My Photo

« What should have been your Friday open thread, dude | Main | Look away, Dixieland »

January 23, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515c2369e20162fffd9850970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It Takes Two to Tango:

Comments

"When I first saw this I couldn't believe what I was reading. What he is describing is not "hookup culture", it is rape culture. The women he is talking about have been *raped*. And he seems to (sort of) recognize it:"

Just asking: Why is it that, if a guy wakes in a bed next to somebody they don't remember, it's a setup for a joke, but if a woman does exactly the same, it's rape? I'm pretty sure it actually is possible to wake with a hazy memory after drinking without date rape drugs being involved

IOW, I'm not so sure it's a "rape culture" being described, or a "rape excuse" being utilized by women who don't want to admit they did something stupid while drunk.

Anyway, there's a urine test that works the day after, there's no excuse for wondering whether a date rape drug was used.

I have studiously followed the Rape Prevention Tips for Men, and intend to continue following them so long as I draw breath. Does this mean I am no longer part of Teh Patriarchy?

Perhaps "Rape Prevention Tips for Rapists" would have been a better choice, but rapists don't want to prevent rape. Which should be obvious to anyone in a waking state.

Judging by the flippant stereo dudefail to kick off comments, this is going to be quite a fruitful, thought-provoking discussion thread.

Yep.

Why is it that, if a guy wakes in a bed next to somebody they don't remember, it's a setup for a joke, but if a woman does exactly the same, it's rape?

Short answer: Because people are idiots.

Long answer: Under Ohio state law -- just e.g. -- the definition of "rape" includes the following.

(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:

(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

I am fairly certain that most states have similar provisions, and I am also fairly certain that "drunkenness" has been held to be a mental condition sufficient to prevent the forming of meaningful consent.

Note that the law makes reference to "persons," not "men" or "women." Men are absolutely, 100% free, after getting blackout drunk and waking up with someone they don't know, to bring rape charges under this law.

How many men do you think are in a hurry to do that, exactly? (NOTE: The fact that such a situation, for men, is generally considered an opportunity for bragging rather than for shame is part of rape culture.)

(NB: As most of you know, I served on a grand jury for a three month term a couple of years ago. In one case, my panel refused to indict on rape charges, because the girl had been out drinking so "was probably asking for it." Our foreman, a law professor, was absolutely chagrined and asked the prosecutor assigned to our panel to explain the law to the panel. They still no-billed it.)

Being female myself I am totally on board with the idea that it is not my responsiblity to keep guys from raping me. It's their responsiblity to not rape.

But cofusion over whether or ot the sex is consenual is a mutual problem and the responsiblity of both men and women.

I am a human being capable of making decisions, using common sense, and I expected to be treated that way. It is sort of... well, paternalistic to assume that women are so lacking in the ability to make judgements about our own behavior that no matter what choices we make we are always victims.

Men aren't supposed to rape but some do. That's why I used to carry a gigantic monkey wrench with me when I walked across a dark stretch of city park to get to a class I was taking. That's why when I go camping by myself I have a rule about never being alone with a male person. That's not because rape avoidance is my responsibility. It isn't. But I don't want to be raped so I protect myslef.

Some men are also capable of looking for sex as a separate activitiy from looking for love. That's why I do not get drunk, go to a room or a house with some guy, get into bed with him, and then act like it is all his fault if we have intercourse. It is my responsiblity to communicate clearly what my intentions are regarding consensual sex.

Women are capable of giving messages about whether or not we want to boink someone. Men are capable of such messages too. And people of both genders are capable of being confused in their own minds about their own intentions and other people's intentions. I used to teach sex ed and one of the things I said to my students was, "Don't exchange bodily fluids with someone you haven't spoken with frankly and honestly." A lot of confusion could be avoided if people were emotionally intimate before getting physically intimate.

We had a court case here about ten years ago involving a high school graduation party. A boy and girl went back to the parents' bedroom (they weren't home). They were both drunk. They got into bed together, got naked, and had intercourse either before or after the girl passed out, depending on who's version you believe. The boy was charged with rape. He was not convicted. I would have acquitted him if I'f been on the jury. She didn't "ask for it(meaning rape)" but she sure as hell signalled in every way possible short of shouting it from the roof tops that consensual intercourse was OK with her.

So...it is not all the wowan's repsonibility. Men don't have to treat women like potential sex partners to be seduced and dumped. That's learned behavior. But women don't have to be chumps either.

But that's a separate issue from rape which is about power, not sex. In the case of rape, men are not supposed to do it and mostly don't. Women are not responsible for the behavior of rapists but it's smart to avoid making one's self an easy target.

If I go out with my buddies and get legless, and wake up to find that one of my "friends" has taken my money and credit cards and treated him or her self to a spectacular spending orgy, did I really get robbed?

What if, in my drunken state, I even said "Hey, hold my wallet for me"?

What if, in my drunken state, I even said, "Hey, take my wallet, go up to the bar, and buy us a round"?

Or, was I just asking for it?

You was robbed. But that conclusion is based on the observation that people don't engage in casual finaincing of other people's spending sprees, while people DO, as an empirical matter, frequently "boink" one another. And there's no point in pretending otherwise.

Hell, what if, in my drunken state, I said "Take my wallet and go buy yourself a nice new car"?

Would my "friend" be in any way liable? Or would it be on me for getting drunk and stupid?

Your "friend" wouldn't be your friend, but if your friend were drunk, too, you'd be stupid to call yourself a robbery victim.

People do stupid stuff while drunk, and regret it afterwards. Regretting it afterwards does not transform a consentual act between two drunks into rape or robbery. I see no reason to humor the contrary conceit.

Wow, Brett. I know I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but I am.

As for the OP, seems to me that a key element of the conservative/religious mindset is that men are, more or less, lacking in self-control. Show an ankle, and they just go crazy. No point in trying to change THEIR behavior - they're helpless children, see.

It's wrong. It's insulting. And it's morally bankrupt.

In a society that focused more of its rape prevention efforts on boys/men, the occasional reminder to women about how to stay safe wouldn't set off the alarms the way it does here/now. Ultimately, it is safer to avoid getting hammered at parties, being alone late at night in a bad neighborhood, etc. Sure. But if that's the overwhelming focus of your rape prevention efforts, you're missing the f*cking point.

Here, I wonder how a number of college chaplains can be un-Christian in their approach to the question about sex in college.

First of all, college students are not "kids". They are of such age that every major religion of the world consideres them adults. Thus, there are only full-grown men and women at the campus, each fully responsible for their actions. Christian religion does not include a double-standard for promiscuity: if a woman will burn in hell for some action, so will a man. "Be pure and holy" applies both to men and women.

Thus, if you are concerned about the balance of power in the sexual relations on the campus, you should be as concerned about the womanizing men as of the women pressurised into a model of promiscosity. Both are tarnishing their souls. And many of these womanizers are almost as pressurised into their social role by the pressures of the surrounding society. (I'm not talking about the rapists, who are simply criminals, and should be the work field of prison, not of college chaplains. For them, the way to redemption is to go to the police station and after a lot of paperwork, make a full confession in open court.)

Thus, if your brand of Christian belief requires no pre-marital sex, you must make a clear stand, requiring sexual purity of men also, condemning them strictly for promiscuous behavior. (My own belief is more relaxed on this topic. I can accept sex when the couple has settled into a permanent relationship, hoping to develop it into a marriage.)

you'd be stupid to call yourself a robbery victim.

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say that, were the exact circumstances I've described to happen, a grand jury would find grounds for bringing charges against my friend.

I'm going to go further out on a limb and say that, were my friend to say, "Hey, he told me to go buy myself a car, so that's what I did!" that that particular line of defense would prove to be somewhat feeble.

Juries are funny, judges too, so it could also be that either or both would send me packing with an admonition to not be such a drunken idiot.

But I'd say the odds are pretty good that my "friend" would be looking at a serious criminal penalty of some kind.

And, my "friend" would richly deserve it.

The fact that someone behaves stupidly does not make it legal open season for anyone that wants to take advantage of them to do so. The person taking advantage of the situation is responsible for their own actions.

I guess it doesn't have to be that way, I supposed we could build a society around the idea that if you don't watch your own personal back at all times, you're low hanging fruit and deserve what you get.

