Sex While Intoxicated

[Strident]

My 2 cents worth :

Three relevant legal principles :
a) innocent until proven guilty
b) guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
c)  intent (i.e. If you act in good faith, reasonably believing your actions to be within the law you are innocent.)

Taking these three things into account.. If two moderately drunk individuals engage in what appears to be consensual sexual activity, there is no physical evidence of actual assault, and they have differing accounts of what happened the following morning, there are simply no circumstances I can see securing a safe conviction on the three criteria above.

Short of the  undesirable option of CCTV recording every moment of our private lives (which even then wouldn't allow us to read people's thoughts) we have to accept there is a point where the legal protection ends and personal ethics of trust begins.

There are many things which are deeply immoral but not illegal. Adultery for example. Or deliberately marrying someone you have no feelings for, with the pre-meditated intention of divorcing them to take half their wealth.

I'm of the view that the man in the story was not acting like a gentleman and his behaviour was immoral. But not illegal.

If someone is debilitated by alcohol (or by anything else) such that it is obvious to any reasonable person that they cannot consent (unconscious or semi conscious) then there may be a case to answer.

However,  that's far from the case in the example given. The woman even asked if he had a condom. I'd say that sounds like someone in a mental state to consider their actions and consequences.


It's quite possible this woman would not have consented to sex if she had been sober,  but it seems quite reasonable to believe that she did while drunk.

The idea that the guy should have to consider hypotheticals of whether she would have consented while sober is absurd, because, on that view, why stop at alcohol? Maybe she only consented because she broke up with her BF last week and was on the rebound....or a dozen other reasons.

It's neither possible, nor desirable for the legal system to try and pick over the details of such a situation.

I say again... That doesn't mean what he did wasn't immoral or that it was OK. Just my view... Others may differ.

[AndyZ]

Thank you, I don't know the exact numbers by heart, not being an American. :P

But that basically support what I said earlier: Ban the alcohol. That's the real problem here. I'm not saying that sexual assault of someone under the influence of any stimulant/depressant isn't an issue elsewhere, but this particular question is based around a typical college scenario. I genuinely find it alarming that while she was apparently under the age of 18, no one is batting an eye at the fact that she was this drunk. How is breaking the law not considered an offense? Why does the law not apply to college?

Again, I'm not American, but in the country where I live you would have been thrown if you had been caught drinking like at an educational institution. Especially if you were also under the legal age-limit.

(I hope I worded all of that correctly. Feeling a little dizzy today.)

The trouble with banning things is that it doesn't really work in America.  We tried banning alcohol 100 years ago, and not only did alcohol use increase, but crime lords made inordinate amounts of money off of it.  Similarly, banning guns in an area actually causes murders to increase (because the criminals know that the law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves) and illegal drug use is all over the place.  One of the common arguments for decriminalizing various illegal drugs is because they're getting around anyway and at least the government can then regulate it.

We even have some groups that consider it a point of pride to be arrested for something that is considered to be an unjust law.

As a result, law enforcement often gets rather selective on where they want to crack down.  There have been recent cases where someone gets prosecuted for something that the vast majority of people do, and the critics are quick to point out how it's only the person in power's political enemies who get punished.

In my opinion, we already have too many laws and not enough ability to enforce them all.

I say again... That doesn't mean what he did wasn't immoral or that it was OK. Just my view... Others may differ.

Not much I can debate or argue except the point I'm leaving in.

I don't think we really want to get into the moral and ethical issues and should just stick to what we have legally for this one.  We can argue all day on whether drinking or premarital sex or wrong to begin with, and it's just going to vary based on religions and social mores.

So I agree to stick to legal for this one, and not attempting to pass moral judgments ^_^

[Nachtmahr]

The trouble with banning things is that it doesn't really work in America.  We tried banning alcohol 100 years ago, and not only did alcohol use increase, but crime lords made inordinate amounts of money off of it.  Similarly, banning guns in an area actually causes murders to increase (because the criminals know that the law-abiding citizens can't defend themselves) and illegal drug use is all over the place.  One of the common arguments for decriminalizing various illegal drugs is because they're getting around anyway and at least the government can then regulate it.

We even have some groups that consider it a point of pride to be arrested for something that is considered to be an unjust law.

As a result, law enforcement often gets rather selective on where they want to crack down.  There have been recent cases where someone gets prosecuted for something that the vast majority of people do, and the critics are quick to point out how it's only the person in power's political enemies who get punished.

