Skip to main content

Drunk man with beer bottle and empty glass.
He can still decide not to rape anyone, even drunk.
The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has a solution for the problem of campus rape: Let's blame the victims. For real:
What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)

Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

Except for the part where one of the drunk drivers rapes the other. But hey, let's extend this logic to crimes besides rape. Yeah, that guy is dead, but we were both drunk at the time, so ... not guilty! Actually, scratch that. There wasn't even a crime.

However much alcohol has been consumed before a rape and whoever has consumed it, the one thing all rapes have in common is a rapist. And the New York Times article that Taranto wildly distorts points out that "Research by Mr. Lisak indicates that about 3 percent of college men account for 90 to 95 percent of rapes." We are talking about predators, even if the predator is in the guise of a nice college boy who just made a mistake (the time he was caught).

Taranto's column is a "best of the web today" with multiple items, allowing him to add the perfect capper to his rape denialism: that item is followed up by a few paragraphs of climate change denial.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:17 AM PST.

Also republished by Pink Clubhouse and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (191+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ericlewis0, kaminpdx, Vita Brevis, TheOrchid, gchaucer2, Crashing Vor, Habitat Vic, Portlaw, Glen The Plumber, The grouch, ontheleftcoast, Ojibwa, Tchrldy, Meteor Blades, hubcap, checkerspot, Sandino, Cassandra Waites, Tom Anderson, stlsophos, Gowrie Gal, cotterperson, commonmass, mslat27, MA Liberal, Polly Syllabic, mookins, Aunt Pat, marleycat, Involuntary Exile, koosah, leftist vegetarian patriot, burlydee, sawgrass727, Shockwave, howabout, millwood, Egalitare, flitedocnm, sturunner, concernedamerican, CPT Doom, ratcityreprobate, davis90, Horace Boothroyd III, kenwards, TheLizardKing, rb608, raptavio, gloriana, atana, SneakySnu, dicentra, Australian2, psnyder, No one gets out alive, Wreck Smurfy, BlueDragon, belinda ridgewood, middleagedhousewife, FogCityJohn, zerelda, tobendaro, la urracca, stevemb, BachFan, Bill in Portland Maine, Onomastic, The Knute, TheMeansAreTheEnd, oortdust, devis1, novapsyche, leeleedee, SheilaKinBrooklyn, Forest Deva, wader, GeorgeXVIII, SteelerGrrl, flycaster, asm121, TKO333, MartyM, AdamR510, VPofKarma, Themistoclea, countwebb, IndieGuy, Expat700, joynow, prfb, niteskolar, tegrat, slowbutsure, bob152, Cali Scribe, bartcopfan, livingthedream, moviemeister76, anodnhajo, molecularlevel, smartdemmg, NYWheeler, lupinella, FloridaSNMOM, quill, deltadoc, cpresley, tommymet, pasadena beggar, eeff, blackjackal, blue muon, cececville, FarWestGirl, MarkInSanFran, catly, roses, JBL55, Dolphin99, OldDragon, greycat, P Carey, JWK, CA Nana, Jon Sitzman, Matt Z, NormAl1792, FlamingoGrrl, ChemBob, Dodgerdog1, Yosef 52, 88kathy, WheninRome, TXdem, jiffykeen, wasatch, Busted Flat in Baton Rouge, eztempo, Shotput8, marykk, eru, trumpeter, duhban, anotherdemocrat, not a lamb, Teiresias70, rapala, snazzzybird, Ice Blue, Politics and A Beer, MJ via Chicago, CenPhx, BlueJessamine, Cinnamon, RadGal70, Steveningen, orestes1963, annieli, dandy lion, jefecuatro, Linda in Ohio, mungley, Betty Pinson, Mannie, travelerxxx, peptabysmal, nadd2, pickandshovel, eagleray, terabytes, MinnesotaMom, swampyankee, tubacat, Sharon Wraight, vivadissent, Penny GC, thanatokephaloides, skyounkin, Meurglys, cany, cpr4life, debris54, lastamendment, tinfoilhat, salliezoo, groupw, wilywascal, Arkenstark, Iron Spider, JuliathePoet
  •  Drunk guys should therefore be arrested... (66+ / 0-)

    ...even if they haven't raped anyone, on the presumption tht they'd be more likely to rape someone after drinking.  I mean, that's why we arrest drunk drivers, right?  Because they're more likely to cause an accident.

    This WSJ piece doesn't even pass the laugh test.  It's just pathetic.

    "Life is the crummiest book I ever read - there isn't a hook, just a lot of cheap shots, pictures to shock, and characters an amateur would never dream up." - Bad Religion

    by TheOrchid on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:24:57 AM PST

    •  if your rich (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tubaguy

      and are murdered or robbed, it is your fault.  It is well within your ability to hire security, live in a secure location, and not put yourself in danger.

      I suggest that we make it policy that if anyone in the top 10% of the population is robbed or murdered, that police not waste taxpayer money in investigating the case.  If those people believe a crime has been committed, they can fund a private investigator and a prosecutor.

  •  Interesting (63+ / 0-)
    (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.)
    Not actually based on research, or statistics, or evidence but "based on our reporting."

    Well, based on our reporting, Taranto is actually totally responsible for being a dumbass hack rapist defender.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:27:35 AM PST

  •  I wonder if Mr. Taranto has ever been forcibly (59+ / 0-)

    sodomized to the point of bleeding by a large man that he could not hope to get away from or fight off, after a couple of martinis; after having casually left his favorite tavern feeling good.....

    Probably not....

    Please know I am not rude. I cannot rec anything from this browser. When I rec or post diaries I am a guest at some exotic locale's computer. Ayn is the bane!

    by Floyd Blue on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:28:38 AM PST

  •  Must have been jealous of all the attention (18+ / 0-)

    Bill Keller was getting.

    "Okay, he got ink criticizing a cancer patient. How can I top that?"

    I live under the bridge to the 21st Century.

    by Crashing Vor on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:29:39 AM PST

  •  What's wrong with Taranto's argument? (16+ / 0-)

    If you hold that drunk people can't consent, there's a legal issue as to who to charge if two very intoxicated people have sex.

    Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.
    His reasoning is correct.  If neither party could legally consent, both parties have committed rape.  You could, of course, charge them both with rape, but few (if any) prosecutors want to do that.

    The same issue arises with statutory rape laws that don't exempt sex between two minors.

    •  something tells me there will be many replies (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaso, kyril, ragged but right

      but I agree with you.

      •  What makes you think the drunk guy forced himself (6+ / 0-)

        Maybe both were drunk and fooling around and things just progressed to sex. Unless you have evidence the guy was not drunk enough and the woman was lying 0on bed senseless, I am not going to convict a guy of rape . Or thre was some evidence of the woman objecting to the sex.

        •  NO. There does NOT need to be any objection (8+ / 0-)

          Consent is an affirmation. A "yes means yes." Objection does not enter into it. Nor should it.

          Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

          by bull8807 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:26:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So the drunk guy is supposed to be more logical? (3+ / 0-)

            than the drunk woman? He is supposed to be more aware of consent than the woman herself? Even if visibly the woman looks like she is enjoying herself and the guy is too inebriated to follow subtle cues she may or may not pass? Sorry, there's gotta be some resistance verbally or physically. In our hookup culture, that is setting a dangerous precedence if you say a woman can visibly look fine with sex and both parties are inebriated and somehow the guy is supposed to know better.

            •  How often is it REALLY that unclear? (6+ / 0-)

              And how often, in those unclear situations, are charges filed and the accused actually charged and found guilty?

              The answer: Sometimes, it's happened, sure.

              But the fact that we're debating THIS is a distraction from the very real problems of real-actual sexual assault.

              "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

              by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:56:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  How hard is it to ask for consent? (12+ / 0-)

              There is nothing subtle involved. If you're confused, ask for consent. It's a yes or no question. Instant clarification. There you go, problem solved. Next?

              Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

              by bull8807 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:59:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you are confused, then yeah, but (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Zornorph

                When you are really drunk, and the woman is all over you, nothing appears confusing

                •  Right, and that would clearly not be rape. (12+ / 0-)

                  You're afraid she could later accuse you of it. But why would that happen? What are the odds of that? See, this is why I'm being so aggressive here. The subtext of this seems to be, "Who knows what that crazy woman might do", which is not a particularly neutral stance.

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:14:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  McWaffle, I agree with you. Would a rape charge (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cream Puff

                    stick if the following were true:

                    1. The woman (or alleged victim) had a voluntary drug in her body or admitted ingesting an intoxicant around the time the alleged rape occurred, and

                    2. There is no physical evidence of force?

                    It could've still been rape if the victim was intimidated into having sex (or allowing it), but how often would that charge stick if there were no witnesses?

                    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                    by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:29:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm pretty sure it wouldn't stick (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GoGoGoEverton

                      Unless it were possible to show the level of intoxication precluded consent.

                      The guy may well be guilty of rape, but unless he puts on a terrible defense, I don't think there would be enough to convict.

                      First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

                      by Cream Puff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:17:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So like several are saying, it's a (0+ / 0-)

                        logical construct that applies how often in real life?

                        While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

                        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:20:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Probably pretty often, alas. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          harvarddem, GoGoGoEverton

                          I also believe (and hope) that in the vast majority of cases, the woman was actually raped and is not making up stuff for other reasons.

                          Still, there's often a lot of room for reasonable doubt.  And because of the legal definition of rape, I don't see any way to change this.

                          First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

                          by Cream Puff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:36:24 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm usually skeptical of "Awareness" efforts (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMeansAreTheEnd, Cream Puff

                            because the goals are poorly defined, but this is an area where I think it is actually a big deal and could make a difference.

                            We can't legally or ethically lower the standard of evidence, but what we can perhaps do is prevent allegations from being unfairly dismissed. I suspect far too many solid allegations are dismissed not because they lack evidence, but because people fail to recognize that evidence.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:40:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not afraid of me (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Zornorph, Fixed Point Theorem

                    I'm happily married

                    90% I actually hate ANY innocent person being punished (I really thought that was a universal trait with liberals but I'm more and more disillusioned about this as time goes on)

                    10% I don't want my son, when he grows up, to live in a world where his life can be ruined because the woman had one drink, or heck they both had a couple of drinks

                    •  "Ruined by a woman" etc... See? That's my point. (8+ / 0-)

                      Why is that, of all things, your fear? Why a woman? What makes that more likely than other scenarios? How many other things could ruin his life? See, this is the issue I'm having.

                      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:33:07 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  See, you're not understanding (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fl1972

                        1) I clearly said 90% was my strong beliefs as far as accidentally punishing the innocent

                        2) Trust me, I am much much more worried about male bullies than any other people he'll encounter, but I'm an adult I can worry about many things at once.

                        In fact, if I could have it that he was the only boy in his school, I'd be all for it.

                        •  So you do have a son... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fl1972

                          And you are worried (among other things) that he will be ruined by a woman by getting drunk with her and having sex that she later calls rape. This is very enlightening about your viewpoints as expressed in a different diary. Carry on.

                          •  Doesn't have to be a woman (0+ / 0-)

                            Could be her father who files the charges, has the connections, but she won't stand up to him and then he's a sex offender for life

                            So in that part I'm "worried" about old traditionalist men

                          •  Text consent (0+ / 0-)

                            I personally think this is extreme, but I know of other parents who share your views and instruct their sons to ask for consent via text message, so it is recorded and will hold up under scrutiny. In that case, it really doesn't matter what the traditionalist father has to say.

                            Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

                            by bull8807 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:14:46 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

                            I feel really old right now.  

                          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

                            I actually feel better now and I'm going to remember that one, it is actually a great idea

                            thank you

                          •  That might go over with the younger generateion. (0+ / 0-)

                            They text each other even when sitting across a dinner table from each other, so it does seem to come naturally.

                            Another approach I read some years ago would be for both of them to sign a legal document that they wanted to have sex with each other ... a marriage license!  Which is a staple in older romantic comedy movies, to start off with a scene in which one partner wakes up in a hotel room (usually in Nevada!) with the other still asleep, then sees a brand new wedding ring on his/her finger, then the marriage license on the dresser.  How would you determine rape in that scenario?

                          •  I see. You could tell your son... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...not to drink with women because it's risky behavior -- he could be accused of rape. Certainly lots of people feel free to tell women not to drink with men because they could be raped.

                            Of course, that doesn't prevent a father from brow-beating his daughter into declaring rape for a consensual sex act. Does that really happen, though? I thought that sort of "traditionalist" father was more likely to throw his daughter out for no longer being a virgin. Argh.

                            There's an important point, though, about false charges: A VERY SMALL percentage of rape accusations result in convictions and even fewer in jail time. So if guys simply avoid situations of ambiguous consent (which might well actually be rape, even if the guy thinks otherwise), I think we're pretty safe from being convicted of rape.

                            Certainly we're VASTLY safer than women are for being raped. And I've never found a reason to think that false charges (though of course they happen) are at all common.

                            That's why I get queasy when people say or imply that we should tell victims (accusers, if you insist) that their attacker is innocent if they can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The vast majority of rapes fall in the category of "he forced sex without my consent, but it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt", if only because there wasn't a witness. I don't think we should let fear of false charges lead us to silence those victims.

                      •  because a rape accusation (0+ / 0-)

                        even if the charges are dropped devastates your reputation forever. Jobs are withheld from you and no one looks at you the same again.

                    •  Draxinum (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      eru, lcbo, schnecke21, Cassandra Waites

                      Fair or unfair, you come across as having a bit of a distorted view of women.  I'm glad you're happily married, and I share your concerns about your son growing up in a free society, but you appear to assume a lot about women while giving men the benefit of the doubt.  I could be completely wrong, and I probably am but what you write gives that impression.  

                      •  You obviously (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fl1972, TheMeansAreTheEnd

                        didn't see his exchanges in some of the Allen diaries....

                      •  Without basis (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Zornorph

                        I've never remarked about giving men the benefit of the doubt

                        When I read about male prison rape I also briefly worry that he'll do something stupid like drink and drive and he'll get raped in prison, and I actually have strong views on prison rape

                        Your view on this is backwards, if I worried ONLY about what men might do to my kids, I'd have a big blindspot. In fact it would be arguably sexist.

                        •  And if you'd said that, there'd be no confusion. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          fl1972, novapsyche

                          But it does seem odd that your fear regarding men is that they'll actually rape him, while your fear about women is that they'll false accuse him of rape. That's fairly loaded as well...

                          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:14:37 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Could you elaborate? (0+ / 0-)

                            You sound a little unclear, as if I should also fear a woman would actually rape him, or that a man would falsely accuse him of rape?

                          •  That one is more screwing with you, sorry. (0+ / 0-)

                            That's more of a Freudian analysis than anything else. My real point is that if your original comment hadn't said "A woman would ruin him" (or however it went exactly), nobody would've raised an eyebrow. If that's not how you feel, it's then a matter of realizing how you come across. Tobias Funke style, but with sexism rather than homosexuality.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:21:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  More like tinted glasses (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Zornorph

                            You pick what you want to see, or try to take new puzzle pieces and jam them into where similar appearing puzzle pieces have gone

                    •  Your son is more likely to be raped (4+ / 0-)

                      than to be falsely accused of rape. I think your concern is misplaced.

                      Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

                      by bull8807 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:50:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I can't be worried about two things at once? (0+ / 0-)

                        Really?

                        I think I'm a normal parent in that I worry about basically everything

                        •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

                          But it's important to base your concerns on statistical reality. As long as you son fully understands what affirmative consent means, and why it's important to verbalize it prior to sexual contact (and this goes for both parties, we've mostly been focused on men here but it's really everyone's responsibility to make sure they're on the same page), you are preparing your son to protect himself against the possibility of false rape accusations, but more importantly, to identify what is and isn't rape and his agency over his own body. This, in turn, gives him greater certainty of his right to consent or not to activities involving himself. This is important for young men because they tend to minimize their own feelings of violation when unwanted contact occurs, and it can lead to a whole lot of problems and self-hatred. This is statistically more likely to happen, but the consent piece really addresses both things.

                          Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

                          by bull8807 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:50:07 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Ask the Duke lacrosse players (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Draxinum, Zornorph

                      That had their names dragged through the mud because a dancer saw the possibility of a big payday.

                      You best believe it does

                      by HangsLeft on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:09:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Then teach your son to respect women (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      TheMeansAreTheEnd

                      and to use his words to ask if a woman wants to have sex before having sex. And that it's never ok to have sex with someone who can't say yes.

                      This might sound weird if you grew up when I did - it IS a cultural change. When I was younger, we didn't necessarily talk about sex before doing it. But that was before HIV, before herpes, before a lot of things (and before women started to get past thinking that rape was shameful for them, rather than for the rapist).

                      At the college where I teach, there are posters that say "Getting it?" in large letters, then "Consent - it's sexy!" Students are being taught to explicitly ask for consent. Things don't have to be "confusing" ...

                      "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

                      by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:51:15 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm going to stress those things as much as possib (0+ / 0-)

                        possible, and certainly more than my parents (and local area parents) did

                        However in regards to the people here that think any alcohol automatically makes it rape, I don't think he'll listen to me that he can never let a girl touch him if she's had one beer

                        And a sex offender status really does ruin your life

                    •  Funny. (0+ / 0-)

                      I have two sons in their early to mid 20s.  And this scenario has never even occurred to me.  I know them.  The thought that either of them would ever get into this kind of situation is so inconceivable to me that I am not going to spend a millisecond of my life worrying about it.  

                      I find it quite odd, frankly, that you actually live in fear of this.

                      "If a man loses his reverence for any part of life, he will lose his reverence for all of life." — Albert Schweitzer

                      by mozartssister on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:22:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Problem NOT solved (4+ / 0-)

                If she's drunk enough - although who knows how drunk that is? - then she may be considered unable to consent, and he's at risk of being accused even if she did say yes.

                Maybe it's because I'm from an older generation, but I find the whole explicit consent thing very weird. I've never been in a situation in my life where I thought the other party was confused about what I wanted or needed my permission. If I objected, you would know it in no uncertain terms. And why not? I'm an adult human being with agency who can speak, shout, push, scream, get up and walk out and in general make my feelings known. If I'm participating, that IS consent.

                Making the man get permission to me turns sex into in act perpetrated by men on women instead of something they do together. Does she have to get his consent? I prefer to consider it something I'm doing and not something being done to me.

                •  That's why I think "explicit consent" needs to be (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  denise b

                  understood to include non-verbal communication. Verbal communication is key, no doubt, but I don't think any non-strawman debater is going to say you need a signed "sex contract" or the like. Participation is absolutely a sign of consent. Enthusiastic participation especially.

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:27:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It's about whose burden it is. (3+ / 0-)
                  Making the man get permission to me turns sex into in act perpetrated by men on women instead of something they do together. Does she have to get his consent? I prefer to consider it something I'm doing and not something being done to me.
                  To me, the question is, who is initiating contact?  That person is the one who needs to procure consent.  If the woman is the aggressor, then it's on her.  Either way, affirmative assent needs to be made.
                •  Yes, it's a two-way street (0+ / 0-)
                  Making the man get permission to me turns sex into in act perpetrated by men on women instead of something they do together. Does she have to get his consent? I prefer to consider it something I'm doing and not something being done to me.
                  Yes, this is expected to be a mutual conversation. It's just that in practice, the man tends to get to the point where he wants to have sex a little earlier than the woman. So generally he's the one who starts the conversation. If the situation happens to be the other way around, then yes the woman would be the one to bring it up.

                  I am 25 and a product of this teaching. I have had many of these conversations. Every man I have dated it also well-versed in these negotiations. They're not as weird as you might think, especially after you've done it a few times. Usually the conversation is an inquiry about how far we plan to go during this specific encounter. I do not to have sex with people until I know them pretty well, so the first few conversations are about the boundaries. As an example, I will use the beginning of my most recent relationship. The man asked if he could sleep over. I said yes, but I was not interested in having sex yet, and would like to cuddle and make out, but no touching below the belt. He asked if he could touch my breasts. I said yes. End of conversation. Everything went as planned. We did have sex after about the sixth date, and that also was discussed in advance (three days in advance, actually) and we fully covered the topic of contraception (two forms), as well as who was buying the condoms. When the time came for our date, these issues were all figured out, and we didn't have to think about anything but enjoying ourselves.

                  I realize this is a totally foreign type of conversation to many who did not grow up being taught to have such explicit discussions. But establishing what everyone is comfortable with is the best way to have positive experiences. It prevents mis-communication in the "heat of the moment." And frankly, if you cannot have these conversations with potential partners, you are not ready to be sexually active. Teenagers actually take pause when confronted with this concept.

                  Do you really want to be in a situation where you are so out of sync with the other person that you have to object to what they are trying to do to you? It just seems better to me to have the conversation in advance.

                  Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

                  by bull8807 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:06:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Say what? (6+ / 0-)

              Even during my navy years, we knew enough to realize that without an active, affirmative invitation, the operative word was 'No.'  You never assume.

              I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

              by trumpeter on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:41:18 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  the definition of rape is when one person forces (14+ / 0-)

          another to have sex against their will/wishes.

          Two people who are drunk can have sex, and it doesn't mean that a rape occurred; but if one of them objects, and the other forces sex anyway, then there is a rape.

          wtf is wrong with you?

          Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

          by Mark B on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:00:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She doesn't have to OBJECT for it to be rape (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            harvarddem, TheMeansAreTheEnd

            The presumed situation is that a person does not consent. You have to assume she doesn't consent, unless she affirmatively consents. Otherwise, it's rape.  

          •  That's incomplete (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMeansAreTheEnd

            The definition of rape that most rape victim advocates use includes non-consensual sex, and force need not be used.  Specific examples include minors, those with mental illnesses, and intoxicated individuals.   Rape victim advocates commonly remind folks with the common refrain: "if she's drunk, she can't consent."  If she can't consent, it's rape.  

            So if a person who is inebriated cannot consent to sex, then among two people who are inebriated neither one can consent to sex.  So if two such people have sex each in an inebriated state, both have committed an act that qualifies as rape.  At least the way it was defined to me.

            •  well, in the real world, people have sex when (0+ / 0-)

              they're drunk. It happens a lot; and frankly, both parties can be ardent about it. To say that they are both guilty of rape seems ridiculous to me.
              But I'm not a lawyer, Jim.

              Those who quote Santayana are condemned to repeat him. Me

              by Mark B on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:25:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Believe me you're onto something (0+ / 0-)

                because when I posed this problem to a rape victim advocate giving a lecture on the topic, he was stomped.  He was uncomfortably fumbling as he tried really hard not to come out and say that the guy is the one committing the rape for the purposes of breaking a tie.  But that was exactly what was going through his mind, try as he might not to say it out loud.  When in doubt, men are predators, women are hapless victims.

        •  I read recently about a study which showed that (19+ / 0-)

          rapists claim not to understand refusals, verbal or otherwise, no matter how clear they are.  

          The problem is not that women do not say no.  They do, in a hundred ways.  

          The problem is that men don't want to respect the no, and then pretend the women never said it.

          Therefore, teaching women to say no, while socially valuable in other contexts, is NOT rape prevention.

          Failing to fight hard enough or say no "clearly" enough is NOT consent.

          © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

          by cai on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:40:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  True story (4+ / 0-)

            I had a guy friend in college that asked me to proof read his paper on date rape.  He wrote something to the effect that a girl will sometimes say  no but she doesn't really mean no.  Seriously.  I thought he was joking.  He was not.  I told him at the very least to take that shit out of his paper.  

            •  Well, the statement is correct. (0+ / 0-)

              Sometimes some women (and men) will say no, while they are actually hoping to engage in sex[1]

              As a potential sex partner, you have two options: Taking their statement at face value, or trying to discern whether they mean it, and act on your best guess to their real intentions.

              I certainly don't recommend the latter approach - since a misread can have very dire consequences for both of you. But claiming that people always mean what they say is just stupid. The point is: You should always treat a no as a no.

              [1] I have heard at least two people - one of each gender - make statements to this effect. One of them said almost verbatim: "Sometimes a no means yes".

              The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice.

              by Lesser Dane on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:16:00 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheMeansAreTheEnd

                This is the crap that does not belong on dKos.  Whatsoever.

                •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

                  He's saying take no as no, no matter what someone might mean thanks to a kink or a fantasy, and he's correct that some people say no because of a fantasy.

