Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1532, 13 Jul 17

90% of Sexual Assault Accusations in College Because “We were both drunk”

Well, the percentage may be a bit off, but can anyone argue that it is not a significant percentage?

A Department of Education official apologized after saying that “90%” of sexual assault accusations on college campuses “fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’” during an interview as Education Secretary Betsy DeVos prepares to meet Thursday with a range of advocacy groups to discuss the issue.

Candice Jackson, who leads the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, told the New York Times that for most sexual assault investigations, there’s “not even an accusation that these accused students overrode the will of a young woman.”

“Rather, the accusations — 90% of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right,’” she said.

Jackson apologized Wednesday evening, according to the Associated Press, calling the remark “flippant.”

“All sexual harassment and sexual assault must be taken seriously,” she said in a statement.


1532, 13 July 2017


  1. jonnyv

    That article specifically states that a study determined somewhere between 2-10% of the accusations end up being false.

    This is pretty simple… if you are drunk you legally can not give consent.

  2. Kevin Scheunemann

    We just have to stop letting Bill Clinton on campus.

  3. Le Roi du Nord

    Has Bill ever been accused of an on-campus assault?  If so, so proof.  If not, why even bring it up?

  4. Paul

    Nobody cares, white nationalist troll.

    If it weren’t for GHB, you’d never get laid.

  5. jonnyv

    Easy Nord… Even I took that as a joke. You could say the same thing about Trump.

  6. Le Roi du Nord


    Kevin has proven time after time that he has no sense of humor, so I took it as another of his fact free claims.  Yup, you sure could.  He has pretty much admitted to the assaults.

  7. Walt Kowalski

    Nord you may want to seek some professional help with your obsession with Kevin. You have some serious stalker tendencies. Since you are so all knowing in all subjects as long he comments on them perhaps you should seek someone into directing your efforts into doing something productive.

  8. Le Roi du Nord


    If you want to defend untruth, fine.  I’m not obsessed with k, but rather willing to offer a differing position to his, just like you are doing.  If you want to believe that he is the only one knowing the absolute truth, good for you.  But I like a little more diversity of thought and would encourage everyone else to pursue that as well.  Belief is one thing, fact is fact.

  9. Walt Kowalski

    What about a sarcastic comment about Bill Clinton is an untruth? Jokes do not have to be based in fact.  You don’t really offer a differing position as much as a contrarian pseudo intellectual argument . I am not a Kevin disciple but you attacking ones faith is the same as the liberal mantra if they disagree just shout them down , you try to do it commenting on this site. You may best served by starting your site then you can decide what you want people to see, because if you think you are serving the populous here you are delusional.

  10. Paul

    Fact: Le Roi du Nord is a white nationalist and a proven liar.

  11. Le Roi du Nord


    Think bigger here, buddy.  Look at kevin’s body of work, then decide.

    “attacking ones faith”.  That’s a hoot.  I don’t attack his faith, but rather his intolerance of the faith, or non-faith, of others.  k says the pope isn’t a christian.  He has attacked every other religion but his own.  I don’t care who or what anyone believes or doesn’t believe in as long as they don’t make some claims about the absolute truth.  If you want to believe that fine, but don’t tell me it is fact.  Big difference.   Or do you just want to have yet another echo chamber where opposing view points are banned?

  12. Paul

    Nobody cares, Nazi. Hit the road.

  13. Walt Kowalski

    Nord I am not your “buddy” I would say most likely the opposite. Again you are like a child not addressing what was directed toward you, but deflecting back what to Kevin does. He makes cogent arguments he does not need me to advocate  on his behalf.  As far as the current pope I have many misgivings among the actions he has taken since being appointed.  Everyone’s perception is their reality both Kevin and you as well.

  14. Le Roi du Nord


    Really don’t care if you are my buddy or not.  Nothing changes, everybody entitled to their own opinion, but don’t push that opinion into the realm of fact unless you want a debate.  I thought that was what these sites were for; broadening ones world-view with a healthy discussion of issues.

    Maybe this is where we can start a discussion:  why is , “Everyone’s perception is their reality”  ?

  15. Walt Kowalski

    Nord why do you feel the need to troll. I am not going to bite I do see why Paul posts what he does towards you. You can stick your contrarian pseudo intellectual arguments  you petulant little troll back under your bridge. Is that better?

    “Everyone’s perception is their reality”  ? Try taking philosophy dome time.

  16. Le Roi du Nord


    What makes me a troll and others that post here not trolls??  You just don’t like dissenting positions.

    I have, and you didn’t answer the question.

  17. Paul

    You’re a white nationalist troll. Own it.

  18. Kevin Scheunemann


    You misstated my position on pope again.

