“Both sides agreed that Mr. Gilbert and the victim were at best acquaintances; both sides agreed he entered her room uninvited that night, in a highly intoxicated state, and both sides agreed that he initiated sexual contact which included vaginal penetration with the victim while she was asleep.”
— “Joint Statement,” New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (NHCADSV) and WISE (Women’s Information Services), March 27
The use of the word “victim” in that statement is rather problematic, considering that the statement was issued after Dartmouth College student Parker Gilbert was acquitted on all charges:
The foreman of the jury that found Parker C. Gilbert not guilty of sexually assaulting a Dartmouth College classmate said jurors were not swayed by the accuser’s account, which they found implausible.
Rick Rogers, of Enfield, was one of 12 jurors — six men and six women — who found Gilbert not guilty of five counts of aggravated felonious sexual assault and a misdemeanor criminal trespassing charge on Thursday. Deliberations lasted about four hours.
“(The woman’s) story of how the night played out, the evidence wasn’t there to support that,” Rogers said in a phone interview Thursday evening. “To the contrary, it was more in Parker’s favor. Her statement in the morning (to a friend) — that Parker stopped by and we had sex — is just not the answer that a rape victim would have.”
The prosecution had alleged Gilbert entered the woman’s unlocked dorm room in the early hours of May 2 and began having sex with her while she was asleep. The defense argued that the sexual encounter was consensual, “clumsy, awkward, drunk college sex.”
Rogers said there were many pieces of the accuser’s story that the jury thought pointed to consensual sex, including that the next morning when she told a friend about the encounter, she didn’t characterize it as an assault. . . .
Rogers said other evidence also swayed the jury, including the testimony of Nancy Wu, the suitemate who said that she was awake and heard sounds consistent with consensual sex.
Rogers described Wu as the most credible witness. . . .
A number of the witnesses had been drinking heavily on the night in question.
The accuser was drunk, the accused was drunk, and the witnesses were drunk — evidently everybody on campus at Dartmouth was completely hammered that night, and the only thing anyone can remember for sure is that “vaginal penetration” occurred.
Permit me to digress: Can someone get a trial transcript and provide me with verbatim quotes of Nancy Wu’s testimony? Because I’m curious to know what she says she heard, which the newspaper euphemistically describes as “sounds consistent with consensual sex.” Was the alleged victim moaning passionately, as if in a state of orgasmic ecstasy? “Oh, Parker! You sexy beast! Do me, baby!” But I digress . . .
How did the activists at Dartmouth respond? With a lengthy statement (still labeling the accuser as a “victim”) denouncing the jury, demanding a “cultural shift” in what could be considered a crime. . . .
If Gilbert had been convicted, the message would have been a need to address “rape culture” at Dartmouth. With Gilbert acquitted, the message was a need to address “rape culture” at Dartmouth (and in New Hampshire!). Facts, it appears, don’t matter.
More importantly, I would argue, we don’t know what the facts are. All we know is (a) drunkenness and (b) “vaginal penetration,” and everything else is a matter of “he-said/she-said” testimony by the alleged victim and witnesses. None of the witnesses actually saw the carnal act, and only one claims to have heard “sounds consistent with consensual sex,” whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean.
We don’t know what we don’t know, and yet the “rape culture” activists at Dartmouth insist that certainty of Parker Gilbert’s guilt is indisputable, that any skepticism or concerns for the due process rights of the accused is tantamount to “blaming the victim.”
Do I know what happened? No, absolutely I do not know.
For all I know, Parker Gilbert is a psychopathic pervert notorious for his habit of playing “booty bandit” with sleeping coeds.
On the other hand, for all I know, Parker Gilbert may be a highly popular collegiate studmuffin, and the alleged victim may have been gleefully riding him in reverse-cowgirl position, thrilled to have the opportunity for “vaginal penetration” by his throbbing manhood.
Despite my avowed ignorance — I believe the facts of the case are ultimately unknowable, under such circumstances — my hunch is that the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. The alleged victim was likely not an enthusiastic participant in the act of “vaginal penetration,” but the subsequent accusation of rape was a misguided attempt to place criminal responsibility onto Parker Gilbert for the “clumsy, awkward, drunk college sex” that resulted.
The jury, presented with all the available evidence and testimony in the case, declared Parker Gilbert not guilty of any crime. That does not mean, however, that his actions were morally right. Nor does it mean his accuser is to blame for the “vaginal penetration.”
Whereas I see this situation skeptically, with the understanding that some things are unknowable, Dartmouth College seems to be acting as if Parker Gilbert was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt:
Amanda Childress, Sexual Assault Awareness Program coordinator at Dartmouth College, campus policies aren’t going far enough to protect students.