                  I'd say given how often that topic comes up, the proper thing to do would be to educate how it's not no means no, it's yes means yes to better inform people.  And in that case where someone has a fantasy like that and wants it to happen without a serious discussion about safe play and establishing a safeword so that consent can be revoked...well, they're likely to be disappointed by anyone but a mind-reader or a rapist.  

                  And the dude who thinks he's a mind-reader is probably a rapist.

                  If Lesser Dane wanted to argue past that point, then hide rates should start flying because that definitely doesn't belong on DKos.

                  Everyday Magic

                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:47:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    moviemeister76

                    Sometimes some women (and men) will say no, while they are actually hoping to engage in sex

                    This is what furthers rape culture in the first place.  I know someone who wholeheartedly believes that "no" is merely an invitation to find out where "no" really lies.  It's sexist, it's misogynist & it completely contributes to not accepting one's partner at his or her word.

                    Yes, he actually said that this scenario means that the other person needs to find out "how to turn 'no' into 'yes'."

      •  The Black Widow meme where women (7+ / 0-)

        are much larger and stronger than males.

      •  You're fudging a bit (11+ / 0-)

        You're introducing "force" as though only forcible rape is rape. Plenty of the sort of cases he's talking about involved no force, only intoxication.
        There is, sad to say, a certain bit of truth buried in the much of this column.
        There was a case some years back on a college campus - guy at a frat party passes out in his room. He had either let a girl crash there too, or she decided to on her own later. Either way, he woke up in the middle of the night (still very drunk) to find the girl (also very drunk) initiating sex. He responded and the next day, was facing allegations of sexual assault. Ended up facing some disciplinary action and having to take some sort of course on alcohol and sexual responsibility. The girl had to do nothing.
        My question is - in this case, who raped who? And was anyone raped at all? We agree to things when we're drunk that we wouldn't when sober. Does regret make a retroactive "no"? And does that work for men too?

        "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:58:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure the facts were in dispute (0+ / 0-)

          If the girl clearly initiated the sex and didn't stop at any point, there's no rape (alcohol or no).  If her basis for accusation is simply that they were both drunk, it should have been tossed out.

          First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

          by Cream Puff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:20:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  One question (0+ / 0-)
            If the girl clearly initiated the sex and didn't stop at any point, there's no rape (alcohol or no).
            Why wouldn't this have been rape - of the guy? You can't say that if a guy initiated sex with an unconscious girl (alcohol or no) it would be rape.

            "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

            by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:45:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'd say the woman (0+ / 0-)

              sexually assaulted the man (assuming that situation is as described) - she initiated sex with someone who was not capable of giving consent. If the man objected, he could have legitimately had her charged with rape, and she should have had to do the alcohol course, face disciplinary action, etc.

              What seems odd is that he was charged at all - presumably, the woman made the complaint? That doesn't seem consistent with her initiating sex. So there might be some dispute over who actually initiated things...

              "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

              by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:06:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  One possibility (0+ / 0-)

                She was drunk enough that her memory of the event was foggy or non-existent.
                She also might be presuming a responsibility on the part of the guy to have stopped her when she was obviously intoxicated - yes, there are a minority that would take this position.
                She might have issues that cause her to suppress her sexuality under normal circumstances, and is having a strong emotional reaction to the event out of proportion to the actual facts.
                There are a world of possibilities in the tangled landscape of human sexuality. That's why the difficult conversations to define what "is" and "isn't" are so important.

                "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

                by Jaxpagan on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:20:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  The underlying premise to this logic... (4+ / 0-)

        ...is that there will be two kinds of cases:
        1) a man, though intoxicated, takes advantage of an intoxicated woman to force himself sexually upon her against her lack of consent, taking advantage of her diminished mental and physical capacity to resist;
        2) a man, though intoxicated, takes advantage of the diminished judgment of an intoxicated woman to manipulate her into permitting sexual relations, which once sober she has regrets and resentments about having occurred.

        ...and case 1) is rape, while in case 2), there is fair argument that this is regret rather than rape.

        Recognizing that there may be a legitimate distinction between these two situations does NOT thereby mean that the woman's intoxication = consent, but neither does it automatically mean he raped her.  Rather, it means that the particular circumstances that led to the sexual incident should be considered (note: prior sexual history of the woman should be irrelevant, except perhaps with the particular man in question, and even then prior consent on another occasion is insufficient to prove consent on the occasion in question).

        •  "takes advantage of the diminished judgment" (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassandra Waites, tubacat

          Thanks to that phrasing, there is not in fact any sort of fair argument that this is anything but rape.

          •  OTOH, proving that is hard (0+ / 0-)

            Distinguish that from "Her diminished judgement led her to agree to sexual relations, which once sober she has regrets and resentments about having occurred."
            Or for that matter "His diminished judgement led him to agree to sexual relations, which once sober he has regrets and resentments about having occurred."

            People get drunk and do things they later regret. I'm not sure how you criminalize "taking advantage of diminished judgement" to have sex, without criminalizing all drunken sex.

            Disclaimer: Obviously there is a limit. Passed out drunk is certainly rape, as is conscious but sufficiently incoherent or immobile to make consent (or lack thereof) clear. How much less than that do we draw the line? Especially if we're going to require other drunk people to make the distinction.

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:28:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  See, yeah, that's a third kind of case. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Whatithink, Cassandra Waites, tubacat

              Where neither party is deliberately taking advantage of the other's diminished capacity.  And yes, it can indeed be exceedingly hard if not impossible to prove the difference between #2 and #3 -- it can even be hard to prove in case #2a, where the rapist in question deliberately worked to bring about a state of diminished capacity in the victim and then took advantage of it.

              The question of how intent can be proven is a sticky one, but "you can't prove rape in that kind of case" is a very different statement from "that kind of case isn't rape."  The former is regrettably true; the latter is false and dangerous.

          •  Depends on how diminished... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NearlyNormal

            ...if she's so dead drunk she's on the border of passing out, then yes that kind of diminished judgment is incapable of giving meaningful consent.  But simply having drunk enough alcohol to lower inhibitions and impair good judgment is not enough to make it rape - that's instead called putting on "beer goggles".

            •  That's the challenge.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              It's really a fuzzy line... and it's not usually till "the day after" when people try to figure out which side they were on.

              Freedom isn't free. That's why we pay taxes.

              by walk2live on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:29:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This isn't epistemology class. On the ground (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dicentra, Batya the Toon, eru, tubacat

                I feel like most cases are far more clear cut than abstract biological/epistemological constructs. Unclear cases do in fact exist, but how often do they actually result in rape allegations? And if the case is TRULY unclear, aren't the allegations at least somewhat justified? Unjustified allegations are possible, but isn't a truly borderline case defined by the accusation being at least hypothetically tenable?

                Because otherwise we're inventing a not-rape case and then declaring it triumphantly to be not a rape...

                "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:35:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yep. (0+ / 0-)

                  And if we had a system where the names of all parties were withheld until judgment was rendered, this would be much less of an issue.  But we don't, and accusation of any crime causes irreparable harm to someone if they're found not guilty.  Rape happens to be the topic in this thread, but it's true of any crime.  Rape just happens to be a more charged topic (and rightly so, IMO).

                  Tenable doesn't mean it happened.  Tenable's not the standard for conviction.  Law gets made on the edge cases.

                  Whether or not erring on one side or the other is better for society is something I leave up to someone wiser than myself, because I don't have a good answer for that question.  But as a purely legal matter since we're talking about a crime here, punishing the innocent is as bad as not giving a victim of a crime justice when its due.  And these kinds of discussions flesh that out.

                  Everyday Magic

                  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                  -- Clarke's Third Law

                  by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:49:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And, as I said below, if we were near the balance (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    The Technomancer

                    point on the subject, we'd be in complete agreement.

                    I do think the idea of withholding the names of the accused, as is done with minors, is probably a good civil rights move all around. I suppose it might limit civil suits like with O.J. etc, but in a perfect world those wouldn't be substitutes for criminal justice.

                    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                    by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:52:26 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think we're as balanced as we can get... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...barring time machines or pervasive surveillance.

                      Namely, you have to leave the burden of proof on the accuser, no matter the crime, or you've removed the assumption of innocence that's needed to have justice.

                      Do you have a method to propose that we can use that doesn't change that scenario?  I don't, and if someone does, let's get it into law because it's sorely needed.

                      Everyday Magic

                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:14:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  But that doesn't mean advocacy is pointless. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        novapsyche

                        We don't have to say, "Welp, that's how we built the justice system, I guess rapists will just walk free all the time." That's defeatist. And it's the vibe that comes across from people who jump into these discussions talking "presumption of innocence". Obviously nobody's against that, but it also doesn't have to be the end of the discussion. Especially if we're talking about what happens outside of the courtroom.

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:18:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I can see that POV. (0+ / 0-)

                          If I had to articulate a difference between my POV and the POV you describe, it'd be that I think we can make this process more just.

                          Really, the only reason I'm even jumping in the discussion is because these reactions stemmed from the idea that a reporter shouldn't even try to approach it from that manner and have the conversation, even when there's a sound legal theory behind the reporter's arguments.

                          And trust me, you have no idea how much it pains me to give the WSJ any kind of credit.

                          Everyday Magic

                          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                          -- Clarke's Third Law

                          by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:48:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, as I say below, the "reporter" wasn't making (0+ / 0-)

                            the argument in good faith, at all. He's using that edge case to drive a wedge into the system to accomplish goals you and me both find abhorrent. That's amongst the issues here. It's not appropriate to treat this like it's Criminal Law class, because while it is, to some extent, that's approaching the issue with the blinders the author intended to put on you.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:53:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's a criminal matter... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...as much as it is a societal one, though.

                            The reporter may have been far more banal in the manner in which he made the argument, and have motives not aligned with ours, but we just agreed on his central point.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:04:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think we disagree on what his central point is. (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            thejeff, novapsyche, fl1972, lcbo

                            Because while his criminal law argument may be true in a vacuum, this isn't an excerpt from an interview with a criminal law professor that specializes in sexual assault. This isn't an op-ed by a researcher. This is a political document published by a known political agent expressing a political point. His "central point" isn't "Gee, it's tough to prove culpability in this particular subset of rape allegations." It's, "boys will be boys and b*tches be crazy," more or less, presented in a more "respectable" manner.

                            Context matters, and dKos isn't a court of law.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:10:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then if we're not talking law... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            harvarddem

                            ...people do stupid shit when they're drunk, and the author's point still stands, banal as this particular application of that particular statement is.  This is also why I don't drink to excess.

                            That, and terrible hangovers.

                            This is also an argument I'm gonna chalk to up my autism as just not understanding people sometimes.  I got reamed in another comment thread where the central point was that context doesn't matter, it was the ends that mattered.

                            This is why I deal with computers for a living.  Much easier to understand.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:01:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, I'm probably autistic too and work in tech. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer

                            So I'm not sure you can chalk it up to that.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:03:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm diagnosed. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            McWaffle

                            And I'm absolute shit when it comes to picking up context.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:10:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's like saying "Saddam Hussein was a Bad Guy". (0+ / 0-)

                            Well, sure, nobody would argue otherwise. It's all about the context in which that statement is made. It's trivial to posit "he's bad," nobody disagrees. What's important is why you're bringing it up at all.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:06:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So here's how my brain works... (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't have a problem agreeing that Saddam was a bad dude.  We've got copious evidence to prove that he was.

                            But "he was a bad guy" isn't a sufficient explanation for his actions, even though his actions are a sufficient explanation for why he's a bad guy.  That's a tautological argument.

                            In this case, the source of the argument could very well coming from a place exactly like you state -- the guy's trying to justify something terrible by making his argument.

                            I'm making the argument that he can be correct on this point and that's it a worthwhile discussion to explore and still be a jackass, and that exploration of the topic may lead to an unintended point of clarity that the author hadn't intended.

                            You work in tech too.  This industry wouldn't exist if we discounted the ideas of jackasses.  They're a majority of the industry.  Myself included, at times.  :P

                            Does that clear up where I'm coming from a bit?

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:47:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  You didn't read the comment very well (12+ / 0-)

        he said nothing about a man forcing himself on a woman.  He said 2 very intoxicated people having sex.  

        If a man forces himself on a woman, he is guilty of rape, whether he and/or she is drunk or not.

        If a man and woman choose to have sex while both inebriated, then you can't say the man raped the woman, but not the reverse.  That's what the comment said.  Can you disagree with the comment without changing what the commenter wrote?

        I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony

        by bluestatesam on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:19:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  These grey areas are largely logical constructs (6+ / 0-)

          Yeah, you can pose a scenario where both people are equally drunk and equally strong and there's no social power differential etc...

          But it's a stupid hypothetical construct designed to do nothing but excuse rapists. That scenario is just not how things play out in real life. People wake up regretting sex all the time while realizing they weren't raped. The false-report plague is a fever dream of MRA assholes who have no understanding of historical/cultural context and prefer to live in gliberatarian abstractions.

          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:11:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Given that the entirety of law... (4+ / 0-)

            ...is a set of logical constructs, I fail to see how this is a stupid conversation to have.

            Since we can't get it perfect, we need to do the least harm possible, which means coming up with a logical construct that results in the highest rate of punishment for rape while simultaneously having the smallest rate of wrongful convictions.

            I find the thorniest issue to be which side we should choose to err on to find that balance.  Wish I had an answer for it.

            But I don't think it's controversial to say that ensuring people that are innocent of a crime retain their freedom should be as much of a goal of our legal system as ensuring the guilty are punished (and if possible, reformed).

            Everyday Magic

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:41:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  While that's absolutely true, we're nowhere near (0+ / 0-)

              the balance point of that equilibrium. It's clear which way the scale tips. The issue isn't whether the scale should be balanced in theory, it's about addressing the very real, life-affecting fact that it's severely unbalanced.

              "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

              by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:44:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think the fulcrum we're balancing on... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Fixed Point Theorem

                ...is much thinner than you think.  Namely, there's no way to tip the balance back without removing the presumption of innocence from a trial.  If you're aware of a way to attack it procedurally beyond that, you're more knowledgeable than I am.

                Rape is a very difficult crime to prosecute.  DNA evidence when gathered shows someone was there, but it doesn't say what happened.

                If you have any ideas on what methods we can apply to give us more clarity and help determine the facts easier, I'm all ears with no sarcasm intended.

                But without that, I have to look at it like any other crime -- there's a massive burden of proof that needs to be met.  I just wish I had a good suggestion on how to reduce the collateral damage that I agree with you our current system causes by imposing that standard.

                Everyday Magic

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:00:33 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There's criminal justice, and then there's culture (0+ / 0-)

                  Both are out of wack. I'm not advocating any particular legal reforms, I'd leave that to lawyers. Like you, if there's something that'd obviously help, I'm on board.

                  But the real underlying issue is how society and pop culture view the issue. And that'll trickle into criminal proceedings. Not necessarily in the procedural necessity of irrefutable evidence, but in a common understanding that, hey, rape really does happen, and maybe I should take this woman's testimony seriously. Doesn't remove the need for evidence, but it'd help bring the judge and jury's point of view more into line with the reality of the situation.

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:11:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Except you can't do that. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    NearlyNormal

                    You have to assume the plaintiff's accusations are false until proven true.  That's the flip side of assuming the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

                    If we're talking about cases where the cops don't even run a rape kit, then yeah, that kind of societal change definitely needs to happen.

                    But whether or not you're aware of it, you're asking for the burden of proof to be lowered.  And to get back to the views on this article that spurred this discussion, the columnist may have/probably has written an article in poor taste that causes some extremely visceral feelings in people because it's both a serious issue and a serious societal problem.

                    But given how the legal framework is also the framework for our society, I don't know how you'd attack both.  

                    We should definitely clean up the reporting portion of the equation here -- leave the decision whether or not to convict up to the jury, not the cop that takes the report or the DA.  But until you can shield the accused from their name being permanently tarnished when they're found not guilty, I'm not even sure how you can do that.

                    Everyday Magic

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:26:42 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I guess I mean the difference between the accuser (0+ / 0-)

                      saying "He turned me into a newt", which is just off-the-wall obviously-that-didn't-happen and the accuser saying " we were drinking and I got too drunk and couldn't consent and was assaulted" which is absolutely possible but too often juries/police/DA etc will say "yeah, sure, you probably just regret it, you tramp".

                      Not whether the alleged attack happened, per se, but whether the alleged attack is the sort of thing that DOES happen, in general.

                      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:29:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't think we have a disagreement there... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        McWaffle

                        ...in the slightest.

                        The issue then circles back around to identities not being sealed prior to conviction.  If you're a DA choosing whether or not to prosecute (and for the sake of this discussion, let's leave out the political implications since that muddies the water further), you've examined the evidence that's been collected, and you don't think you can secure a conviction, the path of least harm is to not indict.  There's too much in question.

                        I'm not talking about a "crazy woman" scenario here, either.  I'm talking about one where the woman is personally suffering the pain that comes from thinking and believing with every fiber of her being that she was raped, but there's not evidence where even a sympathetic DA thinks they can win a conviction.

                        I'd imagine we'd see a lot more gray area cases tried if the accusation/trial alone no longer affected a defendant, only the outcome.  Seal the names, and then you take the decision out of the DA's hands because you can call a grand jury to make the indictment decision, and the accused's life isn't ruined unless a conviction happens and that becomes deserved.

                        In fact, sealing names prior to a conviction actually, to me at least, seems like the best way to solve the issue, because it allows more cases to be tried without the worry that a not guilty verdict doesn't actually clear the accused's name.

                        Even takes more burden off the accuser at that point, because now if they're confused and aren't sure if they were raped, it offers them the opportunity to report it and have the courts sort it out rather than eating themselves up wrestling with that decision of whether or not to accuse someone and ruin their life.  I think it'd bring rape reporting rates much closer to the actual occurrence rate.

                        Everyday Magic

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:43:50 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  For this setting, that's probably the best answer (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          The Technomancer

                          we're going to come up with on the legal end. That, coupled with male-centered rape prevention efforts and just an overall society-wide reevaluation of cultural norms regarding gender and we could actually make a dent in the issue.

                          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:50:05 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I think you need to reconsider this comment. (0+ / 0-)
                          I'd imagine we'd see a lot more gray area cases tried if the accusation/trial alone no longer affected a defendant, only the outcome.  Seal the names, and then you take the decision out of the DA's hands because you can call a grand jury to make the indictment decision, and the accused's life isn't ruined unless a conviction happens and that becomes deserved.

                          In fact, sealing names prior to a conviction actually, to me at least, seems like the best way to solve the issue, because it allows more cases to be tried without the worry that a not guilty verdict doesn't actually clear the accused's name.

                          The prosecutor's investigation (determining whether there is sufficient evidence to prevail at trial) is the only real safeguard a defendant has in this process.  Without it, you're essentially suggesting that a defendant load three bullets in a six shot revolver, spin and pull the trigger.  it would reduce due process to a "coin flip".

                          For the most part, I agree with the arguments that you have put forth, but the danger associated with this "compromise" is more innocent defendants would be convicted.

                          "Because I am a river to my people."

                          by lordcopper on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:34:17 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Ideally... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...if the DA doesn't have to make the decision to go to trial, that means it's turned over to a grand jury to go over the facts as a John Doe case to protect the identity of the defendant.

                            Obviously, keeping a defendant's name clear isn't the only burden on acquittal that we need to address.  There'd need to be a lot of reforms when it came to the cost (state pays on acquittal), and I'd love to see a court system done via text alone (as far as the jury is concerned), where appearance doesn't cloud judgment, etc.

                            And I agree that a wrongful conviction is as great as an injustice as a guilty man getting away.  If not more so.

                            But it would be nice if victims who believed heart and soul that they were raped, but due to intoxication or other causes of hazy memory, struggle with the decision to report it or not, didn't have to deal with that.

                            I'm not enough of an expert to find that balance.  I'm not sure it's possible to find that balance without completely rethinking how we conduct the process of a criminal trial from report through verdict.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:10:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You wrote: (0+ / 0-)
                            But it would be nice if victims who believed heart and soul that they were raped, but due to intoxication or other causes of hazy memory, struggle with the decision to report it or not, didn't have to deal with that.
                            Yes it would, but by definition (if you can't remember, how can you charge a crime) that means that some innocent men would be convicted.  I don't think it's wise, or possible, to absolve the "victim" of all responsibility in these cases.  After all, these situations arise in the most intimate moments of human conduct where there are usually no witnesses.  A lack of evidence should never be construed as guilt.

                            "Because I am a river to my people."

                            by lordcopper on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:29:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  It's not just a "logical construct" (0+ / 0-)

            It's been indicated in this very thread that intoxicated people are incapable of giving consent specifically for sexual activity (the sobriety standard is not imposed for signing a marriage license or buying real estate), and this particular "logical construct" is indeed the basis for various theoretical pursuits, legal frameworks, and public policy.

            My other car is a pair of boots.

            by FutureNow on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:21:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Once you insert "force" we're talking about (4+ / 0-)

        a different thing all together.  Talking about drinking and consent.  If the default position is that if you're drunk you lack capacity to consent and there is sex is it rape?  Some seem to think it is.  

        If I comply with non-compliance am I complying?

        by thestructureguy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:34:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, some here do seem to think that... (0+ / 0-)

          ...a lack of "yes" means "no". Count me among them.

          •  But that wasn't the question (0+ / 0-)

            "if you're drunk you lack capacity to consent"

            If there was a "yes", but the person giving it was drunk, does that still mean no?
            Does it matter how drunk?

            Obviously unconscious or incapable of speech precludes getting the "Yes", but judgement is impaired and inhibitiions lowered long before that.

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:39:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good point. Answer: informed consent (0+ / 0-)

              I think it is dubious, at best, to take advantage of a "yes" that is given under conditions of impaired ability to make decisions. Especially since even when NOT drunk, lots of guys think they hear a "yes" that wasn't actually said or even thought. It's very tempting to hear what one wants to hear.

              I once heard of a serial rapist who on being arrested insisted it wasn't rape because she wanted it. He knew that because "she smiled at me". I accept that he was sure that it was consensual. It was still rape.

              Perhaps initiating sex while one or both are drunk should be thought of as being like a steep cliff. If you don't want to fall off, stay WELL away from the edge. And if you do deliberately step up to the edge, don't complain if you do fall off.

      •  Don't think that comment would apply to forcible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        rape
        but does make some sense to just the assumption that since a very drunk person can't give consent that is rape.
        Because if they are both drunk and there was no force then either who rasped who or how is it rape or they raped each other.

        If there is force, it is rape

      •  No (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RightHeaded, harvarddem

        It sounds like he's saying if a man is drunk and a woman is drunk there is a legal argument that could find fault with both parties - specifically if the sex is consensual at the time.

      •  rape is rape (0+ / 0-)

        If a person forces himself or herself on a drunk woman, that is rape. But what if a drunk person forces himself or herself on a someone who is not drunk? If the the second person is smart, he or she will avoid the drunk. But how many college students are that smart?

        What about implied consent? People here seem to want to have a rule that both parties to a sexual encounter must give specific consent before there can be sex. Do we really want that kind of rule? Or are we willing to accept that there are some circumstances where it is reasonable for one person to infer that another person is consenting to have sex?

        •  clarity is not always easy (0+ / 0-)

          Let me rephrase my first paragraph.

          If a person forces himself or herself on a drunk person, that is rape. But what the first person does not initiate the sexual contact? What if it is the drunk person who tries to have sex with the sober person? If the the sober person is smart, he or she will avoid the drunk. But how many college students are that smart?

    •  Biology must not have been your best subject (16+ / 0-)

      in college. While it's possible the woman can force a male to copulate it takes some effort where a woman who is passed out from drinking can still be raped. Nice try for the MRA angle on blaming women but zero points for accuracy.

      Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:52:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Rape is not always PIV intercourse (8+ / 0-)

        And drunk is not always defined as passed out unconscious drunk.

        I've been in that gray area myself.  I have a high libido, and I did engage in a one-night stand with a man who was extremely drunk (and I was sober).  I definitely took advantage.  If the sexes were reversed, I might have been in that gray area.

        •  True, there are cases, I even admitted as much (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sturunner, dicentra, atana, eru

          in my comment but the "both sides are equally guilty" crap in the OC is just that -- CRAP.

          Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

          by ontheleftcoast on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:05:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  sounds like sexism to me (8+ / 0-)

            But I know I'm in the minority on this one.

            •  Even in your own case there was one willing and (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fl1972

              one unwilling participant. If what you say you did could count as some form of sexual assault was he equally guilty of assaulting you? Of course not. But by the OC's statement you'd both be guilty because neither of you gave consent. That's what I'm calling bull on.

              Food processed to be nothing more than simple starches with two dozen flavorings and stabilizers added to make it appear to be food isn't "food". It's "feed" -- what you give to livestock to fatten them up for slaughter.

              by ontheleftcoast on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:11:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He was willing, but he was very, very drunk (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hayate Yagami

                If I had also been very, very drunk, I think both of us would be guilty and/or innocent.  It's not bull.

                I left while he was still drunk.  I do wonder if he had regrets when he woke up the next morning, or if he even remembered the previous night.

                It did lead to one of the silliest experiences of my life.  He was so very, very drunk that he thought I was a prostitute.  I just happened to be walking back to my car after seeing a show alone that a friend was in.  He was a married man, on a business trip with many of his coworkers.  He walked me back to his hotel, and his coworkers were gathered in the front of the hotel, by the front door.  As we walked through them, he very drunkenly explained that I was "his secretary, going to take notes".  His coworkers, not being falling down drunk, could see that I was not a prostitute, and one of them reassured me that he was a nice man and trustworthy.

                Yes, I know this makes me a bad and reckless person.

                •  This was not (5+ / 0-)

                  just reckless but pretty crappy of you.  You're absolutely right that if the roles were reversed many would construe that as rape.  There are tons of guys out there, as I am sure you are aware, that will satisfy your libido without having to sleep with someone who can barely consent.  

                  •  Things aren't always so black and white as we'd (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fixed Point Theorem

                    like them to be

                    What she's is saying is not uncommon, and people who observed a lot of parties in college would also tend to agree

                    •  I don't recall my sophomore (10+ / 0-)

                      year so drunk at parties was kinda my thing.  She admits that she "took advantage" of him.  If she were a man, that would be rape.  It's wrong.  And if she were a dude, people would not be defending her.  She knows what she did was wrong.  I'm not trying to pile on, but she would be called out for it if she were a man.  

                      •  I find it hard to believe (0+ / 0-)

                        You didn't hang around any extremely attractive single men in college

                        I can't even count the number of times I saw girls in some form trying to avoid rejection by waiting for the more attractive guy to get more drunk

                        •  Wow... (0+ / 0-)

                          You assume a lot.  I had a boyfriend for a good chunk of it. And, frankly, I didn't do casual sex well.  So I refrained.  I need to feel something for the person other than he's so hot.  But no judgement to others that can do that.  

                        •  And, by the way, (0+ / 0-)

                          did you just assume I was ugly and to had to wait until the hot guy got drunk enough to take me home?  You are hilarious. You just made my day.  Thank God I don't take myself very seriously.  

                          •  I have no idea how you misread what I stated (0+ / 0-)

                            hang around...as in friends!

                            I had two extremely attractive male friends, who I observed interact with women

                            I was (i think quite clearly) asking if you had any extremely attractive male friends who you observed flirting with women

                            I didn't even know your gender let alone ask about your sex life

                          •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

                            You have a track record of saying some pretty dickish things.  Woody Allen diary comes to mind.  And you were pretty relentless with me.  I recall you saying that I would "combust" if I realized I was wrong.  But let me apologize if I was wrong.  And I didn't combust.  
                            But no I never noticed women waiting for attractive men to get drunker so they could have their way with them.  

                          •  It's not that black and white (0+ / 0-)

                            It's about avoiding rejection

                            These women don't think "Oh I can't wait until he's too drunk to consent!"

                            They just know about beer goggles and have self-esteem issues

                          •  As a woman (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            dicentra, novapsyche, drmah, bull8807

                            and I have a lot of female friends, I haven't witnessed this ever happening.  I'm not saying that it never happens but I am very skeptical of the frequency in which you claim it happens.  Women with self esteem issues will generally hook-up with men that are unworthy of them.  That's what I witnessed.  

                          •  well do (0+ / 0-)

                            you have any good but not great looking friends that had crushes on perfect looking guys?

                            Are you saying none of them would ever watch that crush get drunk and then initiate a sexual encounter if he responded to their flirting?

                          •  Gosh, I really can't recall (0+ / 0-)

                            that I've witnessed that scenario.  What I witnessed a lot was friends, even very beautiful friends, with self-esteem issues hooking up with assholes and hoping for relationships.  

                          •  Well you've known women who hide (0+ / 0-)

                            in bad relationships

                            I guess I've known more aggressive women who actually go for the great looking guy

                          •  More aggressive, less attractive (0+ / 0-)

                            women with self esteem issues that wait until the super hot guy gets drunk so they can hook up with him?  Okay.  I can honestly say and I was in a sorority (don't judge) never seen this happen.  

                          •  Your portrayal of women in your comments like (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fl1972, novapsyche, drmah

                            this is part of the reason I've admittedly been hounding you somewhat on this thread. All this talk about ugly women hypothetically getting men drunk, etc...

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:20:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ugly is harsh (0+ / 0-)

                            I said good but not great

                            And it's naive to act as though only men have crushes and try to flirt with women out of their league

                            Also, they aren't "getting" men drunk, just along for the ride

                        •  for the record, in my case (0+ / 0-)

                          it was more the situation that appealed, rather than the man.  He was quite average looking.  I was wanting NSA sex, and here it was served up for me on a hotel room platter.  Also there was a blend of power and danger from him being so very, very drunk that appealed.  Which also makes me a bad person.

                          So in my case it wasn't an avoiding rejection issue, but gold star for you for slut shaming.

                  •  Oh, I know it was crappy of me (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    fl1972

                    It was wrong, but because I'm a woman, no one would call it rape.  Lots of people would call it rape if the genders were reversed.  So that experience has made me more aware of the gray areas around the edges of rape.

                  •  I would construe it as rape (0+ / 0-)

                    even if the roles were not reversed - IF he was too drunk to actually consent to having sex. It sounds like he wasn't (since he thought he was going to have sex with a prostitute). Other than that, I wouldn't pass judgment.

                    "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

                    by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:14:40 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Nor is it always man/woman (7+ / 0-)

          Heteronormativity alert for most of these comments. I know more than one man that has been raped by a man. In all cases, drinking/GHB was involved (and the victims identify exclusively as heterosexual). No, they were not "forced" to do anything - they were incoherent and completely unable to object. But apparently this doesn't qualify as rape to some people. Or is it only not rape if the victim is a woman?

          Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

          by bull8807 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:34:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  If you wish to draw the line at unconscious... (12+ / 0-)

        ...then it's not as problematic.  If you draw the line somewhere between sober and unconscious, however, you're going to have an issue.

        You'd be surprised how some men can still be sexually functional even fall-down drunk.  I had a friend of mine in college who was essentially used by his sober girlfriend while unable to even stand he was so intoxicated.  He would later express distress over this and say that he definitely didn't want to have sex.  There's a reasonable argument that he was raped, I would think.

      •  You're somewhat mistaken (12+ / 0-)

        The male apparatus acts involuntarily in many situations, especially when young. Not wanting to have sex with a particular young woman (because he's in a relationship, highly religious, etc) does not change the fact that she's a young woman, and his gear is wired to respond to that no matter what his brain is saying.
        And, in case no one ever told you this, rape is not about sex. How far up the Mohs Scale she can get his junk is irrelevant to whether she's messing with it against his wishes in the first place.

        "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

        by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:07:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Female can organs work the same way (0+ / 0-)

          Especially for girls and women who are victims of ongoing sexual abuse, the body does tend to become aroused at least some of the time, as a protective mechanism and natural biological response to stimulus. This often leads to guilt and shame in the victims, and  sometimes prevents them from being able to see that they are in fact victims. Add on the societal assumption that "if he/she enjoyed it, then it couldn't have been rape," without taking any other factor into account, and you can understand why people  (especially women) don't want to talk about it. Why take the discussion there when rape victims already deal with so much blame?

          Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

          by bull8807 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:09:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oops, I messed up the title of that comment (0+ / 0-)

            Should be "Female organs can work the same way."

            Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

            by bull8807 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:11:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  But the irony there (0+ / 0-)

            Is that not talking about leads women (and men) who've been assaulted to feel guilt and shame for exactly the reasons you're talking about. These are the kind of discussions that need to be had so that people can understand their own experience in the context of what's biologically normal, and to dispel the public misconceptions.

            "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

            by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:25:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  While this is true, (0+ / 0-)

          it's also true that, physiologically speaking, it becomes more difficult for a male's sex organs to function when alcohol is involved as opposed to not.  How much more varies with the individual.

    •  My thoughts as well (4+ / 0-)

      I mean the diarist seems to be setting it up as a tautology.
      The principle problem with this position though is I'm not sure if it is a straw man or not.  Generally with equal drinking the man is going to be less drunk than the woman.  If one party supplies the alcohol, that party should be responsible.  If one party drugs/roofies the other, they should be responsible.  If force is used, the aggressor is responsible.  So how often is it really the case that both parties were equally drunk and one party just had second thoughts afterwards?  I'm thinking not so much.

      •  Equally drunk? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kyril, penguins4peace

        How does one even, know, really?  I couldn't estimate my own BAC at any given moment, and I doubt anyone who didn't neurotically practice with a breathalizer could.  That still wouldn't tell you how drunk your partner was in relation.

        Rape cases raise a whole slew of reliability issues, they're emotionally charged and the evidence is nearly always circumstantial (in "non-forcible" rape where both parties acknowledge the act took place.)

        So how often is it really the case that both parties were equally drunk and one party just had second thoughts afterwards?
         
        No one knows for sure, and people's estimation varies wildly.  Often, when this scenario arises, there's no prosecution.
        •  I don't think we need to get down to BAC (0+ / 0-)

          It's fairer to say "both intoxicated" - i.e., drunk to the point that decision making is impaired to some degree.

          "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

          by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:59:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Line drawing is quite hard. (0+ / 0-)

            Is two beers too drunk to consent?  That'd criminalize a lot of sexual encounters.

            Four beers?

            •  That's why they call them "gray areas" (0+ / 0-)

              It's very hard to draw a firm line to say when you're making a particular decision solely because you're intoxicated. It's like saying a given storm is definitely happening because of climate change.
              All we can know for sure is that drunk people - especially young drunk people - are going to have sex, and at least in some cases it will in places, at times and with people they wouldn't otherwise choose.
              How do we align that reality with the criminal codes vis-à-vis sexual assault?

              "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

              by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:21:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  What They're Guilty Of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shockwave, fl1972, raptavio

      OK - drunkenness means you're not responsible for your actions while drunk. You weren't drunk when you got drunk, so you're responsible for that.

      She's guilty of getting so drunk she couldn't defend herself from a rapist.

      He's guilty of getting so drunk he raped her.

      Who's more guilty?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:35:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Faulty logic (5+ / 0-)

      The crime of sexual assault doesn't require consent.  And there is nothing in the law that says a drunk person cannot give consent.

      A person commits sexual assault when they intentionally or knowingly force someone to commit a sex act without the victims consent. Being drunk may be able to take away your ability to give consent (that is a factual question for the jury to decide), but it does not take away your intent to do an act.  We presume people intend their actions, whether drunk or not.  If you force someone down and have sex with them, the presumption is that you intended to do that, whether drunk or not.  If a girl is too drunk to give consent (again, a factual question) and someone has sex with her, he intentionally and knowingly has sex with someone without their consent.

      You're arguing against a rape crime that never gets charged.  When two drunk people have sex, and both are aware and give consent to the act, the male doesn't get charged with rape just because the women is drunk.  That case never gets brought.  

    •  His argument misses how the law works (11+ / 0-)

      take the last sentence:  " His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him."

      This is flat out wrong. His diminished capacity is a mitigating factor -- in these scenarios, the rapist usually doesn't get charged with the highest degree rape by force, but something like sexual assault without prior consent.  And her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor because  he has the moral and legal burden to obtain consent in advance.  His construction is all word games:  there's nothing to suggest the rape victim is in any way analogous to a drunk driver, which is to say, a criminal.  And the word "presumes" is interesting:  in fact, the man is legally presumed innocent, and the woman has huge obstacles to press charges, psychologically, socially and also legally.

      Put it this way: if James Taranto sees a drunk woman on the subway, he can't pull his dick out and stick it in her ear.  The same goes to a drunk woman who happens to be in a social setting with him.  I mean, my God, how is it hard to understand that maybe a woman wants to drink with or even kiss someone she doesn't want to fuck.  

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:26:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where such distinction exists. (0+ / 0-)

        Many states don't necessarily have significantly different penalties for rape and rape by force.  Heck, there's also the issue of rape by deception.

        Rape is inherently a crime of intent, both on the part of the victim and perpetrator, because sexual contact between two adults is not in and of itself illegal.

        •  they are different degrees of a crime, (0+ / 0-)

          so you can question degree of leniency from one to the other, but it is both written into the law as somewhat mitigating, and the actual sentencing in practice (and frequent exercises of prosecutorial discretion) more mitigating still.  

          Intent's a big part of it but not the only thing -- there's a question of proof or expression of intent, too, and Taranto blurs the lines in his rendering between a case that is rape that's hard to prove and one that isn't rape at all, meaning neither is.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:57:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Rape also, in most jurisdictions, requires (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          drmah

          penetration.  

          I believe in most cases of rape, it is the woman who is penetrated and the man that does the penetrating.  

          Not all sexual contact is rape.  

          My dogs think I'm smart and pretty.

          by martydd on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:19:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  How does one person forcing themselves upon (5+ / 0-)

      another equal "they both did it?" That just boggles my mind. Alcohol consumption does not equal consent nor negate the lack the of it.  

      Arguments like Taranto’s aren’t unusual, partly because they continue to be espoused by people with access to media
      platforms. But they ultimately betray an
      ignorance about the reality of sexual assault.

      Rape isn’t a mistake that college students accidentally make because they’re too drunk; in fact, research into college rapists reveals that sexual assault is premeditated and victims are carefully chosen. Alcohol is a tool that rapists often use, but it’s simply one tool among many. And although “men’s rights” supporters like Taranto argue that it’s too easy for women to lie about being raped in order to ruin a man’s life, false reports are actually incredibly rare — generous estimates put the rate around 2.2 percent — and the criminal justice system isn’t exactly quick to prosecute these type of sexual crimes in the first place.

      http://thinkprogress.org/...

      There is something in us that refuses to be regarded as less than human. We are created for freedom - Archbishop Desmond Tutu

      by Onomastic on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:39:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I'm misreading the Diary (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        harvarddem, Fixed Point Theorem

        but it seems the WSJ author, though very very poorly, is trying to say that when neither party is forced, but both are drunk, there is a legal argument that both parties could be found at fault is rape charges were presented.

        If one party is forced the entire argument changes.

      •  This is a very good point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        moviemeister76
        How does one person forcing themselves upon another equal "they both did it?"
        I'm sure there are thousands of Kossacks who can vouch for the fact that being raped and having sex are two very very different experiences.

        "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

        by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:32:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well if I had a daughter, (5+ / 0-)

      I now know (as of this moment) eight people who I would never let date her.

      Instead I have eight examples of who my sons should not emulate.

      People who are inebriated have consensual sex.

      People who are inebriated can also force themselves on other people who are inebriated -- or who are too inebriated to give consent.

      Someone who is too inebriated to give consent is too inebriated to force themselves on someone else.

      This is not fucking rocket science.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:14:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Such garbage (0+ / 0-)

        No one would let their 18 year old daughter in a room with some frat teenage boy who had the BAC you'd consider too high for consent if he was watched on monitors and told the only thing they'd let him do is sexual intercourse

        Because you damn well know even at those levels the male body is able to have a sexual encounter

        We've spent a long time in evolution to refine the ability to have sex in virtually every situation

        •  The male body may be able to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          burlydee

          physically pump blood to the respective organs and have the requisite reflexes, but it requires someone who retains the ability to make a decision to have sex.

          Garbage indeed.

          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

          by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:54:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think that's correct. (0+ / 0-)

            Decision-making is an executive function that decreases far more rapidly when inebriated than the ability to initiate a sexual encounter.

            Whether or not society works better under that view and definition of rape is another matter entirely from this, but at least as far as the science is concerned, your statement just isn't correct.

            Everyday Magic

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:09:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you're claiming (0+ / 0-)

              that initiating a sexual encounter is entirely autonomic?

              "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

              by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:15:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't follow the logic... (0+ / 0-)

                ...that would lead one to read my post as making that claim.  Would you mind walking me through how you came to that conclusion that that's the claim I made?

                Everyday Magic

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:23:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  To do something voluntarily (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tubacat

                  means by definition to choose to do something.

                  Your decision making capacity may be impaired, but it remains extant.

                  To say no choice is involved means the action is involuntary -- so either autonomic, or perhaps some form of sexsomnia.

                  Basically, I'm saying your claim is by definition invalid.

                  In order for two people to have sex, at least one person has to make a choice to do so. And if only one person makes such a choice, then it is, by definition, rape.

                  Again, this isn't fucking rocket science.

                  "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                  by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:53:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But it is neuroscience and behavioral science. (0+ / 0-)

                    Namely, nobody's arguing that alcohol impairs judgment to the point that someone can't give consent, even if they say yes in such a state.  The legal and social standard for that consent not being valid comes well before passed-out drunk, and for good reason.  Consent is a choice, and we've already established that you can consent to something and yet be too inebriated for that choice to count.

                    This is the same standard.  If my claim's invalid, so is the idea that someone can be too inebriated to give consent without being incapacitated to the point of being physically unable to give consent.  I don't think that's the case, and I don't think you do either.  

                    I believe we both agree that someone (and in the case of rape, nearly always the woman, so yes, I am addressing a narrow case) can be drunk to the point of being able to say yes, and still be blitzed enough for that consent to be worthless, and that that's a rape of the inebriated person in question.

                    Do you see where I'm coming from now?

                    Everyday Magic

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:10:39 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your argument is invalid (0+ / 0-)

                      because it is based in a false premise:

                      "Consent is a choice, and we've already established that you can consent to something and yet be too inebriated for that choice to count."

                      No we haven't.

                      If you're not too drunk to say yes, and you say yes, you gave consent. Hard line. Full stop.

                      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                      by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:33:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's not a false premise. (0+ / 0-)

                        That's a legal standard.

                        You're arguing that a woman who's too drunk to think but can still slur out "yesh" just gave consent.

                        Post a diary and see how far that argument takes you.  I'll even devil's advocate on your side for backup.

                        We'd both end up hide-rated into oblivion.

                        Everyday Magic

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:55:55 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So you're saying (0+ / 0-)

                          you can be too drunk to think but capable of slurring out "yesh" and that is also not too drunk to physically take the clothes off another human being and copulate?

                          Yeah, no. Your argument remains invalid.

                          Also, please cite your legal standard.

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:05:11 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  When you're with a party... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fl1972

                            ...that's equally inebriated, as the article that we're discussing here states, yes.  Zippers are easy.  So's flipping up a skirt and pushing aside fabric.  Or shit, they got drunk naked.

                            If we're talking a case where the clothing-related access isn't that easy, I'd agree with you that it's damn near impossible.

                            The problem is that no matter how far-fetched those scenarios are, a legal system has to be built to take them into account.  This is why in states where a distinction is made between vehicular homicide and vehicular manslaughter, a drunk driver who kills someone gets VM because of reduced culpability.  Still wrong, but viewed as a completely different scenario.

                            The problem with applying that to rape is you easily end up in a blame-the-victim scenario where a victim gets blamed for drinking.

                            Meanwhile, you're still arguing that a woman who gets blitzed, is obviously in no condition to consent to shit but still conscious and says yes wasn't raped if the dude goes to town and no "no" was every spoken.  That may be unintentional and I'm not saying that to try to cast aspersions on you, but that's the fundamental argument you're making.

                            And if you disagree with that, then we're drawing a line on what's too drunk, and justice shouldn't be arbitrary like that whenever possible.

                            The point gets made loud and clear by performing a simple thought experiment.  You're sober.  The girl you're with isn't.  And I mean, really isn't.  Not acting at all like she would sober.  She's trying her damndest to undress you and get you in bed.  Grabbing your junk.  You've never gotten a signal like this when she's sober.

                            I wouldn't feel comfortable sleeping with a woman in that state.  Feels way too skeezy to me, and it feels skeezy because it feels like rape.  She might actually want that and the alcohol broke down inhibitions, but I'd prefer to hear that from her when she's not drunk out of her gourd and I know it's not the alcohol talking.

                            We have that turn of phrase for a reason, by the way.

                            And to be very clear, I'm not talking about how a rapist's mind twists non-consent into signals.  These are clear as day for the purposes of this experiment.

                            In that situation, I don't believe the woman is able to consent.  By your standard, because she can speak and made an affirmative action by reaching for my hypothetical dangly bits, she can.

                            Is that consent?

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:55:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're misunderstanding me. (0+ / 0-)

                            It's not a question of dexterity. It's a question of volition.

                            But this is the second time we've engaged and you're trying to make the argument about edge cases and in so doing obscure the central case. I decline to pursue that further.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:10:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That is a question of volition. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Penny GC

                            It's a simple question, and it's very key to the central point, because it answers the question whether or not there is a line where one can consent when they wouldn't otherwise, and are well beyond beer goggle stage.  If you wouldn't be comfortable in that case, then I didn't obscure any question.  You simply saw clarity that doesn't exist.

                            Humor me and answer it in good faith.  Entrapping questions for the sake of winning an argument piss me off too.  I'm not trying to do that.  This is too important a matter to not understand, and I understand things by asking questions.  I'm trying to understand the facets of the issue in question, and get a clear view of your argument.

                            The question obscures the central point because you're seeing clarity when it's not there to begin with.  It's a test of your theory.  One post ago, you were absolutely sure that thought experiment case was consent.

                            You don't solve problems by not addressing the sticky questions and issues, because those questions and issues are what define what's acceptable in a society and in law.

                            I hope I haven't come across like a dick or like I'm just trying to give you a hard time.  I'm not.

                            But I discuss these topics to challenge my own views as well as challenge other people's.  Rape isn't a topic I care to be wrong on.  Same with racism, which was the other topic we tangled on.  I ask questions because that's how I understand things.

                            I'm perfectly aware that I could be absolutely, 100% wrong on this issue.  Wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong and changed my views.  That's why I discuss issues -- to test my own beliefs and learn to ensure that I'm advocating for the right things.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:25:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I stated, (0+ / 0-)

                            and for the aforementioned reasons, I decline to "humor you."

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:42:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Also counterevidence: (0+ / 0-)

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:07:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  More counterevidence (0+ / 0-)

                          from CT's laws:

                          http://www.cga.ct.gov/...

                          There are other states where case law is variable, but the gist in all of them that I can find is that if you're conscious enough to actively (as opposed to passively) engage in the act you're conscious enough to consent to it.

                          "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                          by raptavio on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:14:19 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

    •  But that's not his argument (0+ / 0-)

      He doesn't believe that equally-intoxicated men are rape victims.  I don't think it crosses his mind that men might have sexual experiences that violate or hurt them.

      He does not believe that men who drink excessively are at risk for being raped.  He believes that men who drink excessively are at risk for raping people.  And, really, his worry there is that the fallout of being a rapist will mess up the rapist's life.  

      He bristles that rapists are not entitled to a defense that their intoxication made them less legally responsible for their actions, because rape victims' intoxication may ease a prosecutor's burden in establishing a lack of consent.

    •  There's a whole (0+ / 0-)

      active vs passive distinction that applies to sex but not car accidents.

      It's easy to make absurd comparisons.  If a drunk guy doesn't want to have sex with a woman it doesn't happen.  Not so the other way around (with very few exceptions).

      First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

      by Cream Puff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:14:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't entirely agree (0+ / 0-)

      but I partially do.

    •  Still culpable for your actions while drunk (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      McWaffle

      Remember: we're not talking about two drunk people having consensual sex.  We're talking about rape.

      If one person rapes another, then no matter who is drunk--aggressor, victim, or both--then it is still rape.