But I'm not sure any of us would actually want to live like that. I sure as hell wouldn't.

I supposed we could build a society around the idea that if you don't watch your own personal back at all times, you're low hanging fruit and deserve what you get.

A fine summation of the libertarian ideal. And a reason why even those who lean libertarian in some matters realize that it's a dish best nibbled at, rather than a dietary staple.

I'll go out on a line, and say that if you were both drunk, the dealership whould be in more trouble for selling the car than your friend would be for buying it with the money you'd given him.

Drinking impares judgment. Small surprise you drink and find when you sober up you've made bad choices. But if the person you made them with was drunk, too, why put all the blame on them, and none on yourself?

No, I don't think I'm ever going to agree that two people get drunk and have sex, the man is a rapist.

Nobody claimed that, Brett.

Shorter Brett: Alcohol is the universal absolvent. It absolves a man from all responsibility. If he's drunk, he can steal, rape, commit assault or robbery -- then wake up and say, "Well, we were both drunk, and we made bad choices. Oops. Well, your fault for being drunk, you whore."

Seriously, if you steal your friend's money, you're a thief, even if you're drunk. If you assault somebody, you've committed battery, even if you're drunk. If you rape a woman (or a man), you're a rapist, even if you're drunk. How is that so hard to understand?

But if the person you made them with was drunk, too, why put all the blame on them, and none on yourself?

All / none - are these words I wrote?

My "friend", who bought a shiny new car with my money, would bear responsibility for doing so.

All / none - not the point. All / none are not required for culpability. You only need bear the responsibility that belongs to you.

In other words:

If you rape a woman (or a man), you're a rapist, even if you're drunk

If you knowingly take advantage of somebody's state of inebriation, you are responsible for what *you* do. Not them, you.

And here, I thought conservatives and libertarians were all about personal responsibility. Was that all talk?

If I'm drunk, my ability to consent is impaired. But my ability to perceive consent is also impaired, and my ability to perceive whether the other party is too drunk to give consent is especially impaired (ISTM).

Does this mean if one party says no and the other party continues anyway, the latter should be excused because of mutual drunkenness? Of course not, but that's not the scenario Brett has in mind, I don't think.

The law (at least over here) makes a distinction between unintended loss of self-control (e.g. through consuming too much alcohol than your system will absorb due to the drinkers ignorance) leading to a crime and intentional impairment of one's own control systems for the purpose of crime.
In other words, if you get drunk and do something illegal as a result but without intent, then your impaired mental state at the time of the crime can count as mitigating circumstances*. But if you get drunk in order to use the mitigating circumstances defense after you commit the crime you intended to commit beforey ou get drunk, that may even count as aggravating circumstances.

*not always of course. That may depend on other factors too

A friend recalls doing a Sex-and-Consent workshop for college students, in which she told them that if *both* people are stinking drunk, neither of them can reasonably give consent. The students were horrified, saying "But then we'd never get to have sex!" Basically, being drunk is considered a prerequisite for sex, for men and women alike. Or at least, it's a prerequisite for sex outside of a long-term, committed, monogamous relationship -- of the sort in which many college students (of both sexes) are uninterested, and which they're generally pretty bad at even if interested.

Hartmut, do young people in Germany also take being drunk as a prerequisite for sex, as far as you know?

Here's some not-terribly-well-thought-out stuff:

I think Brett's bothered by what he thinks is the idea that, if a woman has sex and doesn't remember it, she was raped, regardless of whatever other circumstances may have existed.

I think others are bothered by what they thinks is Brett's idea that a drunk guy can't be held responsible for rape if he was drunk enough and there wasn't at least minimally clear resistance to his sexual advances.

I'd put it out there that, whether someone (leaving gender aside) had the intent to rape someone or not, if there was more emphasis culturally on being sure that potential sexual partners were fully and clearly on board with intercourse, perhaps to the point that having drunken sex, at all, with someone who wasn't already in a committed relation with you was taboo, as opposed to the current idea that you can use drunkenness as an advantage in obtaining consent, there would be a lot fewer of the sort of "borderline" cases that cause the sort of controversy coming up on this thread.

I think that's at least part of "rape culture." It doesn't mean men are encouraged to go out a rape women. It means that the culture allows for behaviors that are all too likely to result in people doing the wrong things. It allows for people going right up to the edge, rather than having a nice wide buffer zone between what it consentual sex and what is rape, speaking from a cultural standpoint if not a legal one.

My basic point here is that if two people, both blitzed out of their gourds, have sex, granted neither of them was in a condition to give consent. But how do you manage to assign one of them the role of rapist, and the other victim?

Hartmut, do young people in Germany also take being drunk as a prerequisite for sex, as far as you know?

I think I am not a very reliable source of information there but I'd say no, not a prerequisite. I assume there are many cases of unplanned sex as a result of overconsumption of alcohol and a modest amount of alcohol may be consumed to loose inhibitions (esp. by first-timers) but the idea of 'no sex while sober' is new to me. But again, I am (and have been) as far away from 'youth culture' as one can think. Which might explain my eternal singleness and nonexistent sex-life, I mean apart from my natural anti-magnetism. I have never been seriously drunk (I HATE the idea of losing control) and my standard consumption of alcoholic beverages is two glasses of sparkling wine per year. I would not touch a drunk girl with a ten-foot pole due to the very risk described in this thread. I'rather have her sign a written consent in the presence of a (sober) lawyer and a doctor checking her for signs of inebriation or other factors that could impair her judgement (which she would fail automatically by showing interest in me ;-) ).

But how do you manage to assign one of them the role of rapist, and the other victim?

I see what you're saying here, and I agree that there is a fairly broad grey area. Especially in a college context, where for better or worse a lot of people have a very high level of interest in getting (a) very drunk and (b) laid, and where a lot of kids are still kind of clueless when it comes to interacting with other people, of the opposite sex or not.

That said, I think there are a few things that can be said pretty clearly.

If somebody gives somebody else a roofie without their knowledge, the full weight of whatever consequences are available should fall on their heads. Criminal charges, getting tossed out of school, whatever. And if they manage to have sex with their now-unconscious partner, the criminal charges should include rape. That sh*t should simply receive absolutely zero tolerance.

If one partner is drunk to the point of being non-responsive, IMVHO the "but we were drunk" excuse is no longer an excuse. No matter how drunk you are, you can recognize the difference between conscious and not conscious. And I can't see how "not conscious" can be read as anything other than "unable to give consent".

And *no matter what your level of intoxication*, you are still responsible for what you do while drunk. If you drive a car and kill somebody, you will not get a drunk exemption. If you start a fight and hurt someone or are hurt yourself, you will not get a drunk exemption. If you get drunk and break the law in pretty much any way I can think of, you will get no drunk exemption.

On the contrary, the consequences are greater.

People choose to get stupid drunk. Their judgement may be impaired while drunk, but that state is a chosen one. I appreciate that there is some grey area, and I appreciate that there are some young women who decide the next day that their Very Bad Idea of the night before was really an assault.

But getting drunk is not a free pass to behave as you will, with no downstream consequences.

I thought conservatives and libertarians were all about personal responsibility. Was that all talk?

Not from me, i.e. it's not all talk, I mean it.

Here's the problem: rape is used imprecisely and too often, as a one-perspective-only event, that perspective being the young woman the next morning.

Here's where the imprecision comes in:

Scenario One--Young Man and Young Woman, with alcohol on board, engage in heavy petting and intercourse. It seemed consensual to the young, i.e. active participation, appropriate responsiveness, post-coital caressing, etc followed by sleep. The next morning, the Young Woman sees who she spent the night with and says "if I'd been sober, I'd have never consented." Is this rape? I say no, it's bad judgment on a variety of levels.

Scenario Two--Young Man over-serves Young Woman to the point of incapacity, removes her clothes, and while she is borderline unconscious, has intercourse with her. Is this rape? Yes, clearly. His intent was to disable Young Woman, render her incapable of consent, and then have sex with her.

Scenario Three--same as Scenario One, except that, prior to intercourse, Young Woman calls a halt, however the heavy petting continues with mutual consent. Young Man employs a range of verbal persuasion during this interlude. He continues to press for intercourse, she continues to resist, but less insistently, and appearing to become overcome with passion, she changes her mind and consents. The next morning, sober, she believes that, but for her intoxication, she never would have consented. Rape? No. It's seduction, that great gray area between consent and lack of consent.

