Clarkson hockey players face sex charges

[Jerseygirl]

I don't consider it rape, because I had determined at the beginning of the evening that I would sleep with the player.

Now here's where I think you lose something on your argument. (I'm no lawyer either)  This is bringing in "intent" or some sort of pre-consent.  Someone hearing your story could say it was rape.  "no, no...it's ok.  I told myself I would sleep with him before."  Well, if you were HAMMERED when he actually asked for consent, isn't that rape to someone who isn't inside your head?  And couldn't that be the same situation to at least some of the "too drunk to give consent" rapes you've known about?

And what happens if the guy is just as drunk as the girl as a night goes on?  There are the "one thing leads to another" things, and not all situations are simply men being predatory and lecherous.   Can't women be the instigators for "too drunk sex" too?[/quote]

To your first point: yeah, it is rape to someone who isn't inside my head. And legally speaking, it's defined as rape. But to me, the "victim," and the person who would or wouldn't press charges, it's not rape. And that's what matters. The "too drunk to give consent" rapes I've known about have been shrouded in ambivalence, shame and regret, and the women have said that they would not have had that sex sober. When I've talked about this stuff with the friends it happened to, we've reached a point in the conversation where they've said, "I guess that was kind of rape then." I've never come to that conclusion about my situation. I regretted sleeping with him once he started being an ass, and felt like he took advantage of me, but he would have done that whether I was drunk or sober.

No, not all situations are men being predatory and lecherous. In fact, when Trotsky, upthread, said something like, "all boys know what they are supposed to do," I think he's wrong. I think a lot of guys don't truly accept that unless you get a confirmed yes, the trouser snake stays in its cave. We have to do a much better job as a society teaching men to take women at their word. Convincing someone, or "she didn't say no," is not a way to get laid.

Yeah, sure, women can be instigators of too drunk sex. But men are much more physically capable of shutting things down if they don't consent. I'm a big, strong woman, and I'm still no match for a man who's much smaller than I am. And if a woman is instigating too drunk sex, the specter of physical violence isn't hanging over the guy's head if he doesn't consent.

And let me put this out there, before it devolves into this -- I know men can get sexually assaulted and raped, I know men get falsely accused of rape, and I hate both of these things. Neither of them negate the great, great need for us to radically change the way we look at women's sexuality, and the way we socialize our men to act.

[CowbellGuy]

[quote Jerseygirl]...another came to my rescue when I was in a bad situation in a foreign country.[/quote]
Methinks you're overselling America's Hat a wee bit here.

[TimV]

Your posts in this thread are outstanding.  Organize, expand, and get published in the Sunday Times Mag.::rock::

[Jerseygirl]

[quote CowbellGuy][quote Jerseygirl]...another came to my rescue when I was in a bad situation in a foreign country.[/quote]
Methinks you're overselling America's Hat a wee bit here.[/quote]

Toque. America's toque.

[ugarte]

[quote Jerseygirl]
I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent. [/quote]

I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread but this is dead wrong. "Too drunk to operate heavy machinery" is not the same as "too drunk to make decisions." It doesn't take a lot of drinking to get a BAC of .08; I'd guess that most drivers who register a .08 are surprised that they are legally drunk. That is a far cry from a woman who is semi-conscious or so far gone that she isn't capable of making decisions.

If all consent at .08 is invalid, a lot of women who agreed to subsequent dates would be shocked to find that they had been raped.

[Jerseygirl]

[quote ugarte][quote Jerseygirl]
I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent. [/quote]

I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread but this is dead wrong. "Too drunk to operate heavy machinery" is not the same as "too drunk to make decisions." It doesn't take a lot of drinking to get a BAC of .08; I'd guess that most drivers who register a .08 are surprised that they are legally drunk. That is a far cry from a woman who is semi-conscious or so far gone that she isn't capable of making decisions.

If all consent at .08 is invalid, a lot of women who agreed to subsequent dates would be shocked to find that they had been raped.[/quote]

So how is too drunk to legally consent defined, then? I'm genuinely curious, and please note that I never asserted I was stating a fact.