      If the alleged rapist is drunk when it happens, then I assume that could possibly be considered a factor when trying to determine if the accused might have misunderstood the granting of consent by the victim.  But it's not an automatic get out of jail free card.  You're still responsible for what you do while drunk.

    •  I think the point is (0+ / 0-)

      there is a presumption that if two drunk people have sex, the woman has a much more valid claim to rape than the man. This is completely wrong. Both have diminished capacity and both have had sex with a person with diminished capacity. Combine this with rape shield laws and evidence law that is turned upside down ONLY for rape (and I think molestation) cases, and you have a clear and distinct situation where a male is either presumed guilty (which violates all of our Constitutional principles), or denied the same evidentiary rights that all other defendants have (even murderers). (although I do see the practical reasons for these rules).

      If two equally drunk people have sex, it should be clear that there is clearly not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that either raped the other. Deciding otherwise denies men of their Constitutional rights and places women in the position of somehow being victimized when they should, and are, just as capable of rape and/or saying "no". A man has no more obligation to "assume no" than a woman.

      That said, I don't doubt, or dispute that the VAST majority of all rapes, forcible or otherwise, are male on female, but that doesn't negate the philosophical question, which is key to law, trials, and putting people in prison.

    •  What Taranto is describing here (0+ / 0-)

      is CONSENSUAL intercourse, not rape. Neither party could claim rape if both parties consent. Woman who have consensual sex, drunk or not, do not claim rape. It is called getting drunk, then having sex.

      Now, if either party objects to the sex part - or is in a position where they cannot consent - then the offending party is the one that ignores the objection or incapacitation. No matter which gender is the transgressor.

      But, lets not mix up consensual sex with rape just because of the presence of alcohol (or other intoxicant.)

      our teachers' union - the first, and often only, line of defense for your children's education

      by FeldMP on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 03:23:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If a woman has 'buyers remorse' the morning after, (7+ / 0-)

    or a guy for that matter, does that by definition mean he/she was criminally assaulted?
    Because thats what a few comments seem to suggest.
    Much as I hate the WSJ oped pages, JT isnt saying assaulting a drunk or passed out victim doesnt count as rape.

    •  I would classify Taranto's column as (24+ / 0-)

      rape-denialist and as a "straw man" argument.

      He has chosen to address situations where two persons voluntarily (but foolishly) consent to engage in sexual activity while intoxicated (even though one or both might not have done so while sober), argues that those situations should not be considered sexual assault, then pretends that all allegations of campus (and military) rape fall into that category.  Thus he can dismiss the entire issue of campus sexual assault.  

      To keep his argument at the "straw man" level. he ignores situations where an intoxicated person is forced, threatened, or coerced to have sex, or perhaps he believes that those situations do not actually exist.

      So I think it is possible to agree with the words he wrote, since they address only situations where no force, threat or coercion is used, while recognizing that his argument is irrelevant because it applies only to a small fraction of campus sexual assault allegations

      •  Thank you! (16+ / 0-)

        What Taranto is describing is an urban myth - woman wakes up after willingly engaging in a drunken act of love and immediately accuses the man of rape. Man is helpless to defend himself and goes to prison. Perhaps he could name one case where that has happened.

        What he's missing is the reality of drinking in these settings. Women, on average, weigh much less than men and, on average, have less of the enzyme that breaks alcohol down in the stomach (so it doesn't go to the bloodstream). That means a given quantity of alcohol is going to affect an average woman much more than an average man.

        That difference is exploited, at least if one listens to the actual cases of rape that are pursued by victims and law enforcement, by men who are deliberately incapacitating women with alcohol to remove their ability to consent or not. That is rape, pure and simple, and it is not the woman's fault.

        A government that denies gay men the right to bridal registry is a fascist state - Margaret Cho

        by CPT Doom on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:57:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  False reports are a fake plague dreamed up by MRAs (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bull8807, Cali Scribe

          Basically, this is how it breaks down:

          1.) Young man likes the idea of having sex with a girl he meets at a party.

          2.) Young man fears he will be accused of rape for having (hypothetically) done so.

          3.) Young man therefore sees himself as the "hapless victim" in all these anecdotal/one-off stories of false reports

          4.) Young man is ergo prone to be a unwitting rape apologist and repeat ad nauseum the anecdotes as proof.

          I felt this way when I was in college. "Man, I hope I have sex someday, but how would any sober person agree to that?" Couple that with some self-defensive incredulousness about rape statistics and you've got an MRA.

          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:01:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Anyone who disagrees w/ me is an ugly loser (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RightHeaded, Fixed Point Theorem

            Really that sounds like such a good argument

            I've read actual science on how a lot of people are predisposed to be frequent punishers and accusers, and see their job psychologically as protectors of the community, its a big part of why we had things like Salem.

            However, I've never read any studies on this phenomenon you describe being held by anyone who disagrees with you

            What's your excuse for women who cite false rape accusations? They are all self-hating I suppose?

            •  Witch trials, female MRAs... one more to bingo! (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mikey, Cassandra Waites, drmah

              See, this is where this whole "science and logic" bit falls apart when discussing this topic. Even that one you cited said that between 98 and 90 percent of reports were truthful. Nobody disputes that there are false claims, but it's not the huge civil rights concern you'd like to make it out to be.

              This fight has been fought on the internet before. ElevatorGate anybody? Same basic idea.

              "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

              by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:48:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Do you listen to yourself? (0+ / 0-)

                "It's like 10% or even lower, so who cares"

                In what universe is that a moral or logical sentiment?

                •  In the universe where ACTUAL RAPES go unreported (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  novapsyche, fl1972, Cassandra Waites

                  and when then are reported, the rates of conviction are slim.

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:59:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And: In a Universe where (4+ / 0-)

                    despite the abysmally low rate of reporting, much less conviction, of this crime, and despite the fact that the primary victims are women, we all spend so much time and energy worrying about the MALE victims. Christ.

                    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                    by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:07:10 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It's morally repugnant (0+ / 0-)

                    That a human being would be hatefully callous (which is what you express, whether you admit it or not) to innocent people because a larger group is suffering more

                    •  Oh, please. Really? We need to rally around Men (6+ / 0-)

                      because, sometimes,  a man might be falsely accused of a crime?

                      Yeah, that's bad when that happens, but it's not common. It's like, as a commenter said below, voter fraud. Sure, it happens, but the efforts people take to "crack down" on it do nothing but make the real issue, voter disenfranchisement, worse.

                      What measures should we take to curb false reporting? How could those measures be implemented without further worsening the real problem of sexual assault? Without creating further barriers to reporting? Further avenues for real criminals to escape conviction?

                      I'm not showing callous hatred towards people falsely accused of assault. They deserve every legal protection and every human sympathy. But that's an edge case, and ignoring that is why you're coming across as sexist.

                      "Why, oh, why won't ANYBODY think of the poor victimized men?" sounds callous when we're talking about about a problem that predominantly and historically affects women.

                      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:21:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We don't need to rally around men (0+ / 0-)

                        Voter fraud may have never happened, with false rape accusations we know the number is quite large, even if it's only 10% or less of the total reported cases

                        How do we curb false reporting? I don't think we really can

                        What we can do, however, is have people think "You know, there is a 10% chance this is a false accusation, so we should slowly go through the evidence here and calmly and rationally come to a decision)

                        As opposed to now where the first blog post citing an accusation confers automatic guilt.

                        I don't see why I could possibly be considered an apologist or sexist

                        The article in question is about small areas of grey, not a general discussion on rape...I'm merely responding to the article (which I think was poorly worded, and I hate the author for other reasons) and the comments in here

                        •  Everybody deserves due process of course. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          NancyK, fl1972

                          But I'll take 9/10 (or 95/100) odds any day. A court can't, and shouldn't. But you have to understand why choosing this to be your hill to die on screams "entitlement".

                          Because if all you're arguing is really just, "1-in-10 to 1-in-20 reports turn out to be false, but clearly the greater issue here is of course a culture that normalizes sexual violence amongst young adults"

                          Well, if that's what you're saying, nobody disagrees with that.

                          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:40:52 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

                    Rape conviction is roughly on par with assault conviction post reporting.
                    http://www.ncpa.org/...
                    Data was referenced in this diary.
                    http://www.dailykos.com/...

                    Yes, the final conviction rate is low (if you lower the report rate to 25%, the conviction rate is about 8%), but its the same with just about any other types of crime.

                    Compared to other categories of crimes, rape has the second highest rate of conviction (and incarceration). The only other type of crime that beats it in conviction and incarceration rate is murder/manslaughter.

        •  Being anti-science doesn't get you anywhere (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/...

          It is as if some people just can't help themselves, they get all worked over in a group and then you have a bunch of men and women competing over who is more anti-rape...until they are rambling about things with no scientific basis or even against all evidence and science

        •  I agree that most men (0+ / 0-)

          don't go to jail on false rape charges; however, it us not an urban myth that men get falsely accused of rape.  It happens.  

    •  Buyer's Remorse? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fl1972, raptavio

      Taranto's column has nothing to do with "morning after buyer's remorse".

      Why are you introducing that strawman?

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:37:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because he's a rape apologist (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        atana, drmah

        same as all the rest of them that make those comments.

        Can't debate the honest facts, make shit up and bash the hell out of that.

        •  Anyone who disagrees with me is a rape apologist! (0+ / 0-)

          Now you don't want me to call you that? Well then you better agree with what I say

          And if you don't, that just further confirms that you are a rape apologist!

          •  What, by your definition, would constitute (0+ / 0-)

            rape apologia? Does such a thing exist? What does it look like, and how is this different?

            I think knowing that would be informative.

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:52:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Of course it exists (0+ / 0-)

              Go into any small town or conservative get together and you'll find actual rape apologists

              "Oh, she started kissing him and was dressed like..."

              "So what if he didn't drink, she got herself drunk so...."

              Every liberal on here (and many non-liberals) agrees that you have to have valid consent

              However there is a very very limited grey area where two young adults are flirting, drinking, all consensual, and keep drinking at their same respective levels throughout the night until they are both beyond the point to give valid consent but both their bodies just automatically go with the stimulation

              At no point was the woman more impaired than the man, and at no point did she indicate a lack of consent

              I do not think the man or woman in that situation should be charged with a crime

              That does not make me, or the other liberals that agree with what I just said, a rape apologist

              •  No, it doesn't. The reason you're accused is: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fl1972

                That you're focusing on what you admit to be a very, very small subset of cases. I think everybody here agrees with what you wrote above. It's your focus on this issue that is coloring people's reactions to you.

                "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:12:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That is to say, "No, that doesn't make you a..." (0+ / 0-)

                  Not "No, rape apologia doesn't exist".

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:14:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It's only a small subset of cases (0+ / 0-)

                  that are charged

                  1) That this happens all the time, without the police filing charges, is an important fact, especially when you consider

                  2) Many people have strongly stated on this website that once a woman is drunk, any sexual activity afterwards is rape. A vocal number have even said once a woman has a drink, any sexual activity after that is rape.

                  From how passionate you are about this issue, it reasons that you've been in these diaries before so you know what I'm talking about in relation to point 2)

                  •  If, percentage-wise, large numbers of men (0+ / 0-)

                    were being wrongfully imprisoned, I'd be rallying behind your cause. But the exact opposite is true. We're arguing about a white man not being allowed to use the "colored" drinking fountain here. Sure, abstractly it's a tragedy, but focusing on it is ignoring all context.

                    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                    by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:27:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  But the article is about drunk men and women (0+ / 0-)

                      and how they can possibly be innocent

                      You are acting as if this was a diary about how rapes are under reported and I came in and hijacked it talking about "poor white men"

                      When actually, the articles and comments is clearly directed at a very small issue and you're trying to change the subject to rape in general and shame us for refusing to go offtopic

                      •  The article is trolling, by a well-known troll (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        fl1972, peptabysmal, Cardinal Fang

                        Who's using an edge case as part of a larger agenda. I'm not off-topic here. The topic is greater than what this known misogynist troll is trying to make it. The author of the op-ed is the one trying to artificially narrow the scope of the debate, and by buying into his framing you're making a mistake.

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:42:44 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I wish it were that easy (0+ / 0-)

                          You dodged it before when I brought it up, but you should know what I'm talking about with the kossacks who are very fanatical about alcohol, consumption and rape

                          When people from here act that ridiculous, it gives ammo to people like columnist, who we both loathe

                          It is what drives a lot of young white men to libertarianism, which is a tragedy

                          •  From what I've seen, the "fanatic" position (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fl1972

                            is not THAT well-represented in his thread. Maybe only because I'm avoiding work by posting so I'm drowning it out myself.

                            I did the whole libertarian streak thing a few years ago. Yeah, it's a tragedy, but it's hard to instill a sense of "context" in newly independent kids who get a chip on their shoulder about authority and believe they're god's gift to Reason. (Again, I'm describing myself here, not making accusations). Not sure what to do about that one. Because I know it was exactly the efforts to instill that in me that lead me to go all "well people SHOULD be allowed to go in blackface, it's not your right to tell them not to. I'm not saying I'd do it, and I find it personally appalling, but I respect their right to" etc... things that are maybe true in edge cases, but my focus on them came from a completely entitled point-of-view.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:02:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What I'm saying is those libertarians (0+ / 0-)

                            Were once young open-minded people who rejected conservatism (especially social conservatism which young people despise) and were leaning towards liberalism

                            Then they come somewhere like here and one kossack will tell them if they ever have sex with a girl who had one beer they should be thrown in jail as a vile rapist

                            Another kossack will tell them if they don't agree with every single point they have on race and class that they are racists or a spoiled asshole

                            Instead of teaching positively about fixing rape culture, reducing income inequality and recognizing white privilege, we simply scare them away

                            Too much at once will chase anyone away...you hear all this stuff at once and think "Wow, either I'm a total worthless douchebag who will never be welcome here, or I need to a new ideology"

                            Sure enough, they pick libertarianism which will tell them that they are actually awesome

                          •  Well, nobody literally said those things. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fl1972

                            And I understand your point, I suppose, but I disagree. This is a partisan site, and we're allowed to express our opinions. We want a big tent, but we're also not about to let in homophobic liberals, for example. Sometimes people need a bit of shock therapy (metaphorically, real shock therapy is pretty bad and probably another example of institutional sexism, though my knowledge on that subject is based on like, Wizard of Oz 2)

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:39:20 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Big difference between (0+ / 0-)

                            Someone with homophobia and someone who had consensual sex after both parties were drinking

                            However, on that note:

                            Ta-Nehisi Coates has stated that he was once strongly homophobic and believed things that would get you banned here, now he is a strongly cited voice on here

                            There are people who come here with a lot less baggage than that...that aren't actively pro-rape culture or racists, but are just ignorant on many of these issues because they're young and young people are almost by definition ignorant

                            I don't see that this super-strong yelling and screaming culture we've developed over the years can reform people, but instead simply shames and drives them away

                          •  Aww if only those damn feminists (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            McWaffle, novapsyche

                            would shut up, we'd attract more young men to our party?  It seems to me I've heard that argument before, in a whole lot of contexts, and it reeks of privilege.  Sit down and shut up, ladies, you're being awkward.  We got real issues to solve.

                            I'd point out that the percentage of women, feminists, rape activists, ANYONE -- who would agree with your statement "if the woman's drinking at all it's rape" is slimmer than the percentage of "morning after regret" rape accusations (much less prosecutions), thus making the whole argument a huge strawman, but that'd probably just serve the function of distracting the diary even further, so pretend I said nothing and you can keep believing that people like me are just out to castrate all the men or something.

                          •  Yes, anyone who disagrees with your tactics (0+ / 0-)

                            Is immediately some over-bearing man telling you to sit up and shut down

                            I just hope you realize this hyper over-aggressiveness to everything gets you nowhere, and all the advancements we make these days has to do with positive education and the younger generations moving more leftward

                            You yelling at liberals and possible future liberals at the drop of a hat accomplishes nothing except giving you a way to release stress

              •  And for no apparent reaason (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                McWaffle, novapsyche

                you, just like the guy this diary is about, keep wanting to flog that alleged gray area to death for no apparent reason.  It's more polite and educated than "she was just asking for it", no doubt, but it's hardly less hurtful to victims, many of whom know quite well that the myth-making involved in this gray area is a big ugly lie.

          •  You bring up the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            novapsyche

            bullshit myth of the "morning after regret rape accusation" being any more common than a hen with teeth in a context where not only is it utter bullshit, but it also has nothing to do with the discussion whatsoever -- well you feel free to keep thinking of yourself as a crusader for truth or what the hell ever and I'll keep thinking of you as one of the rather more obvious enablers of the sick culture that turns too many men into rapists and allows WAY to many of those to walk away with no consequence whatsoever.

            •  I just posted science (0+ / 0-)

              I do not know the detailed breakdown of false rape accusations, I just know the math

              You hold everything back with that kind of attitude, you can't just go "Oh yeah, it's like 10% or less, and people should know that when evaluating a rape accusation, now that we are all aware, what can we do today to start reforming our rape-condoning culture?"

              No, you can't do that, instead its "YOU DARE BRING UP FALSE ACCUSATION STATISTICS WHEN DISCUSSING ALCOHOL AND RAPE? WELL FUCK YOU, YOU'RE A RAPE APOLOGIST"

              It's so dumb, I don't know who taught you that burning bridges makes social progress, but they were wrong

              A lot of people are similarly turned off by these tactics but they just keep quiet and won't get dragged into an argument

    •  to get to indictment, (5+ / 0-)

      "buyer's remorse" is almost never going to cut it.  You'd have to have so much buyer's remorse you sit in the ER and have a rape kit done on you, and sit with skeptical detectives who think exactly the way Taranto does, because the easiest thing for them is to make the crime disappear.  If it's a pure he-said-she-said, a possible way to make a charge stick is to  say she never "would" consent, which is pretty much waiving the rape shield, so more intrusion, more attacks.  Maybe she had done a one night stand in the past?  Bye bye rape case.  

      All of which is possible, but the sex would have to be really bad.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:33:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the question: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kyril, CPT Doom, OHdog, penguins4peace

    At what point of inebriation(drugs or alcohol) does it become impossible to consent? Obviously, this metric will differ from person to person depending on their personal physical tolerance but it is clear that there will be a point where consent becomes impossible.

    The second questions leads from the first, and is what Taranto is trying(badly) to answer: How do you determine - in a legal setting - who was the aggressor when both parties are under the influence? What if they had both passed the point where they were able to consent? Do you charge both of them? None of them? The One who was 'less' inebriated?

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:10:17 AM PST

    •  You are not allowed to commit crimes while drunk (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      McWaffle, schnecke21, novapsyche, tubacat

      Drunkenness is not an excuse for committing a crime. A guy was too drunk to notice that she didn't consent? We have a word for what he did: rape.   People who tend to commit crimes when they are drunk had better drink less.

      It doesn't matter if the rapist was too drunk to consent. The rapist didn't have anything to consent to, so whether he could consent is irrelevant.

      •  The bar should be established, because... (0+ / 0-)

        ...the other side of that coin is that we need to determine a point where a man or woman is so inebriated that yes doesn't mean yes.  

        There's a point between drunk and passed-out where I'd stop a woman in such a state who I hadn't already established that sort of relationship with from trying to grab my junk and get handsy from doing so, even if I'd like to bump uglies with her and I don't feel violated that she's getting all handsy.

        I'd stop her because I don't care that she said yes because she's freakin' blitzed and that relationship hadn't been established.  Her lips might be saying yes, but I do't have a fucking clue if her brain's on enough to have told her lips that.

        I can't speak for campionrules here, but I'm not arguing that no doesn't mean no.  I'm arguing that there's a point where yes doesn't mean yes, and that's a situation that is common, is a rape as much as any other, and a yes given in that situation virtually assures that that woman will never get justice.  Shit, it's been voiced by people in this thread that yes, regardless of the state of inebriation, is consent.

        Some people are approaching this from the wrong side of the coin, but the question's valid because that's one of the few areas where a firm boundary hasn't been established, and for victims to get justice.

        A lack of affirmative consent = rape.  But I'd argue that there's a point where clear affirmative verbal consent with video evidence and a sloppy signature isn't actually consent and I'd clearly be taking advantage of a woman in that state.  I know where that line is.  Good luck getting justice against someone who doesn't without establishing a legal boundary, as odious as that discussion is.  There's a greater good there, even if jackasses like the author misinterpret it as validation.

        Everyday Magic

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:27:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is strange (0+ / 0-)

          that something we know when we see it is so hard to objectively define. People with common sense can tell when someone is so intoxicated they have no idea what they are saying. If a woman is as likely in a given moment to say "yes" to being shipped to China in a a crate for fun as she is to say "yes" to sex, well, that yes does not mean yes.

          On the other hand, I have had 100% consensual sex when I was too drunk to, say, drive home.

          I have also engaged in sexual activity with a guy who was worried that I might be too drunk (I didn't even realize then how drunk I was, I was 16), but I assured him enthusiastically I was not too drunk to know what I was doing. After the fact, I did not feel violated. But I decided that I should not drink so much around strangers in the future, and that I wasn't capable of making decisions after two drinks. I don't drink very much at all now that I know how low my tolerance is. I'm not even sure how I would characterize that situation though. Was it rape? No, I don't feel like it was, I would never consider blaming the guy, he was nice and clearly did care about getting consent, even asking me if I was too drunk, and I was being a drunk idiot with too little experience being drunk to gauge my level of intoxication. But it wasn't completely ok either.

          Is fheàrr fheuchainn na bhith san dùil

          by bull8807 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:40:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Drunkenness = Violent assault? (0+ / 0-)

    Only in one Rupert Murdoch's papers ....

    :: A little vomit rises ::

    "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

    by cotterperson on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:14:02 AM PST

  •  Notice the title of the climate-change piece? (6+ / 0-)

    "Baby, It's Cold Outside." You know, like that adorable Christmas song about a drunk woman and her date-rapist - oops, I should say about Two Silly Drunks Who Are Equally Guilty of Her Impending Rape.

    And for the love of God don't read the comments. Just. Don't. More MRA mansplaining and whining victims of Misandry.

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:34:08 AM PST

  •  A big weakness with the driving analogy (3+ / 0-)
    If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex.
    "...are in a collision...?"  Weak stuff. There are all kinds of collisions.  I reckon one determines fault based on who was at fault!

    If Driver A is fully obeying the law and Driver B crosses the lane or runs a red light, etc., and collides with Driver A,  I'm thinking Driver B is fully at fault for that collision.

    "A" gets cited for DUI, and "B" gets DUI plus being at fault for the collision.  

  •  If two people have sex while drunk (0+ / 0-)

    Is there presumption of rape on the male's part?

    http://callatimeout.blogspot.com/

    by DAISHI on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:45:40 AM PST

    •  It seems so (8+ / 0-)

      That would be the nut of reason buried in the overall slime of Taranto's column, and it is reasonable to ask. We've made great strides in broadening the definition of rape to catch those cases that were overlooked in past years - cases where the woman wasn't visible injured, because she succumbed to her attacker precisely to avoid injury (or worse), cases of date rape, rape of the unconscious, etc. But that's brought us into some gray areas, and we do need to talk them out to find a way that protects everyone from sexual assault -and from erroneous accusations of it.

      "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

      by Jaxpagan on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:03:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's no presumption of rape unless there was (7+ / 0-)

      a rape. Nobody's saying that drunk people can't have sex without it being rape. I think 99% of rape cases are far clearer than we're making them out to be here.

      This this push to highlight this grey-rape scenario when it doesn't account for even a small percentage of alcohol-related rapes.

      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:14:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fl1972, schnecke21

      A friend of mine in college was a drunk sleeper, so to speak.  There were quite a few times when she'd wake up after a hard night of partying, with a strange man in her bed, and have immediate regrets.  (Usually accompanied by a hangover.)

      But every time, she said, it seemed like a great idea!  Here was this cute guy, he seemed interesting, and they both got smashed and rode the taxi home together.

      Never once did she claim she was raped, because every time she said yes.

      Regrets? Yes.  Rape? No.

      The Cake is a lie. In Pie there is Truth. ~ Fordmandalay

      by catwho on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:46:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Funny ... (14+ / 0-)

    I was drunk quite a bit in college, and around a lot of drunk people, both men and women. Funny, though, that none of us ever raped anyone. Know why? Because we were not depraved pig-brained criminals, no matter how much we had to drink.