A couple of other thoughts. A woman cannot be guilty of being raped. "She asked for it, she had it coming, etc" is BS. Where I find fault with the 'rape' terminology is the classic college situation where young men and women, knowing exactly what they are doing while sober, plan an event, get dressed for it, attend it, drink a bunch, and wind up in bed. In a state of intoxication, perceiving subtle clues of consent vs reticence, as opposed to clear, outright refusal, is difficult. 'Criminal intent' becomes a major issue.

Personal responsibility--I say this as a father of a 29 year old single female who's had an active social life since the age of 14--is a two way street. A woman should know if alcohol impairs her judgment to the point where she is at risk of making bad decisions. If that is the case, it is her obligation to refrain or limit her intake.

Of course, a man is to respect any woman's decision to say 'no'. But that is different from becoming impaired, saying 'yes' and having regrets the next day.

"It's seduction, that great gray area between consent and lack of consent."

Jesus wept.

There seems to be this widespread fear of being accused of rape the following morning by someone who consented at the time, but later regretted it. Let me teach you a magical incantation that will yield amazing results, if used before and during sex:

"Are you enjoying yourself, or would you prefer we did something else?"

You will be amazed by the results yielded by this "asking" technology. You can use it as many times as you want!

Consent: it's not rocket science.

Perhaps it is hard to tell between someone who hopes this will be over soon, and probably it will not suck too much, and someone who genuinely does not want to be there, but I assure you, it is not that hard to tell between someone who is enthusiastically participating, and someone who is not. And if it is, you can ask.

Brett:

I'm not saying you are a rapist, but you are playing one on the Internet. At least 3 women have told me that they are unable to read the comments to this post because of the levels of rape apology here.

IOW, I'm not so sure it's a "rape culture" being described, or a "rape excuse" being utilized by women who don't want to admit they did something stupid while drunk.

Anyway, there's a urine test that works the day after, there's no excuse for wondering whether a date rape drug was used.

"There's no excuse", eh? You're saying that test is available over-the-counter in any drug store, so that a woman could use it before she goes to the police?

You are paying no attention to Rains' testimony, that there is

a campus culture in which men expect to have sex on any given night, even if it requires pressure, manipulation or the use of illegal date-rape drugs.
Does that sound like a "rape excuse" to you? If that's not rape culture, what is?

I know several women who have passed out or fallen asleep at a party, and found out the next day that they had been raped. In one case she was in high school, a virgin, and found out because the rapist was bragging about it. Everyone called her a slut -- he was a popular guy, after all.

IMHO the most important fact to bear in mind, when you (and others) express concern about "crying rape": only about 1 in 7 rapes is ever reported to the police.

This is a scientific study, but it accords with my observations. Over the years I've known a *lot* of women (and some men) who've been raped, but only a small fraction ever reported it.

But you know what? I believe their stories: of rape by partners (and ex-partners), by "friends", by relatives (almost never reported), by co-workers and bosses, teachers, medical personnel, police officers. Only the ones who were raped by violent strangers had much of a chance of reporting it; everyone else realized the chance of a successful prosecution was too low to be worth the grilling by people like you.

If you don't want to be thought a rapists' friend and a possible rapist yourself, you need to change the way you approach this issue. You are what women are afraid of.

This comment thread is making my head hurt.

I don't get to say this often, but would it clarify the discussion at all to talk about gay male sex.

Hmmmm, this sounds like the link to a pr@n site. But seriously. It might help clarify/take some of the emotion out of it.

I strongly believe that it would be WISER if my gay male friends didn't get drunk before having sex. But they often do. And sometimes they get into sexual situations that they wouldn't normally consent to without drinking.

This can come about because of a lack of good communication. That isn't rape. Though it may indeed be emotionally bad/uncomfortable.

However it is also possible that others intentionally take advantage of them and get them to do things that are beyond their level of actual consent. That would indeed be rape.

Different Point--it may help to totally divorce your thinking from whether or not a situation will be provably-to-an-outsider-after-the-fact-without-a-video-tape rape.

Stop thinking of "could this one gay male prove that this other gay male raped him". The criminal punishment dimension is a totally different issue. Focus instead on: did he give consent? Did his partner realize that he didn't give consent? How does it feel to be forced into sex without consent? How does being forced into sex without consent screw up his ability to trust other gay males or have other sexual relationships.

All of these things can be talked about without worrying whether or not Steve could prove anything in court to an outsider after the fact.

What I think would be really great would be if young men were taught to respect young women, and to treat them accordingly.

I'm not talking about condescending "little lady" bullsh*t, I'm talking about respect. Respect precludes taking advantage of somebody's intoxicated state to get your jollies.

It might also be good for colleges to encourage their students to not get legless drunk on a regular basis.

Crazy talk, I know.

Stop thinking of "could this one gay male prove that this other gay male raped him". The criminal punishment dimension is a totally different issue. Focus instead on: did he give consent?

IMO this is very well said. Thank you Sebastian.

Doc Science asks if the situation we're discussing isn't an expression of a 'rape culture'. Various folks take exception to that.

I think it's accurate to say it's an expression of a culture, or at least an attitude, that assumes that you should grab whatever you can get away with, and if that harms someone else that's their problem.

In the context of sexual relationships, I have to say that I find it hard to distinguish that from a rape culture, regardless of whether the actions meet the legal standard of rape.

But if 'rape culture' strikes you as too strong, feel free to substitute 'brutal culture', or 'abusive culture', or simply a culture devoid of respect or regard for the other person.

It's toxic, and it damages people. It doesn't deserve a defense. IMVHO.

This can come about because of a lack of good communication. That isn't rape.

I don't know why this is so difficult. If someone is intoxicated, they cannot consent. That means any sex with them is rape. It doesn't matter if they're willing; they cannot give meaningful consent. Period.

Having sex with a drunk stranger is, at best, profoundly stupid.

"I don't know why this is so difficult. If someone is intoxicated, they cannot consent. That means any sex with them is rape. It doesn't matter if they're willing; they cannot give meaningful consent. Period."

Fine, as long as, if they're both drunk, we're willing to call them both rapists, and treat them both accordingly.

Fine, as long as, if they're both drunk, we're willing to call them both rapists, and treat them both accordingly.

Well, of course they'd be. Again, why is this so hard to understand? Intoxicated people cannot consent. If you have sex with someone who cannot consent, you're committing rape.

Are we going to jail the rapists in this circumstance? Both of them? Because that's what you normally do to rapists, if you can prove the crime.

If not, maybe we need to find another word for this. Because if you're going to use the word "rape" for actions which don't carry legal opprobrium, the word is going to lose it's sting.

Are we going to jail the rapists in this circumstance? Both of them?

Fine with me. I think people who have sex with people who cannot consent should go to prison.

Because that's what you normally do to rapists, if you can prove the crime.

As Dr Science pointed out, most rapes are never reported. Plus a decent number of those that are reported don't lead to prosecutions. So it would seem that most rapists don't end up in jail at all.

Because if you're going to use the word "rape" for actions which don't carry legal opprobrium, the word is going to lose it's sting.

WTF? Having sex with someone who cannot consent is a crime. Right now. It is. You understand that right? You know that if you have sex with someone who is, say, unconscious, that's a crime, right?

"Plus a decent number of those that are reported don't lead to prosecutions."

This may, just conceivably, have something to do with the fact that rape, conspicuously, is NOT the sole crime concerning which false charges get leveled.

"You know that if you have sex with someone who is, say, unconscious, that's a crime, right?"

Yup, I'm well aware of that. That is, of course, an asymmetric situation. Only one party to the "rape" can be unconscious at a time. Both, of course, can be impaired.

And so I ask, is it at all typical to charge rape where the situation in terms of capacity to consent is symmetric? I would think it virtually unheard of.

Perhaps we should treat sex between two impaired individuals as a form of statutory rape, rather than pretending, contrary to the way it's treated, that it's the full deal?

Excuse me, "not the sole crime concerning which false charges don't get leveled." A decent number of accusation don't get prosecuted in the case of pretty much every crime, as you are doubtless aware.