In my opinion, we already have too many laws and not enough ability to enforce them all.

No, you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about a total ban on alcohol - I'm talking about colleges banning alcohol. It's not a matter of making new laws, it's a matter of the institutions officials turning a blind eye to the fact that a girl under the age of 18 (according to the statements shown before) drinking an obscene amount of alcohol. That on it's own is not only illegal, but completely indefensible from an ethical standpoint, considering that these institutions should be taking it upon themselves to prevent these youths from drinking on the premise. It's against the law, so how is it not against college rules? Why is it not a concern that this 16-17 year old girl had access to large amount of alcohol with no supervision whatsoever?

I'm not talking about banning alcohol throughout all of America, I'm talking about the colleges enforcing a no-drinking policy, if not across the board then at least for those not of legal age to consume alcohol. Being in the jaded position of living in a country where this sort of thing is cracked down on pretty hard I can't help but feel like the staff are simply just being irresponsible by not monitoring the students, but instead allowing rampant alcohol-abuse (I use the word abuse because let's face it: Drinking can be fun, but binge-drinking is dangerous) and shifting the blame of the outcome on the students instead of considering it their personal responsibility to stop situations like this from happening.

I'm almost certain they wouldn't turn a blind eye to someone using cocaine or cannabis those being some of the most common and 'fairly' non-dangerous recreational drugs around. (There is no real argument to be made for those to be considerably more dangerous than alcohol after all. Especially not cannabis.) Hell, I'm going to assume they probably have a ban on tobacco-smoking!

I just cannot fathom how anyone would think it's fine to have rampant, unregulated alcohol-abuse going on, but what for all intents and purposes appears to be consensual sex is going to get someone kicked out. How do the college officials not have any responsibility in this?

[Cycle]

If you want to stick to only legal, then the result is the right one.

1.  John didn't file a complaint, so Jane cannot be expelled.  End of that discussion.

2.  Jane filed a complaint.  So we begin the analysis. 

• Did he initiate the sexual contact?  Yes, since he told her go "get the fuck back here" after her friends walked her back to her room. 
  
  
• Next, did she consent?  It appears she did, yes. 
  
  
• Next, was that consent valid?  She was intoxicated to the point of vomiting just before sex occurred, so her consent is not valid--i.e., impairment by alcohol. 
  
  
• John's defense:  it was the most drunk I have ever been.  This is not a recognized defense under the university's rules. 
  
  
• Conclusion:  he committed sexual assault under the university's rules and the expulsion was proper.

[Nachtmahr]

Asking her to come back cannot possibly be considered 'initiating sexual contact'. If that was all it took, you could accuse someone of sexual assault if they merely ask you whether you would like to come back to their place, or any other location for that matter. She had every opportunity to refuse, there was no force involved and apart from a no doubt horrible hangover she sustained no physical or psychological trauma. As a matter of fact, she can barely recall the event, and from what she can remember she at no point states that she was being forced to do anything she did not want to do.

Was the consent valid? Well, if intoxication means that her consent is invalid it's unreasonable to claim that John should have been able to tell considering how drunk he was himself. For all intents and purposes his own consent was not valid either, he did not file a complaint however because he was aware the following day that he had consented, despite impaired judgment.

In other words, the only reason that John is now in an unfavorable position is because the rules make it so that anyone who was drunk and had sex can file a complaint against their partner, claiming to have been impaired, and the institution will effectively have no choice but to kick out the one whom the complaint was filed against. And we can't just ignore the fact that Jane was underage and not legally allowed to drink, and as such her actions should be the institutions responsibility since they apparently do not have the necessary resources to stop blatant alcohol abuse.

But most of all I'd like to stick to my first point: 'Get the fuck back here' can not under any circumstances be considered 'initiating sexual contact'.

[kylie]

     I haven't read the article. Just from the texts Cycle posted, if I were on a jury, I'd have to at least wonder if she wasn't positively interested in doing him at the time.  But my, the guy sure did land himself in a fix.

    Does it follow that laws should be structured so that no one can be deemed culpable (or even violated perhaps) if the alleged victim, or both parties, are somewhat intoxicated but not' passing out?  Hardly.  I think prosecutors should do what they often do, and look at the details of the case to decide if they think there was an attack.

