Posted on 12/07/2013 5:44:32 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Our culture has gone down a negative road on this issue for a long time, trying to punish Winston for a fairly normal (unfortunately so) college scene is not where you start drawing the line.
I read an article about a genuine rape in a high school football town, one where the girl was likely administered the date rape drug, or genuinely so drunk she could not even remember what happened, apparently several on the football team took advantage of her that night as she was dragged from plae to place. Now THAT was a horror story.
You could start there if you like.
Or you could criticize Urban Whiner for posting a rule about his team being respectful to women, then allowing his star running back to slap a woman in the face at a bar and still remain on their team.
Lots of places to start, here is likely not one of them.
Lets face the facts.
Over half of the Athletes in College have no scholastic business being there.
They are little more than hired semi-professionals.
They bring in the bucks from Alumni and sales of tickets at the door and gates of the stadiums and gymnasiums.
Most of them have been given passing grades in High School to keep them on the High School Team and the same is done at college. They have been pampered and excused all through their High School years and the girls have been rolling over for them for years.
If they are good athletes their activities will be ignored, unless they kill someone or are white a going to Duke University.
Should any of this be happening? No. but it will continue.
If we are going to arrest for rape every college guy who has had sex with a girl over the alcohol limit for legally driving, I think we will pretty well empty out the campus. Of men, anyway. There is a difference between "too buzzed to drive legally" and comatose.
It appears there is agreement between the parties that sexual intercourse occurred, with the only disagreement being whether she agreed to it at the time.
Here's my problem with that: How is it possible in such a case to determine guilt by the appropriate legal standard, which is "beyond reasonable doubt?" He has a story, she has a story. Is there any particular reason to believe one over the other, except for ideological dogma?
Should we base a conviction simply on who tells a better story? Haven't we all known people who can lie very believably and others who in a stress situation can't tell the truth effectively?
The subtext of this entire hooha is, "Women don't lie."
Which is of course flatly untrue. Some women lie, about all sorts of things, just like some men do.
Like I said, or tried to say, my question isn’t necessarily about rape but about the admitted behavior of sex with a stranger. Shouldn’t there be a value judgement and consequences placed upon such immorality
..........................................................
To which person? To Winston or to the girl he took to his apartment.
You and I have placed a value judgement on both of them I am sure.
The college is more interested in winning games and seeing this story become old news than any value judgement they should make.
There is an old saying about men. A stiff penis has no conscience. I suppose now it should read that a woman with two drinks in her has none either until the next day.
See my post 64.
I acknowledged that notion at the beginning, and for some reason the thread has taken on the “should he be prosecuted” tone.
My intent was to discuss whether his coach and the team should hold him accountable for his bad behavior. I think he should be accountable; whether he committed a CRIME is one thing....but whether he acted ethically is another. I think ethical behavior is laudable and unethical behavior ought to be punished, regardless of whether it is “criminal”.
I am a bit sad to see the idea of relativistic morality has such a foothold among some here on Free Republic.
Either his behavior was bad or good—and it matters not whether this kid is a popular football player with lots of girls chasing him or if he is a lab assistant in the chemistry department with only the Omega Moos interested in him. (reference to the film “Revenge of the Nerds”)
What do you think he did that was unethical?
By his story he picked up a slightly-drunk chick at a bar, took her back to his place and had consensual sex with her. Exactly the same thing was probably done by some hundreds or thousands of other young men at that college the same night.
Now she claims the sex wasn’t consensual. To my mind it’s hard to arrive at “beyond reasonable doubt” in such a situation. I assume you agree.
Is there some reason team or college disciplinary action should operate on a greatly lower standard of proof? The question is not the degree of unethicalness he performed, it’s whether he did anything wrong at all. And there is little or no evidence that he did, given the existing standard of behavior at colleges.
Now I am personally very weird and don’t think either young men or women should be running around having sex outside of marriage. But it would be really unreasonable to apply that standard to demonstrate he acted unethically.
Ont thing I find very weird is that when young men and women get drunk together and have sex, the female is considered incapable and not responsible for her behavior. Meanwhile the possibly even more drunk guy is held fully responsible legally for his behavior.
Accountable for what? Chasing chicks?
That question makes little sense. First you have to know what lines to even draw. This goes to your assertion of condoning this or that. Your assumpton of what happened isn't even close to what likely happened, therefore you have no standing to condone or condemn. You can't even tell the difference between the notion of legally drunk for purposes of driving and drunk beyond memory or inhaibitions - so YOU my friend have ZERO standing to draw these lines.
