"Drunk means no," said the district attorney.
Does drunk only mean no if the victim/survivor is/was non-male?
If drunk means no because the person is unable to consent or be responsible for hirself, then how can someone be sent to prison for a felony committed when s/he was drunk?
On campuses across this country, Person A (whether student, faculty, staff, or administrators) often feels that the best way for Person A to get sex is to become drunk (regardless of hir gender). And yet we continue to send the message that "drunk means no."
Is "drunk means no" perhaps already a relic of the gender-binary past? Within a few years, will we not see a really terrifying Supreme Court case in which 1) blame is assigned based on gender, but 2) the genders of the plaintiff and defendant have not been--or cannot be--assigned?
How is it going to turn out?
Are there any good answers?
. . . keeping in mind how much CMers drink?
or how likely it is that a teenage girl's evening goal is to "get really drunk and make out with someone"?
or how common it is that any/every/un-gendered student today will regularly have sex yet say something like, "We don't really like each other in person, sober.... we literally can't sit down and have coffee"?
Should we be sending a student to prison because s/he got drunk and had sex?
Does drunk really only mean no at Stanford/Harvard/Princeton/Yale or when big money is involved?
Because on almost any campus (below the Mason-Dixon, anyway), drunk not only doesn't mean no, it is deemed the best way to get sex by many many many many self-determining agents regardless of gender.
Struggling with this on my campus.
Southern Bubba, Ph.D.