I quoted the Ohio law above. Any man is welcome to avail himself of it.

Dr. Science: "you are playing [a rapist] on the Internet". That seems like it's crossing a line. As is "If you don't want to be thought a rapists' friend and a possible rapist yourself," ... maybe part of fixing rape culture is not flinging around 'possible rapist' in a way that makes the term meaningless?

Depends; From a certain perspective, it's thought you fix that culture by flinging the term around so as to silence anybody who disagrees with you. Said silencing aids you in changing the culture, you see... It's more a weapon than a reference to a crime. That it's a weapon that gets more blunt every time it's used isn't particularly important, there's no point in keeping it sharp on the shelf.

Going back to the linked articles and away from all the rape discussion: I'm not sure I agree with your starting premise, that the chaplains were focused only on women.

Of the 6
* Tara Woodard-Lehman talks only about women and alienation from their bodies.
* Vance Rains -- well, problematic.
* Kori Jones -- makes sure to always specify both sexes; the biblical reference made is to counselling David (of David and Bathsheba). I would probably code this as being slightly more focused on men, then.
* Jennifer Koenig and Bruce Benson talk about both sexes; anecdote is about a class poll discussing pressures on both men and women.
* Diane Kenney: first anecdote is about a woman. References to gay couples and counselling for people coming to terms with their sexuality; some discussion of new norms where frat organizations support take back the night. I'd code it as women focused but not simply referring to men in passing.
* Eric van Meter: anecdotes about women.

So of the 6, I only count 3 as primarily ignoring men and focusing on women. And given the framing used by the Christian Century, they may have been responding primarily to the Belkin article, and in part the provocative statement that "And whereas feminists of an earlier generation fought hard against this objectifying culture, says Belkin, contemporary college women seem to go along with it or shrug it off."

Can we at least all agree that drugging somebody with Rhohypnol in order to have sex with them qualifies as an assault?

Can we at least all agree that if you are conscious and you initiate sex with someone who is unconscious or unresponsive, that that is an assault?

I understand that sometimes people get drunk and do stuff that they wouldn't otherwise do, and that that can be awkward and embarrassing.

But can't we agree that this is a problem:

These women, and so many others, describe a campus culture in which men expect to have sex on any given night, even if it requires pressure, manipulation or the use of illegal date-rape drugs.

Or do we think this description is overblown? My sense, not just from Doc Science's piece here, is that it is not.

And, I'm not seeing anybody in the broader public sphere calling for holding folks - by which I mean primarily young men - responsible for engaging in predatory sexual behavior.

And by "predatory behavior" I'm not talking about sweet-talking the young women to persuade them into bed. I'm talking about getting them, or at least finding them, unconscious or otherwise unable to give anything like meaningful consent to sex, and then screwing them.

Not caught up in a heated moment, but setting out to either engineer or take advantage of the woman's (or man's, thank you Seb) incapacity.

How is that not rape?

And, why should it be tolerated?

Can anyone name one other example of any kind of assaultive, harmful behavior we tolerate because the actor was drunk?

"Can we at least all agree that drugging somebody with Rhohypnol in order to have sex with them qualifies as an assault?

Can we at least all agree that if you are conscious and you initiate sex with someone who is unconscious or unresponsive, that that is an assault?"

Absolutely. My objection was to women who wake up the next day not remembering why they slept with some dude simply assuming they were dosed with some drug. (Even though simply getting drunk can result in that.) If they suspect that, it should positively NOT stop at suspicion; They can piss into a bottle, and take it to the police.

It's the least they owe other women, after all.

"Can we at least all agree that drugging somebody with Rhohypnol in order to have sex with them qualifies as an assault?

Can we at least all agree that if you are conscious and you initiate sex with someone who is unconscious or unresponsive, that that is an assault?

I understand that sometimes people get drunk and do stuff that they wouldn't otherwise do, and that that can be awkward and embarrassing."


Somehow my last sentence got cut off. i meant to say that Russel summed things up nicely.

russell: "And, I'm not seeing anybody in the broader public sphere calling for holding folks - by which I mean primarily young men - responsible for engaging in predatory sexual behavior." I don't see anybody particularly calling for that, because having sex with an unconscious person -- that's kind of settled. And when things like rohypnol show up in popular culture (e.g., tv shows, movies), it's clearly shown in a negative light. Unconsciousness at time of sex is kind of a really clear bright line that I don't think anybody argues against.

As for assaultive, harmful behavior tolerated because the actor was drunk: how about assault? Bouncers in bars are there for a reason; some stuff will get the cops called, but a lot of times people will just get ejected. And there's not a lot of strong societal condemnation of that sort of drunken belligerence.

And when things like rohypnol show up in popular culture (e.g., tv shows, movies), it's clearly shown in a negative light.

I guess what I had in mind by "holding folks responsible" was something more like "throw them out of school" or "bring criminal charges".

Unconsciousness at time of sex is kind of a really clear bright line that I don't think anybody argues against.

Glad to hear it.

And there's not a lot of strong societal condemnation of that sort of drunken belligerence.

Actually I would say that getting drunk and starting fights in bars is pretty much not tolerated.

It's the least they owe other women, after all.

You can't fool us with concern trolling. Libertarians don't believe in altruism or in obligations to other human beings.

"At least 3 women have told me that they are unable to read the comments to this post because of the levels of rape apology here."

I don't see anyone here apologizing for rape or for rapists. I think Brett makes some important salient points and I agree with him.

"I don't know why this is so difficult. If someone is intoxicated, they cannot consent. That means any sex with them is rape."

If intoxication negates the consent of one party, then it should also negate the responsibility of the other party if both parties are intoxicated (again, I am NOT including passed out under intoxicated).

Personally, I won't, and never have, had sex with a heavily intoxicared woman. This includes even my wife and even if she is verbally asking for sex while intoxicated. I just find the whole concept to be way less than attractive on several levels. Just one of those levels is that I don't like the way the thought of it makes me feel about myself.

Second, I firmly hold that anyone who purposefully intoxicates another for the purpose of inducing semi-consciousness or unconsciousness to facilitate sexual activity, especially that which would otherwise not happen, is a rapist.

All of that said, there is definitely a grey area wherein young people especially, males and females, deliberately plan to go out for a night of heavy drinking, prepare themselves by way of dress, hygiene and mentality to be attractive to potential sexual partners, willfully intoxicate themselves to the point of stupidness and end up having unforced sex with someone who has done the same. Morning after regret aside, that is not rape.

I live in a college town, I suffer from bouts of insomnia and I am a drinker. So I not infrequently find myself out at one of the local pubs after my wife has fallen asleep and I have become bored reading books/internet, etc. After 10:00pm the local pubs are all inundated with college kids. I see what happens.

The girls, some of whom a really quite pretty and revealingly attired, become increasingly flirtatious with the boys with each drink. After several drinks subtle flirtation has devolved into physical contact; bumping, rubbing. The boys are also drinking and it is obvious that between the girls contact and the increasing BAL, any higher order thinking has been replaced by the primitive aligator brain. The boys now start testing the limits. They become more touchy....more grabby. If the girls don't back away at this point (some do and some don't) then the situation becomes a run away freight train heading for a "hook up".

IMO, it's an ugly scene; and it happens all the time and it is far from my concept of "making love", but at that point I don't see where anyone is a "rapist". Rather, it is two impaired immature adventure seekers doing something that at least one of them may well regret when the impairement wears off.

If you want to call that "rape culture" then the women are just as much active willful particticipants in rape culture as the men.

"You know that if you have sex with someone who is, say, unconscious, that's a crime, right?"

But who is to say when unconsciousness occurred? Before or after the sex? No one can remember accurately. It is a bad bad situation to find oneself in. Avoid it in the first place long before it gets even close.

Why direct a lecture about all of this more to the girls than the boys? Because it is the girls that are far more likely to experience regret and other negative consequences afterwards. This is not a patriarchal plot. It is common sense.

"I guess what I had in mind by "holding folks responsible" was something more like "throw them out of school" or "bring criminal charges"."

Right. So if a woman truly suspects that she has been dosed and raped she should, as Brett says, go to the police and have a urine test done to provide the evidence necessary to initiate an investigation by the police. Simply gossiping about it doesn't do anything for anyone. In fact, it makes it look like the woman is just concocting an excuse for having done something that she is now embarassed to have done.