“Why could we not expel a student based on an allegation?” Childress asked at the panel, before noting that while 2 to 8 percent of accusations are unfounded (but not necessarily intentionally false), 90 to 95 percent are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional. “It seems to me that we value fair and equitable processes more than we value the safety of our students. And higher education is not a right. Safety is a right. Higher education is a privilege.”
“If we know that a person is reasonably a threat to our community,” Childress said, “why are we not removing them and protecting the safety of our students?”
WHOA! Did you catch that? First, Childress is in favor of expelling students “based on an allegation,” because “higher education is not a right.” (The latter claim would shock advocates of affirmative action, I’m sure.) But notice, also, that Childress justifies this attitude by grabbing some statistics out of thin air to claim “90 to 95 percent [of sexual assaults on campus] are unreported, committed by repeat offenders, and intentional.” In other words, according to Childress, serial rapists are prowling our nation’s college campuses, and for every rape that is reported, at least nine others go unreported.
Does that claim seem even remotely possible? Could it be that, in this day and age, at institutions of higher education that attract our most intelligent young people, an environment exists where 90 to 95 percent of sexual assaults — intentional acts, committed by repeat offenders — are never reported to authorities at all?
Childress made those bizarre claims in February, just a few days after Dartmouth College had promoted her to director of “the newly-created Center for Community Action and Prevention, which Childress said would ‘be the focal point on campus for Dartmouth’s sexual assault and violence prevention initiatives’ and ‘drive the College’s mobilization efforts around preventing sexual violence and increasing the safety and well-being of all members of our community.'”
Except for “members of our community” who have penises.
The “well-being” of male students falsely accused of rape is of no concern to Amanda Childress or her notorious comrade Kate Burke, chairwoman of Dartmouth’s Committee on Standards.
There is no justice at Dartmouth, and there will be no peace.
Hey, ladies:
Keep your pants on, don’t get stupefyingly drunk, and don’t let those icky boys in your room after midnight.
A few simple suggestions that would reduce “90 to 95%” of “rapes” on campus…
Yeah, just forget all those times a white girl got caught getting busy with a black guy and because she didn’t want to be called a “n****r lover”, she called it “rape” and let him be wrongly convicted or even lynched.
Let’s make “j’accuse!” suffice.
I don’t think the institutional Left comprehends how completely they’ve inverted the original liberal ideal of not pre-judging based on irrelevant criteria.
I just once again want to point out that this situation would not have even been possible (assuming it was just awkward, drunk college sex) if everyone involved had left their pants in the upright and zipped positions. (As clarification for those who will be willfully obtuse *coughanamikacough* as to what I mean: obviously if Parker did rape the girl, her actions would not have necessarily mattered and she almost certainly would have been raped anyway. If this whole case, however, was built on a lie she told, she certainly bears a lot of responsibility for what happened.)
It’s rather funny how it’s difficult to get evidence of a guy’s bodily fluids if the guy is not in the habit of releasing said bodily fluids with all and sundry, drunk or sober. And it’s hilarious how women can avoid feeling like they’ve made a terrible mistake sleeping with someone by – wait for it – not sleeping with anyone before the ring is on the finger and “I do’s” have been said.
I’m telling you McCain…these young men need to start filing counter charges of rape when they are accused. If both parties are drunk, then neither party can consent and both are guilty of rape. PERIOD. Like I said before, if these college girls want equality so bad, give it to them.
[…] TOM: Campus Rape Culture and Alcohol… […]
“sounds consistent with consensual sex.”
Maybe it was the sound of a flounder being slapped against a naugahide sofa. Whenever I hear that I think “Aha! The sounds of consensual sex!”
What she said.
The activists apparently believe that the standard for a criminal conviction, “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” is simply wrong, at least when it comes to rape trials.
Well, that was pretty much Mike McQueary’s evidence against Jerry Sandusky. That was one of the three counts on which Mr Sandusky was acquitted.
In this case the guy entered the girl’s (unlocked) dorm room in the middle of the night. Nobody disputed that. It’s what happened after that is contentious. If you were to argue for counter charges of rape in this situation, you must be a very very sick self-hating woman with some real issues to deal with.
Our host quoted:
The problem with the lovely Miss Childress’ statement is that, if a credible accusation has been made, to law enforcement, the accused will be arrested, and while he might be freed on bail, the conditions of bail will be such that he would be restricted from campus anyway; Dartmouth needn’t take any action at all.