    •  But did they have sex? And if the female was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fl1972

      drunk did she lack capacity to consent?  Hard to imagine no sex went on.  

      If I comply with non-compliance am I complying?

      by thestructureguy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:22:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This isn't a brain teaser. (4+ / 0-)

        Nobody says two drunk people can't have sex without it being rape. If you really and truly lack the ability to consent I think that should probably be pretty damn clear to all parties. Pose all the hypotheticals you can and bust out all of the anecdotes, but that doesn't change reality for the 99% of cases where the rape was indisputably real.

        This is a strawman issue that does nothing but distract from real sexual assault problems.

        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:23:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  99% is a bit high. (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/...
          Link first provided by Draxinum.
          Using the criteria that only counts false allegation of rape that had been proven to be false (aka, there are sufficient evidence that the allegation is false), the incidence of false allegation, according to the article is 5.9%. Other studies using the same criteria has a result ranging from 2.1% to 10.9%.
          Still low, but not insignificant.

  •  What about the fact that men tend to be bigger (0+ / 0-)

    and heavier and stronger than women?

    Is that not a factor?

    What about the factor of testosterone, which causes college-age men to have to deal with their brains spending 90% of the time relating things to sex?  (Okay, I exaggerate, but only a little).

    Is that not a factor?

    Oh, oh--- I nearly forgot!  What about the fact that the men are the ones who initiate the rapes and perform the rapes?  

    Is that not a factor?  

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:48:16 AM PST

  •  He did not include rapes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    He was arguing what constitutes a rape. If the woman can't give consent, how can an equally inebriated guy be expected to show any better judgement?>

    Remember that incident in the ohio college? There was pics of the lady smiling and seemingly enjoying oral sex. If a guy is drunk and doing that to her, how would he be in a position to know if she was thinking she was raped? The next day , this woman claims she was raped.  What was not conclusive is how drunk that guy was. But if he was drunk off hs ass too, how coul/d he know he was assaulting her if sober people on the street assumed she was enjoying it by pushing his head to her crotch while he was going down on her? I was sober when I saw her picture and she looked like she was just some drunk chick enjoying it.

    •  Because the drunk woman who didn't consent (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      McWaffle, schnecke21, novapsyche

      didn't commit a crime, but the drunk man who inserted his dick in her without her consent did commit a crime.   It's not as if she is presumed to consent unless she knees him in the balls. She doesn't consent unless she, y'know, consents. Yes means Yes.

      I don't care how fucking drunk the rapist was. If you get drunk and commit a crime, that makes you a criminal.

      •  oh please people like you help Rush Limbaugh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fixed Point Theorem

        She pushed his head onto her crotch in the video. Please tell me that is not consent enough to another person. She had a smile oin her face. The thing is why don't you extend the guy the same benefit of doubt that if she is too drunk to convey the proper visual cues let alone verbal consent, why should he be able to show better judgement and somehow decipher that when even sober passerbys seemed to think she was consenting to it.

        But oh, the next day, she sees her pic all over the internet and then claims sexual assault.

        You know, if you are that drunk off your ass that you cannot even give the FAINTEST of physical cues that indicate some kind of discomfort with the sexual encounter, then it is irrelevant what you regret about the encounter the next day, you have bigger problems in your life - one being that you don't get so drunk with a guy that you can't even physically be aware of a single thing around you.

        Give me a fucking break. Have you ever been to an office social? I have seen people hook up drunk and I never see the guy ask the woman if she is OK with it. Both were drunk, both don't remember all the details the next morning, and they laugh about it. But the same guy can be classified as a rapist if the lady shows the same exact  behavior the night bfore, but regret the morning after? If we are going to excuse a drunk woman for her behavior, why not excuse the drunk guy? It's this kind of hysteria in the 80s that led to the rise of horrible people like Rush Limbaugh in the early 90s even though he was more abhorrent at the other extreme. We are finally getting people to realize how kooky the right wing is, and then you have this extreme nonsense stereotype the greater feminism movement.

  •  So if you're drunk and you're robbed (3+ / 0-)

    it's your fault?

    Cool. What bars and taverns do all those bloodsuckers on Wall Street frequent to get smashed?

    A conservative is a scab for the oligarchy.

    by NBBooks on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 09:57:56 AM PST

    •  murdered while drunk? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:35:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course! (0+ / 0-)

      She was too drunk to realize she shouldn't take your wallet, and you were too drunk to consent to her taking your wallet. So you are both equally culpable. No theft here, just a drunken misunderstanding. Sorry about the $1000 that was in the wallet, but it was just two drunk people. How could anyone call that a crime?

  •  Typical daily kos (7+ / 0-)

    Post something like this and fully 2/3 of the comments are people arguing Taranto is right.

  •  Ugh, I just had one of those (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    McWaffle

    double-take, this-can't-possibly-be-real-moments.

    It's officially time for an internet break...chauvinists make my head hurt.  

  •  ZOMG, what an asshole. (0+ / 0-)

    Honestly, ladies. Not all of us guys are such clueless cretins as Taranto. He shames my entire gender.

  •  Without further comment (13+ / 0-)

    "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

    by Hayate Yagami on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:12:08 AM PST

  •  Sorry, I don't buy this one bit (4+ / 0-)

    I read the article.  Nowhere does the author state that a man may force himself on a woman if they are both inebriated.  He's talking about consensual sex between 2 inebriated people.  One can argue that you can't give consent while inebriated, but if you go that route, and say an intoxicated female can not give consent, then you have to argue the reverse is true - an intoxicated male can not give consent either.  To say HE is responsible but SHE is not, if they have BOTH said yes, is sexist, pure and simple.  Can't have it both ways.  

    If the sex is non-consensual, i.e., the woman says no, then yes, it is rape.  Doesn't matter how drunk she is, no means no.  But you can't wake up the next morning, not be able to remember what happened the night before, and cry rape, unless there is evidence of force.   You can't accuse someone of a CRIME if you don't really know that one was committed.  I think this is the point the author is trying to make, and I don't have a problem with what he is saying.  

    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony

    by bluestatesam on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:12:11 AM PST

    •  WHAT? (8+ / 0-)

      "But you can't wake up the next morning, not be able to remember what happened the night before, and cry rape, unless there is evidence of force. You can't accuse someone of a CRIME if you don't really know that one was committed."

      So, completely A.OK. to rape people who are unconsious? Delirious? Roofied? Because, if you don't remember it or didn't/wasn't capable of actually saying the word "No", you must have consented? Wow.

      Republicanism: the political theory that the poor have too much money and the rich do not have enough.

      by bacchae1999 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:23:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's referring to some philosophical "veil of (5+ / 0-)

        ignorance" shit. People always get all "Mr. Impartial, Logical Defender of the Rights of the Accused" when this topic comes up.

        Yeah man, you can posit a hypothetical scenario when it'd be unconscionable for a person to accuse another of sexual assault, but that doesn't mean that scenario actually plays out in real life.

        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:26:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh for Christ's sake (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fixed Point Theorem

        where did I say it was ok to rape women?  Where?

        It is NOT ok to rape women.  But it is ALSO not ok to falsely accuse a man of raping you when you have NO RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAPPENED.  How hard is this to understand?

        A man is innocent until proven guilty.  "I was so drunk I don't remember what happened, but I just know I wouldn't have said yes to sex" isn't enough to charge someone with a crime.  

        I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony

        by bluestatesam on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:47:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obviously nobody supports false accusations. (0+ / 0-)

          So there's not really much point in standing up to declare yourself to be against them. But it does indicate you maybe are not really accounting for the relative scale of the issues at hand, in terms of just raw numbers.

          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:55:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I would like to posit something. (6+ / 0-)
          It is NOT ok to rape women.  But it is ALSO not ok to falsely accuse a man of raping you when you have NO RECOLLECTION OF WHAT HAPPENED.
          If you are considering having sex with someone who appears to be blackout drunk, you might want to reconsider.
          •  If you have to bust out a law book before sex... (4+ / 0-)

            you probably have to take a step back and do a bit of self-reflection. And even if the law book says "borderline: probably, you could get away with it" that should maybe serve as an indicator you're not on firm ground morally/ethically.

            And if you say "Why, I'm too drunk for law books and self reflection", that's no more an excuse than if you were blackout drunk and stole a car or robbed a bank. Nobody excuses culpability for those crimes when drunk.

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:43:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So Roofies are good then, after all "I had (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          carrps

          an amnesiac drug in my system and I don't remember what happened, but I just know I wouldn't have said yes to sex" works for that too, right?  After all, just because some guy slipped her some Rohipnol doesn't mean she didn't later consent and just couldn't remember it.

          You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

          by Throw The Bums Out on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:36:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, the definition of rape (0+ / 0-)

          may not be what you think it is. Certainly it's rape if one person forces another person to have sex, whether the person being forced remembers it or not - I'm assuming you'd agree with that? But it's also rape if someone has sex with a person who CAN'T give consent. Minors can't (legally) give consent. People who are unconscious or too drunk to talk can't. Nowdays in colleges it is stressed that you need to get consent before sex (either verbally or actively in some other way).

          "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

          by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:59:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just because you have no recollection... (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't mean you weren't raped. Doesn't mean it's a "false accusation."  

          If you wake up in a hospital covered in fist bruises, broken arm, missing teeth, concussion.... you'd assume someone beat you up, right? And you'd try to make sure your attacker got arrested right?  You wouldn't say  "Oh, I can't remember, so I must have joined a Fight Club last night and I was totally okay with what happened..."

          Republicanism: the political theory that the poor have too much money and the rich do not have enough.

          by bacchae1999 on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:17:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just because you have no recollection... (0+ / 0-)

            doesn't mean you were raped either.

            That's the point. People do agree to have sex when drunk at a much higher rate than they join Fight Club.

            Are you saying that if you woke up after a night of drinking to find you'd had sex that you don't remember, you'd go straight to the police with rape charges?

            Personally, I'd start by trying to find out what happened, rather than going straight to the police. Since I, by definition of "no recollection", don't know what happened.

            Obviously if there's physical evidence, bruising or the like, then that's a strong indication. If not...
            If I didn't remember drinking that heavily, then checking for date-rape drugs is probably worth it. That's probably going to get the authorities involved, but isn't the same as an accusation.

            If I find out I was carried off from the bar near unconscious, then there's a problem.
            If I find out I left the party happily drunk and hanging off of someone, then there's not much of a case. Maybe I consented, maybe not. Maybe I was the aggressive one. I don't know. And probably never will.

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:37:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Since the woman thanked the man... (7+ / 0-)

      ...for not letting his friend have sex with her, I think it's pretty clear that she did not consent -- but knew that she was too drunk to have stopped him. And I don't mean "wasn't able to to resist enough to make him use force".

      A woman doesn't have to be capable of saying "no" for it to be rape. She just has to be incapable of saying "yes". In my view, if a person is too drunk to consent, the person who initiated the sex act committed rape. Usually (though not in every case) the initiator is the man.

      I recall a case in Steubenville where the woman woke up the next morning with no memory of what happened, just like your case, but it WAS rape. Are you saying those boys were falsely convicted?

      This isn't hard to understand...

      •  In that case, (0+ / 0-)

        there was evidence of what had happened.

        Is it your position that if the woman doesn't remember having sex, then it was rape? It might have been or it might not have been, but if she doesn't know whether or not she agreed or even started it, it's hard to say it was. And it'll be even harder to prove.

        Unless there's other evidence, of course.

        The Empire never ended.

        by thejeff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:42:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You said there has to be a "no" or force for rape (0+ / 0-)

          You didn't write that you can't cry rape if there is NO EVIDENCE. You wrote:

          If the sex is non-consensual, i.e., the woman says no, then yes, it is rape.  Doesn't matter how drunk she is, no means no.  But you can't wake up the next morning, not be able to remember what happened the night before, and cry rape, unless there is evidence of force.
          So you wrote that the woman has to specifically say NO, and if she was too drunk to remember it's only rape if she can prove FORCE.

          If that's not what you meant, I'd be happy to accept a correction. Just don't deny what you originally wrote.

          •  I didn't say that (0+ / 0-)

            I wasn't the original poster.

            I wouldn't say you'd have to prove force, but you'd have to prove something. Simply not remembering isn't evidence of rape. I've been been drunk enough to not remember a few times, long ago, and from what people told me afterwards I was up, walking around, talking, etc. Obviously drunk, but not obvious that I wouldn't remember.

            If you don't remember and there's no other evidence, how do you know you didn't initiate the sex, give explicit consent and/or enthusiastically participate?

            If there is other evidence then it's a different story. Video of you passed out being raped, like in Steubenville. Texts from the rapist. The presence of roofies in your system. Testimony from others who saw you passed out before the rape occurred.

            All I'm saying is that not remembering the sex isn't, of itself, evidence of rape. It's certainly not going to play well in front of the jury.

            The Empire never ended.

            by thejeff on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:21:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  So if you write WSJ columns while drunk (0+ / 0-)

    are you just as greedy as most of the people who read them?  And are you just as guilty of damaging the U.S. economy?

    "There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress." - Mark Twain

    by rustypatina on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:19:57 AM PST

  •  If you are mugged while drunk (4+ / 0-)

    you are just as guilty as the mugger...or something like that.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:22:15 AM PST

  •  It never ceases to amaze me as to just how... (0+ / 0-)

    anyone can justify cutting down trees for paper to print such birdcage liner ready material.  What a waste of good resources....

    Let's slow down here folks!!

    It's Murdoch owned media source, people...  Don't be so surprised that flotsam flows from it's very soggy pages pretending to be of any intellectual value to anyone except those that have half a brain....  Like the "sophisticated" FOX media junkie.

    "It's only the giving, that makes what you are." - Ian Anderson

    by LamontCranston on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:48:30 AM PST

  •  retraction and/or apology coming, in............. (0+ / 0-)

    3............2...............1......................


    "Legalizing pot won't make more pot-smokers. It will just make fewer criminals. - Me

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 10:57:06 AM PST

  •  Also conveniently ignores how the law works (10+ / 0-)

    especially when it comes to alcohol, sexual assault, and gender:

    To the (male) assailant: "You were drunk, so you didn't know what you were doing to her. Not your fault. Case dismissed."

    To the (female) victim: "You were drunk, so you should have known what he'd do to you. It's your fault. Case dismissed."

    For Christ's sake, a rape accusation is a firestorm of hell from start to finish for the woman who makes it, who will receive most of the blame for the attack and who will be slut-shamed even if she's a 5-year-old girl or an 80-year-old nun, all for the vague hope that her assailant will be one of the 3 in 100 rapists who ever spends one night in prison - why would men think women get a great big thrill out of going around falsely accusing en of rape?

    Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

    by gardnerhill on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:03:43 AM PST

  •  People: If you're not a rapist, odds are nobody (16+ / 0-)

    will ever accuse you of being one. That's the long and the short of it. Alcohol or no alcohol, I think you'd know if you were a rapist. The odds of there being some hypothetical grey-area scenario are pretty low.

    I know we all like abstract, logical debates about the nature of consent, but yeah, don't rape people. That's all there is to it. This isn't a logic puzzle.

    And don't pull out this anecdotal bullshit about how once a girl lied because, you know, "B*tches be crazy". Because you know damn well that's an exception rather than the rule about how these things go. And if you don't damn well know, you're a flaming misogynist.

    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

    by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:06:49 AM PST

    •  That's pretty much (8+ / 0-)

      exactly what I was trying to say below.

      There's another interesting parallel here, and of course it's a right-wing thing. Voter-fraud. Like false rape accusations, it's an extremely rare phenomenom. Much more common is voter disenfranchisement, much like there is an awful lot of real rape, much of it unreported.

      ...hatred being a form of bondage to its object - Alan Watts

      by Max Wyvern on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:55:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's a terrific analogy! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cai, Ozy, Cassandra Waites

        Especially because in both cases the one group gets to strut around saying they're just for some platonic ideal of JUSTICE! while ignoring the very real implications of what they're doing and any and all cultural and historical context.

        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:58:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Pretty much. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          McWaffle, carrps

          The detached logical part of my brain says: Well of course, in a particular hypothetical scenario the woman could be just as at fault as the guy.

          Then we take a look at the reality of sexual assault statistics and realize that this article serves no useful purpose, highlights no real injustice, and has the possibility of hindering real progress on prevention of sexual assaults, especially in environments such as universities.

          •  Damn that part of the brain. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ozy

            It's what spawns glibertarian/MRA assholes. I'm all for reason/logic, but people forget that nothing exists in a vacuum. It's all got to be about stepping back and taking looks at the big picture.

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:12:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  On one survey, some double-digit percentage of (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      McWaffle, Cassandra Waites, tubacat

      male college students admitted to committing acts that are legally rape... as long as they're not called that.  

      The question "Have you had sex with someone who was too drunk to say yes or no?" might be such a question.  The men on the same survey were "really sure" that what they'd done was not rape.  Instead of "rape prevention" that focuses on women, we need more rape prevention that teaches boys and men both a) to respect women as human beings with bodily autonomy, and b) at the very least teach them what the law says.

      I believe that that's the reason behind most recent public attempts to distinguish "real" "forcible" rape from "stuff that women say is rape but really isn't, amirite?"

      Certain men are threatened by the idea that ALL non-consensual sex is rape.

      Their reasons I leave to the reader to decide.

      © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

      by cai on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:00:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  P.S. -- This may seem incompatible with my other (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tubacat

        comment about how college men who commit rape are "sure" that it wasn't rape, but I don't think it is.

        Rape or rapist is a term that men are loath to apply to themselves and their actions.  Therefore they reject that term.  On the other hand, they do know that they were refused -- they just lie to themselves about the logical meaning of that fact.

        © cai Visit 350.org to join the fight against global warming.

        by cai on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:05:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Link? (0+ / 0-)

        "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

        by New Jersey Boy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 08:00:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Squick!!! (5+ / 0-)

    Why do I get the nauseating feeling this creep is talking from experience? I could be wrong, but I get that vibe.

  •  that idiot needs to have his license to write (0+ / 0-)

    revoked, permanently. What a f*cking moron!

  •  I have a different perspective on this (6+ / 0-)

    which I haven't seen expressed. To me, it seems the end result of Taranto's philosophy is a far more sexually repressive culture. He's essentially saying that men can't be trusted to do the right thing if a woman's sexuality isn't masked (just in case he or she happens to be drunk). For me, I really like a culture in which women feel free to be sexy and even flirtatious, regardless of intoxication level, because I know I'm not interested in or capable of overstepping the boundaries of decency and forcing myself on her. For me, sex isn't fun if it's an act of aggression. It has to be enjoyed by both parties and absolutely clear to each that it's what they want. In that situation a man has absolutely nothing to fear from an attractive woman - even if she's sexily dressed and more than a little flirtatious. When I was in college there was more than one occasion in which I enjoyed the experience of being with such women without feeling compelled to rape them. Hell, it's one of the things that made college a blast.

    Taranto's philosophy is a step towards mandatory burkas. No thanks.

    ...hatred being a form of bondage to its object - Alan Watts

    by Max Wyvern on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:31:49 AM PST

    •  and to state the obvious (0+ / 0-)

      The reason there is a double standard is because a man is typically bigger, stronger, and pretty much always to my knowledge penetrates the woman in the act of sex. Like it or not guys, this makes you more responsible.

      ...hatred being a form of bondage to its object - Alan Watts

      by Max Wyvern on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:40:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  no it doesn't. (0+ / 0-)

        Feminists always complain that women aren't taken seriously. This is why. Men are made to be responsible for their own actions and sometimes the actions of people around him but a woman doesn't even have to be held responsible for hers let alone other peoples

        •  I'm not saying that women have no responsibility (0+ / 0-)

          I'm saying there is a double standard for a good reason. Because there is an imbalance in physical power and due to the nature of the act involved. I have no idea what it is like to be on the side that gets their physical space literally penetrated. I am assuming that this makes a significant difference for the female psyche in regards to the male.

          Women and men should be held responsible for being honest and respectful towards others. This means rape and false accusations of rape are both out of bounds. My suspicion is that the first occurs far more frequently than the second.

          ...hatred being a form of bondage to its object - Alan Watts

          by Max Wyvern on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:07:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there's no good reason for double standards (0+ / 0-)

            and the double standards don't stop there. when she accuses him, rightly or wrongly, her name and face are hidden from the public but his is shown for the whole world to see. This isn't innocent until proven guilty. This is guilty until proven innocent and only on this one crime which is held special for some reason. The standards of evidence are different and his ability to defend himself are severely hampered.

            this video explains it all

            http://www.youtube.com/...

            •  Can't watch it at work (0+ / 0-)

              But I will when I can. I know there are good arguments for the viewpoint that women have an unfair advantage in our legal system. I've read The Myth of Male Power and found it made some good arguments. Men are overly prone and our urged toward self-sacrifice with the result that we die much younger than the ladies.

              Still, on this issue, I defer to the idea that women get to decide what crosses the line into violation of personal space and wellbeing. I also think that the chilvalric impulse is not entirely without value. Women have a special role in society (as do men) and in regards to physical interactions with men should be granted special treatment. Maybe I'm brainwashed by my upbringing, but that's the way I like things to be. Treating ladies with a certain gentility and going overboard with respect for their wellbeing seems natural and a core component of who I am as a man.

              ...hatred being a form of bondage to its object - Alan Watts

              by Max Wyvern on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:47:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Just great (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saluda, cai, novapsyche, fl1972

    Another metaphor for rape involving cars.

    Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

    by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:44:27 AM PST

  •  Who needs roofies when you have Taranto? n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    saluda


    Every time my iPhone battery gets down to 47%, I think of Mitt Romney.

    by bobinson on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:02:07 PM PST

  •  enema (0+ / 0-)

    Give this buffoon an enema from the Elk River in West Virginia!!

  •  I guess we should ban women from drinking (4+ / 0-)

    You never know when a woman who has been drinking might be raped. If we prohibit their drinking, we will solve all sorts of problems. Not!

    So, to think about this discussion a little further, when two drunk drivers are in a collision, is it because one of them decided to run into the other and the other was too drunk to get out of the way and therefore it is his fault? I don't see the analogy at all.

    Seems like the better analogy is two people who are drinking together and get into a heated discussion. One pulls out a gun and shoots the other. Is the other one at fault because he/she got shot? Well, maybe if the NRA is making the decision. But otherwise, I don't think that your victim being drunk excuses you from shooting him/her. Maybe that's just me.

    It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain

    by lynneinfla on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:36:33 PM PST

  •  This article does not shock me. (4+ / 0-)

    It's the WSJ.  They're Fox News in print; I expect them to print repugnant shit like this.  The troglodytes that read their shitty rag absolutely eat it up.

    What DOES shock me, is that there are quite a few right here on DKos defending this shit as somehow logically consistent.

    Let me spell it out for you:  Getting drunk is not a crime; rape is.  It's not fucking rocket science.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:35:53 PM PST

    •  It is the double standard of giving consent (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      For men it is presumed that they are always responsible and that alcohol is not an excuse. However for women it is presumed that they can't give consent while drunk. The WSJ article points to a Standford rule that consent can't be given while drunk and then notes that in practice it is applied only to women. It is assumed that if two drunk student are having sex that it is the man who is automatically at fault.

      That is the double standard and I am shocked that that there are those here on DKos who are supporting this which implies that women are somehow mentally inferior to men.

      •  My question is this: (0+ / 0-)

        How often do you think that rule was invoked without cause? How often was it invoked on a whim?

        Is it more likely that it was invoked generally in actual sexual predation scenarios? Or is it more likely it was revoked retroactively by vindictive women?

        It's not a well written standard, no, but I very much doubt it's being used to punish too many innocent men. It could be, and maybe it has once or twice, but you gotta keep in mind the writer here has a distinct agenda.

        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:48:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am arguing the general principle (0+ / 0-)

          The question is "Can a drunk women give consent to have sex, or do they need special protection under the law stating that it is illegal for a drunk woman to have sex?"

          The general principle that I'd follow is that people are responsible for their own actions, and that regarding the capability of men and women to make decisions, they should be treated equally. As a result I feel that a rule  such as Stanford's should not exist in the first place, and even if it is on the book it should be applied equally.