"You can't fool us with concern trolling."

mind reading

avedis: in response to your statement "If intoxication negates the consent of one party, then it should also negate the responsibility of the other party if both parties are intoxicated." I don't think responsibility/consent are symmetric like that.

It seems somewhat odd, but by the standards of drunkenness=inability to consent, two intoxicated parties having sex is some form of mutual rape, where each has some form of responsibility for raping the other. And potentially it was mutually satisfying and both parties leave the next morning quite pleased at the encounter, perhaps having exchanged contact information to do it again. The rapes will go unreported and probably undealt with.

If intoxication negates the consent of one party, then it should also negate the responsibility of the other party if both parties are intoxicated.

Intoxication does not erase responsibility. Drunk drivers who kill people still go to prison; we don't say "oh, you poor thing, you were drunk? well, then I guess you're not responsible".

I understand that responsibility and consent are treated asymmetrically with respect to intoxication by the legal system. I get that if you're seeking a certain mathematical elegance in the legal system, this might be troubling. But seriously, get over it.

Why direct a lecture about all of this more to the girls than the boys? Because it is the girls that are far more likely to experience regret and other negative consequences afterwards. This is not a patriarchal plot. It is common sense.

Yes, it's just the state of nature that men who have serial sexual relations with near-strangers are hailed as heroes, and that women who do so are shamed as sluts. It emerged out of thin air and not any retrograde patriarchal tendencies. Who are we to argue with God's plan for the world?

The girls, some of whom a really quite pretty and revealingly attired, become increasingly flirtatious with the boys with each drink. After several drinks subtle flirtation has devolved into physical contact; bumping, rubbing.

See, ladies? Your boundary-testing means you're asking for it. I mean, if a guy can't bully a drunk girl into having sex, even if she says "no" at the point where it matters, what good is anything?

Shorter: If she touches you with her girl-parts, all bets are off, apparently.

"You can't fool us with concern trolling."

mind reading

Only if one proceeds from the assumptions that a) I don't know Brett is a harcore Randroid and b) I've never read one of his posts before.

Sad thread. Really.

What is this concern about girls who wake up, can't remember, and falsely accuse a guy of rape?

It's ridiculous. First off, I don't see any indication that this happens frequently. Second, even if it does, she's almost surely going to lose in court.

Stack that up against the number of times people are actually raped and nothing comes of it.

Talk about selective outrage.

I'd also like to point out that anyone who likes to offer advice to women about attire, sobriety, etc. for rape-avoidance should have zero problem with someone telling a guy to not have sex with drunk girls. Don't wanna be accused of rape? Don't have sex with drunk girls.

Same logic. Not great logic, IMO, but equally applicable. Funny, though, I don't see those arguments going together much.

"Yes, it's just the state of nature that men who have serial sexual relations with near-strangers are hailed as heroes, and that women who do so are shamed as sluts. It emerged out of thin air and not any retrograde patriarchal tendencies. Who are we to argue with God's plan for the world?"

Phil, I'm glad you decided to talk to me again. So is your answer to the problem to have females adopt the male attitude and to have serial sexual relationships with near-strangers? because it looks like that is what you are suggesting. Or are you going all right wing conservative on us and suggesting abstinence until marriage? If the latter, I have some bad news for you regarding the projected success of that approach.

"See, ladies? Your boundary-testing means you're asking for it. I mean, if a guy can't bully a drunk girl into having sex, even if she says "no" at the point where it matters, what good is anything?"

I know you are trying to stereotype my statement, but in your zeal to do so you have overlooked an important qualifier. I never said anything about girls who say "no". In fact, I said , "If the girls don't back away at this point....". Get it? If they back away, if they in effect say "no" then the problem stops; or it should stop. I am speaking to the girls that do not back away when things start getting hotter and heavier.

"Intoxication does not erase responsibility. Drunk drivers who kill people still go to prison; we don't say "oh, you poor thing, you were drunk? well, then I guess you're not responsible".

I understand that responsibility and consent are treated asymmetrically with respect to intoxication by the legal system. I get that if you're seeking a certain mathematical elegance in the legal system, this might be troubling. But seriously, get over it."

Actually, the law does distiguish. Fatal acidents resulting from intoxication are punished less severely at sentencing than deliberate homocides. Otherwise your point is valid. The system is what it is and it tries to makes some sense out of a non-black and white world.

The more I think about it, Brett really did nail the crux of the issue: If these women truly believed they were raped, with all legal definitions and connotations of the term, then they should be going to the police. Otherwise, something else has happened and I think Brett and I have outlined what that something else is.

Rape is a serious accusation and a serious charge. The term should not be tossed about lightly and this idea of a patriarchal "rape culture" is one such misuse of the term by feminists that ultimately damages what they claim to be their cause.

Fatal acidents resulting from intoxication are punished less severely at sentencing than deliberate homocides.

But not less severely than accidents that occur caused by non-intoxicated people.

Quite the contrary, actually.

"I'd also like to point out that anyone who likes to offer advice to women about attire, sobriety, etc. for rape-avoidance should have zero problem with someone telling a guy to not have sex with drunk girls. Don't wanna be accused of rape? Don't have sex with drunk girls.

Same logic. Not great logic, IMO, but equally applicable. Funny, though, I don't see those arguments going together much."

I think that is great advice to give guys. I raised a son who was taught to respect women. Those exact words became incorporated into the teachings when he was old enough that drinking became an issue.

The problem is that when both the guys and gals are intoxicated, all of that good advice goes right out the window.

He had a scary experience once (or once that I know of). Despite years of indoc to the contrary, he got drunk with a girl he barely knew and they had sex. Couple months later the girl found him, said she was pregnant and that he was the father. He was freaked out about the ramifications for the next 7 months - things like child support coming out of his pay check. Turns out he wasn't the father. Lesson learned (I hope).

Stupid.

And don't young healthy college students with their entire futures ahead of them have something better to do with their free time other than getting wasted?

As for the boys, I think that most would not rape or molest even if they thought they could get away with it. There will, however, always be that predatory few that will. they tend to hang out in bars and other places where the hunting is good and easy. that is why the girls need the lecture.

So is your answer to the problem to have females adopt the male attitude and to have serial sexual relationships with near-strangers?

I can't even imagine where you got that from.

The problem isn't sex. The problem is rape. And from what I hear, most rapes are not committed by strangers/near-strangers.

Phil, I'm glad you decided to talk to me again.

I seriously doubt it.

So is your answer to the problem to have females adopt the male attitude and to have serial sexual relationships with near-strangers? because it looks like that is what you are suggesting.

Not precisely - I'm saying that our culture (most cultures!) treat the two very, very differently. And all the "morning after effects" people describe here are a direct result of that. If women weren't constantly shamed for drunken hookups, while men are rewarded and lauded for them, maybe more women could have active sex lives without the frequent attendant doubt as to whether and when consent occurred.

I never said anything about girls who say "no". In fact, I said , "If the girls don't back away at this point....". Get it? If they back away, if they in effect say "no" then the problem stops; or it should stop. I am speaking to the girls that do not back away when things start getting hotter and heavier.

Unless there's already a penis in a vagina, or anything to that effect, there is ALWAYS the opportunity to say "no." (And even after that, frankly. If your partner says "stop," YOU STOP.) "Hotter and heavier" don't play into it.

Fatal acidents resulting from intoxication are punished less severely at sentencing than deliberate homocides.

"Accidental" vs "deliberate" is the significant factor here, not "intoxicated" vs "non-intoxicated."

If these women truly believed they were raped, with all legal definitions and connotations of the term, then they should be going to the police.

Next, let's all have a conversation about how the police, defense attorneys and the media treat rape victims, especially the one who haven't been "obviously" raped. There's a reason that rape is the most under-reported crime. Lots of reasons. Starting with "How were you dressed? Were you drinking?" Sound familiar?

There will, however, always be that predatory few that will. they tend to hang out in bars and other places where the hunting is good and easy. that is why the girls need the lecture.

See, this is EXACTLY what Doctor Science is talking about. Instead of saying, "Hey, assholes, DON'T RAPE," you instead recommend, "Hey, ladies, rapers gonna rape, so keep an eye out!"