     And I can't help noticing, Andy foremost at least, repeatedly suggesting that men are so oppressed and cornered without any sort of serious comparative context that even really considers how women are often treated and silenced if not outright ridiculed in rape/assault cases. Nor even some research sources to positively support all the sweeping claims with some thorough modeling or ethnography, such as you will find in women's studies often I expect if you look.  I really think you are coming at this with a foregone conclusion about things much more shotgun than what the thread claimed to cover. Basically trying to build a mountain of systemic injustice, supposedly privileging women who lots of work argues are actually suffering often enough, from a relative molehill of a case.

So, I can grant you some doubt about the decision of this particular case while generally holding your recommendations and generalizations quite suspect.

[Nachtmahr]

     I haven't read the article. Just from the texts Cycle posted, if I were on a jury, I'd have to at least wonder if she wasn't positively interested in doing him at the time.  But my, the guy sure did land himself in a fix.

    Does it follow that laws should be structured so that no one can be deemed culpable (or even violated perhaps) if the alleged victim, or both parties, are somewhat intoxicated but not' passing out?  Hardly.  I think prosecutors should do what they often do, and look at the details of the case to decide if they think there was an attack.

     And I can't help noticing, Andy foremost at least, repeatedly suggesting that men are so oppressed and cornered without any sort of serious comparative context that even really considers how women are often treated and silenced if not outright ridiculed in rape/assault cases. Nor even some research sources to positively support all the sweeping claims with some thorough modeling or ethnography, such as you will find in women's studies often I expect if you look.  I really think you are coming at this with a foregone conclusion about things much more shotgun than what the thread claimed to cover. Basically trying to build a mountain of systemic injustice, supposedly privileging women who lots of work argues are actually suffering often enough, from a relative molehill of a case.

So, I can grant you some doubt about the decision of this particular case while generally holding your recommendations and generalizations quite suspect.

While there are issues in which the outcome is often predetermined in favor of a female over a male, as shown in some of the scandalous false-rape cases we've seen blossoming these past few years, I persona''y have to agree with Kylie on this. There seems to be a certain amount of unsubstantiated bias behind a lot of the arguments you've posed, Andy, and before I have the same amount of proof there is for female or LGBT oppression, I can't get behind the idea of cis-male 'oppression'. Oppression is of course a very strong word to use here, but there are a lot fallacies, half-truths and unsubstantiated arguments being thrown out at the moment, you repeatedly challenging Pumpking Seeds on whether or not she thinks it's a sexual invitation to be invited to be invited to someones home, when that question is clearly loaded, and isn't at all a 'yes/no'-thing.

[Valthazar]

I genuinely find it alarming that while she was apparently under the age of 18, no one is batting an eye at the fact that she was this drunk. How is breaking the law not considered an offense? Why does the law not apply to college?

This was what I was saying earlier.  If the law was actually followed, this idea of campus rape culture wouldn't exist.  Even the hook up culture likely wouldn't be as prominent since hooking up is heavily associated with intoxication.  But no one dares challenge this culture in a meaningful way beyond some silly AlcoholEdu courses.

[Cycle]

But most of all I'd like to stick to my first point: 'Get the fuck back here' can not under any circumstances be considered 'initiating sexual contact'.

Obviously the university's adjudicator disagrees with you. 

And so do I.

[AndyZ]

Cycle, what I mean by legal instead of moral is whether we should legally prosecute something, not whether the current laws match up with it.  I can list quite a few laws on the books of various countries which I think shouldn't be there.  Apologies for not making that clear.

The way it's currently written seems to imply that a drunk woman can invite me to her place and therefore doesn't have to worry about giving consent just because she initiated by inviting me to her place, and if I took off all her clothes and had sex with her while she was unresponsive, no consent on her part is required because she let he through the threshold.

I don't know whether or not you'd find this acceptable, or if that would change if I was drunk instead of sober.

     I haven't read the article. Just from the texts Cycle posted, if I were on a jury, I'd have to at least wonder if she wasn't positively interested in doing him at the time.  But my, the guy sure did land himself in a fix.

    Does it follow that laws should be structured so that no one can be deemed culpable (or even violated perhaps) if the alleged victim, or both parties, are somewhat intoxicated but not' passing out?  Hardly.  I think prosecutors should do what they often do, and look at the details of the case to decide if they think there was an attack.

