Aside from the bolded I feel like we're making progress. I'll reiterate yet again the bolded is a strawman you made up, I guess to avoid the harsh reality an intermediary step here is a woman feels like she was sexually assaulted. But ho hum, moving on: I actually really DON'T think that's an impossible standard, at all. I suppose that's where we've found our true separation here. I laid out some simple decision trees I think anyone could reasonably walk through to avoid like 99% of these cases ("is she super drunk? If yes, don't **** her"). That dudes choose not to do that, that they find all that unreasonable seems like the absolute core of the huge amounts of sexual assault of drunk women that gets reported, but whatever, I'll let you guys continue on there.

What? That's not the fact pattern. It's not "we had sex." It's: I was drunk and some dude ****ed me without my consent. You keep skipping that important caveat for some reason.

The bolded is absolutely not made up and actual policy at many schools dvaut. Your denial of this is just not factual. Your point of the school does not go after everyone having sex drunk is irrelevant. Their actual codes are so loosely written that any complainant that had drunk sex immediately has a winning case, despite just about any fact pattern.

Again, that's absurd.

We're going around in circles here, but no it's not. It's irrelevant if the girl gave consent, she's drunk. That's the problem.

DudeImBetter is at least having an honest conversation, ikes is going for the creative like "women says she was raped <puts fingers in ears> 'I'm not listening!! Drunk sex isn't rape'" defense.

ikes: you keep skipping the step where having sex with a drunk woman who reports being raped is rape in college.

I'll get personal here but in fact I ****ed woman (one woman) drunk all the time in college. True story. We were dating but that's besides the point. No one is arguing that was rape. I will go to the UM alumni group or disciplinary board or whatever and my partner at the time (now wife) and I will cop to this fact and I doubt anyone will bat an eyelash, not now, and wouldn't have then. Why do you think that is?

You're not even trying anymore. Any accuser has to build a case, and the standard for an accuser to jump through in rape cases is preposterously low because, for the ceremonial 350th time, all the accuser has to be is drunk.

Everyone gets that a woman thinks she was wronged dvaut. What should still remain is a reasonable standard of what the accusation should entail so a defense is actually possible.

I'm not denying anything ikes, the actual facts of these cases are that women are reporting being raped, not just that they were drunk and boned. You understand the important distinction here, right?

Just that, and feel like the alleged perpetrator assaulted her. Right? You keep not mentioning that.

Well, when your went to school rules were different, but today, the only reason why you wouldn't be facing suspensions or expulsion is based on whether or not she filed a complaint.

Or, you know, you could get the gibbons treatment. (sigh that case)

Because it's not necessary for the school to make a case. That's a major point. You think you're being clever here but really you're simply re-enforcing my argument of the absurdity of the status quo again and again.

Ikes, your argument only makes any sense at all if there's an epidemic of college women who wake up on Sunday mornings thinking to themselves, "Aw yeah, last night was great. Joe sure gave me a great ****in'. But hark! Alas, I had partaken of the drink! I must get me to the campus constable straight! Too bad about Joe. He was a good lay."

So.... it doesn't make sense that you have to prove a crime occurred because most allegations aren't completely spurious?

That's a really ****ty view of the justice system wookie. Most people want to be damn sure, or at least quite sure, that an offence happened before doling out punishments.

FASCINATING. We're getting there, buddy!

Alright, so we've come to it: so not only do we need to drunk people engaging in coitus to get this charge of rape, we also need a women claiming that coitus it happened without her consent. So the qualitative difference here is that my now wife consented whereas these victims of sexual assault feel they didn't.

OK, so, in those cases, if the woman was inebriated during the alleged assault, that is:

a. relevant
b. not relevant

...I assume all good people imagine how that is relevant.

And you're a school disciplinary board without like subpoena powers and fleet of professional detectives ala cops, so in like 10 posts from now when we all agree the inebriated state of the woman is relevant, but that schools necessarily can't wage an all out fact-finding investigation, and don't have the resources to like wage a crime investigation, schools should:

a. defer to the woman who feels raped
b. defer to the man because who can really know?

You seem to want to argue b), but a) seems entirely reasonable since sexual assault is like this really serious and traumatic thing and some stuff probably had to go really wrong (see Wookie's simple posts on this point, or my decision tree) to get the point of this woman feeling really traumatized and assaulted and it's hard to feel like the dude in probably 99% of these scenarios really has any moral or ethical leg to stand on here.

The ONLY way Option B starts to feel really reasonable is if we think women are making it up. Otherwise if we get a 'she said, he said' scenario where one person feels assaulted and the other person's defense is "we were tanked," that's like not at all a hard call to make. If I had to construct an ideal rule-set to handle those kinds of conflicts in light of our world with limited time and resources, that's probably an insta toss-the-guy-outta-school and protect the person who claims they were assaulted for me, the sacred right of having sex in some almost-blacked-out-state where no one knows wtf is going on be damned.

How are you supposed to prove a crime other than through testimony of the victim/witness plus corroboration of key elements of the complaint (sex, intoxication)?

And we're still going around in circles. It's irrelevant if the woman gave her consent if she had been drinking. Your refusal to address that absurdity is your basic problem here.

Call me crazy, but one way we might attempt to ascertain as to whether or not the woman gave consent would be to ask her.

You obviously use testimony of the victim and witness. However, the testimony of 'I was drunk' should not be enough to seal the case. That's my point. That's the author's point.

Sounds like a great idea wookie! Too bad it's completely irrelevant in college judicial systems if the person had been drinking (But only the woman). Do you think that's not absurd?

lol ikes.

And this is the only thing you're left with. It's always amusing to see what kind of offenses different people are willing to **** on the accused rights for.

Ikes. Do you think women are waking up from drunken sex and saying they feel they were raped when in fact they dont feel they were raped?

An extremely small amount of accusers, but crazy vile people do exist.

By the time it gets to the collegiate judicial system, the relevant bits about consent have already been determined, namely that the woman didn't consent.

And the author described 5 recent cases that say differently.