Turb and maybe others argue that sex with an intoxicated woman is per se rape, because any consent by an intoxicated woman is simply void. By this logic, every woman who has had sex after having had too much to drink, whether it was just a kiss, heavy mugging, or intercourse, is the victim of sexual assault to one degree or another. After all, she couldn't consent.

Here's the problem with this kind of thinking: no one outside the cocoon is going to buy it. Too many women have had consensual sex under the influence and were fine with it, or at least not feeling raped the next day. Moreover, every potential "rapist", defined as broadly as Turb would have it, has a mother, possibly sisters and almost certainly female friends who think ruining a man's life because he and a woman got drunk and fell into bed is just a bit too much.

If you want to discuss rendering a woman incapable of refusing by over serving, by using rohypnol or some other drug, that's different. Or, if we are talking about forced rape, that's different. Send the bastards to jail.

But this business that somehow intoxicated men are responsible for their behavior but intoxicated women are not is, well, bizarre.

Again the focus on what is/will be provable in court is taking us down distracting rabbit holes. And even the talk about roofies distracts from the main points.

It is true that some women somewhere will lie about rape. But it is also true that many women will be afraid to disclose the rape because they know they don't have much useful after-the-fact evidence and don't want to be dragged through the he said she said mire. There are hundreds of aspects of the problems of the culture surrounding rape that can be addressed outside of the questions of "how do we punish the rapist" and "how do we insure that we don't punish the non-rapist".

Questions like how do we help a person who was raped but isn't going to be able to prove it to a court of law? Do we have a culture that helps rapists operate? How does that work? Can we make it more difficult for them to operate without sacrificing other important values? etc, etc.

"See, this is EXACTLY what Doctor Science is talking about. Instead of saying, "Hey, assholes, DON'T RAPE," you instead recommend, "Hey, ladies, rapers gonna rape, so keep an eye out!""

If that is what Dr S is talking about then her point is not just misguided - as I originally thought - it is just plain retard stupid.

Has just say "no" or "stop" worked for any criminal behavior? Has it? Hey mister gangbanger, casper the white ghost wants to walk through your neighborhood with a clear plastic bag full of money in his hand, just don't rob or kill him. Would that work, Phil?

Maybe if I decide to vacation in Afghanistan and sit in the Korengal Valley and have myself a nice picnic it isn't my fault that the the Taliban capture me and kill me, right? I'll just tell them what thousands of Marines and special forces have been unable to convince them of, "hey assholes, don't kill Americans".

Sheesh. What kind of fantasy world do you peole live in? You need to get down from the college ivory tower and out into the real world once in a while.

Let me break some bad news to you; there are bad people in the world and they do bad things to good people. Sometimes even mostly ok people do bad things to good people. This is never going to change. A grown up recognizes this fact and, having recognized it, maintains situational awareness to avoid being a victim and is prepared for flight or fight if unable to avoid and confronted.

"...maybe more women could have active sex lives without the frequent attendant doubt as to whether and when consent occurred."

That makes no sense at all. It also contains the negative stereotype of females being adled and confused poor little things. Whatever. It's a double edge sword. That would also mean they don't get to cry "rape" instead of taking responsibility for their actions.

"Next, let's all have a conversation about how the police, defense attorneys and the media treat rape victims, especially the one who haven't been "obviously" raped. "

Another attempt to abdicate responsibility on behalf of females. if a woman was slipped a roofie then a urine test will easily prove that and, i assure you, despite my disdain for the police, they will take it seriously and will make an arrest.

"Again the focus on what is/will be provable in court is taking us down distracting rabbit holes. And even the talk about roofies distracts from the main points."

No Sebastian. Dr S says this:

"When I first saw this I couldn't believe what I was reading. What he is describing is not "hookup culture", it is rape culture. The women he is talking about have been *raped*. And he seems to (sort of) recognize it:
These women, and so many others, describe a campus culture in which men expect to have sex on any given night, even if it requires pressure, manipulation or the use of illegal date-rape drugs."

She is making the statement that women are being raped. Rape is a crime and it is, as Phil has so kindly pointed out, clearly defined by law.

If rape has occurred then it should be reported and handled throught the criminal justice system.

In fact, not reporting it to official criminal investigatory agencies is EXACTLY the aspect of our culture that is enabling the continuence of a rape culture on campus (if such actually exists).

If a situation is does not meet the standard of rape under the law, then it is very possible that rape has not actually occurred and that something in the grey area described by myself and others has occurred. It is within this grey area that a woman's responsibility and contribution to the event comes into question. So it is valid, not distracting, to discus that.

Unless you are one of those that thinks men are evil and women can do no wrong; which some feminists do. In that case there is nothing to "discuss" and you can just rant away in an echo chamber.

I'm not being clear.

A situation can involve clear rape--"I said no and he had sex with me"--and still present enormous challenges as far as prosecutions go. It just isn't shocking to me that lots of women don't want to go through the he said/she said problem when that is all they have--even though they were actually raped.

And that goes double for the "I said no, but I was really drunk and I feel like an idiot/slut/loser for being drunk around him and unable to fight him off".

And it goes triple for sub-cultures where the women will be blamed on some level for having sex even when they were raped (and those sub-cultures aren't just Muslim, there are definitely Christian ones).

And it goes quadruple for men, because there is a huge amount of shame in men getting raped, so much so that we can barely stand to talk about the issue.

Rape, even when it happened, can be a very difficult crime to prove outside of a stranger rape situation because the defining characteristics of the mental state can be tough to show except by assertion.

So when we talk about rape, we can accept the fact that it is difficult to prove, and that the difficulty might not be going away, and still have plenty of other things to talk about.

Now it isn't illegitimate to talk about the proof problems. But they aren't appropriate in every discussion. And in this particular discussion it is distracting.

You need to get down from the college ivory tower and out into the real world once in a while.

??? This statement makes no sense. At least as applied to me.

Sebastian's comment above is 100% endorsed by me.

Actually Sebastian is saying most of the things I want to say here, only better, so just mentally add my name to his posts.

Advising people to be careful does not preclude blaming predators, and is not the same as suggesting "you asked for it" after the fact. Can we get that straight?

How people decide to handle things legally, after the fact, has no bearing on what actually happened. Can we get that straight?

With that, does anyone else find the idea of two people raping each other, while both enjoying it enough to later call each other to do it again, a little weird (at the very least), even if you think the college/young-adult "hook-up culture" actually represents a rape culture? I can't quite figure that formulation out, myself.

I hear you, Sebastian, but I still disagree to a degree.

Again, rape is a serious crime. Involves forcing a sex act.

Forcing.

And forcing implies some form of violence being used - unless we are talking about the roofie thing.

Roofie thing aside, force must be used.

If these women are being "raped", why do they not have defensive wounds (as well as other physical trauma that I won't go into here)?

Signs of physical trauma instantly take the matter beyond the he said/she said stage.

Otherwise, we are indeed left with a he said/she said situation and, absent physical trauma, that is probably where the matter should be left in most cases because it implies that the woman did consent to some degree; maybe not a 100% whole hearted participant, but compliant enough that she didn't attempt to fight off a rape.

I have taught self defense skills to several women. Simple and effective. A woman, especially one that puts herself in situations where unwanted sexual demands might be made should know these things. Not knowing them implies stupidity and recklessness. Not attempting to fight against unwanted sexual demands also implies either a) a stunning weakness of will and or b) a willingness to participate, if for no other reason than to get it over with.

In either case, the guy is a complete brutish asshole. However, I don't think the situation rises to the level of 'rape". There is just too much confusion as to who agreed to what and how.

Is it sad that a woman must be prepared to fight and incur some physical injury? yes, of course. Still doesn't change anything.

Roofie thing aside, force must be used.

Force is not necessary for rape in any number of instances. A threat may be sufficient, over serving the victim or other forms of incapacitating a victim (dentists have been known to use gas). Rape is intercourse without consent. The issue is what constitutes consent.

If someone has made it clear that they are willing to have sex with you despite your lack of consent, it isn't clear that unless you can actually physically fend them off *and* escape, that it is wise to engage in a life or death struggle with them.

Lots of people do, but I'm not even going to start faulting those who don't.

