control of their faculties to make a decision about their body? I would argue the latter is more important.

You are operating in a world view where two people always make the decision to have sex. The reality is that in most of these cases, one person makes the decision to have sex without the blessing of the other person. The decision is made for them. You are placing the burden entirely on the victim. It is their responsibility to say no. Rather than placing the responsibility on the initiator to make sure the person says yes and is in the right state of mind to say yes. I'll give another allegory, a 16 year old has no obligation to tell someone their age if they ask for sex. The burden is on the adult to confirm the other person's age.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The thing I really struggle with is that both parties could and likely are impaired in these scenarios so neither can give consent so both parties are committing sexual assault. So in the eyes of the law, both should be charged which sets up a scenario where one party claims assault and the other counter claims in a "well if I'm going to jail so are you" type of action. That can't possibly be where we want to go with our legal system.

I don't disagree with you. That's why earlier I said I agreed with the Title IX standard in theory but not necessarily in practice. There are several issues that come into play including this concept of "revenge" accusations. We don't see it often, but I'm honestly surprised that we don't. I will tell you that what are trained to look for is who is the aggressor in the situation. Contrary to popular belief, these cases usually aren't two people throwing themselves at each other. Its usually one deciding to have sex and the other choosing not to resist. But that can be difficult to determine. That's why a majority of our accused in these situations are found not responsible.

[mu03eng]

I will say this, while I'm not sure I'm on-board with the premise or standard that TAMU is advocating (doesn't mean I don't respect it, just don't agree it's a practical solution) it does highlight what the spirit of any discussion around consent that should and must take place on campus. Students must be made to understand A) consequences of actions while under the influence B) recognize just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I think TAMU's stance is a bit of an overcorrection, however an overcorrection of some type is required otherwise you never move the needle on making college kids recognize the potential outcomes of poor judgement with alcohol involved.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

FWIW, I am really enjoying and appreciate this discussion. I really hope there are no hard feelings. This has been very beneficial to me. I have trained thousands of students, faculty, and staff on these topics but it is good for me to get some perspective on differing viewpoints and what the perceived issues are. I get questions from those that I train but I know they are often holding back for fear of being judged. I'm the big scary Title IX guy after all (which is hilarious to me, I'm the least intimidating person I know). For example, I have never had to defend the "too drunk to drive is to drunk to consent" line before. Not once in the hundreds of presentations and trainings I've done. Everyone usually smiles, nods, and writes down a note for themselves. Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.

So Glow, Lenny, Eng, thank you. I honestly mean it. I know we have a differing viewpoints and honestly I think we agree on more than we've been saying, but I know all of our hearts are in the right place. We want students to feel safe on campus and we want to see campus sexual assault eradicated. We just have differing views on how to get there.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

A question for TAMU:  Are there any cases you experienced where it was determined that both parties (accused and accuser) were deemed equally culpable?

[mu03eng]

FWIW, I am really enjoying and appreciate this discussion. I really hope there are no hard feelings. This has been very beneficial to me. I have trained thousands of students, faculty, and staff on these topics but it is good for me to get some perspective on differing viewpoints and what the perceived issues are. I get questions from those that I train but I know they are often holding back for fear of being judged. I'm the big scary Title IX guy after all (which is hilarious to me, I'm the least intimidating person I know). For example, I have never had to defend the "too drunk to drive is to drunk to consent" line before. Not once in the hundreds of presentations and trainings I've done. Everyone usually smiles, nods, and writes down a note for themselves. Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.

So Glow, Lenny, Eng, thank you. I honestly mean it. I know we have a differing viewpoints and honestly I think we agree on more than we've been saying, but I know all of our hearts are in the right place. We want students to feel safe on campus and we want to see campus sexual assault eradicated. We just have differing views on how to get there.

[mu03eng]

Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.