          Prosecution for rape should be based solely on the evidence found, and not on the presumption that only a drunk man has decision capabilities when two drunk people have sex.

          •  Which is an obvious and trivial point. (0+ / 0-)

            Nobody is arguing for a double standard. Nobody is saying that it's not possible for a mildly drunk person (man or woman) to meaningfully consent.

            This is not some kind of Feminist conspiracy to one-up men legally so they can finally have sex and then get their partners arrested.

            Stanford's rule is clumsy, but it was meant to address a real problem. And by doing all this handwaving about "special treatment" all we're doing is feeding the problem.

            I wouldn't take your talking points right from the mouth of a conservative hack.

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:00:44 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then just say the Stanford rule is wrong (0+ / 0-)

              It is the mindset behind the Stanford rule that is at issue here. That rule didn't come out of a vacuum. There is a real mindset that women should be treated differently. That women need special protection from their own decisions. You should simply come out and say that that is not right without all the equivocating.

              If someone forced someone else to have sex against their will then that is rape. Period. No one is claiming mitigating circumstances due to alcohol. So why bring it up? This is about then man's presumption of guilt do the the presence of alcohol.

              By the way, you keep saying mildly intoxicated. Let's not dance around it. If two people are blindly drunk can they consent to have sex, or is the man automatically at fault? Should there be a blood alcohol limit law to having sex like there is for driving?

              Oh, and I assure you that I think for myself. I come to DKos because I am generally left leaning, but as you can see I have no problem speaking up even if it goes against the tide. I chose my username to be MrSpock because I value logic over emotion, although I see the need for both.

              •  I'll never understand... (0+ / 0-)

                ...people who think that asking legitimate questions and challenging views is a bad thing.

                Here's a list of the societal issues that were solved by shutting up and not asking "Why?":

                Everyday Magic

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:30:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Umm... Excuse me... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Technomancer

                  I am the one asking questions and challenging views. Did you not see this question that you, and everybody else I've asked in this diary, has failed to answer.

                  If two people are blindly drunk can they consent to have sex, or is the man automatically at fault? Should there be a blood alcohol limit law to having sex like there is for driving?
                  I even got one response that said that they didn't wan't to be drawn into an 'intelligent' discussion about the issue. Can I please get an answer to my question?
                  •  I've answered it many times. (0+ / 0-)

                    Was there rape? Then the rapist is at fault. If there's no rape, there's no fault. It's not that hard.

                    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                    by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:43:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Aaaaand once again you didn't answer (0+ / 0-)

                      The question is about consent not rape?

                      Is a drunk man more responsible for sex than a drunk woman?

                      That's it. Period. Nothing more.

                      There is no forcible rape. Consent is given. The question is can a drunk woman give consent? By your cryptic answer then you leave it up to me to decide which I firmly come down on the side of a woman being responsible for her own decisions.  So I take it you agree with me that a drunk woman can give consent.

                      •  What does "responsible for sex" mean? (0+ / 0-)

                        That's a meaningless phrase. Sex is by definition consensual. Rape is by definition not consensual. Both parties need to determine whether the other consents. If you determine the other party is too drunk to meaningfully consent, yet you proceed, then it's rape. If neither party makes that determination, there's no rape.

                        Really, it's not rocket science.

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:55:50 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Wow, you just won't answer the question? (0+ / 0-)

                          "Responsible for sex" simply means that the burden is more on the man to determine consent than on the woman. If two people are dunk is it automatically assumed that the man should have known better?

                          I have set this situation up many times, and phrased many different way because I hoped to find some combination that would get you to respond. As I have said, I am not talking about rape. I am only talking about the ability for a drunk woman to give consent. I could equally be talking about the ability of a 14 to sign a legal contract, or if a contract is valid if it is signed under duress.

                          Yes that is a dry emotionless 'intelligent' discussion I am trying to have, but it is necessary.

                          •  What am I failing to answer? (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, it is possible for drunk people to consent to sex. In 99% of cases, that consent is pretty clear. In your 1% hypothetical designed to be a brain teaser? I've answered. If both parties were too drunk to consent and neither party feels they were coerced or threatened, it's pretty clear there's no rape. They are both "responsible for sex".

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:34:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  And like we discussed upthread... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...that's absolutely true.  But the discussion is "what is that situation" and "where's the line?" and "how can we address it in a manner that gets better results for the victims that don't get justice and doesn't create

                      What's disturbing is that apparently trying to clarify a legal question that got brought up makes one a creep according to other posters.  Or that we don't have a right to discuss it because it didn't happen to us.  Or because, as one poster put it, we're men, and it's just like white people talking about the legal system.

                      Everyday Magic

                      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                      -- Clarke's Third Law

                      by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:57:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Why do you need to find the line? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        carrps, novapsyche, Cassandra Waites

                        The reason why it's creepy isn't because of your dedication to justice, it's the implication that you'd like to toe the line without crossing it. And that's murky ethical territory.

                        I'm not accusing you of that, I'm saying that's how it comes across.

                        The fact of the matter is that the "legal" line is meaningless, considering the vast majority of real-life cases that are clearly on the "rape" side of the "legal line" that go unreported and unpunished. Your choice to zero in on the few exceptions is counterproductive and contributes to the impression of "creepiness".

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:00:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So wait... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...it's my fault if someone decides that I'm looking to find out just how close to rape I can come because I'm asking a legal question?

                          Do some variable substitution there and you'll see why that's a particularly poor choice of reasoning for this topic.

                          You also haven't established how talking about issues is counterproductive.  Are you aware of a topic I forgot in my earlier list?

                          Everyday Magic

                          Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                          -- Clarke's Third Law

                          by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:11:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Because "talking about issues" implies (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            carrps, novapsyche, Cassandra Waites

                            actually listening to people affected by those issues. If those people find your behavior creepy, it's a sign something you're doing is making them uncomfortable. And you're responsible for the tone and content of your argument.

                            The issue, as I said, is the focus on this issue, in this context. It's not a LSAT logic game where you have to work out who sits next to who based on a spreadsheet. It's a real issue that affects real people, and all this "intellectual" debate on the subject deliberately excludes the actual real-life experiences of victims. That's why it's perceived as creepy and arrogant.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:15:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, your solution on how the issue gets addressed (0+ / 0-)

                            ...is?  What other issues are we not allowed to have intellectual debate on?

                            You're right, this is a real issue that effects real people.  That's exactly why it's worth talking about.

                            What context is the correct one to discuss it in?

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:49:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not a matter of "not allowed" (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a matter of understanding how to treat your interlocutors with respect. It is disrespectful to treat every issue as an abstract problem when there are people trying to tell you how it has personally affected them.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:50:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Once you've figured out the abstract... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...you can apply it to the real world.  That's the point of discussing things in the abstract.  Come up with a principle.  Then do the hard work of figuring out how to apply it.

                            You and I came up with a good abstract principle in our earlier discussion about how we could reform the legal system to encourage more victims to come forward.  That discussion doesn't happen at all if the questions don't get asked, even if they are inconvenient.

                            More specifically, were this a diary where a rape victim was calling out for support, I sure as fuck wouldn't try to have this conversation there.  I can think of quite a few more contexts where this conversation would be disrespectful if not outright hateful.

                            Others and I can't see where this thread is one of them.  You're making the argument that it's never okay to talk about it...or only talk about it when those who have experienced it are not in the room, like they're too fragile.

                            That's not respecting them at all, is it?

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:07:30 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The issue is always going to come back to (0+ / 0-)

                            the focus on this issue. This particular issue of finding the "tipping point" at which rape becomes rape. Because it's a very loaded issue. It's one where this forced impartiality comes across as creepy. It seems an odd issue to take a stand on, considering the real world.

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:12:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I haven't been trying to find that. (0+ / 0-)

                            More specifically, the closest I've come to that, my definition of consent was a lot stricter than the ones being advocated by others in that my stance is that a lack of affirmative consent = rape, and there are cases where a party is too inebriated for affirmative consent to actually be affirmative consent.

                            The only time I referenced the balancing act was in the legal context.  Like I wrote in the other reply I gave to you, no wonder someone would think I'm creepy if I was trying to define lines in a sense outside of that.

                            Also, when I replied to Spock with what was probably a pretty stupid passive aggressive comment made out of frustration, you weren't the target I had in mind when talking about it.  I don't remember you insinuating I was creepy at that point.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:39:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  I know. (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm very sorry for not being clear enough about that being a general comment rather than one aimed at you.

                    I've been trying to get an answer to that for hours -- look up thread.  I'm asking the same questions.

                    Everyday Magic

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:49:20 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How else would you like me to answer? (0+ / 0-)

                      The amount of alcohol consumed is really tangential to the discussion. The issue is whether either party knowingly exploited the situation in order to have sex. If that's the case, then it's rape, and the rapist is at fault.

                      Both parties are responsible for determining whether the other party consents. What else is there to say here?

                      If the guy was on roller skates, and the woman was high on meth and on a trampoline...

                      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:53:05 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I was actually referring... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...to the talk I was having with raptavio.  I thought we had a pretty good discussion.

                        My fault for not being clearer.  I actually like that answer.  Now I'm trying to think of a way to turn that into a legal test.

                        Everyday Magic

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:59:05 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Ok I understand you a little better (0+ / 0-)

                        But alcohol is important to this discussion because my concern was that even though a woman said yes and consented to sex, that there is some unwritten rule that the man should know that she means no because she is drunk. The Stanford rule that I mentioned is based on a person not being able to give consent while drunk. It is the attitude behind that rule that I am questioning.

                        I totally agree that if consent is not given it is rape. I am worried that the bar for determining that consent is higher for a man than for a woman. All I have been saying is that bar should be equal for both genders and that if a person says 'yes' to sex then that is consent. Of course that doesn't apply if one person intentionally gets the other person drunk or high without their knowledge.

                        •  Is she too drunk to consent? (0+ / 0-)

                          It's the man's responsibility to determine that. For your sake, I'll also put your precious counter-case: it's also the woman's responsibility to determine whether the man can consent. Same holds for MM and FF sex. It's all pretty simple.

                          The reason you see the "bar as higher" for men is simply a cultural artifact of "hookup culture." And the reason I'm incensed is your failure to recognize that.

                          It is in fact a real issue, but one that is primarily a feminist problem, not an MRA one. The balance of the scales is nowhere near the point where we can start talking about protecting men or "lowering their bar".

                          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:45:58 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Well I just learned a lesson (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      The Technomancer

                      People see what they expected to see. I was expecting criticism so I saw it even though there wasn't any. I think that should be a lesson for this thread.

                      People are immediately assuming that others are trying to defend rapists. I can understand. Emotions are running high, and there really are sleazeballs out there who would. I also understand that people are defensive because they have been unfairly attack in the past.

                      I also understand that far more women get raped then men so the idea of protecting men seems kind of stupid. It is kind of like when we here republicans talk about protecting the 'job creators'.

                      Still I believe there is a fundamental issue at play. OMG... I do sound like a republican defending the rich!!! Hmm...maybe I need to approach this differently.

                      Ok personal crisis over. The difference is that I am willing to legitimately talk about the issues, and listen to the responses. The problem I'm running into is that it seem that the other side's response boils down to "Because I say so. Now quit asking".

                •  We got along upthread, but this is awful. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  carrps

                  These aren't legitimate questions. This is self-serving BS that does nothing but normalize sexual assault. People are triumphantly declaring that they have no experience and therefore able to discuss the subject "objectively".

                  It's just straight-up, un-watered-down "Mansplaining" chauvinist nonsense. And that's not a failure to "logically analyze" the situation. I'm not being "emotional". Your unwillingness to acknowledge actual real-life issues is not a badge of honor.

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:42:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  How is asking questions... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...mansplaining?

                    You're not being emotional.  You're also not the only person in this thread, dude.  Your discussion has actually been really helpful.

                    The real life issue is that affirmative consent isn't always clear.  No always means no.

                    But take the situation I proposed to to raptavio earlier when he stated that as long as someone can say yes, they've consented.  Never mind their level of intoxication, and I pointed out a case where I'd feel skeezy as fuck taking a yes as consent to sex (where the other member is blitzed as hell, never showed an interest when sober, etc).  To me, that seems like rape.  To someone else, it doesn't.

                    And that discussion came from this topic.  It's pretty much the opposite side of the discussion we were having.  That is a real life view someone has.

                    How else does society address it without confronting it and discussing it?

                    Everyday Magic

                    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                    -- Clarke's Third Law

                    by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:07:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Does skeezy = illegal? (0+ / 0-)

                      I agree that to have sex with someone who is intoxicated is not the moral thing to do. I hope no one thinks that has been my position. My question simply boils down to should there be a legal blood alcohol limit to having sex?

                      I also have been taking the much easier case where both people are intoxicated. It does become more questionably when one party is sober and clearly is taking advantage of the situation.

                      However, even though that is wrong, I don't know how you can make a law to cover that situation? Would you really want a law where an act is only illegal if one of the parties was drunk? That would have the unintended consequence of forcing everyone to get hammered before having sex for legal protection.

                      •  If that's what your argument boils down to, (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        carrps, tubacat

                        you're having a different argument than the rest of us. In most of these hypothetical scenarios, alcohol isn't really the issue. The issue is consent. The issue is the historic, cultural inability to accept that consent is a pretty clear line between rape and sex.

                        This laser focus on the hypothetical "just drunk enough" tipping point is completely detached from the on-the-ground realities of rape and sexual assault.

                        What we need isn't more specific laws about alcohol consumption, it's a societal shift towards understanding what consent is and what it really means.

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:29:48 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ahh that explains it (0+ / 0-)
                          you're having a different argument than the rest of us.
                          Ahh that explains why it seemed that I was talking past people. I was only ever concerned about a drunk person's the ability to give consent and if under those circumstances it is assumed that the man is ultimately responsible for that decision while the woman is held blameless.

                          And by responsible I mean that the man is automatically assumed guilty of rape like an adult would automatically be accused of statutory raping someone under the age of consent even if that person agreed to sex. It seemed to me that that would be blatantly unfair and it perplexed me why anyone would be defending it.

                          This laser focus on the hypothetical "just drunk enough" tipping point is completely detached from the on-the-ground realities of rape and sexual assault.
                          Although isn't that basically what the WSJ article was about. All he was saying was that it is a double standard in our society that places the responsibility of determining consent solely on the man, and that if two people were drunk, that you can't single out one of them because of their gender for greater legal responsibility.  It is up to the woman to correctly convey her intentions, and if she says yes that is all the guy should need to here to determine consent.

                          And yes I was only concerned about laws. If the only thing people have been talking about was what the societal norms should be then I'm probably in total agreement with you.

                      •  I don't know how you could make a law like that. (0+ / 0-)

                        But apparently talking about situations to determine solutions and work out a legal method to get more rapes reported and reduce the harm the rare false accusation causes is too intellectual and makes us creepy.

                        Everyday Magic

                        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                        -- Clarke's Third Law

                        by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:54:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That is an extremely generous self-assessment (0+ / 0-)

                          of what you've been arguing. We can't tell your intent, we can only read what you've written in the context of this discussion.

                          I thought we did alright this afternoon, because that particular thread took a specific legalistic tone. Which can be fine in context. But pretending that all contexts are that context is not appropriate.

                          What's creepy is that, if a woman said she was drinking and would be raped, it seems (from your arguments) that your course of action would be to to work out the rapist and victim's relative BACs. Legally? Philosophically? Maybe that's what's happening in criminal justice system. But when that kind of talk leaks into other elements of the conversation, it starts sounding jarring.

                          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:59:56 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  "had been", sorry. Ironically, I started drinking. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer

                            n/t

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:00:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No problem. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'll probably indulge a bit myself once my servers are done being on fire.  =/

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:08:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If that's how you're reading me... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            McWaffle

                            ...then I can see how you'd be creeped the fuck out, because that's not appropriate.  Even a socially-inept dumbass like myself can figure that one out.

                            But that didn't happen.  If a woman was drinking and said she was raped, I'd hope someone's first reaction would be comfort and the benefit of the doubt.  If the victim, at any time, did not give affirmative consent or at any time withdrew said consent if it was given, that's rape.  Doesn't matter the BAC level.

                            The question comes about when someone gives consent but is inebriated to the point of being able to give consent.

                            And since situations do happen where a yes was given and was not revoked, and then was reported as rape, then determining if the victim in this situation was sober enough to give consent in the first place matters.  That's not trying to impugn the woman who we're giving the benefit of the doubt that she feels that she was violated.  That's trying to find out that even if yes was said, if it should have mattered.

                            No is always no.  In the case of sex, a lack of yes is a no.  Shit, I'm arguing that when you get alcohol involved, there's a point before the point of passing out/complete incapacitation renders the situation moot (as it's clearly impossible to consent when a party is passed the fuck out) where even yes can't be taken as a yes.

                            And it's apparently a hard question to answer, because I've seen answers in this thread range from "if they can say yes or can attempt to initiate the encounter, they have the judgment to do it", which I think is ridiculous, to ones that are basically saying if a person has touched an intoxicant, the other party should know better.

                            So again, if I've come across like I'm trying to find out a way to get into someone's pants without affirmative consent, then I understand why you've reacted that way and I'm sorry as shit that I worded my arguments clumsily enough to put that point across.

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:33:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Apology accepted. I've been quite worked up about (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer

                            this, and about past Woody Allen diaries and I'll freely admit that's influenced my reactions. For that, I too apologize.

                            My issue has been that your comments, while on the whole far more reasonable than others (not necessarily in this diary, but in others as well), have reminded me too much of the glib indifference of other writers (again, not calling anybody out in this diary necessarily, but in Allen diaries too).

                            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:45:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Fair enough, and thank you for the explanation. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Penny GC

                            I have a problem with coming off as indifferent when it's not intended.  Part of the reason why I've started posting more is to try to fix it.  Not fixed yet, obviously.  ;)

                            Everyday Magic

                            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                            -- Clarke's Third Law

                            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:53:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Want to jump on the apology train too (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Technomancer, McWaffle, Penny GC

                            I pretty much agree with everything The Technomancer said. Maybe I do go too technical too quickly for some. I'm a programmer and see things as a logical series of steps. I tend to discount the things that I think are irrelevant. That is why I was so laser focused on the law since that determines if someone goes to jail or not. I did not consider the social side but I should have since that can determine if a rape happens in the first place.

                •  Whoops sorry. I thought you were McWaffle (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Penny GC

                  And were criticizing the my question. Your post makes more sense now.

  •  Even conceding the absurd point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    carrps

    that a drunk guy isn't able to perceive whether a woman is too drunk to consent (or simply unwilling to consent at all), there's still the whole Not Having Sex option he can choose.

    First they came for the slippery-slope fallacists, and I said nothing. The End.

    by Cream Puff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:08:35 PM PST

    •  Depending on how you define (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThinkerT

      that's a problematic argument.

      If you're just talking incapacitated (or various degrees of really close to it), then I'd agree.

      If you're talking some level of judgement impaired, but still capable of participating in the act, possibly even having voiced consent, then the drunk guy (possibly as drunk or close to it?) is being held to a very high standard.  He wants sex. She apparently wants sex or is at least willing. Exactly why should he not? Remeber, his judgement is also impaired.

      It's not so much trying to excuse him or worry overmuch about the false accusations, but I am a bit disturbed by policies like the Stanford one quoted in the article where you can't give consent if you're intoxicated. With no degree of intoxication apparently defined.
      That's a bad policy and should be changed.

      The Empire never ended.

      by thejeff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:51:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why is everybody so convinced that women (4+ / 0-)

        are going to consent to and participate in sex then decide the next day to levy rape accusations? Yes, it's happened. In a slim number of those instances sure, the guy has probably been wrongfully convicted. Those instances are tragedies of justice.

        But really? The number of false convictions and hapless victims can be counted on one hand. It's more likely you're going to get hit by lightning. We're all worried about this poor hypothetical man with the evil succubus trying to seduce him then destroy him on a whim. It's a lot of effort spent discussing a vile stereotype. And a lot of effort to ignore the everyday humdrum rape that are a dime a dozen.

        This is like, a damn Overton Window thing or whatever, except we're trying to shrink the window more and more until any discussion that isn't male-centered is considered feminazi activism.

        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:59:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not really. (0+ / 0-)

          And the actual laws and more importantly the culture are definitely biased against rape victims.

          The only real nugget I took from that article was the bit about:

          Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol."
          Assuming that's true and not distorted, I think that's  a a really bad policy..

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:26:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

            Please explain.

            •  How could it be good. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fixed Point Theorem

              Taken literally, it's "We will treat any drunken sex as rape."

              With no definition of "intoxication", it would seem that any amount of drinking would qualify.
              By that college's definition, I  committed a lot of rape back in my college days. So, at the same time, did my girlfriend.

              Now, obviously we weren't going to accuse each other, but it's not a good idea to have a policy that treats consensual sex as rape, even if you ignore it most of the time.

              The Empire never ended.

              by thejeff on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:39:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Logic? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    As I read the quoted bit, the question is not of who actually did what, but of who might be presumed guilty in advance. To continue the driving analogy, in the face of competing claims, either driver A is culpable, driver B is culpable, both are culpable, or neither is culpable. If you adjudicate the matter on the exclusive theory that driver A is presumptively guilty on the grounds of membership in some class ('those Neapolitans are often crazy drivers'), this is problematic. For the same reason, a defendant's previous criminal record is generally not admissible evidence in a trial for a later offense.

    The paragraphs (by Lawson) following the quote would seem to illustrate the problem, postulating that a rape has, in fact, occurred and that there is thus a rapist.  But a rape accusation does not establish that a rape occurred, and the fact that either or both parties were drinking doesn't give the accusation additional weight.

    I would also suggest that it would be best to read the entire Taranto piece. That would include the unquoted part of the paragraph in the block quote. The full paragraph began with the observations that, "Winerip notes that between 2005 and 2010, "more than 60 percent of claims involving sexual violence handled by United Educators"--an insurance company owned by member schools--"involved young women who were so drunk they had no clear memory of the assault." We know from Sgt. Cournoyer that the accused young men typically are drinking to excess, too."

  •  I believe that I've collided (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    novapsyche

    with many people while drunk.....yet somehow  it never resulted in penetration...

    Penetration is not an "accident".  If a male is capable of performing the act, then he is capable of understanding the word "no" and he is most likely conscious enough to know if his partner is out cold.

  •  Collide? Seriously???? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a gilas girl

    So that's what we're calling sex these days? A collision? Using his entertaining verb choice of "collide" and running with it in the literal sense for a moment, I would argue this: Even when I'm drunk, when I collide with someone, I may get a bruise, I may get knocked down, but I do not end up with a penis inside me. By the same token, if a drunk guy bumps into me, I do not end up with his penis inside me. Sex -- sober or otherwise -- requires an actual decision-making process that implies thought & decision & action: clothes have to come off (at least somewhat), there is probably a change of position. And in each of these actions, there is the option for another action. Colliding is an accident. Rape is not.

    •  It is an analogy to drunk driving (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      It highlights the double standard regarding women between driving drunk vs. giving consent to sex while drunk. In the first case no one would argue that the woman is responsible for her actions. However in the second case a special exemption is made.

      That is a double standard and is what is being discussed. Note that for a man, he would be considered responsible for his actions in both cases without controversy.

      •  It is not a double standard (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        McWaffle, novapsyche, Penny GC

        Rapists don't just suddenly rape because they are drunk. They plan on raping if the woman doesn't submit peacefully. Blaming a woman for that rape just because she was drunk is victim-blaming. And disgusting.

        Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

        by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:34:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This isn't about rape (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fixed Point Theorem

          This is about a woman's ability to give consent. If two blindly drunk people have sex, is the man automatically at fault. The argument is that under these circumstances the man is responsible for his actions and the woman is not. It is like applying the statutory rape laws to adults but assuming that a drunk woman is like an underage minor.

          This discussion has always been about consenting adults, not a predatory rapist. It's about the question of if a drunk woman can give consent. So I ask you the question that I have been asking others here:

          Can a blindly drunk woman give consent to have sex, or do we need a blood alcohol limit law to keep drunk women from having sex like we have such a law to keep drunk people from driving?