Also different people have different reactions to violations the level of rape. Some people shut down and try to dissociate in order to mitigate the mental trauma. That is a legitimate defense mechanism, and may even be more appropriate than physically fighting back in many cases.

Other people may be aware that they are not capable of fighting back (i.e. drunk) so even if they make themselves clear that consent is not given they may not physically fight.

I don't have a problem with the defense reactions of any of those people.

Avedis, you still seem to be confusing legal issues with both 1) the acutal reality of what happens regardless of the legal recourse taken or available and 2) cultural issues about what is socially acceptable, be it within a given subculture.

Yes, evidence may be lacking when two people are alone and one or both of them may have been impared.

And frankly, the idea that a woman or a man might decide "to get it over with" equates with willingness is shortsighted and sick. Coercion comes in many forms, violence being only one of them.

Do you blame someone with a knife at his or her throad or a gun to his or her head for deciding that he or she would rather suffer through a rape than accept a very high risk of death? Is that indicative of stunning weakness of will, since it might not involve defense wounds? Does that have fnck all to do with the guilt of the rapist?

Wow, somebody actually brings up the "why didn't she fight back?" trope and we're supposed to believe this person is not a rape apologist. Or a fool.

2907.02 Rape.

(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.

(C) A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in prosecutions under this section.

ALso:

2907.03 Sexual battery.

(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply:

(1) The offender knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution.

(2) The offender knows that the other person’s ability to appraise the nature of or control the other person’s own conduct is substantially impaired.

(3) The offender knows that the other person submits because the other person is unaware that the act is being committed.

Sexual battery is not rape, but it is a third degree felony.

If these women are being "raped", why do they not have defensive wounds (as well as other physical trauma that I won't go into here)?

Oh for Pete's sake. Why does anyone bother with you?

But remember, not wanting to go to the police and deal with questions like "were you drinking?", "why didn't you fight back?" and "what were you wearing?" -- all questions that the law explicitly notes are irrelevant and inadmissible -- is evidence of "abdication of responsibility by women."

Also keep in mind that this is coming from a guy whose daughter and her servicemates decided to unleash a towel party on a lesbian servicemember. So.

Other people may be aware that they are not capable of fighting back (i.e. drunk) so even if they make themselves clear that consent is not given they may not physically fight.

This and many others. A mother "consents" to sex to protect her daughter from the same assailant. Coercion comes in many forms. I've defended a number of pedophilia cases (not the pedophile, but either the employer or the premises where the act took place). In every instance I can recall but one, force was not used. Threats against the parent, against a sibling or a fried, threats of "you'll get in trouble if you don't", all kinds of sick stuff. Sexual predators are masters at compelling compliance.

"Other people may be aware that they are not capable of fighting back (i.e. drunk) "

Then why oh why are they out getting that drunk with people (men)? Where is their back up? They need to be educated. Dr S objects to that education because it's aimed at the potential victims. Weird.


"Sexual predators are masters at compelling compliance."
Yes, They are. As you note, you were successful in bringing about a legal resolution.

"Do you blame someone with a knife at his or her throad or a gun to his or her head for deciding that he or she would rather suffer through a rape than accept a very high risk of death?"

No, of course not.


But we are not talking about that.

Nor are we talking about any of the things that gets Phil types bleating like sensitive little sheep.

We are talking about Dr Science equating the hook up culture with rape and her questioning of why education was directed at females. Therefore we are within the realm of drunkeness and grey areas of consent. Not guns and knives and mostly not even the threat of physical violence. Although I note that threat of physical violence is a crime and if it occurred it should have been reported to the authorities.

At bottom, people like Dr S and Phil are pathologically prone to read rape and dominance into any male/female sexual relationship. They hurt their own cause by using serious terms unseriously; probably because they are unable to have or maintain these kinds of relationships and are lashing out in pathological ways at an aspect of normal society that they are unable to be a part of.

P.S.
"Also keep in mind that this is coming from a guy whose daughter and her servicemates decided to unleash a towel party on a lesbian servicemember." Lesbian was secondary to unable to follow orders and act as a team member. lesbianism was merely the expression of deeper and more meaningful flaws. I explained that at the time we discussed it. Figures that someone like you would be incapable of absorbing and assimilating such critical concepts.

We are talking about Dr Science equating the hook up culture with rape and her questioning of why education was directed at females.

I think what Doc Sci was talking about was an over-emphasis on female behavior and a lack of discussion about changing male behavior.

Do you think it would be better if someone spoke to the young fellas about their attitudes toward women and sex, avedis, within the hook-up culture, or do you think they are doing just fine?

Is it just up to the women to be smart and protect themselves, since, as Doc Sci put it, "boys will be boys" and that it's the woman's fault anytime she fails to sufficiently do so?

At bottom, people like Dr S and Phil are pathologically prone to read rape and dominance into any male/female sexual relationship. They hurt their own cause by using serious terms unseriously; probably because they are unable to have or maintain these kinds of relationships and are lashing out in pathological ways at an aspect of normal society that they are unable to be a part of.

Hey, shithead? I have been married to the same woman for 21 years now. You have exactly one hour, as of 4:46 ET, to apologize for and retract this statement, or you are about to have major problems in your life.

Sebastian? Slarti? Y'all are awfully quick to jump down my throat on "personal attacks." This is literally beyond the pale, and I am asking for action to be taken here.

"Do you think it would be better if someone spoke to the young fellas about their attitudes toward women and sex, avedis, within the hook-up culture, or do you think they are doing just fine?"

I don't really know how generally you mean this. I mean, yes, you should talk to young men about where the lines are even in the grey areas. But the generalization that they don't understand them is not proven, perhaps not provable. Blaming the despicable acts of some young men on the "culture" paints a pretty broad brush, even starting with the hook-up culture as your baseline.

As a father of two sons 27 and 30 years old and two daughters 30+, I can assure you that in a reasonable cross section of young men that I know through them that there is a solid understanding of the appropriate lines.

I wonder if this discussion doesn't get rehashed all the time because some people, like me, just won't accept that in our society generally that rape is excused as "boys will be boys", culturally. I just don't have any experience where that attitude is not an exception to societal norms. I don't know anybody that would agree with that today.

So any time the discussion goes to what young women should do it always devolves to "why don't the young men take responsibility". Gosh, they should, and most do.

Ultimately shared responsibility as summarized by Laura in her 9:23 yesterday is an appropriate response. I guess I am never sure why there are two sides to this discussion.

Phil, that's way longer than the average American marriage, you should be divorced by now so you can "participate in an aspect of normal society."

:-)

Marty, that's largely the point I was trying to make when jokingly referring to saying, "Hey, rapists, don't rape." Men generally know who the predatory dillholes who are likely to cause trouble are among their peer group, and I think it's incumbent on them to say something to those men, and to interfere with them, and to make it clear that *as men* their behavior is unacceptable; rather than simply saying, "Watch out for that one, ladies, he gets a little hands-y."

I used to work with a guy who was a real a-hole to women, largely because he couldn't handle his liquor, so he was always trying to pick them up in the most callous, crude and crappy ways possible. Whenever my other co-workers and I were out with him, we'd do whatever necessary to keep him from hitting on women.

I'll speak up.

There is this:

At bottom, people like Dr S and Phil are pathologically prone to read rape and dominance into any male/female sexual relationship. They hurt their own cause by using serious terms unseriously;

And then there is this:

probably because they are unable to have or maintain these kinds of relationships and are lashing out in pathological ways at an aspect of normal society that they are unable to be a part of.

The first, excepting the "pathologically" part, is fair comment, certainly no more substantively offensive than some of what goes on here.

The second does cross the line, in spades. But, then the line splits: Dr S is as polite as anyone here, if not more so. Phil, well, he throws his share of personal bombs too. That said, Avedis is out of bounds. Phil's threats against Avedis are out of bounds too. Glad I'm not the hall monitor around here.

And, time having expired, I know at least one former ObWi regular who knows avedis's real name and where he lives, and I suspect they will provide it to me if asked.

Avendis, you are WELL out of bounds on that comment. Please do not continue along those lines in this thread or any similar one in the future or I will have to ban you.

Phil, you piss me off. You are a wimpy passive agressive fool. Period.

That said I was out of bounds and I apologize.

