As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt.
Oh really? If the female has had a drink and says “no” but the guy disregards that “because she is intoxicated and can’t reason properly” then that really means that she meant to say “yes” right?
So if a male forces himself upon her she is to be considered equally as guilty because she was not completely sober when she refused his advances for sex? Or maybe she is equally as guilty because when intoxicated at 5’ 6” and 125Lbs she was unable to fight off her 5’ 11’ 210lb attacker? (which of course she could have done if sober?)
What exactly is the reason why the female having alcohol in her bloodstream negates her right to say no to a sexual advance Mr. Taranto?