    I said if pope advocates a gospel other than Christ’s unmerited grace for salvation he is not Christian.

    He has, at times, shown there is only the true gospel of Christ’s unmerited grace when he is sucking up to Evangelicals on reformation anniversary. However, he still has refused to reverse the Council of Trent, the Treasury of Merit, the Catholic Church dogma that those who subscribe to sola fida, sola scriptura, and sola gratia are going to hell, which is contrary to the gospel.

    You have to decide for yourself whether his “double dealing” in action is contrary to the true gospel.

  19. Le Roi du Nord


    Nope, you said several times that he wasn’t a christian because he had positions on evolution and climate change that were different from your absolute truth.  And there are millions of folks world-wide that disagree with you.

  20. Major Booris

    You’re also glossing over your visible church body’s clear statement of doctrine:

    IV. Therefore on the basis of a renewed study of the pertinent Scriptures we reaffirm the statement of the Lutheran Confessions, that “the Pope is the very Antichrist” (cf. Section II), especially since he anathematizes the doctrine of the justification by faith alone and sets himself up as the infallible head of the Church.[…] Since Scripture teaches that the Antichrist would be revealed and gives the marks by which the Antichrist is to be recognized (2 Th 2:6,8), and since this prophecy has been clearly fulfilled in the history and development of the Roman Papacy, it is Scripture which reveals that the Papacy is the Antichrist.

    Yes, the statement is making a distinction between the office of the Papacy and the Pope as an individual human being. But between the official WELS position and your multiple statements to the effect that a person willfully acting or holding beliefs in opposition to ‘clear Scriptural teaching’ (old-earth creationists, women who want to vote on church matters, people who pray alongside heretics like Baptists and Presbyterians, etc., etc.) are rejecting the Gospel, you’ve painted yourself into a corner.

    Either the Pope is a true believer in the Catholic Church, and works to deceive millions with its false doctrines, or he is secretly a real true Evangelical Christian and willfully and continually failing to ‘abstain from all appearance of evil’ by not renouncing those false doctrines. Either scenario seems to disqualify him as a Christian under the standards you’ve presented, mush-mouthed statements about ‘not judging individuals’ hearts’ notwithstanding.

  21. Kevin Scheunemann


    I never said supporting climate change liberalism excludes you from being Christian.

    I did say embracing evolution excludes you from being Christian because it denies Creation and the problem of sin, and eventually the need for Christ as your redeemer from sin.

    This Pope did embrace Evolution, but he shows signs since then he still embraces Creation, so it is tough to tell what he believes as a leader.

    Same deal when he embraces Evangelical Lutherans and believes in Christ’s unmerited grace, but then leaves the church edicts in place saying evangelicals outside the Roman Catholic church are all going to hell for only embracing Christ’s unmerited grace because we don’t attempt to merit grace by our own action through Roman Catholic See.

    He’s a double talker on some of this.

    I embrace the WELS position on the office of the Papacy because the office itself often teaches and embraces salvation contrary to the gospel.

    Whether this Pope, as an individual, beleives the stuff contrary to the gospel he is saying, that is a tougher call on this Pope.   The previous Pope was very convincing that he embraced teaching contrary to the gospel.   This Pope shows some flashes of Christ’s unmerited grace in action.

    If he truly believes in Christ unmerited grace alone, and leads his church in that direction, there is hope he could be a Christian.   So I never lose that hope.


  22. Le Roi du Nord

    “I never said supporting climate change liberalism excludes you from being Christian.”    Correct, you said it excluded the pope.  You called me a godless socialist liberal.

  23. Kevin Scheunemann


    I’ll bite, please quote me acurately where I said that believing in climate change excludes you from being Christian?

    Many climate change advocates are godless liberals worshipping creation vs. the Creator, but being on the wrong side of climate change debate does not necessarily negate one’s Christianity.   I think it is foolish for a Christian to be involved in a godless liberal religion like Climate change, but I think it is possible to maintain one’s Christianity and foolishly advocate for more government control in climate debate at same time.

  24. Paul

    And the white nationalist troll engages in religious bigotry.

  25. Le Roi du Nord


    That was several months ago.  But I’ll bet a paycheck I’m right.

    As petite paul speaks of religious bigotry, your last paragraph is a great example.  Thanks for pointing that out, paul.

  26. Paul

    Nobody cares what you think, white nationalist troll.  You are a religious bigot and a Nazi.

  27. Kevin Scheunemann


    This is another case of you being unable to point to the accurate quote.

    It has happened about 10 times now.

    Don’t you think you should at least present your hyperbole about what I said, accurately?

    Many thanks in advance for your cooperation to the absolute truth and facts in the future.

Pin It on Pinterest