They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. "I basically said, 'No, I don’t want to have sex with you.' And then he said, 'OK, that’s fine' and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no." (...) Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped.
Will goes on to say that any number of rapes is too much but that is not the issue:
Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.
UltraViolet contends Will's column mocks survivors of rape and implies that women on campus want to say they have been raped in order to access the “special privileges” conferred to survivors. The group plans to follow up on the petition with online ads that will be rolled out later this week.