Ball state Frats

Exactly what groups are those, and what "status quo" are they endorsing. 

Some truth, not sure how much.  Alcohol awareness for females involved in assaults (or more important perhaps, before they are ever involved)  is not a bad idea, but the fact that the assault part is probably being downplayed by blaming the alcohol is a problem here. 

In the most ambiguous cases where lurkin would say it was not a "true assault,"  even in those ambiguous cases much of the issue is whether there is consent.  I don't buy that the female by becoming besotted gives consent, that is a dangerous precedent. 

So, since clear consent is the requirement, alcohol awareness has to include not just the mutual mistake in getting into the ambiguous situation, but that the male understand the risk that his drunken state is all too often dangerous mistake, but that drunken consent is not real consent, and his behavior is not excused.   That is a bigger burden than the female whose drunken behavior might have been equally blameworthy in getting to that point where consent is the issue.

As for your point, I am not sure that it is right to characterize the situation as a "free pass" because the female isn't in alcohol awareness class.   True, as a father of girls, now grown, I became a lot less understanding of the "boys will be boys" defense, and saying the girls are asking for it. 

But even where "blame" for mutual mistake is in fact truly equal, I am concerned that it's the girl who bears the burden of the mistake in much greater degree. 

And, the "boys will be boys" part of the blame equation unfortunately creates a greater degree of aggressive or assertive behavior that puts greater burden there.  These cases will always seem more ambiguous to the guy.  

Well yeah, that's what happens when you apply gender based standards to any situation.  It's no different in the professional world, I have heard women say things about both male and female co-workers that would get a guy fired within seconds.   This reminds me of Ball State in the mid-eighties when I was required to take a drug addiction symposium simply because I was a male athlete.   I still resent it to this day. 

How do we know? What if you were one of that "2-10%"?

Aren't we being told all the time that the accuser should ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt? Look at what Heather Lind is saying about George HW Bush; that when posing for a photo 4 years ago, he "touched her from behind..." And to her that constituted "sexual assault." The dude was 89 and in a wheelchair. 

There are countless cases that males have been accused at a university without enough evidence to press charges, yet they get expelled and have that on their records, so other colleges won't admit them, denying them an education.

This is the victim society we live in. I have a lot of sympathy for women who have had heinous things done to them, but if a mere touch is enough to scream "sexual assault," then they're hurting their own cause.

Yeah and as it turns out that 2-10% stat are proven false accusations of felonious rape, not sexual assaults.  I think the concern is the inevitable and already occurring definition creep of "sexual assault".  If it reaches the absurd level of current "sexual harassment"  definitions it's could become a monumental problem.    

The following sentence is taken directly from the "Center against Domestic Violence and Rape" website:

"Sexual assault is any non-consensual sexual act; if ‘no' is not an option, it is sexual assault. It can take the form of unwanted verbal, visual, or physical contact"

So if someone just hears, or sees something they are uncomfortable with it is now "sexual assault".    

Careful there.  This does not say that someone hears or sees something that is "uncomfortable" that it is sexual assault.

It does say that verbal or visual sexual acts CAN TAKE that form. 

The operative condition is consent to the sexual act.  For example, being forced to watch porno or listen to sexually explicit statements which might well be taken as threats.

Remember that the term "assault" in law is actually based on the apparent threat of physical contact, not just the actual contact. You could be assaulted if someone pulls a gun and holds you captive by the threat of its use.

I will agree this can create opportunity for ambiguous and difficult to evaluate circumstances and accusations of assault which MAY NOT be assault.  But.  Do on the other hand you want to completely excuse ALL behavior that does not involve actual physical contact? 

This is why good due process is a problem here.  To draw the line properly.