I think one of the things that needs to be elaborated on in the education is the concept similar to "buzzed driving is drunk driving". I'm sure you hear it all of the time "he/she seemed fine". How one perceives things is unquestionably altered with any alcohol consumption and the obviousness of that will vary based on drinking experience. When you have both parties who are altered in some way it becomes difficult to recognize what the "truth" is. So it becomes important to recognize that both judgement and perception is altered....for both the aggressor and the receiver of the aggression. A potential victim may think they have been clear, but how that message was received may not be the way it was intended (obviously, no means no, I'm talking about the more fuzzy areas).

[Lennys Tap]

FWIW, I am really enjoying and appreciate this discussion. I really hope there are no hard feelings. This has been very beneficial to me. I have trained thousands of students, faculty, and staff on these topics but it is good for me to get some perspective on differing viewpoints and what the perceived issues are. I get questions from those that I train but I know they are often holding back for fear of being judged. I'm the big scary Title IX guy after all (which is hilarious to me, I'm the least intimidating person I know). For example, I have never had to defend the "too drunk to drive is to drunk to consent" line before. Not once in the hundreds of presentations and trainings I've done. Everyone usually smiles, nods, and writes down a note for themselves. Our discussion made me realize that I need to become more familiar with BAC and how alcohol affects the body. I had a general understanding but I need to be able to not just explain what the standard is, but why the standard was put there.

So Glow, Lenny, Eng, thank you. I honestly mean it. I know we have a differing viewpoints and honestly I think we agree on more than we've been saying, but I know all of our hearts are in the right place. We want students to feel safe on campus and we want to see campus sexual assault eradicated. We just have differing views on how to get there.

Thank you, TAMU. We have our disagreements but I hope Title IX counselors at all schools are as dedicated to the student's well being as you are.

One aspect we didn't touch on - people (especially young, relatively inexperienced people) are often conflicted about how far they want to go sexually. They use alcohol purposely to relieve their inhibitions and make them more comfortable about being sexually active. How do you counsel people about using alcohol that way? It's hard to imagine anyone considering consensual sex sexual assault under those circumstances.

[jficke13]

If Chappelle were to do his consent skit on a campus today, I guess he'd have to add a breathalizer to it.

[Lennys Tap]

I think one of the things that needs to be elaborated on in the education is the concept similar to "buzzed driving is drunk driving". I'm sure you hear it all of the time "he/she seemed fine". How one perceives things is unquestionably altered with any alcohol consumption and the obviousness of that will vary based on drinking experience. When you have both parties who are altered in some way it becomes difficult to recognize what the "truth" is. So it becomes important to recognize that both judgement and perception is altered....for both the aggressor and the receiver of the aggression. A potential victim may think they have been clear, but how that message was received may not be the way it was intended (obviously, no means no, I'm talking about the more fuzzy areas).

So instead of trying get at what can only be a "version" or fuzzy recollection of the truth, maybe counselors should be pounding a different drum. Having a few drinks and still be adamant about saying NO and having a few drinks and enthusiastically saying YES are your two choices. Whenever there's the slightest amount of doubt or hint of hesitation, choose A.

[jsglow]

What's been enlightening to me is how far the pendulum has apparently swung.  No one here advocates for inappropriate behavior.  I guess where Lenny and I are is that what's being described at the margin sounds like pretty normal behavior.

I'll go back to that article that was linked.  Everyone was cool until a meddling mom decided to read her kids diary.  And then proceeded to ruin a kids life.  Helicopter b*tch.

[Folks,,,]

I don't know what was posted or any of those details but if you believe that, "well it's on Facebook so it has to be true!" then you believe there were no planes on 9/11 and there were bombs set up in the World Trade Centers to knock them down, all these mass shootings aren't actually happening they're just actors and actresses, including little kids, etc.

That's a scary thought.

I didn't compare her to anybody.  But okay?

You paralleled his belief of his personal friend's Facebook post about a heinous event (that happened to her) to people believing Facebook conspiracy posts.

At minimum it was brutally insensitive. Mostly you just look like an a$$hole.  I understand how he might be a bit upset.