And that is not because I have any fears about anyone knowing who I am or where I live; even if whomever you refer to does, which he doesn't. He thinks he does, but he is wrong as I explained once in the past. He maybe, emphasis on 'maybe' knows where my brother - or maybe it is my cousin, depending on his source - lives and that is near where I live (a mile near if one and same county if the other) and if you found one, you could eventually find me because we put in time at a same location and same work related computer (this one); though mostly it is myself that has used this machine over the past couple years or so.

What you would plan to do after location is a big question mark and it amuses me to consider what bufoonery you have in mind.

Being a righteous quoter of rules and etiquette and all that, I expect that you know that threats of the type you have made are against the law, right?

This includes any false allegations made on false assumptions that would be libelous; actually, especially those. I'm sure it's not like you are going to show up here or anything.

Blaming the despicable acts of some young men on the "culture" paints a pretty broad brush, even starting with the hook-up culture as your baseline.

While that's all well and good, the people mentioned in the top post are describing what is a dysfunctional subculture and are the ones prescribing solutions disproportionately focused on women. Perhaps they are just wrong about what's going on, since their direct experiences on various campuses don't accord with yours, Marty. (I don't write that because I doubt what your personal experience actually is, btw.)

My experience as a guy who went to Rutgers in the mid/late Eighties to early Nineties accords well with the hook-up culture as described, if that matters at all.

I'm glad your kids and their friends are nice, too. But what a majority (or most) guys are like isn't really the issue if a significant majority are acting like jerks and might be helped with a bit more social pressure against their jerkiness.

As far as the two sides go, it sounds like you're probably on the same side I'm on. I'd say Avedis is on the other, since he takes a suggestion that guy's need to be pressured to do better as a suggestion that women shouldn't be advised to be careful, and also seems to think that women who don't fight rapists are blameworthy.

Without that sort of thinking, there probably wouldn't be two sides.

"Do you think it would be better if someone spoke to the young fellas about their attitudes toward women and sex, avedis, within the hook-up culture, or do you think they are doing just fine?"

I do think that someone should talk to the boys. the problem is that you have only so many resources for a prgram and you have to direct those resources to where they can make the most impact. I do think that educating the girls and providing them with an alternative *is* the most cost effective approach.

I usually don't comment on this blog for reasons that should be obvious at this point. Most of the topics discussed only marginally interest me at best. I am disturbed by the hook up culture - or at least what I personally see of it. However, i strongly disagree that it is fundemnetally rape based. Rather, i see it as being mutual (male/female) participation in mindless, emotionless and risky sex that can lead to regrets and all sorts of other negative outcomes.

It bothers me that someone sees "rape" in all forms of male/female sexual interaction. That is hyperbole and it is not mainstream thinking and you are not going to make any points with anyone - or help them - by approaching the topic from that position.

It also bothers me that the term "rape" is tossed about so flippantyly. Rape is serious and should be treated as such.
If someone believes they have been raped, they have a duty to themselves and to society to report the matter to the proper authorities. I do not understand people, usually women, that claim to have been "date raped" and then go back out there and do it all over again.

If a woman has been raped, and the nature of the crime is such that authorities will not, or are likely to not, take further steps, i would expect the other guys in the community to not just have a look here fella conversation with the offender. I would expect a thorough beat down that would cause the offender to understand and remember that what he did scores no points with anyone. I don't understand why this doesn't happen with all of these alleged cases. Where i come from, it would.

Ok. I'm done. Nothing more to add and just causing trouble.

adios

Holy smokes, people. Now I put on my hall monitor hat.

avedis:

probably because they are unable to have or maintain these kinds of relationships and are lashing out in pathological ways at an aspect of normal society that they are unable to be a part of.

For crying out loud, dude. Haven't you picked up yet that I've been married to the one guy for *decades*? And have children? This statement is not merely extremely rude, it is *stupid*.

I'm going to have to ban you for at least a bit, because that crosses the "no ad hominem attacks" line by a *lot*.

I'll get back to this post after dinner, there's the signal.

Look, I'm not sure that "rape culture" is the best framing of the issue. (It sounds to me like a culture focused on raping rather than permissive of raping but "rape permissive culture" isn't pithy either.)

But I do know a few things that are certainly worth talking about.

1) There is a huge amount of shame associated with being raped.

2) That shame makes it easier for men who want to take advantage of other people sexually to do so.

3) There are various sub-cultures which valorize behaviors that are either edging up to the line on rape, or actually rape.

4) There are various sub-cultures which make it easier for a man to think rape might be ok.

5) There are various mainstream cultures which make excuses for actions which will often end up being rape.

6) There are various mainstream culture attitudes which make life a lot harder on a rape victim than it needs to be.

I don't know if I will agree with everything in a "rape culture" discussion, but it seems to me that those points are all important and all well within the discussion.

I apologize to you as well, Dr S. No. I didn't know that about you. I stereotyped you as one of those lesbian women studies types.

I got p.o.ed and let rip. Stupid of me.

i was wrong. i accept the ban.

I would expect a thorough beat down that would cause the offender to understand and remember that what he did scores no points with anyone. I don't understand why this doesn't happen with all of these alleged cases. Where i come from, it would.

This would represent a cultural shift with the aims I think some of us are calling for, if not necessarily through the same means. (But why quibble over details at this point? I could imagine not being so gentle myself about things if I had a personal stake in them.)

Now, Brian brought up the question of whether my comments toward Brett are themselves ad hominem.

It was my intention to direct my remarks to Brett's *rhetoric*, not his *person*.

Brett's was the *very first comment* to the post, and he said, on the basis of no particular evidence, (a) the women are probably lying to the chaplain about being raped, they're just having second thoughts about sex, and (b) they're probably lying about being drugged, too. These statements, which he characterized as "just asking", create a poisonous atmosphere for the ensuing discussion.

This is rape culture: when women are presumed to be lying, especially about sex. It should be obvious why this is insulting to all women, and devastating for women who've personally experienced rape.

I call it "poisonous" because it means the ensuing discussion will be badly weakened. When you frighten or repulse people with personal experience of a topic, you're going to have a warped discussion.

I'm not going to say that I'll drop the banhammer on anyone who makes victim-blaming or rape-apologist arguments here, but I'm going to point it when it happens and (try to) cut off discussion I see heading that way.

I appreciate that intention, although I don't think your words quite matched your intent, then.

Focusing again on the article, the quotes do not say the women told the chaplains they were raped. "three women who have each woken to discover that they had sex the previous night but have no memory of it".

The chaplain's claims that the campus culture includes date rape drugs colors everything, but he doesn't really provide any supporting evidence ... he doesn't even claim that any of the three women he referred to themselves claimed it was involved in their cases. There wasn't exactly a lot of actual facts presented about this at all, so I think Brett's suggestion/question is best interpreted as being prompted by the story rather than specific to it.

I don't intend to speak for anybody else, so that's my that on that. But as long as the hall monitor hat is out, and there's talk about poisonous atmospheres: phil threatened avedis in *real life*. That seems kind of serious to just overlook, even if avedis's hands were dirty.

As it might be interesting: I spent a little bit of time distracting myself by trying to figure out what the implications are of people not remembering the night before. (I've never experienced that due to drink myself, although I'm apparently prone to waking up in the night and doing things/holding conversations that I don't remember in the morning).

http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-2/186-196.htm points out that alcohol-induced blackouts are triggered more by rapid changes in BAC than total BAC; females may be more susceptible than males to memory impairment; and it presents a study in which memory impairment occurred with a BAC as low as 0.14 (with 0.20 was more typical). While DUI laws rate intoxication for purposes of driving an automobile at 0.08 throughout the US, I've found various charts that claim 0.14 BAC would be light intoxication for a heavy drinker. 0.14 BAC is around 4 drinks, while 0.20 BAC is 5-6 drinks, for a 120lb person.

I didn't see on reading this report, nor anywhere else in my googling, when the memory impairments stops, so if someone were to get into this state, but then stop drinking and start sobering, would they ever be in a state where they could be sober yet have problems forming long term memories? With animal testing, given an effective BAC of 0.16, normal neural activity started happening about 7 hours afterwards.

And of course drugs, including valium and (of course) rohypnol, change all of this drastically.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Whatnot


  • visitors since 3/2/2004

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad

QuantCast