     And I can't help noticing, Andy foremost at least, repeatedly suggesting that men are so oppressed and cornered without any sort of serious comparative context that even really considers how women are often treated and silenced if not outright ridiculed in rape/assault cases. Nor even some research sources to positively support all the sweeping claims with some thorough modeling or ethnography, such as you will find in women's studies often I expect if you look.  I really think you are coming at this with a foregone conclusion about things much more shotgun than what the thread claimed to cover. Basically trying to build a mountain of systemic injustice, supposedly privileging women who lots of work argues are actually suffering often enough, from a relative molehill of a case.

So, I can grant you some doubt about the decision of this particular case while generally holding your recommendations and generalizations quite suspect.

I want to apologize if I've given you the impression that I believe that, on a whole, men are more oppressed than women.  We live in an age saturated by various inequalities, and the best thing we can do is find all of them and work on stamping them out.

I've personally never liked the idea that we try to figure out which one has it worse and then only focus on that one.  It's always seemed to fly directly in the face of justice and equality for me.

Asking her to come back cannot possibly be considered 'initiating sexual contact'. If that was all it took, you could accuse someone of sexual assault if they merely ask you whether you would like to come back to their place, or any other location for that matter. She had every opportunity to refuse, there was no force involved and apart from a no doubt horrible hangover she sustained no physical or psychological trauma. As a matter of fact, she can barely recall the event, and from what she can remember she at no point states that she was being forced to do anything she did not want to do.

(snip)

But most of all I'd like to stick to my first point: 'Get the fuck back here' can not under any circumstances be considered 'initiating sexual contact'.

you repeatedly challenging Pumpking Seeds on whether or not she thinks it's a sexual invitation to be invited to be invited to someones home, when that question is clearly loaded, and isn't at all a 'yes/no'-thing.

You seem to contradict yourself here.  Could I ask you to clarify?

[Cycle]

The way it's currently written seems to imply that a drunk woman can invite me to her place and therefore doesn't have to worry about giving consent just because she initiated by inviting me to her place, and if I took off all her clothes and had sex with her while she was unresponsive, no consent on her part is required because she let he through the threshold.

Sorry, which law are you referring to?

[Nachtmahr]

This was what I was saying earlier.  If the law was actually followed, this idea of campus rape culture wouldn't exist.  Even the hook up culture likely wouldn't be as prominent since hooking up is heavily associated with intoxication.  But no one dares challenge this culture in a meaningful way beyond some silly AlcoholEdu courses.

Well, that's what I find so disturbing about all of this. I mean, from my perspective this just seems ludicrous and extremely irresponsible. Form an outside perspective I can say that yes: A lot of people, myself included, think of parties, sex and alcohol when someone talks about college. As a European I can say that this youth culture is very much feeding the negative American stereotypes. Dorm-room porn and binge-drinking are the first things I associate with college, not education.

[Oniya]

Out of curiosity, I went off looking for my own alma mater's policy on alcohol consumption and the penalties for violating that policy:


From the current Student Handbook:

The College will take such actions as are necessary to maintain order in College housing and throughout the campus and reserves the right to exclude those who are interfering with the College’s educational mission.  The Student Life Office reserves the right to discipline a student who is disrupting the community by dismissing the student from College housing, sanctioning the student appropriately, referring the matter to the Honor or Judicial Systems as they are defined in the College’s Student Handbook or referring the matter to the College administration.

Prohibited conduct for which a student is subject to disciplinary action under this Policy includes by way of illustration, but is not limited to:

    Violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding the possession and consumption of alcohol.
        No person under the age of 21 may purchase or possess any alcoholic beverage.
        Consuming or carrying alcoholic beverages in any type of open container in the hallways or other public areas.

(formatting mine) So, yes, a student could get kicked out of campus housing (as one possible sanction) if simply caught drinking under-age.

[AndyZ]

Sorry, which law are you referring to?

Okay, let me break it down and make sure I understand.

If you want to stick to only legal, then the result is the right one.

1.  John didn't file a complaint, so Jane cannot be expelled.  End of that discussion.

2.  Jane filed a complaint.  So we begin the analysis. 

• Did he initiate the sexual contact?  Yes, since he told her go "get the fuck back here" after her friends walked her back to her room. 
  
  
• Next, did she consent?  It appears she did, yes. 
  
  
• Next, was that consent valid?  She was intoxicated to the point of vomiting just before sex occurred, so her consent is not valid--i.e., impairment by alcohol. 
  
  
• John's defense:  it was the most drunk I have ever been.  This is not a recognized defense under the university's rules. 
  