Now I don't know where the line is in college football, but I know that you and I are not the ones to draw it. If you don't like it, don't watch. That is the only line you can draw.
But I do know this, you damned sure don't draw the line in such a way that every athlete who gets ACCUSED of sexual assault gets disqualified. Can't you see the problem with that? Can't you see that in the college culture of today, the QB was not likely even the instigator, let alone someone guilty of a crime?
It seems to me that So Lo Freeper wants to punish Winston for a 50 years cultural slide that he merely is part of, but did not start and is not responsible for having created - merely on the highly questionable hearsay of someone who seems to be as immersed in this culture, if not more, than Winston himself.
Some actions, most actions in fact, are neither exemplary nor punishable - they are just actions, often unsavory, that happen in the course of living ones life. That’s what this was IMO.
Medical personnel said she exhibited all of the signs of Rohypnol, the date-rape drug. Police never tested her blood for Rohypnol.
That's a hateful and absurd straw argument. And frankly, I resent it. You friend simply stepped into a big pile of do do because you didn't understand this case or the human physiology of drinking, and you thought one thing while the reality was another, and now you're trying to shift blame to us. NOT HAVING IT.
What would you do? Change a man's life forever because of a specious accusation? Is that YOUR idea of moral superiority? Gee, nothing could go wrong with that (except dictatorial government, is that what YOU want?????)
What you said is not consistent with what the SA said about the date rape drug. It is also not consistent with the reports of her involvment with the twitter phenomenon #cleatchaser either.
Obviously, if there was evidence of Rohypnol in the case, then that would change the facts on the ground.
Her blood was not tested for rohypnol (roofies), which would account for her loss of memory and disorientation, and similar actions without being drunk.
"This case was analyzed for the following: amphetamines, antidepressants, antihistamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, carisoprodol, cocaine, GHB, methadone, opiates, oxycodone, propoxyphene, and other drugs."
There are two kinds of date rape drugs. GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid), for which they tested, and benzodiazepines (such as flunitrazepam, also known as Rohypnol or "roofies"). Rophynol requires a separate toxicology test. There's no indication she was tested for roofies.
“Her blood was not tested for rohypnol (roofies), which would account for her loss of memory and disorientation, and similar actions without being drunk.”
Page 57 of the police report states:
“This case was analyzed for the following: amphetamines, antidepressants, antihistamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cannabinoids, carisoprodol, cocaine, GHB, methadone, opiates, oxycodone, propoxyphene, and other drugs.”
Rohypnol is a benzodiazepine, and that definitely was tested for per the police report.
As mentioned, a test of the blood sample also was done at the University of Florida and per notes in the State’s Attorney’s report it included 172 drugs that could cause memory loss, blackouts etc and all came back negative. I didn’t look for a breakdown of the drugs in the UF test, but it’s hard to believe they’d test that many drugs and not test for one of the most common date rape drugs (roofies).
Of course maybe I missed something, do you have something that indicates roofies weren’t tested for?
According to the AMA when a “baseline” for drunk driving was established, the medical consensus was that it took a level of 0.15ml/liter (0.15% for those in Rio Linda) for someone to be legally drunk.
Once the MADD gang and lawyers got involved, the “intoxicated” level has been forced down, repeatedly. There’s a major drop in DUI convictions, the arbitrary level is lowered, then lo and behold, a huge spike in DUI driving.
From 0.15, to 0.10, to 0.08, and now some jurisdictions are trying for 0.05, which is one third of what your local doctor thought it should be 20 years ago. A 200 pound man is playing with fire if he has 2 glasses of wine with dinner at the last level illustrated.
Follow the money, FRiend...
And there is NO way that girl was stupefied drunk. She wanted to play, and she wanted him to pay. End of story.
The article says "investigators estimated it to be about 0.10 percent at the time of the incident". The legal driving level is 0.08, which is the level of intoxication where, for most people, their motor skills and judgement are impaired enough that they should not be operating a car. This does NOT mean she was so drunk that she could not be held responsible for her decisions.
Historically, the ONLY thing that has EVER worked has been holding the woman responsible for putting herself in a compromising position. Feminists have railed against this as "slut shaming", and have advanced the position for allowing women to be as drunk as they want, and behave as badly as they want, while insisting that all men everywhere are responsible for ensuring that nothing results that the woman would be upset about later. Even if the man involved is just as drunk.
Screw that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.