          •  There's a problem with your point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            carrps

            Not all men rape, even when falling down drunk. I would venture, even, that most don't. The only men and women who rape are rapists. Alcohol or no.

            And I am aware of how this "discussion" has been framed. Speaking as a rape victim and someone who knows many other survivors, this framing is bullshit. Alcohol doesn't lead to rape. Rapists just find it easier to rape men and women who are under the influence.

            Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

            by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:51:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You didn't answer the question (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fixed Point Theorem
              Can a blindly drunk woman give consent to have sex, or do we need a blood alcohol limit law to keep drunk women from having sex like we have such a law to keep drunk people from driving?
              It is you who are trying to frame the discussion into something it is not. If a guy goes to a party and gets drunk and he then meets a girl he likes who is also drunk and they have sex, is that wrong? Should it be illegal?

              This is all about the woman's ability to give consent while drunk. Nothing more.

              •  I should add that it is wrong to have drunk sex (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Fixed Point Theorem

                The point is if both partners are equally wrong or is it more the man's fault?

                •  That's not an honest or meaningful question. (0+ / 0-)

                  Drunk sex is fine, rape is not. Rape is a crime, sex is not. Being raped is not a crime.

                  That applies regardless of sex or gender.

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:32:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok so I think then that we agree (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Fixed Point Theorem

                    Drunk sex is not illegal. That implies that a person can give consent to sex while drunk. As a result someone should not have assumed that the other person means 'no' even though they said 'yes' just because that other person was drunk when they said it.

                    That is all that I was trying to say. I guess I should have simply shortened it to: Drunk sex is legal...right?

                    •  Unless the "yes" is a "Yeshh... [vomit]" (0+ / 0-)

                      I'd further introduce the concept of "enthusiastic consent" but since we seemed to be having trouble with "consent" alone I figured I wouldn't raise it. Basically, if the other person isn't enjoying sex, you should probably stop having sex. It's related to consent, because basically not enjoying the sex is a pretty good sign the consent wasn't particularly meaningful.

                      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:49:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  And again, it still boils down to each party (0+ / 0-)

                        judging the other's ability to consent. My point is that it's not enough to get a "yes" and then run with it despite obvious signs that "yes" wasn't freely given.

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:52:16 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  No (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                McWaffle, novapsyche

                I am saying that the original discussion is bullshit. It ignores the realities of how men and women get raped, which is often by a friend who deliberately intended to rape, alcohol or drugs or not. I know how a lot of men like to get cute and have intellectual conversations about rape as if they are somehow objective, but I refuse to engage in such dishonest discussions of rape which don't reflect the realities of the numerous men and women who have actually been raped.

                Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:12:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So instead of an 'intellectual' discussion (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ThinkerT, Fixed Point Theorem

                  You want to have what? How else should this be discussed?

                  The whole point of my argument is that this isn't being discussed intelligently, and that emotions are short circuiting the discussion. That is why I posed the hard question.  If you don't state how you feel about the fundamentals of the issue then how can anything meaningful come of it. We wouldn't be discussing the real issue, but dancing around secondary topics.

                  Imagine how this looks from my point of view. I take issue with men automatically being assumed guilty when both parties are drunk, and your response is that you don't want to talk intellectually about it. Why should I ever change my view to yours based on that response? All it does is verify what I already believe to be true. That people are running on emotion and haven't thought this thing through.

                  •  Would you drop the "pure reason" BS? (0+ / 0-)

                    It's self-serving shlock that is basically just informs the rest of us that you're full of yourself. You're acknowledging that you are intentionally ignoring the reality of rape, yet you somehow want to make that a point in your favor? Your so "above the fray" that it doesn't even matter how rape actually occurs. You're just concerned with the theory of the thing? That should not be a point of pride.

                    "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                    by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:27:30 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And yet you haven't made a valid point yet (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Fixed Point Theorem

                      I honestly ask, "How should laws be made is not through intelligent debate?" Should someone simply be able to declare a new law without discussion because it feels right to them? If I were that person making laws would you not want me to listen to your point of view?

                      That is all that I asked. What is the basis for what you are saying? In fact I am not even sure what you are saying which is why I was asking the questions. For example:

                      * Do you want to make drunk sex illegal?
                      * Do you want to give more weight to a woman's word over a man's regarding sexual consent?

                      How could I possibly have any meaningful discussion with you, or any one else, with such a lack of understanding of your positions? Instead of simply telling me what you think, you now try to insult me.

                      I tried to make you see that from my point of view, that is not doing anything to help me see this your way. You don't have to talk to me. That's fine. But please don't thn try to insult me when I don't agree with you when you haven't given me anything to agree with.

                      •  Debate is fine. Declaring yourself to be "Logical" (0+ / 0-)

                        is not. I'm not insulting you. I just object to you complimenting yourself at the outset of the debate. You can't start a debate if you declare straight out that you're dedicated to reason (with the implication that all other participants are merely emotional, illogical people). Especially considering the pre-existing gendered connotations of those character attributes.

                        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:05:42 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I didn't start the 'intellectual' thing (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Fixed Point Theorem

                          I initially was responding to moviemeister76 who flat out said that she(?) would not engage in 'intellectual conversations' on this topic, which implied that intellectual discussions were somehow wrong.

                          I know how a lot of men like to get cute and have intellectual conversations about rape as if they are somehow objective, but I refuse to engage in such dishonest discussions of rape which don't reflect the realities of the numerous men and women who have actually been raped.
                          To be honest I really don't know how to respond to someone who says something like like, which is why I asked what kind of discussion would we be having if it was not an intellectual one? Does she really want me to start throwing ad hominem attacks attacks around?

                          As a result of the comment from moviemeister76 I started using 'intellectual' as a quick counterpoint to the arguments that I was hearing from the other side, because if my side is the intellectual one then what does that make theirs.

          •  What does it mean to be "at fault for sex"? (0+ / 0-)

            If there's a party at fault, that means it's probably rape. What scenario would have a party "at fault" for sex? Sex is by definition consensual. Rape is by definition not consensual. You cannot separate these issues.

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:18:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Answer (0+ / 0-)

            Can a blindly drunk woman give consent to have sex

            No.  Clear anything up for you?

            If you are unsure as to your partner's state of intoxication, the prudent course of action is to refrain until you are both in a sober state of mind.

  •  Is a drunk person responsible for their actions? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fixed Point Theorem

    That is the key question, and however you answer that you have to be consistent in its application. If you want to say that a drunk woman can't consent to sex, then is a drunk woman responsible if she hits a pedestrian with her car?

    The problem here is that some want to have it both ways. They say that women are incapable of making intelligent decisions regarding alcohol and sex, yet are perfectly capable of making decisions about alcohol and driving. It should be noted that there is no controversy about holding men accountable in both cases.

    That is the double standard that is being discussed in the WSJ article. This has nothing to do with defending rapist. If physical coercion was used in any way it is generally acknowledged that men are stronger and as such shoulder the responsibility of any such interaction. On the other hand what about when both parties are drunk and freely consent to sex? Shouldn't the the burden of that decision equally rest on both parties? To do otherwise is to say that women are somehow intellectually inferior and need special protection under the law to compensate.

    •  Of course, and that's the point. (0+ / 0-)

      Men are responsible for their sexual actions whether or not they are drunk. And that responsibility extends to determining whether their partner consents and/or is reasonably able to consent.

      The hypothetical posed about equally drunk, spherical people in frictionless plane where pi=3.14 or whatever, is just simply not a real issue. Does it happen? Sure, but, as a percentage of rape reports? No, it's just simply not a problem of a scale comparable to clear-cut sexual predation.

      Nobody here is arguing that a mildly intoxicated woman is unable to meaningfully consent to sex.

      The author in question is purposefully using this edge case as a wedge to push for basically excusing all sexual assault. He's not a law professor, he's a political activist making a political point. It's not worth addressing his hypothetical in a context-free vacuum.

      "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

      by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:44:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is about a double standard not prosecutions (0+ / 0-)

        I noticed that your first statement didn't talk at all about the woman's responsibility. Why didn't you also say:

        Women responsible for their sexual actions whether or not they are drunk. And that responsibility extends to determining whether their partner consents and/or is reasonably able to consent.
        The question is can a woman give consent to have sex while intoxicated. If a woman is not responsible for giving consent while drunk, then is she responsible when she is driving while drunk? Why would you make an exception only for the act of sex?

        This has nothing to do about prosecuting rapist. If there is evidence against a person then throw the book at them.  The question is "Is the mere fact that a man is drunk, when two drunk people have sex part of that valid evidence?"

        •  I amend my comment to read "Women" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          novapsyche

          In my other comments (both in response to you and in response to other commenters) I think I've made that point abundantly clear.

          The idea of a "double standard" is nothing but a men's rights rallying cry more appropriate for Free Republic than Daily Kos.

          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:12:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ok then (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Fixed Point Theorem

            One last question that I also posted above. Answer in either place.

            If two blindly drunk people have sex, not mildly intoxicated, is the man any more culpable than the woman? Does the women need special legal protection in this case? If your answer is 'no' then we agree, and I thank you for our conversation because that is all I am trying to say. If your answer is 'yes' then please explain why.

            •  What do you mean "culpable"? (0+ / 0-)

              If either party raped the other, the rapist is culpable. It's a nonsensical question at its heart. You're failing to see the forest for the trees, despite your "dedication to logic".

              "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

              by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:28:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's a tough question (0+ / 0-)

              On the surface it seems the answer should be "no", but given that the man is usually the initiator of the sexual activity, it might be that that should be given consideration as well.

              Let's stretch the drunk driving analogy. Let's say the man is driving drunk while the woman is drunk and sitting behind the wheel of a parked car with the keys in the ignition, and the man's car strikes the woman's. By the law both are guilty of drunk driving, but in this case is the man more culpable given that he was the initiator of the contact? Seems like it for this analogy.

              I don't know the answer to this and it's something I'll be giving more thought to.

              "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

              by ThinkerT on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:35:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let's drop all analogies. (0+ / 0-)

                Did both parties consent to sex? If not, then it was rape. Both parties are responsible for determining whether the other party can meaningfully consent.

                Why do we need all these "if two drunks f*ck in a forest and neither remember afterwards, does it make a sound?" handwaving? It's just simply not relevant to how 99% of these things actually happen and does nothing but provide an excuse for extremely sketchy behavior.

                "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:47:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for your response (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Fixed Point Theorem

                Well I take issue with the phrase "given that the man is usually the initiator of the sexual activity". Why does it matter who asks for sex? The point is that consent was given by both parties. If a woman says yes to sex, why is it the man's responsibility to deduce her true intent? Yes means Yes.

                Btw the way our legal system should be based on individual accountability and not group stereotypes.

                •  "Yes" means "Yes" in actions, more than words. (0+ / 0-)

                  Enthusiastic sex means "Yes" but reluctant, unpleasurable sex should throw warnings that saying "yes" didn't really mean "yes."

                  "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

                  by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:17:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  That's what I saw as well (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't read the article in great detail, but I didn't see the "blame the victim" mentality that the diarist is talking about. I got more of the double-standard argument that women aren't held as responsible for the decisions they make while drunk while men are with regards to sexual activity.

      I think it's a good point, although I wouldn't agree just on face value. I think there's much to be digested and considered in that.

      "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

      by ThinkerT on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:12:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I gotta say, if I had a son, I'd be doing my (0+ / 0-)

      damndest to tell him never to A) get drunk, or B) have sex with even the most enthusiastic partner if she (or he) had even a drop of alcohol that night.

      Having been drunk, I happen to know it's next to impossible to keep coherent thought together, which is how I woke up one morning on the living room floor of a strange house with a 2-3 ft long lizard crawling past me after an end of year departmental pub crawl.  To this day, I have absolutely no idea what happened in between the time I was in the bar and woke up the next day, or whose house that was, although I assume it was that of another of the grad students who handled their drinks better.

      If I'd had sex that night, there would have been no way I'd have remembered to either get consent first, or even remembered having gotten it afterwards.  The only safety lies in never getting drunk, and making damned sure you never get physical in any way with anyone else who has been drinking.

  •  if you are drunk (6+ / 0-)

    and drop your keys  you are irresponsible...

    The person who breaks into your house or car is a felon.

    If you are drunk and leave your keys in your car, you
    are irresponsible.  The person who drives off with the car
    is a car thief.

    if you are drunk and pass out at a party, you are irresponsible, the person who has sex with you w/o consent
    is committing a sex crime.

    we have these posters about "Drinking Responsibly", that's true,  however, lack of responsibility on one persons part
    is not license to commit crimes on another persons part.

    A drunk businessman on the train does not give license to someone to steal their wallet.

    •  That is a strawman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      No one (I don't think) is defending someone who has sex with a woman who is passed out. What is being discussed is if a drunk woman can give consent to sex. If a woman says yes, but she is drunk, is it still a yes?

      The WSJ, and myself, say that Yes means Yes, just like No means No. A person is responsible for their actions and it does not matter if they are drunk or not. It is just like you would not excuse a person for hitting a pedestrian with their car if they were drunk.

      Some would like to carve out a special exception that only applies to women that prevents them under force of law from having sex while drunk. It is noted in the WSJ article that Stanford has a rule which states just that. Well to be honest it technically applies to both sexes but is only selectively used against men.

      •  And likewise nobody is arguing the reverse. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mungley, novapsyche

        I don't think I've seen a single commenter say that it's impossible for a mildly intoxicated woman to consent.

        I'd posit that you are fact making a strawman point. In fact, parroting one made by a known conservative hack with a misogynist streak.

        "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

        by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 03:51:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a level between (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fixed Point Theorem

          "mildly intoxicated" and "passed out", and that area seems to be the area being discussed.

          "No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it." - Sideshow Bob

          by ThinkerT on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:28:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not in an honest way, IMO. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            carrps, novapsyche

            People are just desperate to cook up some scenario in which it's acceptable legally to rape somebody. It's weird. Again, if you need some kinda flowsheet to figure out whether you should have sex with somebody, maybe that's a sign you shouldn't.

            "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

            by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:30:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  WSJ columnist: If you're raped while drunk, you're (0+ / 0-)

    Ok, so I can cut off this man's cock because he's a stupid asshole. It won't be my fault, he made me do it because he publicly said something so stupid!

  •  Damn (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fl1972, HumeanSkeptic, carrps, novapsyche

    Some of the comments in this diary creep me the hell out. I'm not sure I actually want to go to Netroots Nation. I wouldn't feel safe there.

    Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

    by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:38:55 PM PST

  •  Yuh-huh (0+ / 0-)

    The evidence will show, ladies and gentlemen, that she passed out and that he accidentally had sex with her.  Fortunately nobody actually got OW! WHO HAS THE BEAN SHOOTER OW OW

  •  They published this nonsense? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mungley

    Wow.

    •  Of course they did (0+ / 0-)

      The WSJ is a very conservative paper. Considering the fact that several here at this site are defending this article, I imagine this columnist speaks for a lot of men.

      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

      by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:24:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or... (0+ / 0-)

        ...people are having a discussion about the law around rape.

        Nothing ever got solved by shutting up because it wasn't pleasant to think about, and nothing certainly ever got solved by letting your imagination run wild about "others".

        Everyday Magic

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
        -- Clarke's Third Law

        by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:28:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh I'm very familiar with "discussions" (0+ / 0-)

          Particularly discussions by men who have no freaking clue what it's actually like to live in a rape culture. It's kind of like when white people discuss the legal system without listening or acknowledging how racist the legal system in America was designed to be. But please, feel free to continue talking about this bullshit. Feel free to ignore victims who tell you that this is not actually how rape works. I'm sure that will help someone. Somewhere. But just keep in mind that a lot of victims of rape now don't trust you are anyone else who is doing this.

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:32:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And the comment in question... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that sparked the discussion asked a legal question.  If you have a different, unique view that's not being expressed, it helps everyone to express it.

            But if you're not up for that, mind letting us know what else we're not allowed to talk about?  Or what white people can't talk about?  Or what men can't talk about?  You obviously have opinions about those.

            Let's hear 'em.

            Everyday Magic

            Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
            -- Clarke's Third Law

            by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:47:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm a man, I'm talking about it. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              novapsyche

              The reason why you feel like "men can't talk about it" is because you have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the opinions of actual-factual victims, many of whom are women. It's a matter of feeling entitled, entitled to have your experience-free opinion treated with the same respect as somebody who's experienced rape, sexism, racism, etc...

              "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

              by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:04:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Please point out where I demanded... (0+ / 0-)

                ...that my opinion should be respected.  I haven't.  In fact, I believe I've been crystal clear throughout all of my posts that the reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to form opinions about certain points brought up in the thread.

                This is the comments and discussion section of a public forum.  I sure as hell wouldn't walk into a rape survivor's counseling meeting and discuss this.  It would be exceedingly disrespectful and I'd deserve the ball-kicking I'd get over it.

                So if it can't be discussed in a topic that brings it up on a public forum dedicated to discussing current events and issues of the day, then where, dude?

                You felt entitled earlier to give your opinion about the effects autism has on someone's thinking.  I'm diagnosed autistic, and I didn't bust your balls over it.  I deal with that shit all the time, and when someone comes back and challenges me on it, I don't pull the appeal to authority card out because I've got a cross-wired brain and they don't.  It fucking sucks having to explain yourself all the damn time because since you look normal and your disability isn't visible.  It pisses me off to see how some people talk about their autistic kids or family members.

                And shutting them up or shouting them down does no fucking good whatsoever.  Same applies here.

                Everyday Magic

                Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
                -- Clarke's Third Law

                by The Technomancer on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:26:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  You say that as if it is a valid accusation (0+ / 0-)

        Why shouldn't men take offense when someone defends a clearly double standard against them? Why should a man have more responsibility for sex then a women?

        Btw I acknowledge the physical differences between men and women. This has nothing to do with physical coercion. This is only about if a woman can give consent to sex while being drunk. Does 'Yes' mean 'Yes' if the woman is drunk?  

        Btw Part 2, I am also not saying that it is the right thing to do to have sex while drunk. I am only saying that both parties should be equally responsible.

        •  Equally responsible... unless there was a rape. (0+ / 0-)

          You're positing a scenario in which there was no rape, and then triumphantly declaring it not to be rape. It's self-serving and does not advance the discussion.

          "I wish you luck on not hating your parents for mixing up such an unthinkable person." --The frickin´ HP--

          by McWaffle on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:35:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why so hurtful, moviemeister?! (0+ / 0-)

        Do you honestly think a majority of men on this site agree con/James Taranto?
        Seriously?!

        His editorial was despicable

        •  Have you been reading the comments? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          novapsyche, TheMeansAreTheEnd

          There are quite a few in the comments trying to parse it out and create a gray area where there is none. Considering the fact that not a single one is Hr'd and I see next to no one arguing with these people, what else am I to think but that people agree with these men?

          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

          by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:22:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oy to the VEY (0+ / 0-)

            No serious liberal on this blog agrees with James Taranto.
            Literally not ONE. Name them if you disagree, and we will regulate.

            But let's stop pretending like all ideas are treated equally.
            Hillary supporters STOP----we've given up on inequality and global warming.

            Stop TRIPPING.

            •  Holy Shit (3+ / 0-)

              First of all, how fucking dare you tell a victim who was literally triggered by the comments of this diary to stop tripping. How DARE you!

              Second of all, why I would agree that a true liberal should not be believing James Taranto's bullshit article, the fact is, there have been a multitude of rape apologia comments made by male regulars of this site over the years. The fact that you are completely blind to that scares the shit out of me. It tells me that you have some serious blinders on.

              Third, I have always assumed that it was frowned upon to call specific people out like you are asking me to do, but since you are apparently so damn blind you can't even see people defending this article when it's right in front of you, I'll start you off:

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Go find the rest yourself. Your comment is one of the most offensive comments I've read at this site. You think you hold the fucking high ground because you find the argument offensive, but you have no fucking problem telling a victim she's just too emotional and crazy when she points out that there are people right here on this site defending it. Jesus. DKos if fucking dangerous for rape victims.

              Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

              by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:34:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  omgDOTcom (0+ / 0-)

                I thought we were trying to find a middle ground.
                How dare i indeed!

              •  What bullshittery (0+ / 0-)

                Suddenly, I'm PRO-RAPE?
                really?

                •  Find the quote where I said that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  novapsyche, TheMeansAreTheEnd

                  Seriously. Where did I say you were? Stop twisting my words and respond to the fact that there are people in this diary flat out defending this article.

                  Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                  by moviemeister76 on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:42:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  the internet might be too dangerous for you (0+ / 0-)

                i suggest if text comments are so upsetting to you that it triggers you you might want to call your cable provider and ask them to cut the cord. Dailykos is a relatively safe place you should never spend one moment on youtube comments.

                •  Wow (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  novapsyche, tubacat

                  Did you seriously have to violate the DBAD rule? Are you actually suggesting that the legion of survivors who also get triggered should just get the hell off the internet so you and others can move forward with propping up our rape culture?

                  Don't fucking tell me how safe DailyKos is. You don't get to determine how safe I find it.

                  Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                  by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:18:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  i'm being a dick because you are (0+ / 0-)

                    you're not entitled to special accommodation because you were once a victim. if even the discussion of the subject cause you mental distress then why are you even in a diary about the subject?

                    •  *sigh* (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      novapsyche, tubacat

                      I have participated in numerous diaries about rape at this site. This is one of the only diaries that has actually triggered me. And I don't want special accommodations. What I want is for people at this site to stop trying to create gray areas for rape where there are none.

                      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                      by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:40:21 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  there are lots of grey areas (0+ / 0-)

                        a couple has sex. she says it's rape he says it's consensual. no alcohol or drugs involved. No evidence of a struggle.

                        It's a he-said she-said scenario. Prove that it was or wasn't rape.

                        It's the ultimate grey area. The amount of grey area around this subject dominates the field as far as prosecution of the crime goes.. and honestly if i were on a jury where a guy was accused of rape, because of how serious even an accusation is, i would require a higher standard of evidence than murder. at least a guy who goes to prison for murder is given respect. No rapist ever receives respect. They are bottom of the food chain.

                        •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm sure rapists everywhere sleep better at night knowing you are their personal super hero.

                          Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                          by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:51:47 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  see (0+ / 0-)

                            You see things in such black and white. You don't allow yourself to have any empathy with the accused even when they innocent until proven guilty and anyone who does is a rape apologist scumbag in your eyes.

                          •  I hate to generalize (0+ / 0-)

                            but I've read this kind of comment for so many years (the "gray area" of he-said she-said) that I'm starting to believe that many men can't help but project themselves into a scenario where they are in the same situation as the accused. Hence the "empathy."  I just wish it was as easy for them to imagine what it would feel like for their sister, girlfriend, wife or mother to be subjected to intercourse without consenting to it. Where's the empathy there?

                            "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

                            by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:42:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  you were being a dick (0+ / 0-)

                    by using your victim status in an attempt to silence someone who had a different opinion than you.  Being a victim doesn't grant you that power.

                    •  Bullshit (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      novapsyche, tubacat

                      The person I was responding to in this thread agreed that the article was bullshit. What he refused to do was admit that there were people in this thread that actually defended it. And then attacked me when I pointed it out. And there's been no response when I actually provided proof of what I was saying.

                      Time is of no account with great thoughts, which are as fresh to-day as when they first passed through their authors' minds ages ago. - Samuel Smiles

                      by moviemeister76 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:42:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Possibly you skipped or skimmed (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheMeansAreTheEnd, novapsyche

              through the comments (understandable, I guess). But moviemeister is correct, there's more than one person who has agreed with the article, or made statements to the effect that they don't see what's wrong with its logic. Also, a huge volume of back and forth comments have addressed some of the eternal "gray areas" of any mixed-gender discussion of rape, to whit:
               - some "girls" change their minds the day after and call rape when it's really regret
              -  men can get raped too
              -  if there's no force involved, it's not rape
              -  how drunk is too drunk
              etc etc

              There have been a couple of posters valiantly trying to respond and bring the discussion back on track. But definitely not a landslide. And a discouraging amount of ignorance about what rape actually is.

              "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

              by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 03:25:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fair 'nuff... (0+ / 0-)

                But I don't think this entire site, or even the men on it, should be painted with the same broad brush because of a few yahoos.

                There are idiots and trolls--and a few genuinely bad people---on every site.