  
• Conclusion:  he committed sexual assault under the university's rules and the expulsion was proper.

Only the one who initiated the sexual contact can be blamed, and inviting someone to your place counts as initiating sexual contact, right?

[Nachtmahr]

The way it's currently written seems to imply that a drunk woman can invite me to her place and therefore doesn't have to worry about giving consent just because she initiated by inviting me to her place, and if I took off all her clothes and had sex with her while she was unresponsive, no consent on her part is required because she let he through the threshold.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're getting at here. A drunk woman can invite you to her home, so that she doesn't need to give consent, because she initiated sex by inviting you to her home - And if you then went on to rape her (Having sex while she is unresponsive, presumably passed out) that would be fine because she let you in?

I'm going to have to ask the same question: What law is this?

I've personally never liked the idea that we try to figure out which one has it worse and then only focus on that one.  It's always seemed to fly directly in the face of justice and equality for me.

I'm sorry, but here I'll have to disagree with you once more. Nothing would ever be done if it all had to happen simultaneously. The only way to achieve any results is to reach for the ones in most dire need of help, and pull them up towards to top. Some matters are more important than others when it comes to equality.

You seem to contradict yourself here.  Could I ask you to clarify?

I'm not sure how I'm contradicting myself. I find it uncomfortable and inappropriate that you repeatedly directly challenged Pumpkin Seeds with a (seemingly) loaded question, asking for a blanket-answer to what is a very situational and nuanced question.

[AndyZ]

If we go by the concept that only one person is to blame and that whoever initiates sexual contact is at fault, we must determine who initiated sexual contact.

Cycle has already stated that it's whoever invites whom to their place.  I think Pumpkin has, but I can't be certain. 

Asking her to come back cannot possibly be considered 'initiating sexual contact'. If that was all it took, you could accuse someone of sexual assault if they merely ask you whether you would like to come back to their place, or any other location for that matter.

Unless I'm very wrong, you likewise do not agree, with more or less the exact same example I gave.  I just put more detail into mine.  It may seem like a loaded question, but you were able very easily to give a blanket negation, not once but twice in your post.

But most of all I'd like to stick to my first point: 'Get the fuck back here' can not under any circumstances be considered 'initiating sexual contact'.

So if we don't consider that the point of initiating sexual contact, then when?

If we use penetration and who took the initiative therein, then the man is at fault with missionary style because he got on her and the woman is at fault with cowgirl style because she got on him.  This doesn't seem any better to me than the other example, but much more of an arbitrary way of deciding blame.  Similarly, two gay men could theoretically be decided based on which one first entered the other's butt, or which lesbian first initiated cunnilingus or a number of other ways, but I don't like the ideas.

Personally, I'm not really convinced that we can decide that a single person is wholly responsible for initiating sexual contact, unless one of them is completely insensate.  If they're animate enough to do stupid things, it seems best to either punish both or neither.

[Cycle]

Only the one who initiated the sexual contact can be blamed, and inviting someone to your place counts as initiating sexual contact, right?

Which law are we talking about?  I feel like this conversation drifts all over...

And you misinterpreted what I said.  But answer my question please.  Which law?

[AndyZ]

The one where John was found guilty and expelled.

I very well did misinterpret, which is why I try to clarify things with questions, not because I'm trying to force people into leading issues.  But I think you already know that.

[Cycle]

You mean Occidental's policies on sexual misconduct?

[Cycle]

So here is the "law" AndyZ is referring to:



As I read it, it applies under the facts set forth in the investigator's report:  i.e. John had sexual intercourse with Jane without effective consent.

As for the initiating issue, that appears to not even be an element.  So the analysis is even simpler.

[AndyZ]

That'd be why I couldn't find it.  Sorry.

Okay, if initiating isn't an issue, it throws out a lot of the other concerns I had.

Isn't she also confessing to being guilty as well, though, since she performed oral sex on him and he wasn't able to give consent?

[Nachtmahr]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to declare myself out. Andy, I can't help but feel like you're only reading what others are posting with one eye open, and you're taking a lot of statements out of context, generalizing and deflecting valid questions pertaining to your own views. It's feels more like you're actively trying to defend your views on this rather than discuss it.

That will be my last involvement in this thread.

[Remiel]

If you want to stick to only legal, then the result is the right one.

1.  John didn't file a complaint, so Jane cannot be expelled.  End of that discussion.

2.  Jane filed a complaint.  So we begin the analysis. 

• Did he initiate the sexual contact?  Yes, since he told her go "get the fuck back here" after her friends walked her back to her room. 
  