Miss Childress’ statement, then, isn’t one about safety on campus, but on imposing a punishment on someone who was either acquitted, as in the case at hand, or against whom there was so little evidence that the charges were either dropped, or never filed in the first place.
So, drunk women lose the power to consent but drunk men do not? Why are you such a sexist bigot?
Humor the insane and what you get is more insanity.
bet0001970 is offering genuine equality to feminists, as in rights AND responsibilities.
Not the faux equality you and your peers in the feminist and communist (but I repeat myself) groups offer: all of the rights, none of the responsibility, and all of the blame on someone else.
The goal appears to be a campus free of straight males.
I was tempted to amend that to “a campus free of straight alpha males,” but that’s incorrect: the real man is not a rapist. There may be some males, and not alpha males, who are rapists, but they are pathetic excuses for human beings who think that they can prove how tough they are by raping and terrorizing women half their sizes.
Well, not exactly; if both parties are too intoxicated to consent, but neither party resists, then there is a diminished capacity problem involved as well. In football, we’d call them offsetting personal fouls, and the down doesn’t count.
Whatever the law is or should be, there are social rules about such things; gentlemen don’t take advantage of a woman’s incapacity, or false sense of well-being and euphoria, either. The end.
There are women willing enough without that in the mix, and if it’s the only way you can get the one you want, you aren’t good enough.
This is not the world I expect any daughter of mine to encounter (and would receive counsel accordingly) , but it is the one I expect my son to create and reside in: ITS A VALUE.
From the Philadephia Story:
Looking at Mike all the time during the explanation, Tracy
is astonished and suddenly turns on him – angrily demanding to know why he
didn’t advance on her. He replies that he didn’t want to take advantage of
her when she was drunk:
Tracy: Why? Was I so unattractive, so distant, so
forbidding, or something – that – ?
George: Well, this is fine talk, too.
Tracy: I’m asking a question.
Mike: You were extremely attractive, and as for distant and forbidding,
on the contrary. But you also were a little the worse – or the better – for
wine, and there are rules about that.
Tracy: Thank you, Mike. I think men are wonderful.
Perhaps it should be asked: was this a coed dorm? If it was, perhaps the lovely Miss Childress’ response, being concerned with safety and all, is to go back to completely sex-segregated dormitories.
Cue Helen Smith here: women have options, men have obligations. It is not that facts do not matter, it is that assessment of responsibility derived from those facts is contingent on the subjective preferences of the (female) accuser. Cretinettes like Ellen Goodman used to trade in the slogan “if she says no, it’s rape”. The modified slogan would be “if she says rape, it’s rape” (even if not said until weeks later).
If the brief summaries of the two women’s testimony leaves an undistorted picture, I would suggest it invalidates the criminal complaint.
Again, women have options; men have obligations.
No, they believe that an accusation with certain properties admits of no reasonable doubt. The properties in question are those congruent with their standard polemics.
The truly sad thing is that the “rape culture” alarmists WILL NOT object to the “hook up culture” and will NOT object to college students getting drunk. (And they won’t object to anything that portrays underage Freshmen girls as porn stars.) It takes a very twisted mind to find a way to view “drunk hook ups are bad” as blaming the victim, but they do that. Oh, noooooo, we can’t say that drunk hooks ups are bad, because that’s blaming the victim. Excuse me?
So we can’t warn the girls to safer behavior, we can only warn our sons to never drink to drunkedness and never “hook-up” with the girls even if they’re willing and to never trust that he won’t be victimized.
I forget why that was a bad idea. I’m sure if we started suggesting sex-segregated dorms we’d be reminded about how that, too, is blaming the victim.
Drunkeness creates vulnerability to mistake. Just as a carelessly dropped wallet is not an invitation for a finder to steal the contents, and there are rules, people rationalize. THey say finders keepers. They take what isn’t theirs. Don’t be that person, but don’t count on others not to be that person.
An alternative view is that the reasonable doubt is of no consequence because the accused can suffer no injury because he does not have properties which admit of genuine interests.
Recall Ken Burns assessment of the injuries suffered by Reade Seligman, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans (a national campaign of vilification in which The New York Times, Newsweek, the Durham Herald-Sun, and 120 faculty members at Duke were participants), hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for each family of the accused (by some accounts cleaning the Seligmans out), and 13 months of their lives. His assessment: “inconveniences”.
Exactly… but we CANT tell girls to not be that person because “rape culture.”
So we can only tell the boys to not be that person. It’s blatantly sexist and unfair but it’s reality… so boys… don’t be that person. Don’t count on girls to be decent or fair. Protect yourself.