                Hell, there are folks who defend GZ to this very day. But I don't think Daily Kos loves George Zimmerman. That seems like an overreach to me. That was my only objection.

                •  I'm a guy & I don't feel accused... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...by the complaints about posters who don't seem to see that being too drunk to consent makes it rape, period. Or who want to examine hypotheticals instead of the typical realities of that kind of situation.

                  And even if I did, I figured out long ago that getting my feelings hurt by a broad based complaint against men (not that I've seen one here) weighs NOTHING in comparison to the feelings of the rape victims.

                  •  I'm a guy, I post on this site... (0+ / 0-)

                    and I don't appreciate being described that way. I think Taranto's column is despicable and don't appreciate being grouped together with a few neanderthals or trolls.

                    And I'll defend myself.
                    Period.

                    •  Described which way? I didn't see ANY... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...broad based condemnations of men here. Perhaps I overlooked the place where all guys on DaikyKos were accused of contributing to rape culture.

                      I did see a comment that there are a depressingly large number of guys defending or justifying Taranto's column, or looking for largely hypothetical grey areas. I agree with that complaint. But it clearly doesn't apply to you.

  •  So, if Mr. Taranto gets mugged (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Major Kong, carrps

    while going through an iffy neighborhood, is he just as guilty as the mugger?
    Would he insist on serving time for his part in the crime?
    His argument sounds like the old 'she was asking for it because of how she was dressed' defense.
    If a hundred guys don't feel an overpowering need to rape a woman because of how she's dressed, or a dozen guys at a party don't feel the need to rape a woman because she's drunk, it aint the fault of the woman if she gets raped.
    It's the fault of the one guy who actually decided to rape her.

    I've gotta learn some new swear words, cause the old ones just aren't cutting it in this situation.

    by UncleKirk on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:48:14 PM PST

  •  Well, the fact that there are male predators (0+ / 0-)

    doesn't change the fact that the most common mechanism they use to prey on women is alcohol. In this regard, Mr. Taranto is correct that reckless alcohol consumption is a factor in most campus rapes.  Women NEED TO KNOW THIS if they are going to protect themselves.  Another key protective measure; never let a strange guy hand you a drink that has been opened.  True predators are just as likely to rely on a drugged drink as he is to rely on just alcohol.  Mr. Taranto's first paragraph is spot-on. Don't dismiss it just because he goes off the rails later.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:51:25 PM PST

    •  The point is... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tubacat, moviemeister76

      ...that it is just as much a crime to be raped (or robbed or murdered) when there was something you could have done to prevent it as if there wasn't. There is nearly ALWAYS something one could have done -- that doesn't in any way make it the victim's fault.

      And... I'm sure that in the VAST majority of cases where men & women drink alcohol together, no rape occurs. One has to be VERY careful not to imply that women shouldn't drink or trust guys because they might be raped. The need to take precautions is a sad reality -- but no one should suggest that it is a woman's responsibility to avoid anything that might make her vulnerable to a rapist.

  •  So, If you Are Drunk (3+ / 0-)

    And you are robbed and murdered, it was your fault, because you let your guard down. And, if you are drunk and someone jacks your car while you are trying to the get the door open, it is your fault---you were just asking to have your car jacked. If you are drunk and someone swindles you out of all your money, you have no recourse, because of course they wanted your money. You should have known that they wanted your money. Your wallet should have been wearing pantyhose and a longer skirt.

    "A dog starved at his master's gate/Predicts the ruin of the state" Blake

    by McCamy Taylor on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 04:52:03 PM PST

  •  People don't report rape even when it's flagrant (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    novapsyche, Cassandra Waites

    because there are serious consequences and repercussions for the person making such an allegation that start from the moment they get in touch with an authority and can and do drag out for years.

    The idea that there are lots of people wildly flinging around accusations, true or not, is simply baseless in fact for the reason above.

    •  Eh. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WillR

      I believe I diaried in the past (under a prior UID)  where I had to give a deposition as to my whereabout and actions on a night because of a false rape charge.

      Thankfully, when the woman who made up the non-existent rape was told by the police that they had a prime suspect who matched the description she'd given, and was in the right area, she lied again and said the 'guy had come and threatened her' at a time when I had a solid alibi with multiple witnesses.  It was about a year later when I found out she'd finally confessed to police she'd made the story up.  I don't think she faced any more serious repercussions than 'filing a false report', if that.

      So yeah, it does happen, although I can't say how often.

      •  The claim made about false charges... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tubacat

        ...is that it happens for rape about as often as for other types of crime, which IIRC is order of 2%.

        All I can personally say is that I know people in several cases where I'm certain it was a true charge and I know personally only one guy whom I'm certain was falsely charged. Unlike your case, that was mistaken identity -- the woman really was raped, the police just caught the wrong guy. So false charges happen, but I see no grounds to imagine it's common.

        With one exception -- where a father I know confessed to raping his daughter -- the victims were put through hell, simply for saying they were raped. Even in that case, there was a lot of hostility toward her in certain parts of her extended family. So I think it's critically important for investigators to treat victims as if their charge is true. The time for sorting out of it is true or not (or simply unproven) comes later.

  •  I'm responding more to the comments than article. (4+ / 0-)

    Everyone wants to have sex.

    Sometimes we want to have sex and we don't know if the person we want to have sex with will agree to it.

    This causes anxiety. This anxiety can produce a difficulty maintaining eye contact. It can cause sweaty palms, or stuttering when talking, and heart racing, dry mouthed poor thinking.

    We all know that feeling. We can all identify with our own adrenaline drive to fight or flight (or fuck) and it is all based on this primitive desire to have sex. It's not our most thoughtful state of mind, and it's us at our most animal.

    However, most people do not commit rape despite all of that. The commission of rape is not an extension of the sex drive. You might worry that you would do it, but if you never have, stop worrying - you won't. Only certain people do - and they are not normal regular people.

    And really, there is no reason for everyone here to be talking about it as if they know anything, unless they are a rapist and actually have decided to have sex with a person who did not consent, or if they've been raped, or if they've been falsely accused of rape.

    Limit the discussion in that way and you know who's left posting? Rape victims.

    So everyone else who thinks that their anxiety about sex makes them an expert on this should stop, recognize that anxiety does not equal expertise. And realize that you are embarrassing yourself and the rest of us by not knowing that your intuition has limits.

    There are ways to learn about this, just like everything. If you haven't had any education or training about rape, you're in over your head.  If you are interested, get educated.

    But, please, please, don't post stories about how you got drunk and had sex. LOTS of people have done that and that does not make them experts on rape.

    "You don't have to be smart to laugh at fart jokes, but you have to be stupid not to." - Louis CK

    by New Jersey Boy on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 05:38:13 PM PST

  •  I assume that this doesn't apply to men, right? (0+ / 0-)

    If James Taranto is at a bar watching football...well...that is certainly not his fault, right?

  •  If I leave my Mercedes (0+ / 0-)

    parked overnight in a bad part of town with the doors unlocked -

    It's stupid and irresponsible on my part, but the person who takes it is no less of a car thief for that.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:10:48 PM PST

  •  How does UofM's approach sound? (0+ / 0-)

    It seems that the Ann Arbor police felt they did not have a Reasonable Doubt case to legally convict a placekicker of rape and send him to serious jail time, so the University used the lower standard of Probably Guilty to Expel him. |n other words, trading a lighter punishment for a lower bar to convict. Is this compromise useful or does it just perpetuate the problem?

    I ask because a previous diary cited that only 3% of rapists are convicted.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 06:35:11 PM PST

  •  undoubtedly (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy

    some of the most convoluted reasoning I have ever seen apart from talking to an Ayn Rand advocate.

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 07:22:31 PM PST

  •  How do such people.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...get through college, get recommendations, get a job, end up writing for a major newspaper?  What is wrong with our system that lets these slip through?

  •  Alcohol vs Violence (0+ / 0-)

    According to the World Health Organization, alcohol is responsible for more deaths per year in the world than is violence.  For example, you can find on the WHO pages statements that worldwide, 3.8% of deaths in 2004 were attributable to alcohol (2.5 million people).  In contrast, violence claims 1.4 million lives a year, of which 58% are suicides.  

    Of course, beer commercials on Super Bowl are such an accepted part of our culture that we don't want to talk about alcohol.  We divide up deaths from alcohol into their components, cirrhosis, accidents, cancer, etc., and minimize its impact (e.g., look at Wiki).

    I know someone will bring up that old canard, that in the US, alcohol consumption is associated with reduced mortality.  But if you look at it closely, you will find that

    a. the only thing that alcohol consumption reduces mortality on is cardio-vascular disease, and that so many Americans die of cardio-vascular disease that alcohol seems to reduce mortality.

    b. further,

    The level of alcohol consumption associated with the lowest overall death rate, however, differed substantially based on the participants' age and risk of heart disease. For example, among participants aged 30–59 years and free of hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease, the lowest death rate was found with a consumption of less than 1 drink daily. Conversely, among participants aged 60–79 years and with one of these conditions, the lowest death rate occurred with a consumption of three drinks per day.
    i.e., if you are of working age and healthy it is best not to drink; if you are retired or close to it, and already have one of these chronic conditions, then drinking helps.

    ---
    I should point to another social failure mentioned in another NYT article:

    Women said universally that hookups could not exist without alcohol, because they were for the most part too uncomfortable to pair off with men they did not know well without being drunk.
    ---

    This is from Ireland:

    The facts suggest that alcohol is the most common drug used to facilitate sexual assaults and rape . Although drugs such as Rohypnol and GHB have received much attention internationally as ‘date-rape drugs’, in Ireland, there has been no evidence to suggest that they are used with regularity in incidents of sexual assault . The recent Rape and Justice in Ireland study did not identify conclusive evidence of the use of such substances in medical records of complainants of rape between 2000 and 2005. Alcohol, however, was found to be present in the majority of rape complaints in Ireland.
    This is from Brown University:
    55% of female students and 75% of male students involved in acquaintance rape admit to having been drinking or using drugs when the incident occurred.

    90% of all campus rapes occur when alcohol has been used by either the assailant or the victim.

    The message really should be -  don't drink; don't associate with people who get drunk.  The cultural barriers to this message are too high, though.
  •  Alcohol has the notorious effect of breaking down (3+ / 0-)

    the barriers of inhibition.

    If you are a rapist at heart alcohol will give you the okay you need.  Too much alcohol for a "nice guy," will not turn him into anything.

  •  Whole arguement boils down to "If you are drunk (0+ / 0-)

    you don't have to be responsible for your actions,"

  •  soooooooo obnoxious Laura!!!! (0+ / 0-)

    As a male rape victim, you're entire entry is offensive!!

  •  Now that the 'drunken consent' issue has been (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thestructureguy

    thrashed into complete incoherence; can we discuss how to remove the sexual preditors from the scene?

    Seems to me that, on campus at least, neutralizing the 3% who are causing 90-95% of the problem would solve 90-95% of the problem.

    Regardless of consent. . . . drunken or not.

    ----- GOP found drowned in Grover Norquist's bathtub.

    When it all goes wrong, hippies and engineers will save us. -- Reggie Watts

    by JimWilson on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:50:57 AM PST

  •  Are all crimes legal if the victim is drunk? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smileycreek

    Following this line of reasoning, then if you are robbed or murdered while drunk, that is your fault?  Just add alcohol and violent crime is legal?  

    •  Thank you for giving thought to the victims. (0+ / 0-)

      Stupid or thoughtless actions might embolden a predator, but isn't a predator always on the look-out for a moment of weakness?

      Welcome from the DK Partners & Mentors Team. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Knowledge Base or from the New Diarists Resources Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.

      We all owe it to the American people to say what we’re for,
      not just what we’re against.
      ---> President Obama, 2014 SOTU speech

      by smileycreek on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:06:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Victims Fault? (0+ / 0-)

    WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch... rolling eyes

  •  the main problem here (0+ / 0-)

    Is that legally a woman's drunken consent means nothing but a guy's drunken consent means everything and that the man has to be responsible for everything he does as well as everything she does. For some reason in his drunken state he has to be able to determine her ability to consent but she doesn't need to do this same.

    basically I see many people arguing that woman are objects that are unable to give consent. I think that is sort of misogynistic.

  •  Rape (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tubacat

    So women are slipping date rape drugs into men's drinks?  The mental capacity of the perpetrator is always relevant in determining guilt.  If someone is so mentally challenged that he or she could not grasp the consequences of the act or did not understand that the act was wrong, there is no crime.  There is, however, no free pass for those whose mental capacity has been impaired by their own conscious actions and decisions.  The aggressor is always guilty because nothing would have happened without the aggression.  A male might be less willing to accept "no" for an answer if he had a few drinks but that doesn't free him from blame if he then subdues his victim and has forced sex. The woman may be too drunk to resist a violent assault but it doesn't make her complicit in the assault and to state otherwise is to misstate the law.  The difference between a traffic accident between drunks and a rape of one drunk by another is intent.  Neither of the drunks intended to have an accident.  The same cannot be said for the rapist.

  •  Rapist ?? (0+ / 0-)

    Will this be a Republican topic of discussion during the next election ?

    There are a number of things to consider here, that posters seem to be missing. If a man is unconscious when this is supposed to be happening, I contend he really doesn't have an erection. Maybe if the woman is sitting astride, and bouncing, she "assumes" which is a bad thing to do.

    •  unconscious? (0+ / 0-)

      He never said anything about taking advantage of an unconscious woman.  He's talking about when two people are both drunk and decide to have sex.

      Why are there so many people straw-manning the article?  People are saying he's defending using date rape drugs, or physically forcing a woman against her will or, in your case, having sex with an unconscious woman without her consent.  

      I don't like the way he worded some stuff, but the point is simply that the way things are if a woman is in the same drunken state as a man and they have sex, the man is rapist because the woman gave her consent under the influence of intoxicants, yet the man gave his consent under the same influence, so why isn't the woman also considered a rapist?

      Would anyone ever take a man seriously if he woke up after a drunken one night stand and claimed to have been raped because his ability to consent had been impaired?

      •  I would, and I'm sure others would too (0+ / 0-)

        It's just as wrong for a woman (or another man) to take advantage of a man who is too drunk to give consent as it would be the other way around. If he didn't want to have sex but the woman (or man) made it happen anyway, that would be rape.

        "The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser

        by tubacat on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:54:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  HUH! (0+ / 0-)

    The Teapotted mind in action. What a jerk!

  •  Read the entire article... (0+ / 0-)

    ...instead of the quote mine and you'll understand that what he's talking about is not when a man physically forces himself upon a girl against her will (regardless of her level of sobriety) , or when a man uses date rape drugs to render her virtually unconscious or when a sober man sets upon an obviously impaired woman.  The situations to which he refers are ones where both the man and the woman are inebriated and in their diminished states, "consent" to sex.

    Think of it this way...
    What if a sober woman had sex with an intoxicated man? If he gave his consent while under the influence of intoxicating drugs or alcohol, is she guilty of rape?  What if she was also intoxicated when the consent and the sex occurred?  Does the man somehow suddenly become the rapist?

  •  My first Disappointment (0+ / 0-)

    Alas, this is my first disappointment with Daily Kos.  The author seems to assume that all sex is rape, or at least that rape is obvious and unambiguous.  And of course there is the profound sexism that women are never dishonest or manipulative about what happened.  

    A false rape accusation is one of the worst thing that can happen to a man - it is next to impossible to disprove, and there is next to no penalty for even the most blatantly false accusers.  I want justice for you, but you should want it for me too.

  •  Can we all say A-hole. (0+ / 0-)

    Sounds like a typical a-hole to me.  Also sounds from the read that he has some 'first-hand' experience with this particular topic, but that's just my opinion.

  •  When you think you've hit the bottom of the barrel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tubacat

    you find another mushy, moldy, rotten apple - riddled with worms and smelling of fungus. This right wing white male megalomania barrel is full of treasures like this piece of decomposing slime.

    •  And their left wing white male apologists here. (0+ / 0-)

      White Male privilege is a hell of a drug - makes you a frickin' Goddamn Expert on Everything and how dare those stupid actual rape victims ruin your beautiful theories?

      Thank God, the Bob Fosse Kid is here! - Colin Mochrie

      by gardnerhill on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:49:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If rape (0+ / 0-)

    is a woman's punishment for having the audacity to be drunk, what is a man's punishment for being drunk?

  •  Even if she's naked and winking at you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lastamendment, tubacat

    When she says stop, you stop.  It's what any decent person does.  But it's hard to find a decent person who works for Murdoch.

  •  Maybe the WSJ tries to be appalling (0+ / 0-)

    They sure are good at it.

    You know it's bad when I, a man, am starting to get alarmed at the openly aggressive woman hating going around these days.

    I don't think it's a coincidence that at the same time access to birth control and abortion are being rolled back as much as possible. I mean, I realize people disagree on abortion even if Daily Kos in particular is probably overwhelmingly pro-choice.

    But taken in the larger scheme of things, it's almost impossible not to see that men - and even some women - are taking to blaming women victims. It's getting disgusting.

    •  PS correction (0+ / 0-)

      I didn't mean to imply in my comment that men are expected to be woman hating. Sorry. I just meant that despite whatever else has challenged me in my life, it has usually not been things that women go through - sexism, rape, predation. So although I have been generally sympathetic to women regarding that mistreatment, I just wasn't always thinking about it so much because, frankly, it is not something I'm subjected to. But now, I see that anyone with any sense has to see that these outrageous attempts to defend rape are actually being taken seriously in the pages of what claims to be a journalistic organization. It is getting really bad.

  •  Given that Statistically (0+ / 0-)

    most rapes are between two people who know each other and that rape is one of the most under reported crimes, that most stranger rapes are by repeat offenders, and rape, even by repeat offenders, is one of the hardest crimes to prove, this seems like the reporter is using an uncommon scenario to prove an unlikely point. Using the same convoluted logic as the reporter, one could argue that all men are potential rapists when drunk by pointing to the very, very tiny percentage who are. Given the likely outcome both socially and legally to a reported rape, it is unlikely that many women cry rape falsely. Nor is it likely that most men would force themselves on a woman because he and/or she was drunk. That there seems to be a lot of cases lately has a lot to do with social media where the worst kind of people, for whatever reason, post their worst behaviour for all to see. That we are seeing more of these articles justifying forms of this bad behaviour has more to do with the backlash against all Civil Right wins of the last fifty some years by the right wingers, and the rise of editorial news like Fox and, again, social media where opinion is as good as fact and one questionable anecdote is the same as proof than any actual rise in the number of reported rape cases. In fact, statistically, the number seems to have gone down since 2010. However, I find it odd the number of men and women on what are presumed to be at least left of centre sites who quickly jump to the defence of an article like the WSJ one which contains no evidence, proof, or even an attempt at balance. I get that men, especially white men, must feel that they are constantly being made the villain of every scenario, I even get the defensiveness, but crying equivalence in victimhood doesn't answer the issue.  Given the number of drunken undergrads on university campuses reporting rapes compared to the number of drunk drivers on the roads causing accidents, there is either a huge underreporting of the number of reported campus rapes or this argument is completely without merit and is just a slap in the face not only to women but to the vast majority of men who don't lose control even while inebriated.

    •  He's talking specifically about College rape, (0+ / 0-)

      and way back when men used to be barbarians (lol) I believe they instinctively took the mate, as do many wild animals, without permission. Those instincts exist in all males in spite of morals and laws, always have, always will. So in that way it is true that all men are potential rapists. What divides the barbarian/ape who rapes from the ideal man who isn't capable, is their control or in the case of the barbarian, lack of control. And if there wasn't so much rape going on and numbers have actually fallen, why do they now have to label all the different kinds of rape? Military rape, college rape, incest rape, date rape, sports rape, religious rape, medical rape, etc.? And when rape ever becomes a true atrocious crime of the past (along with war and other violence), I will then believe there is "a vast majority of men who don't lose control ... even while inebriated." Why isn't that "majority" solving the problem. There are more of them, right? So it shouldn't be too hard to stop rape once and for all. There are so few of THEM (rapists), right? Come on all you good men out there with all that wonderful control, what the hell are you waiting for? LOL, now I'm just being a wise guy, sorry. I will agree on one thing, this article has no merit except to point out another seriously deranged person with their seriously deranged way of thinking. Another of the ever fearful males who will do anything to keep the status quo of being top dog. And even if they never raped or would never, they hang out in the victim blaming camp with the rapists. And I'm sorry, but that makes them all guilty by association. Changing recycled, ancient, human dna would require Frankenstein science. It would be the only way conceivable to remove something from human existence that has been there since the beginning.

  •  Rape Is Relative (0+ / 0-)

    James Taranto: I sold you a mortgage you could not afford, then I sold the rights to someone who believed me it was a good investment, while I lied. The investors went bankrupt so I bought their company. I now own your house again.
    I confiscated your down payment, the sale price to deceived investor and I am renting your house for three times the amount of the monthly mortgage. It was all your fault, you should have known better than to trust me!

  •  Never a shortage of idiots (0+ / 0-)

    who like to share the fact that they're an idiot with the world and wear it on their chest like a medal for bravery. These are the ones that get the best paying jobs. Ever notice that? LOL!

  •  Alcohol is a funny thing.... (0+ / 0-)

    For most people, both male and female, alcohol makes them smarter, more articulate, a better dancer, funnier, sexier, and enhances a host of other attributes which come in handy at parties.

    For males, however, alcohol apparently immunizes them from prosecution, according to Taranto.

    Alcohol! Get yours today!

Meteor Blades, TXdem, From the choir, Bill in Portland Maine, fcvaguy, Mikey, Shockwave, Wintermute, cotterperson, mslat27, eeff, MarkInSanFran, dpeifer1949, hubcap, Eternal Hope, concernedamerican, roses, wader, SneakySnu, psnyder, Eyesbright, MA Liberal, niteskolar, Steven Payne, Major Kong, poemworld, oortdust, sawgrass727, Gowrie Gal, CPT Doom, marina, eru, pasadena beggar, skyounkin, stevemb, Ice Blue, Sandino, Shotput8, Dolphin99, snazzzybird, BachFan, Mr Bojangles, Themistoclea, Kimball Cross, raptavio, cookseytalbott, blueoasis, MJ via Chicago, gpoutney, novapsyche, middleagedhousewife, NancyK, CA Nana, lastamendment, Tom Anderson, bartcopfan, Little, cpresley, The Knute, tegrat, FlamingoGrrl, anotherdemocrat, Habitat Vic, Russ Jarmusch, devis1, la urracca, Matt Z, burlydee, jedennis, millwood, gchaucer2, Wreck Smurfy, cececville, kipzoo, Tchrldy, Involuntary Exile, Sharon Wraight, Cassandra Waites, smartdemmg, pickandshovel, catly, Ismay, billybam, statsone, JBL55, Ran3dy, Sarge in Seattle, moviemeister76, Larsstephens, commonmass, FogCityJohn, flitedocnm, McWaffle, piers, tubacat, mookins, Polly Syllabic, NYWheeler, Betty Pinson, kenwards, ericlewis0, Onomastic, annieli, Maximilien Robespierre, oldmilitant, slowbutsure, BlueJessamine, FarWestGirl, Teiresias70, lupinella, trumpeter, marleycat, Cinnamon, Ojibwa, BarackStarObama, JWK, Vatexia, ratcityreprobate, SteelerGrrl, stlsophos, No one gets out alive, deltadoc, BlueDragon, Sister Inspired Revolver of Freedom, livingthedream, quill, OldDragon, anodnhajo, TheLizardKing, molecularlevel, IndieGuy, orestes1963, LefseBlue, 2thanks, FloridaSNMOM, DarkStar57, Horace Boothroyd III, This old man, belinda ridgewood, MartyM, Rixar13, Glen The Plumber, Kayjay, peptabysmal, Portlaw, Australian2, Most Awesome Nana, GoGoGoEverton, atana, jusjtim35, koosah, TheMeansAreTheEnd, countwebb, The grouch, aresea, SheilaKinBrooklyn, Aunt Pat, howabout, bob152, Mannie, duhban, Lordcaradoc, Dodgerdog1, eagleray, Elizaveta, Penny GC, thanatokephaloides, Joe Calarco, wilywascal, LiberalLoner, Arkenstark, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, Meurglys, traditionalhomemaker

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site