  
• Next, did she consent?  It appears she did, yes. 
  
  
• Next, was that consent valid?  She was intoxicated to the point of vomiting just before sex occurred, so her consent is not valid--i.e., impairment by alcohol. 
  
  
• John's defense:  it was the most drunk I have ever been.  This is not a recognized defense under the university's rules. 
  
  
• Conclusion:  he committed sexual assault under the university's rules and the expulsion was proper.

It's very difficult to argue with that logic.  Except...

1.  John didn't file a complaint, so Jane cannot be expelled.  End of that discussion.

I believe this is where the fallacy occurs.    A student can still be expelled for violating a university's rules governing conduct and behavior, even if no one files a complaint.  A sexual assault can still occur, even if the victim is not traumatized or chooses not to press charges.

In this case, it seems incongruous to assert one set of standards on the male and another on the female.  I think it's safe to make the claim that both students in this case were at roughly similar levels of inebriation.  Thus, it follows that either both parties were capable of consent, or neither were.    If both were capable of consent, then this was an act of consensual sex and no sexual assault occurred--and thus neither should have been expelled.  If neither were capable of consent, then both parties essentially committed sexual assault against the other--and, logically, both should have been expelled.

My personal opinion is that both were capable of consent.  I do not believe that one's personality changes fundamentally when one is intoxicated.   Yes, alcohol does impair judgment, and can impede decision-making abilities.   But, as others have pointed out, "Jane" had enough mental acuity to ask "John" if he had a condom (indicating awareness of potential consequences), and she returned to his dorm room voluntarily.  She was not drugged; she was not dragged into his bedroom against her will.   There is no evidence indicating any form of coercion other than the text John sent saying "get the fuck back here". 

There is a reason that there is a minimum drinking age (21 or 18, depending on your country).  Alcohol makes people stupid.  They should have known this before they started drinking.

[Sethala]

It's very difficult to argue with that logic.  Except...

I believe this is where the fallacy occurs.    A student can still be expelled for violating a university's rules governing conduct and behavior, even if no one files a complaint.  A sexual assault can still occur, even if the victim is not traumatized or chooses not to press charges.

In this case, it seems incongruous to assert one set of standards on the male and another on the female.  I think it's safe to make the claim that both students in this case were at roughly similar levels of inebriation.  Thus, it follows that either both parties were capable of consent, or neither were.    If both were capable of consent, then this was an act of consensual sex and no sexual assault occurred--and thus neither should have been expelled.  If neither were capable of consent, then both parties essentially committed sexual assault against the other--and, logically, both should have been expelled.

My personal opinion is that both were capable of consent.  I do not believe that one's personality changes fundamentally when one is intoxicated.   Yes, alcohol does impair judgment, and can impede decision-making abilities.   But, as others have pointed out, "Jane" had enough mental acuity to ask "John" if he had a condom (indicating awareness of potential consequences), and she returned to his dorm room voluntarily.  She was not drugged; she was not dragged into his bedroom against her will.   There is no evidence indicating any form of coercion other than the text John sent saying "get the fuck back here". 

There is a reason that there is a minimum drinking age (21 or 18, depending on your country).  Alcohol makes people stupid.  They should have known this before they started drinking.

I think I agree with this completely, but I want to expand on it a bit.  In arguments like this, what we often run into problems with is actually having multiple different arguments, and people swapping between those arguments as they read and post.  So, I'd like to break it down into what I think are the two major component arguments to this issue:

First, does it matter if one person made a complaint and the other didn't if both were equally guilty?  Specifically, say that both John and Jane independantly decided that what the other did was sexual assault, and complained.  Would it be fair to discipline them both equally?

Second, when determining sexual assault, does giving consent while drunk count as giving consent, and does it matter if the person you're consenting to is also drunk?

[Cycle]

I believe this is where the fallacy occurs.    A student can still be expelled for violating a university's rules governing conduct and behavior, even if no one files a complaint.  A sexual assault can still occur, even if the victim is not traumatized or chooses not to press charges.

Good point, Remiel.  Indeed, I think that is the basis of John's civil action against Occidental:  i.e., why was he expelled and not Jane, when both violated the same rule.

If I gave this more thought, I think I would probably end up voting for expelling both.  But I think I've put enough thought into this already...

Back to smexy RPs.  ;)