You’re creating a hostile environment by suggesting there are trade-offs involved in certain courses of actions and that prudence is a virtue to be cultivated. In a just society, you get thrills without risks. Amanda Marcotte says so.
Again, women have options; men have obligations.
They are more sophisticated than that. They contend that separating male and female allows free rein for rowdy behavior by boys. So, they’re more worried about noise and vandalism than sexual assault.
What I am, is female who is sick and tired of these irresponsible, special little snowflakes, thinking they can get a free ride off the backs of women who know what REAL rape is. Who know what REAL harassment is. Who know what REAL inequality is. I built that road dickhead.
I am so disgusted with you and your spoiled brat brigade lecturing me on this crap. You know nothing about the oppression of women. These twats sit around complaining about shit like the objectification of females in cartoons, while children are being sold like cattle on the black market for the pleasure of perverts that they turn around and defend in thesis papers. So don’t talk to me about issues. You’re the one with issues. Now go pay your fucking child support.
Bravo!
Supposedly in animals, it’s the beta male that sneaks up and has sex with the female while the alpha males (I keep typing alfa male) are fighting it out.
You’re the one with issues. Now go pay your fucking child support.
Project much? I’m truly sorry for you, no for your child(ren).
The evidentiary standard implicit in these people’s complaints would not draw a distinction between drunken sex and any other kind. A subjective re-evaluation of an encounter would be sufficient to sustain a criminal charge. The way out would be no sexual encounters. That is virtuous (although it does require that a young man remove himself from the society of young women and young men to a degree, retaining a certain social and psychological distance). Alternatively, he could join a counter-cultural subculture, which would leave him less isolated.
Self-protection creates dilemmas, and abiding dilemmas, as women seldom find monkish types at all attractive.
I’m pretty sure I’ve got this #RapeCulture thing worked out now. If you’re a male, you are a potential rapist. No, let’s go all the way – you are a rapist. The only effective solution to this is neutering. The transgenders are certainly one step ahead of us all on this point, but there are other forms of neutering that seem just as effective – becoming a male feminist, being a liberal etc.
Where I come from, Good old Christian marriage is also considered an effective solution, without all that neutering nonsense.
Don’t feel sorry for her. I’m sure she speaks for a lot of women and men who are tired of all this bs.
Miss Pascal wrote:
And that ought to be a warning, and life lesson, taught to every young man, regardless of the situation.
Really, that’s what you take away from that?
Granted, it’s reasonable to take it personally, since it was, but try to set that aside for a moment.
My personal experiences aren’t bad ones, but I’m not blind and the ever more finely divined (this is the word I intended) evidence of oppression (because no actual oppression can be found) pisses me off because it HURTS WOMEN. The constant insistence that women/girls are victims, are never wrong, and that adult responsibility can not be expected of them, EVER, is insulting and damaging in about every way you could think of.
My mother’s generation wanted legal equality. Mine wanted respect. This one? Seems like what they want is eternal childhood.
Christofascist cisheteronormativist! I denounce you!
Miss Pascal wrote:
I’m sorry, didn’t you get the memo? Only non-Hispanic white males are ever responsible for anything.
1. The implication of these complaints is that women should hold all the cards in encounters with men instead of just half of them. The man is a pet or an employee who undertakes tasks at the woman’s direction and whose performance is evaluated by her without recourse.
2. OTOH, women in general are less attracted to agreeable men ceteris paribus. So the complainers are attempting to promote behavior by men which renders them less desirable.
3. Which suggests that the women in question compete poorly for the men they desire or are attempting to manufacture a situation which will prove an unstable equilibrium for all parties.
And men seldom find modest women attractive?
It’s not true. Actually. Granted, if one is looking for sex, one looks where it can be found. But that’s a different issue than attractiveness.
Let’s get real: the assumption seems to be that if you can get an erection, you are not so intoxicated that you have lost the power of consent. It’s only when you are so drunk that you can’t perform that you could be raped, and that leads to an entirely different set of evidentiary questions.
No. Godbag christofascist cisheteronormativist.
I humbly accept the correction.
This is funny really. The whole toxic left wing culture (hook-ups, promiscuity, abortion, sex with anything and everything) is effectively the enabler of this ridiculous #rapeculture nonsense.
A return to some simple biblical morals would do wonders in addressing this. So, yes, I am advocating a return to Christofacist cisheteronormativity. I stand, accordingly, denounced.
No, they want trade-offs expunged. (Which is childish after a fashion).
And I can see where this is heading. They won’t stop until all women are lesbians.
Yeah I pray that is the case, more likely it’s a facade and she needs to set things right at her home first before worrying about everyone else.
AMEN.