[ugarte]

[quote Jerseygirl][quote ugarte][quote Jerseygirl]
I'm not a criminal lawyer (or any kind of lawyer), but I would think that if you can blow a .08, you're not able to consent. [/quote]

I agree with almost everything you've said in this thread but this is dead wrong. "Too drunk to operate heavy machinery" is not the same as "too drunk to make decisions." It doesn't take a lot of drinking to get a BAC of .08; I'd guess that most drivers who register a .08 are surprised that they are legally drunk. That is a far cry from a woman who is semi-conscious or so far gone that she isn't capable of making decisions.

If all consent at .08 is invalid, a lot of women who agreed to subsequent dates would be shocked to find that they had been raped.[/quote]

So how is too drunk to legally consent defined, then? I'm genuinely curious, and please note that I never asserted I was stating a fact.[/quote]
I didn't think you were stating it as a matter of law; neither was I. There isn't a bright line for when someone is too drunk to consent. It is a judgment call for the prosecuting attorney.

[Robb]

[quote ugarte]I didn't think you were stating it as a matter of law; neither was I. There isn't a bright line for when someone is too drunk to consent. It is a judgment call for the prosecuting attorney.[/quote]That's an odd misspelling of "jury."  

[Dpperk29]

According to the Clarkson Integrator (campus newspaper) it was consenual sex with a minor and the issue stems from minors not being able to consent to sex.

http://media.www.clarksonintegrator.com/media/storage/paper280/news/2009/09/14/News/Hockey.Recruits.Charged.With.Sexual.Misconduct.With.Minor-3771091.shtml?reffeature=htmlemailedition

[KenP]

I'll go back to my original comment.  If it was one player having technically consensual sex with a minor that's one thing.  But in this case there were three guys, one of whom was a recruit.  This sounds more like the womanizing jerseygirl described.

If I had to determine the school-scholarship penalty for this incident, based on the facts presented I'd be inclined to give a stiffer penalty.  (no pun intended)  Clarkson should make it clear that this type of conduct is inappropriate.

[Scersk '97]

[quote RichH](For the record, I've also made some poor decisions while impaired.  i.e. "Hey, let's bring our beer TO the Hot Truck!")[/quote]

"A beefstick, officer."

At least you didn't drunkenly swear at the Ithaca Police—as a corporate entity, in their own building—like, ahem, some other person did...

[Josh '99]

[quote Robb][quote ugarte]I didn't think you were stating it as a matter of law; neither was I. There isn't a bright line for when someone is too drunk to consent. It is a judgment call for the prosecuting attorney.[/quote]That's an odd misspelling of "jury."  [/quote]I believe Robb is correct here; if I'm not mistaken, "too drunk to consent" is defined as "too drunk to consent" and a jury would have a lot of leeway to interpret it as they saw fit.

[Robb]

[quote Josh '99]I believe Robb is correct here; if I'm not mistaken, "too drunk to consent" is defined as "too drunk to consent" and a jury would have a lot of leeway to interpret it as they saw fit.[/quote]
Mostly I was being snarky - the ultimate decision is up to the jury, since that would be a question of fact, not a question of law (was she, in fact, too drunk to consent?).  However, the question of whether charges would be filed rests with the prosecuter's judgement as to whether he'd be able to CONVINCE a jury that she was too drunk to consent.

[ugarte]

[quote Robb][quote Josh '99]I believe Robb is correct here; if I'm not mistaken, "too drunk to consent" is defined as "too drunk to consent" and a jury would have a lot of leeway to interpret it as they saw fit.[/quote]
Mostly I was being snarky - the ultimate decision is up to the jury, since that would be a question of fact, not a question of law (was she, in fact, too drunk to consent?).  However, the question of whether charges would be filed rests with the prosecuter's judgement as to whether he'd be able to CONVINCE a jury that she was too drunk to consent.[/quote]
Bingo.

[WillCMJr]

There has been a lot of speculation and trash talking, but based on what they were charged with.  Sexual Misconduct is a lesser included charge of some other major offenses.  The fact they weren't charged with these higher offenses says a lot....

-If it was forcible or substance induced it would have been Rape, Sexual Abuse or Criminal Sexual Act in the 1st degree, depending on what acts took place.  These are Class B Felonies, carrying potential big prison time.

-The fact that it's Sexual Misconduct means all they can show is that something happened, but she was too young to do it, and the guys aren't yet 21.

For all those chastising the players and automatically defending the girl...  The charges indicate that she was more than willing, but they were dumb-asses for not checking her age!

I can't tell you how many girls have been more than willingly double teamed by members of our local hockey team.  This stuff happens!